Loading...When you ask most anyone where Jesus came from, they will say he was born in Bethlehem. The reason is not hard to find: the only references to Jesus’ birth in the New Testament squarely place his birth in Bethlehem. There are, as many of you know, only two passages of the New Testament that narrate the events surrounding Jesus’ birth: Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2. And they both agree in placing it in Bethlehem. (Neither of the other Gospels says anything about it, nor do any of the other 23 books of the New Testament.)
And yet there are compelling reasons for questioning that view, so that a large number of critical scholars – even prominent Roman Catholic scholars – think that it is more likely that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Let me explain why.
The first thing to stress is that
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
As many of you know, there are disputes and disagreements about which criteria are most fruitful for historians who are trying to establish what probably happened in the past. This applies not only to historians of early Christianity, but to all historians of any kind – whether they are trying to figure out what actually happened in the life of Napoleon, Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, or … Jesus.
When historians try to establish the past, they obviously need sources of information. Without sources of information, there is no access to past events. And so the question always is: what kinds of sources are most useful for historians (or for anyone else) who want to know what happened? Well, there are a number of things on a historian’s wish list when it comes to sources. The historian wants:
- Lots of sources – the more the better (one source is good; twenty sources are fantastic);
- From about the time of the person/event under investigation (hopefully contemporary sources; if not that, the earlier the better)
- Hopefully from eyewitnesses (this would obviously not guarantee the accuracy of a report. But it’s better than second-hand or thirty-third hand reports.)
- Which are not obviously biased toward the subject matter, but are – in one respect or another (hopefully lots of respects) — disinterested
- Which corroborate one another’s reports (so that basically they give the same account)
- Without having collaborated with one another (that is, they are independent witnesses, not influenced by what the others have said, and yet give the same basic account).
When it comes to the historical Jesus, in light of this wish list, there is both good news and bad news. The bad news is that we do not have any eyewitness reports – not a single one – from Jesus’ day; the reports come to us from decades later; the accounts are all written by people who deeply and vigorously believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was raised from the dead (they are not disinterested authors); some of them utilized one another (i.e., they “collaborated” in a sense: Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q, e.g.); and they are often at odds with one another (so there are lots of their reports that are not corroborated)
But from the half-glass-full-good-news perspective is this: we do have multiple sources, from within 70 years of Jesus death, some of which are independent with one another (either in toto or in part – e.g., Mark did not know Q; John did not know Matthew; Paul had not read the Gospels; etc.); that sometimes (not that often: but *sometimes*) report information that appears disinterested; and that in many instances (maybe not the majority, but in many) corroborate what one another has said.
So we have a mixed bag when it comes to our sources of information about Jesus. But if we can find reports in these sources that are made multiple times, by independent sources (e.g., reports in Mark, and M, and John, and Paul), in which there seems to be *disinterested* reporting (where the author has nothing to be gained by saying something in particular about Jesus) – then we are probably hearing something that is historical, as opposed to something that has been “made up” by one Christian author or another.
The report that Jesus came from Nazareth passes these historical tests.
- It is independently attested in multiple sources (Mark; M; L; and John). That means that no *one* of them made it up – since none of them got it from the other, and they are not dependent on the same sources, the report goes way back, long before any of them wrote it down.
- And it is a surprisingly disinterested report. No one gets any Christian “mileage” out of claiming that Jesus came from Nazareth. Why would a Christian make up *that* report? Nazareth was a little one-horse town (it wasn’t even a one-horse town; more like a one-dog town) that was completely insignificant and trivial. It is not mentioned in the Jewish Scriptures or in Josephus. The first time its name appears is in the New Testament. As we know from the archaeological digs at the site, it was a little backwoods hamlet, thoroughly impoverished, with no sign of any wealth or any culture. No school. No synagogue. No nuttin’. About fifty very primitive houses and very primitive and rather vile living conditions.
If someone wanted to *make up* a place that Jesus had come from, would it be *that* place? Evidence that Christians were puzzled by the fact that Jesus came from there is found throughout the New Testament. “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). It was a genuine question. It was not that everything that came from Nazareth was *bad*. It was that it was completely *insignificant*. And people had trouble believing that an important figure would come from there. Which shows they didn’t invent the idea that their important figure came from there.
