I'm posting this essay here for review; this is a first draft.

What was the hometown of Jesus, at least as it can be discerned in the most ancient Christian tradition? You might think you know... but you are probably wrong.

Bethlehem

The idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is based on one chapter in Matthew and one chapter in Luke. The only place where the word "Bethlehem" appears in the New Testament, outside of the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, is in John 7:42.

John 7:42. Others said, "He is the Christ." Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"

Some might wish to interpret this as Johannine irony in which the crowd shows their ignorance of Jesus' true birthplace. However, according to the Catholic priest John P. Meier:

"The problem with this line of interpretation is that the Fourth Evangelist insists from Chapter 1 onward that Jesus does come form Nazareth (1:45-56), with all the scandal that causes even future believers (e.g., Nathanael in 1:46). John's insistence on Nazareth as the place of Jesus' earthly origins, a code word for the 'flesh' that the Word becomes, returns with theological force in his Passion Narrative (18:5,7; 19:19). Moreover, the evangelist never communicates any other tradition about Jesus' hometown to his readers, despite John's tendency to deliver informative asides to his audience while the drama is in progress. There is no clear indication anywhere in the Johannine writings of the NT that readers in the Johannine communities would have known the special Infancy Narrative tradition about Bethlehem." (A Marginal Jew, v. 1, p. 215)

This in itself casts doubt on the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a doubt that will become a disbelief as we investigate the accounts of Matthew and Luke in turn.

Matthew 2 (RSV)
1: Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying,
2: "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him."
3: When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him;
4: and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.
5: They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet:
6: `And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel.'"
7: Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star appeared;
8: and he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him bring me word, that I too may come and worship him."
9: When they had heard the king they went their way; and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was.
10: When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy;
11: and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.
12: And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.
13: Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him."
14: And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt,
15: and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."
16: Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men.
17: Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:
18: "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were no more."

Several difficulties in this well-spun tale were pointed out by David Friedrich Strauss long ago, as found in The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, vol 1., pp. 159-165

After receiving the above answer from the Sanhedrim, Herod summons the magi before him, and his first question concerns the time at which the star appeared (v. 7.). Why did he wish to know this? The 16th verse tells us; that he might thereby calculate the age of the Messianic child, and thus ascertain up to what age it would be necessary for him to put to death the children of Bethlehem, so as not to miss the one announced by the star. But this plan of murdering all the children of Bethlehem up to a certain age, that he might destroy the one likely to prove fatal to the interests of his family, was not conceived by Herod until after the magi had disappointed his expectation that they would return to Jerusalem; a deception which, if we may judge from his violent anger on account of it (v. 16) Herod had by no means anticipated. Prior to this, according to v. 8, it had been his intention to obtain from the magi, on their return, so close a description of the child, his dwelling and circumstances, that it would be easy for him to remove his infantine rival without sacrificing any other life. It was not until he had discovered the stratagem of the magi, that he was obliged to have recourse to the more violent measure for the execution of which it was necessary for him to know tlie time of the star's appearance. How fortunate for him, then, that he had ascertained this time before he had decided on the plan that made the information important; but how inconceivable that he should make a point which was only indirectly connected with his original project, the subject of his first and most eager interrogation (v. 7)!

Herod, in the second place, commissions the magi to acquaint themselves accurately with all that concerns the royal infant, and to impart their knowledge to him on their return, that he also may go and tender his homage to the child, that is, according to his real meaning, take sure measures for putting him to death (v. 8). Such a proceeding on the part of an astute monarch like Herod has long been held improbable. Even if he hoped to deceive the magi, while in conference with them, by adopting this friendly mask, he must necessarily foresee that others would presently awaken them to the probability that he harboured evil designs against the child, and thus prevent them from returning according to his injunction. He might conjecture that the parents of the child on hearing of the ominous interest taken in him by the king, would seek his safety by flight, and finally, that those inhabitants of Bethlehem and its environs who cherished Messianic expectations, would be not a little confirmed in them by the arrival of the magi. On all these grounds, Herod's only prudent measure would have been either to detain the magi in Jerusalem, and in the meantime by means of secret emissaries to dispatch the child to whom such peculiar hopes were attached, and who must have been easy of discovery in the little village of Bethlehem: or to have given the magi companions who, so soon as the child was found, might at once have put an end to his existence. Even Olshausen thinks that these strictures are not groundless, and his best defence against them is the observation that the histories of all ages present unaccountable instances of forgetfulness-a proof that the course of human events is guided by a supreme hand. When the supernaturalist invokes the supreme hand in the case before us, he must suppose that God himself blinded Herod to the surest means of attaining his object, in order to save the Messianic child from a premature death. But the other side of this divine contrivance is, that instead of the one child, many others must die. There would be nothing to object against such a substitution in this particular case, if it could be proved that there was no other possible mode of rescuing Jesus from a fate inconsistent with the scheme of human redemption. But if it be once admitted, that God interposed supernaturally to blind the mind of Herod and to suggest to the magi that they should not return to Jerusalem, we are constrained to ask, why did not God in the first instance inspire the magi to shun Jerusalem and proceed directly to Bethlehem, whither Herod's attention would not then have been so immediately attracted, and thus the disastrous sequel perhaps have been altogether avoided? The supranaturalist has no answer to this question but the old-fashioned argument that it was good for the infants to die, because they were thus freed by transient suffering from much misery, and more especially from the danger of sinning against Jesus with the unbelieving Jews; whereas now they had the honour of losing their lives for the sake of Jesus, and thus of ranking as martyrs, and so forth.

