You find the damnedest things in the fortune files:
This is interesting and somewhat amusing, if true. However, I’ve never heard of anything like this before and that makes me skeptical. On the gripping hand, however, I’d also not heard that the classic Exodus story was fictional until I read about the lack of evidence for it here.
There have been many explanations for the meaning of the word usually translated as “of Nazareth”. Besides the one you give, some have interpreted it as meaning the name of a cult, possibly derived from the Aramaic for “branch”. AFAIK, there’s no evidence for a town actually called “Nazareth” from the time of Christ, so that part is, indeed, suspect.
Be careful. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Raising doubts is one thing; drawing conclusions is quite another.
Really? I’ve been to Nazareth, and to the Church of the Annunciation, and I’m pretty sure they never mentioned that. FWIW, the Hebrew word for “Christian” is notzer and is derived from “Nazareth”.
Wikipedia says that the earliest known written reference to the town dates from 200 CE. I don’t think it’s outrageous to think that it existed before, but it wasn’t worth writing about OR it was worth writing about and none of that writing survives.
As for the Nazarite/Nazarethite thing…I don’t know. The Hebrew term is נזיר, and the Hebrew for Nazareth is נָצְרַת. Although that “z” looks the same to us in English, those are two different letters in Hebrew. Whether or not it would be possible to make that error…I don’t know. It’s not as similar as the transliteration looks.
I don’t think I’d expect them to. Certainly by a few hundred years AD even people who didn’t believe would take the Christians at their word and would call them a name that means, in essenvce, “Followers od the Nazarene”.
Even the most liberal datings for the gospels put them before 200AD, at least, as far as I am aware. It is mentioned in Mark (1:9), which is assumed to be the earliest at 70AD. You need this to happen in 40 years, not 200.
Well, not to derail my own thread, but the most interesting thing to me is that they supposedly camped in a location for over 30 years and there is no evidence anyone ever lived there that long.
This is a place where evidence is preserved very well (a desert, after all), the Bible names the location, we know where it is from that name (this is apparently not in dispute), and we still can’t find any evidence that a really large number of people lived there for a long time.
Finally, on a purely ontological note, absence of evidence can provide a really strong argument that something never happened. For example, I do not have an appendectomy scar, I have no memory of having my appendix out, and someone going through my medical records would find no evidence I’ve ever had an appendectomy. Thus, the reasonable conclusion is that I’ve never had an appendectomy, not that someone drugged me, took out my appendix in a way that left no scar, and didn’t record the procedure anywhere.
CalMeacham, Kyla: Very interesting, indeed.
Matthew is generally regarded as knowing more about first-century Palestine than Mark; he frequently corrects Mark’s geography. The suggestion that Matthew was misled by Mark into accepting the existence of settlement called Nazareth is therefore not immediately attractive.
Plus, the notion that Mark presented Jesus as coming from the dispersion of Jews outside Palestine does not sit easily with the passage in Mark 6, which narrates an event explicitly situated in Jesus’ “home town”, and presents the people of that town as having a long-standing familiarity not only with Jesus but with his mother, his brothers and his sisters.
Mark 1 specifies (in English translation) that Jesus came from “Nazareth in Galilee”. If “Nazareth” here is a mistranslation of some reference to the Jewish diaspora, I would be curious to know how, properly read, it relates to the reference to Galilee.
From the Wikepedia article on Nazareth, it seems clear that there was a settlement of that name in 200 CE, that by 300 CE that name was definitely attached to the settlement that we know as Nazareth, and that archaeological evidence shows that there was a settlement in that place during the early Roman period (1st/2nd centuries CE).
There’s nothing fundamentally improbable about the reading that this settlement existed at the time of Jesus, that it was known then by the same name which it had later, and that it is the Nazareth referred to in the synoptic gospels. The alternative reading is that Matthew and Luke associated Jesus with a town of Nazareth which did not exist at the time those Gospels were written, and that nobody noticed this or commented upon it. Given that Christianity was somewhat controversial, and that it attracted quite hostile comment from mainstream Jewish sources, this would be surprising.
UDS’s explanation seems to be the simplest. I can’t imagine we know the name of every hamlet in Judea circa ~1AD, that Jesus happened to be from one small enough that its name wasn’t recorded outside of the Gospels until 200 years later doesn’t really seem that unlikely.
