PART 10 of my Historical Jesus series
The most convincing aspect of Jesus’ historicity is that he belonged to a messianic group of Nazoreans. The gospel of Matthew redefined the meaning of Nazorean to say it was a person who came from Nazareth, this may work in English or Greek but in Aramaic/Hebrew the two words have nothing to do with each other, (The name Nazareth is not in any way related to the title “Nazorean” discussed below). Chilton noticed in the gospels their handling of the term nazorean: “But more is going on here. Jesus is rarely called “of Nazareth” or “from Nazareth” . . . He is usually called “Nazoraean” or “Nazarene.” Why the adjective, and why the uncertainty in spelling? The Septuagint shows us that there were many different transliterations of “Nazirite”: that reflects uncertainty as to how to convey the term in Greek . . . Some of the variants are in fact very close to what we find used to describe Jesus in the Gospels. . .”[1]
There are two possible origins for the word nazorean, either explanation would denote a sect as opposed to a geographical location as the origin.
First explanation was given by J. S. Kennard who sees Nazirites as a title for the separated coming from Numbers 6. [2]. It comes from the noun נזיר (nazir) or from the verb נזר (nazar), to separate or consecrate, (or to dedicate oneself). The Hebrew base for Nazirite is NZR. With the term Nazarite, the Greek letter zeta is rendering the Hebrew letter zayin. So this gives the Hebrew base as NZR, as opposed to NTZR discussed next.
The second possible origin of the word nazorean comes from the Hebrew base NTZR, from which comes two Hebrew words that are identical (except for their vowels). The first word is netzer נֵצֶר as given by Laupot [3] who sees the name derived from Isaiah 11:1 which connects the Hebrew word ‘netzer’ (branch) NTZR [4] to the Greek transliterated word Ναζωραῖος and Ναζαρηνός (nazorean). This word ‘netzer’ comes from the exact same Hebrew base for ‘keepers’ as discussed next. (Hebrew did not have vowels so words can only be interpreted from their context). Branch was used as a term for the royal descendant of King David, so important to all Jewish messianist groups. All messianist Jewish groups claimed descent from the house of David. Isaiah 11:1 used netzer to refer to a Meshiach (Messiah).
Another meaning from NTZR was “Keepers /Guardians of the covenant” from the collective plural Hebrew word “nazorim”. They were also followers of the messianic heir who was called the Branch (“netzer”). These followers called themselves “netzerim”.
The phrase “keepers of the covenant” or “guardians of the covenant” (“natsorim ha brit”) appears repeatedly as a sectarian name in the DSS. In Aramaic the collective plural word for “keepers” (as in jail-“keeper”, or “guardian”) is “natsorim” “natzorim” “nazorim” (all variant transliterations of nun, tsadi, resh, mem) [compare Hebrew “shomrei”, a root word for Samaritans]. The Acts of the Apostles admits that this was a sectarian name [“NazOraios” with an omega (Ω) in Greek showing it was derived from Aramaic “NazOrim” and not from the place name NazAreth].[5].
In the Talmud, Jesus is known as Yeshu ha notsri as seen in the manuscripts, (Avodah passages) also a derivation from branch.
William Smith says Nazorean occurs “without any suggestion of tendency, especially in Acts, and more than all, it is used in the plural as the name of the new religionists (Acts 24:5) : Tertullus describes Paul as a ringleader of the heresy of “the Nazoreans.” It seems impossible that this name should have become their vulgar designation, unless it had been a very early and important designation……In Mark the epithet is so distinctive that it is put into the mouth of the maid as the name of the arrested one: “Thou also wast with the Nazarene (Jesus)” (Mark14:67). All this indicates that this epithet was from the start highly distinctive and familiar, a name in itself, which would be passing strange, if it was indeed derived from a most obscure village otherwise unknown.” [6] Of course the gospel of Mark suggests Capernaum as Jesus’ hometown. Capernaum was really the hometown of Jesus in the gospel of Mark:
-Mark 2:1 When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home.
-Mark 2:15 : While he was at table in his house
-Mark 3:20: He came home …
Dr R M Price has seen why Jesus’ epitaph was changed – “Christians could no longer imagine their Lord had himself been simply a “believer” [ie a Nazorean] like themselves, so they inferred that his famous epithet that had denoted he had hailed from Nazareth” [7].
