spin

If I remember correctly from the earlier part of this thread hjalti had already proposed a link with Naziritism, a link which I think is clear from both the synoptic gospels and some church fathers. What scholars commenting on the issue fail to realize is that we are not dealing with the Nazirite vow and performative acts of dedication in order to achieve the goal of the vow, but a notion of naziritism for life as in the case of Samson and of Samuel (as found in the DSS fragments of the book of Samuel concerning his birth). Samson was called "holy (one) of god" not because of any vow, but because he was dedicated from birth. Samson drank and came into contact with dead bodies, but he was not trying to fulfil some vow and was not constrained by a vow. He was holy from birth, as Jesus was for both Matthew and Luke. Eusebius thought Jesus was naturally a Nazirite and both he and Tertullian link "Nazarene" to "Nazirite".

A NZR source, the verb behind "Nazarite", explains the zeta transparently, staves off the ad hoc explanations in circulation, and does not reflect either way on the existence of a town called Nazareth, but helps to explain how the Nazareth tradition evolved from two sources, first connected to Naziritism (leading to Nazarene, Nazorean and Nazara) and the second a real town called NCRT, which--it would seem--supplied the final form.

The Hebrew form of the name is known from a fragment found in Caesarea Maritima by Michael Avi-Yonah in 1949. (The Wiki article on Nazareth has the reference, I recall.) The fragment is dated to late 3rd or early 4th c. This should show what the original form of the Semitic name was, ie with tsade, pointing to the Greek sigma, as it is so frequently transliterated, asking you to look elsewhere for the zeta.

The Matthean gospel got rid of "Nazarene" from the Marcan source (while two were preserved in Luke, though one was changed to "Nazorean", I think a later scribal slip, as a uniqely Lucan comment uses "Nazarene") before the Nazorean material was introduced. As "Nazorean" also features a zeta, it gives signs of either a second sourcing from NZR or an independently repeated transliteration error. Which seems more likely to you?

ApostateAbe

Toto, I have received two emails back, one of them in your favor, and another one in my favor. Here is the one in your favor:

Dear [private],

My short answer would be no, I don't believe most historians would be inclined to believe that human settlement occured any earlier than the archaeological evidence allows. It is, of course, more complicated than that. In some measure it will depend upon what exactly you mean by "settlement." If you mean essentially sedentary, agriculturally-based communities, then most historians will point to the Neolithic era. Prior to then, in the Paleolithic, human societies were basically nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers. They might make temporary camps or establish brief residences in a location, in simple shelters or perhaps a cave, but would at some point move on. With the development of agriculture, people would need to stick around in the same location at least long enough for their crops to grow and then to harvest them. What you accept as "evidence" of settlement is also important. I suppose it's conceivable that archaeologists might find a site which shows clear evidence of farming activity but no indication of residence (which, of course, doesn't mean that there *wasn't* any residence there) but nonetheless infer, from the agricultural evidence, that there must have been settlement at or very near that location.

Hope that helps.

Dr. Westley Follett
Assistant Professor of History
University of Southern Mississippi

Dr. Follett's profile is here: http://www.usm.edu/history/follett.php.

He seemingly understood "sometime before" to be inquiring about a transition between two entirely different anthropological eras. In that sense, I would certainly agree with him--the earliest settlement is very likely to be the same era as the earliest evidence--but our disagreement here is about something much narrower. I sent him another email clarifying some of the details of this particular debate, and I will keep you up to date if I get another reply.

Here is the email in my favor:

Interesting question. I do agree that there were probably settlements earlier than can be proven by archaeology, because early settlements were 1) small and 2) left very scant physical remains in most cases. The archaeological clock is constantly being pushed back further and further with new discoveries.

My personal take on when human settlement probably started goes way back to the Mesolithic era, when some foraging groups settled permanently where a resource like a constant supply of fish made it possible.

Cheers,
PJ

--
Dr. Phyllis G. Jestice
Professor & Chair
History Department
University of Southern Mississippi

Here is Dr. Jestice's profile page: http://www.usm.edu/history/jestice.php

Her reasoning certainly matches what I had in mind--you wouldn't expect to find the earliest archaeological evidence that is physically possible, and the earliest date of the evidence can serve as only a latest possible time of settlement.

ApostateAbe

Thank you, spin, I appreciate it.

ApostateAbe

Toto, let me know if there is anything you would like to ask Dr. Jestice.

hjalti

For what it's worth, Jesus' vow not to drink wine during the last supper could be seen as something nazirite-esque.

And as we all know, Jesus had long hair! :Cheeky:

Sarai

Hi spin. I agree that Jesus is portrayed in the fashion of Samson, but it seems perhaps we're dealing with both forms of Naziritism at the time. The Talmuds mention the early "Pious Ones" (citing the example of Baba b. Buti during the time of Herod) taking Nazarite vows so they would owe a daily sin offering. They repeated these vows monthly, so they would be, in essence, lifelong Nazirites.

For more about this, I recommend the book R. Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus: A Scholar Outcast (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Y.D. Gilat. (This is where I got the above info.)

Regards,
Sarai

No Robots

The ha notsri when applied to Jesus in the Talmud could not have meant Person from Nazareth as it is an adjective and therefore describes a quality of Jesus. If it was a descriptive adjunct identifying Jesus it might have meant Person from Nazareth. The spelling of the word precludes any meaning of Nazirite. While the exact meaning of the word is uncertain there is a possibility that it was a sarcastic reference to Jesus as the Flower of Isa 11:1.--"Nazirites and Nazarenes: The Meaning of Nazaraeus in Saint Jerome" / Michael L. Moran. In Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum. Volume 9, Issue 2 (May, 2006), p. 365.

dog-on

Ask specifically about Nazareth.