[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Nazoreth vs. Nazorean

>Re: Nazareth:  There is NO epigraphic evidence before 3rd Century CE!  The
textual evidences from the manuscripts support the attribution (Jesus the
Nazorean) I've given.  The King James Redactors were wrong.<

We've discussed this before (either on Orion or Ioudaios or both!).  My
suggestion was that the term "Nazorean" represents an Aramaic form similar to
the one we see in the present-day "Natorei Qarta" group (meaning, "Guardians
of the City.")  The Aramaic root is cognate with the Hebrew root N-TZ-R --
likewise meaning to guard.  If Jesus' group did call themselves "Guardians"
this in Hebrew would be *notzerim* and in Aramaic something like *natorei*,
and could  easily appear in Greek as Nazoraioi.  Later, when there WAS a
city called Nazareth, it is easy to see how people could have imagined that
Notzerim meant "Nazarenes", i.e., guys from Nazareth. BTW, the common confusion
with Nazirites is just that -- a confusion -- the Greek zeta being used indis-
criminately to render both the Hebrew letter tzaddi and the Hebrew letter
zayin. (I wish I had a dollar for every student in my courses who started out
the course with this particular misapprehension!)

Judith Romney Wegner, Connecticut College