RSS

Monthly Archives: February 2010

Was "Jesus Barabbas" Invented By Matthew?

According to some footnotes in some bibles, the man that the Jews want Pilate to release in exchange for Jesus (Christ) is called Jesus Barabbas (Matt 27:16-17). These instances of “Jesus Barabbas” only appear in some Greek manuscripts of Matthew. Since Matthew is basically an expanded version of Mark, does this mean that Mark also originally had Jesus Barabbas? This makes sense of Pilate’s contrast: To release Jesus called Barabbas or Jesus called Christ (ιησουν τον λεγομενον βαραββαν η ιησουν τον λεγομενον χριστον). In our current texts, he just asks to release Barabbas or the Jesus called Christ.

“Bar Abba[s]” literally means “son of the father” in Aramaic.

I argued in an earlier post that Mark 1:9 probably didn’t have “from Nazareth” in the original since its Synoptic equivalent, Matthew 3:13, doesn’t have that phrase. It only has “from Galilee”. Meaning that when Matthew was writing his edition of Mark 1, his version of Mark probably didn’t have “from Nazareth” or he would have included it, since Matt likes to insert the words now translated as “Nazareth” in parts of his narrative that are unique to Matthew (Mark 11:1-11 vs Matt 27:1-11).

Along those lines, I can see why Matthew would add the name “Jesus” to “Barabbas” if he understood Mark’s theological point. On the other hand, Matthew removes Mark’s Aramaisms (like “talitha koumen” in Mark 5:41; cf Matt 9:23-25) so he might not have known Aramaic. On the other hand, Matt knew what the name “Jesus” meant. But then again he’s writing in Greek. The name “Jesus” has no meaning in Greek but the name that it’s derived from – Joshua – does have meaning so he must have been told what the name meant by someone else. Another possible reason would be that because Matt seems to be writing to Hellenized Jewish-Christians, the Aramaisms might have seemed either redundant, offensive, or useless.

But I’m thinking Matt didn’t know Aramaic. So if Matt didn’t know Aramaic, then he wouldn’t have known what “Barabbas” meant and would have had no reason to add the name “Jesus” to his name. But Mark does seem to know Aramaic (Mark 14:36 vs Matt 26:42), and having a constrast between an insurrectionist Jesus Son of the Father and a peaceful Jesus Son of the Father does seem to fit Mark’s style of writing; his ironic contrast.

So “Jesus Barabbas” is more than likely an invention of Mark, and Matthew probably just copied what Mark wrote. Since it’s only in some manuscripts of Matthew, it must have been systematically left out of subsequent copies of Matthew. Mark, on the other hand, was never a popular gospel. At least until the forged resurrection sighting was added to the end.

Or then again, Jesus Barabbas might have been the historical Jesus!

 

Some Interesting Coincidences

This is just a coincidence I noted when someone brought up Caligula’s attempt to deify himself and build a statue in his likeness in the Jewish Temple c. 40 CE

Andrew Criddle

Caligula sought c 40 CE to have his image venerated in the Jerusalem Temple. This episode has probably helped shape the present form of Mark 13.

For information about Caligula’s plans for erecting his image in the Jerusalem temple see josephus antiquities 18 and Philo Embassy to Gaius

These texts refer to Caligula by his true name Caius/Gaius

Abe

I am interested. Do you happen to know where I can find more information on that?

Me

Ιt’s also interesting to note that he was assassinated before he could follow through with it. If he had done it, the Jews would have probably went to war with Rome 26 years earlier than what history records.

Antiochus IV set up a statue of Zeus in the temple and the Jews went to war with the Greeks (and their Hellenized Jewish sycophants) over it. The Roman Emperor Hadrian set up a statue of Jupiter on the sacred ground of the temple and again 300 years later and the Jews went to war with Rome over it; even though they had their asses handed to them two times prior (1st Jewish/Roman war and the Kitos War). Both were “abominations” (the Hebrew word is interchangeable with “idol”) that caused desolation.

No doubt Gaius attempting to deify himself and erect a statue in his likeness in the temple would have infuriated the entire Judean populace. Though if Jesus is talking about Gaius and his potentially desolating abomination, then he would have to be alive sometime in the late 30s or very early 40s (40, 41). According to Josephus, this was around the time John the Baptist was imprisoned and killed.