That is to say, if Christians wanted to invent a place of origin for Jesus, would it be such a dirt-poor rural uncultured no-place? More likely they would pick somewhere *significant*: Bethlehem (whence the Messiah was supposed to come, Micah 5:2); Jerusalem (the capitol of Judea); Rome (the capital of the world), etc.
And so the conclusion seems very strong indeed. That Nazareth was Jesus’ hometown is attested abundantly, throughout our sources, independently of one another; and it appears to be a completely disinterested report. So Jesus really came from Nazareth. But was he *born* there? I’ll continue my reflections in my next post
How did the traditional Christmas story (e.g., Angelic choir, 3-kings, frankincense, myrrh, gold, etc. develop?)
Some are biblical (gold, frankinscence, and myrhh) and some not (3 kings; Matthew only says that it was a group of Magi; the 3 comes from teh fact there were three gifts, i.e., from a faulty deduction). The entire story comes by combining what is in Matthew with what is in Luke and adding a few legendary touches!
The same argument – disinterest – applies to the crucifixion. It was such a problem for the Jesus Movement that they would not have focused on it if it hadn’t happened. (I use this point against those who argue that Jesus never existed.)
The Talmud calls the disinterest argument “meego,” by the way. It’s useful in evaluating trial evidence.
Jesus’ base of operations in Galilee seems to have been Capernaum, right? Was this because at the time it was a greater population center? Or did it have some other significance?
thanks
‘
It’s hard to say. My sense is that it was a bit larger than his home turf, was on the lake of Galilee where there was good transportation (boats!), and because his main disciples (Peter, Andrew, James, and John) were from.
No heavily pregnant woman could ride a donkey from Nazareth to Bethlehem and no Roman census required people to travel thus. But the Scriptures had to be fulfilled,so Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem.
Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem.But that doesn’t automatically determine that he was born in Nazareth.There is no historical proof of that,it seems.
Unfortunately,Hebrew names are always distorted in transliteration.The result is that much information “encoded” in Hebrew is lost.
The name Nazareth in Hebrew is and was נָצְרַת,Natzrat in modern Hebrew,and very likely Notzrat(first “a” phoneme changed into “o “because of punctuation).
Notzrat means “of the Nazorean”,in Hebrew, ” (the city)of the Notzri”,meaning “(the city )of the Christian”.The word Christian can be written in Hebrew in 3 different ways.
The conclusion is that Nazareth,the insignificant hamlet Jesus was born and lived in was named “after” Jesus,the Notzri,the Nazorean.Jesus preceded the naming of the town and gave it its name.
Moreover, we don’t know what the name of the place actually was, or if it had a name at all.
Just think about it. The hero of an entire civilisation was born and lived in such a humble place that even its name is not known.
Right! But Luke doesn’t mention a donkey. 🙂
According to John, the title on the cross was
“Jesus Nazorean King of the Jews”
ישו נצרי מלך היהודים
Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum
This becomes I.N.R.I.
Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων
(Iesous ho Nazoraios ho Basileus ton Ioudaion)
The added ” Nazorean” ( Nazarenus, Nazoraios) is only in John.
A person from Nazareth ( a city called Na/otzrat, not Nazareth) is a Na/otzrati,
with added “a” and ” t” before the final ” i”.
Jesus of Nazareth would have had to be written Yeshu Na/otzrati. That’s not what was written according to John. John says it was written Yeshu Notzri . The titulus is always written that way in Hebrew.
The titulus carried the accusation against the executed person. King of the Jews figures in all the Gospels. This is the political crime. But if anything else was to be added, it would not be where the person came from. Particularly since the name of Jesus’ town wasn’t known.That would not be an accusation. But as far as the priests were concerned, Jesus being a Nazorean or a Nazarene, was a threat to their form of Judaism.
Very enlightening, although I’ve no means of verifying. I enjoy your comments.
