Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MrMacSon wrote:

spin wrote: This seems to be a small load of pedantic bollox. Talking to me about "'Nazarenes'; 'Nazoreans', etc" is risible. If you don't have anything constructive to say on the subject, why not give the topic a miss and enjoy the night/day?

Your opening post was risible vague nonsense.

Absolutely no contribution to this thread. The topic was clear enough to reasonable people.

Secret Alias wrote:One more thing you probably don't want to hear spin. I noticed that lurking in the back of Tertullian's text is a possible allusion to an etymology from נצר.

The Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account, Nazerenes after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, "Her Nazarites were whiter than snow; " even they who were once defiled with the stains of sin, and darkened with the clouds of ignorance. But to Christ the title Nazarene was destined to become a suitable one, from the hiding-place of His infancy, for which He went down and dwelt at Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus the son of Herod.

If we suppose with Criddle that the original text of Adv Marc was written by someone who employed a gospel harmony and likely (me) in the lands of the East where the collection of Pauline letters began with Galatians (as we see in Ephrem) it is possible that Nazareth the 'hiding place' where Jesus was guarded (= נצר) derived its name from this act of guarding, hiding, preserving.

This is actually the text I'm dealing with at the moment, with its blurring of Nazirite ("Nazaraeus") and Nazarene ("Nazarenus"). Tertullian follows the same translation of Mt 2:23 as Jerome would, using Nazaraeus where the Greek reads Ναζωραιος. This is an ironclad indication that Tertullian saw a reference to Nazarite in Mt 2:23, in accordance with some modern scholars who see the source of Mt 2:23 as Jdg 13:5. The reference to the hiding place simply refers to the place where he grew up before being presented to the world at baptism. There is no suggestion of being watched.

My problem is understanding what value to place in "the Jews also designate us Nazarenes".

Secret Alias wrote:The Hebrew term for Christian = נוֹצְרִי.

And I argue that a Jew reading the term would normally understand "watcher"/"watchman", as seen in a few cases with plene spelling in the Hebrew Bible.

Secret Alias wrote:Note also the kruptw in Romans 2:29

ἀλλ’ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος

The Marcionites are openly called Christians and the other group are essentially 'crypto-Christians' seeming to be Jews outwardly but something else secretly.

I'll have to think about this.

Secret Alias wrote:It is worth noting that the Syriac adjective 'Nazarene/Nazorene' (= nzry, nzwry) might have something to do with continence (nzuwryā) http://dukhrana.com/lexicon//lookup.php?p=422&l=0 It might be behind the Greek term 'encratite.'

That waw is rather curious.

I think we've casually bounced around the connection between Nazarenes and guardians for a few years. It would seem to have a lot going for it. I think the first step in this argument would have to be the acceptance of Criddle's (and mine but who listens to me) understanding of the text of Adv Marc 4 and 5 going back to a 'harmony gospel' (or Diatessaron) using community related to Justin and probably written in the East (in Syriac ultimately). Even though the text is preserved in Latin with Tertullian's typical flourishes added on top there is clearly a Greek substratum to the text. I don't know if you can prove that the text was written in Syriac. But clearly the Galatians-first order (assumed by most to be attributable to Marcion's Apostolikon's ordering) of the letters is known to have belonged to Ephrem's 'gospel harmony/Diatessaron' using canon. There may be other clues of the text being written in Syriac. It might be enough to simply argue that the person who wrote the text was familiar with the beliefs and practices of the Syriac community that produced the gospel harmony. But the underlying gospel of the author was certainly a gospel harmony/Diatessaron.

I think that נצר only has the connection with being 'hidden/secrecy' in Hebrew. There is an interesting note at the CAL site for this entry that you might be interested in:

In Sam. and LJLA nṣr appears to be a legitimate alternative root to normative nṭr albeit one borrowed from the Hebrew form of the same root. Note that in Samaritan, however, the meaning is "to be devoted", i.e. from the "nazirite"; Tal gives only one example of a simple meaning "to guard".

The page referred to in Tal Sam = p. 545. Here it is https://books.google.com/books?id=6K-9C ... ed&f=false (Tal almost literally pried this dictionary from Ben Hayyim's hand after he died and passed it off as his own).

What makes this so interesting is when we fast forward to the discussion of the synagogue at Capernaum/Nazareth/Bethsaida. The name comes up again in chapter 7 of the same work:

On the same occasion the spirit of the demon cries out, What have we to do with thee, Jesus? Thou art come to destroy
us. I know who thou art, the Holy One of God.

Mark 1:24 Τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς. οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ Ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ.

The Ναζαρηνέ as is often noticed disappears in the gospel text of the author of Adversus Marcionem. But is there an underlying connection between it and ὁ Ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ. Because, though most us, think agios means 'holy' it really has the implication of 'devoted to the gods.' http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... o(#lexicon Thus an underlying connection to 'devotion.'

Sorry for confusing your investigation but I am wondering whether the underlying sense of נצר changed over the course of the word being contextualized in Samaritan Aramaic (or Hebrew) and then Jewish Aramaic and finally Syriac hence the confusion over what the word actually means in early sources.

