Matthew 2:23

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5672
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:27 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:21 pm
... Nazareth is fine for transcribing the Greek place name, since it has a zeta, which comes out in English as a zee/zed virtually every time.
Cheers Ben. So much can change and probably does chance with translation and transliteration, as we see with Nazarene, etc.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5832
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:28 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:25 pm
John2 wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:51 pm

Lizorkin-Eyzenberg writes in an article on in Israel Bible Weekly Magazine:
In Matthew 2:23 we learn that Jesus’ family settled in the small town of Nazareth, “in order that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, that he should be called a Nazarene.” This prophecy, however, appears nowhere in the Hebrew Bible.

https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/a- ... rom-david/
I think the narrators have turned around what really happened. I think the place was named Ναζαρέτ to root Jesus the Nazorean/ Ναζωραῖος /Nazarene somewhere.
I doubt this. Why would they have chosen the less likely consonant (tsade) to represent the Greek zeta? And to name a town in order to fulfill such a fantasy seems a stretch. What seems far more likely is that the consonant difference was set aside in order to explain the term Nazarene as a demonym instead of making Jesus the member of a dubious sect.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5832
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:29 pm

John2 wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:26 pm
Even in Luke 7:33-35, does Jesus really drink wine?
For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ 35But wisdom is proved right by all her children.”
The Pharisees "say" that John had a demon, but that doesn't mean that he actually did. They just thought he did because he didn't eat bread or drink wine. And they "say" that "here is a glutton and drunkard" because Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners, but it doesn't say that he drank wine. They appear to me to think this because of the people he was eating and drinking with, and it doesn't say that he drank wine with them, just ate and drank.
What kind of drink was John avoiding which Jesus was not?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 2361
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John2 » Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:31 pm

Ben wrote:
I am not sure we are supposed to understand Jairus' daughter as literally asleep. I think she is dead, and Jesus is playing with words.
What kind of drink was John avoiding which Jesus was not?
I'll look into these more tomorrow.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5672
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:03 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:25 pm
John2 wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:51 pm

Lizorkin-Eyzenberg writes in an article on in Israel Bible Weekly Magazine:
In Matthew 2:23 we learn that Jesus’ family settled in the small town of Nazareth, “in order that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, that he should be called a Nazarene.” This prophecy, however, appears nowhere in the Hebrew Bible.
https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/a- ... rom-david/
I think the narrators have turned around what really happened. I think the place was named Ναζαρέτ to root Jesus the Nazorean/ Ναζωραῖος /Nazarene somewhere.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:28 pm
I doubt this. Why would they have chosen the less likely consonant (tsade) to represent the Greek zeta? And to name a town in order to fulfill such a fantasy seems a stretch. What seems far more likely is that the consonant difference was set aside in order to explain the term Nazarene as a demonym instead of making Jesus the member of a dubious sect.
Perhaps I've confused my point by carelessly using the spellings I used there.

With Natzeret being 'ne.tser (or a variant) plus the feminine ending, designated by the letter Tav', I think the name of the town came after a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over the development of the narratives about 'the Jesus being fleshed out' (and a lot of confusion about which sect was which).

I think that, regardless of spelling variations, the evolution of the terminologies is

ne.tser (etc., a branch; a descendant) —> nazir —> Nazarite —> Nazarene/.(etc.) —> Natzeret

(when Epiphanius says, in Panarion 29.7,1, “..'Nazoraeans' supposedly from the name of the place 'Nazareth' ..”, I think he is slightly giving the game away, despite what he says previously).
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5832
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:22 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:03 pm
MrMacSon wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:25 pm
John2 wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:51 pm

Lizorkin-Eyzenberg writes in an article on in Israel Bible Weekly Magazine:
In Matthew 2:23 we learn that Jesus’ family settled in the small town of Nazareth, “in order that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, that he should be called a Nazarene.” This prophecy, however, appears nowhere in the Hebrew Bible.
https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/a- ... rom-david/
I think the narrators have turned around what really happened. I think the place was named Ναζαρέτ to root Jesus the Nazorean/ Ναζωραῖος /Nazarene somewhere.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:28 pm
I doubt this. Why would they have chosen the less likely consonant (tsade) to represent the Greek zeta? And to name a town in order to fulfill such a fantasy seems a stretch. What seems far more likely is that the consonant difference was set aside in order to explain the term Nazarene as a demonym instead of making Jesus the member of a dubious sect.
Perhaps I've confused my point by carelessly using the spellings I used there.

With Natzeret being 'ne.tser (or a variant) plus the feminine ending, designated by the letter Tav', I think the name of the town came after a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over the development of the narratives about 'the Jesus being fleshed out' (and a lot of confusion about which sect was which).

I think that, regardless of spelling variations, the evolution of the terminologies is

ne.tser (etc, a branch; a descendant) —> nazir —> Nazarite —> Nazarene/ (etc.) —> Natzeret

(when Epiphanius says, in Panarion 29.7,1, “..'Nazoraeans' supposedly from the name of the place 'Nazareth' ..”, I think he is slightly giving the game away, despite what he says previously).
And I think that Nazareth/Natsareth existed (at some point) as an actual town, and was artificially attached to Jesus the Nazarene. The place name Natsareth was probably not made up from the term Nazarene, because in that case it is hard to explain the change of consonant. Rather, Natsareth existed and "made do" as a back formation from "Nazarene." There would be no need for it to just "make do" if the town was actually invented from the term "Nazarene." All one would have to do is use the zayin.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5672
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:38 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:22 pm
And I think that Nazareth/Natsareth existed (at some point) as an actual town, and was artificially attached to Jesus the Nazarene.
I just remembered what you had written on the other thread viz. -
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:38 am
... I for one certainly suspect that Nazareth was given as Jesus' hometown because of the existence of a sect called Nazarenes, and not the other way around. (Nazareth was not invented; the village existed; it was just conveniently used as a back formation for "Nazarene.")
but, while what else you have said about it -ie. 'it is hard to explain the change of consonant' and 'the name of the town should [or would] have been retrofitted with a zayin' --
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:22 pm
The place name Natsareth was probably not made up from the term Nazarene, because in that case it is hard to explain the change of consonant. Rather, Natsareth existed and "made do" as a back formation from "Nazarene." There would be no need for it to just "make do" if the town was actually invented from the term "Nazarene." All one would have to do is use the zayin.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:38 am
One clue that Nazareth was not the original namesake of the Nazarenes is that the Caesarea Maritima inscription spells the village's Hebrew name with a tsade (נצרת), which would usually produce a sigma in Greek, not a zeta (which generally corresponds to zayin). Thus the match was not perfect; it was just "close enough" to explain the term "Nazarene."

This observation speaks against both the traditional position (Nazareth > Nazara > Nazarene) and the extreme position that somebody made up the name of the village precisely in order to create a hometown for Jesus, since in both of these scenarios the Greek zeta should have been retrofitted with a zayin, not with a tsade. It is not a 100% solid argument, since rare exceptions exist, but it is something to consider.
-- I refer to this point (which is likely to require reading the whole article) -
MrMacSon wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:10 pm

There are also references to linguistic discrepancies due "a peculiarity of the 'Palestinian' Aramaic dialect wherein a sade (ṣ) (tsade) between two voiced (sonant) consonants tended to be partially assimilated by taking on a zayin (z) sound" -
  • Carruth, S; Robinson, J McC; Heil, C. (1996) Q 4:1–13,16: the temptations of Jesus : Nazara. Peeters Publishers. p 415.

Also, what if the word used to develop 'Natzeret' had been [the Greek version of] Nasaraioi/Nasaraeans [or a variant of it]?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5832
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:57 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:38 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:22 pm
And I think that Nazareth/Natsareth existed (at some point) as an actual town, and was artificially attached to Jesus the Nazarene.
I just remembered what you had written on the other thread viz. -
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:38 am
... I for one certainly suspect that Nazareth was given as Jesus' hometown because of the existence of a sect called Nazarenes, and not the other way around. (Nazareth was not invented; the village existed; it was just conveniently used as a back formation for "Nazarene.")
but, while what else you have said about it -ie. 'it is hard to explain the change of consonant' and 'the name of the town should [or would] have been retrofitted with a zayin' --
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:22 pm
The place name Natsareth was probably not made up from the term Nazarene, because in that case it is hard to explain the change of consonant. Rather, Natsareth existed and "made do" as a back formation from "Nazarene." There would be no need for it to just "make do" if the town was actually invented from the term "Nazarene." All one would have to do is use the zayin.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:38 am
One clue that Nazareth was not the original namesake of the Nazarenes is that the Caesarea Maritima inscription spells the village's Hebrew name with a tsade (נצרת), which would usually produce a sigma in Greek, not a zeta (which generally corresponds to zayin). Thus the match was not perfect; it was just "close enough" to explain the term "Nazarene."

This observation speaks against both the traditional position (Nazareth > Nazara > Nazarene) and the extreme position that somebody made up the name of the village precisely in order to create a hometown for Jesus, since in both of these scenarios the Greek zeta should have been retrofitted with a zayin, not with a tsade. It is not a 100% solid argument, since rare exceptions exist, but it is something to consider.
-- I refer to this point (which is likely to require reading the whole article) -
MrMacSon wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:10 pm

There are also references to linguistic discrepancies due "a peculiarity of the 'Palestinian' Aramaic dialect wherein a sade (ṣ) (tsade) between two voiced (sonant) consonants tended to be partially assimilated by taking on a zayin (z) sound" -
  • Carruth, S; Robinson, J McC; Heil, C. (1996) Q 4:1–13,16: the temptations of Jesus : Nazara. Peeters Publishers. p 415.
Okay, but how does that apply to Nazareth? The Caesarea Maritima inscription has a tsade, not a zayin.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5672
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:02 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:57 pm
Okay, but how does that apply to Nazareth? The Caesarea Maritima inscription has a tsade, not a zayin.
The Caesarea Maritima inscriptions are on initially two, now three, fragments and are part of a synagogue inscription that listed the twenty-four priestly courses and their Galilean settlements (after the fall of Jerusalem [A.D. 70], or, more probably, after the fall of Beth-Ther [A.D. 135]).

