Matthew 2:23

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5540
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:42 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:17 am

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.

Sure, but I also wondering looking at the various Greek variations may provide more background too.
MrMacSon wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 12:23 am

The title "Nazarene" is 'first found' in the Greek texts of the New Testament as an adjective, nazarenos, (Ναζαρηνός) as used in the phrase apo Nazaret "from Nazareth." Overal, the form Nazoraios or Nazaraios (Ναζωραῖος, Ναζαραῖος) is more common in the New Testament than Nazarenos. 

Mishnaic (and modern) Hebrew has notzrim (נוצרים) as a standard Hebrew term for "Christian".

The term "Christians" is said to have been first used at Antioch (Acts 11:26) and Herod Agrippa II is attributed with using it, in Acts 26:28.

"Nazarenes" is used in Acts 24:5, where Paul the Apostle is accused before Felix at Caesarea (the capital of Roman Judaea) by Tertullus.


Epiphanius in Panarion, 29:6,1, says that "the sect of Nasaraeans/Nasaraioi was before Christ and did not know Christ" and distinguished them and the spelling from Nazoraeans.

Another view is
The name[s] could have been applied to any strictly law-observing Jewish sect, for the root n -ṣ-r means ‘to keep, observe, guard’ and could have been used as a laudatory term for more than one group of Jewish dissidents, particularly if they had secret teachings.’ Nasoraeans of the Mandaean type ‘keep and observe’ ritual law with zealous fidelity and ‘keep back‘- even from their own laity-mysteries considered deep and easily misunderstood by the uninitiated.

http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.netdn ... Gnosis.pdf

And
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.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5540
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:45 am

And

RT France pointed out that Matthew gives Nazorean as Ναζωραῖος which is similar to what the Septuagint has for "Nazirite" - ναζιραιον

France, RT. The Gospel of Matthew, pp. 92-93.

I guess they're both spelt with a zeta, though.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:51 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:42 am
Sure, but I also wondering looking at the various Greek variations may provide more background too.
They all have the zeta, not the expected sigma.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:51 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:45 am
And

RT France pointed out that Matthew gives Nazorean as Ναζωραῖος which is similar to what the Septuagint has for "Nazirite" - ναζιραιον

France, RT. The Gospel of Matthew, pp. 92-93.

I guess they're both spelt with a zeta, though.
Yes.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5540
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:07 am

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.



'na·ṣar'/natsar/ - נָצַר - means "to watch" (c.f. 'netser', said to mean "branch");

hence 'Natsarith' means watchtower, and 'Natsarim' are 'watchmen'

Nazareth is in a small basin on a hill/range (and from a nearly ridge apparently one can look out over plains towards the Sea of Galilee)

The word "Gennetsaret" ('vale of Netsar') is said to refer to the whole district.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:35 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:07 am
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.
Yes, that is what I was responding to.
'na·ṣar'/natsar/ - נָצַר - means "to watch" (c.f. 'netser', said to mean "branch");

hence 'Natsarith' means watchtower, and 'Natsarim' are 'watchmen'

Nazareth is in a small basin on a hill/range (and from a nearly ridge apparently one can look out over plains towards the Sea of Galilee)
None of this works with the zayin in Natsareth/Nazareth. All of this requires the tsade.
The word "Gennetsaret" ('vale of Netsar') is said to refer to the whole district.
I think we see here the closer interchangeability of samekh (the one in גִּנּוּסַר, Gennesaret) and tsade, both of which regularly yield a sigma in Greek (as opposed to zayin, which regularly yields a zeta).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 2269
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John2 » Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:16 pm

Regarding Jesus "eating and drinking" in Luke 7:33-35, I see it as being comparable to Luke 5:29-33:
Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

They said to him, “John’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking.”
Just because the Pharisees interpreted John's fasting as meaning he had a demon doesn't mean he actually had one. And just because they interpreted Jesus eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners as meaning he was glutton and a winebibber doesn't mean he actually was one.

Regarding Jesus touching a dead body in Mk. 5:35-43, it looks like it could be read either way, that Jairus' daughter was asleep, like Jesus says, or that she was dead, as some people thought, which Aichele discusses in Jesus Framed, for example (which is too long for me to excerpt):

https://books.google.com/books?id=l4nVu ... ep&f=false

As a "plain meaning" guy, I take Jesus at his word here, "Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.” The "miracle" here to me is that Jesus knows this before he even sees her. Here is the entire passage.
While Jesus was still speaking, some people came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. “Your daughter is dead,” they said. “Why bother the teacher anymore?”

36Overhearing what they said, Jesus told him, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.”

37He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. 38When they came to the home of the synagogue leader, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. 39He went in and said to them, “Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.” 40But they laughed at him.

After he put them all out, he took the child’s father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). 42Immediately the girl stood up and began to walk around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. 43He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat.
Aichele appears to be in the "dead" camp. As he writes on page 65:
The close connection in 5:41-2 between egeire, "wake up" (in Jesus' words), and aneste, "rose up" (in the narrative of the girl's action) is also suggestive of a resurrection scene.


Maybe, but this word is also used in Mark to describe people who aren't dead.

Mk. 1:35:
Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed.
Mk. 2:14:
As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.
Mk. 7:24:
Jesus got up and went away from there to the region of Tyre.
Mk. 9:26-27:
The boy became like a corpse, so that many said, “He is dead.” 27But Jesus took him by the hand and helped him to his feet, and he stood up.
This boy wasn't dead, was he? He was only "like" a corpse and "many said" he was dead, just like Jairus' daughter.

Mk. 10:1:
Getting up, he [Jesus] went from there to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan.
Mk. 14:57:
Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him.
So it seems like a judgment call to me, and I'm not getting the impression that Jairus' daughter is dead, and Jesus even says so.
Last edited by John2 on Sat Aug 25, 2018 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

John2
Posts: 2269
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John2 » Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:34 pm

In the big picture though, I don't care if Jesus was a Nazirite or not. I had assumed that he wasn't since I thought he drank wine and touched dead people, but now that I'm taking a closer look at it I'm starting to wonder if maybe he was. But it wouldn't affect me one way or the other regarding the meaning of Nazarene since I'm on board with netzer now.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

John2
Posts: 2269
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John2 » Sat Aug 25, 2018 4:14 pm

I see netzer as just another way of saying "son of David," which is how Matthew's gospel begins.

Mt. 1:1:
This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David ...
Just like Matthew associates "the Messiah the son of David" with Bethlehem (where David was born), as per Micah 5:2, so does he associate the netzer/tsemach of David with Nazareth, as per "the prophets" who spoke about the netzer (and the synonym tsemach) of David, presumably because of the similarity in spelling between netzer and Nazareth spelled with a tsade, which presumably would have caught Matthew's attention if he was writing in Hebrew like Papias says.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John T » Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:09 am

The atheists/mythicists have long maintain that the town of Nazerite is a myth. Therefore Jesus is a myth. However, common sense and history does not support the atheists and myth makers.

It is said that although Nazareth was a small town, it was well known by travelers in the region for it was located at the crossroads of a major caravan trade route. Because of that, the Roman garrison in charge of Galilee was housed there.

If Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus then why didn't the Romans and/or early anti-Christian historians point that out? :scratch:

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Post Reply