Tim O'Neill wrote--------
While I appreciate all the responses, it seems no-one has been able to
shed any light on why Tertullian would call Jesus a "Nazaraeus" rather
than a "Nazarenus". If the former doesn't mean that he believed Jesus
was a Nazirite, then why use this word? And if he did believe this,
why is this the only place that I can see where he refers to this
(oddly unorthodox) belief?
I'm still finding this very puzzling because I can't see that
Tertullian did regard Jesus as a Nazirite, yet I can't find any reason
why he uses the word "Nazaraeus" to describe him.
Mark 4 times has Nazarenos, Luke has it twice.
Matthew, Luke, 4th Gospel & Acts all have Nazwraios (w=long o)
on which Fiztmyer, Lk., p.1215 has a lengthy note. He
lists explanations by the place, Nazirite, Netser and
Notsri and says "it is still a problem to explain
the long o; nor can the shift from ts to z be accepted
without further ado". (He prints s with dot under it
I have to use ts).
If Tertullian has Nazareus or Nazaraeus he is too early to be following
the Vulgate but it might be worth trying the Old Latin to
see what that has. Incidentally I note that the Vulgate
has Nazareus for Nazwraios only at Matt.2.23 and appears to
have Nazarenus in most places where the Greek has Nazwraios,
but I only have the smaller Wordsworth & White to hand.
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.