spin

The only thing natural about the reading is what has been bread after a couple of thousand years of apologetics.

Stop mind reading. The only thing suspicious here is your obfuscation of the matter...

...You've touched nazarhnos, or was that nazwraios?

You'll find nazwrhnos, nazwrinos, nazaraios, nazorhnos, nazarinos. They've had numerous goes. But of course you want them to change it to nazaretaios, but there's no need, when one already believes that the terms are basically the gentilic necessary.

No, Luke was covering up the evidence. Matthew has to move Jesus from Nazara.

Are you trying to do text criticism or just apologetics? You are not talking to the comment you claim to respond to. What is so hard to understand about the fact that Nazareth was not in the synoptic core nor in Q? If you understand and accept that fact, you must conclude, as I did, that this reference to Nazareth was not in the early gospel traditions.

Then why did the writer remove all the references of nazarhnos and not replace them with nazwraios? Your conclusion has nothing to do with the evidence.

No. Teachers prescribe it. It is merely descriptive.

I can understand your difficulty as you start with your prescriptive notion of grammar and you can't seem to fathom the notion of observing what people do with language as the guide.


Analogies I guess are an artform that never communicates in a discussion with someone who has already decided a priori what the result should be, for such a person is willing to find even the most absurd ways of making the analogy fail, not wanting to contemplate what the analogy is indicating.

People are willing to accept etymologies that are not based on how a particular word was really derived, especially when they are told that the etymology is correct. The notions of derivation are not necessarily even contemplated. Just consider Gen 11:9 which talks of the city called Babel BBL, so named "because god confused BLL the language..." False etymology, but who gripes?


spin

jjramsey

It didn't take couple of thousand years for nazwraios and nazarhnos to be read as "someone from Nazareth."

Saying the something is not in a hypothetical document that may not even exist doesn't carry much truck with me. "Synoptic core" looks like an attempt to fudge, an attempt to consign references to Nazareth to a Synoptic periphery (?), or perhaps to interpolation.

I observe that one of the things that people do with language is distinguish good grammar from bad grammar. The only reason I can see for you to deny that grammar has any prescriptive element is so that you can avoid the notion that scribes would see nazwraios as improper and act on it.

Actually, I failed to point out yet another flaw in your analogy. You wrote, "I've pointed to false and folk etymologies which feature similar circuitous routes," in response to me pointing out that your proposed etymology for nazwraios and nazarhnos is circuitous. This, though, likens the circuitous etymologies of "butterscotch" and "crap" that are wrong to the circuitous etymology that you claim is what actually happened. Not a good move on your part.

spin

Of course not, but there are a couple of thousand years behind your insistence that it must be true.

Synoptic gospels share something in common, ie that which makes them synoptic gospels. I have referred to it as the core. You can call it whatever your heart pleases. The fact remains that, working from the synoptic material, ie that shared by all three gospels, there is no support whatsoever for the Nazareth tradition. (And, as I have also pointed out, it ain't in Q either.)

People learn to say what other people say, as other people say it, and then they spread out. Your notion of grammar has no place here.

The term nazarhnos is clearly part of the synoptic tradition, as Luke supports the Marcan use of the term in its context, a context which Matt has but not with the term itself. The context is synoptic. (One cannot make such claims for Nazareth.)

As the term is part of the tradition, there is no reason for the user to doubt it. Doubt came later when the back-formed Nazara proved unfindable until someone made the connection with NCRT. It was a bit late then to transliterate it as one would normally, ie NasareQ, hence the continued use of nazareQ with a zeta. The zeta is unaccounted if one doesn't start with nazarhnos.

At that stage who needs to reconstruct a new gentilic when one already existed? Only you. This is because you don't like the implications of the normal process of forming a gentilic from Nazareth. There, there.

Only if you look at things backwards as you are doing. The analogy was about accepting etymologies which are not correct. In this case the correct etymology is, as I argue, swimming backwards from what became a gentilic to a back-formed Nazara and then connecting that with NCRT. The false etymology is going the other, more "intuitive", way.


spin

andrewcriddle

The problem is whether or not Mark regards Capernaum as the place where Jesus grew up which seems clearly to be the place where Jesus' family are still living (see Mark 6:1-6)

The language used in Mark 3 is what one would expect for travelling from one place to another not IMO for travelling from one house in Capernaum to another nearby house in Capernaum

One might also question whether Capernaum (where Jesus is famous for working miracles) can be the same place as Jesus' fatherland in Mark 6:1-6 where Jeesus is unable to do anything impressive in the way of miracles.

