Gospel of the Nazarenes/Secret Gospel

[Peter Kirby]

That McGrath has to wrestle with Drower's dated work shows you quite explicitly how little work has been done in the field.

The sterility of skepticism is both its strength and its weakness.

[StephenGoranson]

In addition to the important contemporary research by James McGrath is the important extensive contemporary research of Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley.

In "Nazarenes" (Anchor Bible Dictionary IV:1049-50) I mentioned Mandeans in 1992.
Mandeans have not been forgotten. And their texts support links with the Hebrew spellings with tsade.

[Secret Alias]

It's not that they've been "forgotten" as "Mandaeans." But surely (a) their writings were adapted to Manichaeanism and they seem to have had a link with Mani and (b) they seem to have a link with the Marcionites or some "anti-Jewish" early Christian tradition. When I say "ignored" I mean the implications of who they might be and what they might represent has been ignored. My birthday is the Mandaean New Year. Nice that you wrote the Anchor Bible Dictionary entry. It shows the forum has good people.

I've always, always, always thought the Mandaeans had some link with the Marcionites. I just haven't been smart enough (or proficient enough with Aramaic) to do anything more than speculate about that link.

[MrMacSon]

From James McGrath's [2013] article:

James F. McGrath. 2013. "He Shall Be Called a Nazorean: Intertextuality without an Intertext?"
Available at: http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers/284/

... There is perhaps no question that Ναζαρηνος could work as a way of denoting someone from the village which was frequently called Ναζαρα/Nazara in Greek, as well as the more familiar Ναζαρεθ.⁶ But that term is not used by Matthew. What about the term Matthew does use, Ναζωραιος? The long “o” sound has often been noted as hard to account for in terms of derivation from any known form of Nazareth.

• 6 It may be unhelpful to play the terms “Nazarenos” and “Nazoraios” off against one another. If we think of other Semitic sectarian designations from the second temple period, the variant forms Εσσηνοι, Εσσαίοι, and Οσσαιοι quickly come to mind (See for instance Francois de Blois, “Nașrānī (Ναζωραιος) and ḥanīf (εθνικός): Studies on the Religious Vocabulary of Christianity and of Islam” BSOAS 65:1 (2002) 1-30 (here p.1).. And in Daniel and Talmudic literature, gazarenoi, gazeriyn and gazeraiia (M. Gertner, “The Terms "Pharisaioi, Gazarenoi, Hupokritai": Their Semantic Complexity and Conceptual Correlation” BSOAS 26: 2 (1963) 245-26 http://www.jstor.org/stable/61229). In the case of some other sect names, connections with place names have also been proposed as providing their meaning and origin: Pharisees as meaning “Persians”, for instance, or “Mandaeans” having some connection to “Medes” (see Gertner p.249). And of course, as Kennard points out, religious movements do not, as a rule, take their name from the place their founder was from (“Nazorean and Nazareth” JBL 66 (1947) 79).

... To be noted is that Mark always uses Ναζαρηνος, Matthew and John always use Ναζωραιος, while Luke uses both; although the latter alone is used in Acts. Acts uses it once in the plural; when Paul is accused of being a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazoreans.”
... < paragraph omitted here >
Most commentaries mention at least in passing that there is a term that provides a very close correspondent to the word Nazōraios used in Matthew and Acts. One of the terms used by the Mandaeans to refer to holders of their secret wisdom is naṣurai [...]. Mandaic is a dialect of Aramaic, and the wa (equivalent of Hebrew or Aramaic vav) is regularly used to represent both a “u” and a long “o” sound.9

• 9 Lawrence Zalcman points out that the same sorts of difficulties exist in trying to derive the Talmudic notsri from Nazareth as exist in the Greek form.Lawrence Zalcman, “Christians, Noșerim, and Nebuchadnezzar's Daughter” JQR ns 81:3/4 (1991) 411-42 (here p. 411).

