andrewcriddle

The Albright paper referred to by Brown is
'The Names Nazareth and Nazorean' JBL 65 (1946) 397-401

In the Supplement in Brown's Uodated 'Birth of the Messiah' we have (p 617)

Ruger ('Nazareth...' ZNW 72 1981 257-63) traces Nazoraios and Nazarenos to the Hebrew place name Na(tz)erat which was related to the ne(tz)er of Isa 11:1.

with a footnote

Drawing on the ne(tz)er in Isa 11:1 and contending that the primary meaning of Nazoraios is related to Davidic descent Pixner proposes that the place name Nazara/Nazareth stems from a clan of Davidids who came back from Babylon at the end of the 2nd century BC and settled there. Pritz finds an echo of No(tz)eri a Talmudic designation of Jesus used in the plural for Christians and of ne(tz)er especially as used in Isa 11:1 - the same three consonants appear in each and TalBab Sanhedrin 43a associates Isa 11:1 with a disciple of Jesus.

(The footnote here serves to provide an update of recent scholarship, Brown is non-committal about the ideas in it)

Andrew Criddle

spin

Thanks, Andrew, for the response and data.

Do these fellows use "Nazorean", ie without showing the omega (and "Nazarenos" without the eta) as a rule or are you transliterating?

I'm pretty sure that Mt 2:23 contains a reference to Jgs 13:5 which even uses the verb $W`, to save, the principal part of the name Jesus, which pins the origin of nazwraios to naziraios.

Pixner's probably taking over some of his idea from Murphy-O'Connor who theorized a return from Babylon of a group which would become that behind the scrolls. I think the idea's a dud. Pritz may easily be right about the Talmud, but I'm not sure if he is 100% right about it's relation to Isa 11:1. I think that the two meanings of NCR, "to keep" and "branch", would have been well known to those who used the name so they probably consciously played with both.

It's not uncommon for names of different origins to be played with and used against one another, even words as dissimilar as nazwraios and nazarhnos. The messianic figure of the Second Jewish was was called Simeon bar Kochba (Simeon son of the star) by his followers, while his name was bar Koseba, and opponents referred to him bar Koziba (son of the lie).

All this to say that there may well have been word play with all the names that we have been discussing here, without necessarily implying any etymological connections, though I think thee are some.


spin

Vorkosigan

spin, would you consider writing up an essay for the SecWeb on this? You wouldn't be required to reveal your real identity, of course. I think it would help a lot if these ideas were laid out in a somewhat more organized fashion.

andrewcriddle

No they use (overscore o) for omega and (overscore e) for eta
I wasn't sure how to do overscores on this forum

FWIW the 'o' in Mandean na(tz)orayya is given an overscore in Brown p 209 so may be long. (I'm going to try and find the precise form of na(tz)orayya but I haven't been able to do so yet).

Andrew Criddle

spin

Thanks. An overscore usually implies a long vowel, so I guess that means I have to read their arguments!

The normal ascii transliteration of eta is with "h", for omega "w" and for theta "Q".

Vork, to do such an article properly, I'd have to read what them fellahs have to offer on the subject, and I haven't a hope in hell of getting access from where I currently live.


spin

Ted Hoffman

Again, I take the liberty of sharing the relevant sections of Zindler's mail:

"Before trying to answer the new points raised concerning the NZYR/nazOraios question I would like to point out again that Price is quoted has having said " 'The Nazarene' would imply a place but 'the Nazorean' appears to be a sect name." (Perhaps, if Price ever wrote these words he had in mind Acts 24:5, which mentions "a ringleader of the sect [haireseOs] of the Nazarenes [NazOraiOn]," NEB.

Until quite recently, few scholars ever distinguished Nazorean from Nazarene. Indeed, the Greek MSS use the terms interchangeably) This is supposed to appear on pp. 66-67 of Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.

These words are not to be found on pages 66-67 of my copy of the book. I cannot find these words anywhere in his book.