Apparently one gives the a name in Hebrew as "נצרת" (n-ṣ-r-t) - I have no skills at interpreting the significance of that.

It is said to have been dated by M. Avi Yonah, professor of archaeology at the University of Jerusalem and director of the excavation in Caesarea, shortly after discovery in 1962, to the third-fourth centuries on the basis of paleographic considerations.

But in a 1964 paper, he seems to date aspects of them, at least, later -

.
... The fact that the liturgical poems of ha-Kalir mentioned above, link the name of the twelve first courses with a sign of the Zodiac, seems to suggest an explanation for the otherwise inexplicable use of the Zodiac on many mosaic pavements of synagogues of the fourth to sixth century in Israel ...

Avi-Yonah, Michael (1964). "The Caesarea Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses". Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies. L.A. Mayer Memorial Volume (1895-1959): 24–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/236146 ... b_contents

Uzi Leibner (2009, p. 176) dates the inscription between the fourth and the seventh centuries. Leibner wrote: “The inscription was dated by Avi Yonah to the third-fourth centuries on the basis of paleographic considerations. These parameters, however, are of doubtful value when it comes to stone engraving” (citing Naveh 1978:5).
  • Leibner U, Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee, Tubingen, 2009.
http://www.mythicistpapers.com/Nazareth ... %20God.pdf

That paper outlines further problems with the archaeology.


And you yourself say
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:38 am
One clue that Nazareth was not the original namesake of the Nazarenes is that the Caesarea Maritima inscription spells the village's Hebrew name with a tsade (נצרת), which would usually produce a sigma in Greek, not a zeta (which generally corresponds to zayin).
though you do qualify that with
the match was not perfect; it was just "close enough" to explain the term "Nazarene."
and
[while]This observation speaks against both the traditional position (Nazareth > Nazara > Nazarene), [it also speaks against] the extreme position that somebody made up the name of the village precisely in order to create a hometown for Jesus, since in both of these scenarios the Greek zeta should have been retrofitted with a zayin, not with a tsade.
and acknowledge -
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:38 am
It is not a 100% solid argument, since rare exceptions exist, but it is something to consider.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5832
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:17 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:02 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:57 pm
Okay, but how does that apply to Nazareth? The Caesarea Maritima inscription has a tsade, not a zayin.
The Caesarea Maritima inscriptions are on initially two, now three, fragments and are part of a synagogue inscription that listed the twenty-four priestly courses and their Galilean settlements (after the fall of Jerusalem [A.D. 70], or, more probably, after the fall of Beth-Ther [A.D. 135]).

Apparently one gives the a name in Hebrew as "נצרת" (n-ṣ-r-t) - I have no skills at interpreting the significance of that.
It is simply that the place name Nazareth here is spelled with a tsade (like the Hebrew word for Branch), not with a zayin (like the Hebrew word for Nazirite, and like what the Greek transliteration for Nazara/Nazareth would suggest). One of the arguments against Nazareth really being the name behind the term Nazarene is that Nazarene is spelled with a Greek zeta, suggesting a Hebrew zayin behind it, not a tsade, which is what we find in the inscription. It is this mismatch between the tsade and the zeta that suggests that Nazareth is not what lies behind the sect of the Nazarenes in the first place.

To call up a flexibility between the zayin and the tsade in between voiced consonants is fine and dandy, but it is a bit like pointing out that a vowel in English is usually long when followed by a single consonant and an e (plāne, mēre, tīme, rо̄pe, jūke) in a discussion about the word "give" (in which the vowel is short: gĭve). The effect, to me, is: sure, "give" could be pronounced to rhyme with "alive," but is it?
And you yourself say
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:38 am
One clue that Nazareth was not the original namesake of the Nazarenes is that the Caesarea Maritima inscription spells the village's Hebrew name with a tsade (נצרת), which would usually produce a sigma in Greek, not a zeta (which generally corresponds to zayin).
though you do qualify that with
the match was not perfect; it was just "close enough" to explain the term "Nazarene."
That is not a qualification. That is support.
and
[while]This observation speaks against both the traditional position (Nazareth > Nazara > Nazarene), [it also speaks against] the extreme position that somebody made up the name of the village precisely in order to create a hometown for Jesus, since in both of these scenarios the Greek zeta should have been retrofitted with a zayin, not with a tsade.
And that is a conclusion.

This is a qualification:
and acknowledge -
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:38 am
It is not a 100% solid argument, since rare exceptions exist, but it is something to consider.
Yes, you and the traditional interpreters may be right: Nazareth may be an exception to the rule that Greek zeta follows Hebrew zayin, not Hebrew tsade. I absolutely accept that possibility. But I am glad I am the one arguing for the rule here and not for the exception.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply