Why 'Nazareth' ?

[Giuseppe]

Why Luke does Jesus go to his hometown before any other place, as the FIRST destination of his public ministere?

All that emphasis on Nazareth, his hometown, as the starting point of jesuan preaching betrays so too obvious that Luke was reacting to an opposite previous tradition that on the contrary emphasized the complete alienation of Jesus to that Galilee where he preaches for the first time.

Even Matthew manifested the same 'betrayer' emphasis. In 4:13, Matthew is assuming that the starting point of the PUBLIC ministere of Jesus was Nazareth.

Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali..

BEFORE Nazaret, AFTER Capernaum, in Matthew.

Why else reason, except to say that Jesus was not entirely alien to the ''Galilee of the Gentiles'' who wanted to conquer to his gospel?

It's relatively easy to see what is doing Luke: he wants make more explicit the Matthean point on Nazaret-as-starting-point, and therefore he adduces more ''facts'' in Nazaret BEFORE that Jesus goes to Capernaum. But in this attempt, Luke committed a tipical sign of ''editorial fatigue'', by altering directly Mcn.

It's even more curious how Mark did react against all this. Mark sees the editorial fatigue in Luke, or, in alternative, he sees that Matthew 4:13 is so much enigmatic as it stands prima facie (in this he is similar to Luke's anxiety to make more explicit that point of Matthew 4:13), so Mark puts Nazaret as starting-point BEFORE EVEN that Jesus goes to baptism by John the Baptist.

[Michael BG]

Why Luke does Jesus go to his hometown before any other place, as the FIRST destination of his public ministere?

All that emphasis on Nazareth, his hometown, as the starting point of jesuan preaching betrays so too obvious that Luke was reacting to an opposite previous tradition that on the contrary emphasized the complete alienation of Jesus to that Galilee where he preaches for the first time.

Even Matthew manifested the same 'betrayer' emphasis. In 4:13, Matthew is assuming that the starting point of the PUBLIC ministere of Jesus was Nazareth.

Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali..

BEFORE Nazaret, AFTER Capernaum, in Matthew.

Why else reason, except to say that Jesus was not entirely alien to the ''Galilee of the Gentiles'' who wanted to conquer to his gospel?

It's relatively easy to see what is doing Luke: he wants make more explicit the Matthean point on Nazaret-as-starting-point, and therefore he adduces more ''facts'' in Nazaret BEFORE that Jesus goes to Capernaum. But in this attempt, Luke committed a tipical sign of ''editorial fatigue'', by altering directly Mcn.

It is very possible that behind Mt 4:13-16 and Lk 4:16-30 there is a Q tradition. I am not aware if anyone has made a case for recovering more than “Nazara”. Both have quotes from Isaiah (Mt 4:14, Lk 4:17), and both have Capernaum (Mt 4:13, Lk 4:23). It is often said that Q developed out of a Galilean environment. The reference to Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum in Mt 11:21-23, Lk 10:13-15 has been seen as evidence.

There is some dispute over which Bethsaida is referred to in the gospel (twice in Mark and once in Q). There was one on the east bank of the River Jordan and maybe on a larger Sea of Galilee in Gaulanitis, which Philip the Tetrarch made into a city c 30 CE, (according to the gospel of John (1:44), Philip, Andrew and Peter come from the city of Bethsaida). Some people believe there was another Bethsaida in Galilee as claimed in the gospel of John (12:44). Capernaum seems to have been a small town when Josephus was there. Chorazin was most likely a small village during the time of Jesus and the archaeological evidence is from the first century CE onwards.

It is possible that Matthew has kept to the Q form the closest.

[13] and leaving Nazara he went and lived in Caper'na-um by the sea, in the territory of Zeb'ulun and Naph'tali,
[14] that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
[15] "The land of Zeb'ulun and the land of Naph'tali,
toward the sea, across the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles --
[16] the people who sat in darkness
have seen a great light,
and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death
light has dawned."

If this is correct then Luke has changed it to Jesus coming to Nazara where he was brought up, added the synagogue, changed the Isaiah quotes to Isaiah 61:1-2, 58:6, which are similar to its use in another Q saying (Lk 7:22, Mt 11:5 – Isaiah 29:18-19, 35:5-6, 61:1). Then Luke has added either a L tradition or created his own around Mk 6:3, 4 ending with Elijah and Elisha references from 1 Kings 17:8-9 and 5:14.

Just because it is in Q does not make it historical. However “he lived in Caper'na-um by the sea in Galilee” might be the historical part. It has been suggested that Mk 2:1 “And when he returned to Caper'na-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home” means that Jesus’ home was in Capernaum.

Therefore it is possible that behind Q and Mark are historical traditions that Jesus lived in Capernaum and it is possible “Nazara” was added to the pre-Q tradition in the same way that “Nazaret” was added to the pre-Marcan tradition. Nazareth developed later and is seen in both Matthew (21:11 added to a Marcan tradition Mk 11:11) and Luke, but not in John.

