Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2014, 04:09 PM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(27-01-2014 09:43 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Robert Price makes a very convincing argument suggesting that Nazareth and the sect of the Nazarenes have no connection.

Has anyone actually read Rene Salm's book?

That's interesting! Have you got a link? Bart Ehrman and many others think the same (me included...although I'm not putting myself in their league.)

This thread is a blast from the past. I reread the whole damn thing with interest. Malekan repeatedly suggests I'm making things up. He also almost always seems to believe the "traditional story," maybe not the stuff about miracles et cetera, but he takes for granted many of the tales about Jesus as being truthful. He doesn't seem to appreciate the essential Jewishness of Jesus, and seems to think that the gospels are bona fides records of Jesus' life.

He may be very knowledgeable in certain specific areas, but I strongly suspect he doesn't get the "big picture."

I've also gained an appreciation on rereading this how hard it is to chisel away at people's preconceived notions.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 09:39 AM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2014 02:07 PM by anonymous66.)
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(28-01-2014 04:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 09:43 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  Robert Price makes a very convincing argument suggesting that Nazareth and the sect of the Nazarenes have no connection.

Has anyone actually read Rene Salm's book?

That's interesting! Have you got a link? Bart Ehrman and many others think the same (me included...although I'm not putting myself in their league.)

This thread is a blast from the past. I reread the whole damn thing with interest. Malekan repeatedly suggests I'm making things up. He also almost always seems to believe the "traditional story," maybe not the stuff about miracles et cetera, but he takes for granted many of the tales about Jesus as being truthful. He doesn't seem to appreciate the essential Jewishness of Jesus, and seems to think that the gospels are bona fides records of Jesus' life.

He may be very knowledgeable in certain specific areas, but I strongly suspect he doesn't get the "big picture."

I've also gained an appreciation on rereading this how hard it is to chisel away at people's preconceived notions.
A quick google search brought me to this review of Salm's book by Price. http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/r...zereth.htm where he briefly touches on the subject.

I've heard Price speak of the interpolation (Nazareth vs Nazarene) on the Bible Geek podcast a few times. He's made it clear that he believes it's unlikely the 2 words are related.
You can hear him talk about it briefly, here.
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-20430/TS-822855.mp3 - at about 5 minutes


Can you supply a link where Ehrman discusses the issue? I also thought I found something that suggested Ehrman believed it was an interpolation, but couldn't find it again later... Interesting because the name of Ehrman's book is Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
I've been reading Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth and Zindler flat out suggests that Ehrman needs to change the title of the book to "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of someplace or other ".

In Salm's portion of Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth, Salm suggests that the issue of archeology at the site is not as cut and dried as some try to make it sound. He suggests that the town they're excavating was called Japhia when it was inhabited in ancient times, and that it wasn't called Nazareth until after Jesus supposed death.
He also notes that Christians want to make it a tourist attraction (they had $60 million towards the project in 2008) and that there is some conflict of interest, because Stephan Pfann, who wrote some of the archeological papers concerning the site, is also connected to the tourism project.

And of course, Salm still claims there is nothing to suggest it was inhabited during the time that Jesus supposedly lived, despite the fact they've been looking for centuries.

You can hear James Randi make a 10 minute summation of the controversy (from 2010) here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 04:20 PM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(29-01-2014 09:39 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 04:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  That's interesting! Have you got a link? Bart Ehrman and many others think the same (me included...although I'm not putting myself in their league.)

This thread is a blast from the past. I reread the whole damn thing with interest. Malekan repeatedly suggests I'm making things up. He also almost always seems to believe the "traditional story," maybe not the stuff about miracles et cetera, but he takes for granted many of the tales about Jesus as being truthful. He doesn't seem to appreciate the essential Jewishness of Jesus, and seems to think that the gospels are bona fides records of Jesus' life.

He may be very knowledgeable in certain specific areas, but I strongly suspect he doesn't get the "big picture."

I've also gained an appreciation on rereading this how hard it is to chisel away at people's preconceived notions.
A quick google search brought me to this review of Salm's book by Price. http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/r...zereth.htm where he briefly touches on the subject.