When I moved to the eastern side of the USA from Arizona, I would say that I was “from” Arizona (my last significant domicile) and not from Illinois (my birth state). Others here in the east now know me as the guy from Arizona. I suppose if there was ANY benefit to saying I was from Illinois instead of Arizona, I might claim I was from there. So even if there was a prophetic benefit to being from Bethlehem, there does not seem to be any indication that Jesus (or any pre-M/L source) saw any value in stressing a birthplace in Bethlehem.
Sure enough. But apart from these two passages nothing indicates he was from Bethlehem either, and the two *get* him born in Bethlehem in contradictory ways (with a reason to do so: Micah 5:2). That’s the problem.
Questions.
1. Is it true that Paul appears to know of no Christian writings other than his own? Is it thought that since Paul was the first writer recipients thought it was important to preserve his letters? (I continue to have trouble imagining the logistics of Paul’s letters’ provenance, why and how they they went beyond the churches’ they were written to as they often were not flattering to the specific church congregation).
2. The author of Luke wrote Acts so he knew of Paul, did the author of Matthew, Mark, or John seem to know anything about Paul, or seem to be influenced by Paul’s theologies?
1. He does refer to writings from members of his churches that have come to him (e.g., in 1 Corinthians); As to why Paul’s might be preserved, it may be that later members of teh community thought they had cleaned up their act and kept his letters as being significant to have motivated their reform. Or maybe it’s like someone who makes an idiot of himself on a television program but still brags about being on TV; 2. Luke certainly knew *of* Paul, but it’s hard to show he was deeply influenced by Paul’s actual theology! That’s one of the most interesting things about Luke-Acts. Mark actually has closer theological ties (e.g., in his understanding of Jesus’ death as an atonement; Luke changes that). And Matthew certainly can seem be arguing *against* Paul (in his insistence that Jesus’ followers keep the law.) I’d say with John there’s less of a connection, oddly, since it used to be argued that John’s understanding of “faith in Christ” came from Paul, but in fact his views are very different and don’t show much obvious connection.
Micah 5:2 is about the messiah?
I guess it depends on what you mean! It is not precicting that in eight hundred years a messiah like Jesus would appear to save people from their sins. Here’s what I say about it in my textbook on the Bible:
This is a quotation of Micah 5:2, a passage that does indeed appear to be predicting the coming of a messianic figure (see Box 12.4) who will deliver his people. In chapter 19, we will consider the birth stories of Matthew and Luke to see if they are consistent with one another. Here it is worth considering what Micah was speaking of in his own historical context. For he does not appear to be predicting the birth of the Son of God in hundreds of years (he was writing 800 years before Matthew).
He does speak of this future “great” one as a ruler of Israel, one who would restore all the faithful again to be part of Israel, who would “feed his flock in the strength of the Lord.” But it is clear what this author has in mind: he is thinking of a future Davidic king—an actual king (Jesus never was that)—who would overthrow the enemy and return Israel to its God-given glorified state. And who is the enemy? There is no real ambiguity in the passage: it is the Assyrians. The Assyrians will be dominated by Israel (Micah 5:5); the leaders of Israel “will rule the land of Assyria with the sword”; and he, the messiah, will “rescue us from the Assyrians.”
As is true of all the prophets, Micah was speaking to the people of his own day, addressing problems that had arisen in his own times, and indicating how God was to deal with those problems. At a much later date, Matthew believed Micah was referring to the coming of the spiritual savior who would deliver his people “from their sins.” But in his own context, Micah was referring to a future son of David who, like the great king himself, would establish Israel as a great nation and protect it from its political enemies. This is not a problem for some interpreters, who maintain that Micah had one point of reference in mind but that Matthew saw a deeper meaning in the prophet’s words, relating to events that came to pass in the life of the future messiah.”
Hi Bart,
Quick question: why did Rome keep a king in Judea? I’m trying to understand the different roles of Pilate and Herod as rulers.
When Romans conquered various territories, they turned them in to Roman provinces and assigned leaders over them; there were two kinds, local aristocrats who were made kings, who reported to the Romans (“client Kings” like Herod the Great when Jesus was born) and their own Roman aristocrats who were governors, called prefects or procurators (depending on exactly what their powers were, like Pontius Pilate over Judea when Jesus was executed.)
