Nazareth/ Nazarene revisited

by peacefulpete 4 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  I wanted to post this as an alternative explanation for the Nazareth/Nazarene description of the Christian Savior. Here before I posted another possible explanation for the word that involved Galilean dialect and possible confusion between the words Nazarite and Nazareth by the authors of Matthew and Luke. The following possible explanation seems to have merit and is held by many scholars as the most probable reason the for the Gospel reference to Nazareth/Nazarene when (to all available evidence) the city did not exist in the first century. ...............

  The Hebrew name for Christians has always been notzrim, and although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the 1st century CE, the 1st-century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the notzri movement, which had been in existence for about 150 years [1]. In the rabbinical tradition, Jeshu ben Pandera is also called Jeshu ha-Notzri (Jesus the Nazar). The Greek equivalent of notzri is nazoraios (or nazaraios/naziraios). The stem of this word means 'to keep oneself separate' -- an indication of the ascetic nature of this sect. The early Christians conjectured that nazoraios (variously rendered Nazar/Nazarite, Nazorean or Nazarene) meant a person from Nazareth and so it was assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. However, the original Hebrew for Nazareth is Natzrat and a person from Nazareth is a Natzrati. The expression 'Jesus of Nazareth' is therefore a mistranslation of 'Jeshu ha-Notzri'
• 

  City Fan

  Pete,

  The community at Qumran (the area of the Dead Sea Scrolls) referred to themselves as 'Keepers of the Covenant' or in Hebrew 'Nozrei ha-Brit'.

  Professor Eisenman argues that the 'Nozrim', a Hebrew word for the early Christian movement comes from this phrase. (James the Just p99). The modern Arabic word for Christians 'Nasrani' comes from the same source. So too does the word 'Nazorean' or 'Nazarene' At Acts 24:5 Paul is called the 'ringleader of the sect of the nazarenes'.

  A lack of evidence suggests that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus' childhood. The early gospel writers confused the term 'Nasorean' with the town Nazareth which had then appeared. The term describes the sect of the 'Keepers of the Covenant' and is nothing to do with the town of Nazareth.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Thanks for the contribution Cityfan. The 2 theories I posted here are related. I am currently engaged in some emailing with Bible history researchers about the abundance of misinformation being spead about Nazareth in antiquity. I post more if it proves valuable to clear the waters.
• 

  City Fan

  I'll look forward to your post.

  I've been reading much about the history of the Jews under Roman occupation and have come to the conclusion that most of these sects including the Nazarenes, the Essenes and the Sicarii or Zealots were very much united in their hatred of the high priest Ananas and the Roman backed Pharisees. It was this background of unrest that eventually led to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans. Early Christian historian Eusebius contends that the death of James the brother of Jesus at the hands of the Pharisees was a major cause of the Jewish revolt against Rome.

  Links between the Nazarenes and the Essenes can be further seen from the account of Stephen. The language he uses is very much the same as that found in scrolls at Qumran. Also when he quotes the book of Exodus at Acts 7:14 he does so from the Qumran scrolls.
• 

  Gamaliel

  cityfan,

  I've been reading much about the history of the Jews under Roman occupation and have come to the conclusion that most of these sects including the Nazarenes, the Essenes and the Sicarii or Zealots were very much united in their hatred of the high priest Ananas and the Roman backed Pharisees.

  I think it's likely that their most common Jewish enemy was the Sadducees, not the Pharisees. It's possible that's what you meant, but if you really meant the Pharisees, I'd be interested in the source. The Sadducees were partially backed by the Romans. The Pharisees were around since the 200's BC but I think they were still too loosely organized to either be backed by or be hated by the Romans. (But if Rome knew them at all, and their reputation since the Maccabean times, they would NOT have been backed by the Romans. It seems like they were still more of a more "democratic" grass roots movement of teachers (rabbis) that began to gain "organizational" credibility only after the Temple was destroyed and when they began to promote their own "New Testament" based on a kind of "apostolic/rabbinical succession" -- only it was the traditional rabbinical schools of Hillel and Gamaliel, who were the heroes rather than Peter and Paul in the Christian NT.

  The Pharisees seemed to be fairly well liked in the days of Jesus, and we don't even know why (or if) Jesus really broke with the teachings of Pharisees, since many seem to have taught equivalent doctrines. If the Gospels had been written in Jesus' day rather than 40 years later, he likely would have been described as an itinerant Pharisee (rabbi) just like Paul described himself. (But not how Luke describes Paul's Pharisaism.)

  It was this background of unrest that eventually led to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans. Early Christian historian Eusebius contends that the death of James the brother of Jesus at the hands of the Pharisees was a major cause of the Jewish revolt against Rome.

  Eusebius relies on Josephus for that idea. Funny how Eusebius makes a big deal of descriptions of James' robes that put one in mind of a (Sadducean) High Priest. I gather that the (Christian) bishops of major cities were already taking their dress cues from this idea.

  Gamaliel