Schonfield saw the main reason for this change: “The name he bears, Jesus the Nazorean, has northern sectarian implications….” [8]. If you wanted to cover up the implication of the name for a sectarian group of Nazoreans, a convenient way would be to say the name derived from being from Nazareth. It is a later misdirection to account falsely for Jesus’ “Nazorene” title so people would fail to identify the historical Jesus with the strict Torah-keeping Zealots who called themselves “Keepers (nazorim) of the Covenant”. This is shown in action where both Luke and Matthew copying an earlier MSS of Mark 1:9 do not have Mark’s one mention of Nazareth. As Turton says Mark 1:9’s reference to Nazareth “does not appear in the parallel passages in Matthew or Luke. In Luke Jesus goes to the baptism from Galilee, but there is no Nazareth. [9] Luke’s evidence is even more compelling, given according to Ehrman that the birth narratives, chapter 1 and 2 are later additions to Luke, therefore Luke had not already introduced Jesus as being from Nazareth. [10] Turton goes on to say, “ this is the only use of the word “Nazareth” in Mark; all other usages are a Greek word, nazarhnos, generally translated as “Nazarene.” “Nazarene” can mean either a sectarian designation, or “of (the location of) Nazara,” but it cannot mean “of Nazareth.”[9]
As Carrier noted “there is no good reason Jesus was called a nazorean (Mt. 26:71; Lk18:37; Jn.18:5-7 and 19:19) and his followers nazoreans other than that this term originally was unconnected with Nazareth and originally was a sect. Nazoraios has no grammatical connection to nazar, Nazaret or Nazareth. Nazor- and nazar- are completely different routes. Matthew knows no other spelling than Nazoraios (Nazorean) and he was using Mark as a source.” [11].The name Nazareth is not in any way related to the title “Nazorean” because sectarian names did not denote a location. There is no convincing evidence that suggests either Nazorean or Nazarene were ever related to a toponym “Nazareth.” By contrast all related forms in every other source unrelated to the Synoptics associates the term with wisdom, truth, or some other religiously significant cultic concept (Mandaeans and the Gospel of Philip for instance). In fact, a text known as the “Rule of the Benediction” (discussed in Charlesworth [ed.], The Messiah:122) which is based on Isaiah 11 actually utilizes related terms as the titles of religious officials associated with Messianism directly, and no relation to the toponym at all.
Nazoraios has no grammatical connection to nazir, (root of Nazirite). “Natzor” and “nazir” are completely different roots. The “z”s are the major difference in the root. The “z” in Nazareth is the letter tsadi in Hebrew. The “z” in “Nazirite” is the letter zayin in Hebrew. Nazareth: נָצְרַת (with tsadi) and Nazarite: נזיר (with zayin) are not related. The words are not at all related in any way. [12] A person from Nazareth would be a Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios from the Greek and if it were in Hebrew then Nazareth would be Nazrat and a person from Nazareth is then a Nazrati, but never a Nazarene or Nazorean. Further, there were movements to separate Jesus towards sophisticated Greek culture and away from Judaism, and in particular to distance him from extreme fundamentalist Judaism, (especially a messianist group such as the Nazoreans. At the time of composing the gospels after the Roman Jewish war, all messianists were looked on with suspicion).
David Oliver Smith sees that Nazareth breaks the chiastic structures that the gospel of Mark was so fond of. [13] It is possible that Mark’s Original Gospel at 1:9 had “Nazarene,” and “Nazaret” is a later redaction. There are a several reasons that the use of “Nazaret” in this verse is suspicious:
1. Mark identified Jesus as “Nazarēnou” four times (there are different endings for the different cases) and 1:9 is the only time “Nazaret,” is used. While absolute consistency is not required, it is curious that 1:9 is different from the other four times.
2. Matthew eliminated Mark’s “Nazarene” in all of Matthew’s passages that are parallel to Mark’s use of “Nazarene.” At Matt 3:13 when Jesus is coming to be baptized he describes Jesus as “the Jesus from the Galilee” eliminating the “Nazarene” or “of Nazareth,” whichever was there originally in Mark. At Matt 2:23 Matthew says that Jesus and family move from Egypt to Nazareth, and he adds that this fulfills the prophecy that he would be called a “Nazōraios” (Nazorean).