That all sounds plausible except for a couple of points, perhaps:
You say that the writings are based on the oral stories circulating for the 40 years or so after the crucifixion, so how would they be independent attestations? That would imply that each written account would have had to derive from a different oral root, would it not?
Secondly, this seems to suggest the criterion of embarrassment is in play here which, needs to be carefully assessed before accepting. For example, during the early years of the stories originating, wouldn’t it have been natural to locate a supporter of the meek & poor, in humble circumstances such as Nazareth?
What do you think?
Independent attestation simply means that the *written sources* that report a tradition did not rely on each other: they got their accounts independently, which means the accounts go back to a tradition earlier than either source; 2. Yes indeed. And so one has to weigh that as one of the options — would anyone who was meek and poor be likely to pick Nazareth in particular, as opposed to some other place (and remember: all the sources are speaking of Nazareth, not just one). You might think someone from Nazareth would be inclined to do so, but why would his recollection then dominate the tradition (especially since we have — interestingly — no evidence of anyone from Nazareth accepting Jesus; quite the opposite in fact). So, in short, it’s a balancing act among possibilities to figure out probabilities — pretty much like all history.
1. Fair enough, but if those accounts were based on oral sources with a convergent root, wouldn’t that devalue their written independence?
2. No, you’re right, anywhere will do so why not Nazareth and, once the tradition was established early on, that one may well predominate, would it not?
1. The argument is always that written sources must have gotten their information either from their own heads (i.e. they made it up) or from earlier sources, either written or oral. If two sources written at different times did not get it from the other, then the source(s) they did derive it from had to be earlier than both. If the two sources show that one got it from the other, then that other may have made it up. If you have multiple independent sources with the saem basic tradition, it predates them all. That is not entirely probative for its authenticity, but it does indicate that it goes back to an earlier time and was a tradition in wider circulation prior to the sourcs that attest it. And that’s why, once you establish *that* — that the tradition is relatively early — that you then go on to apply other criteria to see if it has a decent case of being considered authentic.. 2. Normally when Christians made up a tradition about Jesus they had a reason to do so. If a tradition has no obvious reasson for being made up, or even better that runs counter to what Christians woould have wanted to make up, then it is more likely something that was not made up. If we had a tradition that Jesus was born in Bethelehem, then that would clearly be a tradition a Christian might want to make up. But given the fact that they were highly embarassed by the tradition that Jesus came from Nazareth, it seems unlikely (though not compltely impossible, of course) that it was made up/ As with all such analyses, we are dealing with probabilities and improbabilities and weighing them out.
Thanks, Bart.
1 “And that’s why, once you establish *that* — that the tradition is relatively early . . .”
How early though? Surely it could have come at any time prior to the first gospel being written, after all, these were stories being circulated orally.
2. “But given the fact that they were highly embarrassed by the tradition that Jesus came from Nazareth . . .”
Who are we talking about here, specifically, that would have been embarrassed?
Yes, the criterion cannot show *when* a tradition came into existence, only that it pre-dates the sources that attest it. That’s valuable information, but of course it’s not nearly as valuable as we would like. It lends some probability to it being *very* ancient, but not “original.” That, again, is why we have the other criteria. As to embarassment, yes that’s pretty much the whole point. Given what we know about Nazareth and about what people said about Nazareth and about how Jesus’ followers tried to explain *away* the fact he came from Nazareth, it seems highly unlikely the traditoin would have been generated by his later followers. Therefore it is most likely original. He was from Nazareth. IT’s hard to come up with a convincing counter-explanation (UNLIKE the tradition that he was born in Bethlehem)
Thanks again Bart.
I am familiar with the reference in John to Nazareth, but what are the other bible reference that show it in a bad light?
So are you saying it was embarrassing to the author of John’s gospel? What followers were trying to explain it away?
Both Matthew and Luke are assuming that it’s not the place a Savior of the World would come from. It’s normally thought that the problem with it was that it was a small hamlet that no one had heard of. It’s never mentioned in the OT, or in fact in any writing before the Gospels; it’s not on a map; it’s not mentioned even by Josephus who was commander of the Jewish troops in that area and wrote extensively about the land.
I thought the reason Matthew and Luke located the birth in Bethlehem was to fulfil OT scripture, not because Nazareth was deemed to be a backwater.
Do they make any other untoward references to the hamlet? Or Mark?
Matthew does. But Luke notably doesn’t. The fact that they both have to explain that he was *really* born in Bethlehem not in Nazareth (and do so in contradictory ways) is usually taken to show that it was perceived to be a problem. Couple that with the pagan and Jewish attacks on Jesus being a nobody and so not suitable to be a Savior (e.g. Celsus, with Origen’s response; and the polemica behind the Proto-Gospel of James.), and it all seems plausible.
Dear Bart,
I’ve noticed that Jews in antiquity described Jewish-Christians (and later, Gentile-Christians also, according to Tertullian) as ‘Nazarenes’ or ‘Nazoreans’:
1. The high priest Ananias’ lawyer in Acts24:5: “He [Paul] is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.”
2. The curse (Birkat haMinim) added to their daily prayers in Synagogues “May the Nazoreans and heretics perish in a moment.”
3. Jews in the day of Tertullian: “The Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account, Nazarenes after Him.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.8)
Yet, I can only find one group who self-identified as Nazarenes in antiquity (those encountered by Jerome). Do you know of any other group that self-identified this way, rather than those whose only connection with the title was when others applied it to them?
As you know, this is a highly convoluted area of research (because of the problems of sources). I still think the best overall discussion is in Klijn-Reininck’s Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects.
Thanks, I will check that out, although Klijn can be quite sloppy at times asserting certain ‘facts’ without explaining why or justifying his reasoning.
The reason I ask this question is that it if the Nazarenes were the only group to self-ID with this title, it suggests they had a special connection with the term. In Illustrious Men (ch3) Jerome explains that the Nazarenes described their gospel to him which included material from Mt2 where they used the MT rather than the LXX when citing Jewish scripture.
It is there we find they used the prophecy “for he shall be called a Nazarene”, the final words we find in the Matthean infancy narrative (which was missing from the gospel used by the Ebionites). As the Nazarenes were distinguished from the Ebionites by their belief in the virgin birth, it seems this is why these groups split and explains why their gospels differ in these contents.
As the Nazarenes had a special connection with this material, do you think it’s possible they were responsible for creating it? It would explain how they got their group title, which was probably applied to them by the Ebionites before they adopted it themselves.
The difficulty, of course, is that we don’t have any self-identified “Nazarenes” who have left us any descriptions of themselves — their beliefs, practices, views, location, or anything else. Same with “Ebionites.” It’s all based on patristic testimony and it’s all a mess, since demonstratbly some of our fullest sources are demonstrably completely mixed up themselves, especially Jerome. I have a brief discussion in the Intro to the Jewish Xn Gospels in Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations, but Klijn/Reininck and Klijn alone have the fullest discussions.
I think I can make a case that the Nazarenes composed the Ascension of Isaiah (AoI). You helpfully summarised the history of scholarship in ‘Forgery and Counter-forgery’ and explain the most widely held view is Norelli’s that AoI can best be thought of as an original Vision section (VoI) followed later by a Martyrdom section (MoI). “The two major portions of the work, then, reflect different phases of the history of the community of prophets from which they emerged.” (Ehrman2013:333)
It seems that the community behind VoI was persecuted within their own group due to the theology/prophecy they promoted as they complain about the corruption of the church, false prophets, and their persecution that led them to flee “from desert to desert” (AoI4:13) in the MoI section. In the VoI section, they have a primitive version of the Virgin birth of Jesus, perhaps the first narrative of it, and I think it’s this novel theology that they were persecuted for.
Patristic sources claim the Nazarenes split with the parent Ebionite group over the belief in the virgin birth and were found in desert cities in Syria – which matches what we see in AoI. Perhaps the composers were the Nazarenes?
The Nazarenes are not known for having a Gnostic cosmology of multiple heavens and rulers requiring secret infrmation for passage.
Paul envisioned traveling to the 3rd heavens, and Enoch (in 2 Enoch) went through 10 before Gnosticism had emerged. Way before that the use of passwords to enter heavenly realms was well established by the Egyptians. I don’t think we need to look to Gnosticism to find inspiration for the Ascension of Isaiah.