The magi leave Jerusalem by night, the favourite time for travelling in the east. The star, which they seem to have lost sight of since their departure from home, again appears and goes before them on the road to Bethlehem, until at length it remains stationary over the house that contains the wondrous child and its parents. The way from Jerusalem to Bethlehem lies southward; now the true path of erratic stars is either from west to east, as that of the planets and of some comets, or from east to west, as that of other comets; the orbits of many comets do indeed tend from north to south, but the true motion of all these bodies is so greatly surpassed by their apparent motion from east to west produced by the rotation of the earth on its axis, that it is imperceptible except at considerable intervals. Even the diurnal movement of the heavenly bodies, however, is less obvious on a short journey than the merely optical one, arising from the observer's own change of place, in consequence of which a star that he sees before him seems, as long as he moves forward, to pass on in the same direction through infinite space; it cannot therefore stand still over a particular house and thus induce a traveller to halt there also; on the contrary, the traveller himself must halt before the star will appear stationary. The star of the magi could not then be an ordinary, natural star, but must have been one created by God for that particular exigency, and impressed by him with a peculiar law of motion and rest. Again, this could not have been a true star, moving among the systems of our firmament, for such an one, however impelled and arrested, could never, according to optical laws, appear to pause over a particular house. It must therefore have been something lower, hovering over the earth's surface: hence some of the Fathers and apocryphal writers supposed it to have been an angel, which, doubtless, might fly before the magi in the form of a star, and take its station at a moderate height above the house of Mary in Bethlehem; more modern theologians have conjectured that the phenomenon was a meteor.

Both these explanations are opposed to the text of Matthew: the former, because it is out of keeping with the style of our Gospels to designate any thing purely supernatural, such as an angelic appearance, by an expression that implies a merely natural object, as a star; the latter, because a mere meteor would not last for so long a time as must have elapsed between the departure of the magi from their remote home and their arrival in Bethlehem. Perhaps, however, it will be contended that God created one meteor for the first monition, and another for the second.

Many, even of the orthodox expositors, have found these difficulties in relation to the star so pressing, that they have striven to escape at any cost from the admission that, it preceded the magi in their way towards Bethlehem, and took its station directly over a particular house. According to Suskind, whose explanation has been much approved, the verb for "went before" (v. 9) which is in the imperfect tense, does not signify that the star visibly led the magi on their way, but is equivalent to the pluperfect, which would imply that the star had been invisibly transferred to the destination of the magi before their arrival, so that the Evangelist intends to say: the star which the magi had seen in the east and subsequently lost sight of, suddenly made its appearance to them in Bethlehem above the house they were seeking; it had therefore preceded them. But this is a transplantation of rationalistic artifice into the soil of orthodox exegesis. Not only the word for "went before," but the less flexible expressions "till it came," etc. denotes that the transit of the star was not an already completed phenomenon, but one brought to pass under the observation of the magi. Expositors who persist in denying this must, to be consistent, go still farther, and reduce the entire narrative to the standard of merely natural events. So when Olshauson admits that the position of a star could not possibly indicate a single house, that hence the magi must have inquired for the infant's dwelling, and only with child-like simplicity referred the issue as well as the commencement ot their journey to a heavenly guide; he deserts his own point of view for that of the rationalist, and interlines the text with explanatory particulars, an expedient which he elsewhere justly condemns in Paulas and others.

The magi then enter the house, offer their adoration to the infant, and present to him gifts, the productions of their native country. One might wonder that there is no notice of the astonishment which it must have excited in these men to find, instead of the expected prince, a child in quite ordinary, perhaps indigent circumstances.

It is not fair, however, to heighten the contrast by supposing, accordinj to the common notion, that the magi discovered the child in a stable lying in the manger; for this representation is peculiar to Luke, and is altogether unknown to Matthew, who merely speaks of a house in which the child was found. Then follows (v. 10) the warning given to the magi in a dream, concerning which, as before remarked, it were only to be wished that it had been vouchsafed earlier, so as to avert the steps of the magi from Jerusalem, and thus perchance prevent the whole subsequent massacre.

While Herod awaits the return of the magi, Joseph is admonished by an angelic apparition in a dream to race with the Messianic child and its mother into Egypt for security (v. 13-15). Adopting the evangelist's point of view, this is not attended with any difiiculty: it is otherwise, however, with the prophecy which the above event is said to fulfil, Hosea, xi. 1. In this passage the prophet, speaking in the name of Jehovah, says: When Israel was a child, then, I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt. We may venture to attribute, even to the most orthodox expositor, enough clear-sightedness to perceive that the subject of the first half of the sentence is also the object of the second, namely the poeple of Israel, who here, as elsewhere, (e. g. Exod. iv. 22. Sirach xxxvi, 14.) are collectively called the Son of God, and whose past deliverance under Moses out of their Egyptian bondage is the fact referred to: that consequently, the prophet was not contemplating either the Messiah or his sojourn in Egvpt. Nevertheless as our evangelist says, v. 15, that the flight of Jesus into Egypt took place expressly that the above words of Hosea, might be fufilled, he must have understood them as a prophecy relating to Christ-must, therefore, have misunderstood them. It has been pretended that the passage has a twofold application, and, though referring primarily to the Israelitish people, is not the less a prophecy relative to Christ, because the destiny of Israel "after the flesh" was a type of the destiny of Jesus. But this convenient method of interpretation is not applicable here, for the analogy would, in the present case, be altogether external and inane, since the only parallel consists in the bare fact in both instances of a sojourn in Egypt, the circumstances under which the Israelitish people and the child Jesus sojourned there being altogether diverse.

When the return of the magi has been delayed long enough for Herod to become aware that they have no intention to keep faith with him, he decrees the death of all the male children in Bethlehem and its environs up to the age of two years, that being, according to the statements of the magi as to the tune of the star's appearance, the utmost interval that could have elapsed since the birth of the Messianic child. (16-18) This was, beyond all question, an act of the blindest fury, for Herod might easily have informed himself whether a child who had received rare and costly presents was yet to be found in Bethlehem: but even granting it not inconsistent with the disposition of the aged tyrant to the extent that Schleiermacher supposed, it were in any case to be expected that so unprecedented and revolting a massacre would be noticed by other historians than Matthew. But neither Josephus, who is very minute in his account of Herod, nor the rabbins, who were assiduous in blackening his memory, give the slightest hint of this decree. The latter do, indeed, connect, the flight of Jesus into Egypt with a murderous scene, the author of which, however, is not Herod but King Jannaeus, and the victims not children, but rabbins. Their story is evidently founded on a confusion of the occurrence gathered from the Christian history, with an earlier event; for Alexander Jannaeus died 40 years before the birth of Christ. Macrobius, who lived in the fourth century, is the only author who notices the slaughter of the infants, and he introduces it obliquely in a passage which loses all credit by confounding the execution of Antipater, who was so far from a child that he complained of his grey hairs, with the murder of the infants, renowned among the Christians. Commentators have attempted to diminish our surprise at the remarkable silence in question, by reminding us that the number of children of the given age in the petty village of Bethlehem, must have been small, and by remarking that among the numerous deeds of cruelty by which the life of Herod was stained, this one would be lost sight of as a drop in the ocean. But in these observations the specific atrocity of murdering innocent children, however few, is overlooked; and it is this that must have prevented the deed, if really perpetrated, from being forgotten. Here also the evangelist cites (v. 17, 18) a prophetic passage (Jerem. xxxi. 15), as having been fulfilled by the murder of the infants; whereas it originally referred to something quite different, namely the transportation of the Jews to Babylon, and had no kind of reference to an event lying in remote futurity.

