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

Re: Birth narratives (Mike)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.