Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 02-19-2004, 10:15 AM

Quote:

On the other hand, my understanding is that Galilee was known for producing rebels/seditionists so it would be the obvious choice if an author, lacking any reliable information, felt compelled to create a home base for a messianic claimant.

Thx for the "non sequitur".

Vinnie

Vinnie · 02-19-2004, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
hey spin! thanks for a very interesting thread. I've enjoyed your remarks here, and learned a lot.

Vorkosigan

Maybe you can glean some more information here:

http://www.after-hourz.net/hometownjesus.html

Its an unfinished discussion between Kirby and me on Jesus' hometown. It was from my old ACFaith site but I archived it there since Peter said he wanted to come back to it.

I doubt Kirby missed anything articulated here, about Nazareth (Luke's City) or otherwise).

Vinnie

Vinnie · 02-19-2004, 10:32 AM

"""""In the end you've made me more more skeptical of Nazareth but that is inevitable (e.g. my ten reasons why HJ research is stupid, stupid, stupid thread at II). It seems there are other ways of explaining the data but in the end, I find that Nazareth still seems the most plausible base for Jesus' origin. Of course, I can just say Galilee and be far more safer and certain but what would be the fun in that? """"""

Vinnie

spin · 02-19-2004, 10:48 AM

It was interesting to find the Marcion information:

"In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Jesus descended [out of heaven] into Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching [in the synagogue] on the Sabbath days; And they were astonished at his doctrine."

There is no way to know if Irenaeus is right about Marcion's gospel being derived from Luke or whether it was the other way around. So one can't presume Luke to have been available for Marcion to know about Nazareth. That Marcion puts his Jesus into Capernaum and not Nazareth is clearly in the tradition of Nazareth being not known at the earliest levels of the gospel material.

spin

Mathetes · 02-19-2004, 11:13 AM

Thanks for the info, Spin. Very interesting.

Quote:

just found out why my LXX had nazir and not naziraios. The rescension uses the Vatican Codex rather than the Alexandrian according to a footnote which gives the spelling nazeiraion -- the -s indicates nominative, ie subject (but I wonder about the -ei-).

Just for the record, I got the LXX version from here:

Online Septuagint

...and it has, in Judges 13, 5:

Quote:

...oti hgiasmenon naziraion estai tw qew to paidarion...

I understand that "hgiasmenos" ('he that has been made holy, he that has been sanctified") is what "nazirite" means in Hebrew. "Naziraios" would then be the Greek transliteration.

(Edited to add: of course "naziraion" is neuter in the quote because "paidarion" is neuter.)

spin · 02-20-2004, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mathetes
I understand that "hgiasmenos" ('he that has been made holy, he that has been sanctified") is what "nazirite" means in Hebrew. "Naziraios" would then be the Greek transliteration.

What my version has is a transliteration, "nazir", just to be pedantic. "Naziraios" has a Greek gentilic added to the it to make it more acceptable to a Greek speaking audience, I guess.

(Still it's only a slip of a downward stroke in the Hebrew to get nazwraios, if that's the trajectory -- I can't see any justifiable reason for postulating a change from naziraios to nazwraios in Greek.)

spin

WinAce · 02-21-2004, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
[B]Maybe you can glean some more information here:

http://www.after-hourz.net/hometownjesus.html

Most informative. Thanks.

Vinnie · 02-21-2004, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WinAce
Most informative. Thanks.

Your welcome
Vinnie

Mathetes · 02-23-2004, 11:25 AM

Hi, guys,

While reading this thread the other day I remembered that I had previously come across a surprising reading of "Nazarene" somewhere in the early Christian literature... It took some time to find it again.

In the Gospel of Philip (a Gnostic gospel from Nag Hammadi), we read the following:

Quote:

"Jesus" is a hidden name, "Christ" is a revealed name. For this reason "Jesus" is not particular to any language; rather he is always called by the name "Jesus". While as for "Christ", in Syriac it is "Messiah", in Greek it is "Christ". Certainly all the others have it according to their own language. "The Nazarene" is he who reveals what is hidden. Christ has everything in himself, whether man, or angel, or mystery, and the Father.

(You have to remember that the version that we have is written in Coptic, not in Greek. However, in Peter Kirby's page it is argued that the original was probably Greek.)

Also:

Quote:

The apostles who were before us had these names for him: "Jesus, the Nazorean, Messiah", that is, "Jesus, the Nazorean, the Christ". The last name is "Christ", the first is "Jesus", that in the middle is "the Nazarene". "Messiah" has two meanings, both "the Christ" and "the measured". "Jesus" in Hebrew is "the redemption". "Nazara" is "the Truth". "The Nazarene" then, is "the Truth". "Christ" [...] has been measured. "The Nazarene" and "Jesus" are they who have been measured.

Full text of the Gospel of Philip.

I understand that this is a late work, though (180-250 CE according to Kirby's page).

Anybody here knowledgeable in Aramaic can tell us whether the claim that "Nazara" means "Truth" has any weight? (Does "Jesus" really mean "redemption" in Hebrew?)

Amaleq13 · 02-23-2004, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mathetes
Does "Jesus" really mean "redemption" in Hebrew?

Sort of, I guess. My understanding of the literal meaning is "God's Salvation".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-19-2004, 10:32 AM	#43
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	"""""In the end you've made me more more skeptical of Nazareth but that is inevitable (e.g. my ten reasons why HJ research is stupid, stupid, stupid thread at II). It seems there are other ways of explaining the data but in the end, I find that Nazareth still seems the most plausible base for Jesus' origin. Of course, I can just say Galilee and be far more safer and certain but what would be the fun in that? """""" Vinnie

02-19-2004, 10:48 AM	#44
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	It was interesting to find the Marcion information: "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Jesus descended [out of heaven] into Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching [in the synagogue] on the Sabbath days; And they were astonished at his doctrine." There is no way to know if Irenaeus is right about Marcion's gospel being derived from Luke or whether it was the other way around. So one can't presume Luke to have been available for Marcion to know about Nazareth. That Marcion puts his Jesus into Capernaum and not Nazareth is clearly in the tradition of Nazareth being not known at the earliest levels of the gospel material. spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.