Matthew 2:23

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 2361
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John2 » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:01 pm

spin wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:15 pm
How many people did Samson slay? Did he stop being a Nazirite from birth? Did Jesus lose the ability to "save his people from sin" by raising the dead? As I have pointed out, this is not a Nazirite vow: there is no vow to be completed. Acts of abstinence regard a vow, reaching a state of grace Jesus was born in.
It sounds like you think Jairus' daughter was dead (at least in Matthew) and that touching her did not affect Jesus' lifelong naziritism (like Samson).

If so, as I said, it's hard for me to imagine Jesus lying when he says "the girl is not dead," since he says in Mk. 7:13 (re: the Pharisees), "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down," and in Mt. 5:17-20:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


So I'm inclined to see Jesus as not lying in Mark and Matthew when he says, "The girl is not dead but asleep." And then he wouldn't need a Samson-like exemption with respect to touching dead people. Otherwise it seems weird to think that Jesus came to "save his people from sin" but sinned himself.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
spin
Posts: 2075
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by spin » Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:24 am

I think you are reifying Jesus. My interest is the evolving text, which is something we can talk about--at least in the synoptic tradition.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

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

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John2 » Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:06 pm

While I'm being swayed by the nazir argument, a remaining issue regarding netzer is that Jerome is said to have learned about the connection between nezter and Nazarene from Jewish Christians, which falls outside of the issue of the use of Noztri in rabbinic writings (which I can set aside). Despite the lateness of the attestation (late fourth/early fifth century CE), it has weight to me given my inclination to see Jewish Christians as being the best representatives of the original version Christianity. And while I'm by no means set on rescuing the netzer idea (nor do I think there wasn't any evolution in Jewish Christianity over the course of its existence, or maybe Jerome doesn't mean Jewish Christians but rather other Jews, which could explain away this netzer angle), I'm curious to see what Jerome says in his Commentary on Matthew, which appears to be cited here:
Learned Hebrews think that the passage in Matthew which all ecclesiastics search for but cannot find -viz., 'he shall be called a Nazarene' - is taken from this place [i.e., Is. 11:1].

https://books.google.com/books?id=j74CA ... ne&f=false
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
spin
Posts: 2075
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by spin » Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:30 am

Jerome is a tradent of Christian culture. Looking at his early discussion in the commentary of the evangelists, we see a re-packaging of Papias and little to suggest tenable sources. I haven't found the particular reference regarding Mt 2:23, but your secondary source indicates Jerome in contact with Jews concerning the phrase "he shall be called a Nazarene." I don't see how Jerome's discussion with Jews of his era can have weight in a status quo 3 centuries prior. Jewish Christians?
John2 wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:06 pm
While I'm being swayed by the nazir argument, a remaining issue regarding netzer is that Jerome is said to have learned about the connection between nezter and Nazarene from Jewish Christians, which falls outside of the issue of the use of Noztri in rabbinic writings (which I can set aside). Despite the lateness of the attestation (late fourth/early fifth century CE), it has weight to me given my inclination to see Jewish Christians as being the best representatives of the original version Christianity. And while I'm by no means set on rescuing the netzer idea (nor do I think there wasn't any evolution in Jewish Christianity over the course of its existence, or maybe Jerome doesn't mean Jewish Christians but rather other Jews, which could explain away this netzer angle), I'm curious to see what Jerome says in his Commentary on Matthew, which appears to be cited here:
Learned Hebrews think that the passage in Matthew which all ecclesiastics search for but cannot find -viz., 'he shall be called a Nazarene' - is taken from this place [i.e., Is. 11:1].

https://books.google.com/books?id=j74CA ... ne&f=false
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

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

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John2 » Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:00 am

spin wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:30 am
Jerome is a tradent of Christian culture. Looking at his early discussion in the commentary of the evangelists, we see a re-packaging of Papias and little to suggest tenable sources. I haven't found the particular reference regarding Mt 2:23, but your secondary source indicates Jerome in contact with Jews concerning the phrase "he shall be called a Nazarene." I don't see how Jerome's discussion with Jews of his era can have weight in a status quo 3 centuries prior. Jewish Christians?
John2 wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:06 pm
While I'm being swayed by the nazir argument, a remaining issue regarding netzer is that Jerome is said to have learned about the connection between nezter and Nazarene from Jewish Christians, which falls outside of the issue of the use of Noztri in rabbinic writings (which I can set aside). Despite the lateness of the attestation (late fourth/early fifth century CE), it has weight to me given my inclination to see Jewish Christians as being the best representatives of the original version Christianity. And while I'm by no means set on rescuing the netzer idea (nor do I think there wasn't any evolution in Jewish Christianity over the course of its existence, or maybe Jerome doesn't mean Jewish Christians but rather other Jews, which could explain away this netzer angle), I'm curious to see what Jerome says in his Commentary on Matthew, which appears to be cited here:
Learned Hebrews think that the passage in Matthew which all ecclesiastics search for but cannot find -viz., 'he shall be called a Nazarene' - is taken from this place [i.e., Is. 11:1].

https://books.google.com/books?id=j74CA ... ne&f=false
I haven't been able to find Jerome's commentary online, but there are other secondary sources that also suggest that he is referring to Jewish Christians (for whatever they are worth). But to judge from the citation above, I couldn't say. And Pritz writes (in footnote 9 on page 13):
One would like to know who these erududiti Hebraeorum are. Are these his Jewish contacts and Hebrew teachers (who presumably would be loathe to aid Jerome in his search for the source of this messianic prophecy)? Or perhaps it is the Nazarenes themselves, either in direct contacts with them or in their commentary on Isaiah?

https://books.google.com/books?id=vh84A ... ne&f=false
In any event (and not to engage in more "flailing"), it would be nice to see Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah (not Matthew, as I had thought) for myself, but I can't find it online.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5836
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:27 am

John2 wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:00 am
In any event (and not to engage in more "flailing"), it would be nice to see Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah (not Matthew, as I had thought) for myself, but I can't find it online.
There is a translation out by Thomas Scheck, but I do not have access to it right now.

