Why 'Nazareth' ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 2552
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Why 'Nazareth' ?

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:05 pm

Nazareth doesn't appear in Mcn.
… the delightful message of Christ
‘O wonderful wonder, delight, power and astonishment
we find in faith what is unspeakable, beyond thinking
and uncomparable’

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea,
Jesus descended out of heaven
into Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching
in the synagogue on the Sabbath days;
And they were astonished at his doctrine,

So Adamczewski about Nazareth:
The subsequent remark concerning Jesus'coming from Nazareth (Mk 1:9b) is in fact quite strange. There is no trace of the use of the name 'Nazareth' before the composition of the Marcan Gospel.
...
Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the name 'Nazareth' (Mk 1:9b) is in fact an artificial name, which was created by Mark in order to illustrate Paul's subsequent idea of his distinctively Jewish roots (Gal 1:13). Mark combined this idea with that of Jesus'Jewish origin and Davidic identity 'according to the flesh' (Rom 1:3; cf. Mk 1:9), as distinct from his identity as God's Son revealed 'according to the Spirit of holiness' (Rom 1:4; cf Mk 1:10-11). Therefore, the evangelist created the artificial name 'Nazareth', which by means of linguistic assonance, by recalling the Hebrew word (neser) that was used in the well-known messianic text referring to the 'sprout' of Jesse (Is 11:1 MT), illustrates the idea of Paul's distinctively Jewish roots (Gal 1:13), as well as that of Jesus' belonging to the offspring of David (Rom 1:3).
A similarly artificial, not simply geographical, use of the name 'Nazareth' (Mk 1:9) can also be found in another Markan text, in which the strange in itself, suggested by the evangelist, semantic correspondence between the terms 'Nazaret' and 'son of David' is costitutive for the narrative logic of the story: o Nazaarenos --> uie David ('of Nazaret'-->'son of Daivd': Mk 10:47).
...
The apparently superfluous remark that Nazareth was located in Galilee (Mk 1:9b) illustrates the fact that Paul's Jewish origins (Gal 1:13) could be found in the diaspora (Gal 1:17c).
...
The subsequent, quite surprising image of Jesus coming alone from the distant Galilee with the sole aim of receiving the Jewish-style immersion in water (Mk 1:9bc; diff. 1:5) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul's subsequent statement that he advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries in his people, being far more zealous for the Jewish traditions (Gal 1:14).
(The Gospel of Mark, p. 38-39)

But a strong clue of the priority of Mcn in respect to our Luke is the clear trace of editorial fatigue of Luke when he reported the famous request: 'What you did at Caphernaum, do here, in Nazaret, too'', in a moment when Nazareth is not still mentioned.

But note what there is:

1) 'Nazareth' links the Gospel Jesus with Rom 1:3, to be davidic 'according to the flesh'.

2) Rom 1:3 is not found in Marcion's epistle to Romans.

3) therefore: if Rom 1:3 is an anti-marcionite interpolation, then Nazareth works in an anti-marcionite way, too.

The merit of Adamczewski is to have found a tension implicit in the name 'Nazareth', in his comparing Jesus with Paul.
A Jesus that comes 'from Nazareth' is equivalent to a Paul persecutor because ''being far more zealous for the Jewish traditions''.

Nazareth appears in a negative light in other Synoptics, because the inhabitants of Nazareth don't recognize Jesus if not by putting him with his mother and his brothers.


Now, I find that a possible meaning of Nazarenes is 'Observers'.

" is the masc. plural of נֵצֶר, which, in turn, is related to the Aramaic נִצְרָא—“wicker (woven straw, as from these offshoots – basket, hat, chair, etc.)”. As can be seen from Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu [… Isaiah …] 11.1 and 60.21, inter alia, NeiꞋtzër referred more specifically to the basal-sucker offshoot(s) from the root or trunk of an olive tree—which stood around the mother tree like little sentry-guard(s)—and transplantable young green shoots sprouting from the trunk… used (according to the dictionaries) to weave wicker-baskets.” (not all Hebrew characters properly copied, see netzarim.co.il, glossary) (PM. Yirmeyahu also makes the subtle distinction between internal guarding (care) and external guarding (protect).)
source: https://boycottholland.wordpress.com/20 ... zoraios-q/


I see therefore a link between

1) to be from Nazareth
2) to be Observer
3) to be persecutor of the Church as excessively ''zealous for the Jewish traditions''.

That link is found in Paul:

This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

(Galatians 2:4-5)

Note the effort made by Paul to ensure that the ''truth of the gospel'' survives despite the joint efforts of these ''false brothers'' to eclipse it. By applying the metaphor of the
the ''basal-sucker offshoots from the root or trunk of an olive tree—which stood around the mother tree like little sentry-guards'', it's possible to imagine that for Paul these ''offshoots'' are
imprisoning, rather than protecting, the trunk of the tree, or ''the truth of the gospel''.

This Paul (both a Catholic and Marcionite Paul) is saying that:

1) his enemies, being Judaizers, are spying costantly his departure from the Law,

2) his enemies, by doing so, are 'false brothers', in the eyes of Paul.


Here we have the reference to 'excessive zeal for the Jewish traditions' (point 1) and the reference to 'false brotherhood' (point 2): precisely the same points implicit in the synoptic use of Nazareth, because it's in Nazareth that Jesus' identity is not recognized as divine because of his BEING OBSERVED AS having ''brothers'' and a ''mother'' (these same brothers and mother that Jesus himself didn't recognize as his never, or never more since on).
The inhabitants of Nazareth are in this sense true 'Nazarenes', i.e. OBSERVERS. They condemn Jesus to the 'tiranny' of his Jewish origin, by observing in a inquisitive way that Jesus has a mother and brothers 'therefore' he cannot be God's Son.
But if they are OBSERVERS as 'of Nazareth', then the 'brothers' of Jesus (recognized by them as such) are (via Gal 3-4), 'false brothers', because slaves of Torah and claiming to make slave the same Jesus, as just as Paul's enemies were the 'false brothers' spies in Galatia.


In conclusion, I think that 'Nazareth' is a Catholic word, introduced to make a point both:

1) against the marcionite Jesus, coming from Heaven and not from Galilee.

2) against the same Judaizing ebionites: the true ''Nazarenes'' or OBSERVERS of the observance of Torah in other people.

I think my solution is good because it is the unique solution that makes sense by creating a reasonable link between three facts otherwise not explainable:

- the fact that some Christian Judaizing heretics were called 'Nazarenes' (and derived terms) by Catholic apologists (they didn't name themselves 'nazarenes'),
- the fact that very often the word 'Nazaret' is thought as an artificial word.
- the fact that the ''brothers'' of Jesus are recognized and mentioned by name (i.e.: identified after an inquisitive observation) only in Nazareth.

Ask yourself:

if some heretics called themselves ''nazarenes'', why did the Catholic Matthew pride himself in virtue of fact that Jesus ''will be named 'Nazarene' '' ?



A more simple solution is that who coined the term 'Nazarenes' and who coined the term 'Nazareth' was one and the same person.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 695
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Why 'Nazareth' ?

Post by toejam » Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:19 am

Giuseppe wrote:Rom 1:3 is not found in Marcion's epistle to Romans.
My understanding is that we don't have a reference in any of the sources used to reconstruct Marcion's canon regarding whether Romans 1:3 was or wasn't included, nor what form it took if it was. Plus, as much as some may hate to admit it, we can't dismiss the possibility that Marcion was tampering with the text and simply removing stuff he didn't like.

As such, I think your "therefore Romans 1:3 is anti-Marcionite interpolation" is too speculative.
Last edited by toejam on Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

Giuseppe
Posts: 2552
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why 'Nazareth' ?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:26 am

I may agree with you about Rom 1:3.

I remember that Philo has introduced already an allegorical reading of the term 'sons of David':
And I also admire the things which are spoken under divine inspiration in the books of Kings, according to which those who flourished many generations afterwards and lived in a blameless manner, are spoken of as the sons of David who wrote hymns to God; {44}{2 Ezr. 8:2.} though, during his lifetime, even their great grandfathers had not yet been born. The truth is, that the birth here spoken of is that of souls made immortal by their virtues, not of perishable bodies, and this birth is naturally referred to the leaders of virtue, as its parents and progenitors.
(On the confusion of tongues, 28:146-148)
The logic of Philo - or of Paul (if existed) - is that:

1) this birth [from David] is naturally referred to the leaders of virtue.
2) the Archangel/Logos of Philo, already named 'Jesus' (via Carrier's proof of this I presume you know already), represents the maximum of moral perfection, etc.
3) therefore: the Archangel Jesus is the son of David par excellence, too.

This would be a first step to introduce the dual nature of the Son.

But about the relation between Mcn and Luke, I have no more doubts about the Mcn priority (while still having to investigate about Mark and Mcn). The editorial fatigue of Luke in quoting Capernaum in his Nazaret episode BEFORE he went to Capernaum is very much strong evidence that alone proves that Luke is the editor of Mcn and not viceversa.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 695
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Why 'Nazareth' ?