DC Hindley

The timeline is believed to go something like this:

Winter 39/40 CE = Petronius, governor of Syria, receives Gaius’ order to erect a statue and proceeds to head towards Judea with 2 legions.

April/May 40 CE = Petronius negotiates with Jewish elders at Ptolemais. Sends report to Gaius.

June 40 CE = Gaius receives Petronius’ report and writes back urging him to expedite execution of his order.

August 40 CE = Petronius receives Gaius’ reply but hesitates to act on it.

End of September 40 CE = Agrippa I faints when he learns what Gaius has ordered and appeals to his childhood buddy, persuading him to send an order to Petronius to abandon the plan.

Beginning of November 40 CE = Petronius has more negotiations with the Jewish elders. Sends a request to Gaius not to erect the statue.

Ending of November 40 CE = Petronius receives Gaius’ order to abandon the plan that was sent in Sept.

Beginning of January 41 CE = Gaius receives the petition from Petronius sent in early November, and responds with an order for Petronius to commit suicide for stalling instead of acting.

24 January 41 CE = Gaius is murdered.

Beginning of March 41 CE = Petronius receives the news of Gaius’ death.

Beginning of April CE = Petronius receives Gaius’ letter ordering him to commit suicide, sent in early January, but naturally ignores it. Hey, the man’s dead!

 
Comments Off on Some Interesting Coincidences

Posted by on February 23, 2010 in caius, caligula, gaius, jesus, john the baptist, josephus, mark 13:14, philo

 

The Historical Jesus is Lost to History

So it seems that the debate between “historical” Jesus proponents (HJs) and “mythical” Jesus proponents (MJs) has started erupting in the blogosphere. I made a post a couple of days ago where I outlined that the three strongest arguments for a historical Jesus were:

1. The name “Jesus” seems to go back to the earliest traditions.

MJers might counter with the fact that the name “Jesus” was extremely popular in 2nd temple Judaism. The very first person to be named “Jesus” was given that name as a title, not as a name. In the modern era we call that person “Joshua”.

Numbers 13:16

Ελληνικα – και επωνομασεν Μωυσης τον Αυση υιον Ναυη “Ιησουν”
English – And Moses named Hosea son of Nun “Jesus”

If JEDP and other religio-historical writings tell us anything, name changes usually have to do with what the person does. Joshua (Jesus) is YHWH’s instrument for salvation – Joshua literally means “YHWH [is] Salvation” or “YHWH’s salvation” – Jeho was the prefix for Hashem, and Shua means salvation or deliverance. Moses leads the Jews out of bondage, but Joshua (Jesus) leads the Jews to their promised land. So if the MJers are right, the name was chosen simply because of its function.

2. The crucifixion seems to go back to the earliest traditions.

Crucifixions had been knowledge to Jews since at least the time of Antiochus IV (Josephus, JW 11.5.4 describes Antiochus crucifying numerous Jews when he stormed Jerusalem), thus the language of “crucifixion” to mean death, extreme pain, or punishment might have been commonplace when Paul was writing. MJers might say that Paul seems to use “crucified” allegorically some times since he says that he was “crucified” numerous times (Gal 2:20; 5:24; 6:14). So we have to wonder what Paul means when he says that Jesus “was clearly portrayed as crucified” (3:1).

I think the MJ interpretation of (1) and (2) is kinda flimsy. But still possible. Besides (1) and (2), early Christians seemed to disagree about everything else. Which brings up the strongest evidence:

3. The gospel of Mark’s entire narrative seems to be an attack on the “historical” witnesses.

The short of it is that in Mark only the reader, demons, and unnamed people know that Jesus is the messiah. The Jews, priests, and scribes don’t know. And Jesus’ disciples don’t know – save Peter. But he flees at the end. He and the disciples don’t understand Jesus’ resurrection, and the specifically named women who visit the tomb don’t understand.

While this is evidence, it is pretty weak evidence. Even though number three is the best of the list, it actually undermines all of the scholarly inquiries into the “historical” Jesus. Since it’s a polemic against the historical witnesses, this means Mark is useless as history. Ironically, most HJs are committing the same mistake that Matthew, Luke, and possibly John did when they wrote their edited versions of Mark – that Mark has some sort of historical core. Both modern historians and gospel writers after Mark both edit, add, and subtract things to Mark’s basic story that they think should or should not be there to find the “historical” core. Basically HJs make a Jesus in their own image, as R. Joseph Hoffman noted – but Matt, Luke, John; heretics like Marcion, Valentinus, the Ebionites – also made Mark’s Jesus in their own image.