The relevant portion of Jerome's commentary on Isaiah in Migne's Latin volume is available here: https://archive.org/stream/patrologiaec ... g#page/n80.

Here is a transcription and a quick and dirty translation of my own (very literalistic):

Illud quod in evangelio Matthaei omnes quaerunt ecclesiastici, et non inveniunt ubi scriptum sit, "Quoniam Nazaraeus vocabitur," eruditi Hebraeorum de hoc loco assumptum putant. Sed sciendum quod hic NESER per sade litteram scribatur, cuius proprietatem et sonum inter z et s Latinus sermo non exprimit. Est enim stridulus, et strictis dentibus vix linguae impressione perfertur, ex qua etiam Sion urbs scribitur. Porro "Nazaraei," quos LXX "sanctificatos," Symmachus "separatos," transtulerunt, per zain (ז) semper scribuntur elementum.

That which in the gospel of Matthew all ecclesiastics seek and do not find where it is written, "For he shall be called a Nazarite," erudite men of the Hebrews think was taken from this location [= Isaiah 11.1]. But it is to be recognized that this word NESER is written with the letter tsade, whose property and sound the Latin language does not pronounce between a z and an s. It is strident, moreover, and is achieved with difficulty by the pressing of the tongue through compressed teeth, from which fact the city is still written as Sion.* "Nazarites," however, whom the LXX translate as "sanctified," Symmachus as "separated ones," is always written with the letter zayin (ז).

* Zion = צִיּוֹן (Hebrew) = Sion (Latin) = Σιών (Greek).

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

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

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John2 » Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:49 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:27 am
John2 wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:00 am
In any event (and not to engage in more "flailing"), it would be nice to see Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah (not Matthew, as I had thought) for myself, but I can't find it online.
There is a translation out by Thomas Scheck, but I do not have access to it right now.

The relevant portion of Jerome's commentary on Isaiah in Migne's Latin volume is available here: https://archive.org/stream/patrologiaec ... g#page/n80.

Here is a transcription and a quick and dirty translation of my own (very literalistic):

Illud quod in evangelio Matthaei omnes quaerunt ecclesiastici, et non inveniunt ubi scriptum sit, "Quoniam Nazaraeus vocabitur," eruditi Hebraeorum de hoc loco assumptum putant. Sed sciendum quod hic NESER per sade litteram scribatur, cuius proprietatem et sonum inter z et s Latinus sermo non exprimit. Est enim stridulus, et strictis dentibus vix linguae impressione perfertur, ex qua etiam Sion urbs scribitur. Porro "Nazaraei," quos LXX "sanctificatos," Symmachus "separatos," transtulerunt, per zain (ז) semper scribuntur elementum.

That which in the gospel of Matthew all ecclesiastics seek and do not find where it is written, "For he shall be called a Nazarite," erudite men of the Hebrews think was taken from this location [= Isaiah 11.1]. But it is to be recognized that this word NESER is written with the letter tsade, whose property and sound the Latin language does not pronounce between a z and an s. It is strident, moreover, and is achieved with difficulty by the pressing of the tongue through compressed teeth, from which fact the city is still written as Sion.* "Nazarites," however, whom the LXX translate as "sanctified," Symmachus as "separated ones," is always written with the letter zayin (ז).

* Zion = צִיּוֹן (Hebrew) = Sion (Latin) = Σιών (Greek).

Well, that's tantalizing. Thanks.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5836
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:12 pm

John2 wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:49 pm
Well, that's tantalizing. Thanks.
No problem.

Jerome, like spin, noticed that the consonant was not the customary one for transliterating netser into Greek as Nazarene. To my eye, the connection between Nazirite/Nazir/Nazara (in Greek) on the one hand and Netser/Notsri/Natsareth (in Hebrew) on the other is likely either (A) born of apologetic necessity or (B) a mistake made in Greek.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

StephenGoranson
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by StephenGoranson » Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:37 am

We've been around on this before. Without wishing to rehash at the moment, fwiw, I still hold what I wrote in "Nazarenes" in Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992). I consider the Jesus as Nazirite interpretation unlikely.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5836
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:21 am

StephenGoranson wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:37 am
We've been around on this before. Without wishing to rehash at the moment, fwiw, I still hold what I wrote in "Nazarenes" in Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992). I consider the Jesus as Nazirite interpretation unlikely.
Well, you conclude that article:

To define Nazarene, one must take into account the time, place, language, and religious perspective of the speaker, as well as the meanings of other available religious group names. The development of these names merits further study.

And I certainly agree with that.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply