Page 35 of 42

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 11:23 pm
by maryhelena
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 056&page=2
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
    I just found this link.

    http://jwest.wordpress.com/2009/03/1...o-her-critics/

    (mountainman)I have taken the liberty of adding numbers.

    Quote:
    In regard to the Essenes’ presence and absence in historical context, I would like to note the following points after a short remark

    There is no need to mention one more time the well known sources on the Essenes, Philo, Pliny and Josephus who wrote about thousands of people who lived celibate life and communal life– however, there is a reason to ask the following questions in regard to their descriptions.

    (1) Are any Essenes mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls? The answer is: no.

    (2) Are any Essenes mentioned in this name in contemporary literature written in the Land of Israel (other then Josephus/philo/pliny written elsewhere) such as the Apocrypha, sages, or the New Testament? The answer is: no.

    (3) Is it reasonable to assume that thousands of people had lived as celibates in the Land of Israel for many generations, as the well-known Greek and Latin sources suggest, while no reference to this prohibited existence, which contradicts the first biblical law of “be fruitful and multiply”, will be found in any Hebrew or Aramaic text? Is it possible that thousands of people had lived in communities of communal residence and communal money with no private property and not a word will be found about it in any Hebrew source?

    (4) Is it possible to identify the Essenes, who have nothing to do with priestly laws or priestly heritage according to the descriptions of Josephus, Philo or Pliny, with the authors of The Temple Scroll, The Scroll of Priestly Watches, The Scroll of Blessings that contains blessings to the High Priest? With the Manual of Discipline and Damascus Covenant, both of which mention Bnei Zadok haKohanim (the priests the sons of Zadok)? With the Qumran Psalms scroll that details the calendar of the priestly service? With MMT or the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice that contains the priestly calendar?

    (5) Is it possible to identify the belligerent authors of the scrolls, describing struggles and war between righteous people headed by the Priest of Justice, the head of the sons of Zadok, and evil people headed by a Wicked Priest (War Scroll, Pesher Habakkuk, Pesher Tehilim, etc.), with the peaceful Essenes?

    (6) Is it possible to identify the Essenes, who are not known to have any unique calendar, with the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who wrote time and again about the solar calendar of 364 days?

    (7) If there ever was such a group as Essenes, what was the name of their leader in any source other than Josephus, when were they formed and why? What was the reason of their consolidation as a separate group? How does their celibate existence comply with Jewish law? How come no Jewish source comments on such a separatist group? Where are the books that were authored by the Essenes? Why there is no noun or verb or adjective in Hebrew referring to this group? where is any reference in Hebrew or Aramaic to their communal life, or thousands of years of existence?

    (8) If there was such a group that its members usually lived more than hundred years (Josephus) why no one mentioned it other than Josephus?

    (9) Is it not true that Philo, the first witness on the Essenes, was interested in ideal utopian communities such as the Theraputae and the Essenes? When he talks of their thousands, but is unable to specify one name, one place, one date, one event, connected with them, should we read his description as history or as utopian literature?
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/showthread4245.html
  • http://jwest.wordpress.com/
    Quote:
    Rachel Elior Responds to Her Respondents

    March 17, 2009 — Jim

    Rachel writes


    May I remind the participants what is the nature of the arguments, I would like to briefly sum up what is written about the Essnes and to compare it with what is known about the content of the scroll. I make no remarks about archeology only on texts that everybody can read:


    The Essenes were first introduced by Philo (d. 50 CE), a first century Jewish scholar who lived in Alexandria. Philo was interested in the ideas of the Stoa and told his readers that there were more than 4,000 Essenes (Essaioi) living in villages throughout the Land of Israel. He maintained that these people had no monetary concerns, lived a very simple, modest life, did not have any earthly possessions, devoted much of their time to study, and observed the Sabbath according to all the strictest instructions. He further noted their love of God, their concerns with piety, honesty, morality, philanthropy, holiness, equality, freedom, and the importance of communal life. He added that the holy Essenes did not marry and lived a celibate life, and practiced communal residence, money, property, food and clothing. He said that they convened in synagogues every Sabbath and studied the law according to philosophical and allegorical interpretations. He maintained that these people cherished freedom, possessed no slaves, and resented the use of weapons or participation in commerce. Philo did not mention any name, place, date, or historical circumstances, or any background to the consolidation of this group.


    However intriguing and interesting as these descriptions might be, we can not substantiate them on any historical or philological evidence: no Hebrew or Aramaic text before the Common Era or in the first century of the Common Era reveals any data about this perfect group that lived according to the highest ideals of freedom, equality, communality, modesty, chastity and liberty. No Hebrew or Aramaic text mentioned such a faultless group numbering thousands of people spread all over the country. No Jewish source written in Hebrew or Aramaic ever mentioned the existence of this celibate group that lived in opposition to the biblical commandment which demanded marriage and procreation from all members of Jewish society. No Hebrew source mentions a group that rejected slavery, denounced weapons, and resented commerce. No Hebrew or Aramaic source is familiar with the word Essenes or Essaioi.


    The second witness, Pliny the Elder (d. 79 CE), relates in some few lines that the Essenes do not marry, possess no money (like Philo), and existed for thousands of generations. Unlike Philo, who did not mention any particular geographical location of the Essenes other than the whole land of Israel, Pliny mentioned Ein Gedi, next to the Dead Sea, as their residence. However, there is no room next to Ein Gedi for thousands of people and there is no word in the Hebrew language that refers to any of the above. No noun, no verb, no adjective is associated with the term Essenes, no chronicle or recollection of the legendary Essaioi or Essenes is to be found in the language of the land where they allegedly resided for thousands generations.


    Josephus, writing in the last third of the first century in Rome, is the third witness. He relates the same information mentioned above concerning piety, celibacy, the resentment of property and the denouncing of money, the belief in communality and commitment to a strict observance of the Sabbath. He further added that the Essenes ritually immersed in water every morning, ate together after prayer, devoted themselves to charity and benevolence, forbade the expression of anger, studied the books of the elders, preserved secrets, and were very mindful of the names of the angels kept in their sacred writings. He further wrote that their life expectancy achieved more than 100 years.


    There exists no known Hebrew or Aramaic text before or after the Common Era which supports any of these exceptional traits and ideal society that presumably had existed for many generations and thousands of years. It seems to me that this is a description of an ideal society in Utopia that Philo had imagined, and not a real society in the land of Israel in the first century CE. Pliny and Josephus were fascinated with this ideal of a holy community that respects the elderly and frees the slaves, cherishes equality and freedom, and has contempt for the values of the mundane world.


    The New Testament knows nothing about such accomplished holy communities in the first century CE and the Apocrypha also reveals no sign of such moral achievements in any Jewish community.
    On the other hand we have 930 scrolls or remnants of scrolls written in Hebrew and Aramaic which were found in Qumran 60 years ago. The scrolls (all translated into English) are dated in general to the Second and First Centuries before the Common Era. No scroll has the word Essenes or Essaioi or any close word.


    All the scrolls are Holy Scriptures: they are associated with the biblical books written during the first millennium BCE; they include the ineffable name of God written in four letters in Paleo-Hebrew; they include the biblical narrative and its expansion. They further include stories told by angels as well as numerous lines of priestly-angelic liturgy, psalms, priestly blessings, Temple worship, priestly watches, priestly dynasty, priestly calendar, and priestly history.


    The writers identify themselves in the Manual of Discipline and in the Damascus Document, the Florilegium, and the Rule of Blessings, as The Priests the sons of Zadok according to the biblical tradition of the high priesthood (II Samuel 15:27-29; 19:12; I Kings 1:34; Ezekiel 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11; I Chronicles 9:11; Ezra 7:2; Nehemiah 11:11). They refer to themselves as the Seed of Aaron, holy of holies, as the children of Zadok and their covenanters [allies], and similar priestly names. They call their leader the Priest of Justice (Cohen Zedek) and they authored texts that were titled as The Temple Scroll, The Scroll of Priestly Watches, The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, The Scroll of Blessings — all pertaining directly to priestly service in the earthly Temple and the heavenly sanctuaries.


    Scholars who studied the legal tradition reflected in the scrolls associated it with the Sadducee’s [=Zadokite priests] legal tradition. Scholars who studied the calendar attested in the scrolls associated it with the Sadducee’s tradition on the calendar mentioned controversially by the Sages. Scholars who studied the language of the scroll attached it to Biblical Hebrew and post-Biblical Hebrew with unique priestly vocabulary.