What Price actually says on pp. 66-67 is as follows:

"In some ways the strangest of Matthew's formula quotations occurs in 2:23, where, in order to prooftext Jesus' residence at Nazareth (perhaps something of an embarrassment in light of all the Bethlehem business), he quotes a prophecy no one has ever been able to locate: "He shall be
called a Nazorean." Can Matthew have been thinking of Judg. 13:7, "The boy shall be a Nazirite [devoted] to God from birth?" If so, he has inserted the perceived esoteric meaning right into the wording of the Scripture text, since "Nazirite" and "Nazorean" are not the same thing. (A Nazirite was one who for a short duration vowed to leave his hair unshorn, not to drink
wine, nor to touch any unclean thing. There were no lifelong Nazirites; Samson is made one after the fact to find a different explanation for his long hair, originally the mark of his having been the sun god.)"

As can be seen, Price simply is noting that "'Nazirite'and 'Nazorean' are not the same thing." Now why did he mention Nazirite in the first place? He mentioned it because he was trying to imagine what 'Matthew' had in mind when he prooftexted Jesus' supposed need to reside at a place called Nazareth. (Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city [polis!] called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. KJV)

Since no such prophecy exists in the canonical OT, Price seems to play the part of Lord's Advocate by suggesting (as thousands of exegetes and apologists have argued) that 'Matthew' was referring in somewhat confused and incomprehending fashion to Judges "13:7b...for the child shall be a Nazarite [nazir] to God from the womb to the day of his death."

I doubt that Price really thinks the Greek term NazOraios actually derives from the Hebrew NZYR, and before I go further in this discussion I must underscore the fact that the true etymologies of words may be of no significance at all in understanding many NT problems. Folk etymologies
or completely ad hoc etymologies may have been the motivations for the coining of names like Bethany, Bethpage, Capernaum, etc. The writers we call Matthew MAY have been trying to relate NazOraios to NZYR (or an unattested Greek transliteration of the word), without understanding the reasons why this could not be correct. On the other hand they may not.

Just why can't the Nazorean cluster of words be related to NZYR? Let me recapitulate and expand upon what I have already noted.

1. The word for Christian in Hebrew is notsri [NWTsRY], which is spelled with a tsade, not a zayin as is the word for Nazirite [nazir, NZYR]. At the turn of the era, the zayin probably was pronounced as a voiced sibilant as probably was also the Greek zeta. Both probably were pronounced as dz.
The tsade, on the other hand, probably was the corresponding voiceless sibilant which sounded like ts. While we can't be certain how zayin and tsade were pronounced, they clearly were not phonemically interchangeable.

2. In Modern Hebrew the words for Christian and Nazarene are identical [NWTsRY], both spelled with tsade.

3. The Hebrew name for the city now called Nazareth is Notsrat [NTsRTh], spelled with tsade.

4. Clearly, Jewish tradition -- which should be the controlling tradition in my opinion -- relates the Nazarene cluster of words to a Hebrew etymon spelled with a tsade, not a zayin. This rules out NZYR as a real ancestor of the Nazarene cluster, even though it does not rule out the possibility that 'Matthew' was unable to distinguish the subtle sound difference between
zayin and tsade and actually thought he saw a prophecy of a newly named "city" called Nazareth.(Can anyone tell me just how large a town had to be before the Greeks would have called it a polis?)

What, then, are the probable etymologies of these words?

Gesenius explains the root NZR in two related entries: NaZaR and NeZeR (the 2nd means 'diadem' and 'consecration'). Gesenius indicates that the 2nd is actually a derivative of the 1st. He relates NZR to the Arabic NDhR (nathar, 'to consecrate, to vow', with th as in English'then') It should be noted here that in Classical Arabic the dhal is a dental fricative which in
some modern dialects has become a z pronounced as in English. The core meaning of NZR seems to be 'to separate oneself', 'to abstain', 'to consecrate oneself'. From this Gesenius derives the noun nazir NZYR, a Nazirite.

Ernest Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language For Readers of English" relates NZYR nazir to Aramaic-Syriac NZYRA n'zira, a Nazirite or monk. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Vol. V, even though it does not address the etymology of NZYR, is in agreement with Gesenius and gives no indication that the zayin is ever confused with tsade.

Although I am uncertain of the full significance of the next point, we should note that Judges 13:5b also employs the word NZYR: "For the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb" KJV. The LXX does not translate NZYR here, but rather transliterates it as "Nazir Theou," with no O-vowel, following exactly the Hebrew vocalization as it is commonly assumed to have been in ancient times.

Curiously, when the LXX comes to the same word in Judges 13:7b it translates it rather than transliterate it: "for the child shall be holy to God (hoti Theou hagion estai to paidarion) from the womb until the dcay of his death."