I've heard Price speak of the interpolation (Nazareth vs Nazarene) on the Bible Geek podcast a few times. He's made it clear that he believes it's unlikely the 2 words are related.
You can hear him talk about it briefly, here.
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-20430/TS-822855.mp3 - at about 5 minutes


Can you supply a link where Ehrman discusses the issue? I also thought I found something that suggested Ehrman believed it was an interpolation, but couldn't find it again later... Interesting because the name of Ehrman's book is Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
I've been reading Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth and Zindler flat out suggests that Ehrman needs to change the title of the book to "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of someplace or other ".

In Salm's portion of Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth, Salm suggests that the issue of archeology at the site is not as cut and dried as some try to make it sound. He suggests that the town they're excavating was called Japhia when it was inhabited in ancient times, and that it wasn't called Nazareth until after Jesus supposed death.
He also notes that Christians want to make it a tourist attraction (they had $60 million towards the project in 2008) and that there is some conflict of interest, because Stephan Pfann, who wrote some of the archeological papers concerning the site, is also connected to the tourism project.

And of course, Salm still claims there is nothing to suggest it was inhabited during the time that Jesus supposedly lived, despite the fact they've been looking for centuries.

You can hear James Randi make a 10 minute summation of the controversy (from 2010) here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY

I made a mistake re Bart in post 85...it wasn't a quote from his book but someone else's....sorry
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
My studies indicate that Nazareth was a very small hamlet in which was inhabited by a sub-sect of the Essene, called the Nazarene. They had a very similar belief system as the Essene, but unlike the Essene, this sub-sect chose not to keep their beliefs to themselves and remain isolated, but instead felt it was their duty to spread the "good word" of the so-called "Coming of the Kingdom of God."

They were a priestly community.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 05:12 PM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(31-01-2014 05:04 PM)Free Wrote:  My studies indicate that Nazareth was a very small hamlet in which was inhabited by a sub-sect of the Essene, called the Nazarene. They had a very similar belief system as the Essene, but unlike the Essene, this sub-sect chose not to keep their beliefs to themselves and remain isolated, but instead felt it was their duty to spread the "good word" of the so-called "Coming of the Kingdom of God."

They were a priestly community.

Agreed.

Except I don't think they lived in a place called Nazareth. You don't name a religious sect after an obscure hamlet. They were called Nazarenes for some other reason. John the baptist lived "in the wilderness" near Qumran. James, allegedly Jesus' brother, and the other disciples, lived in Jerusalem.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 05:16 PM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2014 05:20 PM by Free.)
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(31-01-2014 05:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(31-01-2014 05:04 PM)Free Wrote:  My studies indicate that Nazareth was a very small hamlet in which was inhabited by a sub-sect of the Essene, called the Nazarene. They had a very similar belief system as the Essene, but unlike the Essene, this sub-sect chose not to keep their beliefs to themselves and remain isolated, but instead felt it was their duty to spread the "good word" of the so-called "Coming of the Kingdom of God."

They were a priestly community.

Agreed.

Except I don't think they lived in a place called Nazareth. You don't name a religious sect after an obscure hamlet. They were called Nazarenes for some other reason. John the baptist lived "in the wilderness" near Qumran. James, allegedly Jesus' brother, and the other disciples, lived in Jerusalem.

Actually, the hamlet was named after the religious sect. Nazareth did not exist until the Nazarene occupied the land.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 05:21 PM
Re: RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(31-01-2014 05:16 PM)Free Wrote:  
(31-01-2014 05:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Agreed.

Except I don't think they lived in a place called Nazareth. You don't name a religious sect after an obscure hamlet. They were called Nazarenes for some other reason. John the baptist lived "in the wilderness" near Qumran. James, allegedly Jesus' brother, and the other disciples, lived in Jerusalem.

Actually, the hamlet was named after the religious sect. Nazareth did not exist until the Nazarene occupied the land.

If anything it was renamed.

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 09:17 PM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(31-01-2014 05:04 PM)Free Wrote:  My studies indicate that Nazareth was a very small hamlet in which was inhabited by a sub-sect of the Essene, called the Nazarene. They had a very similar belief system as the Essene, but unlike the Essene, this sub-sect chose not to keep their beliefs to themselves and remain isolated, but instead felt it was their duty to spread the "good word" of the so-called "Coming of the Kingdom of God."

