Nazareth/Nazarite....answers?

by peacefulpete 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TR

  I like Nazareth. Saw them in concert several years ago. GOD I love being able to play with the big boys and contribute to these deep topics!

  TR
• 

  simplesally

  I can understand if it was not on the records if it was such a small "sprout-town" or what we'd call a suburban city. Many cities have unincorporated areas or small neighboring towns that no one knows about. I grew up in Colma and Daly City, most people just say San Francisco, or the Bay Area when talking to people who don't know the Bay Area. According to the Insight book, the most common view of commentators is that Nazareth was then a rather secluded, insignificant village. It was near trade routes, but not on them; it was very close to Tiberias (5 hours), Ptolemais (7 hours) and Jerusalem was a 3 day walk.
• 

  JCanon

  This thread was not about the archeaological evidence per se, it was about how the Gospel of Mark and likely Q used the word. It is entirely plausable and consistent with the known facts that the word meant, not a village, but the Essene Nazarite vows. Later authors or redactors simply misunderstood the term and wrongly assumed it to be a reference to a village that by that time did exist.

  Oh I see. I can relate to that as well, and that is an interesting premise.

  But one final word on the archaeology. It was brought up and at this point believed that as a metropolis, it was not recognized until the second century. Plus it also pointedly stated that it would seem that some artifacts from earlier would have been found but none have.

  Well then I find out that nearby there is evidence of people being there much earlier. Then you say, sorry "a farm" is not a city. So you can't blame me for just shaking my head at this point, since as I noted, there are so many reasonable explanations for the "circumstantial" lack of artifactual evidence of an earlier town called "nazareth" in that primary location, the foremost of which is the fact that some of these little towns started off in some small area and then the main city ended up developing nearby. So I would guess the original little town is somewhere else. In fact, the lackof ancient artifacts in this larger town suggests just that.

  Also, some towns had the SAME name but were known to be in different locations. And as far as that one farm goes, that is PROOF that there was a farm there. Can be presume there were not others? And if there were just a few people and they built the city in a new area or excavated to a foundation, etc. THERE WOULD BE NO ARTIFACTS. Why archaeologists think that every city dies and then someone builds on top of the ruins so that there is a nice neat chronology to follow, I have no idea, but it's just not preemptive of other scensarios. It's possible NOTHING was left remaining of the older city if they cleaned up well enough. We just don't know. Anyway, I'm satisfied that the debate goes on...I'll wait to see what else comes up. Now onto the Essenes thing which is slightly more interesting anyway...

  I'll rereview the comments. As it is you're saying that Mary and Josephus and all their children grew up in an Essene community and thus Jesus was known as being an "Essene", the term translated commonly as "Nazarene"? Interesting...

  I'll get back to you.

  Canon
• 

  JCanon

  The question has exercised a number of Christian theologians as to which of the prophets was being referred to, as there exists no such sect or grouping identifiable as "Nazarenes" in any of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament. Marginal references in printed New Testaments often refer to Isaiah 11:1, which states:

  'And a rod proceeds from the stump of Jesse, and a branch will bear fruit out of his roots.'

  I did finally review the article and see what was being said. I tend to be with others here that this whole argument to imagine this was not really a town AND that somehow several references misunderstood the reference is somewhere I'm not able to go, especially when Joseph is said to have gone to that city in Judah, etc. There is too much context to ignore for an error in spelling. Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

  On the other hand, I can see why there is some concern about no evidence for that city being found that would date to earlier times, but interesting a town by that name did show up later. I don't have an explanation for that, but imagine one might show up.

  But getting onto the above reference, I'm glad I saw this. It would seem to me that it is the Isaiah reference that is being under assessed. It's possible that the use of "branch" in this case, particularly since it mentions this branch would "bear fruit", that it more specifically is understood in common usage as a reference to a eunuch; that is, an otherwise, fruitless branch. In fact, this is almost clearly the reference since the bearing of fruit seems to be in contrast with just a branch or sprout coming forth.

  Still, the fact that Pilate wrote "Jesus the Nazarene" on his sign for the cross is a little more curious. That is, it is more likely this common reference is to his trade, even if connected with his city. For instance, "Mary Magdalene" might have been a reference to to where she came from but synonymously where that town perfected the training of professional mades and housekeepers. If we applied that to Jesus, then "Nazareth", related to "branch", could have in some way become the name of this city if it was a town dedicated to carpentry, raising the question as to whether "Nazarene" could be a term understood as referring to not simply a carpenter but someone who came from a town which perfected carpenters in some way. ???

  If there was something to support that this subculture often named towns after their principal activity and a person gained a title from perfecting whatever trade was focussed on, and that was common enough in those days, then it would explain why Jesus was called the "Nazarene" , being a local reference to his place of residence as well as his trade.

  I know that's a stretch, but just a notch less of a stretch I think trying to claim Jesus was an Essene I think.

  Just some thoughts.

  Thanks again though, it is clear that "branch" does more specifically refer to a eunuch and the eunuchoid nature of the Messiah at the second coming is a focus in scripture that has to be fulfilled. Perhaps this is the parallel for the first coming messiah.

  Canon
• 

  peacefulpete

  What can I say, your logic and objective analysis are mind boggling. Please do not respond to serious posts since you feel that being a Bible Literalist means evidence is irrelevant.
• 

  JCanon

  What can I say, your logic and objective analysis are mind boggling. Please do not respond to serious posts since you feel that being a Bible Literalist means evidence is irrelevant.

  I hope you realize that your position is one of "bias" as well since what is considered as "evidence" is a matter of subjective opinion.

  For instance, evolutionists will get some kind of a radiocarbon clock or some other kind of dating they THINK they understand and come up with all kinds of wild dates about the age of man and the earth and call it "scientific evidnece" then can't figure out why Creationists are laughing at them. The reason being, IF the Bible is true, say about the age of man and the scientists come up with something far different it simply means their methods are dysfunctional and incompetent.

  Same here to an extent. Lots of your "evidence" is based upon subjective presumptions and conclusions that would not be considered as "evidence" sufficent for me whether I believed in the Bible or not. I'm just extremely critical and when people start to make excuse after excuse to make a point, unless it's labelled as "supposition" and "opinion" I reject it. \

  So what can I say? I believe you totally are convinced about your position so that my rejection or implied rejection is not a "serious" response. You're entitled to that OPINION...but it is just that, an opinion.

  Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this point.

  Canon
• 

  peacefulpete

  why are you stil here?
• 

  JCanon

  why are you stil here?

  You must be mistaken. I was never here. Or does that actually apply to you?

  Canon
• 

  Kenneson

  Not everyone agrees that Nazareth did not exist in the first century. It certainly was inhabited. Not only were there farms, with pottery dating to that era, but there were watchtowers, quarries and olive crushers, terraces, cisterns and silos hewn from rock, and tombs as well.

  http://www.facingthechallenge.org/nazareth.htm

  Moreover, PaulBurnett, in "Behind the Scenes of the New Testament", IVP:1990, page 42 states:

  "After the Jewish war with the Romans A.D. 66-70 it was necessary to resettle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from Christian sources...Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise."