Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Birth narratives (Mike)

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... I would have to research this. A consecrated or separated one NZR seems to have come in a number of forms and Ya akov appears to have been a
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 1, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Jack Kilmon wrote:

      > Subject: Re: Birth narratives (Jack)
      > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:26:03 -0500
      > From: Mike Grondin <mgrondin@...>
      > To: crosstalk@...
      > References: <199811292301.SAA14075@...>
      >
      > At 05:34 PM 11/29/98 -0600, Jack Kilmon wrote:
      > >The multiple attestation of James as the "brother according
      > >to the flesh" and the other siblings also give us pause
      > >to consider that Jesus was the oldest of 5 sons and at
      > >least 2 sisters by Joseph...
      >
      > Please correct me if I'm wrong, Jack, but wasn't it always the first-born
      > son (if any) who was designated to be a Nazirite? (This would have been an
      > echo of the pre-Abraham practice of actually sacrificing the first-born to
      > God.) If this is so - and if Jacob the Righteous was a Nazirite - would
      > this not mean that Jesu could not have been the first-born?
      >
      > Mike G.

      I would have to research this. A "consecrated" or "separated" one
      NZR seems to have come in a number of forms and Ya'akov appears to
      have been a Rechabite. We do know that there were temporary
      Nazirite vows, renewable I believe at 7 year intervals. A procedure
      is found in Numbers 6:1-21.
      I don't think anything in NT scholarship is as confused as the word plays
      and speculative associations between NZT-N(ts)R-Nazareth, Naza/oreans.
      etc., etc. I do not believe that the designation Nazareans (Netzarim) has
      anything to do with Nazareth. Since the Nazarene community under Ya'akov
      haTsaddik involved the Nazirite oath for its followers...even Paul had to
      fake his way through it...Nazarenes=Nazirites.
      Does this mean that Nazareth as the birth place of Y'shua is a fiction?
      Maybe not.
      On the issue of whether or not Nazareth existed as a very small and
      Jewish hamlet, the archaeological evidence suggests that it was.
      Kokim type tombs dating to pre-Herodian times surround the area
      of the Church of the Annunciation. Grain silos, cisterns, presses and
      millstones under and around the same area have features similar to
      Middle Bronze Age sites but with ceramics dating to Iron II. Nazareth
      was there.
      Most of the debate I see, however, is whether the name of the "Nazarenes"
      was taken from Nazareth. We should consider whether the name of this
      small hamlet in the Roman and Herodian period was something other
      than Nazareth..it could have been, like many small whistlestops, just
      ignored. Why not entertain the possibility that Y'shua WAS born
      in this little whistlestop and the town later took the name of the
      community rather than vice-versa.
      Additionally, since the group was also called "Jesseans" for a while,
      I cannot help but see the connection with Isaiah 11:1-10 with the
      N(ts)R (Root) of Jesse. Maybe these folks were called "rooters"
      and the town was named after them sometime in the latter 1st century
      or so.."Rootersville!" (g)

      Jack
    • Bernard Muller
      ... Bernard writes: Jack, from where did you get NazAreans? I thought the correct spelling was NazOreans. (Netzarim) has ... Bernard writes: Jack, don t you
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 1, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        Jack Kilmon wrote:

        > I would have to research this. A "consecrated" or "separated" one
        > NZR seems to have come in a number of forms and Ya'akov appears to
        > have been a Rechabite. We do know that there were temporary
        > Nazirite vows, renewable I believe at 7 year intervals. A procedure
        > is found in Numbers 6:1-21.
        > I don't think anything in NT scholarship is as confused as the word plays
        > and speculative associations between NZT-N(ts)R-Nazareth, Naza/oreans.
        > etc., etc. I do not believe that the designation Nazareans

        Bernard writes: Jack, from where did you get NazAreans? I thought the
        correct spelling was NazOreans.

        (Netzarim) has
        > anything to do with Nazareth. Since the Nazarene community under Ya'akov
        > haTsaddik involved the Nazirite oath for its followers...even Paul had to
        > fake his way through it...Nazarenes=Nazirites.

        Bernard writes: Jack, don't you think there were other Jews in these
        days taking a temporary vow of Nazarite. If Nazarites=Nazarenes, James &
        company would have been confused with the other Jews taking the vow.
        BTW, how long this vow would last?

        > Additionally, since the group was also called "Jesseans" for a while,
        > I cannot help but see the connection with Isaiah 11:1-10 with the
        > N(ts)R (Root) of Jesse.

