Where Did the 4 Gospels and Acts Come From?

[cloudyday2]

Sorry, I missed #117.

That might be true if he were Essene. Where do you get information that JtB was Essene?

If you google, you will find that a theorized connection between John the Baptist and the Essenes has existed for a long time (probably centuries). Everybody agrees that there are many similarities along with many differences. Some people think the Essene connection is strong and some people think it is weak. So it's not a certainty either way.

 

[cloudyday2]

^ An interesting tidbit is that one of the Essene sects was called the Nazarenes, and they were called that before the time of Jesus. Apparently there was a set of Essene beliefs that were labeled Nazarene, but there was also a tendency to label any Essene-like Jews from that region as Nazarenes. So the early Christians might have descended from the Essene Nazarenes, or they might have been called Nazarenes simply due to their geographic location. There is no evidence that a town called Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus, but there were Nazarean Essenes. I suspect "Jesus of Nazareth" was originally "Jesus of the Nazareans". But there are a lot of possibilities. Of course the book of Acts says the early Christians were called Nazarenes.

Here is something from Wikipedia on the Essenes and the various sects:

The Nazarean – they were Jews by nationality – originally from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordan... They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws – not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nazarean and the others...[61]

After this Nazarean sect in turn comes another closely connected with them, called the Ossaeans. These are Jews like the former... originally came from Nabataea, Ituraea, Moabitis, and Arielis, the lands beyond the basin of what sacred scripture called the Salt Sea... Though it is different from the other six of these seven sects, it causes schism only by forbidding the books of Moses like the Nazarean.[60]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

 

[ChetSinger]

...There is no evidence that a town called Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus, but there were Nazarean Essenes...

Sorry to butt in, but an archaeological non-Christian reference to Nazareth has been found in the ruins of Caesarea Maritima. It's a stone inscription that describes Jewish priests being sent to resettle the town after the Bar Kochba rebellion, which occurred in 135 AD. So while it's not 1st-century, it's pretty close. The stone itself is dated to about 300 AD.

 

[cloudyday2]

Sorry to butt in, but an archaeological non-Christian reference to Nazareth has been found in the ruins of Caesarea Maritima. It's a stone inscription that describes Jewish priests being sent to resettle the town after the Bar Kochba rebellion, which occurred in 135 AD. So while it's not 1st-century, it's pretty close. The stone itself is dated to about 300 AD.

Thanks, I was not aware of that, but apparently it was discovered in 1962, so the scholars who are skeptical of the existence of Nazareth do not consider it persuasive evidence for some reason.

 

[ChetSinger]

Thanks, I was not aware of that, but apparently it was discovered in 1962, so the scholars who are skeptical of the existence of Nazareth do not consider it persuasive evidence for some reason.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess there aren't a lot of scholars on that side of that particular fence.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I can't tell when you guys are being serious and when you are pulling my leg, so I don't know how to react LOL

That's a normal reaction to AV1611 VET. I've experienced it too. Don't waste too much effort in conversation with him.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess there aren't a lot of scholars on that side of that particular fence.

You might be correct. It seems that the people who claim that Jesus was entirely mythical are the main proponents of the non-existence of Nazareth in the time of Jesus. Most of those people are not scholars.

However, the existence of a tiny town Nazareth does not necessarily imply that Jesus came from that town. Apparently the Greek phrases that we translate to "Jesus of Nazareth" can mean a variety of things. Here is a link from Wikipedia that discusses some possibilities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I forgot to mention the Manda

You might be correct. It seems that the people who claim that Jesus was entirely mythical are the main proponents of the non-existence of Nazareth in the time of Jesus. Most of those people are not scholars.

However, the existence of a tiny town Nazareth does not necessarily imply that Jesus came from that town. Apparently the Greek phrases that we translate to "Jesus of Nazareth" can mean a variety of things. Here is a link from Wikipedia that discusses some possibilities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

I don't think there's enough reason to doubt that Jesus probably came from Nazareth. Some people just tend to think that the less they disbelieve is historical in the NT the more controversial they are.

 

[ChetSinger]

You might be correct. It seems that the people who claim that Jesus was entirely mythical are the main proponents of the non-existence of Nazareth in the time of Jesus. Most of those people are not scholars.

However, the existence of a tiny town Nazareth does not necessarily imply that Jesus came from that town. Apparently the Greek phrases that we translate to "Jesus of Nazareth" can mean a variety of things. Here is a link from Wikipedia that discusses some possibilities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

Thanks for that, it was a good read.

But I didn't see how the historicity of Nazareth was affected by it. It seemed that all its examples of religious "Nazarenes" were post-Christian and self-identified in some way as Christian.

 

[cloudyday2]

Thanks for that, it was a good read.