If Capernaum is not, for Mark, Jesus' home town then Nazareth may well be.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

I have tried looking up about nazrites but have not got far - Samson was meant to be one.

Is Jesus the nazrite a more plausible conclusion?

Is an annointed nazrite warrior priest, probably high in the Temple heirachy a possibility for a real Jesus? Should it actually be Jesus Cohen?

jjramsey

Considering that all three Synoptics make reference to Nazareth, this seems to be a ridiculous statement.

And they learn what people don't say, and what people are corrected for saying.

First, this presumes that Nazareth is clearly late, yet there is no strata in the texts where Nazareth is clearly not present:

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...60#post1577660

Second, this presumes that once that seed of doubt is planted, no scribe is going to say, "Wait a minute, nazwraios doesn't look right." The only way you can avoid that is if you resort to the canard that grammar ain't got no prescriptive element. I'm sure that since you believe that canard, you find nothing wrong with the previous sentence.

Ahem, you wrote "I've pointed to false and folk etymologies which feature similar circuitous routes," and the circuitous route in question was the one you proposed and are still proposing.

S.C.Carlson

Quite a while ago, I blogged about the synoptic instances of Nazarene / Nazorean / of Nazareth (Nov. 12, 2003). There's a handy table of the parallels.

Ben C Smith

Hi, spin. I have not really followed all of the Nazareth debates here on IIDB, but I think I recall you arguing that Nazara in Matthew and Luke is a back-formation from Nazarene or Nazoraean, the true form being Nazareth, which does not easily yield Nazarene as a gentilic. Is that a correct summary of your views?

If so, Nazara would seem to be a rather important variant. If it could be shown to be a legitimate variant of Nazareth (and not just a back-formation), would Nazarene in your judgment be a legitimate gentilic name? (I have no direct data for Nazara other than the synoptics; this is hypothetical.)

Ben.

jgibson000

You might try not only not confusing a vow with a sect, but also, when you search, using the correct spelling: "nazarene".

And just for a change, you might also want to actually look at something written in a book or a standard Biblical Dictionary.

Here for intance is what you'd find if you broke character and consulted the ABD:

NAZARENES The term “Nazarene” has been used in English for several related Greek and Semitic-language terms found in NT and later writings. Some of these terms are more accurately represented by other spellings, and the ways in which these terms became related remain to some extent a matter of debate. In general, Nazarene means either (1) a person from Nazareth, or (2) a member of a religious group whose name may have other connotations.

Two Greek forms, Nazoµraios and Nazareµnos, are rendered in English versions of the NT as Nazarene, corresponding to the more Hellenistic of the two. (Similarly, English uses Essene for Essaios and Esseµnos.) However, in the Greek NT text, Nazoµraios is the more frequently used form. That Nazoµraios is the more Semitic of the two is suggested by the Syriac NT, which renders both forms as Naµs\raµyaµ. Matthew, John, and Acts use Nazoµraios exclusively; Mark and Luke (once or twice, depending on the manuscript) employ Nazareµnos. No other NT books use the name.

In the NT, Nazarene most frequently describes a person—namely, Jesus—from Nazareth. Nazareth is not directly mentioned in Hebrew literature until the liturgical poems of Kallir (7th cent. c.e.?). This, together with philological questions on the link between the town name and Nazarene, led to much speculation on the origin of these names (see Schaeder TDNT 4: 874–79). Archaeological excavation has revealed a Jewish settlement in Nazareth in the 1st cent. c.e. (see NAZARETH), and an inscription from about 300 c.e. found in Caesarea confirms the spelling of the town as NS\RT (Avi-Yonah 1962). While one might expect the S\ (s\ade) to be represented in Greek by s (sigma), parallel cases using z (zeta) are known. Thus questions on the formation of the gentilic remain. In rabbinic literature Jesus is labeled YSðHW HNWS\RY, apparently a nomen agentis from the root NS\R, meaning, e.g., “observer” (of torah). There are at least two cases in the NT where Nazarene means something different than, or additional to, “from Nazareth.” Most of Jesus’ followers were not from Nazareth, nor, according to Luke 4, was he well received there. These cases are significant for later use of Nazarene as a group name.