    In light of the above facts there are a few questions that I wish to raise:

    Why should we associate the priestly oriented scrolls with the Essenes, who are not connected to the priesthood in any of the above testimonies? Why should we connect a library of 930 holy scriptures written in Hebrew and Aramaic to a group unknown in the Hebrew language [but known as Essenes (Essaioi) in Greek], which group is not associated with sacred writing, priestly worship, a solar calendar or Temple ritual — all of which are central in the scrolls? Why not connect the scrolls to the explicitly asserted identity of the writers — the priests, the sons of Zadok and their allies?

    Why should we accept Josephus’s evidence, which was based on Philo’s non-historic description of an ideal community of thousands of people and was written in the last two decades of the first century CE, 250 years after the events of 175 BCE, when the Zadokite Priests were deposed from the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes and took the scrolls from the defiled Temple in the middle of the second century BCE, in the Hasmonean period, and continued to write and copy them in the desert and elsewhere?

    The priestly content of the scrolls — which demonstrates obvious concern with holy time (priestly calendar; priestly watches that kept the sevenfold divisions of 364 days calendar — cf. calendar of MMT; calendar in Scroll of priestly watches; calendar in Jubilees 4-6; I Enoch chapters 72-82; ritual calendar at the end of 11Q Psalm Scroll; calendar at the flood story 4Q252; calendar of festivals in the Temple Scroll; calendar of Sabbaths in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice), with holy place (Temple on Mount Zion; Chariot vision; Holy of Holies — Jubilees; Enoch; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice), and with holy ritual (priestly blessings, psalms sung by the Levites, priestly songs; sacrificial ritual — MMT; Damascus Document; Psalm Scroll, Temple Scroll, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice) — does not allow connecting the scrolls to the Essenes, who are not known to fight for a solar calendar, for holy place, or to debate on Temple rituals, as is obvious in the scrolls. The struggle between the Priest of Justice and the Wicked Priest in Pesher Habakkuk and Pesher Tehilim and in other Pesharim points out again to a priestly context and priestly struggle in the wake of the Biblical era.


    Why should we dismiss the obvious priestly concern of the scrolls and the priestly history of the second and first centuries BCE at the Hasmonean period (152-37 BCE), attested richly by the scrolls, and the numerous connections to the world of the Bible, and replace it with the non-historical legendary Essenes of the first century CE, which offers no historical context?


    Why should we rely on the questionable testimony of Philo, Pliny and Josephus, written in Greek and Latin outside of the Land of Israel in the first century, about peaceful celibates who lived ideal lives in a Utopia where the expression of anger, lust, greed or desire, and luxury or comfort, were utterly forbidden, and entirely disregard the most valuable testimony of 930 scrolls written in Hebrew and Aramaic by struggling, desperate Zadokite priestly circles and their supporters, who lost the sacred sovereignty of the Temple and the divine worship, promised to them in Exodus and Leviticus, and written clearly in sacred prose and holy poetry, their disappearing Biblical world, in the Hasmonean period, when they were deposed and lost all earthly power and had to rely upon the angelic world and an apocalyptic future?


    Rachel Elior

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 1:16 am
by Giuseppe
I have read the book of Frans very rapidly and I'm really pleased.

However, while the book convinces me of his general thesis (that Mark is an allegory of the facts of 70 in a more sound manner than I thought before), it does not convince me of his main thesis (that the historical Jesus is Jesus son of Saphat) more for the lack of sufficient evidence than for the impossibility of the thesis in itself (that I find very plausible, at least).

Above all, I really like your interpretation of Paul. And I am persuaded that there is a link between the crucifixion in Josephus and that in Mark.

Sincerely, I am inclined to accept more the Kbijbolder's explanation:
“A truly happened biological crucifixion and 'resurrection' in the year 70 has been projected by the four evangelists onto the abstract figure of the mythological personification of Jesus.”
The principal criticism is that I observe an excessive literalism in an attempt to achieve 'at all costs' to a historical core behind some Gospel episodes, possibly a core reflecting the seditious action of Jesus son of Saphat. At risk of ignoring alternative more theological explanations of these same episodes (explanations that have yet Josephus as scriptural source and don't ignore him).

What for Frans is merely Jesus son of Saphat, for me it may be more simply the fabricated symbol of an anti-Roman Israel who wins even when apparently loses.

Another criticism is that there is no mention of Marcion and hence of the possibility that only the author of the first Gospel (Mark) knew entirely the truth about his invented Jesus (the late evangelists being so interested in selling their rival theologies, by attributing them to the creature invented by Mark, so to ignore totally who or what was Jesus for Mark). The argument works even if I replace Mark with Mcn as the first Gospel.


I hope in a future mythicist book being able of interpreting the first gospel reducing its content not only to the Septuagint, to Paul, to Homer, but also to Josephus in a similar manner as Frans does.

I hope that this author will do something of that kind.

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:33 pm
by neilgodfrey
maryhelena wrote: . . . .
Rachel Elior Responds to Her Respondents

March 17, 2009 — Jim

Rachel writes . . . .
Thank you. It further appears that the argument was first set out in Elior's Three Temples.

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 10:23 pm
by maryhelena
A number of writers have looked to co-relate figures from the gospel story to figures within Josephus. Interestingly, Steve Mason, in discussing the DSS, has spoken out against trying to do something similar with the DSS - attempting to equate the authors of these scrolls with the Essenes.

The Josephan scholar Steve Mason upholds historicity of the Essenes. However, interestingly, he does make some very strong comments towards those scholars who continue to link the Essenes with Qumran and the DSS. Mason makes a strong argument against reading the DSS into Josephus. Likewise, for those of us researching early christian origins - reading figures from within the gospel story into Josephus should be avoided. (as is so often said - don't read the gospels into Paul.....) Our first step should be identifying what was Josephus doing with his stories - not x gospel figure = x Josephus figure.

It is reading Josephus on his own merit, re the Essenes, that Rachel Elior has come to the conclusion that they did not exist i.e. not only is there is no external evidence to support the Josephan story but also that their description does not tally with Jewish ideas.
  • Steve Mason: What Josephus Says about the Essenes in his Judean War

    Rebecca Gray subtitles her study of Prophetic Figures "the evidence from Josephus," and insists on reading Josephus's reports in their full literary context (1993: 5). Yet her chapter on the Essenes opens by assuming the Qumran-Essene identification, which immediately leads her into historical rather than interpretive mode. Thus: "the Scrolls sometimes enable us to distinguish those statements in Josephus that refer to the celibate branch of the Essenes from those that refer to the marrying group" (1993: 81). Her analysis of Josephus's Essenes is governed by this "distinction that Josephus does not make" (1993: 81). She continues: "In other ways, too, the evidence from the Scrolls can be used to clarify and fill in the statements that Josephus makes about the Essenes" (1993: 81; emphasis added). So, she explains "the meaning" of the Josephan phrases "sacred books," "various purifications," and "sayings of prophets" (War 2.159) by reference to Qumran finds, not through any sustained discussion of Josephus's own language or larger context. She repeatedly insists, for example, that Josephus's statement about Essene prediction in War 2.159 refers "in the first instance, to the stricter [celibate] group of Essenes who lived at Qumran"--although Josephus says nothing about Qumran or a stricter group--and not to the Essenes of Josephus's narrative who predict the future (1993: 92, 95, 106, 110; emphasis added). In part, perhaps, Gray justifies this non-contextual analysis by the common refuge: "I consider it likely that the general account in War 2.119-61 is from a literary source" (1993: 82).

    The problems with all such ostensible readings of Josephus will be obvious. First, they are not readings of Josephus; they are irredeemably contaminated by the intrusion of other texts. It is difficult to see the difference between reading Josephus in light of the DSS and "filling in" Matthew's birth narrative (Matthew 1-2) with material from Luke's (Luke 2), which no critical scholar would countenance. It does not matter for the purpose of interpretation whether one source was indeed primary and the other secondary. Reading any text requires a leap into that text's world of discourse, a willingness to formulate a meaning as its first readers did: in dialogue with that text and with extra-textual resources shared by author and readers.