3. Mark usually used an article before “Jesus” as he did at 1:14 “came the Jesus into the Galilee,” as did Matthew at Matt 3:13, just quoted. However, an article is not found before “Jesus” at 1:9 in Canonical Mark. This may be evidence of a later redaction.
4. If “of Nazareth” found at 1:9 was originally “Nazarene,” there would be an exact match of three words in the (K, K’) stich of the chiastic structure in which Chapter 1 of Mark is paired with the passion from 14:33-16:8. This, of course, is a self-fulfilling prophesy, but given the previous ten matches and the following four matches, it could well be that Mark intended an exact word match with this stich. Perhaps in the original Gospel both 1:9 and 16:6 identified Jesus as a “Nazarene/Nazorean’.
The only singular reference to Nazareth in the whole Mark (1:9) is likely an interpolation. It is absent in the parallel and near identical quotation in Matthew 3:13 and there is no reason for this omission, given that Matthew just made up a prophecy to specifically place Jesus in Nazareth. Mark only ever calls Jesus “Nazarene” and similar.
Here is what Mark in the textus receptus writes (1:9):
Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας
Here is what Matthew in the textus receptus writes (3:13):
Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας
And here is my proposed emendation of Mark:
Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας
Literally by just removing the one word, Mark aligns with Matthew, and there is absolutely no good reason why Matthew would have omitted the name of Nazareth after spending so much time trying to justify Jesus living there in the previous chapter, including inventing an entire prophecy wholecloth to do so. I think this emendation is probably a result of harmonization or a scribal gloss.
As a rule, one never finds parallel passages from Mark that use Nazareth:
Mk 1.24 uses Ναζαρηνέ, cf. Lk 4.34 which has Ναζαρηνέ. Mk 10:47 uses Ναζαρηνός, cf. Lk 18.37 which has Ναζωραῖος. Mk 14.67 uses Ναζαρηνοῦ, cf. Mt 26.71 which has Ναζωραίου; and 16.6 uses Ναζαρηνὸν. Once again, no parallel passages attest to the usage of Nazareth in Mark.
Matthew tries to cover up Jesus’ association with some pre-Christian insurrectionist ‘sect of Nazoreans’ but has retained the use of the term in his gospel (luckily for us). He can do this as he has redefined the term to mean it as somebody coming from Nazareth—— therefore he didn’t have to stop using the term nazoraios. The term must have been too well known, not to use.
He does it in this verse here: Matthew 2:22-23
“Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazorean.”
This reason is not found anywhere in the Tanakh that through the prophets, he shall be called Nazorean. As we have seen Matthew in downplaying Jewish messianism and downplaying the bad connotation of the term nazorean. He does this by redefining the origin of the term to that of a person coming from Nazareth.
Even if Jesus was born in Nazareth, the fakery of the gospels trying to get Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy and have him born there, is an argument in favour of Jesus being born in Nazareth. (I do not argue for a dichotomy, just because Nazorean has nothing to do with being from Nazareth, does not mean that Jesus was not born in Nazareth. If he was born in Nazareth, the gospel of Matthew used this fact to cover up the real meaning of being a nazorean). This is clever as nazorean had northern sectarian messianic connotations. This is part of the sanitizing process we see in relation to Jesus, furthering him away from opprobrious roots. The gospels being written post Roman Jewish war, meant Jesus could not be associated with Jewish messianist to ensure the survival of this movement.
The latest archaeology by Prof.Dark on Nazareth shows the rebellious times of Jesus. Discovered were special silos with features that were cut into by narrow burrow-like tunnels characteristic of hiding places from the period of the Jewish Revolts. In the “artificial underground spaces” the “earliest features were rock-cut pits for the storage of crops (silos), cisterns for water storage, and installations for the production of wine and olive oil.” [14] Some of these underground food storage units were used as hiding places for people during the troublesome times Jesus was born into.
“This leads to the further puzzling question: if Jesus, as the Gospels say, chose Peter as the leader of the Church, why were the Nazarenes, after Jesus’ death, led not by Peter, but by James . . . a person who is not even mentioned in the Gospels as a follower of Jesus in his lifetime? This is the kind of contradiction that, if logically, considered, can lead us to the true picture of the history of Jesus’ movement in Jerusalem, as opposed to the picture which the later Church wished to propagate.” [15]. All this shows one of many cover ups, such as the importance of Jesus’ brother in leading the movement after Jesus’ death.
