Steven Avery

Very possibly true. The historicity of Nazareth is fully secure.
Pinpointing the location is a fascinating research and discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo Everytime some critic finds primitive evidence in contradition to his pet theory, its a convenient 'interpolation'.

That is a methodology of manipulation that is particularly popular here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo Luke ... supply geographical details, clearly shows the present-day Nazareth is impossible as the location ... Luke's tradition here must be based upon a different geographical location. ... cliffs, which are conveniently located ...

Two points to add.

1) There are attempts to say that present-day Nazareth fits the cliff scenario. I am unsure of the details offhand, ironically James Tabor (who has done archaeology in the Nazareth area) has taken that position. This was discussed on his email forum "Jesus Dynasty" about six months ago and I could pull out the links (or simply search 'Nazareth' in the egroup).

2) There are many cliffs in the areas closer to the Sea of Galilee, where the action is, around Capernaum and Migdal, probably north and especially a bit west of Tiberias. Lots of steep cliffs in that region.

My friend Kevin Kluetz has a webpage suggesting the locale of Nazareth in that region.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/part.../nazareth.html
The Real Nazareth?

Shalom,
Steven

Solo

You might want to take a look at the Chilton's essay linked in the OP.

Jiri

Solo

Was he ? What about the Q tradition about the son of man who came 'eating and drinking'? This is not in Mark but there Jesus declares all foods are clean, and has his way with sabbath, neither of which is consistent with the Nazarite standards of purity.

Additionally, 'Nazarene' does not necessarily derive from 'Nazarite'. There is a view that Nazarenes were a 'branch' of Judaism which expected fulfilment of prophecies which refered to Messiah as 'Netzer'.

Jiri

Doug Shaver

You made the claim, but I have to do the research to prove it? I don't think so.

Nazaroo

Yes, Praxeus, I think people are always trying to be too 'black and white' about things.

While Luke says 'cliff', and this suggests something higher and sharper than a rolling meadow, technically they had to drag Him out of town to a suitable location, which suggests locations were not just as handy as a two-step.

Another factor to remember is that even a 10 foot fall (or push) will incapacitate a person 9 out of 10 times well enough to finish him off with a stoning.

So you don't really need 100 ft cliffs: a 15 ft 'cliff' next to a road-ditch will do.

Nazaroo

If ever there actually were a solid case for interpolation in Mark, the crap about eating any food and declaring all foods clean flashes NEON lights and shouts "later church addition".

Obviously, according to Luke/Acts Peter and the other disciples had never even heard of this tripe long after the death/resurrection of Jesus.

Peter was able to declare he was a Jewish Food Law Keeper from birth right up until the vision about the Centurion.

This is a case of later church apologists tripping over themselves to justify Paul's doctrines, and rewriting a bit of history in the revisionist process.


Except virtually all early Jewish cults were 'Nazarites' of some flavour or brand, engaging in elaborate washing rituals and living by strict dietary and community laws. The Nazarite vow was a 'Staple' of the Jewish sect genre.

The fact that other authors distinguish the various Jewish sects by other factors such as their unique doctrines or beliefs only underlines that they lived under the standard strict aesthetic which takes for granted Nazarite vows.

If you didn't take a Nazarite vow you didn't even get off the ground as a holy man or prophet. Even Paul had to kiss ass in this area.

Solo

Peter had no vision about "a centurion" (it was a centurion who had a vision concerning Peter), the vision he had at Joppa, concerning previously "unclean" foods happened after he met Cornelius, and converted him as his first Gentile God-fearer. It is possible that Peter, a natural gourmand, was "seduced" by the Gentile cuisine but it is equally possible, and to me more probable, that Jesus and his entourage, coming from a Jewish borderland which had featured cultural (and religious) variety had a somewhat lax view of the observances. Peter changes his eating behaviour when James' emissaries arrive to Antioch (Gal 2:12). This means he knows he is not up to par with James' standards. There also seem to be complaints by John's followers about the eating and drinking habits of Jesus and his companions. So, I would say, Mark's tradition seems to be consistent with a pattern of behaviour reported from several sides.

Looks to me like you are engaging in a creative definition of 'Nazirite'. I have not heard of sects based on a communal 'nazirite' vows, but perhaps you can enlighten me. BTW, the Qumran community has referred to itself as 'Nozrei ha-Brit', the 'Keepers of the Covenant'.

Jiri

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Let us be clear about one point. "Thus he declared all foods clean" is not
in the received text, it is simply a minority corruption. Likely simply a scribal
faux pas since such a small early error is not likely to be deliberate. At least it is hard to make such a claim (deliberate change) in either direction.

Mark 7:19 (KJB)
Because it entereth not into his heart,
but into the belly,
and goeth out into the draught,
purging all meats

Then the modern versions - with the corruption -

NIV .. (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
Holman .. (As a result, He made all foods clean.)
ESV .. (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Dean John Burgon discussed this nicely and Professor Robinson has the true reading in his text.

Tatian (Diatessoran), Novatian, Augustine, Jerome's Vulgate and
the Peshitta and Old Syriac all give early support to the TR/KJB reading.

