The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (54 page)

In these passages Joseph lives in Judea, in Bethlehem, and near the temple.

It can be no coincidence that the earliest witness outside the canonical tradition—Julius Africanus (
c
. 200 CE)—apparently sites Nazareth in Judea:

…Of these were the above-mentioned persons, called
desposynoi
, on account of their affinity to the family of our Savior. These coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, to the other parts of the world, explained the aforesaid genealogy from the book of daily records, as faithfully as possible.
^[771]
   (Cruse translation.)

The pertinent phrase in the Greek reads:
apo te Nazarôn kai Kôchaba kômôn ’Ioudaïkôn
. The meaning could be “villages of the Jews,” or “Jewish villages”—not necessarily “villages of Judea.” Thus, it is conceivable that Africanus indeed has the (Galilean) village of Nazareth in mind. Four Cochabas have been located.
^[772]
 
One is a village 15 km northwest of Nazareth which, outside of this citation, plays no role at all in Christian history. Interestingly, Nazara’s name, for Africanus, is a plural entity (
pre-70
Colorado Springs, Grand Rapids, Los Angeles). These peculiarites are enigmatic.

A fourth-century work known as the
History of Joseph the Carpenter
belongs unequivocally to the southern tradition. Like the
Protevangelium
, it locates Nazareth in Judea and within walking distance of the temple. Bagatti noted this geographical anomaly:

An Apocryphal [sic] that follows closely the
Protevangelium
is the
History of Joseph the Carpenter
, wherein the Lord recounts the death of his foster father. The complete redaction, preserved in Arabic, but derived from a Coptic text and from an original, probably Jewish, seeks to combine the data of the
Protoevangelium
with that of St. Luke
^[773]
 and arrives at rather curious topographical positions. For example, it has Joseph come to Nazareth after the return from Egypt (IX), and then when Joseph feels that death is near (here the account seems to begin) he has him go to the temple to pray (XII) as if going from Nazareth to Jerusalem for a dying man was walking up the garden. (
Exc
. 11–12)

The
Protevangelium of James
, the
History of Joseph the Carpenter
, and possibly the citation of Africanus, show that in some Christian texts Nazareth-Nazara had nothing at all to do with the settlement in Lower Galilee. They locate the place in Judea, even close to the temple of Jerusalem.

Given an unresolved Judean–Galilean claim to the homeland of Jesus, some confusion is understandable, even though the Jewish village of Nazareth in Lower Galilee was known from
c
. 100 CE onwards. The conflict between the southern and northern traditions best explains the hesitant, equivocal, and sometimes silent approach of the pre-Constantinian Christian literature with respect to Nazareth.

 Even Eusebius (
c
. 264–340) may have been hesitant to locate Nazareth in the Galilee. The settlement is missing from a frequently noted episode in his
Ecclesiastical History
(III.20, citing the second century Hegesippus). The story concerns the presentation before the emperor Domitian (81–96 CE) of the grandchildren of Jude, “called the brother of our Lord, according to the flesh.” These brothers (
pre-70
James “the Lord’s brother,” Gal 1:19) were brought before the emperor (improbable in itself, more so if the emperor was at Rome), and their answers betray the Ebionite traits of poverty, disparagement of ambition, and a repudiation of the temporal things of the world. The narrative contrasts the spiritual kingdom of Christ with temporal power, and that stark contrast is the crux of the metaphorical meeting between the descendants of Christ and the Roman emperor.
^[774]
  Hegesippus writes that these brothers then “ruled the churches” (again, evocative of the James-Symeon dynasty) and “continued to live even to the times of Trajan” (98–117 CE).

The story, however, is almost certainly legendary. It is hardly likely that the emperor would be “as much alarmed at the appearance of Christ as Herod.” Nor is it likely that he would meet with these simple country folk from the East.  Most germane to our concern is the fact that Nazareth is nowhere mentioned. Hegesippus tells us that the “grandchildren of Jude” were brought before the Roman emperor, but from where we cannot be sure. Bagatti assumes that Nazareth in Lower Galilee was their home, as does Taylor,
^[775]
  but that conclusion is entirely conjectural, conforming to a later harmonization with gospel tradition. Of course, there is no justification for Bagatti’s further conclusions drawn from this legendary story: “It is certain that the relatives of the Lord lived there [
i.e., in Nazareth
] for over two centuries and in particular the descendants of Jude, one of the ‘brothers’ mentioned in the Gospel” (
Exc
. 12).

Origen (
c
. 185–
c
. 254) also lived at nearby Caesarea, yet he is capable of writing no less than three different spellings of Nazareth on the same page:
en Nazarois
(twice),
tên Nazaret
, and
eis Nazara
.
^[776]
We note the interesting fact that
en Nazarois
is plural (
pre-70
Julius Africanus’
tôn Nazarôn
), as if a region were intended (‘the land of the Nazarenes’). Origen, of course, follows scripture in locating Nazareth “in Galilee,”
^[777]
 
 but writes: “some say that the Savior preached the Gospel
in Judea
for only one year”
^[778]
 
(emphasis added). Elsewhere, we see the southern and northern traditions reflected in  a contrast between Nazareth and Capernaum. This contrast is based on Lk 4:16
ff
, where Nazareth is associated with the Jews, and Capernaum with foreign territory. Origen writes:

Insofar as Luke’s narrative is concerned, Jesus has not yet stayed in Capernaum. Nor is he said to have performed any sign in that place, because he had not been there. Before he comes to Capernaum, it is recorded that he was in his native territory, that is, in Nazareth. He says to his fellow-citizens, “Doubtless you will quote me this saying: ‘Physician, cure yourself. Do here, too, in your native territory, whatever we heard was done in Capernaum.’” For this reason, I think that some mystery is hidden in this passage before us. Capernaum, a type of the Gentiles, takes precedence over Nazareth, a type of the Jews.
^[779]
 

A few paragraphs later, Origen adds: “So, ‘no prophet is accepted in his native country,’ that is,
among the people of the Jews.”
^[780]

Justin Martyr (
c
. 100–
c
. 165 CE) appears to describe the southern tradition regarding Nazareth:

But when Quirinus was taking his first census in Judea, Joseph traveled from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem (to which he belonged), to be enrolled, for he was by birth of the tribe of Juda which inhabited that region. Then he was ordered [
in a vision
] to go with Mary into Egypt and to remain there with the child until another revelation should advise them to return into Judea.

Everything apparently takes place in Judea. From this passage it is not impossible to construe a meaning whereby Nazareth is located in Galilee, but in that case it is curious that Justin does not mention Galilee at all. We note also that the Holy Family returns to Judea after its sojourn in Egypt.
^[781]

The foregoing passages are not conclusive in delineating a southern tradition. At best, they admit a possibility, one we shall now confirm as we turn our attention to the Christian scriptures themselves.

(2) Nazareth in the early gospel tradition

The knowledge that Nazareth in Lower Galilee did not exist until after 70 CE is a powerful tool which can now be used to examine the canonical gospels anew, beginning with their use of Nazareth and its cognates. A question immediately arises: Why did the evangelists portray Jesus as coming from a settlement not yet in existence? The answer is revealing and complex. The following sketch does not pretend to completeness, and is preliminary to a more extended investigation. 

Abandoning the reverse chronology of the previous section, we shall first consider the Gospel of Mark, generally considered the earliest of the canonical gospels. Surprisingly, Nazareth is mentioned only once in that gospel, at 1:9, with the spelling
Nazaret
.
^[782]
 In four other passages we read “Jesus of Nazareth” in modern translations where, however, the Greek contains variants of
Iêsou
Nazarêne
—“Jesus the Nazarene.”
^[783]
For the time being, the possibility must simply be left open that this phrase meant something other to the Marcan evangelist than “Jesus of Nazareth.”

Mk 1:9 reads as follows:

  In those days Jesus came from Nazaret of Galilee [
apo Nazaret tês Galilaias
] and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Most scholars date the composition of Mark before 70 CE, and our archaeological investigations have shown that the settlement of Nazareth did not exist before that date. The inference immediately arises, then, that the Marcan evangelist did not know, and could not have known, of Nazareth in Lower Galilee. The text and the results of archaeology can be reconciled in one of two ways: (1) either the Gospel of Mark was later than is commonly dated; or (2) the word
Nazaret
at Mk 1:9 is the interpolation of a later, post-70 CE hand.

An examination of the remainder of the gospel shows that Mark conceives of Capernaum as Jesus’ home. A number of reasons lead to this conclusion: Jesus is at home in Capernaum (2:1), there he is most active, there his family resides (Mk 6:3), and Mark knows no removal of the Holy Family from Nazareth to Capernaum—a harmonizing device first supplied by Matthew. We cannot arbitrarily retroject the movement of Jesus’ family at Mt 4:13 into the Marcan story, for we shall see that it is Matthew who has invented Jesus’ relationship with Nazareth of Galilee.

Because the torso of Mark’s gospel unequivocally locates Jesus’ home in Capernaum, and because the dating of Nazareth in Lower Galilee is post-70 CE, we can be certain that the word
Nazaret
in Mk 1:9 is the interpolation of a later hand. That interpolation was obviously made after the settlement of Nazareth came into existence and became known in the region.

Nazaret
can be excised from Mk 1:9 without damaging the Greek:

In those days Jesus came from Galilee [
apo tês Galilaias
] and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Once
Nazaret
is removed from the verse, “Nazareth” entirely disappears from the Gospel of Mark. This new view of the text allows us to see that the enigmatic term
Nazarêne
in Mark had nothing to do with Nazareth. Indeed, it preceded the appearance of Nazareth in the gospel tradition.
Nazarêne
is more authentic,
Nazareth
a subsequent addition.

Nazara and its cognates

Mindful of the anomalous and marginalized southern tradition, whereby Nazareth was located in Judea according to certain texts (see above), we turn our attention to the toponym
Nazara
, found not only in Julius Africanus but also in Q (Mt 4:13; Lk 4:16).
Nazara
is generally considered the most primitive form of the name. In the following Matthean passage, Jesus has been in Judea with John the Baptist (Mt 3:1, 13). This citation is labeled (a) in order to distinguish it from another reading we shall encounter shortly:

(a) Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. And leaving Nazara he went and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled…   (Mt 4:12–14)

As conventionally understood, this passage implies two consecutive journeys of Jesus: one from Judea to Galilee, and then one from Nazareth to Capernaum. It is an awkward construction. After all: what happened in Nazareth? Was something left out (as at Mk 10:46)? More problematic is that readers automatically equate
Nazara
in the above passage with
Nazareth
in Galilee. However, that interesting equation is impossible, for now we know that Nazareth did not exist before 70 CE, when the putative Q document was compiled
.