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

Re: Birth narratives (Mike)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.