Why was Jesus called 'Jesus of Nazareth' when there was no town or city named Nazareth 2000 years ago?

Answer 1

(Note: See the Web Links to Answers.com and Wikipedia pages for Nazareth for some background information on this debate, as well as background information on the town of Nazareth itself) One thing I noticed when reading about the question of Nazareth's existence during the time of Jesus, which we will assume was around 4 BC - AD 40, was that much of the so-called "evidence" of Nazareth's non-existence comes from professed atheists, or rather anti-theists, who presumably have a vested interest in "disproving" The Bible. Some other information to consider: * Nazareth, according to tradition, was a poor town, and one of less than great repute. The Bible states that people asked, "can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Perhaps Biblical Nazareth was a small gathering of homes, but not an officially-recognized town. * Lack of evidence is no evidence at all. We cannot assume that the lack of archaeological evidence for an ancient city or town called Nazareth proves that the city/town did not exist, only that its existence is not yet proven. The name Naz′a�reth possibly means "Sprout-Town", which could indicate it's relative insignificance in comparison with other towns around it. Nazareth was located in the Lower Galilee, in a fairly well populated region, where Jesus was raised from about the age of three, and he lived most of his earthly life. (Lu 2:51,�52; Mt 13:54-56) Both Joseph and Mary were residents of Nazareth when Gabriel announced the approaching birth of Jesus. (Lu 1:26,�27; 2:4,�39) Later, after their return from Egypt, they took up residence in Nazareth again.�Mt 2:19-23; Lu 2:39. Most scholars identify Nazareth with En Nasira (Nazerat) in Galilee. If this view is correct, Nazareth was situated in the low mountains just north of the Valley of Jezreel and approximately halfway between the south tip of the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Coast. It was in a mountain basin with hills rising 120 to 150 m (400 to 500 ft) above it. The area was well populated, with a number of cities and towns near Nazareth. Also, it is estimated that one could walk from Nazareth to Ptolemais on the Mediterranean Coast in seven hours, to Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee in five hours, and to Jerusalem in three days. It is difficult to say with certainty just how prominent Nazareth was in the first century. The most common view of commentators is that Nazareth was then a rather secluded, insignificant village. The principal Biblical statement used to support this view is what Nathanael said when he heard that Jesus was from there: �Can anything good come out of Nazareth?� (Joh 1:46) This has been taken by many to mean that Nazareth was looked down upon, even by people of Galilee. (Joh 21:2) Nazareth was near trade routes of the area but not directly on them. It was not mentioned by Josephus, though he referred to nearby Japhia as the largest fortified village of all Galilee, leading to the idea that Nazareth was eclipsed by its neighbor. Josephus did not mention many of the settlements in Galilee, so his not mentioning Nazareth might not be particularly significant. Relating to archeology, time and again the Bible�s historical record has been substantiated by the uncovering of new information. The Assyrian king Sargon, for example, was for a long time known only from the Bible account at Isaiah 20:1. Critics for years claimed that Sargon never existed, and that the Bible was wrong. Then archaeological excavations produced the ruins of Sargon�s magnificent palace at Khorsabad, including many inscriptions regarding his rule. As a result, Sargon is now one of the best known of the Assyrian kings. Israeli historian Moshe Pearlman wrote: �Suddenly, sceptics who had doubted the authenticity even of the historical parts of the Old Testament began to revise their views.� Another example of a discovery that confirms the historicalness of the Bible is given by Michael J.�Howard, who worked with the Caesarea expedition in Israel in 1979. �For 1,900�years,� he wrote, �Pilate existed only on the pages of the Gospels and in the vague recollections of Roman and Jewish historians. Next to nothing was known about his life. Some said he never even existed. But in 1961, an Italian archaeological expedition was working in the ruins of the ancient Roman theater in Caesarea. A workman overturned a stone that had been used for one of the stairways. On the reverse side was the following, partially-obscured inscription in Latin: �Caesariensibus Tiberium Pontius Pilatus Praefectus Iudaeae.� (To the people of Caesarea Tiberium Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judea.) It was a fatal blow to the doubts about Pilate�s existence. .�.�. " These are only two examples of many in which the historical value of the Bible has been vindicated in the face of criticism. I am not personally aware of a lack of archelogical evidence in regard to the existence of Nazareth. A search of the subject only reveals critics asserting that there is no evidence. There does not appear to be such claims on the part of historians. But, even if there is such claims by those who are viewed as authorities on the subject, then we should keep in mind that every time such critism arises, it is always proven that the Bible was correct all along. �Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea,� writes American archaeologist James Strange.[4] Strange variously estimates Nazareth�s population at �roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people� in the time of Christ, and in another publication at �a maximum of about 480.� [5] However, some historians argue that the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Old Testament and the Talmud, as well as the works of Josephus, suggest that a town called 'Nazareth' did not exist in Jesus' day.[6] Nazareth was well known in Biblical times. In John's gospel, for example (John 1:45) , Philip, an apostle of Jesus, asks Nathaniel to come and see "Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Joseph". Nathaniel says to Philip "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" suggesting that Nazareth was already well known as a town of some ill repute. Sadly, the denial of atheists in even believing Nazareth exists let alone Jesus himself, is all too common. Clutching at straws like this is reminiscent of Apollo conspiracy theorists citing any 'evidence' that man never went to the moon.

Dr. Strange, mentioned above, also points out that when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD that the priests whose temple service was no longer required were dispersed. A list has been discovered by archaeologists which lists the places where the 24 families or courses of priests went to. This list, written in Aramaic records that one family went to Nazareth, which, though small, certainly existed then.

In addition to this, many archaeological digs have uncovered tombs from the first century near the city limits of Nazareth, thus establishing the boundary, as bodies were required to be buried outside the city. Thus, once again, evidence previously undiscovered has confirmed a Biblical detail.

Source: Interview with John Mcray PhD in 'The Case For Christ' by Lee Strobel pages 137-138 Thus it is totally incorrect to state: "Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD." At the very least this comment is outdated by the discovery mentioned above, which must date from the late first or early second century.

Answer 2

More probably, "Nazarene" is used to describe anyone who lived in Nazareth, a town viewed with contempt by the rest of the people. cp John 1:46.

However Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth 17 times in Gospels and Acts.

For example in John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote-Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

This tells us that Jesus lived in Nazareth, although He was born in Bethlehem He lived most of His days in Nazareth.

Answer 3

Jesus was called a Nazarene because He was of a sect of holy men who were from Nazareth, the town where Jesus grew up. Nazarenes were not allowed to cut their hair and had strict rules about diet and life actions.

Answer 4

Strangely, the earliest books of the New Testament do not call Jesus as Jesus of Nazareth. Paul never refers to the town of Nazareth. Mark's Gospel, the first New Testament gospel to be written, only refers to Jesus the Nazarene when reads in the Greek language, although most modern Bibles loosely translate 'Jesus the Nazarene' as 'Jesus of Nazareth'. This takes us up to 70 CE without a single mention of 'Jesus of Nazareth', which makes it moot whether Nazareth existed at the beginning of the first century.

Matthew's Gospel, now believed to have been written in the 80s of the first century, contains the first mention we have for 'Jesus of Nazareth'. Verse 2:23 refers to a prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene: “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” However, scholars have long noted that there is no prophecy anywhere in the Old Testament that could associate Jesus with being called a Nazarene. This online paper explains that what the author of Matthew called a prophecy was actually Mark's use of the term. So, there was no doubt a town called Nazareth by around 80 CE and the author of Matthew used the similarity between 'Nazarene' and 'Nazareth' to link Jesus to that town. Whether or not the town existed in the time of King Herod is something yet to be established.

Answer 5

The earliest New Testament gospel to be written was Mark's Gospel, which (in the original Greek language) only refers to Jesus as a Nazarene and never mentions Nazareth as his home town. These references are typically translated into English as 'Jesus of Nazareth', but this does not reflect the original manuscripts. We have to wait until Matthew's Gospel was written, a few years after Mark, before Jesus behins to be called 'Jesus of Nazareth'.
Matthew's Gospel was substantially based on Mark's Gospel. Its author chose to identify Jesus with Nazareth, so that Matthew 2:23 says, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." There is no such prophecy in the Old Testament, but 'prophets' appears to be a reference to Mark's Gospel.

Grammatically, 'Nazarene' would not be a usual way of referring to someone as coming from Nazareth, but ever since Matthew's Gospel made this connection (Matthew 2:23), it has been accepted that the term 'Nazarene' had that meaning. The term 'Nazarene' should not be confused with the 'Nazarites', pious Jews who shaved their hair and abstained from alcohol.

Answer 6

Nazareth was where he grew up. That town did exist in his time.