Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

My own take on this is that the author of Adv Marc 4 is using a text which stands much closer to the ur-gospel than our canonical texts. I still think that נצר is the root of Ναζαρηνέ but owing to a complex linguistic situation the word was taken as if it were rooted in נזר (as we see is still true for נצר in Samaritan Aramaic, the original meaning of 'to guard, hide' has almost completely disappeared). I know you are not hot on the primacy of the Hebrew/Aramaic text of the gospel so let's put that whole issue to the side.

1. I think the gospel and the tradition of the author of Adv Marc takes Nazarene as if it were derived from נזר.
2. This (Syriac?) gospel's version of Mark 1.28 is older and closer to the original than either canonical Mark or Luke. In the Syriac 'harmony text' text the demon knows Jesus is the 'devoted one/holy one of God' (= Nazarene). In our text he repeats 'Nazarene' twice effectively (i.e. 'Jesus the Nazarene ... the holy one of God') because the meaning of the passage is so obscure or hard to translate into Greek. The (Syriac?) texts reading "What have we to do with thee, Jesus? Thou art come to destroy us. I know who thou art, the Holy One of God" is more original than the repeated 'Nazarene ... Holy One of God' reading of our orthodox recension.
3. I think we have uncovered the likely original meaning of 'Nazarene'

Maybe by the time of the infancy narratives 'Nazareth' results from re-interpreting 'Nazarene' in light of the 'proper' or more usual meaning of נצר = to guard, to hide. Jesus was hidden at Nazareth when an infant. This meaning also shows up oddly enough in Adv Marc as we saw. Maybe as a result of a secondary addition?

It's long been noticed that the text of the Gospel of Mark that we possess, if shorn of an interpolation/accretion at Mark 1:9 (already absent from the parallel in Matthew 3:13), refers only to the Nazarene, not to Nazareth.

Mark 1:24
saying, `Away! what -- to us and to thee, Jesus the Nazarene? thou didst come to destroy us; I have known thee who thou art -- the Holy One of God.'
Mark 10:47
and having heard that it is Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out, and to say, `The Son of David -- Jesus! deal kindly with me;'
Mark 16:6
And he saith to them, `Be not amazed, ye seek Jesus the Nazarene, the crucified: he did rise -- he is not here; lo, the place where they laid him!

Likewise the supposed start of the gospel mentioned to be in use among Marcionites begins with such a reference:

3:1/4:31 In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,
Pilate being governor of Judea,
Jesus descended into Capernaum, a city in Galilee,
and was teaching on the Sabbath days;
And they were astonished at his doctrine,
for his word was in authority.
33 And in the synagogue there was a man,which had a spirit of an unclean devil,
and cried out with a loud voice, saying,
34 Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus [, Nazarene]?
art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.

Which, of course, is what Secret Alias is talking about.

(We seem to have gone afield from the OP's question.)

Judges 16:17 καὶ ἀνήγγειλεν αὐτῇ τὴν πᾶσαν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ σίδηρος οὐκ ἀνέβη ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν μου ὅτι ἅγιος θεοῦ ἐγώ εἰμι ἀπὸ κοιλίας μητρός μου ἐὰν οὖν ξυρήσωμαι ἀποστήσεται ἀπ' ἐμοῦ ἡ ἰσχύς μου καὶ ἀσθενήσω καὶ ἔσομαι ὡς πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι

וַיַּגֶּד-לָהּ אֶת-כָּל-לִבּוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מוֹרָה לֹא-עָלָה עַל-רֹאשִׁי--כִּי-נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי, מִבֶּטֶן אִמִּי; אִם-גֻּלַּחְתִּי וְסָר מִמֶּנִּי כֹחִי, וְחָלִיתִי וְהָיִיתִי כְּכָל-הָאָדָם

Absolutely fascinating. I wonder if נזיר here is less a technical term rather than something like a description of a 'superman/Hercules' figure. Samson's strength comes from his hair. Surely Samson's situation is not true for every נזיר.

Interesting also the Samaritan Book of Joshua contains much of the material in Judges with the absence of MT Judges 17-21. The account of Samson functions as the bridge to the books of Samuel. This composition is in accord with Josephus, who placed his version of Judges 19-21 after the conquests in MT judges (Ant. 5.136), made Eli the successor of Samson and placed the story of Ruth during his reign (Ant. 5.318). The problem with the assumption of ST's dependency on MT is thus given a broader perspective, and questions of variant texts gain significant importance in judging the material. The Samaritan text is not an abbreviated, rewritten MT version. The dominant theme and message in ST pronounce that Israel prospered as long as the cult was in place on Gerizim and the administration was in Shechem. The counter-message in MT argues that there was no proper cult and no central administration. The problem with this kind of polemic, however, is that the reverse should bring order and prosperity. This does not happen. The movement of ark and cult under David's reign does not solve the problems raised in MT Judges, that it was the lack of a king that allowed the people to do 'everyone what was right in his own eyes'. MT Judges does not provide the contrast story it intended to be and we are probably far better off if we understand MT Judges as a negative anticipation of the traditions of the monarchic period, such as has been suggested by Graham Auld.8 Such an interpretation, however, still carries the reverse of the coin as an unsolved problem. Why is it necessary to denounce the 7. This list is paralleled in Josephus, Ant. 5.361-62; MT 1 Chron. 5.30-31; Ezra 7.4-5; 1 Esd. 8.2. Josephus, however, is the only informant, who explicitly confirms the Samaritan tradition that Eli, being of the Ithamar line, usurped the high priesthood and accordingly broke the Eleazar line until the reign of Solomon. Indirectly, however, the rejection of the house of Eli (1 Kgs 2.27, 35) is given reference in the various lists of high priest in the Old Testament, all of which leaves out Eli and form a continuation from Aron to Seraiah using the names of the Eleazar family members, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub, who, according to Josephus (Ant. 8.11-12), lived as private persons during the interim. Josephus's various references to high priests 'confirm' the split, which is furthermore testified in his enumeration of high priests in Ant. 20.229 that the first thirteen high priests until Solomon were descendants of Aaron's two sons. (from Ingrid Hjelm's book)

