Biblical Mistranslation:No Nazareth?

[ralph124c]

I understand that Jesus was said to have grown upin the village of nazareth. Yet,such a place has not been identified by archaeologists (known to me anyway). Years ago, I read that Jesus was of the “branch” (ie. descended from King David)-the hebrew word for this is “nazorite”. Is this the source of the (fictitious) village of nazarith?
Of course, the NT Gospels say almost nothing about Christ’s life (bfore his mission at age 30). Are there any extra-Biblical sources that identify such a village as “Nazareth”?

[t-keela]

I couldn’t swear to anything ralph except the map I’m looking at has Nazareth on it and my Webster’s dictionary claims it is a city in N. Israel in Galilee SE of Haifa and now has a population of over 30,000 people. Its history dates back nearly 3,000 years.

[tomndebb]

We’ve had a couple of forays into this question in the past:

Nazareth (Thread is ancient and some of the posts from the UBB days are out of order.)

Part way into the second page of Is it true that we do not know what Jesus look like? there was an exchange discussing this point. (It skips around other posts discussing other aspects of the topic, but begins here and continues for several more posts).

[t-keela]

I think maybe ralph read this old wikipedia article http://www.fact-index.com/n/na/nazareth.html which doesn’t deny that Nazareth exists or has existed for a long time, just not that long.
Sounds more like an author trying to push his idea rather than just sticking to the facts.

[t-keela]

This is the last one ralph unless you want to continue.

Just one of many cites
http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/Nazareth.htm
It actually confirms some of what you said but also has some historical records regarding the city.

HISTORY
During the Jewish War, Galilee was the center of resistance to Roman authority, and Nazareth had always been a solid Jewish town. As a result of the aid given the Jewish rebels, Nazareth and Japhia were both destroyed n 67 BCE by the Roman general Titus

it of course goes on about rebuilding and other destructions etc…

Synagogue
An ancient synagogue, dating from the 3rd century CE has been identified at Nazareth. It measures 50 x 60 feet and is decorated with mosaics which represent the zodiac. This motif was not uncommon in ancient times.

Plus, I don’t have a cite but I’ve got a video. In Search Of that shows footage of the site and other evidence…

That ought to suffice for now, huh?

[BrainGlutton]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth:

The town is not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor in Josephus nor in the Talmud, but there are many indications that it was settled during prehistoric times. During the Biblical period Japhia was the important town of the area and attracted all the notice of historians.

According to the New Testament Nazareth was the home of Joseph and Mary and the site of the Annunciation, when Mary was told that she would bear the son of God. Nazareth is also assumed to be where Jesus grew up from his infancy to manhood. However, historians have called this into question suggesting instead that it is based on a mistranslation of original sources about Jesus. Such historians argue that “Iesou Nazarene” was not “from Nazareth”, but rather that his title was “Nazarene.”

<snip>

The name Nazareth means separated, generally supposed to be the Greek form of the Hebrew netser, a “shoot” or “sprout.” Some, however, think that the name of the city must be connected with the name of the hill behind it, from which one of the finest prospects in Israel is obtained, and accordingly they derive it from the Hebrew notserah, i.e., one guarding or watching, thus designating the hill which overlooks and thus guards an extensive region.

From http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html:

The gospels do not tell us much about this ‘city’ – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC’s famous “prophet rejected in his own land” quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any ‘Nazareth’ from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of ‘Nazareth’. Rabbi Solly’s epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mention Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

None of this would matter of course if, rather like at the nearby ‘pagan’ city of Sepphoris, we could stroll through the ruins of 1st century bath houses, villas, theatres etc. Yet no such ruins exist.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Just to note that “nazorite” (a better spelling is nazarite) is completely different. Within ancient Judaism, that was a sort of hermit-like life style: you swore an oath as a nazarite, devoting yourself to God. A nazarite couldn’t drink wine or cut his/her hair, for example. Samson is the biblical arch-typical nazarite.

A Nazareth inhabitant is a different critter.

[sqweels]

Now you’re messin’ with a Son of a…

[BrainGlutton]

@C K Dexter Haven

Just to note that “nazorite” (a better spelling is nazarite) is completely different. Within ancient Judaism, that was a sort of hermit-like life style: you swore an oath as a nazarite, devoting yourself to God. A nazarite couldn’t drink wine or cut his/her hair, for example. Samson is the biblical arch-typical nazarite.

A Nazareth inhabitant is a different critter.

So, IYO, what was Jesus “the Nazarene”? A religious nazorite, a resident of Nazareth, or both?

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

So, IYO, what was Jesus “the Nazarene”? A religious nazorite, a resident of Nazareth, or both?

