Toto

Juststeve - take a look at this archived thread on RT France's Historical Evidence for Jesus. I think it summarizes the case fairly well.

I do think that the main reason credentialed scholars reject mythicism is that there are some crazy mythicists out there, and the PhD's don't want to be associated with conspiracy theorists and the like. But that doesn't make the academic theories very sound.

And it is all too convenient to focus on the crazy mythicists and not the coherent ones.

spin

Neither Tertullian (Contra Marcion Bk 4 Ch 8) nor Eusebius (Dem. Ev. 7.2.41-50) makes a distinction between Nazirite and Nazarene, both using translations of Hebrew texts with נזיר ("Nazirite") to explain "Nazarene".

The earliest form of Matt 2:23 (as evinced in P.70 and Eusebius, Dem. Ev. 7.2.41-50) features not Nazareth, but Nazara. (This means that the earliest knowable form of Matt features Nazareth only once, while Nazara appears twice, not a very good showing for the ascendancy of Nazareth.)

Nazara has the appearance of being related to Nazarene as Gadara has to Gadarene or Magdala has to Magdalene. It takes no effort to conceive of Nazarene as a gentilic and to derive the place of origin.

The problem comes when you want to know where Nazara was. A place with such a name was nowhere to be found, but there was a town called נצרת (Natsaret) -- far enough away in form to cause linguists contortions (W.F. Albright for example), but close enough to satisfy non-linguists. This Hebrew town name should be rendered as Nasaret in Greek, but it never, ever is in early christian literature.

"Jesus of Nazareth" appears only once in the christian bible, Acts 10:38, though there is a similar phrase "Jesus the prophet of Nazareth in Galilee" in an insertion in the triumphal entry at Matt 21:11. This last has the appearance of a normative insertion using "Nazareth" against the grain of "Nazara" in 2:23 and 4:13. The popularity of "Jesus of Nazareth" is certainly post-biblical.

It is my position here that we have a process before us which gives the relative chronology:

1. Nazarene
2. Nazara
3. Nazareth

Once Nazareth becomes normative, other forms suffer as scribes continue copying texts.

[hr=1]100[/hr]
The connection between Jesus the Nazarene and Jdg 13:5 is an interesting one for just as Samson would save Israel, so would Jesus save his people (Mt 1:21) and the Hebrew of the name Jesus means "Jah saves". In Jdg 13:5 we have the relationship between Nazirite/Nazarene and salvation.


spin

aa5874

But, this is so absurd and so hilarious.

Jesus was NOT regarded as just a mere man for nearly 2000 years by the vast amount of Christians.

Do you really understand what is meant by HJ?

It is COMPLETELY FALSE that a vast amount of people in the Roman Empire from any century of antiquity claimed Jesus, the Messiah, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Logos who was equal to God, who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds was a MERE MAN or AGREED in VAST NUMBERS that Jesus the Messiah was FULLY EMBELLISHED and FICTIONALIZED but was just a simple itinerant preacher.

You know that Jesus was the MYTHOLOGICAL alternative and replacement to the Greek/Roman Gods. Since the middle of the 2nd century Justin Martyr realized that Jesus was NO different to Greek Myths and Tertullian claimed that it was AGREED Jesus of Nazareth was of a SPIRITUAL nature

You must know that ALL the Church writers claimed Jesus of NAZARETH was RAISED from the dead and ascended through the clouds on his way to heaven.

Now, please name the first Christian Scholars and Jesus believers who claimed Jesus of Nazareth was REALLY FULLY embellished and fictionalised but was only an itinerant preacher?

Please give me the numbers.

GakuseiDon

Aren't variant spellings for a name a common occurrence when translating Hebrew into Greek? Why couldn't 'Nazara', 'Natsaret' and 'Nazareth' just be alternate spellings for the same place?

Any idea why a "Jesus the Nazarene" would become a "Jesus of Nazara"?

Yes, that would suggest why Jesus would be a "Jesus the Nazarene". But why go from that to "Jesus of Nazara"? Is that a fairly common occurrence in this days?

dizzy

Didn't Earl Doherty once say here that he felt obliged to take down a peg or two people who so confidently dismiss mythicism? Shouldn't his spider-sense should be tingling about now?

aa5874

I need the names of the Christian scholars who claimed Jesus of Nazareth was FULLY embellished and fictionalised but was just a mere preacher.

It has already been shown that Jesus of gMatthew did NOTHING in the CITY of Nazareth and that NO prophets in Hebrew Scripture mentioned a CITY called Nazareth.

Josephus who lived in Galilee in the 1st century mentioned cities and villages in Galilee but did NOT mention a city called Nazareth.

No extant writings of Philo and Josephus mentioned any person who lived even in a cave called Nazareth. Josephus mentioned a cave in Galilee.

Now, Josephus himself stayed in the largest village in Galilee called Japha a mere 3 km or so from present day Nazareth yet did NOT mention the CITY of Nazareth.

Life of Josephus 45 It is PLAUSIBLE that there was NO CITY called Nazareth when Pilate was governor of Judea.

spamandham

How far are you willing to go with that? Is Nazorean equal to Nazarite or to Nasi?

spamandham

From your posts here, I'm quite confident you've never read Doherty and can not even summarize his position without googling it. You know I'm right though your ego will prevent you from admitting it.

The baselessness of your position is surpassed only by your arrogance and willful ignorance.

spamandham

Maybe, but what would be the point in this case? The poster in question has almost no knowledge of ancient history whatsoever, latches onto "mainstream" without having any idea what that really means in this context or which scholars to include, and has knocked his own pegs out from under himself a dozen times - just pretending it never happened.

spin

I've found only two examples of Hebrew tsade being transliterated as a zeta and not a sigma. The first is Bozez, בצץ, which is Βαζες in Greek (a single occurrence) and the other is Zoar, צקר, which is Ζογορα in LXX Gen 13:10, Σηγορ in 14:2, Σηγωρ in 14:8, 19:2, 23, 30, Deut 34:3, Isa 15:5, and Ζογορ in Jer 48:34, out of nine exemplars, it receives a zeta twice. Mistakes get made, especially with a foreign town name. In all other cases I've examined -- and I've looked hard for others -- there is only sigma. This is better than 99%. Have you (or anyone else) ever seen Zion or Sidon spelled in the LXX with a zeta? (Kudos to whoever can find just one more exemplar of Hebrew tsade to Greek zeta.)

The Syriac understood the town name the same as the Hebrew form. There seems little hope of a trajectory from Natsaret to Nazara.

I basically explained this with:

Nazara has the appearance of being related to Nazarene as Gadara has to Gadarene or Magdala has to Magdalene. It takes no effort to conceive of Nazarene as a gentilic and to derive the place of origin.

Without extra knowledge, the connection would have been obvious from the form of the words.


spin