Of course, Mark himself made Jesus in his own image to discredit the historical witnesses.

Though I see a false dichotomy between the “mythicist” and “historicist” positions. A lot of HJs think there are many mythological elements in the gospel narratives (the virgin birth being the most obvious) but think that there’s an authentic core in the gospel narratives (but who knows what that is?). On the other side, the MJ camp thinks that the entire thing isn’t based on a person that existed in history.

I think both are wrong. Or, I think both are right.

Namely, the entire gospel narrative (Mark) could be fiction/mythological/polemic/allegory/what-have-you but there could still have been a historical person it was extremely loosely based on. Consider the following:

An incident more alarming still had occurred four years before the war at a time of exceptional peace and prosperity for the City. One Jesus son of Ananias, a very ordinary yokel, came to the feast at which every Jew is expected to set up a tabernacle for God. As he stood in the Temple he suddenly began to shout: ‘A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the Sanctuary, a voice against the bridegrooms and brides, a voice against the whole people.’ Day and night he uttered this cry as he went through all the streets. Some of the more prominent citizens, very annoyed at these ominous words, laid hold of the fellow and beat him savagely. Without saying a word in his own defense or for the private information of his persecutors, he persisted in shouting the same warning as before. The Jewish authorities, rightly concluding that some supernatural force was responsible for the man’s behaviour, took him before the Roman procurator.

There, though scourged till his flesh hung in ribbons, he neither begged for mercy nor shed a tear, but lowering his voice to the most mournful of tones answered every blow with ‘Woe to Jerusalem!’ When Albinus — for that was the procurator’s name — demanded to know who he was, where he came from and why he uttered such cries, he made no reply whatever to the questions but endlessly repeated his lament over the City, till Albinus decided he was a madman and released him. All the time till the war broke out he never approached another citizen or was seen in conversation, but daily as if he had learnt a prayer by heart he recited his lament: ‘Woe to Jerusalem!’ Those who daily cursed him he never cursed; those who gave him food he never thanked: his only response to anyone was that dismal foreboding. His voice was heard most of all at the feasts.

For seven years and five months he went on ceaselessly, his voice as strong as ever and his vigour unabated, till during the siege after seeing the fulfilment of his foreboding he was silenced. He was going round on the wall uttering his piercing cry: ‘Woe again to the City, the people, and the Sanctuary!’ and as he added a last word: ‘Woe to me also!’ a stone shot from an engine struck him, killing him instantly. Thus he uttered those same forebodings to the very end.

– Josephus, “War of the Jews” 6.5.3

This only has the slimmest commonalities with the Jesus of the gospels. Namely my evidence (1) above, both Jesus’ prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, both being brought by the Jews before the procurator, and both not answering a word in their defense at their trial.

If I think that this Jesus was who the gospel Jesus was based on, would that make me a HJ or an MJ? Doesn’t it just seem ad hoc? What about this Jesus:

Josephus, Life 12

So Jesus the son of Sapphias, one of those whom we have already mentioned as the leader of a seditious tumult of fishermen and poor people, prevented us, and took with him certain Galileans, and set the entire palace on fire, and thought he should get a great deal of money thereby, because he saw some of the roofs gilt with gold. They also plundered a great deal of the furniture, which was done without our approbation; for after we had discoursed with Capellus and the principal men of the city, we departed from Bethmaus, and went into the Upper Galilee. But Jesus and his party slew all the Greeks that were inhabitants of Tiberias, and as many others as were their enemies before the war began.

[…]

Life 22

Yet did not this his knavery succeed well at last; for as he was already nearly approaching, one of those with him deserted him, and came to me, and told me what he had undertaken to do. When I was informed of this, I went into the market-place, and pretended to know nothing of his treacherous purpose. I took with me many Galileans that were armed, as also some of those of Tiberias; and, when I had given orders that all the roads should be carefully guarded, I charged the keepers of the gates to give admittance to none but Jesus, when he came, with the principal of his men, and to exclude the rest; and in case they aimed to force themselves in, to use stripes [in order to repel them]. Accordingly, those that had received such a charge did as they were bidden, and Jesus came in with a few others; and when I had ordered him to throw down his arms immediately, and told him, that if he refused so to do, he was a dead man, he seeing armed men standing all round about him, was terrified, and complied; and as for those of his followers that were excluded, when they were informed that he was seized, they ran away.

