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

Re: "Jesus the Nazirite from Capernaum" and Tertullian

Expand Messages
  • yeshua666
    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
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 14, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      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.

      Tim O'Neill
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: yeshua666 Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:06 PM To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [XTalk] Re: Jesus the Nazirite from Capernaum and
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 27, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        -----Original Message-----
        From: yeshua666
        Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:06 PM
        To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [XTalk] Re: "Jesus the Nazirite from Capernaum" and Tertullian

        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.

        Tim O'Neill

        Here is the Hebrew of Psalm 80:10:
        כָּסּוּ הָרִים צִלָּהּ וַעֲנָפֶיהָ אַֽרְזֵי־אֵֽל׃


        And the Targum Aram,aic:
        פניתא מן־קדמיהון כנענאי ושׁרשׁתא שׁורשׁיהון ומלאת ארעא׃11 חפיין טוריא
        דירושׁלם טול בית מקדשׁא ובתי מדרשׁיא רבנין אמרין אלימין דמתילין לארזין
        תקיפין׃
        שׁבישׁת שׁבשׁין שׁדרת תלמידהא עד ימא רבא ולנהר פרת יניקהא׃

        Where in the last line above we see "Branches" interpreted as talmydaha
        (disciples).

        Lets now move to Isaiah 11:1

        וְיָצָא חֹטֶר מִגֵּזַע יִשָׁי וְנֵצֶר מִשָּׁרָשָׁיו יִפְרֶֽה׃

        And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch
        shall grow out of his roots:

        .......where the נצר "netser" (branch) of Jesse Ιεσσαι gave rise to both
        the Netseraya/Ναζωραῖος/Nazarenes and the Yeeshaya/IESSAIAOI/Jesseans and I
        find this in Epiphanius Panarion 29 5.1-4 "For a short time they were given
        the name Iessaians before the disciples in Antioch began to be called
        Christians (this was around 60 CE Acts 11:26 jk ) and they were called
        Iessaians because of Jesse, it seems to me, since David was from Jesse." So
        the Nazarenes were equated with the Jessians making the case that both of
        these designations, had the same origin in Isaiah. Also Nilus, Bishop of
        Ancyra, in "de monastica exercitatione, 3 This connection is also made by E.
        A. Abbott "The Beginning" (Vol 2) in "The Fourfold Gospel" (Cambridge 1914)
        p. 318. I accept it since it is the most logical connection and Ναζωραῖος
        perfectly fits the Greek transliteration with the addition of the noun
        ending. If a group was founded by someone considered by his followers as
        the "Netser of Jesse," I can see them being called the "branchers"
        (Netseraya/Nazarenes) and "Jessians" (Yeeshaya/Iessaioi).

        This "root" and "branch" formula is used in both Psalms and Isaiah.

        I think the Church "Fathers" were confused over the distinctions between
        נזיר Nazirites ναζιραῖοι and Nazarene Ναζωραῖος where the Matthean author
        flipped a zeta for a tsade (Ναζαρὲτ) to conform to "Nazareth" (which was
        spelled with the tsade) to force the Judges 13:5 prophecy ὅτι ἰδοὺ σὺ ἐν
        γαστρὶ ἔχεις καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν καὶ σίδηρος οὐκ ἀναβήσεται ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ
        ὅτι ναζιρ θεοῦ
        ἔσται τὸ παιδάριον ἀπὸ τῆς κοιλίας καὶ αὐτὸς ἄρξεται τοῦ σῶσαι τὸν Ισραηλ ἐκ
        χειρὸς Φυλιστιιμ "For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no
        razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God
        from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the
        Philistines." Matthew used the LXX because he sucked at Hebrew. Even Bible
        translators get confused since most translations spell it NazArite with an A
        instead of NazIrite with the proper I (the zayin before the yod in "nazyr"
        נזיר is with an hiriq gadhol).

        Jack

        Jack Kilmon
        San Antonio, TX
      • David Mealand
        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
        Message 3 of 17 , May 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          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 M.






          ---------
          David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


          --
          The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
          Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.