Sincerely, if we had only "Jesus Nazarene" and not the existence of Nazarenes (and variants), the symbolic meaning of Nazareth alone would be not so strong as evidence against the existence of Nazaret than it would be the simple existence of Nazarenes (and variants), given the strong impossibility that members were named (by themselves) after the name of provenance of their leader.
Even in the Gospels, Nazareth is introduced as a group of people (and not only as a town) questioning Jesus.
This reason to doubt is so evident for me that I don't understand why the deniers of Nazaret are so despised by scholars (and not only Christians).
Epiphanius on the Nasaraioi who didn't know anything of Christ
Re: Epiphanius on the Nasaraioi who didn't know anything of Christ
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Epiphanius on the Nasaraioi who didn't know anything of Christ
I think you are preaching to the choir here. 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.")
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.
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.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: Epiphanius on the Nasaraioi who didn't know anything of Christ
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:36 amUpon these follow in order the Nazoraioi, who belong to the same time as they and who, whether existing before them or with them or after them, nevertheless are their contemporaries; for I can no longer tell exactly who followed the others. For they were, exactly as I said, contemporaries and had similar thoughts. But they did not attribute to themselves the name of Christ or Jesus but that of the Nazoraioi, and all Christians then were called likewise Nazoraioi. But it happened a short time before that they were called Jessaioi before they began to call the disciples of Jesus in Antioch Christians. And they were as I think called Jessaioi on account of Jesse. They either were called Jessaioi after Jesse the father of David or after the name of Jesus our Lord, because they went out from Jesus as disciples or because this is the etymology of the name of the Lord. For Jesus means in Hebrew the same as therapeutes, i. e., physician and saviour. Before they were called Christians they were called by this name somehow as a surname. From Antioch as said above, they began to call the disciples and the whole church of God Christians, but some called themselves Nasaraioi for the heresy of the Nasaraioi existed even before Christ and did not know anything of him. But all called the Christians Nazoraioi as also the accusers of the apostle.
(Epiphanius, Panarion, 29, 6)
It is a very strange locution, to say that the ''Nasaraioi existed even before Christ'' and then to add that they ''did not know anything of him'' ... The ignorance of Christ is a natural corollary of a pre-christian existence, so why did Epiphanius insist on this second feature (logically derived from the first)?
Then there is more than a suspicion to think that Epiphanius was sowing deliberately fallacies of distinction without real differences. It is impossible to believe that the disciples of someone receive as name the place of provenance of this someone, even when that presumed name sounds so similar to another name of something entirely different.
It was hard to fathom exactly what passages you have crammed in that green box above, but it seemed not all of them are in Panarion 29.6. The first part seems to be from 29.1.1-2.
The version of Epiphanius' Panarion I have been looking at [translated by Frank Williams] says, at 29.6.1, -
.
. . . . . ... the sect of Nasaraeans was before Christ and did not know Christ.
.
. . . . . ... the sect of Nasaraeans was before Christ and did not know Christ.
.
"For Jesus means in Hebrew the same as therapeutes, i. e., physician and saviour" is from Panarion 29.4.9.
"Before they were called Christians they were called by this name ... From Antioch as said above, they began to call the disciples and the whole church of God Christians" is from Panarion 29.4.10.
Now, Epiphanius, Panarion, 29.5,6 to 29.7,1, --
5,6 .. by hearing just Jesus’ name, and seeing the miracles performed by the hands of the apostles, they came to faith in Jesus themselves. And since they found that he had been conceived at Nazareth and brought up in Joseph’s home, and for this reason is called “Jesus the Nazoraean” in the Gospel—as the apostles say, “Jesus the Nazoraean, a man approved by signs and wonders,”30 and so on—they adopted this name, so as to be called Nazoreans.
5,7 Not “nazirites”—that means “consecrated persons.” Anciently this rank belonged to firstborn sons and men who had been dedicated to God. Samson was one, and others after him, and many before him. Moreover, John the Baptist too was one of these same persons who were consecrated to God, for “He drank neither wine nor strong drink.”31 (This regimen, an appropriate one for their rank, was prescribed for such persons.)
6,1 They did not call themselves Nasaraeans either; the sect of Nasaraeans was before Christ and did not know Christ.
6,2 But besides, as I have indicated, everyone called the Christians Nazoraeans, as they say in accusing Paul the apostle, “We have found this man a pestilent fellow and a perverter of the people, a ring-leader of the sect of the Nazoraeans.”32 (3) And the holy apostle did not disclaim the name—not to profess these people’s heresy, but he was glad to own the name his adversaries’ malice had applied to him for Christ’s sake.