There are folks who try to give an interpretation that even the minority
reading does not abrogate the food directives. However that is a bit difficult and for those of us who use the true Bible entirely unnecessary as the much-discussed questionable modern version Markan commentary is simply not in the historic Bible.

(Note also the internal difficulty...the minority text reading would have to be a personal interpretative interjection/commentary by Mark .. an unusual element contrary to Mark's general style.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Nazaroo

More incredibly useless disinformation. Can't anybody read anymore?


Acts 10:1 There was a man in Caesarea named Cornelius....
Acts 10:3 He saw a vision....
Acts 10:5 "Send men to Joppa and call for a certain Simon whose Surname is Peter..."

(KEY POINT: Cornelius did not know anything about Simon Peter, even his full name or nicknames. The angel tells Cornelius who to contact.)

Acts 10:8 He sent the men to Joppa (where Peter was)...
Acts 10:9 As the men (the messengers from Cornelius) drew near the city...

(KEY POINT: Cornelius has NOT contacted Peter yet, and Peter has no knowledge of him.)

Acts 10:9 Peter went up on the roof to pray...
Acts 10:10 ...but he fell into a trance AND SAW (A VISION!) ...

(KEY POINT: Peter still doesn't know Cornelius from JACK.)

Acts 10:17 While Peter wondered to himself what this VISION should mean, the men sent from Cornelius had asked about Simon's house and stood at the gate.

(KEY POINT: Peter definitely had a VISION. And it wasn't about food laws or eating. Even though Peter doesn't know what the vision means, he knows it is SYMBOLIC, as any good prophet should.)

Acts 10: While Peter pondered the vision, the Spirit said to him "Behold!..."

(KEY POINT: The vision is about CORNELIUS, as I said in the previous post.)


Your statement that Peter had his vision AFTER he met Cornelius is nonsense. There is no support for it in Acts, the only place the story is told.



Its also possible that pigs fly, but according to the text, both in the narrative, and in Peter's own testimony,

Acts 10:14/11:8 -

"NOT SO, LORD: For I have NEVER eaten anything that is 'common' or unclean!"

Maybe later Peter would try to pull the wool over James' eyes after falling into some 'gray-zone' dining habits, but that hasn't happened yet in this part of the story.

The idea that Peter would attempt to deceive the LORD Himself is absurd, if only on the basis of the outcome of the Ananias and Saphira story in the same Lukan account.

Luke (and Peter) are emphatic that Peter has never broken the strict food laws of the Torah for Jews.

Your scenario just reflects poor reading habits, not poor eating habits.

Maybe, but why would the suspect and heavily edited GALATIANS be a better authority than Luke's sources for ACTS? And the biggest problem with your statement is the lack of being able to date the incidents described in Galatians.

And confused by several sides. The disputes between followers of John and Jesus was not about food laws, but about Jesus' basic rejection of the strict asceticism of John's repentant stance.

What is contrasted between John and Jesus is 'fasting and praying' versus 'eating and drinking', not Kosher food versus non-kosher. It was about acting like you are mourning (funeral scenario) versus acting like you are celebrating (wedding feast scenario).


John's strictness tells us nothing about the compliance with Jewish food laws by Jesus' followers, any more than it can tell us anything about the compliance of any other Jewish group or individual NOT a member of John's cult.

Faulty logic brings faulty and fuzzy results.

You are wasting your breath if you think that there is any plausibility in denying the fundamental position of the Nazarite vow in regard to Jewish holiness and ascetic practices, regardless of the sect.

Solo

Ok, so when Peter has the vision of the sheet he did not yet meet Cornelius (my memory lapse); his vision though was not about Cornelius but about prohibited food.

Talking about the ability to read

no, 10:19 says while Peter was pondering his (culinary) vision, the Spirit said to him, "behold, three men are looking for you". Peter has only knowledge of himself being sought, but does not know by whom and for what purpose (21). Only then the men tell him they are from Cornelius (22). So, Peter's vision about the centurion is only in your head.

Peter's own testimony ? You believe he wrote the Acts ?

What "wool" would Peter be pulling over James' eyes, if he believed that the Spirit ordered him to eat food prohibited to Jews ? Was he not informed that God "cleansed" it ?

It was Paul who accused Peter of "hypocrisy" not I, and he obviously was not afraid of Peter's license to kill.

I am sure someone around here will be impressed by that DEEP THOUGHT

It wasn't just John's disciples, it was also the Pharisees, who were offended and the latter had more bones to pick with Jesus regarding observances than food & drink. I note here a familiar tactic of some IIDB gurus, to nit-pick and deconstruct a proposition by isolating it from the context in which it was offered. Obviously, looking at it from a narrow purview of John's asceticism, the argument with the Jesus crowd was not strictly about kashrut. But, the issue of lax observance or non-observance of Jesus and his company remains, and looms large. For someone who approaches this with an open mind a number of plausible scenarios exist.

I am not sure how one wastes "breath" while thinking some thoughts (as opposed to other thoughts, I suppose), but I will let it go. I am not in the habit of inquiring into word salads.

Jiri