Back to the Nazareth Issue

[Chrissy Hansen]

Okay, so for starters I think Nazareth existed, I'm not here to defend Salm or really any of his suppositions (save that Mark 1:9 is interpolated), I just don't find them convincing. So, we are not going there.

Regardless, I do not think Jesus was from Nazareth. I actually think that the single word Ναζαρὲτ was interpolated into the text and that it either originally read Capernaum (as in Mark 2:1), "Nazarai" (found in some manuscripts), or that it originally just said that he was from Galilee, with 2:1 later then specifying his particular place (this formermost I find the most convincing). I have a few reasons for thinking this, but I'm also curious as to whether or not we can add a few other reasons (besides "Nazareth didn't exist" kind of stuff) with your help.

(1) According to the Nestle-Aland 28th Ed, Mark 1:9 has a variant reading of Nazarai instead of Nazareth, which may indicate two different attempts to harmonize the Markan text with Matthew and Luke. Nazara is used in both Matthew and Luke for Nazareth as well (Matt. 4:13; Luke 4:16). Neither one seems likely, as Mark never uses either anywhere else but instead Nazarenos, though Nazarai may be more likely than Nazareth, as it may still be related to Nazorean or Nazarene.

(2) It is absent in the parallel texts (Luke 3:21-22; Matt. 3:13-17).

(3) Other such possible revisions are evident in some manuscripts as well, such as the omission of "ton Nazarenos" in 16:6 in some manuscripts which may be evidence that Mark never used this term here or may be evidence of harmonization with Matthew's version of the text.

(4) All variations we see correspond to the Gospel of Matthew. The addition of "Nazareth" in 1:9 is explicable by Matthew's attempts to resolve the issue by making Jesus as originally being from Nazareth and moving to Capernaum, see Matt. 2:23. Matthew attempts to explain the term "Nazorean" by forcing Jesus into coming from Bethlehem to Nazareth in the first two chapters. He has no reference to Nazareth in Matt. 3:13-17 because there was none. However, later scribes thought this the best place to put this interpolation because, as with Matthew, it would then preempt Capernaum. Notably, other places of Nazarenos in Mark's text are left relatively untouched except minor spelling differences (10:47 and 14:67 for instance). For me, this tips the favor of 16:6 omissions being a harmonization with Matthew, while missing the previous ones by accident, fatigue on the part of a redactor.

(5) Given Mark's rather weird arguably lacking understanding of Palestinian geography, I find it hard to believe he would know the random and obscure town of Nazareth.

Thus, we end up with a textual history of:

"At that time Jesus [the Nazarai/ean/ene]* came from Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan."
*I find this possibility in brackets less convincing and that it is perhaps a leftover of harmonization attempts.

Matthew then comes along and (mostly) quotes this text:

"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John."

However, Matthew, misunderstanding the variant times Mark uses "Nazorean" for meaning the town of "Nazareth" (which he knows of), then becomes befuddled by Jesus being required to be from Bethlehem according to scripture, from Nazareth according to his misunderstanding, and then also from Capernaum in Mark 2:1. This leads him to doing a few things: (1) making vital use of the Moses mythos for Jesus to get him from Nazareth to Bethlehem to Egypt, then back to Nazareth, which he then justifies by (2) inventing a fake scripture passage (2:23), and then (3) saying that Jesus then switched from Nazareth to Capernaum later in life (4:13).

This then results in a new reading when a redactor becomes also befuddled by Matthew and Mark's disagreement:

"At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan."

Realizing that Mark never has Jesus in Nazareth *before* Capernaum, an anxious redactor(s) then comes along and inserts "Nazareth" into Mark 1:9 to make him parallel with Matthew having Jesus come from Nazareth to Capernaum.

What do you all think?

[Charles Wilson]

Chris Hansen --

FWIW, I have this as coming from "Nat'Sar":

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... atsar.html

The Priests were "Guards" for the Temple. They were to "Watch" and, as I see the Story, they failed to "Watch" at a critical moment, at the Slaughter at the Temple in 4 BCE.

The Priests were given Settlements in Galilee (Leibner, Elizur) and there was a Priest who was from Galilee, rotating into Jerusalem for the Passover and Feast. He is a "Naw'-Tsar-ene" (You choose the ending...) and that may have been a bit too obvious so all the better to make Naw-Tsar into "Guard-Town" and the "Jesus" Character into "One-from-Guard-Town". That hides the Identity while giving Existence to his "Home". Later, even the Pun is lost.

YMMV,

CW

[Chrissy Hansen]

Chris Hansen --

FWIW, I have this as coming from "Nat'Sar":

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... atsar.html

The Priests were "Guards" for the Temple. They were to "Watch" and, as I see the Story, they failed to "Watch" at a critical moment, at the Slaughter at the Temple in 4 BCE.

The Priests were given Settlements in Galilee (Leibner, Elizur) and there was a Priest who was from Galilee, rotating into Jerusalem for the Passover and Feast. He is a "Naw'-Tsar-ene" (You choose the ending...) and that may have been a bit too obvious so all the better to make Naw-Tsar into "Guard-Town" and the "Jesus" Character into "One-from-Guard-Town". That hides the Identity while giving Existence to his "Home". Later, even the Pun is lost.