This also shares evidence (1) above, both Jesus’ are followed around by a group of Galilean fishermen and poor people, both Jesus’ are betrayed by one of their followers, and upon arrest both Jesus’ rag-tag band of fishermen and poor people abandon him.

If I think the gospel Jesus was “based” on this person, would that make me a HJ? This also seems just a bit ad hoc.

One objection to my two “historical” Jesus characters is that neither of them lived during the tenure of Pilate. I really see no evidence that Christianity had to have started in 33 CE. Christianity, just like Rabbinic Judaism, could be a reaction to the end of the Sacrificial System in 70 CE. There’s no internal evidence to date Paul’s letters to before 70. Many people date Paul’s letters to the 1st century because of Acts of the Apostles… but I think it’s a 2nd century work aimed to discredit Marcionites; worthless as history. There’s also a mention of an “Aretas” in Paul’s letters assumed to be Aretas IV, but this also brings up problems.

The first we hear of Pilate in association with Jesus’ crucifixion is in Mark (besides 1 Tim 6:13 which is a Pastoral Epistle, the first witness to them is Irenaeus c. 180 CE). However, the Pilate in Mark is a completely fictional character. The historical Pilate described by both Philo and Josephus was impatient. He’s said to have executed troublemakers without any trials – but in Mark he gives a patient (Albinus-like) trial to Jesus and supposedly to [Jesus] Barabbas as well. He finds no fault with Jesus and wants to release him, but the angry mob persuade him otherwise.

According to Josephus, a similar situation happened when Pilate stole funds from the temple to build an aqueduct. When some Jews gathered to complain, Pilate had them beaten. Some beaten so badly that they were killed. Pilate was eventually recalled back to Rome when he had massacred some unarmed Samaritans who were following a messiah claimant on mount Gerizim.

Mark might have made his narrative occur a generation before the destruction of the temple in 70 for symbolic reasons. One generation before the fall of the temple when Pilate was prefect of Judea.

So – I think that trying to find the historical core to the gospel Jesus is just as ad hoc as my two examples above. The gospel Jesus is also connected to Paul’s Jesus in the least ways – beyond (1) and (2), both Paul and Mark’s Jesus only share mythological elements. The many historical Jesus’ (re?)created by historians share nothing with the Jesus in Paul other than (1) and (2) above.

One objection to what I describe as a weak link in Paul might be the seeming commonality with Cephas/Peter. The problem with this is that Cephas is a proper name, and proper names are usually transliterated as phonetically as possible into other languages. Cephas and the high priest Caiaphas seems to share an Aramaic etymological root – the word “rock”. This is also where the word Peter derives from in Greek etymology.

The Latin Paulus was not translated literally into Greek. If it were, we might be calling Paul “Micron”; “Paulus” being Latin for small. The name Jesus, also, was not translated literally into Greek. Or we might be calling Jesus “Soter” (savior, from y’s[h]ua). So why was Cephas translated literally into Peter in Greek? I think Mark had a polemical reason for doing this.

In Mark, Jesus gives Simon the name “Peter” for no reason (3:16). The first parable that Jesus has to explain to his boneheaded disciples is the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:14-20). In this parable, the “word” gets thrown on the “rocky” (ΠΕΤΡΩΔΕΣ::petrodes) surface and can’t take root: “Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away” (from Mark 4:16-17). Peter received the word with joy at 14:29;31 and then he quickly falls away when trouble starts in Mark (14:66-75). Peter is ΠΕΤΡΟΣ (petros) in Greek. Of course, Matthew didn’t like this discreditation and elevates Peter (Matt 16:18) using the same pun on the name.

Other than sharing the name “rock” albeit in two different languages, is there any reason to think that Cephas and Peter are meant to even be the same person? In an earlier post I listed some reasons why not. It’s not really until John is written that Cephas and Peter are equivocated. Galatians 2:7-8 is the only instance where the name “Peter” is rendered in the Wescott and Hort Pauline corpus (which for the sake of simplicity “represents” the earliest texts).

