… the delightful message of Christ
‘O wonderful wonder, delight, power and astonishment
we find in faith what is unspeakable, beyond thinking
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 Gospel of Mark, p. 38-39)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).
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'.
source: https://boycottholland.wordpress.com/20 ... zoraios-q/" 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).)
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.
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.
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.