[As an interesting side note: The translations of “Nasorean/Nazorean” (natsorim ha brit keepers) are the same as the translations for Samaritans/Shomrim. Samaritan in Hebrew: ࠔࠠࠌࠝࠓࠩࠉࠌ, that’s a transliteration Shamerim ( שַמֶרִים, ‘Guardians/Keepers/Watchers (of the Torah)’. We have another interesting similar sect operating around Samaria and not Judah, that of the Mandaeans the descendants of John the Baptist group. It shows this group was similar to the Nazorean group led by Jesus. This all plays in well with the propaganda of the Good Samaritan in Lukes gospel.]
It’s worth ending this paper with a quote from Dr R M Price:
“Despite the rendering of many English Bible translations, Jesus is very seldom called “Jesus from Nazareth” in the Gospels. Mark calls him “Jesus the Nazarene,” as does Luke twice (Mark 1:24, 10:47, 14:67, 16:6; Luke 4:34, 24:9), while Matthew, John, and Acts always call him “Jesus the Nazorean” (Matt. 26:71; John 18:7, 19:19; Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9), with Luke using this epithet once (Luke 18:37, the Bar-Timaeus episode, where he has replaced Mark’s “Nazarene” with it)……the difference between “Nazarene” and “Nazorean” does give us reason to suspect that the familiar epithet does not after all denote Jesus’ hailing from a village called Nazareth. “The Nazarene” would imply that, but not “the Nazorean.” That seems to be a sect name, equivalent to “the Essene” or “the Hasid.” Epiphanius, an early Christian cataloguer of “heresies,” mentions a pre-Christian sect called “the Nazoreans,” their name meaning “the Keepers” of the Torah, or possibly of the secrets (see Mark 4:11, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but to those outside all is by way of parable”). ….”Nazorean” occurs once unambiguously in the New Testament itself as a sect designation, in Acts 24:5: “a ring leader of the sect of the Nazoreans.” ….. It should be clear that such a scenario, while quite natural historically, is offensive to the Christological beliefs of some, since it presupposes Jesus was a disciple, that he needed to learn religion. How could that be if he were the incarnate Son of God? Harold Bloom (The Anxiety of Influence [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997]) describes “the anxiety of influence’ as the reluctance to acknowledge the degree to which one’s “distinctives” are owed to one’s predecessors..” [16]
———————————————————
[1] Chilton, Bruce, “James in Relation to Peter, Paul, and Jesus,” in Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, eds., The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), pp.155–56.
[2] Kennard, J. S., “Was Capernaum the Home of Jesus?” Journal of Biblical Literature 65, no. 2 (June 1946): pp.131–41; and “Nazorean and Nazareth,” Journal of Biblical Literature 66, no. 1 (March 1947): pp.79–81, responding to W. F. Albright’s reply in “The Names Nazareth and Nazoraean,” Journal of Biblical Literature 65, no. 4 (December 1946): pp.397–401.
[3] Laupot, Eric , Tacitus’ Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the “Christiani” and the Nazoreans,Volume:54 (2000), Vigiliae Christianae, p.233
[4] ‘netser’ meaning branch which conceptually meant descendants as in descendants of the Davidic line, a concept so important to Jewish messianism. This word transliterates to Ναζωραῖος and Ναζαρηνός I.e. nazorean. The branch was meant as the royal descendant of King David.
The transliteration of “tsadi” in English can be “ts” or “tz” or “z”, therefore sometimes you will see netzer or netser.
[5] Lawson, C. H., Reconstructing Jesus: What if the historical Jesus was the heir to the throne? A reconstruction based on the First Century Dead Sea Scrolls. (Hamilton, Ontario: Freedom Publishing, 2019) pp.15-16.
[6] Smith, William Benjamin, Meaning Epithet Nazorean (Nazarene), The Monist , January, 1905, Vol. 15, No. 1 (January, 1905), 27-6. Published by Oxford University Press.
[7] Price, R.M., Deconstructing Jesus ch2, footnote 25. Also notice Matthew alters Marks use of rabbi/teacher and the way Mark uses Lord to merely mean sir. Matthew alters this so only outsiders call Jesus Rabbi but insiders call him Lord. In Christianity Kyrios (Lord) is used here in relation to the resurrected Jesus. To Matthew Jesus is not just a Rabbi, no he is a Lord in the exalted sense, no longer just one of Jewish sect. Even the exception to this rule is telling where Judas calls him rabbi.
