I’ve been thinking and talking about the town of Nazareth a lot lately. ‘Tis the season! Last weekend I did my quarterly webinar with Platinum blog members (you should look at the benefits of the Platinum level! Private webinars!) on whether Jesus was actually born in Nazareth (most of the New Testament appears to thing so). And that made me think of an even more radical view that I think is dead wrong.
Many of you will know about the vocal group of non-believers called “mythicists,” who think that Jesus never existed at all, but was completely fabricated, a complete myth. No man Jesus. Invented wholesale.
I wrote a book years ago trying to explain why that almost certainly just ain’t true. A lot of mythicists were pretty ticked off about my book and I received some rather venomous responses. But hey, what’s life without a little spice? In this case, sliced habeneros straight on the tongue….
In any event, some mythicists argue as evidence for the non-existence of Jesus the non-existence of the town of Nazareth. There never was such a place in Jesus’ time, they maintain. You may already be saying, “Wait a second: what would that have to do with whether Jesus’ existed?” (If you could prove there was never a Delaware River to be crossed, would that show that George Washington didn’t exist?). And let me assure you, I hear ya.
BUT, I thought it might be interesting in this season to deal with the issue – the occasional mythicist claim, its (ir)relevance, and, more important, its (lack of) truthfulness. Was there a Nazareth? Here’s what I say in my book, Did Jesus Exist: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne, 2012).
******************************
One of the more common claims found in the writings of the mythicists is that the alleged hometown of Jesus, Nazareth, in fact did not exist but is itself a myth. The logic of this argument, which is sometimes, as we will see, advanced with considerable vehemence and force, appears to be that if Christians made up Jesus’ hometown, they probably made him up as well. I could dispose of this argument fairly easily by pointing out that it is irrelevant. If Jesus existed, as the evidence suggests, but Nazareth did not, as this assertion claims, then he merely came from somewhere else. Whether Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or not (for what it is worth, he was) is irrelevant to the question of whether he was born.
Since, however, this argument is so widely favored among mythicists, I want to give it a further look and deeper exploration. It is not a new argument. All the way back in 1906 Schweitzer had to deal with it when discussing the mythicists of his own day.[1] Among the modern advocates of the view are several we have already had occasion to mention. Frank Zindler, for example, in a cleverly entitled essay, “Where Jesus Never Walked,” tries to deconstruct on a fairly simple level the geographical places associated with Jesus, especially Nazareth. He claims that Mark’s Gospel never states that Jesus came from Nazareth. This flies in the face, of course, of Mark 1:9, which indicates precisely that this is where Jesus did come from (“Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee”), but Zindler maintains that that verse was not originally part of Mark; it was inserted by a later scribe. Here again we see history being done according to “convenience.” If a text says precisely what you think it could not have said, then all you need to do is claim that originally it must have said something else. I should point out that the verse is found in every surviving manuscript of Mark. [2]
Zindler maintains that some early Christians understood Jesus to be the “branch” mentioned in Isaiah 11:1, who would come from the line of David as the Messiah. The term branch in Hebrew (which does not have vowels) is spelled NZR, which is close (kind of close) to “Nazareth.” And so what happened, in Zindler’s view, is that later Christians who did not understand what it meant to call Jesus the NZR (branch) thought that the traditions that called him that were saying that he was from a (non-existent) town, Nazareth.
Zindler does not marshal any evidence for this view but simply asserts it. And he does not explain why Christians who did not know what NZR meant simply didn’t ask someone. Even more important, he doesn’t explain why they made up the name of a non-existent town (in his view) to locate Jesus, or how then went from “Jesus is the NZR” to “Jesus came from Nazareth.” The view seems completely implausible, especially given the fact, which we have seen, that multiple independent sources locate Jesus to Nazareth. Moreover, there is the additional evidence, which we will see momentarily, that Nazareth did in fact exist as a small Jewish town in the days of Jesus.
[1] Quest of the Historical Jesus, chs. 22 and 23.
[2] I do not mean to say that Zindler does not cite evidence for his view. He claims that the name “Jesus” in Mark 1:9 does not have the definite article, unlike the other 80 places it occurs in Mark, and therefore the verse does not appear to be written in Markan style. In response, I should say that (a) there are two other places in Mark where Jesus does not have the article. (b) If the problem with the entire verse is that the name Jesus does not have article, then if we posit a scribal change to the text, the more likely explanation is that a scribe inadvertently left out the article. Nazareth has nothing to do with it. And (c) there is not a single stitch of manuscript evidence to support his claim that the verse was interpolated into the Gospel. This latter point is worth stressing, since it is the reason that no serious scholar of the textual tradition of Mark thinks that the verse is an interpolation.
Modalism was one of the early (and eventually heretical) Christian understandings of the Trinity. Was there a modalism that essentially said that the Father was the manifestation of God during OT times, the Son/Jesus in NT times, and the Holy Spirit in the post-NT period? In other words, God was only manifested in one form during each of those times. It’s almost as if the Father only existed in OT times, Jesus only in the NT, and only the Holy Spirit ever since then.