Yet the earliest Mandaean textual sources have been dated, on the basis of scribal colophons in manuscripts, to around the third century CE. They are thus impossible to connect directly with the Gospel of Matthew. And so let me make clear before proceeding that I am not suggesting that we have evidence that the Mandaeans as such existed in the time Matthew’s Gospel was written. That is certainly possible, but there cannot be said to be conclusive evidence for adopting such a stance. But the Mandaean use of a term so similar to one found in the New Testament is nevertheless intriguing. And it is unlikely that the Mandaeans adopted the term from Christians, given their negative view of Jesus.

Also relevant is the evidence from Epiphanius, who tends to use Ναζωραιοι for the Jewish Christian sect, perhaps under the influence of the New Testament.¹⁰ But he also mentions a Jewish sect he calls Nasaraeans, which he is careful to distinguish from Christians and says pre-dated the time of Christianity.¹¹ The key issue is not whether and to what extent there was continuity between the meaning of a term naṣurai in Matthew’s time and some centuries later. We may recognize that terms such as Nazorean, Christian, and Pharisee, to name but a few, evolved over the centuries, as did groups connected with those labels, and yet still find reason to trace the terms across those centuries.¹² And so leaving to one side specific uses from later times, we still have the question whether naṣurai is likely to have been a term or designation already in use in the first century, if not indeed earlier, independently of and prior to the rise of Christianity. If this seems probable, then it also becomes likely that Matthew is doing more in the passage we’re looking at than simply discussing Jesus’ connection with Nazareth.

• ¹² Even the term “Mandaeans” is of uncertain derivation – it might mean something like “Gnostics,” but it may also derive from manda, the cultic hut used in conjunction with the baptismal ritual.

In Mandaean texts the term naṣurai refers to individuals skilled in esoteric knowledge (often spoken of as the purview of priests as opposed to laypeople). And when we combine a closer look at Mandaean sources and Epiphanius, with a closer consideration of key Matthean themes and emphases, some interesting convergences become apparent amid what one could well refer to as an “intertextual exploration of intertextuality without an intertext.”

So let us turn our attention back to Matthew’s Gospel. We may not have an intertext of the sort we are initially led to expect in 2:23. But we do have a context in which Matthew’s Gospel regularly cites other texts, and patterns have been detected in this Gospel’s use of such Scriptural citations. We may or may not wish to put the matter in terms of authorial intent, but certainly merely considering the broader context of the Matthean infancy stories, we find ourselves in a wider framework of narrative punctuated by references to fulfillment of prophecy. And our perception of what is going on in Matthew 2:23 can and should be shaped by this preceding context.

Of course, interpreters have reached widely varied conclusions about those other references to prophecy and its fulfillment. If we conclude that Matthew is in each instance ignoring original context and making claims that Jesus was predicted in texts which, in their original context, clearly meant nothing of the sort, then we will probably view Matthew 2:23 as simply another case (or perhaps the worst but by no means unique case) of Matthew “pulling a fast one.” If, on the other hand, we believe that this Gospel means something more like typology than prediction when it refers to prophecy and fulfillment, then we may lean more towards the conclusion that here Matthew genuinely thought there was a typology to be seen in Scripture, somewhere, that related to this subject.

And that could then lead us to ask whether there is anything at all, however poorly misremembered, that might fit what Matthew’s Gospel has been doing in this section. But it should also, and perhaps more importantly, lead us to ask how being called a Nazorean relates to the broader theme of Jesus recapitulating the story of Moses and/or Israel, which seems to be a theme uniting many of the other Scriptural quotations and echoes in this part of the Gospel. And if this last instance cannot be made sense of in those terms, it might perhaps suggest that such an approach to the other references to prophecy and fulfillment is misguided or off target.

So let’s cut to the chase: If Matthew is comparing Jesus and Moses or Israel in the infancy narrative, then is there any sense in which Moses (or Israel) could have been “called a Nazorean”? It is difficult to say, given our uncertainty about precise reference or connotations that term might have had.