I’m not referring to multiple heavens; you get that in a number of religious and philosophical traditions (e.g. middle Platonism). I’m referring to having to use a password to get past a hostile power in control of each of teh levels.
As I say, the use of passwords to pass guardians in the heavenly realms was a well-established belief in Egyptian paganism that predates AoI by at least 1,000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gate_deities_of_the_underworld
Moreover, AoI seems more influenced by Jewish Merkabah mysticism with its interest in the heavenly thrones, and with the Odes of Solomon as it names Jesus as the ‘Beloved’, and includes references to celestial garments and a plant that is planted; frequent themes found among the Odes.
Charlesworth adds there is also a “pervasive emphasis upon singing through the seven heavens [in Odes], which is more developed in the AoI than in any other pseudepigrapha” (Charlesworth1985:733) before drawing attention to parallels between Ode38:10 and AoI4:6, Ode34:4 and AoI7:10, Ode 22:1 and AoI9:12-18, and Ode19 and AoI11:2-15 (ibid).
Early 2nd texts seem to make use of AoI such as 4 Baruch9:20 (No later than 136) which parallels AoI3:17-18, and Ignatius’ Ephesians 19:1 (c108) has the same theme and language of concealment from ‘the prince of this world’ with ‘all the princes and all the gods of this world’ in AoI11:16. I think these texts predate all known Christian gnostic texts – unless I’ve missed something?
“As we know from the archaeological digs at the site, it was a little backwoods hamlet, thoroughly impoverished, with no sign of any wealth or any culture. No school. No synagogue. No nuttin’. About fifty very primitive houses and very primitive and rather vile living conditions.”
Since Nazareth was so backwoods, how did the people who live there receive news of what was happening around them? How did they know to be upset with the Romans? How did they know when Passover was in Jerusalem?
They probably didn’t get much news or know much about the wider world. Almost certainly none of them had ever seen a Roman soldier in town. If they knew about what was going on Jerusalem, it would be through travellers, or by one of them possibly going into one of the larger cities on occasion (such as Sepphoris, nearby)
So when Jesus and his followers went to Jerusalem for the Passover, they likely knew about the Passover happening from other travelers?
It would seem they would need quite a bit of preparation time if they were to be away from their families for at least three weeks, right?
A week to walk there, a week there and a week to walk back?
Of course the crucifixion changed the whole trip!
Maybe Jesus thought the son of man would come while he was there?
Yes, trips for Passover would almost have been known about, since it is described in Hebrew Scripture adn had been a requirement for Jewish men for centuries. But yes, it was a major deal taht took a lot of planning and resources. And yup, maybe he did!
Do you think many men who were poor, were the only providers for their family and lived a week’s walk from Jerusalem would actually go to the Passover?
Very, very few.
Since very, very few men who were poor and a long distance from Jerusalem were able to attend Passover:
1. How do you think Jesus and his male followers were able to do it?
2. Did they sleep outside and beg for food along the way?
3. Do you think Jesus’ mother and sisters really went with him?
4. (Unrelated) Do you think Jesus originally went to Capernaum to find work? And found John the baptist, was baptisted, found his followers, so then stayed there for his ministry?
5. How long a walk is it from Nazareth to Capernaum?
1. They had to beg their way; 2. Probably, unless others took them in. 3. I doubt it. 4. No, I don’t see any reason to suspect that. 5. Google maps!
Some follow up:
3. So did Jesus go to Capernaum specifically to find John the Baptist?
Did Jesus leave his family to support themselves if he was not working?
5. According to Google maps, its a 9 hour walk!
3. John was working in the south in Judea at the time. 5. I suppose that makes it 20 miles or so, but I haven’t looked it up.
3. Ah! Had Jesus already been baptized by John at this point?
The baptism appears to have happened at teh beginning of Jesus’ ministry, possibly as soon as he left his home/work/family in Nazareth.
I can clarify my question some:
Jesus would have had a 30 hour walk to the south in Judea to be baptized by John.
Peter, John, etc would have also had a 30 hours walk to be baptized by John.
Is that where Jesus, Peter, John, etc met? Getting baptized by John? In the south in Judea?
Then Jesus walked back to Nazareth and the others walked back to Capernaum.