[8] Schonfield, Hugh J., The Passover Plot, (1st edition 1965), Special 40th Anniversary Edition: The Disinformation Company 2005, p.39.
[9] Turton, Michael A., Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark.
[10] Bart Ehrman blog: Did Luke originally have chapters1-2?
https://ehrmanblog.org/did-luke-originally-have-chapters-1-2/
[11] Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, ibid, ch10 fn34.
[12] A full discussion of the etymology between Nazareth and Nazorean is discussed on this forum:
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7261
Basically one is with a ז and the other is with a צ.
The difference is one of the hardest thing for non-Hebrew speakers to figure out.
נזר is like Nazerth and נצר Is like the Nazarenes/Nazoreans..
[13] Smith, David Oliver, Unlocking the Puzzle, Wipf and Stock, Eugene, (2016) pp.33-4.
[14] Dark, Ken, Roman-Period and Byzantine Nazareth and its Hinterland (The Palestine Exploration Fund Annual), (Routledge 2020).
As cited by Elliot, Mark, The Archaeology of Nazareth in the Early First Century, here in this blog Mark Elliot gives an outline of the findings in Prof. Ken Darks book:
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/archaeology-nazareth-early-first-century
[15] Maccoby, The Mythmaker, Paul and the invention of Christianity, (Harper Collins: Barnes & Noble, 1986) p.120
[16] Price, R M, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000), pp. 51–54.
Dave Allens blog 
I saw some weak responses to Tim O’Neal I’ll need assistance of Nazareth could you respond to this Don’t repeat any of your points on Nazareth they just about their bulshit Fear to engage Tim”? What, in your mind, is there to fear? Intellectual bullying? That deserves to be dismissed as the sign of someone who does not want his arguments examined too closely in a civil manner or at all. The reason I have rarely followed up any exchanges one-on-one with him is because it is clear he loves to use others as foils through whom he can relish in his online bombastic persona. The only people who seem to swallow all he says, from my observations in the past, are those who are too busy or lazy to check up his claims and think for themselves. He has no interest in civil debate whatever. What does Tim have to fear? (It’s a truism that bullies of any kind are trying to compensate for some inadequacy.) And I addressed some nonsense of your own in your complaint. What do you mean by the “fear of taking on Tim O’Neill” if not fear of his tongue? What does “fear” have to do with a rational discussion? (By the way, of course O’Neill is a professed atheist — but he’s also an anti-rationalist apologist for religious dogma, however much he tries to deny it with his abusive language.) O’Neill’s comments are welcome here in response on the same condition as everyone else’s are. He is welcome to “deal as he gets” here. I have posted a fact-based and reasoned reply to his anti-rationalist, misinformed and ad hominem attacks on Salm and his arguments. Simply dismissing all this as “peddling fringe theories” is, I suggest, a cowardly excuse for failing to respond civilly and rationally. am not glad but disappointed that you have chosen to avoid the argument of the post and yet defend O’Neill’s bullying apologetics for religion. Reply Let me get this straight. To summarise, Tim O’Neill falsely wrote at the Quodlibet discussion board that the authors of a paper claiming existence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus Christ are “qualified archaeologists.” Neil Godfrey politely pointed out this error, and was assailed with a vicious string of ad hominem abuse and lies from a pack of apologists. Have I missed something? Let me get this straight. To summarise, Tim O’Neill falsely wrote at the Quodlibet discussion board that the authors of a paper claiming existence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus Christ are “qualified archaeologists.” Neil Godfrey politely pointed out this error, and was assailed with a vicious string of ad hominem abuse and lies from a pack of apologists. Have I missed something? Tim O’Neill, Fortigurn and co have blasted me with much more vitriol since. I expected nothing less. I’ve had my say over there. I’ve pointed out Tim’s errors, and not once have I been able to elicit a reply from any of them to address those criticisms or errors in Tim’s original post. Not once. (The closest they have come is quibbling over the meaning of “qualified” in Tim’s original post.) Two different posters actually said they could rebut all that I said but for one reason or another were not going to! So I have said my fare-wells to these venomous buffoons and have no intention of wasting any more time there. Tim is most welcome to post a response here defending himself (or apologizing for his errors) but of course only if he abides by the moderation rules. has crossed my mind to do an article responding point by point to Jonathan Burke’s response to my post, but at the same time I wonder if any constructive