As someone trying to make as much sense of Christianity as possible, it seems like it would, for example, be much simpler and much less confusing to nowadays only pray to the Holy Spirit—who seems under-appreciated anyway.
And, in addition to some (rather indefinite?) references to the Spirit in the OT, I have the idea that Christians originally understood the Spirit to be Jesus’s continuing presence after his ascension.
I can’t recall who but it does seem like there were one or more early Christian writers and/or saints who at least talked in terms of “Ages” of the Father, Jesus, and Spirit in ways that somewhat correspond to what I’m saying.
It’s not clear that modalists made that kind of neat distinction (OT/NT/Now). For one thing, God appears as a humanb in the OT (appearing to Adam, to Abraham, etc.), and that would have to be the “Christ Mode”
When God appears to Abraham as a man, I would argue that that incarnation can be seen as a “temporary one” given that it is essentially a “cameo”, and not one that would see God bound into a full human existence as Jesus was. The sticking point rather becomes if good only exists as God the son, why would Jesus then pray to God the father or teach the apostles to pray to the same God, especially if he knows that after the fulfillment of the Gospel only the holy ghost would be left. Such a view would have to essentially reject all canonical scripture.
I have an important, critical question: was Jesus born on Christmas eve or Christmas day or Christmas night? These Christmas pageants have me a little confused!
Oh, definitely Christmas day. Probably around 6:30 am. I do wish the pageants would work more for historical accuracy.
Bart is kidding, fishician…. plus waited til boxing day to reply. On a purely coincidental side, i was apparently born at 6:30 am, but on the fall equinox.
Presumably part 2 will see you raise this issue so apologies if so but isn’t the best argument that Nazareth existed the fact that Jesus coming from Nazareth is something that makes the work of early Christians declaring Jesus the Messiah to be more difficult? Him coming from Nazareth means they have to invent the crazy Census story to get Mary to Bethlehem to give birth to match prophecy, if they were going to invent a town he grew up in they would have just said Bethlehem surely rather than a small town that doesn’t fit in the prophetic narrative?
Yup, that’s a srong argument. But they mythicists hav a way around it by saying they made up Nazareth to show that he was a a Nazarene (or a Nazirite) in fulfillment of some kind of ostensible prophecy.
Richard Carrier maintains a list of scholars (43 at the time the list was posted on 8-25-2022 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/21420 ) with relevant PhDs who take Jesus mythicism seriously. My question is this: which of the scholars on this list has proposed the non-existence of Nazareth in the first century CE ? Zindler and Rene Salm aside, who are these “some mythicists” that you are referring to? There have been 2 peer reviewed monographs on the subject of Jesus mythicism (Carrier 2014, Lataster 2019), neither of which suggest the non-existence of Nazareth.
Good god.
Its interesting that the Arabic word for christians “nasara” uses the arabic equivalent letters of (NZR) نَصَارَىٰ ‘nun tsade resh’ as the hebrew for branch “neser”.
Given that the arabic is probably derived from “Nazarene” isn’t that an indication that the hebrew original for “Nazareth” did use “NZR”, ‘nun tsade resh’?
And that therefore Matthew’s “he shall be called the Nazarene” does in fact make sense?
Yes, that’s my view, that Matthew is sublty alluding to Isaiah 11:1.
There have been several posts about who decided which books would be in the New Testament and, since it is nearly Christmas, I would like to ask who decided Jesus’ birthday was December 25. No one knows exactly which year he was born, let alone the month or day. Furthermore, the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar, not a solar one, so a fixed date in the Jewish calendar would not even be a fixed date in the Gregorian calendar.
We can’t put a precise name, date, or reason for it. But it is normally dated to the fourth century and is usually thought that th edate was chosen to provide a celebratory moment for Christians at about the time of pagan celebrations of the Winter solstice and/or the festival of Saturnalia.
Apart from all this, the scriptural treatment of Nazareth in Matthew and Luke is very interesting. Jesus’ parents live in Nazareth in Luke and to get Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke has to develop a census narrative and David lineage for Joseph to get a pregnant Mary to Bethlehem for Jesus to be born there. Matthew simply has Jesus’ parents living in Bethlehem for his birth anyway, then having to flee to Egypt then return to Judah, and again flee to … Nazareth, to fulfil scripture which only he cites! Bethlehem has a prophetic reputation, and Nazareth is just a hard-scrabble village/town far off in Galilee. Why would two incompatible accounts of Jesus’ birth both have him raised in the same obscure community by alternative means, if there wasn’t a possible historical root for the Nazareth tradition in the first place, and the place where not just Matthew and Luke, but all four gospels attest Jesus was raised?
Yes, even those who say there never was a Nazareeth have to agree that the tradition of Nazareth was around before Matthew and Luke.
Dear Prof. Ehrman,
As important a question as whether Nazareth existed is whether the Baptism by John happened. What are the precise academic thoughts and what are your own thoughts? Was there a John who represented a “Voice calling out from the Wilderness”? Was there a Baptism? Which Jesus attended? On the River Jordan?
