Especially Gumby may be interested in this bit of speculation I found on the net. Some time ago a thread was started that revealed that Nazareth was founded as a village 100-300 years too late to have been the birthplace of Jesus, so what is the explanation for the Gospel story? At www.essenes.crosswinds.net/naz01.htm a possible answer in offered. It seems plausable that Nazarite is the correct intented word used by the author of Mark, the oldest of the 4 gospels. Modern translations have loosely translated the word used in the text there as Nazareth dispite the greek not implying the village. It appears that translating was a problem even back then as the word is possibly a Syriac/Galilean form of Nazarite. Later writers who spoke Greek or unfamiliar with the idiosycracies of Syriac idiom may have misunderstood the word to be Nazareth, which by then was in existance. The Essenes it appears had a unique practice of Nazaritship vows that allow for the Jesus story to contain historical elements including the drinking of wine. A uncanny resemblence of early christianity with Essene theology and practice has been expounded upon at length by authorities. It seems plausable then that if Jesus was a historical person he may have been an Essene who was born a Nazarite. If the link does not work I am unable to correct it,sorry.
Nazareth/Nazarite....answers?
by peacefulpete 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Scully
A person who hails from Nazareth is called a Nazarene. "Nazareth" comes from the Hebrew root word "ne'ster", which means "sprout".
The term "Nazirite" comes from the Hebrew word "na·zir", which means "dedicated one".
While the words are similar, they have completely different meanings. Kind of like "your" and "you're" or "there" and "they're" and "their" in English.
Confusing, isn't it?
Love, Scully
-
peacefulpete
Scully...I take it you did not read the link. I understand that your comment is the standard answer but it does not answer the late founding of the town of Nazareth. Nor does it seem to represent scholarly opinion about the etiolology of the words. I am suggesting that the gospel of Mark was describing jesus as an Esssene dedicated by his parents as a Nazarite, (perhaps for 7 years) and not that he was from nonexistant Nazareth. Subsequent readers and authors misunderstood his vernacular and added the Nazareth bit. This is also consistant with there being an early sect of Christianity that reputedly called themselves the Nazarites.
-
JCanon
A person who hails from Nazareth is called a Nazarene. "Nazareth" comes from the Hebrew root word "ne'ster", which means "sprout".
Interesting discussion; however, there is another consideration to include. As far as the town not being found, it's possible "Nazareth" was a nickname for the town which might have also been known as something else or been renamed something else later. That's the problem with archaeology, the entire story is not always there. It's also possible the town didn't survive and no critical traces of the town have been discovered or possibly the ruins were distorted by a flood or something. You never know. Which is an irony of archaeology. The archaeologists go in and dig into the ancient past but they then DESTROY the evidence at the same time...forever. It's not like a permanent record. So who knows. For sure archaeology would not have the final word on a town mentioned historically that just hasn't been discovered or recognized by them.
But, as far as Jesus becoming known as a "Nazarene" which is another reason why probably I suspect this town was nicknamed "Nazareth" (like Chicago is the "Windy City" or New York "the Big Apple") is to allow the play on words in reference to Jesus being a eunuch. That's because Nazareth means "branch town". Was it a suburb of some other city?
The play-on-words reference would be the use of "branch" or "twig" to refer to a eunuch or a "sprout" which is a word in reference to Jesus being a "sprout" from the stump of Jesse. In the concept of a family tree, various families would have other branches when they had children, but a eunuch, who remained single and had no children would be like a twig or sprout in the tree, representing only the person.
Higher Spiritual Reference: This reference that Jesus was a "eunuch" though becomes of interest to anointed ones on the spiritual level of Jesus' nature. That's because eunuchs tend to be more androgynous by nature. Of course angels are androgynous as well. Thus a eunuch personality would be more accommodating to an angelic identity than a non-eunuch, thus Jesus may have been born a eunuch ("some are born that way...") to accommodate aspects of his angelic personality.