purpose would be served. When Jonathan begins his critique by presenting Tim as a “sceptical blogger” and Rene as a “piano teacher” and me as a “librarian” — labels all clearly serving an ad homina and stereotypical functions, and when in subsequent discussion he justifies these labels with mealy-mouthed innocence, one knows one is dealing with a cavilist who will hop back and forth between literal meanings of words and literalist construals on the one hand and their contextual meanings and intent on the other whenever it suits. I responded to a few points on JB’s site but find meaningful discussion impossible with one who cannot even bring himself to admit so basic a point as the patent ad hominem in his opening lines. I stand by everything I have written in my post and JB’s words completely miss each and every one of the substantive points made through his ability to see only the literalist gnats and completely miss the camel in front of him. have invited Tim in other forums to discuss my post but he has declined each time in the manner he finds most congenial to his foul-mouthed showiness. Others have also asked Tim to respond only to be met with similar boorish responses. Meanwhile the tone and distortions of Jonathan Burke speak for themselves, as always. Blood said: “O’Neill is a religious studies apologist, not much different from a plain old church-going apologist. Academia said it, I believe it, that settles it! Never mind that Oxford published William Lane Craig, and so forth….” Given that Tim O’Neill self identifies as an Atheist, I find it difficult to believe that he is some form of religious apologist. Just more of the same old game of rationalizing a myth (Tim O’Neill is a Religious Apologist), a favorite past time of those who fear to engage Tim by reverting to a cavalier dismissal of what he has to say. O’Neill is a religious studies apologist, not much different from a plain old church-going apologist. Academia said it, I believe it, that settles it! Never mind that Oxford published William Lane Craig, and so forth. Just more of the same old game of rationalizing a myth, one of the West’s favorite past-times since the time of Euhemerus. O’Neill is a religious studies apologist, not much different from a plain old church-going apologist. Academia said it, I believe it, that settles it! Never mind that Oxford published William Lane Craig, and so forth. Just more of the same old game of rationalizing a myth, one of the West’s favorite past-times since the time of Euhemerus. is interesting to note that the style of Tim O’Neill hasn’t changed in so many years. He continues to bully others into conceding to his opinions, and this quote from your article still defines very well the scenario: “O’Neill has the ability and patience to dig out many sources but few of his readers would have the like patience or opportunity to actually test his claims by checking those sources for themselves.” Fortunately for him, Tim doesn’t publish any book to put himself under a wider scrutiny. He prefers to profess his “skepticism” from behind his ever- changing blogging platform (he is now writing under his own website, starting from Oct.2015). Fortunately for us, the Internet has a longer memory. Thank you, Neil
LikeLike
is this a good post on Nazareth I think you should read it https://christianstudies.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/godfrey-on-nazareth-defending-rene-salm-against-the-archaeologists/
LikeLiked by 1 person
could I email you something
LikeLike
Respond to this doubt Paul meant “invented.” He didn’t think Adam’s body was invented; nor our future resurrection bodies. He clearly meant “made.”
And the Greeks can’t have invented Christianity. Paul himself attests it originated in Judea and was based in Jerusalem before he even converted to it, and had it merely been a Gentile religion, he would not, as a Pharisee, have been persecuting it as he says he did; and indeed, allowing Gentiles into it without becoming Jews was Paul’s later invention, not the original feature of the church. So your interpretations cannot make any sense of Paul’s letters.
There is also zero evidence for astrological meanings in earliest Christianity. They are entirely constructing it out of scriptural, not astrological, numerology, and from prophecy, not astronomy, following the Jewish model of interpretation called pesher. See my book for evidence and scholarship and and also this doubt Paul meant invented He didn’t think Adam’s body was invented nor our future resumection bodies. He clearly meant “made”
And the Greeks can’t have invented Christianity Paul himself attests t oniginated in Judea and was based in Jerusalem before he even corverted to it and had it merely been a Gentle region, he would not, as a Pharisee have been persecuting it as he says he did, and indeed, allowing Gentiles into it without becoming Jews was Paul’s later invention, not the original feature of the church. So your interpretations cannot make any sense of Paul’s letters.