Then Jesus walked to Capernaum to start his ministry with some men he just met at a baptism?
Does it seem likely that poor men like Jesus, Peter, John, etc would make such a long journey to be baptized? This journey involves them leaving their families and their work for what seems like over a week!
Does this seem historically accurate?
It depends which account you read. In Mark Jesus called his disciples in Galilee at the Lake (after he was baptized by John); in John the first disciples are sent to see him by John.
1. If we go with the Mark account, does that mean that Jesus traveled from Nazareth to the south in Judea to be baptized by John, then traveled back to Nazareth, then traveled to Capernaum and selected his disciples?
2. Do you think the John account is correct in saying that some of Jesus’ disciples were baptized by John?
3. Does this seem to be a lot of traveling around by people without any resources?
4. When John the Baptist was arrested, was he moved to somewhere close to Capernaum?
1. Yes, from Galiles to where John was and then back 2. Historically, yup. 3. Yup, it required either begging or willing helpers; we have other records of the same thing for other people. 4. The traditional site (based on Josephus) is Machaerus, which I believe is to the east of the Jordan/Dead Sea.
1. Since very very few poor men would travel long distances for anything, what is your thought on how Jesus would travel to be baptized by John?
2. How would he know about John and his baptizing ministry?
3. How would he know where John was and how to get there?
4. Same questions for Jesus’ followers from Capernaum?
5. How is Jesus and his followers traveling like this considered historically true? What are the things looked at to show that this traveling actually happened?
It just seems very unlikely that Jesus, Peter, John, etc would have the means and knowledge to make this trip.
6. Assuming they did make the trip, what is your thought on when Jesus met Peter and the rest? One of the two biblical accounts or something else?
1. It appears he did so. 2. Word gets around quickly, evenin the ancient world. 3. Word gets around 4. Word gets around 5. Yes, that kind of thing is non-problematic per se. They appear to have had to beg for their food, unless they brought a stock with them. Both are completely plausible. 6. I don’t think John’s accuont is plausible. I’d assume he met him when he went to Capernaum to preach his message.
Why is my previous comment still awaiting moderation?
Apologies. I’m afraid I simply can’t get to all the comments every day, and sometimes they have to sit around for a day or two (OK, sometimes more, but hopefully not). Wish I could do more! But the world can be very grateful indeed that there’s only one of me. 🙂
The combination of age here and lack of Patristic credibility creates a lot of uncertainty. I understand why you want to give definite conclusions here, because you are (rightly) bothered by definite conclusions the other way, but that’s not a good reason.
You are continuing to flesh out related criteria but in the process you should be noticing the distance between what would be good evidence for historicity and what evidence you have.
On to your claimed criteria supporting historicity (Jesus came from Nazareth):
1) Independent sources? The subsequent Gospels have a base of GMark. That’s not just dependent, that’s very dependent. And how do you establish independence without identification (rhetorical).
2) Why would a Christian make up that Jesus was from Nazareth? Why would a Christian make up that Jesus was resurrected, or resurrected someone or was born in Bethlehem. You seem to be using Christian statements one way. They can only count as support for historicity but be ignored if they don’t.
Also, where was Nazareth? There is early Patristic evidence that it was thought to be in Judea:
Sinaiticus
Sextus Julius Africanus
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Justin Martyr
GMark = unto him all the country of Judaea
1. There are numerous references to Nazareth that are NOT derived from Mark (neither L nor M — Luke 1-2; Matthew 1-2; nor John; etc. show any dependence for thse traditions from Mark) 2. You’re asking why a follower of Jesus would think he was resurrected? I’ve never said they “made it up” 3. Nazareth: the account of Luke and Matthew both show that it was up north in Galillee somewhere. As to the patristic references, u, I’m not sure what you’re thinking of with these names….
Since Mark portrays the apostles as not understanding who Jesus is, and the idea of a suffering messiah wasn’t what people expected up to that point, might it actually fit to create an account that Jesus was from an obscure town?
The problem is that it is attested widely in the tradition, even in those (independent of Mark) that want to stress that he was actually born in Bethlehem to counter the obvious problem of him coming from Nazareth.