The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (89 page)
Read The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus Online
Authors: Rene Salm
[779]
Hom
. 33:1 (Lienhard 134).
[780]
Hom
. 33:3, emphasis added.
[781]
Cf
. Mt 2:22, in contrast to the northern tradition represented by Lk 2:4, 39. Other passages worthy of note include: (a) Hippolytus mentions
Ναζαρετ
but gives no hint as to its location (Ref. V [Marcovich 207:31]). (b) In a corrupt passage, Irenaeus (
c
.130–
c
.200 CE) writes
Ιησου Ναζαρια
while discussing the Marcosians. To my knowledge this form is unattested elsewhere (Harvey 185). (c)
The
Gospel of Philip
(II CE?—NTA I:183) discusses
Nazara
,
Nazorean
, and
Nazarene
, but knows no geographical referent for these terms, which are entirely abstract in meaning and somehow related to “truth” (
GPh
66.14; 62:8; 62:15; 56:12). We shall explore these meanings in a subsequent volume.
[782]
Nazareth (with
theta
) is represented in some witnesses.
[783]
’
Ιησου̑ Ναζαρηνέ
at Mk 1:24;
’
Ιησου̑ ο͑ Ναζαρηνός (Ναζωραιος/Ναζωρηνος)
at 10:47;
’Ιησου̑ν τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν
at 16:6. Various English translations of Mk 14:67 (του̑ Ναζαρηνου̑ ἠ̑σθα του̑
’Ιησου̑) exist: “with Jesus of Nazareth” (KJV); “with the Nazarene, Jesus” (RSV); “with Jesus, the man from Nazareth” (NRSV).
[784]
Mt 2:22–23; 21:11.
[785]
The closest related name would be
Gennesaret
(also
Gennasaret
), the fertile plain on the northwestern side of the Sea of Galilee, adjacent to the reputed site of Jesus’ activity at Capernaum. But Mt 4:13 shows that Nazareth is not on the Sea of Galilee: “…and leaving Nazara he went and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea...” Jesus goes from Nazareth to Capernaum, showing that the two places were quite separate in the mind of the evangelist. Finally, the use of “Nazara” or “Nazaret” for
Gennasaret
is unknown elsewhere.
[786]
The literature on Nazara and its cognates is extensive. For initial studies see H. Schaeder, “Nazarênos, Nazôraios” in Kittel 1933–73; F. C. Burkitt, “The Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names,” (
Proceedings of the British Academy
, 1911–12, London 1912); and W. F. Albright, “The Names ‘Nazareth’ and ‘Nazoraean’” in
JBL
vol. 65 no.2:397–401).
[787]
Ναζαρὲθ and Ναζαρὰθ occur in a number of mss. at 4:13, but not in the best witnesses nor in Origin’s citation of the passage. They also appear in 2:23 in a few witnesses.
[788]
Bultmann 1963:293; Koester 1990:318.
[789]
Lk 1:26; 2:4, 39, 51.
[790]
The borders of Zebulun are given at Josh 19:10–16.
[791]
On the relation of Mt 4:16 and Lk 4:13
ff
., see Tannehill 64–65.
[792]
See Grässer 7; Tannehill 65.
[793]
Sometimes considered the earliest uncial,
Codex Bezae
(D) adds at this point: “by the sea in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali,” similar to Mt 4:13 (
cf
. above).
[794]
Bultmann 1963:31, who writes that Mark 6:1–6 is itself “a typical example of how an imaginary situation is built up out of an independent saying.”
[795]
Mk 1:12–13; 35; 45; 6:31–35; and parallels.
[796]
RS 81 corrected from “fig. 235:7–8.”
[797]
These lamps were found in kokh tombs and thus date after c. 50 CE. The beginning of the bow-spouted lamps was finalized by V. Sussman in the 1980s, after RS and Fernandez published their works, which date the lamp’s appearance too early. On this point, see discussion at Chapter 4, pp. 167–172.
[798]
Corrected (“left” in RS).
[799]
Corrected (“fig. 192:7–10” in RS).
[800]
Corrected (“Nos. 10–11” in RS).
[801]
Fernandez’ problematic datings (some of which conflict with Bagatti and others, and are unsustainably early—see Chapter 4, n. 52; above pp. 271–272) are included here for completeness, as he has dated a considerable quantity of Nazareth material.
[802]
Fernandez is unaware of the local Galilean tradition to which this nozzle belongs (Pt. 3:16
ff
.). He writes: Desgraciadamente no contamos con ningún punto de apoyo directo para fijar una datación a este tipo (“Unfortunately, we cannot count on any direct point of support in order to fix a date for this type.” Fernandez 63). Perhaps swayed by the “Hellenistic” characterizations of the shard in the literature, he ventures an early date for it:
c
. 80 BCE–40 BCE (Fernandez 105;
cf
. Pt 3:25).
[803]
Fernandez is unaware of the appearance of this lamp type only after Herod the Great’s reign (d. 4 BCE), and of its later appearance in the Galilee. Also, the Spaniard’s very early
terminus ante quem
(60 CE) is not followed by Sussman, Rosenthal, or others. This Nazareth lamp was found in a kokh tomb (post-50 CE).
[804]
As with the preceding note, the
terminus ante quem
is far too early. These lamps continued to be made through the Bar Cochba revolt (see Chp. 4:169). In kokh tomb.
[805]
This “ovoid jar” (
Exc
. fig. 217:4) is dated by Bagatti to Late Roman times, “III–IV CE” (see Appendix 6).
[806]
Bagatti dates this artefact IV–V CE (with remaining contents of cistern 51b–c).
[807]
Fernandez compares the cooking pot (T. 10.5) to a type (T. 1.5) studied by Loffreda at Capernaum and also dated egregiously early. Even Bagatti knows nothing of these early dates. The Italian assigns the jug (192:22) to later Roman times (after “the period of the kokhim tombs” ), by comparison with a similar jug “seen in the Laham collection” (192:20,
cf
.
Exc
. 240). In any case, both the jug and cooking pot were found in kokh tombs, as were also the bow-spouted oil lamps (L.3.2; L.3.4b), all of which Fernandez dates to BCE times. This is quite impossible, if only because the kokh tomb did not arrive in the Galilee until
c
. 50 CE
[808]
Another anomalously early dating, which Fernandez admits is wholly hypothetical (he represents the entire dating range on his chart [p. 231] with a dotted rather than a solid line). In all of Palestine, the Spaniard offers only two extant examples of this type of bowl: one from Nazareth and one from Beth Shan. However, the Beth Shan artefact (no. 549 p. 131) is itself problematic, for cataloguing information is not given and thus it is unverifiable (see discussion of this issue in text above, pp. 271–2), though Bagatti signals that it is in the Nazareth museum (Exc. 296). In contrast to the Spaniard, the Italian dates the other artefacts in his diagram (
Exc
. fig. 231:7–10, 12–20) to “around the 3rd century [CE]” (
Exc
. 298).
[809]
Bagatti arbitrarily associates the two stone vessels (Exc. 318) with kokh tombs, but they were not found in tombs and there is no evident correlation of the one with the other (
cf
. Chapter 4, pp. 181–5).
[810]
RB 30 [1921], pp. 434–438.
[811]
P. Geyer,
Itinera Hierosolymitana Saeculi iiii–viii
(1898), p. 161.
[812]
Eutychius,
Annales
212: PG CXI 1083.
[813]
The passage was copied word-for-word by the Venerable Bede in his
Liber de Locis Sanctis
of 720 CE. I am indebted for the information in this and many of the following notes to Baldi-Bagatti 1937:230
ff
.
[814]
Baldi-Bagatti 233. The Roman Catholic tradition emphasizes that in Judaism betrothal is tantamount to marriage (
cf
. Deut 22:23).
Table of Contents
Chapter One The Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages
Chapter Two The Myth of Continuous Habitation The Great Hiatus: Part I (732– 332 BCE)
Chapter Three The Hellenistic Renaissance Myth The Great Hiatus: Part II (332– 63 BCE)
Chapter Four The Time of Christ The Great Hiatus: Part III (63 BCE – 70 CE)