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

Re: Birth narratives (Mike)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Dec 1, 1998
      > 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.
    • 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 2 of 8 , Dec 1, 1998
        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 3 of 8 , Dec 1, 1998
          > (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 4 of 8 , Dec 2, 1998
            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 5 of 8 , Dec 2, 1998
              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.