FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-13-2007, 08:05 AM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
As things stand, 'notzrim' is at best a hypothesis prior to the time of the gospels. What makes you propose it in the first place?
The opinion that 'nazarene' derives etymologically from 'netzer' is not from my head, spin. I really have no theory that hangs on that opinion.

Quote:
Are you positing an oral transmission underlying what this council of Greek scribes "captured"? TSADE is usually considered an unvoiced affricate, while a zeta a voiced fricative, a distinctive difference. In all this oral transmission, nobody ever got it right?? Naz- words are in each gospel and Acts.

spin
I am positing nothing. I know of no "council of Greek scribes". The only thing I claim to know is that the letter is rendered as 'tsade' or 'tzadi' in English. I have no background in linguistics of Mediteranean antiquity to get into technical debates with you whether at the relevant time in all places the consonant was an unvoiced affricate, or voiced fricative or, for that matter, how a pronunciation/transliteration of a locally created word would stabilize across multilingual populations. I take what you say and file it with other information.

I observe however that my suggestion of 'nazarene/nazorean' as (Aramaic?) neologism with local origin (and the hazards of local phonetics attendant thereto) in which the etymology might have been obscured, elicits strained arguments and dismissive tone on your part.

At any rate, thanks for the info.

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 05-13-2007, 03:08 PM   #32
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
The opinion that 'nazarene' derives etymologically from 'netzer' is not from my head, spin. I really have no theory that hangs on that opinion.
I know it's been popularized by Eisenman, so no, people touting it are not alone. In fact I thought it possible some time back, but the linguistics militate against it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
I am positing nothing. I know of no "council of Greek scribes".
How else do you get the uniformity of form with the zeta (despite the distinct forms of nazarhnos and nazwraios), if netzer was the underlying source?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
The only thing I claim to know is that the letter is rendered as 'tsade' or 'tzadi' in English. I have no background in linguistics of Mediteranean antiquity to get into technical debates with you whether at the relevant time in all places the consonant was an unvoiced affricate, or voiced fricative or, for that matter, how a pronunciation/transliteration of a locally created word would stabilize across multilingual populations. I take what you say and file it with other information.

I observe however that my suggestion of 'nazarene/nazorean' as (Aramaic?) neologism with local origin (and the hazards of local phonetics attendant thereto) in which the etymology might have been obscured, elicits strained arguments and dismissive tone on your part.
The Syriac Aramaic for the town as found in the Peshitta uses the same form as the Hebrew as found in an inscription from Caesarea Maritima. The Semitic side seems consistent to me, so what is the source of this neologism of local origin? It certainly doesn't seem like netzer.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 05-13-2007, 08:24 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
I know it's been popularized by Eisenman, so no, people touting it are not alone. In fact I thought it possible some time back, but the linguistics militate against it.
Actually, Eisenman seems pretty neutral and considers both possibilities, i.e. the "root-branch" and and the nozrei ha-brit (keepers of the covenant) origin. He may be right in interpreting Paul's Rom 11:17-22 as jabbing at the Jamesian messianists.

Quote:
How else do you get the uniformity of form with the zeta (despite the distinct forms of nazarhnos and nazwraios), if netzer was the underlying source?
I don't know, it may be for the same reason that in Arabic nasrani is uniformly spelled with a sin and not a zay.

Quote:
The Syriac Aramaic for the town as found in the Peshitta uses the same form as the Hebrew as found in an inscription from Caesarea Maritima. The Semitic side seems consistent to me, so what is the source of this neologism of local origin? It certainly doesn't seem like netzer.

spin
And that's fine, spin, no problem at all.

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 05-13-2007, 09:51 PM   #34
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Actually, Eisenman seems pretty neutral and considers both possibilities, i.e. the "root-branch" and and the nozrei ha-brit (keepers of the covenant) origin. He may be right in interpreting Paul's Rom 11:17-22 as jabbing at the Jamesian messianists.
He just likes to have his cake and eat it too.

However, they both are netzer! NZR is "dedicate/consecrate" or "crown".

He has to deal with the TSADE -> zeta problem, but his readers don't know. They trust him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
I don't know, it may be for the same reason that in Arabic nasrani is uniformly spelled with a sin and not a zay.
And that's what you'd expect, isn't it? From Aramaic to Arabic (TSADE -> SIN), not from Greek (zeta -> SIN).


spin
spin is offline  
Old 05-14-2007, 08:36 AM   #35
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith
(snip earlier multi-interps) .. 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.
Thanks Ben, for laboroiously trying to reconstruct this particular methodology of manipulation, interpolations and redactions and non-redactions and anti-redactions of convenience, by spin. Gave me a good for the day.

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
Yes, I realize you have not stated whether you take this stuff seriously as real theory to consider or not. You are welcome to go any way you want .. I simply appreciate the effort that summarizes this stuff.
Steven Avery is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:20 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.