I am trying to wrap my head around what נזיר meant to the (ur)text of Judges. Wonder if it meant something like 'superman' or even an angelic figure? Samson is a sun god.

(We seem to have gone afield from the OP's question.)

I think spin is digging it. These are conversations that take place at 10,000 feet above the world (and not like the usual recycled selfish drivel spun by most at the forum). The question (I think) comes down to what is going on in Adversus Marcionem. It's very interesting. Texts are as straightforward as most people like to pretend they are. Look at the last things I noted about the Samaritan tradition about Judges agreeing in many ways with Josephus. 'The Book of Judges' is not the original form of many of the stories contained within it. The gospel is likely the same thing and how 'Nazarene' appears in the earliest form of that text will help us understand how it was first used.

Another interesting question is what did nzyr mean outside of the limited understanding of the Pentateuch? Why is Samson the sun god called a nzyr? Some possible derived or associated terms:

nzr = set apart, surround, abstain JLAtg, Sam, Syr. TgO Num6:12 : וְיִזַר קדם יוי יָת יוֹמֵי נִזרֵיה ‏
= crown (= distinction?) JLAtg, PTA, Sam, LJLA. TgSong5:2 : ציצ<י>ת נזרי אתמלי מן טפי עיניך ‏ the fringes of my hair-do have filled up with the drops from your eyes.
Hebrew זר = foreign, different (an offshoot of 'set apart'?) Qumran. 1QapGen 2.16 : ולא מן כול זר ולא מן כול עירין ‏ neither from any stranger nor from any angels.
Syriac zry, zryˀ n.m. knight http://dukhrana.com/lexicon//lookup.php?p=205&l=0

I wonder if the underlying sense is something or someone 'set apart' because of his distinctiveness, uniqueness, superiority. Could the name of 'Stephen/Stephan' in Acts be rooted in the Nazarene?

Secret Alias wrote:Another interesting question is what did nzyr mean outside of the limited understanding of the Pentateuch? Why is Samson the sun god called a nzyr?

Samson is not a Nazirite by vow: he's a Nazirite by birth, as Samuel was (and DSS Samuel specifies in an enlargement of 1 Sam 1:22, 4QSama). Samson was able to kill people, carouse and have a wife, while maintaining his Nazirite status. It could just be that it is the special relationship with God that he and Samuel had that made them naturally Nazirites. Tertullian recognizes that Nazarenus has significance beyond the common notion of a gentilic, as he states that the title would become an apt one, going on to relate it to the town. There is a hint of the title and its applicability existing prior to Jesus's birth—at least in his thought.

Secret Alias wrote:I wonder if the underlying sense is something or someone 'set apart' because of his distinctiveness, uniqueness, superiority.
Separated from others as having been chosen by God?

Secret Alias wrote:Could the name of 'Stephen/Stephan' in Acts be rooted in the Nazarene?

It's possible, but I can see no line of evidence to be marshalled to support the conjecture. Wanna make a case based on Acts??

I coulda sworn a case was stated here some time back that not only were the Marcionites referred to as Christians but those thought to be mainsstreamers were referred to as Nazarenes, but I couldn't find it. I then came upon Neusner (A History of the Jews in Babylonia, Part II: The Early Sasanian Period, 3, II, 18):


Looking at Kartir's inscription though, it was just a list of religions and while Neusner's logic was quite reasonable, it couldn't be relied upon as a basis to understand the possible significance of Tertullian's reference to Jews apparently calling Tertullian's fellow believers somewhere "Nazarenes". I've looked at all the Talmudic references to Notzri/m which I think I can place in the early third century (though there are some wishful wallies who want to drag it into the 1st century to forge a link with a reference to αποσυναγωγους [being put out of the synagogue] in Jn 16:2).

The connection of Notzri with the toponym Nazareth is difficult to maintain, with attempts usually hingeing on "Nazorean" and the presumed waw in the second syllable of the conjectured source. How then the Jews could call anyone Nazarenes as per Tertullian becomes highly problematic. What is the term underlying "Nazarenes"? Which Jews? I was trying to find a trajectory that reached Tertullian from a Marcionite context, given he was dealing with Marcion, a context which might explain the Nazarene reference.

2015 BC & H thread with links about Kartir's Inscription (276-293 CE) - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1634

eta: Peter K posted previously in this thread - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 890#p58890