Malachi151

Are you saying that these are legitimate, or that it would be required that these also be interpolations, which is unlikely?

Ben C Smith

I do not think that they are legitimate interpolations; spin, however, does.

The train of thought for one of these interpolations went as follows (to the best of my memory):

1. Spin claimed that no instance of Nazoraean in Matthew was parallel to any instance of Nazarene in Mark.
2. I countered that Matthew 26.71, in the denial pericope, has Nazoraean while Mark 14.66, also in the denial pericope, has Nazarene.
3. Spin pointed out that Matthew has Nazoraean in the second denial while Mark has Nazarene in the first denial. He thus denied that they were true parallels on this account.
4. I countered that Matthew has Galilean in the first denial while Mark has Galilean in the third, and that Matthew has the oath in the second denial while Mark has the cursing and swearing in the third denial, and I gave several other examples of parallels getting juggled locally a little bit between the synoptics. I thus affirmed that exactly which denial each word appears in has little to do with whether the words are parallel.
5. Spin countered that the real parallel to the Marcan Galilean in the third denial is the Matthean accent in the third denial, and concluded that Galilean in the Matthean denial account must be an interpolation.

Thus was a new interpolation discovered in the text of Matthew. Matthew, according to spin, decided to omit Galilean from his Marcan source and replace it with the accent comment, only to be foiled by a later scribe who added Galilean back into the pericope in an earlier denial.

Ben.

Solo

Here is another view of the origins of the Nazareth association.

Jiri

haNosri

There was no town called "nazareth" during the life of Jesus. Jesus was from a small sect of Judaism called "nasoreans' and sometimes Nazrenes. the place that is now called Nazareth in Israel was called Sepphora during the life of Jesus and this is the traditional place where mary his mother hailed from...it is near the sea of Galilea.

The nasorean sect called their teaching "the way" and they were messianists.
Nearly all the references to the town of nazareth are gross misinterpretations of the term Netzer and Nosri. Jesus would more correctly be called Jesus of the nasoreans, not jesus of nazreth. Josephus does not ever mention the city of nazareth, in fact not one early historian ever mentions this city....for good reason, it didn't exist until approximately 100 years after Jesus died.

haNosri

Nazarene comes from the Hebrew word Netzer, drawn from Isa 11:1 and means a Branch—so the Nazarenes were the “Branches,” or followers of the one they believed to be the true vine.

Jesus said " I am the vine...
Jesus said " I am the WAY...

The term Nazarene was likely the one first used for these followers of Jesus, as evidenced by Acts 24:5 where Paul is called “the ringleader of the SECT of the Nazarenes.”

So we see that Paul is accused of being the ringleader of a SECT called the nazrenes...why? Paul is preaching about the most famous nasorean of all, Jesus. This is the only place where the term nazrene is used correctly. It is not a place, it's a SECT of Judaism.

I hope this helps!

spin

I've discounted the association here some time back. The problem with branch associations is a problem of phonology. As I've indicated the vast preponderance of the letter TSADE transliterated from Hebrew into Greek yield sigma, so branch (NCR C=TSADE) should be *naser in Greek, not *nazer. The Greek is without fail spelt with a zeta, although the Hebrew name NCRT for the place Nazareth (first attested in a synagogue in Caesarea Maritima, 3rd/4th c.) is spelt with a TSADE. The Greek (Nazarene, Nazorean, Nazareth) is consistently in need of an explanation and it is not to be found in NCR, which must be seen as secondary to NZR sources.


spin

haNosri

These should read:

Quote:
Mark 1.9:
In those days Jesus came from the Nasoreans of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Quote:
Mark 1.24:
and he cried out, ‘What have you to do with us, Jesus the Nasorean? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.’

Quote:
Mark 10.47:
When he heard that it was Jesus the Nasorean, he began to shout out and say, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’

Quote:
Mark 14.67:
When she saw Peter warming himself, she stared at him and said, ‘You also were with the Nasorean, Jesus.’

Quote:
Mark 16.6:
But he said to them, ‘Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus the Nasorean, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.

spin

Sorry, this is phonologically unsound. As I've just said, the TSADE is transliterated as a sigma (as you have in your *nasorean), but Nazarene, Nazorean, and Nazareth are always represented with the zeta and obviously from the ZAYIN of NZR/NZYR, "dedicated" etc.

(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.)


spin

spin

The text reads "...from Nazareth of Galilee..."

The text reads "...Jesus the Nazarene..."

The text reads "...Jesus the Nazarene..."

The text reads "...the Nazarene, Jesus..."


The text reads "...Jesus the Nazarene..."

Each time it is written with a zeta and never a sigma. We usually work from the text not what we like it to be, until we can put up a convincing argument against the text.


spin

haNosri

The Christian writer Epiphanius, probably for his own propoganda purposes, sought to differentiate between the Nasorenes, Nazarites and the Nazarenes. His agenda was to show that the Nazarenes spoken of in the New Testament were identical to his own Greco-Roman "Christians" and not at all identical to vegetarian Nazarite Essenes from Mt. Carmel toward whom he was hostile.

Common sense, however, dictates that the Nasoreans who followed Jesus were one and the same with the Nasarenes / Nazarenes spoken of in the New Testament (Acts 24:5). Different authors, did not employ any form of universal spelling when speaking of Nazoreans. Hence one finds Nazarenes, Nasorenes, Nazaroi, Nazareaen, Nazarites, N'Tzrim, Nosri, etc.

Arguing about the spelling is pointless, the point is that the term does not mean "from the city of nazareth" at all, but is mistranslated as such and is a name designator for a sect of Essenism known as Nasorean, or Nazrene or however you want to spell it. Have it your way then NAZSOREAN....the point remains the same, its not the name of a city, it's the name of a sect.

Your assumption is that the Zeta is correctly translated.....thus the confusion.