There is also zero evidence for astringical meanings in earliest Culstianity. They are entirely constructing it out of scriptural, not subhroingical, numerology, and from prophecy, not astronomy, following the Jewish model of interpretation called peshes. See my book for evidence and scholarship
LikeLike
respond to this By your own definition, and based on Carrier’s timeline in the previous comment, John is historicising Jesus, by placing him in Judea around the year 0.
It’s irrelevant that John gave a backstory that included elements that we now know to be mythical… even on the C-D hypothesis Mark believed that Jesus was a real being in a real place. It’s mythical in the sense that we conclude that that place does not exist, not that the authors did. Therefore John is not “mythicising” Jesus by adding those elements.
What John is doing is taking elements of Mark’s allegory (and the subsequent historicisation by the other gospel authors) and is insisting that they actually happened (unlike Mark, who intended them as allegory), and elaborating on them as history. This is what is meant when one says that John is historicising (euhermerising?) the work of Mark.
I’m not sure how this isn’t clear and obvious from what’s been said above? But then, you seem to think that Carrier’s use of the word ‘sperm’ invalidates his argument on the seed of David, so you must be fairly obtuse…Even a liberal Jesus with all the supernatural elements cut out still lays claim to historically enunciating doctrine. The problem of claiming a real person actually taught this or that tenet the historicist wants to call a revelation is simple enough: We have more reason to believe the teachings were mythical as one of Plato’s myths. The indications of secret teachings further undermines the theology, unless one commits to a church claiming continuity with the past. And even then the historical record of changes in any alleged institution preserving the truth seems to require a commitment to continuing revelation. This brings us right back to believing in superstition.
The claim Jesus rose from the dead should make everyone question anything said about the supposed teachings as well. The whole point of historicism is to somehow claim some sort of reality for the religion without openly conceding the superstition.Occam’s razor says that religious figures are apt to lie and their claims in themselves are not evidence. There goes the gospels, and I think Paul too. Not even Acts dares to tell us what became of that guy, whom I always imagine as sounding like Nixon. Philo Judaeus had a particular interest in Pilate’s oppressions, but he knows nothing of Jesus. A Jesus who was not crucified by the Romans? The problems with Josephus’ references are notorious. But even supposing they were real, what does a Jewish sect with some sort of hereditary succession have to do with the Jesus of the Bible? There seems to be a reason why the New Testament loves it multiple uses of common names with no explanation of which is which.
Further, the historicity of Jesus is about insisting a real person taught something, then was murdered, then people made up stories about him. Occam’s razor says, the stories of an apocalyptic cult about their savior to come are not historical, especially not when they decorate their stories with a few random facts. The historicity of Jesus is an incoherent concept, and there is no honorable reason for insisting on it.1. In section Agreements, paragraph 4, line 6, “jesus” should be “Jesus.”
Reply
Richard Carrier
Richard Carrier on December 23, 2019 at 4:07 pmMario, if Luke is writing history why is he plagiarizing the LXX line-by-line?
The raising of the widow’s son is is plagiarized line-by-line from Kings.
You basically contaminated this entire page with your incompetence.
stevenjohnson
stevenjohnson on January 5, 2020 at 8:35 am
Talking about Luke without talking about Acts seems like omitting context to me.This makes sense. Do you think that Mark was composed in parts, then? I ask because your arguments in On the Historicity of Jesus seem to indicate that Mark is a unified whole with a single author.wrote :
Furthermore, in Robert Price’s own Journal of Higher Criticism appeared another article this year discarding Carrier’s rubbish claims on Zalmoxis titled A Thracian Resurrection: Is Zalmoxis a Dying-Rising God who Parallels Jesus? I was amazed Price would publish a response to Carrier, but he did it alright.The following is a log of previous blog article comments by Mario Van Kirk.
“What Did Paul Mean in Romans 1:3?”. Richard Carrier Blogs. 27 November 2019.
“Kamil Gregor on the Historicity of Jesus”. Richard Carrier Blogs. 31 October 2019.
Posting after Carrier rebuts Tim O’Neill per Romans 1:3
Reply
Mario Van Kirk
Mario Van Kirk on January 11, 2020 at 7:02 am
LikeLike
you know any good books on Nazareth I’m kind of bored and have nothing to read do you know any good books on the archeology of Nazareth
LikeLike
hey I have a question I saw a week critique of Maurice Casey bye Richard carrier on his air made queue document could I ask you about it can I ask you to respond to it I’m going to send you an email about it do you mind responding to it by email
LikeLike