This also lends to why it might have been said that John was the one he loved. After all, didn't he "love" all his disciples? Of course. But this was a special relationship with John, mentioned over and over again. So just how "special" was this love? Was this the non-sexual but "soul-mate" love a eunuch often develops for another man? Further, we have to consider that eunuchs in that culture were considered to have a "gift", that gift being not having the usual sexual drive toward marrying and having children. Plus, when a strong bonding type of love occurred between two men, they recognized it and even made a covenant with each other over that love, as in the case of David and Jonathan, whom David said the joy he had with him was "more than with a woman". My question would be, why make the comparison at all if this was buddy-buddy type comraderie, rather than a special "similar" type of bonding two men could feel with each other that was similar to a romantic love you felt for a woman? In which case, David was simply saying this was the greater romantic (though non-sexual) love in his life, what he had with Jonathan. Plus how are we to interpret their meeting when after not seeing each other for a while they kissed, apparently for a while, with David doing the more of the kissing?
Sooo...anyway...all that to just say, Nazareth ("Branch Town") might not have been the formal name of this little town, but it adds subtlety to Jesus being a eunuch. My question being were all eunuchs also called "Nazarenes"?
This doesn't dismiss the other theories, just adds another possibility.
Thanks, again, for this topic!
Canon
-
peacefulpete
JC...Are you implying that there exist "historical records" that affirm the existance of Nazareth early first century or were you speaking in generalities. As you maybe remember pointed out in gumby's thread that Nazareth was not found in any tax records or lists prior to the third century. So what we have is an agreement between archeaology and textural documentation. Nazareth to all available evidence did not exist in the early first century.
As to the eunuch thing, well, aside from the "angelic personality" angle I agree that there is a possible historical kernel to Jesus' sexual ambiguity. There are other factors in the story (noncannonical)that suggest as much. However, the Essenes also endorsed celebacy and had distain for the sexual union as unclean. Early Church fathers shared these opinions (even to the point of castrastion-Origen)and this may be seen as additional evidence of an Essene influenced Jesus. Perhaps he became disillusioned waiting for the expected return of the "Righteous Teacher" as found in their writings and decided to take action himself. When others styled him as the "expected one" he may have begun to believe it himself. This goes back to the original post and theme of this thread.
-
JCanon
JC...Are you implying that there exist "historical records" that affirm the existance of Nazareth early first century or were you speaking in generalities. As you maybe remember pointed out in gumby's thread that Nazareth was not found in any tax records or lists prior to the third century. So what we have is an agreement between archeaology and textural documentation. Nazareth to all available evidence did not exist in the early first century.
No. Actually this agrees with my position, that "Nazareth" was a nickname for a town and it's official name was something else. I've seen it expressed as "Branch Town" which does have some geographical reference, even suggesting it belonged to a larger city, i.e. a "branch" of a larger city, a small suburb.
As far as tax records go, therefore, Nazareth could have been included in a larger city complex and could have been taxed with them. Calling Jesus a "Nazarene" because he happend to be from the nick-named "Branch Town" would have made sense if he was a known or declared eunuch; thus calling him a "Nazarene" was a tongue-in-cheek reference.
Additionally, if this was a very, very small town not worth mentioning in the 1st century, it may indeed have grown and become distinctly independent or large enough to then appear independently in some tax records; so the tax references are "circumstantial" and wouldn't necessarily preempt or contradict the Biblical reference. The Bible's reference just gives us more information.
Interesting. The reference where the Ethiopian eunuch is reading about the physical characteristics of Christ in Isa 53 at the second coming is a basis for some believing Christ will return in the form of an Ethipoian eunuch at the second coming, appearance/demeanor wise. So I'm wondering if it is a point the Bible wanted to clearly make here as to Christ being a eunuch at both the first and second coming. Could it be the eunuch personality is more compatible with his own angelic personality?
Interesting...thanks for the reference and comments.