YMMV,

CW

An interesting hypothesis, though I'm more inclined to reach toward the Gospel of Philip and "the truth" for Nazara, but in a more esoteric sense, as in revelatory truth or an apocalyptic truth, given Mark's Gospel. In this case, Jesus is "Nazara," someone with revelatory truth, and becomes adopted and apotheosized in preparing the way for the eventual end times apocalypse, wherein he will aid God in ushering in a new world under the Messiah, himself. It also adds an irony in that he charges people to not reveal who he is throughout, in which case there is still a level of pun to the word.

[perseusomega9]

I get the impression you're compiling a large list of Matthean harmonizations in Mark.

[rgprice]

It is of course very difficult to prove, but I think its certainly plausible. I have been leaning more and more in the direction that Mark contains multiple harmonizations with Matthew. I also include the name of Jesus' mother and brothers as a harmonization with Matthew, and much of what comes after 15:40.

[Jax]

You might find this a worthwhile read viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7261

[Chrissy Hansen]

It is of course very difficult to prove, but I think its certainly plausible. I have been leaning more and more in the direction that Mark contains multiple harmonizations with Matthew. I also include the name of Jesus' mother and brothers as a harmonization with Matthew, and much of what comes after 15:40.

I am less inclined on Jesus' brothers, but the mother name perhaps. The brothers would correspond with the Pauline text, which I think Mark is reliant upon (that being said, I also think Matthew and Luke know of Paul's letters as well).

[Sinouhe]

I also include the name of Jesus' mother and brothers as a harmonization with Matthew, and much of what comes after 15:40.

It would be difficult to explain why they add those names but forgot to add a mention of Joseph in Mark…

[neilgodfrey]

Okay, so for starters I think Nazareth existed, I'm not here to defend Salm or really any of his suppositions (save that Mark 1:9 is interpolated), I just don't find them convincing. So, we are not going there.

Ouch, that's a hard kick in my stomach. I feel like a voodoo doll with Salm's name on it. I am responding to this intro because I do consider René Salm to be an online friend of mine and one reason I consider him so my view that his analysis of the professional research into the archaeology of Nazareth is first-class, rigorous and thorough scholarship. His engagement with the archaeological publications and conclusions are anything but "suppositional". I feel a kick in the gut every time I see what I consider to be casual dismissals of his work, especially since so often (not here, fortunately) they are accompanied by some of the worst personal denigration I have come across online. The result has been our collective loss. He has much to contribute. Though in many areas apart from the archaeological analyses I disagree with his views, he does have well-informed viewpoints and details of interest that are worth further consideration. Like Earl Doherty, another person I have considered an online friend, the abuse he has experienced online is to our collective shame and we are now the poorer for their absences from forums such as these.

Chris -- I am not suggesting you are personally insulting, far from it. My pain arises from seeing casual dismissals that I think are at very best debatable and that come in a wider world where the personal insults are still all too frequent.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Okay, so for starters I think Nazareth existed, I'm not here to defend Salm or really any of his suppositions (save that Mark 1:9 is interpolated), I just don't find them convincing. So, we are not going there.

Ouch, that's a hard kick in my stomach. I feel like a voodoo doll with Salm's name on it. I am responding to this intro because I do consider René Salm to be an online friend of mine and one reason I consider him so my view that his analysis of the professional research into the archaeology of Nazareth is first-class, rigorous and thorough scholarship. His engagement with the archaeological publications and conclusions are anything but "suppositional". I feel a kick in the gut every time I see what I consider to be casual dismissals of his work, especially since so often (not here, fortunately) they are accompanied by some of the worst personal denigration I have come across online. The result has been our collective loss. He has much to contribute. Though in many areas apart from the archaeological analyses I disagree with his views, he does have well-informed viewpoints and details of interest that are worth further consideration. Like Earl Doherty, another person I have considered an online friend, the abuse he has experienced online is to our collective shame and we are now the poorer for their absences from forums such as these.

Chris -- I am not suggesting you are personally insulting, far from it. My pain arises from seeing casual dismissals that I think are at very best debatable and that come in a wider world where the personal insults are still all too frequent.

Oh I am not going to disagree with you on any of this. I do think that Salm has rigorous work and it is quite amazing how well he engages with all the research and data. I just wanted to more focus on the interpolation hypothesis, which I think is something Salm and I may get some common ground on, rather than get bogged down in the Nazareth existence question, primarily because I think it is somewhat beside the point. If the Markan reference is an interpolation and Matthew is just inventing this based on a misunderstanding, whether or not Nazareth existed in Jesus' lifetime becomes irrelevant, because his entire reason for being there is due to a misreading of "Nazarene" in the late first century.

That is mostly my reason for the dismissal, but I do think Salm's work is unfairly discredited (along with Jean Magne, Thomas L. Brodie, and Hermann Detering), even though I am not convinced by his conclusions.

I should definitely have prefaced my opening that I don't mean to denigrate his work, merely that I'm focusing on the Nazareth question from a different angle than him, which I don't think needs to get into the archaeology. But, should my interpolation hypothesis fail, Salm is right there and needs to be taken very seriously, imo.