From James McGrath's recent article:
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 (yarAcuain). 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
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 Nazwraioi 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.
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
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
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
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
8
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