6,4 For he says in court, “They neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, nor have I done any of those things whereof they accuse me. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I, believing all things in the Law and the prophets.”33
6,5 And no wonder the apostle admitted to being a Nazoraean! In those days everyone called Christians this because of the city of Nazareth—there was no other usage of the name at the time. And so people gave the name < of “Nazoraeans” > to believers in Christ, of whom it is written, “because he shall be called a Nazoraean.”34
6,6 Even today in fact, people call all the sects, I mean Manichaeans, Marcionites, Gnostics and others, by the common name of “Christians,” though they are not Christians. However, although each sect has another name, it still allows this one with pleasure, since the name is an ornament to it. For they think they can preen themselves on Christ’s name—certainly not on Christ’s faith and works!
6,7 Thus Christ’s holy disciples too called themselves “disciples of Jesus” then, as indeed they were. But when others called them Nazoraeans they did not reject it, being aware of the intent of those who were calling them that. They were calling them Nazoraeans because of Christ, since our Lord Jesus was called “< the > Nazoraean” himself —as the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles say— (8) because of his upbringing in the city of Nazareth (now a village) in Joseph’s home, after having been born in the flesh at Bethlehem, of the ever-virgin Mary, Joseph’s betrothed. For Joseph had settled in Nazareth after leaving Bethlehem and taking up residence in Galilee.
7,1 But these same sectarians whom I am discussing here [the Nasaraeans] disregarded the name of Jesus, and neither called themselves Jessaeans, kept the name of Jews, nor termed themselves Christians—but “Nazoraeans” supposedly from the name of the place “Nazareth.” But they are Jews in every way and nothing else.
http://preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/2 ... mis_01.pdf pp. 123-30.
5,7 Not “nazirites”—that means “consecrated persons.” Anciently this rank belonged to firstborn sons and men who had been dedicated to God. Samson was one, and others after him, and many before him. Moreover, John the Baptist too was one of these same persons who were consecrated to God, for “He drank neither wine nor strong drink.”31 (This regimen, an appropriate one for their rank, was prescribed for such persons.)
6,1 They did not call themselves Nasaraeans either; the sect of Nasaraeans was before Christ and did not know Christ.
6,2 But besides, as I have indicated, everyone called the Christians Nazoraeans, as they say in accusing Paul the apostle, “We have found this man a pestilent fellow and a perverter of the people, a ring-leader of the sect of the Nazoraeans.”32 (3) And the holy apostle did not disclaim the name—not to profess these people’s heresy, but he was glad to own the name his adversaries’ malice had applied to him for Christ’s sake.
6,4 For he says in court, “They neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, nor have I done any of those things whereof they accuse me. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I, believing all things in the Law and the prophets.”33
6,5 And no wonder the apostle admitted to being a Nazoraean! In those days everyone called Christians this because of the city of Nazareth—there was no other usage of the name at the time. And so people gave the name < of “Nazoraeans” > to believers in Christ, of whom it is written, “because he shall be called a Nazoraean.”34
6,6 Even today in fact, people call all the sects, I mean Manichaeans, Marcionites, Gnostics and others, by the common name of “Christians,” though they are not Christians. However, although each sect has another name, it still allows this one with pleasure, since the name is an ornament to it. For they think they can preen themselves on Christ’s name—certainly not on Christ’s faith and works!
6,7 Thus Christ’s holy disciples too called themselves “disciples of Jesus” then, as indeed they were. But when others called them Nazoraeans they did not reject it, being aware of the intent of those who were calling them that. They were calling them Nazoraeans because of Christ, since our Lord Jesus was called “< the > Nazoraean” himself —as the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles say— (8) because of his upbringing in the city of Nazareth (now a village) in Joseph’s home, after having been born in the flesh at Bethlehem, of the ever-virgin Mary, Joseph’s betrothed. For Joseph had settled in Nazareth after leaving Bethlehem and taking up residence in Galilee.
7,1 But these same sectarians whom I am discussing here [the Nasaraeans] disregarded the name of Jesus, and neither called themselves Jessaeans, kept the name of Jews, nor termed themselves Christians—but “Nazoraeans” supposedly from the name of the place “Nazareth.” But they are Jews in every way and nothing else.
http://preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/2 ... mis_01.pdf pp. 123-30.
First of all, note the distinction that Epiphanius makes between Nasaraeans/Nasaraioi and 'Nazoraeans'/Nazoraioi.
It is interesting that he also says
ie. he implies that Nazareth had supposedly been a city, but had become a village.
6.7 ... They were calling them Nazoraeans because of Christ, since our Lord Jesus was called “< the > Nazoraean” himself —as the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles say— (8) because of his upbringing in the city of Nazareth (now a village) in Joseph’s home ...
.