I have no idea whether the following comments, posted at this site, are well-founded but if they are it certainly casts some doubt on the existence of a Nazareth in the time of Jesus.
.
We should remember that the early Christian apologists were keen to stress Jesus’ links with Bethlehem – it is Bethlehem, not Nazareth, which is mentioned in OT prophecies. From this point of view, the fact that he was apparently known as Jesus of Nazareth was, if anything, something of an embarrassment to them. They’d have no reason either to make it up, or to insist on it if it seemed at all implausible – as it must have done, if in fact there was no such town as Nazareth at the time the gospels were written, or for a couple of centuries afterwards.
I’m not sure that it’s fair to say that Origen “was unable to find” a city called Nazareth. He writes at length about Bethlehem but says, so far as I know, nothing at all about Nazareth. One reading of this is that he was “unable to find” Nazareth, but a more plausible one – to me, at any rate - is that he had no need to defend the Nazareth connection, because (a) nobody challenged it, and (b) nobody attributed particular theological significance to it.
As for Josephus “making no mention” of a town on this site in his survey, this may reflect more on Josephus and the quality of his survey than on Nazareth. We know from the archaeological evidence that there was a settlement there.
Remember, the claim that the name “Nazareth” is not recorded before the third century is only true if we discount the fact that Nazareth is named several times in the synoptic gospels, which represent a first-century source. While discounting the gospels might be justified in relation to claims which appear improbable or polemical, the claim that Jesus came from a place called Nazareth is either neutral or, if anything, mildly embarrassing to Christians. There’s no obvious reason to be sceptical of the claim and, if we conclude anything from Origen, it is that in his time nobody was sceptical of the claim, not even the anti-Christians to whom he was responding.
The first secular reference to Nazareth was written in 200 AD, when Origen was 15. He may not have been able to find the town, but others living at the same time were.
And this is not the only problem with the Exodus myth either. The lack of a Jewish slave population in Egypt at the time is another biggie. Not to mention that Jews simply did not exist as a distinct cultural group at the time. That’s another problem. How about the fact that they ran away from Egypt to… what was essentially another part of Egypt.
THEN we come to the lack of evidence for several million people entering/living in the area, or the lack of evidence for the supposed major military conquests by the Jews after the Exodus.
And this is all before we get to parting of the sea, and Egypt’s first borns dying (never happened), and other magical events that, except in the case of people willing to believe all of the other provable fabrications in light of archeological evidence, simply cannot be taken as anything other than fantasy.
[moderating]
Moved from GQ to GD.
[/moderating]
According to Wiki, the site of Nazareth was anciently inhabited, depopulated by the Assyrian invasion of Israel, and resettled at some indeterminate time in the early Christian Era or before.
Very interesting, UDS.
Just have to share this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkHNNPM7pJA
Linky no worky.
Holy Blood, Holy Grail made much of the assertion that Nazareth did not exist in Jesus’ time; the authors argued he was not really a Nazarene but a nazirite.
Holy Blood, Holy Grail is also a work of fiction that’sfilled with historical inaccuracies. The authors can put forward any theories that they like, but it would be foolish to accord them any credibility.
(Disclaimer: I am Not any kind of historian or Biblical scholar. I do know how to use simple tools to search text and came to a conclusion/question about Nazareth different than mentioned in this thread.)
I just searched the Bible for all occurrences of “naz.r”. I get the same result from two English translations.
The Old Testament mentions “Nazarite” but never “Nazareth.” The New Testament reverses this (and also mentions “Nazarene”).
The first reference in Matthew is 2:23:
“And [Joseph, with his family] came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”
(I suppose the “prophets”, as quoted in Old Testament, actually said “Nazarite”?)
The first reference in Mark is 1:9, much simpler:
“And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.”
John is more cryptic in 1:45-46:
“Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.”
Now the Matthew reference seems confused, unless it refers to the Old Testament’s “Nazarite.” But what does that “Nazarite” mean? The clearest answer I can find is Samson’s comment to Delilah in Judges 16:17:
“Then opening the truth of the thing, he said to her: The razor hath never come upon my head, for I am a Nazarite, that is to say, consecrated to God from my mother’s womb: If my head be shaven, my strength shall depart from me, and I shall become weak, and shall be like other men.”