While Jesus and his parents are in Egypt, Herod the Great dies, and Joseph is instructed by an angel, who appears to him in a dream, to return to his native country; but as Archelaus, Herod's successor in Judasa, was to be feared, he has more precise directions in a second oracular dream, in obedience to which he fixes his abode at Nazareth in Galilee, under the milder government of Herod Antipas. (19-23) Thus in the compass of this single chapter, we have five extraordinary interpositions of God; an anomalous star, and four visions. For the star and the first vision, we have already remarked, one miracle might have been substituted, not only without detriment, but with advantage; either the star or the vision might from the beginning have deterred the magi from going to Jerusalem, and by this means perhaps have averted the massacre ordained by Herod. But that the two last visions are not united in one is a mere superfluity; for the direction to Joseph to proceed to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, which is made the object of a special vision, might just as well have been included in the first. Such a disregard, even to prodigality, of the lex parsimonies in relation to the miraculous, one is tempted to refer to human imagination rather than to divine providence.

Suetonius quotes an earlier author for a similar myth about Augustus Caesar: "A few months before Augustus was born a portent was generally observed at Rome, which gave warning that nature was pregnant with a King for the Roman people. Thereupon the Senate in consternation decreed that no male child born that year should be reared. But those whose wives were with child saw to it that the decree was not filed in the treasury, since each one appropriated the prediction to his own family." (Lives, Augustus 2.94.3)

Edwin D. Freed writes: "There is no evidence whatsoever anywhere else for Herod's murder of the children reported by Matthew. ... if he had committed a deed so dastardly that it caused loud lamentation and weeping among Jews (Mt. 2.18), it would not have gone unreported by the Jew Josephus." (The Stories of Jesus' Birth, p. 102) More important, however, are the facts that the story is a pre-existing mythical topos for the birth of a king, that the story is intertwined with the thoroughly implausible guiding star and court intrigue with three wise men from afar, and that the whole narrative is composed with an eye to fulfillment of scripture, quoted explicitly in vv. 6, 15, and 18.

Notice that the author of Matthew does not narrate a trip to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus, as is found in the Gospel of Luke. Rather, one gets the impression that the family lived in Bethlehem when Jesus was born (see the reference to "the house" that the wise men enter in v. 11), left for Egypt to escape the massacre of the infants (completely absent from Luke), and came back to reside in Nazareth instead of Bethlehem because Archelaus governed Judea (v. 22). Matthew's infancy narrative contradicts Luke's. Let us, therefore, turn to the narrative found in the Gospel of Luke.

<cont'd>

Luke 2 (RSV)
1: In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.
2: This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
3: And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city.
4: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,
5: to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.

For a statement of the historical difficulties with this account, see this essay by Richard Carrier:

The Date of the Nativity in Luke

Within the infancy narratives, each evangelist concocts conflicting explanations for how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem even though he grew up in Galilee. In his cautious manner, J. P. Meier writes:

"The somewhat contorted or suspect ways in which Matthew and Luke reconcile the dominant Nazareth tradition with the special Bethlehem tradition of their Infancy Narratives may indicate that Jesus' birth at Bethlehem is to be taken not as a historical fact but as a theologoumenon, i.e., as a theological affirmation (e.g., Jesus is the true Son of David, the prophesied royal Messiah) put into the form of an apparently historical narrative. One must admit, though, that on this point certainty is not to be had." (A Marginal Jew, v. 1, p. 216)

While certainty is rarely to be had, we may conclude with a good probability that the historical Jesus was born of Galilee, not Bethlehem.

Nazareth

We have already looked a bit at Luke's infancy narrative. But is the infancy narrative part of the Gospel of Luke at all? There are several clues that cause me to suspect that the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke, excepting the prologue, were not actually part of the third gospel from the start.

The first hurdle that has to be lept is, would the text make sense if part were excised? Certainly it would! I propose that this is how the Gospel of Luke actually began:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness; and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

None of the rest of the Gospel of Luke refers back to this infancy narrative in the first two chapters, nor even to the doctrine of the virgin birth. The genealogy of Luke 3:23 is the exception that tests the rule, as it begins, "He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli." If Luke meant to give the bloodline through Mary, Luke would not have omitted Mary from the passage altogether. If Luke meant to give the bloodline through Joseph, why is there this "as was thought" clause there, which makes the genealogy pointless? It is quite probable that the "as was thought" (ὡς ἐνομίζετο) was added to the text to avoid saying that Joseph was actually the father of Jesus, either by the one who added the infancy narrative or a later redactor of the text who sensed the inconsistency.

Additional support for the contention that the infancy narrative isn't presupposed by the rest of Luke-Acts is found in this statement by Joseph Fitzmyer: "when Luke in the present prologue of Acts refers to this proto logos, his 'first volume,' and briefly summarizes its contents, he speaks 'of all the things that Jesus began to do and to teach,' but not a hint is given of the infancy narrative." (Luke the Theologian, p. 29) Neither do the numerous narrative speeches in the Acts of the Apostles refer back to an infancy narrative in any way.

