Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 06-10-2013, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The story of Samson deals with a non-vow making, life-long Nazirite who saves his people. The connection with Jesus is obvious. That Jesus is named the "holy one of god", just as Samson is in the Alexandrian LXX should also be a help for you to forget the nonsense about the vow. Samson, as a model for Jesus, didn't make a vow. A vow is irrelevant for someone who is a life-long Nazirite.

Again, I thank you for the additional info. My original post was comparing Nazarenes who DID make a vow for a temporary dedication.

Yes, that was the problem. It totally ignored important information, information that has so frequently been ignored that it needs to stop being ignored, but I won't ask you to do so any more, TedM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

That's why I think it IS relevant: it would be foolish to completely ignore the comparison with Number 6.

Ummm, nobody's ignoring it when it comes to the term "Nazarene" in Mk 1:24. It is not relevant. The verse points directly to Jdg 13:7, but I don't expect you to get it because you haven't read my initial post in the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

As you point out, it would be equally foolish to REQUIRE that the life-long Nazirites make a vow to do x,y,z. Got it. I'm not sure what vow you have in mind though.

You know, you promise to do something for god, like Samson saying that he will not shag while he is doing his dedication to god. "Why, why, why, Delilah..." These Philistine skirts are just so attractive! Let's have a feast, grunt, burp. "Who is this Rastafarian?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Samson didn't cut his hair, for example. A life-long Nazarite would seem to be required to forego at least SOMETHING.

Now you're inventing a vow for Samson. Read the text and cut the insertion of an unsupported intertext. Mummy though does forego the wine upon instruction. I guess the angel of the lord knew something he didn't say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Still Mt draws on the Samson story twice in the early part of the gospel, 1:221 and 2:23. The connection with Samson is strong, yet the fact that he didn't make a vow is not significant to those scholars I have already alluded to, those scholars who stop making sense because they ignore the evidence and crap on how Jesus can't be a Nazarite because he doesn't show signs of having fulfilled a vow. Yeah, well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a PhD think.

Ok. Thanks again. More stuff for Abe to consider. I personally do not see a strong connection, although I don't discount the possibility of one.

You still need to read my first post in the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Judges 13:4 Now therefore, be careful not to drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing. 5 For behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines.

That Samson "shall deliver Israel" is part of the naming of Jesus in Mt 1:21 for "Jesus shall deliver his people", one would expect The messiah's people to be Israel, but that's theologically awkward, so the phrase has been tweaked. We have the announcement of the birth of a savior and of what the savior will do in both passages with the same structure to the announcement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Matthew 1:21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” ..2:23 and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

The declaration that he shall be called a Nazarene is a variation on the announcement that Samson shall be a Nazirite.

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2013, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Hi Abe,

One group of early Christians was called the "Nazarenes". This is well attested, and not only in Acts 24:5. See also http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...1393-nazarenes

I have long thought that the name "Nazarenes" came from "Nazareth".

However, I think there may well be something to the idea that the name may have come from the term Nazirite.

From Numbers 6 we see that Nazirites do the following:

1. They make a vow to dedicate themselves to the Lord for some time called a 'separation'
2. Abstain from strong drink
3. The do not cut their hair
4. Stay away from dead people
5. When the days of dedication end, he makes offerings for sin (through the priest) and shaves his head

When Paul visits Jerusalem in Acts 21, he meets with the James, their leader, and the 'elders'. They tell Paul that there are thousands of Jewish "believers" who don't like him because they are "zealous for the Law", and they heard that Paul isn't. They tell Paul:

Quote:

We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

Note that these four men appeared to be part of James' Christian group, were taking a vow and (it appears) had not cut their hair.

Note too the following quote from wiki:

Then we have in Acts 24:5, speaking of Paul to the governor:

Quote:

For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

So, we have the early Christians being called Nazarenes, and having some things in common with those who took the Nazirite vows.

One might ask: Why did the term "Nazarenes" die out? It appears to be a term used for Jewish Christians, and perhaps not for Gentile Christians. (Note that Acts says the name Christians first was used in Antioch, a Gentile city with lots of Hellenistic Jews).

It also appears from later writings that "Nazarenes" were seen as heretical because they adhered to the Jewish Law too much. See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...1393-nazarenes
The question is: were they close followers of the Law because they were Jewish, or because they were Nazirites? And why would their first leader, who isn't even introduced in Acts, have been such a strict follower of the law if the leader whom he followed had been drastically different? If Jesus were a JTB follower, as I believe was the case, then perhaps Jesus practiced dedication to God, abstinence from drink, let his hair grow, no bathing in the wilderness, fasting, etc..It might explain James and the Nazarene's more easily: JTB -> Jesus -> James.

In 5 other places in Acts Jesus is referred to as "the Nazarene". In only 2 places it says "of Nazareth".

Which is more likely?:

1. Jesus and his original followers were called "Nazarenes" because they took vows of or like those of the Nazirites and despite Gentile opposition some records remain as support.

2. Jesus and his original followers were called "Nazarenes" because he came from an obscure town named Nazareth, despite the expectation of some that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.

That's interesting. Do you think maybe the Christian Nazarenes modeled themselves after the Jewish Nazirites in part because of the phonetic similarity?

I suggest you just leave spin alone. Arguing with him is too often more trouble than its worth. He gets too personal. Let spin be spin.

spin · 06-10-2013, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I suggest you just leave spin alone. Arguing with him is too often more trouble than its worth. He gets too personal. Let spin be spin.

Never personal. He doesn't know any of you. He does get short with people who refuse to play with the full deck.

aa5874 · 06-10-2013, 09:16 AM

The argument that if Nazareth existed then Jesus existed is a perfect example of a logical fallacy.