        Bernard writes: "Jesseans"?, from which early Christian writings did you
        get that? BTW, "Nazarenes", what are the first Christian writings to
        attribute "Nazarenes" to the members of James community?
        >
        > Jack

        Bernard
        http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/
      • Mike Grondin
        ... Whoa, Nellie! My Greek edition has nazarEnou at 14:67, the root of which I thought we had implicitly agreed was to be represented in English as
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 1, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          > Bernard: Jack, from where did you get NazAreans? I thought the
          > correct spelling was NazOreans.
          >
          > Jack: Mark 14:67 Just one more of the variants.

          Whoa, Nellie! My Greek edition has 'nazarEnou' at 14:67, the root of which
          I thought we had implicitly agreed was to be represented in English as
          'Nazarene'. The other English form ('Nazorean') was to represent
          'nazOraios' and its forms. Are you proposing a revision to the convention,
          or is my rudimentary Greek at fault here?

          Second point: on the Nazirite question, is there not a sharp distinction to
          be made between those who voluntarily took the Nazirite vow for a 7-year
          period, and those who (we read) were consecrated Nazirite from birth by
          their parents? It's the latter I was referring to as reflecting the
          pre-Abrahamic practice of sacrificing one's first-born, or "first fruits",
          as it were. Once having been consecrated at birth, I imagine it would have
          been virtually impossible to free oneself from this role, since to even
          attempt to do so would surely have brought great shame and dishonor to the
          family. (And, of course, one can scarcely over-estimate the importance of
          family honor in those days.)

          Mike G.
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... Mark 14:67 Just one more of the variants. ... Perhaps, unless these Nazirites were known popularly as Jesseans. The vows lasted 7 years. ... Epiphanius
          Message 4 of 8 , Dec 1, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Bernard Muller wrote:

            > Jack Kilmon wrote:
            >
            > > I would have to research this. A "consecrated" or "separated" one
            > > NZR seems to have come in a number of forms and Ya'akov appears to
            > > have been a Rechabite. We do know that there were temporary
            > > Nazirite vows, renewable I believe at 7 year intervals. A procedure
            > > is found in Numbers 6:1-21.
            > > I don't think anything in NT scholarship is as confused as the word plays
            > > and speculative associations between NZT-N(ts)R-Nazareth, Naza/oreans.
            > > etc., etc. I do not believe that the designation Nazareans
            >
            > Bernard writes: Jack, from where did you get NazAreans? I thought the
            > correct spelling was NazOreans.

            Mark 14:67 Just one more of the variants.

            > (Netzarim) has
            > > anything to do with Nazareth. Since the Nazarene community under Ya'akov
            > > haTsaddik involved the Nazirite oath for its followers...even Paul had to
            > > fake his way through it...Nazarenes=Nazirites.
            >
            > Bernard writes: Jack, don't you think there were other Jews in these
            > days taking a temporary vow of Nazarite. If Nazarites=Nazarenes, James &
            > company would have been confused with the other Jews taking the vow.
            > BTW, how long this vow would last?

            Perhaps, unless these Nazirites were known popularly as "Jesseans."The vows
            lasted 7 years.

            > > Additionally, since the group was also called "Jesseans" for a while,
            > > I cannot help but see the connection with Isaiah 11:1-10 with the
            > > N(ts)R (Root) of Jesse.
            >
            > Bernard writes: "Jesseans"?, from which early Christian writings did you
            > get that?

            Epiphanius' Panarion

            > BTW, "Nazarenes", what are the first Christian writings to
            > attribute "Nazarenes" to the members of James community?

            Mark

            Jack
          • Ian Hutchesson
            ... If I m not mistaken, Jack was merely pointing out the root differences. The -Enos is a gentilic ending just as -aios is, leaving us with nazar- and
            Message 5 of 8 , Dec 1, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              At 20.35 01/12/98 -0500, Mike wrote:
              >> Bernard: Jack, from where did you get NazAreans? I thought the
              >> correct spelling was NazOreans.
              >>
              >> Jack: Mark 14:67 Just one more of the variants.
              >
              >Whoa, Nellie! My Greek edition has 'nazarEnou' at 14:67, the root of which
              >I thought we had implicitly agreed was to be represented in English as
              >'Nazarene'. The other English form ('Nazorean') was to represent
              >'nazOraios' and its forms. Are you proposing a revision to the convention,
              >or is my rudimentary Greek at fault here?

              If I'm not mistaken, Jack was merely pointing out the root differences. The
              "-Enos" is a gentilic ending just as "-aios" is, leaving us with "nazar-"
              and "nazOr-" as the two roots.


