Evidence for first-century Nazareth?

[MrMacSon]

Since the last post on this thread (2 yrs ago) Rene Salm has published another book on Nazareth called 'Nazarethgate' (November, 2015).

Salm has also, this month, posted a video on each of his websites discussing his books & key points he raises in them -

• 1. http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2016/10/ ... ober-2016/
  
  2. http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

Salm says, in that video, that this latest book discusses the responses to his first book, and also what secondary articles say about the so-called primary sources for Nazareth.

[MrMacSon]

"There is not a single reference to any such census in any ancient source, apart from Luke. Why then does Luke say there was such a census? The answer may seem obvious to you. He wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though he knew he came from Nazareth ... there is a prophecy in the Old Testament book of Micah that a savior would come from Bethlehem. What were these Gospel writer to do with the fact that it was widely known that Jesus came from Nazareth? They had to come up with a narrative that explained how he came from Nazareth, in Galilee, a little one-horse town that no one had ever heard of, but was born in Bethlehem, the home of King David, royal ancestor of the Messiah.”

― Bart D. Ehrman (2009) Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible & Why We Don't Know About Them

[spin]

"There is not a single reference to any such census in any ancient source, apart from Luke. Why then does Luke say there was such a census? The answer may seem obvious to you. He wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though he knew he came from Nazareth ... there is a prophecy in the Old Testament book of Micah that a savior would come from Bethlehem. What were these Gospel writer to do with the fact that it was widely known that Jesus came from Nazareth? They had to come up with a narrative that explained how he came from Nazareth, in Galilee, a little one-horse town that no one had ever heard of, but was born in Bethlehem, the home of King David, royal ancestor of the Messiah.”

― Bart D. Ehrman (2009) Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible & Why We Don't Know About Them

This is a revealing quote.

Talking about Luke... "He wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem...." Ehrman assumes the text was the result of a single author and not the result of a tradition, when he already believes that the gospel of Luke is a reworking of Mark, thus accepting the notion of gospel tradition and undermining "lone penman" theories. Ehrman makes assumptions about the wants of his author, when he has no way of testing the assumption. It's essentially necromancy and as useful.

Ehrman continues... "even though he knew he came from Nazareth...." Ehrman has accepted the evidence which says the main body of Luke was written before the addition of the birth narratives, which is the only place in Luke that mentions Nazareth. Lk 4:16 mentions a place name Nazara. Textually, Nazareth belongs to later material in Luke than this mention of Nazara, so we can safely say that Ehrman is wrong in his assertion that his author "knew [Jesus] came from Nazareth", unless of course the person responsible for the birth narratives was the same writer who put the main text together—unlikely given the existence of the form "Nazara". Nazara appears in a section of text that has been relocated after being rewritten from its Marcan original, the famous (unnamed) hometown rejection. This indicates that Nazara was not in the earliest strata of the gospel tradition. It would seem that no-one in te beginning knew that Jesus came from Nazareth, working from the literary remains we have.

The biggest mistake that Ehrman makes is that he assumes that an earlier form of written tradition must be historical: he assumes that the story of Jesus coming from Nazareth is true because it is essentially contradicted by the Bethlehem addition in the birth narratives. This is basically the lurking shadow of the folly of the criterion of embarrassment, which we can parodied as: it must be true because it needs to be fixed up. This is simply arbitrary and doesn't reflect well any scholarship that advocates it. It seems to be a form of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

[gmx]

Talking about Luke... "He wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem...."

Donald, is that you?

[MrMacSon]

" ... [Luke] wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though he 'knew' he came from Nazareth ... there is a prophecy in the Old Testament book of Micah that a savior would come from Bethlehem. What were these Gospel writer to do with the 'fact' that it was widely known that Jesus came from Nazareth? They had to come up with a narrative that explained how he came from Nazareth, in Galilee, a little one-horse town that no one had ever heard of, but was born in Bethlehem, the home of King David, royal ancestor of the Messiah.”

― Bart D. Ehrman (2009) Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible & Why We Don't Know About Them

Ehrman is contradictory there, saying

• (i) Luke " 'knew' he [Jesus] came from Nazareth" and
  
  (ii) "the 'fact' that it was widely known that Jesus came from Nazareth",

but he goes on to contradictorally say

• (ii) "They had to come up with a narrative that explained how he came from Nazareth, in Galilee, a little one-horse town that no one had ever heard of."

[spin]

" ... [Luke] wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though he 'knew' he came from Nazareth ... there is a prophecy in the Old Testament book of Micah that a savior would come from Bethlehem. What were these Gospel writer to do with the 'fact' that it was widely known that Jesus came from Nazareth? They had to come up with a narrative that explained how he came from Nazareth, in Galilee, a little one-horse town that no one had ever heard of, but was born in Bethlehem, the home of King David, royal ancestor of the Messiah.”

― Bart D. Ehrman (2009) Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible & Why We Don't Know About Them

Ehrman is contradictory there, saying

• (i) Luke " 'knew' he [Jesus] came from Nazareth" and
  
  (ii) "the 'fact' that it was widely known that Jesus came from Nazareth",

but he goes on to contradictorally say

• (ii) "They had to come up with a narrative that explained how he came from Nazareth, in Galilee, a little one-horse town that no one had ever heard of."

Ehrman seems to be working on the notion that christians have special knowledge, ie that Jesus lived in some place called Nazareth. The wider world didn't have that knowledge: Nazareth was some insignificant place "no one had heard of" so the christians, for whom Jesus coming from Nazareth was well-known, "had to come up with a narrative that explained how he came from Nazareth" to the wider world, yet without any prophecy to support it. (This lack of prophecy and the need to explain Nazareth in the face of the case for Bethlehem is what makes Ehrman think he can reify the content of the Nazareth story.)

[Secret Alias]

It's odd that only 'certain' Christians had this knowledge and that other groups contradicted this notion. For instance notice the fact that 'Nazareth' in Luke is 'Bethsaida' in both Ephrem's Diatessaron and implicitly Marcion's gospel. So this information is 'held' by only certain Christian groups too and in contentious documents like Luke.

[MrMacSon]

... the need to explain Nazareth -in the face of the case for Bethlehem- is what makes Ehrman think he can reify the content of the Nazareth story.

Yes, good point.

And it raises the issue that Christians seemed to need to reify Nazareth.

I agree with the rest of your post, and what you said in your previous post above ^^^, though I wonder about Nazareth being supposedly 'well-known' -viz. -

Ehrman seems to be working on the notion that Christians have special knowledge: ie. that Jesus lived in some place called Nazareth. The wider world didn't have that knowledge: Nazareth was some insignificant place "no one had heard of" so the Christians, for whom Jesus coming from Nazareth was [supposedly] well-known, "had to come up with a narrative that explained how he came from Nazareth" to the wider world, yet without any prophecy to support it.

Yes, 'lack of prophecy' was significant, as there was, as Bart points out,

• "..a prophecy in the Old Testament book of Micah that a savior would come from Bethlehem"

[MrMacSon]

... Ehrman has accepted the evidence which says the main body of Luke was written before the addition of the birth narratives, which is the only place in Luke that mentions Nazareth. Lk 4:16 mentions a place name Nazara. Textually, Nazareth belongs to later material in Luke than this mention of Nazara ...

... Nazara appears in a section of text that has been relocated after being rewritten from its Marcan original, the famous (unnamed) hometown rejection. This indicates that Nazara was not in the earliest strata of the gospel tradition. It would seem that no-one in the beginning knew that Jesus came from Nazareth, working from the literary remains we have.

Yes, Luke 4:16-30 describes Jesus being rejected at Nazara/Nazareth, before he 'passed through their midst' and 'went away' -

14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country. 15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.

16 And he came to Nazara/Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. 17 And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

• 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
  because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.
  He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
  and recovering of sight to the blind,
  to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
  
  19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.” [Isaiah 61:1-5]

20 And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph's son?”

23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘“Physician, heal yourself.” What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’”

24 And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow [1 Kings 17:7-24]. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.”

• [Naaman was a General of the army of Israel's enemy Aram, whose capital was Damascus (2 Kings 5)]

28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.

• [Jesus' clear implication was that the Israelites in these eras were unworthy of these miracles; God bestowed miracles on outsiders who believed. It was a not-so-veiled commentary on the lack of 'faith' Jesus perceived in Nazareth. Outside this village Jesus had performed amazing miracles, but the unbelief in Nazareth was too much. Even though they wanted to see a miracle show, they were neither worthy nor ready.]*

29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. 30 But passing through their midst, he went away.

* The lack of belief in Nazareth is significant considering events previously in Luke 2. Luke 2:22 (NIV) says

• "When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph & Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord".

They met Simeon, and 'a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher' (Lk 2:36). Then, in Lk 2:39,

• "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth."

Then the end of Luke 2 (NIV) -

41 Every year Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom.

43 After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him.

46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

49 "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"

50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

One would have expected the teenage Jesus to have infused Nazareth with faith. It seems it was not really a significant place for him.

[spin]

It's odd that only 'certain' Christians had this knowledge and that other groups contradicted this notion. For instance notice the fact that 'Nazareth' in Luke is 'Bethsaida' in both Ephrem's Diatessaron and implicitly Marcion's gospel. So this information is 'held' by only certain Christian groups too and in contentious documents like Luke.

Luke features Nazareth only in the birth narratives. At 4:16 the term is Nazara, a lectio difficilior for the growing concensus regarding Nazareth by mid 2nd c. You need to deal with it.

I haven't seen any evidence for the claim that Markion's gospel implied Bethsaida at 4:16. It would seem only depend on Ephrem, which should indicate there's no implicit statement attributable to Markion.