This seems to be an attempt by a non-Pauline scribe to show Peter (Cephas) as being a leader figure like he’s shown being in the gospel narratives. Without Gal 2:7-8, Paul doesn’t care about the “pillars” and Cephas isn’t seen as a leader per se but as part of the “pillars”. Cephas actually seems to show deference to “men from James”. Of course, this immediately brings to mind 1 Cor 15 where Jesus appears first to Cephas and then the twelve. But according to the gospel narratives, Jesus appears to the eleven because Peter is part of the twelve.

The other connection seems to be James being the brother of Jesus. This is also ambiguous in that Paul mentions two (or three if 1 Cor 15 is authentic) people named James. One James is a pillar, the other is a “brother of the lord”. Again, this phrase is ambiguous. Paul seems to use the word brother multiple times to mean a fellow believer. And “brother of the lord” could be a literal rendering of the proper name Ahijah (brother of YHWH). I personally don’t think that it was a literalization of Ahijah, but it’s possible if Cephas is Peter. Paul might have said “brother in the lord” which is a phrase he uses elsewhere.

In Paul, there seems to be a differentiation between apostles (those who had seen the risen Jesus, 1 Cor 9:5, or those sent to evangelize) and brothers (those had not seen the risen Jesus or those who don’t evangelize).

Then again, Paul’s letters themselves might have been tampered with to “correct” various so-called “heretics”. Our first witness to a collection of Pauline letters is Marcion. Marcion’s reconstructed version of Galatians doesn’t even have the phrase “brother of the lord” at Gal 1:19. His Pauline letters also couldn’t have had the many ΚΑΤΑ ΣΑΡΚΑ (according to the flesh) phrases that many HJs use to cement the belief that Paul believed in a human Jesus. Again, Paul is tampered evidence so I have to withhold judgment on this part. It could go either way.

Considering that “orthodoxy” was a phenomenon of the west[ern Roman Empire] and heresey in the east (including Jerusalem), it’s hard to see how the orthodox had the “original” Pauline letters and the areas where Paul had evangelized to fell heavily away from orthodoxy.

So I am basically agnostic on the issue. Maybe there was a historical Jesus, just like there was probably a historical Roman Leigionnaire named Quintus who killed a bunch of Jews during the war of 70 CE. This doesn’t mean that we can say anything beyond that.

The historical Jesus is lost to history. The only Jesus we have is the mythical one.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 17, 2010 in historicity, jesus myth

 

Marcion and Judahite Polytheism

This is from the discussion here (Marcion’s non-Jewish Jesus):

Prof. Neil Godfrey:

We do not know the details of what Marcion’s gospel contained. Tertullian tells us that he writes from memory (his first draft was lost or stolen), and Marcion’s gospel was said to have been regularly being revised even after Marcion’s time. So by the time we are reading accounts of Irenaeus and Tertullian we cannot know what version of Marcion’s gospel they were reading. Nor can we know how much they were paraphrasing accurately from memory.

But there is good reason to think that Marcion’s gospel was closer to the gospel of Luke’s than it was to the other canonical gospels — discussed in Did Marcion Mutilate the Gospel of Luke.

There must have been some overlap between Marcion's gospel and canonical Luke for Marcion's opponents after Justin to have thought it was canonical Luke he had mutilated. Most notably Luke is the only gospel containing that passage so central to Marcionism — the statement in Luke 6 about the 2 trees and fruit of good and evil.

[…]

Marcion's Alien (Top) God did not create the physical world, but left this to his subordinate Demiurge, the god of the Jewish bible. It is correct that the idea does not originate with Marcion — Marcion embraced it from well known philosophical speculations.

Loomis:

[…]

How are your Old Testament polytheism chops? Are you familiar with the notion that the God in the Old Testament is actually a conflation between Yahweh and the gods of the Canaanite pantheon?

This hypothesis asserts that the original god of Israel was a bull-god called El, and that Yahweh was considered a separate deity. – But that over time these two gods were combined to create one monotheistic god. It involves a divine family, and all kinds of gods and ‘Sons of God’.

I can’t help but wonder if Marcion’s theology is based on that knowledge, or at least based on some naïve screwed up misconstruction related to it. He wouldn’t have to invent a new god with a new son, he would only have to read the OT with a different slant.

Me:

Well this makes sense too… maybe Marcion simply read the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (and similar other places):

32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of god.
32:9 For Jehovah's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance

[The god] Jehovah received the tribe of the Jews from the Most High god. Jehovah gave the Jews their law and prophets and will give them their messiah, but the Most High god was a totally different god – and Jesus is the son of this Most High god, not the son of Jehovah.

Notice that this verse is corrected to remove the inherent polytheism and to reflect monotheism in current Bibles.

DG:

Just figure out who Melchizadek (sp?) was worshiping and you got it!

Loomis:

The one in Genesis 14 was a high priest of El [Elyon – i.e. the god most high]. He [Melchizedek] never heard of Yahweh. Genesis 14 is an old Canaanite story. The ‘Yahweh’ in verse 22 is a insertion. The entire chapter (14) is an insertion.

Melchizedek was the King of Salem – named after S[h]alim the god of dusk. Shalim was Shahar’s brother. They were both sons of El but Shahar was mothered by As[h]arah and Shalim was mothered by Anat.

DG:

Now, just for fun, whose god do Christians actually worship?

The Jewish God or Marcion's?

Me:

Marcion called the god of Jesus, god the father, the good god – the god of goodness. 1 John 8:4 (i.e. “god is love”) is closer to Marcionism than Judaism. There's nothing in Jewish scripture that says that YHWH is love. If anything, he's the god of justice — see Isaiah 30:18 — exactly what Marcion said he was.

Of course, I think that Marcionism was assimilated (along with Judaism) by the later Catholics so that we get the contradictory modern Christian god. A god who is both love and justice. Both all forgiving and jealous. One is Marcion’s god, the other is the Jewish god.

 
 

From Tsade (צ) to Zeta (Z)

I was in the middle of looking up Hebrew proper names/nouns with a Tsade (צ) in them to see how many of them had the Tsade transliterated into a Z in Greek or a Sigma (Σ) in Greek. Of course while following a thread on FRDB “spin” seems to have done a lot of the legwork before me so I’ll post what he wrote here for my own edification:

I have pointed out on countless occasions that The Semitic Tsade was extremely frequently transliterated as a Greek sigma. Just look at Zion (ציון) in LXX Greek, which invariably appears as Σιων. Sidon ever spelt with a zeta in the LXX? Zadok ever spelt with a Zeta in the LXX? What about Isaac (יצחק)? Etc. In the case where this is not the case, ie zeta is used for Tsade and we have multiple exemplars, regarding the Moabite town of Zoara, the LXX Greek is predominantly sigma. However, in the case of Nazareth, we have not one single case of a sigma being used in the earliest literature. The zeta is a grave problem for the veracity of Nazareth and you have to look at the evidence rather than concocting naive explainings away.

[…]

Instead, we have some good evidence in the gospel texts for a progression of related terms:

  1. Regarding Nazareth, there is no parallel in the synoptic gospels regarding its use, so it cannot be seen as part of the earliest tradition.
    Early in the christian tradition there was Ναζαρηνος (used 4 times in Mk, two of which were carried over into Lk)
  2. Mt removes all references to Ναζαρηνος sometime before including references to Nazara.
  3. As both Mt and Lk know Nazara but in different contexts, we have evidence for a Nazara tradition which precedes both of those gospels but which developed after Mk, which thinks that Capernaum is the home of Jesus (Mk 2:1).
  4. Mt accepts Nazara, using it twice 2:23 and 4:13 and justifies Nazara with a warped reference to Jdg 13:5, “he will be called a Ναζωραιος” in 2:23.
    Nazareth finally comes in Lk in the birth narrative and in Mt as an interpolation into some Marcan material (Mt 21:11).

Chronologically:
1. Ναζαρηνος 2. Nazara 3. Ναζωραιος 4. Nazareth

That’s the basic evidence.

Of course there’s also Melchizedek (LXX/NT Μελχισεδεκ) and Sadducee (NT Σαδδουκαιος), which both also derive from Zadok. Meaning that phonetically, “Nazareth” based on the Jewish town nun-tsade-resh-tav (נצרת) should have been rendered in Greek as Nasaret[h].

