Magdlyn

Is that right? Earliest ref is to Nazarenes? Which gospel is that in? Unfortunately, in many translations, where Jesus might be called "the Nazarene," it is translated as "of Nazareth." So you would have a confusion. Were all early followers from Nazareth? Why was Jesus even called "a Nazarene?" Waht were the characterisitics of the Nazarene sect pre Jesus making it famous?

In Acts, I see refs to followers of the Way and to Christians.

Xtian, you mean? Some think X is a slur, but I hope most on this board know it means chi.

Perhaps calling it Greek Scriptures would be as obscure as calling it Nazarene. As I do not count on most people, even here, knowing the "New Testament" was written in Greek, not Aramaic or even Hebrew.

Amaleq13

There is good reason to suspect that "Nazareth" is a later interpolation/mistranslation and that "Nazarene" is the original term. Do a search for spin and "Nazareth" to obtain his linguistic detective work. Ted Hoffman plans to post a paper questioning the historicity of an early 1st century Nazareth and talks about it here.

IIRC, it was first used by Christians.

Lugubert

Thank you-all for your responses
and thank you, spin, for trusting me. I sure have tried, but the best I have come up with so far is the PB for the Paul(in)ism Book.

Many years ago, I was struck by the nazir-Nazareth resemblance, and yes, Amaleq, I have with great interest followed a couple of Nazareth threads on the Internet. A third generation link from yours pointed to "AskWhy! on Nazarene". I don't buy it all, but on the other hand, they could have given many more examples of the TaNaK obsession with (folk) etymologies, from Adam and Eve/Hawwa on.

Rather off topic, but slightly appropriate for the time of the year, I once thought that Bethlehem was the House of Elohim, but found out that the letters did not match too well (not that the authors of the TaNaK bothered very much when they could make up a good pun).

I wonder which Bethlehem name was the original one: Hebrew bet leHem "house of bread" or Arabic bayt laHm "house of meat". Any way, both could be taken as "house of food", where meat was the generic food for the Arab nomads like bread was for the sedentary Hebrew farmers.

Magdlyn

off topic:

Yes, I know that. I know the controversy surrounding whether there even was a Nazareth, besides an old graveyard, called Nazareth 1st centruy CE. (Tho it seems spin is attached to there having been an actual town of this name, that J actually was raised in.)

So where is the evidence for such a strong reference to Jesus' early followers as Nazarenes that it would make sense to call the whole Xtian scriptures after them?

Was Jesus under a nazirite vow? It appears not, as he is not depicted that way, and as I understand it, a nazirite vow only lasted a proscribed period of time.

"He shall be called a Nazarene" does not occur in the Hebrew scriptures, yet is used as a "proof text." I believe I have read this.

Donnmathan

Yes, I notice that...what puzzles me is, why? Both Catholics and Protestants believe that this guy Jesus was born of a virgin, preached for a while, and then was killed to wipe out their sins. Both use the same holy book (noting a few books that the Protestants trimmed out), and the Catholics were actually around first. How can you exclude them from the group labelled "Christians"?

I also just have to say that this arguement is bordering on the pointless. Folks, "Old Testament" is a Christian term, used within their religion to identify the (historically older) section of their holy book. Christianity is a decendant of the Jewish faith, and therefore has as much right to use those texts, and give them a label, as the Jews themselves do. Whenever I have heard of the Hebrew holy texts in regard to their use by Jews, at least in all of the anthropology and comparative religions courses I've taken, they are referred to properly. On a related note...the followers of Islam don't call the books they borrowed by their proper Hebrew name - you going to go after them for insulting the Jews, next?

Amaleq13

I think you are misinterpreting him but I'll let him decide.

It seems to me that it is sufficient to conclude that, if the first version of the gospel story called him "Jesus the Nazarene", then the subsequent collection of what is supposed to be the same story can quite reasonably be called "The Nazarene Gospel" or "Gospel of the Nazarene". It also doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that his closest followers might have been called the same thing though I don't see that as necessary for naming the texts.

IIRC the earlier posts on the topic by spin suggest the term is better understood as meaning "watchers" rather than a reference to nazarite vows.

Yep, that's in Matthew. One might conclude from this bit of fabrication on the part of the author that he felt compelled to explain the early use of a term that was not, in the author's day, very well understood.

jonesg

and please call my God " Your Heavenly Father" just to make me feel good.

spin

You, poor thing, have no claims on your heavenly father, so please stop being silly.


spin

Toto

Chili's digression on Catholicism has been split off here. Please keep this thread on topic.