Furthermore, it is also interesting what Jan Machielsen says about 'Jessaeans' and the Essenes (and the therapeutae) in a paper available via
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 016-0407-5 (as a webpage)
- or as a pdf via http://orca.cf.ac.uk/93890/7/art%253A10 ... 0407-5.pdf --
. . . . the Essenes, ...in a potted etymology by Epiphanius of Salamis, were turned into Jessaeans (for Jesse or Jesus). Philo’s composition of a separate account on the Essenes may have facilitated this merger.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Epiphanius on the Nasaraioi who didn't know anything of Christ
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:17 pm
Furthermore, it is also interesting what Jan Machielsen says about 'Jessaeans' and the Essenes (and the therapeutae) in a paper available via
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 016-0407-5 (as a webpage)
- or as a pdf via http://orca.cf.ac.uk/93890/7/art%253A10 ... 0407-5.pdf --
. . . . the Essenes, ...in a potted etymology by Epiphanius of Salamis, were turned into Jessaeans (for Jesse or Jesus). Philo’s composition of a separate account on the Essenes may have facilitated this merger.
Note this passage from Epiphanius' Panarion and footnote 27 (and it all seems to be based on Eusebius) -
.
4.9 ... But in any case, since I have come to the topic of the reason why those who had come to faith in Christ were called Jessaeans before they were called Christians, we said that Jesse was the father of David. And they had been named Jessaeans, either because of this Jesse; or from the name or our Lord Jesus since, being his disciples, they were derived from Jesus; or because of the etymology of the Lord’s name. For in Hebrew Jesus means “healer” or “physician,”25 and “savior.” (10) In any case, they had got this name before they were called Christians. But at Antioch, as I have mentioned before and as is the essence of the truth, the disciples and the whole church of God began to be called Christians.
5,126 If you enjoy study and have read the passage about them in Philo’s historical writings, in his book entitled “Jessaeans,” you can fi nd that, in giving his account of their way of life and their hymns and describing their monasteries in the vicinity of the Marean marsh, Philo described none other than Christians.27 (2) For when he visited the area—the place is called Mareotis—and was entertained by them at their monasteries in the region, he was edified. (3) He arrived there during Passover and observed their customs, and how some of them put off (eating) throughout the holy week of Passover, though others ate every other day and others, indeed, each evening.28 But all this has been written by Philo on the subject of the Christians’ faith and regimen.
5,4 So when they were called Jessaeans then shortly after the Savior’s ascension and after Mark had preached in Egypt,29 in those times certain other persons, supposed followers of the apostles, seceded in their turn. I mean the Nazoraeans*, whom I am discussing here. They were Jewish, were attached to the Law, and had circumcision.
http://preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/2 ... mis_01.pdf p. 126.
26. 5,1-2 is based on Eus. H. E. 2.17.1-24.
27. Epiphanius here conflates Eus. H. E. 2.17.16-17 with 2.17.21-22.
28. Eus. H. E. 2.17.8
29. See Eus. H. E. 16.1-17.1.
* Epiphanius may be confused here (or the translation may be: it might mean or supposed to mean Nasaraeans)
.
4.9 ... But in any case, since I have come to the topic of the reason why those who had come to faith in Christ were called Jessaeans before they were called Christians, we said that Jesse was the father of David. And they had been named Jessaeans, either because of this Jesse; or from the name or our Lord Jesus since, being his disciples, they were derived from Jesus; or because of the etymology of the Lord’s name. For in Hebrew Jesus means “healer” or “physician,”25 and “savior.” (10) In any case, they had got this name before they were called Christians. But at Antioch, as I have mentioned before and as is the essence of the truth, the disciples and the whole church of God began to be called Christians.
5,126 If you enjoy study and have read the passage about them in Philo’s historical writings, in his book entitled “Jessaeans,” you can fi nd that, in giving his account of their way of life and their hymns and describing their monasteries in the vicinity of the Marean marsh, Philo described none other than Christians.27 (2) For when he visited the area—the place is called Mareotis—and was entertained by them at their monasteries in the region, he was edified. (3) He arrived there during Passover and observed their customs, and how some of them put off (eating) throughout the holy week of Passover, though others ate every other day and others, indeed, each evening.28 But all this has been written by Philo on the subject of the Christians’ faith and regimen.
5,4 So when they were called Jessaeans then shortly after the Savior’s ascension and after Mark had preached in Egypt,29 in those times certain other persons, supposed followers of the apostles, seceded in their turn. I mean the Nazoraeans*, whom I am discussing here. They were Jewish, were attached to the Law, and had circumcision.
http://preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/2 ... mis_01.pdf p. 126.
26. 5,1-2 is based on Eus. H. E. 2.17.1-24.
27. Epiphanius here conflates Eus. H. E. 2.17.16-17 with 2.17.21-22.
28. Eus. H. E. 2.17.8
29. See Eus. H. E. 16.1-17.1.
* Epiphanius may be confused here (or the translation may be: it might mean or supposed to mean Nasaraeans)
.