Post by toejam » Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:13 am

Giuseppe wrote:But about the relation between Mcn and Luke, I have no more doubts about the Mcn priority (while still having to investigate about Mark and Mcn). The editorial fatigue of Luke in quoting Capernaum in his Nazaret episode BEFORE he went to Capernaum is very much strong evidence that alone proves that Luke is the editor of Mcn and not viceversa.
Well, I'm always hesitant in proclaiming "proof" on such things. It could be that both Marcion and Luke are drawing independently from a common source, or that Marcion is trying to reconcile Luke 4:22 by having Jesus do something in Capernaum early. Not sure where I find myself leaning on this one.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4713
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why 'Nazareth' ?

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:53 am

See Hebrew ne.tser (natser/natsar) = a branch; a shoot; a descendant http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5342.htm

netser is transliterated to Nazir

We see a major messianic link with netser in Isaiah 11:1

nazirite/nazarite, from nazir, means under a vow/consecrated/vow of 'separation'/crowned eg. Judges 13:1-7

RT France pointed out that The Septuagint gives "Nazirite" as ναζιραιον, while Matthew gives Nazorean as the very similar Ναζωραῖος
France, RT. The Gospel of Matthew, pp. 92-93.

Natzeret is the word netzer plus the feminine ending, designated by the letter Tav

and Nazeroth is the feminine-plural

.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4713
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why 'Nazareth' ?

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:54 am

Samson was a Nazarite -
Two examples of nazirites in the Hebrew Bible are Samson (Judges 13:5), and Samuel (1 Samuel 1:11). In the first case [Samson], God sent an angel to make the vow known to the mother for her not yet conceived son of what he wanted the child to be like in his life (ref. Judges 13:3–5),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite# ... brew_Bible
Judges 13 (NIV)
The Birth of Samson
1 Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord, so the Lord delivered them into the hands of the Philistines for forty years.

2 A certain man of Zorah, named Manoah, from the clan of the Danites, had a wife who was childless, unable to give birth. 3 The angel of the Lord appeared to her and said, “You are barren and childless, but you are going to become pregnant and give birth to a son. 4 Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean. 5 You will become pregnant and have a son whose head is never to be touched by a razor because the boy is to be a Nazirite, dedicated to God from the womb. He will take the lead in delivering Israel from the hands of the Philistines.”
and https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... -Nazarites

Note: ne.tser (natser/natsar) is transliterated to nazir

and Nazirite/Nazarite, which comes from nazir, means (i) under a vow; (ii) consecrated; (iii) vow of 'separation'; or (iv) crowned


The Vow of the Nazarite - http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/document ... %20Vow.htm
.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2552
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why 'Nazareth' ?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:15 am

toejam wrote:
Giuseppe wrote:But about the relation between Mcn and Luke, I have no more doubts about the Mcn priority (while still having to investigate about Mark and Mcn). The editorial fatigue of Luke in quoting Capernaum in his Nazaret episode BEFORE he went to Capernaum is very much strong evidence that alone proves that Luke is the editor of Mcn and not viceversa.
Well, I'm always hesitant in proclaiming "proof" on such things. It could be that both Marcion and Luke are drawing independently from a common source, or that Marcion is trying to reconcile Luke 4:22 by having Jesus do something in Capernaum early. Not sure where I find myself leaning on this one.
Not very persuasive, that Marcion ''is trying to reconcile Luke 4:22 by having Jesus do something in Capernaum early''. The Gospels are not constructing a so complex story to predict flashbacks of this kind. If Capernaum is mentioned ante factum, then it's more probable that a previous Gospel talked about Capernaum in detail.

Flashbacks are the "personal experiences that pop into your awareness, without any conscious, premeditated attempt to search and retrieve this memory". This assumes that the Gospel is by definition a collection of records. But we know already that they are not that.
I am more open to the possibility that ''Marcion and Luke are drawing independently from a common source''.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 3928
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why 'Nazareth' ?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:05 am

Giuseppe wrote:Nazareth doesn't appear in Mcn.
Tertullian may attest it for 4.16. Even if that instance does not pan out, it would be folly to assert categorically, without even explicit testimony on the matter from the only witnesses that we have, that a place name does not appear in the Marcionite gospel, and then base arguments on that assertion.
So Adamczewski about Nazareth:
The subsequent remark concerning Jesus'coming from Nazareth (Mk 1:9b) is in fact quite strange. There is no trace of the use of the name 'Nazareth' before the composition of the Marcan Gospel.
...
Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the name 'Nazareth' (Mk 1:9b) is in fact an artificial name, which was created by Mark in order to illustrate Paul's subsequent idea of his distinctively Jewish roots (Gal 1:13). Mark combined this idea with that of Jesus'Jewish origin and Davidic identity 'according to the flesh' (Rom 1:3; cf. Mk 1:9), as distinct from his identity as God's Son revealed 'according to the Spirit of holiness' (Rom 1:4; cf Mk 1:10-11). Therefore, the evangelist created the artificial name 'Nazareth', which by means of linguistic assonance, by recalling the Hebrew word (neser) that was used in the well-known messianic text referring to the 'sprout' of Jesse (Is 11:1 MT), illustrates the idea of Paul's distinctively Jewish roots (Gal 1:13), as well as that of Jesus' belonging to the offspring of David (Rom 1:3).
A similarly artificial, not simply geographical, use of the name 'Nazareth' (Mk 1:9) can also be found in another Markan text, in which the strange in itself, suggested by the evangelist, semantic correspondence between the terms 'Nazaret' and 'son of David' is costitutive for the narrative logic of the story: o Nazaarenos --> uie David ('of Nazaret'-->'son of Daivd': Mk 10:47).
...
The apparently superfluous remark that Nazareth was located in Galilee (Mk 1:9b) illustrates the fact that Paul's Jewish origins (Gal 1:13) could be found in the diaspora (Gal 1:17c).
...
The subsequent, quite surprising image of Jesus coming alone from the distant Galilee with the sole aim of receiving the Jewish-style immersion in water (Mk 1:9bc; diff. 1:5) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul's subsequent statement that he advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries in his people, being far more zealous for the Jewish traditions (Gal 1:14).
Does Adamczewski explain how a real village named Natsareth (נצרת) came to exist? Does his tracing of the tradition development at least address that matter? Does he assign the choice of name to coincidence, or was someone trying to fulfill a Marcan wish in the naming of an insignificant village in the hill country?
But a strong clue of the priority of Mcn in respect to our Luke is the clear trace of editorial fatigue of Luke when he reported the famous request: 'What you did at Caphernaum, do here, in Nazaret, too'', in a moment when Nazareth is not still mentioned.
There are two aspects to this fatigue:
  1. The implication of a previous visit to Capernaum.
  2. The implication of more than one thing (ὅσα... γενόμενα, plural) having been done at Capernaum.
Marcion definitely takes care of the first one (as do Mark and Matthew) by making Capernaum come before Nazareth. But it is not clear that Marcion has more than one thing done at Capernaum (as Mark and Matthew do). The situation is rather complex, and unidirectional solutions (like "Luke inflated Marcion" or "Marcion mutilated Luke") struggle to cover all the bases.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 2552
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why 'Nazareth' ?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:23 am

it would be folly to assert categorically
Jesus comes from Nazaret or from Heaven. Tertium non datur, in this case. I have to be more precise: 'Nazaret' doesn't appear in Mcn as place of provenance for Jesus.
Does Adamczewski explain how a real village named Natsareth (נצרת) came to exist?
It would be like to explain that it's not a banal coincidence that someone sees today the image of Jesus in a tree. :)
But it is not clear that Marcion has more than one thing done at Capernaum (as Mark and Matthew do).
This means hyper-defining excessively a thing in order to remove the problem. It doesn't work, sorry. Jesus has at least 2 things done at Capernaum: to teach and to heal.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 3928
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why 'Nazareth' ?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:54 am

Giuseppe wrote:
it would be folly to assert categorically
Jesus comes from Nazaret or from Heaven. Tertium non datur, in this case. I have to be more precise: 'Nazaret' doesn't appear in Mcn as place of provenance for Jesus.
Okay, that is clearer. Thanks.
Does Adamczewski explain how a real village named Natsareth (נצרת) came to exist?
It would be like to explain that it's not a banal coincidence that someone sees today the image of Jesus in a tree. :)
This is more than that. This is a village of the same basic name popping up in the right basic area, the hill country of Galilee.
But it is not clear that Marcion has more than one thing done at Capernaum (as Mark and Matthew do).
This means hyper-defining excessively a thing in order to remove the problem. It doesn't work, sorry. Jesus has at least 2 things done at Capernaum: to teach and to heal.
Suit yourself, To me, it is no more a hyperdefinition than pointing out that Jesus has not yet visited Capernaum yet. Greek (like English) has both a plural and a singular, and the plural is used here.

And Jesus is already teaching when he gives the statement.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Bing [Bot], Kapyong, MrMacSon and 51 guests