MrMacSon

Err, it is a current [modern] reference verified by similar information from the wikipedia link-page.

I provided references to what happened BC to 4th C. What has the 5th C got to do with the supposedly time of Jesus??


So what?

outhouse

Could you help me out with a source for that part?

MrMacSon

The references I supplied.

TedM

Hi Abe,

One group of early Christians was called the "Nazarenes". This is well attested, and not only in Acts 24:5. See also http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...1393-nazarenes

I have long thought that the name "Nazarenes" came from "Nazareth".

However, I think there may well be something to the idea that the name may have come from the term Nazirite.

From Numbers 6 we see that Nazirites do the following:

1. They make a vow to dedicate themselves to the Lord for some time called a 'separation'
2. Abstain from strong drink
3. The do not cut their hair
4. Stay away from dead people
5. When the days of dedication end, he makes offerings for sin (through the priest) and shaves his head

When Paul visits Jerusalem in Acts 21, he meets with the James, their leader, and the 'elders'. They tell Paul that there are thousands of Jewish "believers" who don't like him because they are "zealous for the Law", and they heard that Paul isn't. They tell Paul:

Note that these four men appeared to be part of James' Christian group, were taking a vow and (it appears) had not cut their hair.

Note too the following quote from wiki:

Then we have in Acts 24:5, speaking of Paul to the governor:

So, we have the early Christians being called Nazarenes, and having some things in common with those who took the Nazirite vows.



One might ask: Why did the term "Nazarenes" die out? It appears to be a term used for Jewish Christians, and perhaps not for Gentile Christians. (Note that Acts says the name Christians first was used in Antioch, a Gentile city with lots of Hellenistic Jews).

It also appears from later writings that "Nazarenes" were seen as heretical because they adhered to the Jewish Law too much. See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...1393-nazarenes
The question is: were they close followers of the Law because they were Jewish, or because they were Nazirites? And why would their first leader, who isn't even introduced in Acts, have been such a strict follower of the law if the leader whom he followed had been drastically different? If Jesus were a JTB follower, as I believe was the case, then perhaps Jesus practiced dedication to God, abstinence from drink, let his hair grow, no bathing in the wilderness, fasting, etc..It might explain James and the Nazarene's more easily: JTB -> Jesus -> James.

In 5 other places in Acts Jesus is referred to as "the Nazarene". In only 2 places it says "of Nazareth".

Which is more likely?:

1. Jesus and his original followers were called "Nazarenes" because they took vows of or like those of the Nazirites and despite Gentile opposition some records remain as support.

2. Jesus and his original followers were called "Nazarenes" because he came from an obscure town named Nazareth, despite the expectation of some that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.

spin

Gee, that's novel!

This is the blunder that so many christian scholars fall into. Naziritism has nothing necessarily to do with the vow. One can be a Nazirite without the vow. In fact, Samson was a life-long Nazirite without having made a vow, his Naziritism assured before his birth. He didn't abstain from carousing or womanizing. Yet, he was to save the Israelites, just as Jesus was to save his people.

The vow only confuses the issue without being shown to be relevant.

TedM

It is part of being a Nazirite, even if not required. See Numbers 6:2.

Even if it isn't required, it clearly is worth mentioning and considering when making comparisons, spin.

spin

As I have pointed out in two posts you don't have the whole story. In fact the only clear examples we have of Nazirites in the bible are Samson and Samuel... well, the biblical indication of Samuel's Naziritism has been suppressed and only appears in the DSS copies. Nevertheless, they are are only two known early Nazirites and there is nothing about a vow regarding them.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that all the nutters who write on this subject are one-eyed fools who push this vow nonsense, while ignoring the fact that Samson didn't make a vow and was not particularly vowish in behavior, as I have already pointed out. But still, like Jesus, he did save his people, didn't he? And he was referred to as "holy one of god" (parallel with Nazeiraios = Nazirite) in LXX Jdg 13:7 as Jesus was thus referred to by the demons in Mk 1:24.

TedM

Numbers 6 wasn't suppressed, was it? Then why are you making an issue of it?



Your added evidence is noted. The 'vow' parallel stands however, even if it wasn't 'required' of Samson. It is in Numbers 6. Do you think the Jews who wanted to become - if even for a short time - a Nazirite would take their cues from Samson or from the Torah? I"m going with the Torah. It's kind of common sense too, for short term dedications. Good night.

spin

Because you are not listening to what was said to you.

What might the vow have to do with Jesus? You don't need to answer the question. It's rhetorical. The implied answer is nothing at all, just as it has nothing to do with the only Nazirite in the Hebrew bible beside Samuel.

Fuck common sense. Idiots deal with things that require specialist knowledge and fuck up because they depend on common sense. :banghead:

The story of Samson deals with a non-vow making, life-long Nazirite who saves his people. The connection with Jesus is obvious. That Jesus is named the "holy one of god", just as Samson is in the Alexandrian LXX should also be a help for you to forget the nonsense about the vow. Samson, as a model for Jesus, didn't make a vow. A vow is irrelevant for someone who is a life-long Nazirite. Still Mt draws on the Samson story twice in the early part of the gospel, 1:22 and 2:23. The connection with Samson is strong, yet the fact that he didn't make a vow is not significant to those scholars I have already alluded to, those scholars who stop making sense because they ignore the evidence and crap on how Jesus can't be a Nazarite because he doesn't show signs of having fulfilled a vow. Yeah, well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a PhD think.

TedM

Again, I thank you for the additional info. My original post was comparing Nazarenes who DID make a vow for a temporary dedication. That's why I think it IS relevant: it would be foolish to completely ignore the comparison with Number 6. As you point out, it would be equally foolish to REQUIRE that the life-long Nazirites make a vow to do x,y,z. Got it. I'm not sure what vow you have in mind though..Samson didn't cut his hair, for example. A life-long Nazarite would seem to be required to forego at least SOMETHING.

Ok. Thanks again. More stuff for Abe to consider. I personally do not see a strong connection as it currently reads, although I don't discount the possibility of one having been there originally, with only clues remaining.