As an academic who is a “staunch” historicist how do you view this and also in the context of some of the mythicist position on this issue?
Yes, it is wiedly thought that Jesus was indeed baptized by John, since it is so widely attested in many sources and layers of the tradition and is not the kind of story later Christians would have made up, since in Xty the baptizer was widely recognized as spiritually superior to the baptized. I give fuller explanations in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet.
The assertion “Even if he did not come from there, so what? The historicity of Jesus does not depend on whether Nazareth existed. ” is important because of the lines in Isaiah. Knowing just English, I looked up the reference in Isaiah in Hebrew for branch of Jesse — https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/11.htm, — wə·nê·ṣer yi·šāy; That is surely quite close to Jesus of Nazareth!!
“”I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty. (Malachi 3:1, NIV)”
Mark quotes this — “As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”
Now if the Baptism happened and Jesus came from Nazareth to the Jordan then that would indeed be a Miracle! Even more so, if he was able to speak to the event as a harbinger of his Messiah-ship!
The real concern here with respect to Nazareth is not just whether Jesus did or did not come from there, it is more about whether the author of Mark writing in 75 AD, knew of a place known as Nazareth, and believed that Jesus came from there. But more importantly if he went from there to be Baptized. And if the Harbinger from Malachi(the word itself means Messenger?) is true. ”
The question is — are A & B both having parts fulfilled?? As one cannot separate the two rather view it as a synchronous whole as two related events dictated by two independent prophecies.
Well, Mark seems to think so (Mark 6).
Prof. Ehrman, sorry my note was confusing and it is confusing. Paul does not mention John the Baptist. Nor Nazareth. Yet he finds an odd mention in the Antiquities. Discarding this. The word Nazer seems to have a complex and detailed etymology. Mark’s most direct reference is from Isaiah 11 itself. But there are also the Nazirites who grow their hair — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite
and the Mandaeans — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)#Nasoraean_Mandaeans
we see “The term Nazōraios may have a religious significance instead of denoting a place of origin”.
If one says Mark likely wanted to link to — wə·nê·ṣer yi·šāy; (branch of Jesse) and not the place, then Mark introduces Jesus of Nazareth first and it emerges later as the name of a place. And seeking to also satisfy Malachi Mark then also introduces the Messenger in John and the voice from the Wilderness and the Baptism.(no baptism in Isaiah) This then ties in with the idea of Trinitarian Salvation through Baptism which is a more universal (Eastern) religious practice and thus enters Christianity. If instead one says there was a real Jesus from Nazareth who went to be baptized by a John on the Jordan, that would likely be a miracle satisfying Isaiah 11.
The words Nazareth and Nazirite are not etymologically related (though they LOOK like they should be in English!).
I thought about this further and given the Mandaeans and their historic existence, I was lead to thinking that maybe John the Baptist has a historic root and thus the reference in Josephus of John maybe real. Now this link with the Nazarois and the Nazarene sect does tell us that there is more than one reference here —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect) . So there is the Nazarois. And there is Nazareth. And maybe the Nazarois did their Baptism close to the Jordan. As can be seen by the reference to the Yardna in the Mandaean literature. And John is a Nazarois.
But in either case given Mark’s effort here to link to the Messiah in Isaiah 11, we do need to ask about — wə·nê·ṣer yi·šāy; (branch of Jesse) — as Mark’s intention. If John was known to Josephus but not mentioned by Paul, but later mentioned by Mark and linked to Jesus. Else it is indeed a miracle. And a historicist would need to think hard. Jesus not coming from Nazareth thus matters for this reason!!
The Christ as “Son of God” is likely a gentile idea. While “messenger” who is “preparing the way” for the Lord more Judaic.
The Gospel writers seem to cover all four versions that emerge from wə·nê·ṣer yi·šāy — (A) Nazareth (B) Nazarois (D) Nazirite (D) Branch of Jesse! Nazareth directly as Jesus of Nazareth, Nazaroi through the linkage with the Baptizing John, Nazirite by linking John with Samuel and Branch of Jesse with two different birth & genealogies. I noticed that Nazirite behavior is briefly tied to Paul also but not the 4 versions, notably avoiding John while following Baptism. Yet the gospels refer to Jesus drinking so he’s not Nazirite except at times.
The array of interpretation extends to the Antiquities indirectly, and ever so slightly as John is mentioned. Now some reject both references in Testimonium Flavianum, though neither means Jesus of Nazareth did not not exist. The reference to John the Baptist is tied into other events in the Histories notably dealing with Herod Antipas’ reason for war and defeat to Aretas. John is killed as a revolutionary baptizer. (Antiquities names his daughter but not her role in John’s death), but the dates seem tight.
Linking the Gentile Trinitarian “Son of God” with the Judaic “Branch of Jesse” via the Baptizing Messenger with a Nazorean tie is yet baffling.