A study of the literary style of the first two chapters of Luke, which I have not undertaken, may provide additional confirming or disconfirming evidence. I did notice W. Ward Gasque state that there are "unedited phrases" that "do not reflect the best possible Greek style" in the infancy narrative of Luke 1-2 (A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 267-268) Joseph Fitzmyer confirms this notion in saying that, "the Lucan narrative in chaps. 1-2 is markedly different from chaps. 3-4, not only in its style and language, which many interpreters find heavily semitizing, but also by the relation of 3:1-2 to the prologue of 1:1-4, a relation that cannot be glossed over." (Luke the Theologian, p. 29) So the first two chapters of Luke (excepting the prologue) may not have been the product of the cultured Greek who wrote the rest.

There is external evidence that provides some degree of support for excising the infancy narrative from Luke. Marcion of Sinope produced a modified version of the Gospel of Luke in the first half of the second century, and therefore is one of our earliest witnesses to the text. Marcion's Gospel begins, "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Jesus descended [out of heaven] into Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching [in the synagogue] on the Sabbath days; And they were astonished at his doctrine." (reconstructed from references in Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.7 and Epiphanius, Panarion 42) Marcion did have motive to excise the passage, in order to maintain his belief that Jesus came down from heaven without being born. But it is still suggestive that no trace of the first two chapters is found in Marcion's Gospel and that Marcion begins where I propose that the main text of Luke began (after the prologue); it is enough, at least, to take the suggestion of interpolation seriously.

Joseph Fitzmyer agrees in seeing the infancy narrative as an addition to the Gospel of Luke, though (he would say) one made by the evangelist himself. He writes: "This relationship [between the infancy narrative and the rest of Luke], however, does not mean that Luke composed the infancy narrative as the very first part of his Gospel. Rather, it seems obvious that 3:1-2 was at one time a formal introduction to the work--this we maintain, without subscribing to the Proto-Luke hypothesis (see pp. 88-91 above). Luke 3:1-2 resembles the prologue (1:1-4), even though it is not as perfectly composed a periodic sentence. Introducing, as it does, the ministry of John the Baptist, it shows that the Lucan Gospel once began at the point at which the Marcan Gospel now begins and at which the Johannine Gospel follows on its own prologue. Moreover, the position of John the Baptist in Luke 3 explains the peculiar Lucan emphasis on a 'beginning' (arche) associated with the baptism-preaching of John (see the note on 1:3; cf. Acts 10:37; 1:22). Further, H. J. Cadbury (The Making of Luke-Acts, 204-209) has drawn attention to the parallels to this sort of opening in Greek papyri from Egypt, Dionysius Halicarnassus (Roman antiquities 9.61), Thucydides (History 2.2,1) and Josephus (Ant. 20.11,1; J.W. 2.14,4). John's ministry is dated by a synchronism of contemporary rulers in an introductory formula. Recognizing this feature of the beginning of chap. 3 makes it imperative to acknowledge the independent character of the infancy narrative and its telltale quality of a later addition." (The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, p. 310)

John Shelby Spong writes: "The elaborate dating process that begins chapter 3 (3:1-3) and the inclusion of a genealogy in the strange, indeed unheard of, place after, rather than before, the birth story are evidence for some that Luke's story at least at one point in its literary career started with chapter 3 rather than chapter 1." (Born of a Woman, pp. 101-102)

The idea that 1:5-2:52 are an addition is not a new one. Hans Conzelmann maintained this view in his 1960 book The Theology of St. Luke. John Knox and F. C. Conybeare did the same before him. The Unitarian theologian Joseph Priestley in the eighteenth century questioned the authenticity of both infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. But we can trace back the idea of the addition of Luke's birth story further still, indeed to the fourth century. Joseph Fitzmyer writes, "Years ago F. C. Conybeare pointed out that a note in the commentary of Ephraem of Syria on Tatian's Diatessaron, which regards Luke 1:5-2:52 as a later insert into the Lucan Gospel, confirms this suggestion." (The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, p. 311) Therefore, though the spuriousness of this section is a hypothesis, it is not an arbitrary one.

If there were an interpolator, did his work stop with the infancy narratives? It would be wise to be on the lookout for more parts of the text that could have been inserted. Here I will identify one other interpolation.

Tertullian writes in Against Marcion 4.8: "But to Christ the title Nazarene was destined to become a suitable one, from the hiding-place of His infancy, for which He went down and dwelt at Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus the son of Herod. This fact I have not refrained from mentioning on this account, because it behoved Marcion's Christ to have forborne all connection whatever with the domestic localities of the Creator's Christ..."

This shows that Marcion's Gospel of the Lord had no mention of the "city of Nazareth" that is found in the canonical Gospel of Luke (nor, of course, Bethlehem). This shows that the story of Jesus teaching at the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30) did not form part of Marcion's edition. This is further evident from the way that the opening verse of the Gospel of the Lord jumps to 4:31 (Jesus descended into Capernaum), which would make a backtracking to the previous portion of Luke strange, and from the way in which the next portion of the Gospel of the Lord (Luke 4:40-41) presupposes that Jesus is still in Capernaum. (Thus I do not fully agree with the reconstruction of the Gospel of the Lord here.)

Additional evidence for interpolation is found in the passage itself. Luke 4:23 has Jesus putting the quote on the lips of his mocking opponents, "Do here in your native place the things that we heard were done in Capernaum." But such doings in Capernaum are strictly excluded from Luke's narrative. Jesus is baptized in 2:21, led into the desert for forty days in 4:1, and returns to Galilee in 4:14-15. Absolutely nothing is said in 4:14-15 about Jesus doing miracles, let alone doing miracles while in the city of Capernaum. What gives? Luke is a superb storyteller who, on his own word, wrote everything down in an orderly sequence. On the other hand, a lesser pen could have slipped, especially if the interpolator were expanding on the story of Mark 6:1-6 or Matthew 13:54-58, where Jesus had already done a tour of Capernaum. This is then the most likely explanation of an otherwise puzzling reference to earlier healings performed in Capernaum. The passage is interpolated.