But there is a possible range of reference to the term in Mandaean texts, namely that of magician, which could fit. There is certainly some evidence for the view that Moses was, whether rightly or wrongly, called a magician.¹³ Mandaean priests have historically also provided amulets and bowls and other magical services.¹⁴ What is more, the terms nașurai and nașiruta seem at times to have overtones of skill in these areas. Ethel Drower writes, “In Mandaean manuscripts and legends… the word Nasurai is generally used in the sense indicated above, namely, 'one skilled in religious matters and white magic'… Magic rolls bear the inscription, 'this is written from the nasirutha (i.e. priestly craft) of So-and- So'.”¹⁵

• 13 See for instance Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus' Portrait of Moses” JQR ns. 82:3/4 (1992) 285-328 (here p.323); and more importantly “Josephus' Portrait of Moses: Part Three” JQR ns. 83:3/4 (1993) 301-330 (here p.307) where he writes: “The ancient world was apparently ready to accept Moses as a magician, as we can see, for example, from the statement of Pompeius Trogus in the first century CE (Justin, Historiae Philippicae 36, Epitome 2.7), that Joseph had mastered the arts of magic, and that Moses, whom he describes as Joseph's son, had inherited his father's knowledge. Later in the first century Pliny the Elder (Naturalis historia 30.2,11) mentions that one branch of magic is derived from Moses, Jannes, Lotapes, and the Jews. Likewise, in the second century, when Apuleius (Apology 90) enumerates a number of well-known magicians, he speaks of "Moses, whom you know".” See too Lester L. Grabbe, “The Jannes/Jambres Tradition in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Its Date” JBL 98:3 (1979) 393-401 (here p.395). See also Gager, John G., “Moses the Magician: Hero of an Ancient Counter-Culture?” Helios 21
  (1994), 134-161.
  
  14 ... magic in Mandaean [practice]...was not unknown, as also was clearly the case when it comes to Judaism in the same periods in history ... on John the Baptist Drower writes, “According to Mandaean teaching, he was a Nasurai; that is, adept in the faith, skilled in the white magic of the priests and concerned largely with the healing of men's bodies as well as their souls.”

Drower also cites an unspecified “orientalist” as proposing as a possible root for nasurai the Syriac root nșr, meaning “'to chirp, twitter (as a bird), utter broken sounds (as a magician), to chant, sing praises'.”¹⁶

The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon adds “to murmur” and “to whisper”, both of which clearly could denote practices used by magicians and exorcists in performing incantations. [It may be best to avoid dwelling on “twittering” as a possible meaning, given the connotations that verb has taken on in our time. If I had foreseen how this paper would develop I might have been tempted to give it the title “He shall be called a Twitterer” – which I think we’d all agree would have been a very bad idea].¹⁷

• 17 In addition to the possibility that Matthew had in view accusations that Moses and Jesus were magicians, and saw this as a possible parallel between them, it may also be relevant that Moses was described as having some sort of speech impediment. But since none of the Targums I consulted uses the nșr root in this context, I did not explore this possibility further.

If we bring the details of Epiphanius’ reference to nasaraeans back into the picture, we find yet further interesting resonances – as well as reasons Matthew might have been concerned to distance Jesus from Nasaraeans of the sort Epiphanius mentions, if they existed and had those characteristics in his time. Epiphanius describes them as descendants of Israel from the region near the Jordan, and as accepting the patriarchs but rejecting the Pentateuch.¹⁸ This is close enough to the outlook of the Mandaeans that it makes sense to posit a connection, even if Epiphanius’ information may not have been complete or precise. But such questions aside, if anything remotely like what Epiphanius describes was connected with the term nasaraean in Matthew’s time, then we can understand Matthew’s concern to distance Jesus and his followers from that stance. Matthew’s aim seems to be to present Christianity in a rigorously law-observant fashion.¹⁹

• ¹⁸ Panarion book 1

This deals with an objection Donald Hagner raises. He considers it unlikely that Matthew meant Nazorean as a sectarian term, since he is not concerned to present Jesus as primarily an “observant” (another suggested meaning of naṣuraiia, in this case deriving it from nasar, “to guard”).²⁰ Even on this level, one could point out that Jesus in Matthew is far more “observant” than in other early Christian writings: he emphasizes that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and has him counsel his followers to observe what the scribes and Pharisees demand. Nevertheless, given that Matthew may here be trying to reinterpret the designation “Nasoraean” as having to do with origin in Nazareth, Hagner’s objection is beside the point: Matthew may have been concerned to combat an identification of Jesus as part of this movement, but still have had that meaning of the term in mind.