Notice נציר in Samaritan = 'devoted.' Another argument that you can make is that the Samaritan situation demonstrates that the 'switching' from nṣr to nṭr or the mistaking of one for the other was common place. In other words, they must have sounded the same or close enough that the meaning of originally separate words were take to be related or even interchangeable. The situation in Samaritan Aramaic reflects the confusion that occurs in early Christianity and in specific Adv Marc. The author is likely not a Greek speaking 'ignoramus' who mistook nṣr for nṭr but reflecting contemporary usage of native speakers.

Note the reflection of this situation at the end of Adv Marc 4:23:

When, however, He answers the man, who alleged as an excuse his father's burial, "Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God," He gave a clear confirmation to those two laws of the Creator----that in Leviticus, which concerns the sacerdotal office, and forbids the priests to be present at the funerals even of their parents."The priest," says He, "shall not enter where there is any dead person; and for his father he shall not be defiled" ; as well as that in Numbers, which relates to the (Nazarite) devotion; for there he who devotes himself to God, among other things, is bidden "not to come at any dead body," not even of his father, or his mother, or his brother. Now it was, I suppose, for the (Nazirite) devotion and the priestly office that He intended this man whom He had been inspiring to preach the kingdom of God. Or else, if it be not so, he must be pronounced impious enough who, without the intervention of any precept of the law, commanded that burials of parents should be neglected by their sons. When, indeed, in the third case before us, (Christ) forbids the man "to look back" who wanted first "to bid his family farewell," He only follows out the rule of the Creator. For this (retrospection) He had been against their making, whom He had rescued out of Sodom.

Illi autem causato patris sepulturam cum respondet, Sine mortui sepeliant mortuos suos, tu autem vade et annuntia regnum dei, utramque legem creatoris manifeste confirmavit, et de sacerdotio in Levitico prohibentem sacerdotes supremis etiam parentum interesse (Super omnem, inquit, animam defunctam sacerdos non introibit, et super patrem suum non contaminabitur), et de devotione in Arithmis; nam et illic qui se deo voverit inter cetera iubet ne super ullam animam introeat defunctam, ne super patris quidem aut matris aut fratris. Puto autem et devotioni et sacerdotio destinabat quem praedicando regno dei imbuerat. Aut si non ita est, satis impius pronuntiandus qui nulla ratione legis intercedente sepulturas parentum despici a filiis imperabat. Cum vero et tertium illum prius suis valedicere parantem prohibet retro respectare, sectam creatoris exequitur. Hoc et ille noluerat fecisse quos ex Sodomis liberarat.

It would seem then the author knows that Nazirite means 'devotion' but also - and this is important - there is an added implication that a 'Nazirite' means Christian 'priest.' Consider also that among the Mandaeans Nazarene is a title which is reserved for the priests.

I don't know if I am making this clear enough but it would seem

(1) that Nazarene is assumed to mean Christian (see the statement in Adv Marc 4.7)
but then
(2) Nazarene is assumed to have the meaning of Nazirite as we see in Samaritan Aramaic.
and finally
(3) a 'full' Christian is necessarily a priest (something which is reflected in the early practice of the baptism of the catechumen, the Letter to Theodore from Clement of Alexandria). In other words, anyone can believe in Jesus but baptism is reserved for those who have been prepared for a special devotion to God and receive baptism coming over from the catechumen.

There are apparently times where hagios renders ntr into Greek. Have to find them in the LXX

I have quickly looked on the internet and found this:

נזר is most commonly translated in two ways: by something from the root of ἁγι- (consecrate/sanctify), or by εὐχή.

I think a good argument could be made that the text of the author of Adv Marc 4 is related to the Syriac gospel (harmony) used by the circle of Justin or Tatian and that the reason Greek text repeats the reference to Nazarene:

Τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς. οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ Ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ

is that the original Syriac resembled the author of Adv Marc 4's text and was difficult to render into Greek because of the obscurity of Nazarene:

What have we to do with thee, Jesus? Thou art come to destroy us. I know who thou art, the Nazarene.

or something like that. The reason Nazarene is added to Jesus in the Greek is that the more original Syriac text was obscure. What is a Nazarene? Having the demon reference Jesus as 'the Nazarene' makes 'Holy One of God' seem like a related but separate title.

Secret Alias wrote:

On the same occasion the spirit of the demon cries out, What have we to do with thee, Jesus? Thou art come to destroy
us. I know who thou art, the Holy One of God.

Mark 1:24 Τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς. οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ Ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ.

The Ναζαρηνέ as is often noticed disappears in the gospel text of the author of Adversus Marcionem. But is there an underlying connection between it and ὁ Ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ. Because, though most us, think agios means 'holy' it really has the implication of 'devoted to the gods.' http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... o(#lexicon Thus an underlying connection to 'devotion.'

Do you think it's a coincidence that the only place αγιος θεου is found in the LXX is Jdg 16:7 oh and Jdg 13:7 (αγιος translating נזיר in each case)? or that the Alexandrian gives ναζειραιον in Jdg 13:5? so that strangely one might—stretching the braincells awfully—conceive of a parallelism between "holy of god" and "nazirite"?

Yes. I think there is something of great significance here.