[gmx]

Simplest solution seems to be that Nazareth was a very small town (given the archaeological findings), not noteworthy enough to have been mentioned in prominent writings previously, and the actual hometown of Jesus. None of the other theories mentioned seemed to be more plausible than this.

[Giuseppe]

There was no reason at all for Matthew, Mark and Luke - even more so if they knew one other, and even more so if Nazaret was a town totally insignificant therefore of no value in the story for the readers - to mention the exit from Nazaret in different moments (Mark before the Baptist, Matthew before the Galilean ministere, Luke as Matthew but adding more 'facts' in Nazaret) of Jesus story.

While, in my solution, any mention of Nazaret has a precise theological function: to insist, against Mcn, that Jesus was not at all ALIEN to Galilee and/or Judaea.

I don't see why your theories should have more value and/or plausibility than my.

While I see that no people here can explain me why Luke has cited Capernaum before that Jesus goes to Capernaum.

[gmx]

While, in my solution, any mention of Nazaret has a precise theological function: to insist, against Mcn, that Jesus was not at all ALIEN to Galilee and/or Judaea.

I don't see why your theories should have more value and/or plausibility than my.

Firstly, it's not that my theories should have more value... far from it.

Secondly, I guess it depends on whether you allow that the Gospels contain any "facts" at all, or whether every line was authored to serve a "precise theological function".

If Nazareth is attested as the hometown of Jesus, and there is a physical town by that name in Galilee, the simplest solution is that Jesus came from Nazareth. But your theory may certainly be the correct one.

[Giuseppe]

Surely I think and believe that any verse in a Gospel serves (or should serve, for his original authors) a precise theological or symbolic function.

Totally beyond the presence or less of some 'facts' behind the Gospel Jesus.

But I disagree sincerely with your implication: Nazareth exists ---> Jesus existed and came from Nazaret.

IF Nazaret exists and was a insignificant town, by definition of ''insignificant town'' then Nazaret is unlikely to have symbolic/prophetic/midrashic meanings linked with his name (Betlehem was a little town, but was quoted in the Scriptures: Nazaret not even that). Therefore it becomes unlikely the same possibility of a theological function behind the presence of Nazaret in our Gospels. Therefore it becomes more probable that the unique theological function of Nazaret is only anti-marcionite in nature (my theory above).

My case works even if Nazaret existed, I think.

[outhouse]

Can anyone tell me why a small agrarian satellite village with a good water supply would not have people living in it when Sepphoris generated tens of thousands of new people moving within 4-5 miles of this water source?

At exactly the same time as Jesus is said to have grown up. Context is key here.

[Giuseppe]

The true question you should raise is rather:
which theological meaning do you would put on a insignificant town (that by definition "means nothing") since any thing found in the Gospel - and Nazaret is one of these - HAS to have a theological meaning?

(note I'm assuming for sake of discussion that Nazaret existed).

The recourse to Nazaret by falsaries proto-catholics explains why we have today an "insignificant historical Jesus": it was the *unique* alternative Construction different from the marcionite vanishing Jesus.

[Michael BG]

Simplest solution seems to be that Nazareth was a very small town (given the archaeological findings), not noteworthy enough to have been mentioned in prominent writings previously, and the actual hometown of Jesus. None of the other theories mentioned seemed to be more plausible than this.

I didn’t think there are any archaeological findings for a first century CE Nazareth being inhabited, let alone as being a town. As I understand it there is some evidence, but not a lot that Chorazin existed as a village in the first century CE.

I read on the internet that Humphreys states “The evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth does not exist - not literary, not archaeological, and not historical.” (2005 p 285) Also Wikipedia quotes James F Strange “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century CE”. The Wikipedia article states, “However, lack of archaeological evidence for Nazareth from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when the Assyrians destroyed many towns in the area.” The Wikipedia article also states, “there are no extant non-biblical references to Nazareth until around 200 CE, when Sextus Julius Africanus cited by Eusebius (Church History 1.7.14), speaks of ‘Nazara’ as a village in ‘Judea’ and locates it near an as-yet unidentified ‘Cochaba’”. It therefore appears that from 720 BCE to the second century CE there is no archaeological evidence for Nazareth being inhabited.

However one of the points I was trying to make was that even in the New Testament Nazareth is a late addition to the tradition. The Q tradition does not have Nazareth it has “Nazara”. The early tradition behind Mk 1:21-28 has Jesus Nazarene, while Mark mainly uses variations of Jesus the Nazarene and only once does he have “from Nazaret”. Matthew only has Nazareth once in 21.11, John doesn’t have it. Therefore it is from Luke-Acts that Nazareth is common. Some people date Luke-Acts late – early second century CE – when maybe there was an inhabited Nazareth.

[Giuseppe]

The Q tradition does not have Nazareth it has “Nazara”.

A hypothetical source that would quote a hypothetical town very well represents the possibiliter fallacy.
By my point is: if you insist that Nazaret is insignificant, then the problem remains WHY Nazaret was quoted in a 100% mytho-symbolic narrative (that is such even under the historicity of Jesus).