              Ian
            • Mike Grondin
              ... Well, I think you are mistaken - or at least I hope you are. Otherwise things are going to get even more confusing than they already are (what with the s/z
              Message 6 of 8 , Dec 1, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                > (Bernard:) Jack, from where did you get NazAreans? I thought the
                > correct spelling was NazOreans.
                >
                > (Jack:) Mark 14:67 Just one more of the variants.

                > (me:)
                > Whoa, Nellie! My Greek edition has 'nazarEnou' at 14:67, the root of which
                > I thought we had implicitly agreed was to be represented in English as
                > 'Nazarene'. The other English form ('Nazorean') was to represent
                > 'nazOraios' and its forms. Are you proposing a revision to the convention,
                > or is my rudimentary Greek at fault here?

                > (Ian:)
                > If I'm not mistaken, Jack was merely pointing out the root differences. The
                > "-Enos" is a gentilic ending just as "-aios" is, leaving us with "nazar-"
                > and "nazOr-" as the two roots.

                Well, I think you are mistaken - or at least I hope you are. Otherwise
                things are going to get even more confusing than they already are (what
                with the s/z thingy et al). Although I can see how you might think that no
                confusion could possibly arise, once you've distinguished between 'nazar-'
                and 'nazOr-', I assure you that the variation 'nazarean' does in fact
                confuse us non-linguists, due to the circumstance of its being
                syntactically almost exactly halfway between 'nazarene' and 'nazorean'. The
                untutored eye, if it notices a difference at all, is likely to perceive
                'nazarean' to be a misspelling - but of what? No, Ian, to my mind it's best
                to keep things as simple as possible, by reflecting the distinction between
                the two roots in exactly two distinct English words - no more. Now if Jack
                wants to *always* use 'nazarean' instead of 'nazarene', that's one thing.
                But if he wants to be free to use just any old variation he feels like at
                the moment, that's quite another thing. If you encourage that kind of
                thing, before you know it you're gonna have us non-linguists running amok
                all over the place. And who wants that?

                Mike G.
              • Ian Hutchesson
                ... The s/z thingy is merely a problem of transliteration into English. The problem comes from the fact that the Hebrew consonants tzade and zayin usually
                Message 7 of 8 , Dec 2, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 00.47 02/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
                  >> (Bernard:) Jack, from where did you get NazAreans? I thought the
                  >> correct spelling was NazOreans.
                  >>
                  >> (Jack:) Mark 14:67 Just one more of the variants.
                  >
                  >> (me:)
                  >> Whoa, Nellie! My Greek edition has 'nazarEnou' at 14:67, the root of which
                  >> I thought we had implicitly agreed was to be represented in English as
                  >> 'Nazarene'. The other English form ('Nazorean') was to represent
                  >> 'nazOraios' and its forms. Are you proposing a revision to the convention,
                  >> or is my rudimentary Greek at fault here?
                  >
                  >> (Ian:)
                  >> If I'm not mistaken, Jack was merely pointing out the root differences. The
                  >> "-Enos" is a gentilic ending just as "-aios" is, leaving us with "nazar-"
                  >> and "nazOr-" as the two roots.
                  >
                  >Well, I think you are mistaken - or at least I hope you are. Otherwise
                  >things are going to get even more confusing than they already are (what
                  >with the s/z thingy et al).

                  The "s/z thingy" is merely a problem of transliteration into English. The
                  problem comes from the fact that the Hebrew consonants tzade and zayin
                  usually get represented the same way in English and only really has effect
                  with the fact that one of the words in the word play is nazir (NZYR), as in
                  Nazirite which actually has the zayin and not the tzade, which makes it only
                  a secondary connection.

                  >Although I can see how you might think that no
                  >confusion could possibly arise, once you've distinguished between 'nazar-'
                  >and 'nazOr-', I assure you that the variation 'nazarean' does in fact
                  >confuse us non-linguists, due to the circumstance of its being
                  >syntactically almost exactly halfway between 'nazarene' and 'nazorean'.

                  The essential thing to realise is that it is the root that is the major
                  thing: the suffix is a Greek addition that reflects very little at all, as
                  the data from Stephen Goranson's raid on this list displayed: you find the
                  same root with different gentilic suffixes with no apparent distinction
                  between them. Someone from Bosra is a bosraios or bosrEnos.

                  >The
                  >untutored eye, if it notices a difference at all, is likely to perceive
                  >'nazarean' to be a misspelling - but of what? No, Ian, to my mind it's best
                  >to keep things as simple as possible, by reflecting the distinction between
                  >the two roots in exactly two distinct English words - no more.

