Meaning of Nazareth?

[Secret Alias]

If Jesus was originally a historical figure (Joshua was such a common name that there could have been hundreds if not a thousand "Joshuas" in the first century) one would think that his hometown would be a settled historical fact. The fact that it isn't - in the face of a chorus of Patristic witnesses of "genealogies" and counter-arguments of pre-orthodox traditions like the Marcionites saying Jesus had no mortal mother or father makes the appeal to "Nazareth" as Jesus's birth town coupled I must add with "Nazarene" being used to mean something like "priest" or "knower" (I forget) among the Mandaeans. More likely to be a title than a birthplace IMHO. Just as we have seen that "Chrestos" could mirror "Christos" (or possibly vice versa depending on one's prejudice) abbreviation likely developed "two Jesuses" in early Christianity. The Primal God "Man" (from the abbreviation IC) and "Joshua." Man is more fitting to the Marcionite heavenly figure for reasons I have stated and restated a million times here at the forum. I think I am right. Others think they are right. Fine. But I think it is imperative to see the Marcionites couldn't have called him "Joshua" nor "Christ" and that Justin seems to acknowledge in some form both "Man" and "Chrestos." Which is earliest is debatable. But the idea that only the historical "Jesus of Nazareth who thought he was Christ Son of David" argument "fits" the historical information from earliest Christianity has to be admitted to be not entirely true.

[rgprice]

On the instability of Jesus's birthplace. Ephrem's Diatessaron which witnesses he and Marcion's gospel having Bethsaida in place of Nazareth at the beginning of the gospel. Note also the Marcionite and John's gospel having Jesus appear first in Judea (likely both also Jerusalem at his "father's house"). Whether or not we all agree there was a "supernatural Jesus gospel" with a visit of the "supernatural Son" visiting his "supernatural Father" at what is purported to be their "supernatural home[town?] i.e Jerusalem there is a case to be made that all these alleged birthplace (Bethlehem, Nazareth, Bethsaida, Capernaum) were successive attempts to obscure the "supernatural" Marcionite gospel. The gospel of (the?) Yoizel as my ancestors would call him.

The Marcionite Gospel has him starting out in Capernaum, not Judea. What's this about Bethsaida? I thought the Marcionite Gospel had Nazara?

[Secret Alias]

No it doesn't. Man. Learn your primary sources. The worst quality of humanity is sheep mentality. I've said 1000 times. Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem is CLEARLY a development of Irenaeus's original effort to "disprove Marcion by means of the gospel of Luke passages RETAINED by Marcion in his gospel." By a clear pattern of "literary adoption" (cf. Adv Valent and many other works) Tertullian is arguing by proxy from Irenaeus's canon against Marcion. Just like Adv Valent has Tertullian literally take over statements of Irenaeus, so Adversus Marcionem. Irenaeus's canon was Galatians first so we read the arrangement in Tertullian. The first "retained" passage in Marcion's gospel is the Capernaum passage which in Ephrem and Marcion is identified as Bethsaida. Bethsaida is in Jerusalem in John which agrees with many statements that the Marcionite gospel began with a descent into Judea.

[Secret Alias]

The Church Fathers are not scholars or men of science. They are like the people at this forum. They have an agenda and do not report facts honestly or fairly. It's human nature to be dishonest. Men of science act unnaturally.

[rgprice]

So you've said, but that doesn't make it so. At any rate, where does the claim that Marcion's Gospel identified the place of Jesus' "descent" as Bethsaida come from? And John says, "Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee", so Bethsaida is in Galilee according to John.

[Secret Alias]

Are you disputing that Irenaeus, Origen and a sixth century Syriac source all witness a Judean descent? The desire for certainty is a problem.

[Secret Alias]

I've always hate the "we know so and so" argument for reliability. We don't know Tertullian. We just know him better than a person we have no information about. That's hardly a ringing endorsement for familiarity.

[dabber]

I think Nazirite theory is an interesting one. John the Baptist recorded as being a Nazirite from birth. Jesus with his baptism in the synoptics may have been Jesus joining John's baptism/Nazirite movement. The words of last supper are a Nazirite vow, “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom,” and Paul taking multiple Nazirite vows in Acts 18:18, 21:22-24, 24:5. Decades later when the synoptics written details were sketchy so having to fill in the gaps as best they could.

I think the very late gospel of John may be trying to overturn all this, by making John Baptist very subordinate to Jesus, and have Jesus first miracle at Cana water into wine, the true vine etc. Overturning his baptism and connections to Judaism.

[rgprice]

@SA I'm genuinely asking for the sources of your claims. I haven't read every line of every church father. Citations?

[rgprice]

Thinking about this more, it seems to me that the writer of the Gospel may have used Nazarene as a way to avoid using the term "Christ", at least early on.

The writer of the Gospel does a lot to mask the identity of Jesus and to make the true identity of Jesus a mystery. The true identity of Jesus is something the reader, and the characters in the story, are supposed to puzzle over.

23 Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, 24 saying, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus the Nazarene? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”

I think that the writer calls Jesus "the Nazarene" as a name for the one who will become "Christ".

Jesus -- "[the] sanctified nazireon shall be the-God-the-child from the [womb]".

So the writer calls him the nazireon because he will become the Christ on the cross. He is the one "destined to become the Christ".

So either "the nazireon" was a way of not calling him the Christ in order to mask that identity early on, or he was called "the nazireon" because he was in fact "not yet the Christ" (thought he was destined to be).