But I didn't see how the historicity of Nazareth was affected by it. It seemed that all its examples of religious "Nazarenes" were post-Christian and self-identified in some way as Christian.

Sorry, here is a quote about the Nazarean Essenes. Although the description is 4th century CE, I assumed that this sect existed in the time of Jesus. Maybe that assumption is incorrect.

The Church Father Epiphanius (writing in the 4th century CE) seems to make a distinction between two main groups within the Essenes:[31] "Of those that came before his [Elxai, an Ossaean prophet] time and during it, the Ossaeans and the Nazarean."[60] Epiphanius describes each group as following:

The Nazarean – they were Jews by nationality – originally from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordan... They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws – not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nazarean and the others...[61]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

 

[ChetSinger]

Sorry, here is a quote about the Nazarean Essenes. Although the description is 4th century CE, I assumed that this sect existed in the time of Jesus. Maybe that assumption is incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

I'm interested in the early interactions of Judaism and Christianity so I went down to the footnote and looked it up. It's Panarion, a 4th century work by Epiphanius of Salamis.

I found this: http://torahdrivenlife.com/?page_id=602 which is a Messianic Jewish perspective of "Nazarenes" and includes numerous quotes from Epiphanius. They argue that the "Nazarenes" were in fact the name given to the original Christian church (the very early church is labeled "the sect of the Nazarenes" in Acts 24). As the church became more and more Gentile, the "Nazarenes" became instead identified as that Jewish portion of the church that still kept the Torah (they're in the NT too, and gave Paul periodic troubles).

It seems to me those "Nazarenes" were Christianized Jews who believed in Jesus but still kept the Torah, and so were marginalized by both Christians and Jews. Their origins may go all the way back to New Testament times, such as to Galatians 2.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm interested in the early interactions of Judaism and Christianity so I went down to the footnote and looked it up. It's Panarion, a 4th century work by Epiphanius of Salamis.

I found this: http://torahdrivenlife.com/?page_id=602 which is a Messianic Jewish perspective of "Nazarenes" and includes numerous quotes from Epiphanius. They argue that the "Nazarenes" were in fact the name given to the original Christian church (the very early church is labeled "the sect of the Nazarenes" in Acts 24). As the church became more and more Gentile, the "Nazarenes" became instead identified as that Jewish portion of the church that still kept the Torah (they're in the NT too, and gave Paul periodic troubles).

It seems to me those "Nazarenes" were Christianized Jews who believed in Jesus but still kept the Torah, and so were marginalized by both Christians and Jews. Their origins may go all the way back to New Testament times, such as to Galatians 2.

I have a slightly different theory. I think the Nazarenes existed before Jesus. It was "Jesus the Nazarene" not "Jesus of Nazareth".

 

[ChetSinger]

I have a slightly different theory. I think the Nazarenes existed before Jesus. It was "Jesus the Nazarene" not "Jesus of Nazareth".

I'll entertain that if you find pre-Christian references to a religious group called Nazarenes, and can hypothesize how the town of Nazareth itself appears in all four gospels and in Acts.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'll entertain that if you find pre-Christian references to a religious group called Nazarenes, and can hypothesize how the town of Nazareth itself appears in all four gospels and in Acts.

The references to a town called Nazareth are easy to explain, because the gospels are not independent. Assuming Markan priority, a mention of Nazareth in Mark is likely to lead to mentions in the other gospels.

The pre-Jesus existence of Nazarenes is suggested by this quote (IMO)

The Nazarean – they were Jews by nationality – originally from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordan... They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws – not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nazarean and the others

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

The description was written in the 4th century by Epiphanius, but notice that there is nothing to suggest that these Nazarean Essenes were Christians. Wouldn't it be strange for a sect of Essenes to call themselves "Nazarean" AFTER the early Christians had already used the name "Nazarene"? The early Christians were not popular among Jews, so why would a Jewish sect use a similar name after it had already been tarnished by Christians? On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that if the early Christians had been fully Jewish Nazarean Essene and gradually diverged from the orthodox faith, then they might have been called "Nazarenes". That is my theory FWIW

 

[ChetSinger]

The references to a town called Nazareth are easy to explain, because the gospels are not independent. Assuming Markan priority, a mention of Nazareth in Mark is likely to lead to mentions in the other gospels.

The pre-Jesus existence of Nazarenes is suggested by this quote (IMO)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

The description was written in the 4th century by Epiphanius, but notice that there is nothing to suggest that these Nazarean Essenes were Christians. Wouldn't it be strange for a sect of Essenes to call themselves "Nazarean" AFTER the early Christians had already used the name "Nazarene"? The early Christians were not popular among Jews, so why would a Jewish sect use a similar name after it had already been tarnished by Christians? On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that if the early Christians had been fully Jewish Nazarean Essene and gradually diverged from the orthodox faith, then they might have been called "Nazarenes". That is my theory FWIW

I think you've reached an erroneous conclusion because you're basing it on a single paragraph.

The entirety of "The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis" can be found here:

http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm#29.

Chapter 29 is about the Nazoraeans. Here are some other fragments from it that describe their origins and beliefs:

5:6 For by hearing just Jesus' name, and seeing the miracles performed by the hands of the apostles, they came to faith in Jesus themselves. And since they found that he had been conceived at Nazareth and brought up in Joseph's home, and for this reason is called 'Jesus the Nazoraean' in the Gospel—as the apostles say, 'Jesus the Nazoraean, a man approved by signs and wonders,' and so on—they adopted this name, so as to be called Nazoreans.

5:7 Not 'Nazirites'—that means 'consecrated persons.' Anciently this rank belonged to firstborn sons and men who had been dedicated to God. Samson was one, and others after him, and many before him. Moreover, John the Baptist too was one of these same persons who were consecrated to God, for 'He drank neither wine nor strong drink.'

6:1 They did not call themselves Nasaraeans either; the sect of Nasaraeans was before Christ and did not know Christ.

6:2 But besides, as I have indicated, everyone called the Christians Nazoraeans, as they say in accusing Paul the apostle, 'We have found this man a pestilent fellow and a perverter of the people, a ring-leader of the sect of the Nazoraeans.'

6:5 And no wonder the apostle admitted to being a Nazoraean! In those days everyone called Christians this because of the city of Nazareth—there was no other usage of the name at the time. And so people gave the name of 'Nazoraeans' to believers in Christ, of whom it is written, 'because he shall be called a Nazoraean.'

7:3 For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and that all things have been created by God, and they declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ.

7:5 They are different from Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following ways. They disagree with Jews because of their belief in Christ; but they are not in accord with Christians because they are still fettered by the Law—circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest.

9:2 Yet to the Jews they are very much enemies. Not only do Jewish people bear hatred against them; they even stand up at dawn, at midday, and toward evening, three times a day when they recite their prayers in the synagogues, and curse and anathematize them—saying three times a day, 'God curse the Nazoraeans.'

9:3 For they harbour a further grudge against them, if you please, because despite their Jewish origin, they preach that Jesus is the Christ—something that is the opposite of those who are still Jews and have not accepted Jesus.

EDIT: I just realized something. That Wikipedia quote is completely wrong and confused. It says "Nazareans" where Epiphanius is instead describing "Nasaraeans", a completely different group. He distinguishes between the two, and describes Nasaraeans in chapter 18 (from where Wikipedia misquotes him).

 

[cloudyday2]

EDIT: I just realized something. That Wikipedia quote is completely wrong and confused. It says "Nazareans" where Epiphanius is instead describing "Nasaraeans", a completely different group. He distinguishes between the two, and describes Nasaraeans in chapter 18 (from where Wikipedia misquotes him).

A couple of questions come to mind:
(1) Which groups are truly different groups as opposed to different spellings? How are those names spelled in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? How were those names pronounced?
(2) Did Epiphanius writing in the 4th century project divisions of his own time back to the time of Jesus?

Also a question for you: what type of Jew was Jesus in your opinion - doomsday prophet, wandering exorcist/faith healer, Cynic philosopher, ...?

 

[ChetSinger]

A couple of questions come to mind:
(1) Which groups are truly different groups as opposed to different spellings? How are those names spelled in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? How were those names pronounced?

I don't know enough Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to answer your questions regarding spelling or pronunciation.

But I do know that Wikipedia page confuses the issue by spelling the name of the Nasaraeans with a 'z', leading readers to perhaps believe that the Panarion somehow relates them to the town of Nazareth when in fact it says no such thing.

Rather, the Panarion specifically says that the town of Nazareth was the inspiration for a different Jewish sect, the Nazoraeans:

5:6 For by hearing just Jesus' name, and seeing the miracles performed by the hands of the apostles, they came to faith in Jesus themselves. And since they found that he had been conceived at Nazareth and brought up in Joseph's home, and for this reason is called 'Jesus the Nazoraean' in the Gospel—as the apostles say, 'Jesus the Nazoraean, a man approved by signs and wonders,' and so on—they adopted this name, so as to be called Nazoreans.

And the Panarion specifically distinguishes them from the Nasaraeans, which indeed were a pre-Christian group:

6:1 They did not call themselves Nasaraeans either; the sect of Nasaraeans was before Christ and did not know Christ.

(2) Did Epiphanius writing in the 4th century project divisions of his own time back to the time of Jesus?

Scholars of Epiphanius might know that. But not me.

Also a question for you: what type of Jew was Jesus in your opinion - doomsday prophet, wandering exorcist/faith healer, Cynic philosopher, ...?

I think he was the Lamb of God sent here to take our sins upon him. And while he was here, to start the church.