                  Actually, there is quite a good chance that the primary sources of both
                  forms boil down to the one root, simply derived from different forms of the
                  one verb. However it would be really useful to understand why one form of
                  the word is used in preference to the other.


                  Ian

                  >Now if Jack
                  >wants to *always* use 'nazarean' instead of 'nazarene', that's one thing.
                  >But if he wants to be free to use just any old variation he feels like at
                  >the moment, that's quite another thing. If you encourage that kind of
                  >thing, before you know it you're gonna have us non-linguists running amok
                  >all over the place. And who wants that?

                  (Humour is not an easy matter in email: I wrote a dose I thought to Steve,
                  talking about the symbolism regarding the two animals that Jesus rode on
                  [according to GMatt] into Jerusalem -- went down as straight serious stuff.
                  Ain't easy to do, matey, I can tell you.)
                • Jack Kilmon
                  ... The point was just that, Mike..it IS confusing. NZR and N(ts)R both have the same ZETA transliteration in Greek. We have both endings in the NT NAZORAIOS
                  Message 8 of 8 , Dec 2, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mike Grondin wrote:
                    >
                    > > (Bernard:) Jack, from where did you get NazAreans? I thought the
                    > > correct spelling was NazOreans.
                    > >
                    > > (Jack:) Mark 14:67 Just one more of the variants.
                    >
                    > > (me:)
                    > > Whoa, Nellie! My Greek edition has 'nazarEnou' at 14:67, the root of which
                    > > I thought we had implicitly agreed was to be represented in English as
                    > > 'Nazarene'. The other English form ('Nazorean') was to represent
                    > > 'nazOraios' and its forms. Are you proposing a revision to the convention,
                    > > or is my rudimentary Greek at fault here?
                    >
                    > > (Ian:)
                    > > If I'm not mistaken, Jack was merely pointing out the root differences. The
                    > > "-Enos" is a gentilic ending just as "-aios" is, leaving us with "nazar-"
                    > > and "nazOr-" as the two roots.
                    >
                    > Well, I think you are mistaken - or at least I hope you are. Otherwise
                    > things are going to get even more confusing than they already are (what
                    > with the s/z thingy et al).

                    The point was just that, Mike..it IS confusing. NZR and N(ts)R both have
                    the same ZETA transliteration in Greek. We have both endings in the NT
                    NAZORAIOS AND NAZARENOS and the key verse comes from Matthew 2:23 where
                    Joseph brings Jesus to live in Nazareth so that it might be fulfilled
                    as spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene." Now this
                    is odd given the Matthean scribe's habit of quoting the OT prophets,
                    even if he has to force it, to apply to Jesus..there just is no prophecy
                    that I can find that says such a thing. The debate usually centers
                    around Nazareth or Nazirite but the party-loving Jesus was certainly
                    no Nazirite.
                    "Christians" was applied by non-Christians to Gentile believers while
                    the Jewish followers in Palestine were called "Nazarenes" so it is
                    an important topic to try to sort out. We could go into all the
                    opinions of the patristics who also labored over this but my
                    general conclusion is that they were all confused...I will just
                    add that we have Pliny's Nazerini, Nazareni, Epiphanius' Nasaraioi,
                    Filaster's
                    Nazorei and the Mandaean's Natzoraia <n)cwr)yy)> and I am sure
                    a few more I could find...I'm going to leave out the pre-Christian
                    Nasarenes to keep you from getting dizzy.

                    Still, the debate focusses on the reference to Nazareth but
                    after all is said and done, I am inclined to draw the derivation
                    from Isaiah 11:1-10, the most messianic thingy in the OT which
                    is wyc) xtr mgz( y$y wncr m$r$yw yprh "And there shall come forth
                    a shoot out of the stem of Jesse and a branch shall grow out
                    of his roots." You have the juxtaposition of y$y (Jesse) and n(ts)r
                    (branch) and since Jesus' followers..certainly the Matthean scribe
                    considered Jesus that "branch" than we have a whole gaggle of
                    "branchers" Netzarim.

                    As far as Nazareth is concerned, I have no problem with Jesus
                    having been born there..it was certainly, according to the
                    archaeological evidence a Jewish hamlet at the time...but
                    it might not have been called "Nazareth" at the time. I would
                    not be surprised if an insignificant whistle-stop town just
                    might have been renamed in Christian circles as "Branchville."

                    Jack
                    --
                    ______________________________________________

                    taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                    Jack Kilmon
                    jkilmon@...

                    http://www.historian.net
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.