Re: Epiphanius on the Nasaraioi who didn't know anything of Christ
Too much coincidences, in that case. The existence of Nazarenes and Nazareth are mutually exclusive, I think. Nazareth was invented to make not only Jesus, but the Nazarenes themselves to come from there. Otherwise we can't explain why the polemic about the true identity/origin of Jesus was raised just by the Nazarenes and just there, in Nazaret.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:38 am Nazareth was not invented; the village existed; it was just conveniently used as a back formation for "Nazarene.")
Unless: Nazaret = the place where the Nazarenes come from.
The risk of who preserves the belief of the existence of Nazaret (despite of the his/her recognition of the existence of nazarenes) is to exclude the possibility that the Nazaret episode reveals something of controversial about not Jesus, but about the Nazarenes themselves about Jesus.
Especially when Epiphanius is evidence that the Nasaraioi didn't know a historical Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Epiphanius on the Nasaraioi who didn't know anything of Christ
The first use of the term "sect of the Nazarenes" is in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, where Paul is accused of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes ("πρωτοστάτην τε τῆς τῶν Ναζωραίων αἱρέσεως").
The similar accusation was raised by the Nazarenes themselves against Jesus: "we know you and your family. You are a Nazarene like us therefore we reject you". So Jesus is rejected as Nazarene.
For the author of Acts, this is a false accusation: he is assuming with the readers that the true Paul has no links with Nazarenes (even if he is accused of connections with them) .
But also for the author of Mark, the fact that Jesus is Nazarene doesn't imply that he has real connections with the Nazarenes (the latter having rejected him just because he is Nazarene like them ).
So Paul and Jesus were probably both Nazarenes. But this was source of explicit embarrassment for Mark and the author of Acts. Mark resolved the problem by inventing Nazaret (he concedes that Jesus is Nazarene but he denies that he was welcomed by the Nazarenes) while the author of Acts invented a false accusation of Zealot connections with the name of Nazarenes (he concedes that Paul was called Nazarene but he denies that he was Nazarene).
So the Nazarenes were disturbing someone. They can"t be Zealots since Paul is not a Zealot.
Epiphanius gives the solution: the Nasaraioi didn't know who was Jesus of Nazareth.
Just as Paul.
The similar accusation was raised by the Nazarenes themselves against Jesus: "we know you and your family. You are a Nazarene like us therefore we reject you". So Jesus is rejected as Nazarene.
For the author of Acts, this is a false accusation: he is assuming with the readers that the true Paul has no links with Nazarenes (even if he is accused of connections with them) .
But also for the author of Mark, the fact that Jesus is Nazarene doesn't imply that he has real connections with the Nazarenes (the latter having rejected him just because he is Nazarene like them ).
So Paul and Jesus were probably both Nazarenes. But this was source of explicit embarrassment for Mark and the author of Acts. Mark resolved the problem by inventing Nazaret (he concedes that Jesus is Nazarene but he denies that he was welcomed by the Nazarenes) while the author of Acts invented a false accusation of Zealot connections with the name of Nazarenes (he concedes that Paul was called Nazarene but he denies that he was Nazarene).
So the Nazarenes were disturbing someone. They can"t be Zealots since Paul is not a Zealot.
Epiphanius gives the solution: the Nasaraioi didn't know who was Jesus of Nazareth.
Just as Paul.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Epiphanius on the Nasaraioi who didn't know anything of Christ
No, it is not. The middle Hebrew consonant does not line up right, and the -eth ending is not accounted for in Nazarene. The similarities are no stronger than those which are so often used to support folk etymologies. And folk etymologies are extremely common.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 12:24 amToo much coincidences, in that case.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:38 am Nazareth was not invented; the village existed; it was just conveniently used as a back formation for "Nazarene.")
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: Epiphanius on the Nasaraioi who didn't know anything of Christ
To require a perfect match in the vapor of the history is too much risky. The risk is seeing trees (all these differences in the various etymologies) and not the forest (the point that the entire Nazaret episode is a polemical episode against the Nazarenes).Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:24 am No, it is not. The middle Hebrew consonant does not line up right, and the -eth ending is not accounted for in Nazarene. The similarities are no stronger than those which are so often used to support folk etymologies. And folk etymologies are extremely common.
....
Thus the match was not perfect; it was just "close enough" to explain the term "Nazarene."
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Epiphanius on the Nasaraioi who didn't know anything of Christ
Spoken like a true folk etymologist.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:27 amTo require a perfect match in the vapor of the history is too much risky. The risk is seeing trees (all these differences in the various etymologies) and not the forest (the point that the entire Nazaret episode is a polemical episode against the Nazarenes).Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:24 am No, it is not. The middle Hebrew consonant does not line up right, and the -eth ending is not accounted for in Nazarene. The similarities are no stronger than those which are so often used to support folk etymologies. And folk etymologies are extremely common.
....
Thus the match was not perfect; it was just "close enough" to explain the term "Nazarene."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