Nazareth

[trencacloscas]

http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth.htm

Archeologists have now proven that the city of Nazareth did not exist until three centuries after his death, and questions long debated in scholarly circles are now coming to the forefront. Armed with ancient sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the papyrus books of Nag Hammadi, and the long overlooked writings from the early church, modern scholars and theologians are reconstructing the life and times of Jesus, and what they are finding is very different from the life and teachings we have been "led to believe."

What we do know is that 'Nazarene' was originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect – a faction, or off-shoot, of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have been the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or 'flower.' The plural of 'Netzor' becomes 'Netzoreem'. There is no mention of the Nazarenes in any of Paul's writings. The Nazorim emerged towards the end of the 1st century, after a curse had been placed on heretics in Jewish daily prayer.

So, there was no Nazareth after all? Probably no Jesus also...

And Christians still believe?

[youngborean]

Maybe a little more. Regional clan associations would still make Jesus from Betlehem if that makes any sense (since the royal line is from that area).


Rth 2:4 And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The LORD [be] with you. And they answered him, The LORD bless thee.


Mark's omission of the birth narrative is not another tradition, it is simply an ommision. The bethlehem prophecy would be upheld by Mark's inclusion of Jesus in the royal line. Even if the story of the birth narrative was added for authoritative purposes by Luke and Matthew, it would only complement Mark's account by saying, "not only does Jesus fufill the Bethlehem prophecy through lineage, he was also born there in the flesh." Matthew and Luke add that the birth narrative as a consequence of the census. So clans would have to go to traditional territories. This is complementary evidence to Mark which uphold the royal line. Not just the larger tribal association to Judah.

[Lotan]

Maybe a little more. Regional clan associations would still make Jesus from Betlehem if that makes any sense (since the royal line is from that area).

Are you basing this on Mark 10:47 or is there something else as well?

[youngborean]

Yes, 10:47. I believe that the statement Son of David reflect a lineage to the royal line and is intended to reflect that. Unless it could be established as a general term, which I could not understand.

[Lotan]

I think that the distinction here is between a literal and a figurative interpretation. The term "Son of David" can literally mean an ancestor of David, or it can be applied figuratively as a title for anyone who occupies the “throne of David”, ie. a ‘messiah’. According to Michael Grant…
"After the time of Jesus, too, Christian leaders still continued to stress their Davidic descent." -Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels.
Other 'messiahs' claimed Davidic descent, too. (Honi, Dositheus, Hanina ben Dosa)
The context of Mark 10:47 strongly suggests a figurative interpretation- “Bartimaeus” (Son of the Unclean) is unlikely to be a real name, after all, and it is this character who believes Jesus to be a "Son of David".

Jesus himself, wishing to remain apolitical, argues against a literal interpretation of "Son of David" in Mark 12:35-37.

There’s a bit about "Son of David" as an honorary title here. (I disagree with the author’s statement that Jesus was probably not a descendent of David though, but only because I don’t think that there is any way to judge the claim one way or the other.)

[Cathar1950]

I don't know about another Hoax. Not that there aren't any but I think this was a screw up of Matthew's then the early church and Epipanius picked it up.
I belive that originally they were saying he was a Nazarene and so were his first follower acording to Robert H. Eisenman in his book James the Brother of Jesus : The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

All Christians were once called Nazoraens. For a short time they were also given the name Jessaens[taht is 'Essenes'], befor the Disciples in Antioch began to be call Christians

. p.243.
Paul was suppose to take a Nazarite vow and pay for two others in Acts.
Matthew got mixed up when he read about the Nazarite from the womb in judges when the wrote about Samson(Hercules)and thought he was conceived in Nazareth.
We don't really know if Jesus drank wine or if they just wrote he did to fit the model(mystery religions). But then they did drink wine and break bread those Essenes. So it is hard to tell. There is some question about Jesus being historical given Paul seems to know nothing about his life or teachings. He just talks to him in visions and such. One charges against Jesus if they are to be believed, suggest he was "King of the Jews", it is possible that he was anointed by some group of "The Way" and could have been of the Davidic line or of the root of Jesse group.
I think it is interesting.
youngborean wrote regarding:
Lotan wrote:

Yes. I agree that Jesus could very possibly have been a descendant of the house of David through his father, Joseph.

Then the point about puposefully making Jesus Judean is null and void since every example within the Old and New Testament adheres to matricarchal lineage in terms of tribal and clan idendtity. If Joseph was from the royal line his clan alone would have fufilled the Bethlem prophecy. Mark leaves whether or not he was born there in the flesh but the testimony of Luke and Matthew (though disputable about whether or not it happened) is still complementary and not contradictory.

I think what Lotan is saying is that Joseph was his biological Father, not God, youngborean. I want to make sure you didn't miss that. Am I right Lotan? I do agree, even if I am wrong, about what he is saying.
You see Christians that are Biblicalist wouldn't have to sweat the small stuff if they could just adjust to the fact that They were writing stories and nobody knew what happened exactly and as the early church fathers admit freely they are not beyond embelishing, lying, editing , changing and holding back for the "Kingdom". Paul showed them the way.

[Lotan]

We don't really know if Jesus drank wine or if they just wrote he did to fit the model(mystery religions).

AFAIK the tradition that Jesus "came eating and drinking" is fairly solid and differentiates him from John the Baptist who was an ascetic.

I think what Lotan is saying is that Joseph was his biological Father, not God, youngborean. I want to make sure you didn't miss that. Am I right Lotan?

If not him, then a Roman soldier or some other guy. 'Mark's Jesus is pretty human.

[Cathar1950]

AFAIK the tradition that Jesus "came eating and drinking" is fairly solid and differentiates him from John the Baptist who was an ascetic.

That is what I think they were doing and they may have made it up too.
There is also the Law thing with Paul. I would agree the drink tradition is solid but it is a tradition with the purpose of differentiate John and the law.
Maybe (some) Nazarenes could drink in certain circumstances.
The Nazarite vows taken were sometimes temporary. Maybe the King could drink. "it's good to be king".
We just don't know do we?

[youngborean]

I think what Lotan is saying is that Joseph was his biological Father, not God, youngborean.

This would have nothing to do with anything that I was discussing and is completely irrelavant to the Bethlehem prophecy of Micah, but thanks for helping me understand that. I was addressing the point that Mark contradicts Mattehew and Luke by leaving out the birth narrative. Which it does not, unless you want to take Son of David as a genral term, in which case you would be in the minority, and your logic would be flawed, because only a physical decendant of David would be considered a messicanic candidate. And coupled with the proposed geneologies of Matthew and Luke, there is a far way to go in establishing that Jesus as a Galaliean is contradictory to Matthew and Luke. That's it. This was not a discussion of the deity of Jesus.

[youngborean]

Your etymology may be off here as well. I don't know that the automatic assumption can be made that Nazarene = Nazarite. There are 2 hebrew words that could be the base of the Greek transliteration nazarene. One is Nun - zayin - y - resh which is translated Nazrite into English. The other is Nun - tsadek - resh which means "branch" and is retained in the modern Hebrew for the town Nazareth. So the only condition under which you have suggested would work is under the made up one you have proposed. However, the etymology of the Hebrew doesn't lend to much weight to your perspective.

[Cathar1950]

youngborean wrote:

This would have nothing to do with anything that I was discussing and is completely irrelavant to the Bethlehem prophecy of Micah

The Bethlehem Prophecy, you mean where Matt. mixes up clan with town?

I was addressing the point that Mark contradicts Mattehew and Luke by leaving out the birth narrative. Which it does not, unless you want to take Son of David as a genral term, in which case you would be in the minority, and your logic would be flawed, because only a physical decendant of David would be considered a messicanic candidate.

A minority opinion is not always wrong. The logic might include that Anointed One(messiah) could be a priest, a king, a prophet, Israel, or the Persian Cyrus.

This was not a discussion of the deity of Jesus.

Thats nice. Maybe Matt. didn't know what he was writing about and the ones that followed knew even less.

only a physical decendant of David would be considered a messicanic candidate

Why should they have to follow that rule they didn't follow all of them.
Most of the prophesies where about Israel not a person.