ApostateAbe

OK. The theory of Rene Salm seems to be that Nazareth did not exist at the time the gospels were written, but it was established post hoc because of the gospels.

spin

This is utter rubbish. Don't you understand that Nazareth was an addition to the tradition. It wasn't original. No two gospels parallel the name, so that it has been added separately, ie by the local community to each gospel. It's just secondary tradition.

All this stuff about Nazareth is a red herring. It never gave support to Jesus.


spin

show_no_mercy

I disagree. Jesus could still have been a real person, it's just that later writers were confused over where he lived at, or didn't know where he lived at. It fits the trend of early Christians not caring about any earthly details about the man and then filling in the blanks (via the LXX). Some writers got overzealous about prophecy fulfillment (I'm looking at you, Matt!) and changed where Jesus was supposed to have lived at. It's no smoking gun for mythicism.

Mark seems to imply that Jesus was from Capernaeum in Galilee.

Tom Sawyer

Well yes, it's not slam dunk evidence, but it would strongly suggest that the peopel who wrote the Bible didn't have good information about Jesus and it's probably not the best source to go to if you want to know something about him.

I mean, if you were reading a news article about Peyton Manning's brilliant career with the Dallas Cowboys, how much faith would you put in anything else said about him in that article? The other stuff may very well be correct and they just got this one fact wrong, but it speaks strongly to the notion that the writer doesn't know enough about Peyton Manning to write about him.

ApostateAbe

You seem to be too quick about making rejoinders without putting thought into the entire post, and misunderstanding abounds.

spin

Sorry, I'm picking on you, but where in Judges 13 is this form "naziraion"? At 13:5 you'll find ναζιρ,which is ναζειραιος (ναζειραιον) in Cod. Alex. At 13:7 you'll find αγιος where the Hebrew has נזיר.


spin

spin

I can see that misunderstanding abounds. You said, for example, "I can't make a judgment about your etymological argument." Where did I make an etymological argument in this section of the thread?? What you need to do is think about what is said to you. What I did comment about was the literary evidence for the developing tradition -- which you outright ignored. No wonder misunderstanding abounds.


spin

show_no_mercy

It's from here: http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/07_013.htm. This translator uses ναζιραιον at 13:5 and 7. If you have a more reliable online version of the LXX, please share!

ApostateAbe

I am sorry that I seem to have misunderstood. I pay attention to what you say, but much of what you say is beyond my knowledge to comment on.

spin

OK, I can now understand what's going on. There seems to be a modern edited version of Alexandrinus that's been disseminated across the net that has the simplified spelling. Often an expected ι is written ει, so I'd guess that the editor has hypercorrected and we end up with ναζιραιος across the net.

But you can check Vaticanus here, here, here, here (Swete's edition). Can't get a specific link to Biola's copy (but good interface). You'll find 13:5 ναζιρ, and 13:7 αγιος. I haven't found a raw copy of Alexandrinus.


spin