In the time that remains, let me conclude my paper by turning our attention to matters of methodology in the realm of New Testament intertextuality. What we find, at the end of this brief exploration, is that the situation when we have a clear intertext, and when we lack one, is not as dissimilar as we might have expected. When we have an intertext, we still often wonder whether the original context matters, and if so how. We ponder the relationship between the texts, and possible issues that might have motivated the quotation of one in the other. We ask whether divergences between the “quotation” and the form of the quoted text in known manuscripts in Hebrew or Greek are the result of an original that differed from the versions we know, or was a result of transformation in the author’s memory, or represents a deliberate recasting. In the case we’ve been considering, Matthew 2:23, we found ourselves asking many of the same questions - for instance, about the author’s source, memory, and/or deliberate recasting.

And so it seems that, on the one hand, Matthew 2:23 could legitimately be described as an “exception that proves the rule”, since in most cases we can identify an intertext and speak more concretely about intertextuality. Yet, on the other hand, the fact that so many of the same questions arise even in the absence of a clear intertext suggests that the range of possible relationships between texts, both identified and unidentified, explicit and implicit, are so multifarious and complex that speaking of intertextuality in fact tells us very little in and of itself, and perhaps merely indicates a range of possibilities for exploration and interpretation, rather than offering a means of clarifying the meaning of one or more texts. And of course, in all of these instances we need to acknowledge a broader range of intertextual considerations – not merely the interplay between a Gospel and prophetic quotations, but also more subtle allusions to stories, hints at cultural cues, and points of intersection with other literature both earlier and later that might provide clues and/or interesting possibilities for interpretation.

And so let me suggest that this paper, which has left many questions unanswered, hopefully has made one point clear: there is no text without an intertext. And it may already be clear that, in referring in my title to “intertextuality without an intertext” I was being deliberately and mischeviously provocative. Those who think that it is possible to conceive of texts without intertexts'' are probably thinking of “intertextuality” as purely a matter of Scriptural quotations – but in its wider use in literary studies, that is not at all what intertextuality envisages. And so we do well to remind ourselves of how many other intertextual connections Matthew’s Gospel has, even in 2:23. For one, Matthew never stands in complete isolation from the other Gospels, in conjunction with which we cannot help but read it, our minds having been filled with other strands of Synoptic tradition. But we also read Matthew deliberately with the other Synoptics in mind, as we ask questions about sources. If Matthew used Mark, may we legitimately assume that some, perhaps many, of his readers had encountered Mark’s account as well? If so, might Matthew’s terminology – if not the precise quote in 2:23 – be elucidated by comparison with Mark?

Of course, there is no Markan parallel to the Matthean infancy narrative. But the term usually rendered simply as “Nazarene” in Matthew 2:23 is different from the term we usually so translate in Mark. And as we considered the question of what these terms might have meant in the time the Gospels were written, we found ourselves exploring possible intertextual connections between Matthew’s Gospel and a wide range of literary texts and cultural scripts, all of which may deservedly be thought of in terms of “intertextuality.” And so when it comes to Matthew 2:23 many puzzles remain, and the issue of the spurious quotation cannot be said to be resolved. But by bringing intertextuality in the fullest sense to bear on this matter, we have hopefully at least explored some connections that may elucidate the passage’s meaning, if not its reference.

https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/v ... sch_papers

Nasurai / Mandaic Glossary https://www.essene.com/B%27nai-Amen/vgloss.htm