Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Matthew 2:23


Genesis 49:26 :


So the simple fact that Jesus is 'from Nazaret' implies not only that Jesus has to be called 'Nazarene', but also that the he has to have Brothers there and he has to be 'set apart from his brothers'. So it is implicit in nuce the negation of a carnal brotherhood just when it is claimed.


Now, it would be not a coincidence that the Brothers of the Patriarch Joseph bear quasi the same names of the Brothers of Jesus listed by who knew them precisely…. ...in Nazaret !

Mark 6:3

1. Reuben
2. Simeon
3. Levi
4. Judah
9. Issachar
10. Zebulun
Dinah (daughter)
7. Gad
8. Asher
5. Dan
6. Naphtali
11. Joseph
12. Benjamin

Genesis 49:16 gives not only Brothers to Jesus as Nazarene, but also an earthly father named Joseph, as the patriarch who receives the blessing in Gen 49:16.

Giuseppe, interesting. It's my belief that Mark 1:9 originally read: "And it happened in those days, that Jesus the Nazarene came from Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan." I think "Nararet" was substituted for "Nazarene" by a redactor. Mark uses "Nazarene" the other 4 times he calls Jesus "the Nazarene." Notice that if you look at the language around Mark's uses of "Jesus the Nazarene" you get a synopsis of Jesus's ministry: 1:9 - Jesus the Nazarene came, 1:24 What are we to you, Jesus, Nazarene? 10:47-49 Jesus the Nazarene have mercy on us ... Arise, He calls you. 14:67-68 (to Peter) "You were with the Nazarene, Jesus" but he denied saying "I neither know or understand what you are saying" 16:6 You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified, he is risen. In other words: 1. Jesus came, 2 Who is Jesus? 3. He calls all mankind. 4. The opponents of Paul don't understand. 5. Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

Notice that Matthew and Luke do not copy those instances of "Nazarene" Matthew only uses it in the passage you cited and Luke uses Nazarene once in the man with an unclean spirit, Nazoraios once with the blind man outside Jericho, Nazarenou once post resurrection and Nazaret the rest of the time, mostly in the birth story.

Did any ancient Christian or Jewish exegete take note of this correspondence?

davidoliversmith wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:57 am I think "Nararet" was substituted for "Nazarene" by a redactor.

it is curious this shift from Nazarene to Nazaret. I think that the reason is that 'Nazarene' implied an implicit separation and conflict between Jesus and the his family (just as between Joseph and the his brothers). A separation and a conflict made explicit by the clash between Jesus and his mother in more occurrences etc. Once all that became embarrassing (as evident clues of adoptionism/separationism), the Nazireate became not a symbol of separation but of union: a town named Nazaret. So the conflict is carried now between Jesus and the people of Nazaret, and not more between Jesus and his family. This is a strong argument to consider an interpolation the Nazaret episode in Mark.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:24 am Did any ancient Christian or Jewish exegete take note of this correspondence?

From Gen 49:16? I don't know. Surely Joseph was seen as a type of Jesus.

davidoliversmith wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:57 am Mark 1:9 originally read: "And it happened in those days, that Jesus the Nazarene came from Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan."

So, if my hypothesis is correct, Jesus was "separated" (meaning of 'Nazarene' in this point) from the his family even before he was possessed by the divine Christ by the baptism. So the family was searching for him (believing him crazy) even before he started to preach etc. Even before the his baptism.