This is a quite important finding. Nazareth, if it existed at all in the first century, was a practically unknown hamlet, as is evident from the absence of any mention in the Old Testament, Josephus, or Talmud. Yet we find in the Gospel of Luke that it is called a polis or "city" several times (Luke 1:26, 2:4, 2:39, 4:29), an error not found in the other Gospels. Since these references are all in the portions both absent from Marcion's Gospel and spurious on other grounds, the fact of the erroneous but consistent references to Nazareth as being a "city" provides convincing corroboration for the excision of these passages from Luke's original gospel. (Also, Luke 4:29 has Nazareth set on a hill, which does not correspond to the Nazareth known to thousands of pilgrims each year.)

What other references are there to Nazareth in the work of Luke-Acts? The NIV indicates that the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" (or "Jesus Christ of Nazareth") is found in Luke 4:34, Luke 18:37, Acts 2:22, Acts 3:6, Acts 4:10, Acts 6:14, Acts 10:38, Acts 26:9. However, what do we find in these verses in the more literal Darby translation?

Luke 4:34. saying, Eh! what have we to do with thee, Jesus, Nazarene? (Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ) hast thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy [One] of God.

Luke 18:37. And they told him that Jesus the Nazaraean (Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραιος) was passing by.

Acts 2:22. Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazaraean, (Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον) a man borne witness to by God to you by works of power and wonders and signs, which God wrought by him in your midst, as yourselves know

Acts 3:6. But Peter said, Silver and gold I have not; but what I have, this give I to thee: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazaraean (ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραιου) rise up and walk.

Acts 4:10. be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazaraean, (ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραιου) whom ye have crucified, whom God has raised from among [the] dead, by *him* this [man] stands here before you sound [in body].

Acts 6:14. for we have heard him saying, This Jesus the Nazaraean (Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος) shall destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses taught us.

Acts 10:38. Jesus who [was] of Nazareth: (Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέθ) how God anointed him with [the] Holy Spirit and with power; who went through [all quarters] doing good, and healing all that were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

Acts 26:9. I indeed myself thought that I ought to do much against the name of Jesus the Nazaraean. (Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου)

What does this word "Nazaraean" mean? Does it mean "man from Nazareth"? There is one more occurence of the term in Luke-Acts, and it supplies a crucial piece of evidence.

Acts 24:5. "For finding this man [Paul] a pest, and moving sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a leader of the sect of the Nazaraeans." (τῶν Ναζωραίων)

Clearly, then, to be a Nazaraean is to belong to a religious sect and does not imply that one hails from the city of Nazareth.

What was this sect of which Jesus was reportedly a member? Epiphanius writes, "They [the nazirites] did not call themselves Nasaraeans either; the Nasaraean sect was before Christ, and did not know Christ." (Panarion 2.29.5.7) Epiphanius also writes: "For this group did not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus' own name, but 'Nazoraeans.' However, at that time all Christians were called Nazoraeans in the same way." (Panarion 2.29.1.2) That is, Epiphanius says that the Nazoraeans preceded Christ but some of them came to be followers of Jesus, later to be called Christians, but at first known by the name of Nazoraean. Epiphanius writes, "Today this sect of the Nazoraeans is found in Boroea near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place caled Cocabe--Khokabe in Hebrew." (Panarion 2.29.7.7) Like the Ebionites, who are probably identical to the Jesus movement known as the Nazoraeans, they have a "Gospel of Matthew" in the Hebrew tongue (Panarion 2.29.9.4) and follow Jewish laws. Given the evidence in the seven passages of Luke-Acts above, Jesus was known as a Nazarene or Nazaraean, and it would be a strange coincidence if the pre-Christian sect to which Jesus belonged matched the name of his hometown. Jesus was called a Nazaraean because that was his religious affiliation, not because Nazareth was his birthplace.

What is the difference between "Nazarene" and "Nazaraean," if any? I don't know. The Anglicized "Nazarene" in Darby has ναζαρηνος for the nominative, ναζαρηνον for the accusative, ναζαρηνου for the genetive, and ναζαρηνε for the vocative (all singular). The Anglicized "Nazaraean" in Darby has ναζωραιος for the nominative, ναζωραιον for the accusative, ναζωραιου for the genetive, and ναζωραιων for the genetive plural. What is important to remember is that Hebrew has no vowels, and so a Hebrew word (phonetically spelled) NZR could develop different mutations when transliterated into Greek. Someone who is more competent in semitic languages may be able to unravel this little mystery. For now, I will simply take the stance that neither "Nazarene" nor "Nazaraean" necessarily indicate origin in a town of Nazareth.

The last bit of recalcitrant data in Luke's work is Acts 10:38, which refers to "Jesus who [is] from Nazareth" (Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέθ). In the Greek, this is just what we would expect for one who came from Nazareth, as distinct from the seven other references above. With the evidence already seen concerning the way in which Jesus is referenced as a "Nazaraean" or "Nazarene" seven times elsewhere in Luke-Acts, one would be rational to suspect that a glossator has changed "the Nazarene" to "who is from Nazareth," a modification due to the scribe's ignorance of any distinction between the two phrases. But is this reasonable conjecture based on any manuscript evidence? No variations for the verse are listed in the UBS edition, although it is possible that one out of thousands of Greek manuscripts has a variation in this phrase. As for versions in other languages, I have only the Coptic (done by Horner), in the Sahidic and Bohairic dialects. The Sahidic clearly agrees with the Greek in giving "he (who was) out of Nazaret" at this verse. But the Bohairic has "Jesus the Nazarene," with the translator using italics to indicate a variation from the Greek. In fact, the exact same phrase "Jesus the Nazarene" that is found in the Bohairic of Acts 10:38 is also found in the Bohairic of Luke 4:34 (where it is in agreement with the Greek).

Therefore, the last wrinkle is ironed out. Luke, the man whose two-volume work fills over a quarter of the New Testament, did not know of Jesus as having come out of a town called Nazareth, but rather considers Jesus to be part of the Nazarene/Nazaraean sect. So where did Nazareth of Galilee enter the picture?