On the other hand, “Nazirite” is consistently transliterated with a zeta in the LXX (here, here, and here it is ναζιραιον, here it is ναζιρ) but this is because Nazirite (נזיר, NZYR) is not spelled with a Tsade. It’ spelled nun-zayin-yod-resh. Other LXX manuscripts as well as Numbers 6 translate “nazirite” literally as consecrated (αγνεία). The prediction that Jesus would be called a Nazarene (spelled ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΝ in Matt 2:23) seems to be derived from Judges 13:5; the prediction that Samson would be a Nazirite (spelled ΝΑΖΙΡΑΙΟΝ).

This has significance for an earlier post I made about the textual evolution in early Christian writings (well, in the Wescott and Hort NT) from ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΟΣ (Nazarene) to ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ (Nazirite-ish), somewhat dishonestly translated into English in all instances as “Nazareth”. Spin also made a blog post about the manuscript evolution from Nazarene to Nazareth, which corroborates my post.

Jesus was originally called a Nazarene. But what the hell is a Nazarene?

 
3 Comments

Posted by on February 9, 2010 in nazarene, nazirite, sigma, tsade, zeta

 

Anointing in Josephus

I’ve noted a couple of times that it’s incredibly suspicious that the only two times that Josephus writes the word “Christ” is when he just so happens to be refering to the Jesus of Christianity. One person at FRDB claimed that by the time Josephus wrote, he didn’t know what “christ” meant. I countered that Josephus had to have known what “christ” meant: it means “anointed one”, and Josephus uses the word “anoint” many times in Greek.

So here (from here) are all of the instances in Antiquities where Josephus writes the word “anoint” or some other variation of it.

3.8.3
και πασαν την σκηνην χριων

“chrion” – anoint

6.5.4
ο προφήτης χρίει τον Σαουλον

the prophet anointed (chriei) Saul

6.8.1 (x3)
εί χρίσει τω ελαίω τον νεανίσκον

anoint (chrisei) the oil [on] the young one

7.14.5 (x2)
και περιχρίσαντας το αγιον ελαιον αποδειξαι βασιλέα

[…]

και τω ελαίω χρίσαντες εισήγαγον εις την πόλιν

and anoint (peri-chrisantas) [with] the holy oil to make [him] king […] and anointed (chrisantes) him with oil, and brought him into the city

7.14.(10 or 11)
και Σολόμωνα δεύτερον εχρισαν τω ελαίω

and Solomon [a] second [time] was anointed (echrisan) [with] the oil

9.6.1
Έλισσαιος δ’ ο προφήτης ενα των αυτου μαθητων δους αυτω το αγιον ελαιον επεμψεν εις Άραμώθα χρίσοντα τον Ιηουν

[But] Elisha the prophet sent one of his students to Ramoth (or Aramotha/Arimathia) with holy oil to anoint (chrisonta) Jehu.

9.7.2
και τω ελαίω χρίσας Ιώδας απέδειξε βασιλέα

and Jodas/Jehoiada anointed (chrisas) [him with] the oil and made him king

19.4.1
χρισάμενος μύροις την κεφαλήν

anoint[ed] (chrisamenos) his head

And here are the two times that Josephus writes what we call “christ”:

18.3.3
ο χριστος ουτος ην
this was the christ

[…]

20.9.1
τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομένου Χριστου, Ιάκωβος ονομα αυτω
the brother [of] Jesus called Christ, his name Jacob

Of course, I think both of these passages are interpolated, since Josephus in “Jewish War” 6.5.4 says that the one predicted in Jewish scripture to be declared ruler of the world was Vespasian. Yet Josephus doesn’t use that title (christ) for Vespasian while it’s pretty obvious that Josephus has already established that the word “anoint” has a connection to Jewish leadership.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 3, 2010 in early Christianity, jesus myth, josephus

 
 
NeuroLogica Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Slate Star Codex

NꙮW WITH MꙮRE MULTIꙮCULAR ꙮ

Κέλσος

Matthew Ferguson Blogs

The Wandering Scientist

Just another WordPress.com site

NT Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Euangelion Kata Markon

A blog dedicated to the academic study of the "Gospel According to Mark"

PsyPost

Behavior, cognition and society

PsyBlog

Understand your mind with the science of psychology -

Vridar

Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Maximum Entropy

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

atheist, polyamorous skeptics

Criticism is not uncivil

Say..

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Research Digest

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Disrupting Dinner Parties

Feminism is for everyone!

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

The New Oxonian

Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient

The Musings of Thomas Verenna

A Biblioblog about imitation, the Biblical Narratives, and the figure of Jesus