Why the different method of dealing with NZYR? perhaps someone in your group has an explanation. In any case, the Greek transliteration gives no precedent for Matthew's use of an O-vowel. It does, however, give ground for him to folk-etymologize Nazara etc. to Nazir. In general, the NT
authors referred to the LXX and related Greek bibles rather than to the Hebrew.

This would have allowed false etymologies such as Nazara < nazir.

From all this I conclude that the word nazir cannot be the true origin of the terms Nazarene/Nazorean/Nazareth, even though it might have been a folk etymology that 'Matthew' employed in his desperate attempt to find scriptural support for Jesus living in the not-yet-existing place called nazareth. Although the suggestion that the graphical confusion of a yod for a waw admirably accounts for the otherwise difficult O in nazOraios, it comes to grief on the fact tha the Hebrew Vorlage for nazOraios had to have a tsade not a zayin, on the basis of the Hebrew words for Cristian and Nazareth. (See also the 2nd Thayer reference, below)

So where, then, did the Nazarene cluster of words derive? As I have already noted, it seems highly probable that it came from the Hebrew NTsR (branch or shoot) -- as in the Branch Davidians of recent memory -- and was a reference to Isaiah 11:1 "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (Netser) shall grow out of his roots" KJV. (Thayer, in his
entry for Nazareth, cites the Talmud as referring to Jesus as "ben NETseR" (with the 1st e long), but I have been unable to find any such citation.)

The LXX does not transliterate NTsR here but rather renders it as 'blossom' (anthos). I have already noted that the Isaiah Targum equates NTsR with Mashiach (=Christ). It is reasonable to suppose persons devoted to the Netser would be known as Notsri, but I have not yet worked out the
principle of word formation that might predict this. Certain it is, however, that the Jews related the Christians to Isaiah 11:1 and the root NTsR. Exactly how we get from here to NazOraios is yet unclear, but to start with one may expect a metathesis of the o-vowel with respect to the ts/ds consonant.

Text history yields a bewildering number of words needing to be accounted for by anybody's theory. We have NazarEnos, Nazorenos, NazOrinos, NazOEnos, NazOraios, Nazoraios, NazOreos (D,W), Nazoros (D), and Naraios.

For Nazareth, we have Nazaret, Nazareth, Nazarath, and Nazara. Thayer's Greek English lexicon of the NT etymologizes these to several Hebrew words in addition to Netser, but does give Netser (sprout, shoot) first billing. Thayer also cites notsrah (protectress, guard) and nitsreth (sentinel).
The take-home lesson here is that all suggested Hebrew etyma are spelled with tsade, not zayin. This rules out anygenuine relation to nazir NZYR for the Nazareth cluster of words.
>
The wildness of the text history for these words -- especially for 'Nazarene' -- makes it clear that the whole subject was NOT very clear to the early Christian writers who tried to make sense out of all this. I suggest that at least some of them incorrectly interpreted Nazarenos/Nazoraios as a gentilic term and, by back-formation, created Nazareth/Nazara as the geographic origin implied. Then, after the expulsion of the Jews (and Jewish Christians?) from Jerusalem in 135 CE, the site now known as Nazareth was settled and given the NT name of Nazareth. At any rate, that is my theory.

Vorkosigan

Great article, my man! Could the derivation of Nazareth be by way of Nasi, prince? Thinking of Kochba's title Prince of Israel.

spin

There's not much that's new in what Zindler writes. So, he doesn't like the Nazirite connection with Mt 2:23. He seems unable to explain it, whereas I have an explanation: it is based on the birth of Samson, but not simply on it. And I will get back to this after I've said a few more words about Zindler's response (which incidentally has some useful background information).

He writes: "Although the suggestion that the graphical confusion of a yod for a waw admirably accounts for the otherwise difficult O in nazOraios, it comes to grief on the fact that the Hebrew Vorlage for nazOraios had to have a tsade not a zayin, on the basis of the Hebrew words for Cristian and Nazareth."

He is simply mistaken when he says that the Vorlage of nazwraios "had to have a tsade not a zayin". There is no "had to" about it. The word in Greek has a zeta which intimates a zayin in the original and we only have the Greek here to go by. Nevertheless, I have already posted a few examples where a tsade is in fact transliterated as a zeta (suggesting a zayin) and not a sigma (as expected from a tsade). But if he really did believe his own logic, he'd have to wonder why Nazareth in the nt is always written with a zeta and not a single example of a sigma. He has shot himself in the foot here.