To find the answer to that question, we need only turn to the Gospel of Matthew and examine the occurences of "Nazareth" there (quotations from Darby).

Matthew 2:23. and came and dwelt in a town called Nazareth; so that that should be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazaraean.

Matthew 4:13. and having left Nazareth, he went and dwelt at Capernaum, which is on the sea-side in the borders of Zabulon and Nepthalim,

Matthew 21:11. And the crowds said, This is Jesus the prophet who is from Nazareth of Galilee.

Matthew 26:71. And when he had gone out into the entrance, another [maid] saw him, and says to those there, This [man] also was with Jesus the Nazaraean.

Matthew 26:71 corresponds with Mark 14:67, which says, "and seeing Peter warming himself, having looked at him, says, And thou wast with the Nazarene, Jesus." This suggests the equivalency of "Nazarene" and "Nazaraean" and indicates that Matthew uses the Nazaraean term (instead of the town Nazareth) when borrowing this verse from Mark and in the most curious verse twenty-three, chapter two.

Indeed, this verse in Matthew is the smoking gun. The author of Matthew uses a "fulfillment" formula eleven times by my count: 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 26:56, 27:9. In all or nearly all cases, the prediction-event correspondence is purely Matthew's invention: there was no such prediction, there was no such event, or both. In the case of Matthew 2:23, we do not know which particular passage Matthew had in mind for the statement, "He shall be called a Nazaraean." Indeed, it is likely that Matthew had no particular passage in mind, seeing that he uses the plural "prophets" and "spoken" instead of written, with the suggestion that Matthew assumes the prophecy is there somewhere, or was once uttered if not written down. Why would Matthew assume that? Because Jesus was called a Nazaraean, and Matthew wanted to find scriptural support showing that every aspect of the life of Jesus was according to God's plan. The author of Matthew clearly regarded Jesus as having lived in Nazareth, as further shown in 4:13 and 21:11. Probably the Antiochene Matthew, where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26), was fuzzy on what it would have meant to be a "Nazaraean" fifty years ago. To make the mistake most plausible, it would be helpful to assume that there was a small village in Galilee known as Nazareth in the first century, and that the author of Matthew made the deduction that "Jesus the Nazaraean" meant the one from Nazareth.

<cont'd>

Capernaum

Finally we come to a verse that would appear to throw a monkey wrench into the works, Mark 1:9. I have just argued that the identification of Nazareth as the residence of Jesus stems from Matthew's confusion over the term "Nazaraean," which is clearly used to refer to a religious sect in Luke-Acts. But I also believe that the Gospel of Mark came before both Matthew and Luke. So how is this possible?

Mark 1:9. And it came to pass in those days [that] Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, (ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας) and was baptised by John at the Jordan.

Given the evidence seen so far, there is only one solution: this verse in Mark has been modified. I suggest that the original had "Jesus came from Galilee." Both "Nazareth" and "Galilee" are in the genetive case in Mark 1:9, so the proposal requires the insertion of two Greek words and nothing else. The idea is justified given the evidence already found in Luke-Acts and Matthew, but can we find anything in the Gospel of Mark to support it? In fact we can!

The word "Nazarene" or "Nazaraean" is found four other times in the Gospel of Mark, while the word for a location called "Nazareth" is found in no other passage of Mark.

Mark 1:24. saying, Eh! what have we to do with thee, Jesus, Nazarene? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the holy one of God.

Mark 10:47. And having heard that it was Jesus the Nazaraean, he began to cry out and to say, O Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me.

Mark 14:67. and seeing Peter warming himself, having looked at him, says, And thou wast with the Nazarene, Jesus.

Mark 16:6. but he says to them, Be not alarmed. Ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, the crucified one. He is risen, he is not here; behold the place where they had put him.

Furthermore, the indications in Mark are that Jesus lived in Capernaum, a hub of his ministry.

Mark 2:1. When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home. (NAB translation)

This indicates that Jesus had a house in Capernaum. Unlike Matthew 4:13, the author of Mark doesn't announce any move of Jesus from Nazareth, but suggests that Jesus smoothly transitioned from Galilee to the Jordan and back to Capernaum (without a stop at Nazareth), suggesting that Capernaum in Galilee was his point of origin in the first place. The same house is mentioned later:

Mark 3:20-31. "He came home. Again [the] crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.' ... His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him." (NAB)

This clearly indicates that the home of Jesus was at some distance to where his mother and his brothers lived. His relatives don't arrive on the scene until a separate scene has played out, and they have to call on Jesus from outside his home in Capernaum.

The last relevant passage in Mark says this:

Mark 6:1-6. He departed from there and came to his native place, accompanied by his disciples. When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, "Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands! Is he not the carpenter [or, carpenter's son], the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house." So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there, apart from curing a few sick people by laying his hands on them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.

The native place cannot be Capernaum, since the idea of Jesus teaching and doing miracles there would not have been new news (1:21-28 etc.). But, in reality, it would not have been the site known as Nazareth, which does not have a first century synagogue. In all probability, the author of Mark didn't know where Jesus was born, and that is why this place is not named in 6:1 (nor does 3:21 state the town from which his relatives set out). Mark 9:33 indicates that Jesus shared his house in Capernaum with his disciples, who may not have informed later generations of Nazaraeans where Jesus was born--although they would guess.

And what of the tradition that Jesus said "I can't get no respect at home"? It is remarkably ubiquitous, being found in Gospel of Thomas 31, Mark 6:4, Luke 4:24 (the interpolation), and John 4:44. Perhaps Jesus began to have a rocky relationship with his hometown in the later part of his ministry, even after performing several faith healings and exorcisms there? Incidental evidence for such an idea is found in a Q saying.

Matthew 11:23. And thou, Capernaum, who hast been raised up to heaven, shalt be brought down even to hades. For if the works of power which have taken place in thee, had taken place in Sodom, it had remained until this day.

Luke 10:15. And thou, Capernaum, who hast been raised up to heaven, shalt be brought down even to hades.