    Second, to the degree that an interpretation of Josephus's Essenes is logically preliminary to the Qumran-Essene hypothesis, any study that both argues the Qumran-Essene theory and begins by reading Josephus's Essenes in the light of Qumran assumes its conclusion. Such question-begging appears regularly in the literature mentioned above. One keeps expecting to find somewhere a reference back to a clean study, which would first seek to understand Josephus's Essenes in a Josephan context and only then explain how the Qumran-Essene hypothesis explains Josephus. One expects this because it is an indispensable condition of an acceptable historical hypothesis: the best hypothesis is quite simply the one that most adequately explains how the relevant evidence came into being. But one expects in vain. No such study exists.

    http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/prog ... 00-1.shtml

    http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/prog ... 00-2.shtml

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:43 am
by MrMacSon
I came across this in Joseph B Tyson's 2006 Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle. University of South Carolina Press & put it here for posterity -
  • Dyson on Pervo on Luke & the Census.JPG
    Dyson on Pervo on Luke & the Census.JPG (71.17 KiB) Viewed 4976 times

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:42 am
by maryhelena
Interesting suggestion made here by Steve Mason regarding married Essenes - Josephus 'freelanced'....''might have conjured up a mysterious group of marrying Essenes''..
  • Steve Mason: The Historical Problem of the Essenes

    Given the oddity of this end note—but at the same time its complete integration into the structure and language of the passage —we must reckon with the possibility that Josephus has freelanced here. He can be quite inventive; this is an evidentiary fact, not my opinion. It is easy to imagine why he might have conjured up a mysterious group of marrying Essenes: to neutralize Pliny-like sarcasm, by permitting sex for procreation (an idea common in Mediterranean society), to enlarge the Essene umbrella so as to vaguely include other Judeans,
    and indeed to link Essenes with the Judean mainstream, which Josephus also depicts as having married sex exclusively for procreation. Perhaps he wished to insinuate his oft-married self through this loophole. I do not claim any of this as probable, for we cannot know. But the marrying group presents literary and historical problems, and this would be an economical solution.

    http://www.stevemason.eu/resources/Maso ... L-2011.pdf
That rather reminds me of how Jesus referenced the resurrection - like the angels in heaven - no marrying. i.e. a theological/philosophical vision somewhat like Paul with his in Christ no Jew nor Greek. One could view Philo's Essenes as philosophical; in that context gender and procreation have no role. Josephus decides, as it were, that this new philosophical 'heaven' required a corresponding 'new earth' - by introducing marriage and procreation with his married Essenes...And the roots of that new philosophical heaven and new earth were to be found not in Alexandria but in....
.....Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits.There is a portion of those people called Essenes.....Philo: Every Good Man is Free

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:33 am
by Lena Einhorn
I'm returning briefly to this thread, because of something that stuck with me before I left. As I mentioned, something which Iskander wrote got me thinking:
Iskander wrote:
Yeshu HaNotzri
The Man In His Own Words
A Torah View of the Founder of Christianity
By Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok
Copyright © 1997 by Ariel Bar Tzadok. All rights reserved
http://koshertorah.com/PDF/Yeshu-HaNotzri.pdf
Is ""Ussum Hamizri " another name for " Yeshu HaNotzri" ?
I couldn't let go of it. Because although "Hamitzri" -- or "Hamizri" -- (in Amulo's quote, and everywhere else) has always meant "The Egyptian", the origin of "Hanotzri" ("Christian" in Hebrew) is much more obscure. The first time we see the word is in the Talmud -- but only the Babylonian Talmud. And this is also where it is written that Jesus (here called ben Pantera or ben Stada) "brought magic from Egypt."
It is generally assumed that the word "Notzri" is connected to "Nazareth" or "Nazarene", but Nazareth is not mentioned in the Talmud.

I couldn't let go of it, because not only does "Notzri" (Christian) and "Mitzri (Egyptian) sound a bit similar. When the two words are written in Hebrew letters, they look like this:
נוצרי (Notzri)
מצרי (Mitzri)

The word was censored from later manuscripts of the Talmud, but it is still visible in some earlier manuscripts (Firenze, Herzog). Firenze, which is where we have the earliest available evidence for the Jesus texts, is from 1177 (Peter Schäfer: Jesus in the Talmud; available in its entirety online http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/S/Sc/Sch ... Talmud.pdf). There -- and you can compare the early manuscripts online, at http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/bavly/selectbavly.asp -- it is clearly written נוצרי (Notzri). But the difference between the two words in Hebrew is so small (just a tiny connection between the two first letters), that one can not help but wonder if the word, once upon a time, was מצרי ....

One of those things we will never know ...

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:33 pm
by MrMacSon
Lena Einhorn wrote:
... although "Hamitzri" -- or "Hamizri" -- (in Amulo's quote, and everywhere else) has always meant "The Egyptian", the origin of "Hanotzri" ("Christian" in Hebrew) is much more obscure. The first time we see the word is in the Talmud -- but only the Babylonian Talmud. And this is also where it is written that Jesus (here called ben Pantera or ben Stada) "brought magic from Egypt."