I have stated earlier in this thread that Mt 2:23 is based on Jgs 13:7 (well, the Samson story). Well, there are two other verses in the same pasage 13:5 and 16:17. Let me look at the last now. There are two versions of the LXX on this verse, one using

oti agion Qeou estai ek koilias (for he will be holy to God from the womb)

the other (the Alexandrian codex):

oti naziraion Qeou estai apo koilias (for he will be a nazirite to God from the womb)

(The Alexandrian codex in 13:5 doesn't mention God: "for he will be a Nazirite" oti naziraion estai.)

The notion of from the womb is interesting suggesting all his life. Let's look at Lk 2:23, dealing with why Jesus was to be presented to the temple, says "for (every male that opens the womb) shall be called holy to the Lord (oti (pan arsen dianoigon mhtran) agion tw kuriw klhQhsetai)". We note the connection between agios and naziraios from Jgs. Comparing the Lk phrase with that of Mt we find "for he will be called a Nazorean" (oti nazwraion klhQhsetai). It should be clear that the only difference between the ideas "he will be called a Nazirite" and "he will be called holy" are the terms agios and naziraios, which are interchangeable in the context.

Some will say that there is a difference between the Judges citations and Mt 2:23 and that is that Mt says "he will be called a Nazorean", while Jgs 13:5,7, &16:17 have "he will be a Nazirite". This is a small issue for one finds in the LXX the word "called" snuck in where the Hebrew has only "be" ("he will be"/"he will be called"). Isa 49:6 talks of someone who "is a servant", while the LXX has "be called a servant" In Daniel 4:30 the Old LXX translation uses "called", whereas Theodotion's doesn't. Hos 1:10 has a "called" inserted in the LXX. Etc.

What we have to face is that Matt indicates that we are dealing with a prophecy of sorts, although instead of his usual specific reference to a particular prophet here we find "the prophets". Matt uses a phrase as a prophecy that is quite similar to one in Lk (about being "called holy") in a similar situation, refering to a baby Jesus. In fact Lk's version also refers to the womb, found in all three verses in Jgs 13.

I think it's very hard to avoid the connection between the "prophecy" from Judges -- while Judges isn't thought of as of a prophet it is included in the "former prophets" -- and Mt 2:23. It is also important to realise that the Matthean writer considers nazwraios as a simple gentilic, otherwise the verse would not make sense. Now, Tertullian is in agreement with Mt's confusion, happily mixing Latin nazareus:

(I'm also led to believe that Origen also makes the same confusion with a reference to frag 36 of his Commentary on Matthew.)

There is no linguistic reason to exclude Jgs as the source of Mt 2:23: the Greek word nazareQ has a zeta, just as nazwraios does, suggesting that the writer was already dealing with Greek, having received the information pre-processed. The fathers agree that Matthew is following the logic that Nazirite (nazwraios) is somehow connected with nazareQ, which helps us see the connection with Jgs 13. Some form of the Jgs citation was in circulation as seen in the similarities between Lk 2:23 and Mt 2:23.

Jgs 13:5 tells us that the boy "will be a Nazirite from birth and he will save his people... (from the Philistines)" Mt 1:21 tells us that he was called Jesus ("Yah saves") "for he will save his people... (from sin)".

Zindler may not like the connection between "Nazirite" and "Nazareth" but from Mt 2:23 it is inescapable.


spin

spin

Noooooooooooooooo.


spin

Ted Hoffman

Your explanation is "that Mt 2:23 contains a reference to Jgs 13:5 which even uses the verb $W`, to save, the principal part of the name Jesus, which pins the origin of nazwraios to naziraios"

Yours is still a quasi-etymological explanation. But you had argued earlier that "nazarhnos and nazwraios(nazirite) have nothing to do linguistically with Nazareth".

Have you changed your position?

At any rate, Zindler's theory that "after the expulsion of the Jews (and Jewish Christians?) from Jerusalem in 135 CE, the site now known as Nazareth was settled and given the NT name of Nazareth." makes a hell of a lot of sense to me and I think it is compatible with spin's theory.

And I will investigate it further. For starters:
Why would Jews settle in a necropolis?
Was there scarcity of settlement places at the time?