No doubt the recently evicted Jesus may have quipped, "Foxes have their dens and birds have their nests. But the son of man has nowhere to lay his head and gain repose." (Thomas 86)

Where does the Gospel of John fit in all this? John 4:44 is confusing where it is, as Jesus is given an enthusiastic welcome in Galilee, while it would be hard to imagine that John set his home in Samaria, where he had just come from. Raymond Brown writes, "A better solution for the problem created by vs. 44 is to regard it as an addition by the redactor, exactly on the same pattern as ii 12. From a tradition akin to that of the Synoptic Gospels, the redactor had a saying to the effect that Jesus was not properly appreciated in Galilee. He added this saying to the Gospel just before a story that will illustrate the unsatisfactory faith of the Galileans, a faith based on a crude dependence on signs and wonders (vs. 48). In his estimation the welcome given to Jesus in Galilee (vs. 45) is just as shallow as the reaction that greeted Jesus in Jerusalem (ii 23-25). Therefore, the insertion of vs. 44 does not contradict 45 once we understand that a superficial welcome based on enthusiasm for miracles is no real honor." (The Gospel According to John I-XII, p. 187) Otherwise, all the other indications point to Galilean origin (1:46, 2:1, 7:42, 7:52), although the disciples of Jesus had homes in Jerusalem at least by the time of passion week (16:32, 20:10). As the latest of the four gospels, the Johannine evangelist accepted the tradition started by Matthew that Jesus came from Nazareth, although the formulaic title "Jesus the Nazaraean" is still going strong (18:5, 18:7, 19:19).

Overview

So, here is the sequence of events revealed by the above discussion:

1. The family of Jesus live somewhere in Galilee, the unspecified native place in Mark.
2. Jesus has a home in Capernaum while an adult.
3. Jesus joins up with the Nazaraean sect.
4. Jesus is declared the Messiah at some point (whether before or after execution doesn't concern me here).
5. The followers of Jesus belong to the same group as Jesus and are still called Nazaraeans.
6. Jesus Messianists assume that Jesus, as the Davidic Messiah, must have been born in Bethlehem, based on a reading of Micah 5:2 and other scripture.
7. The Antiochene church members are called "Christians" by outsiders.
8. The Gospel of Mark is written, wherein the author reveals no knowledge of where the family of Jesus lived (except that it is in Galilee), although he knows that Jesus had a home in Capernaum. The author of Mark wasn't aware of or didn't agree with the assumption that Jesus was born in Bethlehem as the Davidic Messiah.
9. The author of Matthew places the original home of Jesus and his parents in Bethlehem, along with the whole star, magi, and massacre legend.
10. Misunderstanding the sectarian title 'Jesus the Nazaraean', the Antiochene Christian Matthew has Jesus return from Egypt to Nazareth, fulfilling what the prophets said (thus getting two spurious prophecies for one birth: Bethlehem and Nazareth).
11. Either before or after Matthew, Luke composes his two-volume work, which refers to Jesus "the Nazarene" or "the Nazaraean" seven times, and clearly regards this as the name of a religious group (Acts 24:5).
12. The Gospel of John in its main redaction is composed, innocent of the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem as the Davidic Messiah, but aware of the tradition spawned by Matthew that "Jesus the Nazaraean" meant "Jesus from Nazareth."
13. A scribe adds the infancy narrative of Luke 1:5-2:52 and the Nazareth episode of Luke 4:16-30 (at least), where the legend of Nazareth has grown to the point where it is a full-fledged city with a synagogue set on a hill, none of which matches the archaeological evidence.
14. Marcion of Sinope surely modifies his copy of Luke, but the copy he modified was untainted by the additions of the mentioned scribe.
15. The Infancy Gospel of James and the apologetics of Justin Martyr are published, showing dependence on the infancy narrative of Luke. The same for later church fathers.
16. The Gospel of Philip, though giving two different etymologies for "the Nazarene" ("he who reveals what is hidden" and "the Truth"), does not think to connect the term with a place called Nazareth.
17. The original Jews-for-Jesus sect known as the Nazoraeans (now extinct in its pre-Christian form), but more commonly the Ebionites, survives in pockets unto the fourth century when Epiphanius wrote.

The truth is out there...really out there. I hope you enjoyed your journey with me after the truth of this facet of the traditions about Jesus.

<The End>

POWELL:
You could be right.

There were some typos, but I didn't keep track.

I suggest you put approximate dates in your summary, perhaps with the reminder that an order of events might be correct even if the dates are mistaken.

John Powell

Just bumping this for Peter. (excellent essay dood! )

Yo Peter,

Can we discuss this a wee bit at a time?

"The problem with this line of interpretation is that the Fourth Evangelist insists from Chapter 1 onward that Jesus does come form Nazareth (1:45-56), with all the scandal that causes even future believers (e.g., Nathanael in 1:46). John's insistence on Nazareth as the place of Jesus' earthly origins, a code word for the 'flesh' that the Word becomes, returns with theological force in his Passion Narrative (18:5,7; 19:19). Moreover, the evangelist never communicates any other tradition about Jesus' hometown to his readers, despite John's tendency to deliver informative
asides to his audience while the drama is in progress. There is no clear indication anywhere in the Johannine writings of the NT that readers in the Johannine communities would have known the special Infancy Narrative tradition about Bethlehem." (A Marginal Jew, v. 1, p. 215)

This in itself casts doubt on the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a doubt that will become a disbelief as we investigate the accounts of Matthew and Luke in turn.

The problem with Meier's statement is that in a high-context setting any sort of silence like this can't be taken as positive evidence of anything at all, or to cast doubt on anything. If Jesus was indeed born at Bethlehem then this would have been noted in missionary preaching long before John's readers and hearers read/heard his work. In other words there's no need to repeat such details unless you choose to.

Meier is certainly right about Nazareth as a focus. John's note of this is ironic and probably also makes it clear why he wouldn't note the Bethlehem birth anyway. The rejection of Jesus by the world is one of John's themes. By noting his Nazarene origins John is connecting Jesus with a town of low status (whereas Bethlehem would be a more high status origin) and one of the reasons why Jesus is rejected by the world.

Well, I think that essays of this kind have been done before, you know, and done by persons of much greater scholarship than you or I. It seems rather 19th century, to my ignorant eye.