Why does ApostateAbe constantly use this logical fallacy year after year?

When will it dawn upon him that Nazareth has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual evidence of existence of the character called Jesus of Nazareth in the NT.

It is clear that whether or not Nazareth existed the stories of Jesus are fiction from conception to ascension and were not even claimed to be historical accounts.

TedM · 06-10-2013, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

While the presence of Nazareth in Mk 1:9 is suspect, the gentilic "Nazarene" points not to a place name but to an earlier savior, Samson, the Nazirite for life. Using Mt 3:13 which testifies against the presence of Nazareth in Mk 1:9 and the parallel between "Nazarene" and "holy one of god", which argues against "Nazarene" being derived from a place name in Mk, it seems only reasonable to think that the writer of Mk knew nothing about Nazareth and had other traditions about the home of Jesus.

Got it.

Quote:

But, of course, these silly criteria (such as embarrassment) that christian scholars have eked out to stave off reality are sadly unfalsifiable and worthless.

I don't think so. Except the embarrassment possibly should not be the existence of Nazareth, but the history of being a Nazirite!

TedM · 06-10-2013, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

That's interesting. Do you think maybe the Christian Nazarenes modeled themselves after the Jewish Nazirites in part because of the phonetic similarity?

If Nazareth existed, that is possible. It's also possible that a small village was named after its Nazirite community. I just have a hard time dismissing the similarities -- and spin added a big one with regard to Mark 1:24 -- with a Nazarite tradition. It falls into the field of 'cover-ups' but it makes a fair amount of sense (to me, at least).

spin · 06-10-2013, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

While the presence of Nazareth in Mk 1:9 is suspect, the gentilic "Nazarene" points not to a place name but to an earlier savior, Samson, the Nazirite for life. Using Mt 3:13 which testifies against the presence of Nazareth in Mk 1:9 and the parallel between "Nazarene" and "holy one of god", which argues against "Nazarene" being derived from a place name in Mk, it seems only reasonable to think that the writer of Mk knew nothing about Nazareth and had other traditions about the home of Jesus.

Got it.

Quote:

But, of course, these silly criteria (such as embarrassment) that christian scholars have eked out to stave off reality are sadly unfalsifiable and worthless.

I don't think so. Except the embarrassment possibly should not be the existence of Nazareth, but the history of being a Nazirite!

The Semitic name of the village called in English "Nazareth" does not explain itself phonologically. The zeta in the Greek almost certainly doesn't come from an underlying tsade, which almost always provides a sigma in Greek transliteration. The few cases found prove to be errors of various kinds, as explained in the Burkitt paper referred to earlier. Burkitt's analysis falsifies the claim that the Semitic name for Nazareth was the source for the Greek name Nazareth.

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2013, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

That's interesting. Do you think maybe the Christian Nazarenes modeled themselves after the Jewish Nazirites in part because of the phonetic similarity?

If Nazareth existed, that is possible. It's also possible that a small village was named after its Nazirite community. I just have a hard time dismissing the similarities -- and spin added a big one with regard to Mark 1:24 -- with a Nazarite tradition. It falls into the field of 'cover-ups' but it makes a fair amount of sense (to me, at least).

spin's argument from Mark 1:24 seems to neglect the point that people in that culture were identified by their place of birth, especially if they were from a one-cow village (it serves as a unique identification). But maybe I am missing your point. How does Mark 1:24 reinforce a Nazirite tradition?

TedM · 06-10-2013, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

While the presence of Nazareth in Mk 1:9 is suspect, the gentilic "Nazarene" points not to a place name but to an earlier savior, Samson, the Nazirite for life. Using Mt 3:13 which testifies against the presence of Nazareth in Mk 1:9 and the parallel between "Nazarene" and "holy one of god", which argues against "Nazarene" being derived from a place name in Mk, it seems only reasonable to think that the writer of Mk knew nothing about Nazareth and had other traditions about the home of Jesus.

Got it.

Quote:

But, of course, these silly criteria (such as embarrassment) that christian scholars have eked out to stave off reality are sadly unfalsifiable and worthless.

I don't think so. Except the embarrassment possibly should not be the existence of Nazareth, but the history of being a Nazirite!

The Semitic name of the village called in English "Nazareth" does not explain itself phonologically. The zeta in the Greek almost certainly doesn't come from an underlying tsade, which almost always provides a sigma in Greek transliteration. The few cases found prove to be errors of various kinds, as explained in the Burkitt paper referred to earlier. Burkitt's analysis falsifies the claim that the Semitic name for Nazareth was the source for the Greek name Nazareth.

It sounds like you are answering this:

Quote:

It's also possible that a small village was named after its Nazirite community.

I'll take your word on it: in Greek, Nazareth is not phonetically similar to Nazirite, and vice versa. Is that what you are saying?

hjalti · 06-10-2013, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

How does Mark 1:24 reinforce a Nazirite tradition?

Because in Mark 1:24 the words "nazarene" and "holy one of god" are paralellled, and "holy one of god" is used only once in the LXX, and then it's a translation of 'nazirite'.

Surely spin has explained this more than once. :huh:

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

06-10-2013, 09:16 AM	#24
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The argument that if Nazareth existed then Jesus existed is a perfect example of a logical fallacy. Why does ApostateAbe constantly use this logical fallacy year after year? When will it dawn upon him that Nazareth has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual evidence of existence of the character called Jesus of Nazareth in the NT. It is clear that whether or not Nazareth existed the stories of Jesus are fiction from conception to ascension and were not even claimed to be historical accounts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.