It is generally assumed that the word "Notzri" is connected to "Nazareth" or "Nazarene", but Nazareth is not mentioned in the Talmud.

I couldn't let go of it, because not only does "Notzri" (Christian) and "Mitzri (Egyptian) sound a bit similar. When the two words are written in Hebrew letters, they look like this:
  • נוצרי (Notzri)
    מצרי (Mitzri)
The word was censored from later manuscripts of the Talmud, but it is still visible in some earlier manuscripts (Firenze, Herzog). Firenze, which is where we have the earliest available evidence for the Jesus texts, is from 1177

There -- and you can compare the early manuscripts online, at http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/bavly/selectbavly.asp -- it is clearly written נוצרי (Notzri).

But the difference between the two words in Hebrew is so small (just a tiny connection between the two first letters), that one can not help but wonder if the word, once upon a time, was מצרי ....

One of those things we will never know ...
I have been interested in the word 'natsar/na·ṣar' - נָצַר - and it's variations 'netser', n.ts.r, etc., and their relationships to Nazarite (through nazir) and Nazareth, Nazarene, and their variations.

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

and Nazeroth is the feminine-plural.


I have also seen references to 'natsar/na·ṣar' - נָצַר - meaning "to watch" (whereas 'netser' is said to mean "branch");
  • hence 'Natsarith' is said to mean watchtower, and 'Natsarim' are 'watchmen'
Moreover, netser 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
We see a major messianic link with netser in Isaiah 11:1

Pious Jews used the term Nazarene to refer to Christians, and are alleged to have called Jesus 'Netser' (or a variation thereof)

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.

In Acts, Paul of Tarsus is called "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazoreans" (Acts 24:5); and Paul is elsewhere described as taking a vow and shaving his head (Acts 18:18; Acts 21:23-24) paralleling Numbers 6 which espouses a Nazarite offering Sacrifice.

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:45 pm
by MrMacSon
Regarding -
MrMacSon wrote:
I have also seen references to 'natsar/na·ṣar' - נָצַר - meaning "to watch" (whereas 'netser' is said to mean "branch");
  • hence 'Natsarith' is said to mean watchtower, and 'Natsarim' are 'watchmen'
This may be relevant -
Some ...think that the name of the city [of 'Nazareth'] must be connected with the name of the hill behind it, from which one of the finest prospects in Israel is obtained, and accordingly they derive it from the Hebrew notserah, ie., one guarding or watching, thus designating the hill which overlooks and thus guards an extensive region.

http://www.christiananswers.net/diction ... areth.html
as may this
There is also a view there is a passive meaning of 'preserved, protected' in reference to its secluded position -

RH Mounce, "Nazareth", in Geoffrey W Bromiley (ed) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol 3: Eerdmans, 1986; pp 500–1
Kunigunde Kreuzerin discussed Hosea 9:10 in relation to Luke 19:1-10 “Zacchaeus and the sycamore fig in Jericho”; saying -

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 3:11 pm
by Lena Einhorn
MrMacSon wrote:
I have been interested in the word 'natsar/na·ṣar' - נָצַר - and it's variations 'netser', n.ts.r, etc., and their relationships to Nazarite (through nazir) and Nazareth, Nazarene, and their variations.

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

and Nazeroth is the feminine-plural.


I have also seen references to 'natsar/na·ṣar' - נָצַר - meaning "to watch" (whereas 'netser' is said to mean "branch");

hence 'Natsarith' is said to mean watchtower, and 'Natsarim' are 'watchmen'

Moreover, netser 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

eg. Judges 13:1-7

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

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

Pious Jews used the term Nazarene to refer to Christians, and are alleged to have called Jesus 'Netser' (or a variation thereof)

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.

In Acts, Paul of Tarsus is called "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazoreans" (Acts 24:5); and Paul is elsewhere described as taking a vow and shaving his head (Acts 18:18; Acts 21:23-24) paralleling Numbers 6 which espouses a Nazarite offering Sacrifice.
I am not questioning the more traditional view that Hanotzri is connected to Nazareth -- the word is, after all, written with a nun and a vav.
I am merely observing the striking visual similarity between נוצרי and מצרי. Note well that the uncensored versions of the Talmud were handwritten.