I wondered what the method used here was. Does it not consist of finding ad-hoc reasons to ignore selected portions of the historical record, and constructing a story about those bits from the remainder?

This all seems very familiar. I do not see how this approach could be a valid way to get at the facts about anything.

In fact I couldn't help being reminded of revisionist writing about the holocaust, which to the best of my knowledge relies on a similar mixture of selection and imagination.

Of course the difference is that revisionists end up in prison, while the main risk run by telling these stories about Christian origins, is that someone will offer you an Episcopalian bishopric, or start calling you 'holy' or something (in which case keep your back to the wall and your zips fastened -- trust me, you'll be grateful). <smile>

All the best,

Roger Pearse

What was this sect of which Jesus was reportedly a member? Epiphanius writes, "They [the nazirites] did not call themselves Nasaraeans either; the Nasaraean sect was before Christ, and did not know Christ." (Panarion 2.29.5.7) Epiphanius also writes: "For this group did not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus' own name, but 'Nazoraeans.' However, at that time all Christians were called Nazoraeans in the same way." (Panarion 2.29.1.2) That is, Epiphanius says that the Nazoraeans preceded Christ but some of them came to be followers of Jesus, later to be called Christians, but at first known by the name of Nazoraean. Epiphanius writes, "Today this sect of the Nazoraeans is found in Boroea near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place caled Cocabe--Khokabe in Hebrew." (Panarion 2.29.7.7) Like the Ebionites, who are probably identical to the Jesus movement known as the Nazoraeans, they have a "Gospel of Matthew" in the Hebrew tongue (Panarion 2.29.9.4) and follow Jewish laws. Given the evidence in the seven passages of Luke-Acts above, Jesus was known as a Nazarene or Nazaraean, and it would be a strange coincidence if the pre-Christian sect to which Jesus belonged matched the name of his hometown. Jesus was called a Nazaraean because that was his religious affiliation, not because Nazareth was his birthplace.

What is the difference between "Nazarene" and "Nazaraean," if any? I don't know. The Anglicized "Nazarene" in Darby has ναζαρηνος for the nominative, ναζαρηνον for the accusative, ναζαρηνου for the genetive, and ναζαρηνε for the vocative (all singular). The Anglicized "Nazaraean" in Darby has ναζωραιος for the nominative, ναζωραιον for the accusative, ναζωραιου for the genetive, and ναζωραιων for the genetive plural. What is important to remember is that Hebrew has no vowels, and so a Hebrew word (phonetically spelled) NZR could develop different mutations when transliterated into Greek. Someone who is more competent in semitic languages may be able to unravel this little mystery. For now, I will simply take the stance that neither "Nazarene" nor "Nazaraean" necessarily indicate origin in a town of Nazareth.


To find the answer to that question, we need only turn to the Gospel of Matthew and examine the occurences of "Nazareth" there (quotations from Darby).

Matthew 2:23. and came and dwelt in a town called Nazareth; so that that should be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazaraean.

Matthew 4:13. and having left Nazareth, he went and dwelt at Capernaum, which is on the sea-side in the borders of Zabulon and Nepthalim,

Matthew 21:11. And the crowds said, This is Jesus the prophet who is from Nazareth of Galilee.

Matthew 26:71. And when he had gone out into the entrance, another [maid] saw him, and says to those there, This [man] also was with Jesus the Nazaraean.

Matthew 26:71 corresponds with Mark 14:67, which says, "and seeing Peter warming himself, having looked at him, says, And thou wast with the Nazarene, Jesus." This suggests the equivalency of "Nazarene" and "Nazaraean" and indicates that Matthew uses the Nazaraean term (instead of the town Nazareth) when borrowing this verse from Mark and in the most curious verse twenty-three, chapter two.

Indeed, this verse in Matthew is the smoking gun. The author of Matthew uses a "fulfillment" formula eleven times by my count: 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 26:56, 27:9. In all or nearly all cases, the prediction-event correspondence is purely Matthew's invention: there was no such prediction, there was no such event, or both. In the case of Matthew 2:23, we do not know which particular passage Matthew had in mind for the statement, "He shall be called a Nazaraean." Indeed, it is likely that Matthew had no particular passage in mind, seeing that he uses the plural "prophets" and "spoken" instead of written, with the suggestion that Matthew assumes the prophecy is there somewhere, or was once uttered if not written down. Why would Matthew assume that? Because Jesus was called a Nazaraean, and Matthew wanted to find scriptural support showing that every aspect of the life of Jesus was according to God's plan. The author of Matthew clearly regarded Jesus as having lived in Nazareth, as further shown in 4:13 and 21:11. Probably the Antiochene Matthew, where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26), was fuzzy on what it would have meant to be a "Nazaraean" fifty years ago. To make the mistake most plausible, it would be helpful to assume that there was a small village in Galilee known as Nazareth in the first century, and that the author of Matthew made the deduction that "Jesus the Nazaraean" meant the one from Nazareth.

<cont'd>

Thanks, Peter, for your wide-ranging and penetrating presentation. I would like to comment on just one point with regard to the following passage:

In the case of Matthew 2:23, we do not know which particular passage Matthew had in mind for the statement, "He shall be called a Nazaraean." Indeed, it is likely that Matthew had no particular passage in mind, seeing that he uses the plural "prophets" and "spoken" instead of written, with the suggestion that Matthew assumes the prophecy is there somewhere, or was once uttered if not written down. Why would Matthew assume that? Because Jesus was called a Nazaraean, and Matthew wanted to find scriptural support showing that every aspect of the life of Jesus was according to God's plan.

I think there MAY be a passage that Matt had in mind, and that's Judges 13:3ff:

"And the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, 'Although you are barren, having borne no children, you shall conceive and bear a son. Now be careful not to drink wine or strong drink, or to eat anything unclean, for you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor is to come on his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from birth. It is he who shall begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines......."

Interesting parallel: an angelic annunciation of a miraculous birth of a savior of Israel.

I should have added, "and one who is a Nazirite/Nazarene."