They were a priestly community.

I'd love to read more about this. What sources would you recommend? Do you think Salm is on the right track with his theories?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 09:30 PM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
The Nazorites were an ancient group of Jewish ascetics.
Amos 2.11 it reads "I also raised up prophets from among your sons and Nazirites from among your young men."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-02-2014, 12:17 AM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(31-01-2014 09:17 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(31-01-2014 05:04 PM)Free Wrote:  My studies indicate that Nazareth was a very small hamlet in which was inhabited by a sub-sect of the Essene, called the Nazarene. They had a very similar belief system as the Essene, but unlike the Essene, this sub-sect chose not to keep their beliefs to themselves and remain isolated, but instead felt it was their duty to spread the "good word" of the so-called "Coming of the Kingdom of God."

They were a priestly community.

I'd love to read more about this. What sources would you recommend? Do you think Salm is on the right track with his theories?

You might find this interesting...

The Nazarenes

Yeshua was a Nazarene, as stated in the bible: Acts referred to
“Jesus Christ the Nazarene” (Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9, NJB.) Most Christians assume the term “Nazarene” referred to the fact that Jesus came from the village of Nazareth. This was, after all, what Matthew claimed, (Matt. 2:23) but Nazareth the place was probably not the real origin of the term. On (almost) every occasion that Jesus was referred to as being “of Nazareth,” the real meaning is “the Nazarene” (http://www.essene.com/What is a Nazarene.htm.) As mentioned, Nazareth the village probably didn’t exist in Yeshua’s time. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY). Calling him Jesus “of Nazareth” was a ploy to distract from his sectarian affiliations. The bible made it clear the term “Nazarene” referred to a sect, when in the book of Acts, Paul is accused of being a Nazarene.

“The plain truth is that we find this man a perfect pest; he stirs up trouble among Jews the world over, and is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.” (Acts 24:5, NJB.) An important religious sect would not have been named after an obscure Galilean village.

Hugh Schonfield, who devoted his life to studying Judaism and Yeshua, claims Nazarenism was an ancient version of Judaism. (http://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A"Hugh J.Schonfield" AND subject%3A"Nazarenes"). He thought the original founder of the Nazarene sect may have been a Jewish-Arabian prophet named Essa in approximately 400 BCE. So, if he was right, they were already well established in Jesus’ time.

Many eminent scholars have linked the Nazarenes with the Essenian sect at Qumran. One might consider the Nazarene sect a strongly developed messianic form of “Essenism.” (http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/TrimmNazars.htm).

John the Baptist, Yeshua’s family, disciples and followers were all Nazarenes. The “pillars” Paul refers to (James, Peter, and John) in his second letter to the Galatians, were the leaders and key figures of this group after Yeshua’s death. They too were Jews, not Christians. They practiced circumcision, believed in baptism, and were strict about the Sabbath. They were vegetarians who didn't approve of the slaughter of animals, either for food or sacrifice. They developed their own “Halacha,” which was their interpretation of the Torah. They were true believers in the power and glory of Israel, saw themselves as God's chosen people, and were vehemently opposed to the Romans. I think they were zealots, willing to take the Romans on, which was why the Roman world considered a Nazarene “a pest” who “stirs up trouble among Jews the world over.”

They considered the temple was the house of God, but were opposed to the Sadducees who they regarded as Roman collaborators. They had a broad base of support among Jews throughout Judea and much of the Roman Empire. Many ordinary Jews and Pharisees would have considered the Nazarenes brothers in the struggle against Rome.

Yeshua became their chief after John the Baptist’s death, and he remained in charge for (probably) a few years. Leadership was inherited from blood relations, which explains it passing from John the Baptist to Yeshua, and after Yeshua’s death, on to James, his brother.

James and the other Nazarenes didn’t think Yeshua was the son of God, or that he needed to die to save anyone from their sins (http://www.petahtikvah.com/Articles/nazarenes.htm). They believed he was a (human) prophet who they hoped could be Israel’s messiah.

We read very little about this group in the pages of history because mainly Gentiles wrote that history, and the early Christians ignored the Nazarenes, or wrote them off as heretics, or tried to claim that some of them believed in the divinity of Christ. I think the modern reader interested in Jesus should be interested in their story.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: