spin

It's interesting, Ben C, that while we are dealing with Mark, you've jumped gospel onto Matthew. The one interpolation in Mark is in 1:9 apo nazaret ths galilaias, not found in the Matthean parallel, 3:13 apo ths galilaias, which according to you must have omitted Nazareth, despite the fact that the writer has introduced Nazareth in Mt 2:23! There is of course no reason to prefer the vaguer "from Galilee" over "from Nazareth" when Nazareth had already been mentioned.

Don't be facile Ben C. When it was reworked, obviously there was some contamination from the Marcan passage. It would only have been natural. We can see a lot of contamination in textual reworkings in the nt.

And thanks for showing once again that there are no parallels to nazarhnos in Matt.


spin

spin

This is irrelevant, given that Epiphanius was writing centuries after the facts and that he was not a user of Hebrew.

Appeal to common sense usually means one has no real argument.

Nevertheless all forms used in Greek were with a zeta. To deal with the various forms one has to look at them individually, separating the Latin from the Greek and the modern from the ancient. The list you provide is a hodge-podge of different languages and times.

Only if you can only look at the issue as "spelling". Orthography was very important in the ancient world. Spelling is a modern aberration found only in the English language.

Oh, I agree.

In modern times.

What's the relationship between Essenes and Nazarenes? Essenes we know mainly from Josephus and Philo, neither of whom make any connection with Nazarenes. The Nazarenes are connected with Jesus, yet Jesus is very much not related to Essenes, who were not in favor of a singular baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I agree that both Nazarene and Nazorean are sectarian terms, though the situation is far less simplistic than you would have it.

No confusion in the Greek at all. Every time these terms are found in the gospels they have a zeta. There is no doubt about it. Zeta is original. The TSADE source (ie netzer) is spurious.


spin

haNosri

In its Hebrew form the word Nazarene could take on a few different meanings depending on how it is actually spelled in Hebrew, it could take these forms: netzer, nazir or nozri/nosri.

Netzer means branch or offshoot, which may signify a belief in Jesus' messianic descent from David (Isaiah 11:1).

Nazir means "a holy man of God".

Nozri/Nosri can mean "one who guards or watches over."

The only time the term "Nazrene" is used in the correct context is Acts 24:5 where Paul is called “the ringleader of the SECT of the Nazarenes.”

Funny that you claim that Nazareth is from the city NASARET which does NOT imploy the Zeta.

the Essenes being a sect of Judaism which had sects within itself. Two of the most noted would be the Osseans and the Nazoreans.

you say.....This is irrelevant, given that Epiphanius was writing centuries after the facts and that he was not a user of Hebrew?

I say...Then it's all irrelevant, given that the writers wrote it in GREEK and not the Hebrew and the translators were not users of Hebrew either!

It is simple.

spin

Rubbish.

Actually, if you knew some Hebrew, you'd know that the first and last were the same consonants, both NCR (NUN TSADE RESH) and that the second is one derivative of NZR, a verb meaning "dedicate, consecrate". The noun can be "crown".

That's called eisegesis.

You need to improve your reading skills. And your language skills. Really, you'd do better clearing out the claptrap as well and starting again. Here is what I said:

(This naturally means that the Greek name Nazareth is not directly from the Hebrew town name NCRT! It's derivation is rather circuitous: NZR -> nazarhnos -> nazara -> [there was no Nazara, but there was a Nasaret, hence it was changed to] Nazareth.)

You are trying to have your imaginary cake and eat it too. Here, after your confused linguistics, you are happy to say that the language issue isn't important. I l-o-v-e consistency.

Sure is. Either you know what you're talking about or you don't. You're obviously in the latter category.

You may like to believe that the Greek Nazarene (etc.) comes from NCR (netzer, ie "branch..."), but it is, at best, weak speculation. The better candidate is the one that reflects the Hebrew better (ie NZR, "dedicate, crown"), but that doesn't suit your prior commitments.


spin

Solo

Interesting, spin. I mean your casting the problem in terms of phonology and then arguing orthographic transliteration as an unsurmountable barrier. It seems that tsade has had a variant pronunciation, 'z' or 'tz', i.e. one that - on the face of it at least - would easily have lent itself being captured by a literate Greek hearer as zeta (especially if it came through some intermediary construct such as 'nosrim'). Not possible ? Improbable ?

Jiri

spin

The barrier is in the presentation of the terminology in the nt. There are no sigmas in the mix at all, all zetas in Nazarene/Nazorean/Nazara/Nazareth. This is not at all expected for an underlying TSADE.

Did hebrew4christians supply any examples?

I've been through a comparison between HB and LXX and found about four examples in total of zeta for TSADE, usually of words that were transliterated elsewhere with sigma. Such errors do not account for the total use of zeta in our material. Had the process we see here been in place we would have expected the vast majority of cases to use sigma, but they just don't: they're all zetas. This makes the trajectory extremely improbable.

Perhaps you might like to propose a universal hearing problem regarding the issue.


spin

Solo

No, I don't think I would have to go that far. What I think could have well happened is that at some point the 'netzer' messianists acquired a nickname in some locale that eventually landed phonetically on 'nozrim' or 'notzrim'. It spread. The Greek scribes who captured the neologism would have used a phonetical transliteration for it and its later derivations, ('nazarhnos' and the like), not being aware of the etymology of the word and the HB2LXX orthographic conventions for it.

Jiri

spin

As things stand, 'notzrim' is at best a hypothesis prior to the time of the gospels. What makes you propose it in the first place?

Are you positing an oral transmission underlying what this council of Greek scribes "captured"? TSADE is usually considered an unvoiced affricate, while a zeta a voiced fricative, a distinctive difference. In all this oral transmission, nobody ever got it right?? Naz- words are in each gospel and Acts.


spin

haNosri

Spin

I am Hebrew....do us all a big favor and go visit the Shrine of the Book in Yisra'El. The Hebrew is clear so read it carefully, especially how the term
Nazrene is spelling....then get back to me.

Your arguing ad nauseum in circles....still doesnt change the fact that the word Nazrene is translated from greek and not Hebrew.

Still doesnt change the fact that there was NO town called nazareth during the life of Jesus.

If you're going to use the gospels as your starting point to figure out what the term Nazrene means.....remember Acts 24:5 where Paul is called “the ringleader of the SECT of the Nazarenes." and stop being inconsistant yourself!

spin

Been there, done that.

What you are saying is unclear. When you say the term "Nazrene" what are you referring to here, something in Hebrew? What exactly?

Meaningful, really meaningful.

You're talking through your hat for you can't know that, at least from archaeological and epigraphic sources. Have you got some other way??

Have you got any earlier sources?

Where have I been inconsistent? I merely said that there was absolutely no evidence for this netzer conjecture. I've said that, linguistically, it is far more probable that nazarhnos came from NZR than from NCR. It's that simple really. There is not one linguistic trace of a TSADE oozing into Greek.

If you don't want to use gospel evidence then you can forget the whole affair, because the majority of the evidence is there. If you don't like the gospel evidence, provide something better -- but of course you can't. So either you negate it or you ignore it. Neither way is it helpful to whatever it is you are trying to say about notzrim in connection with nazarhnoi, or better in the case of Acts nazwraioi with its omega, which obviously has nothing to do with notzrim.


spin