This will probably be a short lived thread. But I thought I would pass this by all you smart folks to help me sort this out.
I came across an article on the web asking if Jesus really existed.
One thing it pointed out, or claimed, was that the city of Nazareth didn’t exist until the second century.
Whoever the author was of the gospel of Matthew says :
Mat_2:23 and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.
But a search of the whole Bible reveals no such reference by the prophets.
The gospel we dubiously attribute to Mark mentions : “Jesus the Nazarene.”
The narrator of the gospel dubiously attributed to Matthew must have read that we attribute to Mark (Mark being the first gospel written), and assumed that meant Jesus came from Nazareth, and so created the city out of whole cloth.
The questions is : Why was Jesus being a Nazarene so important that it was necessary to create this myth?
Dudes listen… Well, first Stoic: I may not be a christian, but my not being a christian is more important to you, appearently, than me. I am just discussing this specific idea from a non-christian perspective.
When I say there is no need, I mean that we have no reason to believe that he was anything mroe than a ficticious character concocted by the authors of the New Testament.
And for reasons unknown they concocted the city of Nazareth.
There were Nazarene’s, or a sect called Nazarene, in earliest Christianity. They were Jewish believers in Jesus.
Maybe Jesus the Nazarene was a member of this sect … and some early Christian author conflated it as meaning Jesus was from “a city” of that name.
Or maybe as the gospels were redacted, obviously during the second century, after the city of Nazareth was founded, the city of Nazareth was added to the text.
Nazareth did and does exist. Christians began to inhabit the area around the 4th century according to historical record, however, if the city was called by another name before that, that does not prove that Jesus did not exist. He did indeed exist and grew up in Nazareth of Galilee, that too, is historical fact.
What’s the problem? Nazareth was a group of Jews. John the Baptist was a Nazarite, and the Bible gives you the oath of the Nazarite, like Samson. Cannot drink wine and cannot cut your hair (dreadlocks basically). There is a whole bunch that goes into being a Nazarite, so Jesus was just a Nazarite as well. I see no big deal about any of this.
What does need have to do with someone existing? Oh, I need a girlfriend, so that girlfriend exists; I do not need a boyfriend, so that boyfriend does not exist. That is what I have always sustained.
The historical record makes sense by excluding a ton of people. Let me know when you find the historical record of the guy doing some farming, instead of the records of kings and people adversely affected societal norms. History is an extremely selective processes, or at least was. People write history, or time.
Interesting post V because obviously it would be significant to the historical validity of Jesus of Nazareth if it were proven that there was no Nazareth. Still, there are questions.
Really? How did they prove a negative? I mean there are plenty of references to Nazareth in the NT. It is noted to be an insignificant if not ignominious town. So, if there are no corroborating references to Nazareth in other contemporary literature, are they justified in concluding that it did not existed? How many towns that existed in the first century never get mentioned in documents of the time that have survived to this day? Are we correct to conclude that only such towns as are mentioned in the documents that have survived from the time existed?
Wikipedia says:
James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[30] Strange originally speculated that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be “roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people”, but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”[31] In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, “The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth.”[32]
What about the apocrypha?
“The Gospel of Mark” also says:
Mark 1:9
It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
Mark 1:24
saying, “Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”
Mark 10:47
And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”
Mark 14:67
And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with Jesus of Nazareth.”
Mark 16:6
But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him.
So why would the author of “Matthew” create the town of Nazareth based on a reference to the word “Nazarene” when Mark repeated refers to Jesus of Nazareth?
Why assume that it was? It could just as easily be the other way around. That is, Jesus could have been from Nazareth and the author assumed that that there was a meaningful connection between Nazareth and Nazarene. Or perhaps it was the fulfillment of prophesy.
That Jesus was from Nazareth is likely according to the principle of embarassment. I mean, the messiah was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem. So if the gospel authors were just going to make stuff up and people of the time did not know that Jesus was from Nazareth, why wouldn’t they just claim he was born in Bethlehem?
I’m saying that believeing he did is comparable to believeing that an actual Achilles existed. I mean, hell maybe he did, but we have no evidence of it. And if he did, he most certainly was a far cry from the character described in the work he is known from.
Making up a whole metropolis is a little different than making up a single guy, especially one so poor and unproductive that he had nothing to show for his existance. Except maybe Jesus was, productive in the sense that a pimp is productive or a cult leader, but again, no evidence.