Matt 2:23 has puzzled many by asserting that when Jesus’ family arrived in Nazareth it fulfilled what was said by the “prophets” (note the plural) “that he shall be called Nazoµraios.” The text clearly associates Nazareth and Nazoµraios, but since no Hebrew Scripture mentions Nazareth, readers had to look for other allusions, calling on the Hebrew roots NS\R and NZR. In the case of NS\R, Isa 11:1 prophesies the messianic “shoot (nes\er)” from Jesse; additionally NS\R as a verb can mean “to observe, to guard.” On the other hand, if Matt 2:23 alludes to NZR, there are stories of Nazirite vows, consecrating Samson (Judges 13) and others (Samuel in 4Q1 Sam). Jesus was surely not a Nazirite proper, but the LXX associates this root with holiness, and consequently some church writers (e.g., Tertullian, Eusebius) so interpreted the verse. The intention of Matt 2:23 depends in part on the language knowledge and exegetical method of the writer(s) of Matthew (Brown 1977: 207–13). In any case, Matt 2:23 presents Nazoµraios as a favorable appellation.

In Acts 24:5 Paul appears accused by other Jews as a leader of the “heresy” of the Nazoµraioi. Though of course he defends his teaching, Paul does not disown the name. Acts also introduces the name Christian (Christianoi), which eventually displaced Nazarene as the preferred self-designation of the increasingly Greek and Latin speaking gentile Church. But while those who believed in Jesus as Messiah abandoned the name Nazarene, Jews generally—including Jews who believed in Jesus, but who still observed Mosaic law—kept using Nazarene and its apparent varieties, including Heb Nos\rim. Additionally, the name was retained by the churches speaking Syriac (Naµs\raµyaµ), Armenian, and Arabic (Nas\aµra).

In patristic literature the evolution continued. Writing ca. 200 c.e. Tertullian noted, “the Jews call us Nazarenos” (Against Marcion 4. 8). A century later Eusebius switched to past tense: “We who are now called Christians received in the past the name Nazarenoi” (onomast.). Writing about 375 c.e. Epiphanius condemns the Nazoµraioi, who are not a newly founded group, as a heresy (Panarion 29). Jerome followed Epiphanius: “. . . since they want to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians” (Epistle 112.13 to Augustine).

Epiphanius and Jerome (in the works cited) also provide the first clear accounts of the practice in some ancient synagogues of condemning the Nos\rim in the blessing or curse on heretics (birkat ha-minim): “. . . may the Nos\rim and Minim speedily perish . . .” (according to Cairo Genizah manuscripts). By this time, Epiphanius and Jerome are not sure whether the curse encompasses all Christians or only Jewish-Christians.

Epiphanius also condemns the Nasaraioi (Panarion 18) which his sources describe as a pre-Christian, law-observant group. There is no direct evidence that such a group existed. However, Epiphanius may have encountered a claim such as that made by the Mandeans, who call themselves the Naµs\oµraµyaµ, the true religious “observers.” (This claim parallels that made by other groups, e.g., the Samaritans’ self-description as the “true keepers of torah.”) The Mandeans claim to predate Judaism as well as Christianity.
Another illustration of the question of differing meanings of the terms subsumed by Nazarene appears in the 3d cent. Middle Persian inscription of Karté÷r, a Zoroastrian priest who was intolerant of other religions. Karté÷r condemned, among others, “. . . Jews . . . and Nazarai, and Christians . . .” (lines 9–10; Chaumont). Nazarene here could represent orthodox Christians (if “Christians” in this case refers to Marcionites) or Mandeans or some variety of Jewish-Christians.

To define Nazarene, one must take into account the time, place, language, and religious perspective of the speaker, as well as the meanings of other available religious group names. The development of these names merits further study.

Bibliography
Avi-Yonah, M. 1962. A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea. IEJ 12: 137–39.
Brown, R. 1977. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City, NY.
Chaumont, M.-L. 1960. L’inscription de Karté÷r a la “Ka>bah de Zoroastra.” JA 248: 339–80.
Klijn, A. F. J., and Reinink, G. J. 1973. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. Leiden.
Pritz, R. 1982. The Jewish Christian Sect of the Nazarenes and the Mishna. PWCJS 8/1: 125–30.
Stephen Goranson

JG

jjramsey

From Googling, I stumbled upon JBL, Vol. 120, No. 3,

JBL 120/3 (2001) 451–468
"The Sources of the Old Testament Quotation in Matthew 2:23"
Maaren J. J. Menken
Katholieke Theologische Universiteit, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1203.pdf

where on page 455, the author seems to believe that "Nazorean" came from the Aramaic Natzaray*. I transliterated the Aramaic word from the article, but the asterisk at the end of the word is in the original article, and I don't know what it means.:huh: Take it for what its worth.

I also found a JSTOR link to the old article "The Names 'Nazareth' and 'Nazoraean'" by W. F. Albright, JBL, Vol. 40, Dec. 1946, pp. 397-401. I can't access the full text right now, if at all, but some of you might have better luck. It wouldn't surprise me if the article was old news to many of you.