Canon
-
peacefulpete
While your hypothesis is amuzing, do you have any examples of the term "branch" having been in use as a metaphor for a suburb or are you simply transferring the 20th century idiom ("branch" office etc.) to make the Bible say something it does not say. When a person is faced with choices of what to believe, evidence should be the determining factor. While you have charactorized the archeaological evidence as "circumstantial" and the lack of documentary evidence as easily explained away by the conjuring up of an unknown town/suburb at an unknown location in the same district as the real Nazareth, you have not offered any evidence to support the scriptures that refer to the village of Nazareth. The hypothesis I posted dovetails well with the facts and may even be tossing believers in an historical Jesus a bone.
Created evidence is not evidence.
-
JCanon
While your hypothesis is amuzing, do you have any examples of the term "branch" having been in use as a metaphor for a suburb or are you simply transferring the 20th century idiom ("branch" office etc.) to make the Bible say something it does not say.
"Branch" is a generic reference, as in the branch of a tree. The "modern" concept of a "branch office" is related to the same generic concept of the branch of a tree. Therefore your premise is dysfunctional.
Even so, I was only suggesting some possible scenarios of why the town didn't show up in the tax records until later or archaologically dated until later, even though I have not checked out those details. Maybe I'll do a web search to see what others say about the evidence on "Nazareth", but I can think of several scenarios to explain the current evidence. For instance, a town missing on the tax records may mean it didn't exist, or it wasn't taxed, or that the taxation was not recorded. Can you confirm either of these absolutely? Neither can I.
When a person is faced with choices of what to believe, evidence should be the determining factor.
Not for Biblicalists. They "believe" based upon the words in the Bible. If some "evidence" comes up to support that then great, if not, they still believe. We don't wait for the "evidence" before believing if it's in the Bible.
While you have charactorized the archeaological evidence as "circumstantial" and the lack of documentary evidence as easily explained away by the conjuring up of an unknown town/suburb at an unknown location in the same district as the real Nazareth, you have not offered any evidence to support the scriptures that refer to the village of Nazareth.
The archaeological evidence IS "circumstantial". If a small town existed in a certain region and it was destroyed by a flood and then the land sold to a farmer who turned it into farmland, is an archaeologist going to be able to dig under the grape vines and discover this information? No. If I went to Egypt and entered a tomb and looked on the wall would I be able to tell which king was ruling? No. Why? Because the archaeologist before me chiseled off the inscription and it's now in some European museum. So the "evidence" moved. Doe the fact that I find a blank wall mean there was never an inscription? No. Archaeologists destroy ancient "evidence" all the time when they excavate. Why is it that we think that if some town didn't quite make it down to our day that it never existed? That's what I mean by "circumstantial".
The hypothesis I posted dovetails well with the facts and may even be tossing believers in an historical Jesus a bone.
Well, thanks, but....who is to say that "Nazareth" is the same as the one the Bible speaks of? That's what I'm saying. The old small town might have died out and we're looking at a new town development which was named after the old town. It might just be a coincidence. But I'll look into it further; it's possible someone has already discovered something that limits my speculation on the matter anyway. Thanks, again, for the information.
Canon
-
JCanon
Oops! Looks like I'm out of the loop here....
I got my lazy self to look into this further and I found this....
Was Nazareth inhabited?
Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor by Josephus, nor Philo, nor in early rabbinic writings. It was a small and obscure Jewish village, not an important center.
But in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered a number of farms at Nazareth, with pottery dating from the second century BC through to the 4 th century AD. You can read the details of their discoveries at
http://www.csec.ac.uk/farm.htmThe Biblical Archaeology Society’s web site says: In past years, excavators in Jesus’ hometown have found a number of agricultural structures, including three watchtowers, a double wine press, quarries and olive crushers.
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbDigBARsites2.html#17 -
peacefulpete
This has been discussed at length recently here before, a farm is not a city. Nazareth did not exist during the first century according to the most recent and exhaustive findings. Bible believers have again siezed upon anything to retain their intractable position. This thread was not about the archeaological evidence per se, it was about how the Gospel of Mark and likely Q used the word. It is entirely plausable and consistent with the known facts that the word meant, not a village, but the Essene Nazarite vows. Later authors or redactors simply misunderstood the term and wrongly assumed it to be a reference to a village that by that time did exist.