If he was a nazarite, then judging from the gospels, he had abandoned nazarite vows before his ministry. I’m pretty sure they talk about him drinking wine.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Nazarites were religious ascetics similar to monks. Sampson was a Nazarite. So was Samuel.

The traditional archaeological site “Nazareth” dates from the 2nd century CE. There is no clear evidence that it existed as a town in the first century, or if it did, where it was located.

Nazareth is mentioned several times in Mark (c. 65-70 CE) so there is a first century belief that Jesus was from a town called Nazareth- or at least a belief by Mark.

A lot of Galilean villages and towns were razed by the Romans in the Jewish-Roman War and there isn’‘t exactly a catalogue anywhere of names and locations so it’s possible that Jesus’ hometown was destroyed and it’s exact location is now lost.

The site now identified as Nazareth was only identified as such in the 1950’s. There is not actually any reason to make that identification based on the physical evidence at the site. It’s just an old village in Galilee. No one actually knows what it was called. It’s not old enough to be the hometown of Jesus, though. Like a lot of other sites in Israel with Biblical associations, tradition, wishful pronouncements and a lucrative tourist industry played into its identification as “Nazareth.”

That’s not to say that no such place existed, only that if it did, no one knows where it was, and wherever it was, it wasn’t where it is now.
The short answer to the OP is that scholars still argue about whether Jesus was from Nazareth or whether he was a Nazarite. Nazareth as a hometown has a pretty early and consistent attestation, though.

My guess- I’m about 60% that it was a real town but that it’s location has simply been lost.

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain Amazing

If he was a nazarite, then judging from the gospels, he had abandoned nazarite vows before his ministry. I’m pretty sure they talk about him drinking wine.

The word could mean still more things. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene:

"Jesus the Nazarene"

There is scriptural evidence that the word “Nazarene” was applied to the early followers of Jesus. In the New Testament book of Acts Paul is tried in Caesarea, and Tertullus is reported as saying:

“We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5, New Revised Standard Version).

According to the New Testament, “Christian” was not the earliest term for the followers of Jesus, since Acts 11:26 reports its first use, in Antioch - at a time and in a place at least 10 and possibly 20 or more years after the death of Jesus. Many authors have argued that “Nazarene” was not just one term that was used before “Christian” came into use, but the dominant term, and that it was also used to describe Jesus himself.

The chief argument for this claim rests on an interpretation of the way Jesus is referred to by the writers of the gospels. The original Greek forms of all four gospels call him, in places, “Iesou Nazarene” (e.g. Matthew 26:71; Mark 1:24, 10:47, 14:67; Luke 4:34; John 17:5; Acts 2:22). Translations of the Bible, from the fifth century Vulgate on, have generally rendered this into a form equivalent to “Jesus of Nazareth”. This is a reasonable translation given that it is clear that all four evangelists did believe that Jesus came from Nazareth. However, it is not the only possible translation. Linguistically, “Jesus the Nazarene” would be at least as correct, and some critics have argued that it is more plausible, given that Nazareth seems to have been a place of no significance at the time; it is unmentioned in contemporary history, and it is not possible to prove, other than by reference to the gospels, that it even existed in Jesus’ time. The Vulgate does use a form equivalent to “Nazarene” in one verse (Matthew 2:23), where its reading is Nazaroeus (Nazoraios), but here the original Greek has the word Nazarene on its own, without Iesou.

It is noteworthy that the name “Iesou Nazarene” is applied to Jesus in the Gospels only by those who are outside the circle of his intimate friends. In Acts, however, it is employed by Peter and Paul— and even attributed to the risen Christ himself, in Paul’s account of his conversion that he gave to the multitude of angry Jews who had attacked him in the Temple (Acts 22:8).

However we translate these verses from the gospels, the evidence from Acts 24 does support the claim that “Nazarene” was an early outsiders’ term for the followers of Jesus. But it does not appear to have been the term most used by those followers: the earliest Christian writings we have, the letters of Paul (which predate the gospels by ten to forty years), use the phrase “followers of the way” or, by far the most common, “the church”.

Derivations of the word "Nazarene"

Regardless of these issues of translation, it seems clear that the term “Nazarenes” had at least some currency as a description of the early followers of Jesus. What, therefore, is the origin of the word? The following derivations have been suggested:

the place-name Nazareth, via the Greek form Iesou Nazarene. This is the traditional interpretation within mainstream Christianity, and it still seems the obvious interpretation to many modern Christians. In support of this interpretation is that Iesou Nazarene is applied to Jesus in the Gospels only by those who are outside the circle of his intimate friends, as would be natural if a place-name was meant. However in Acts it is employed by Peter and Paul, and attributed by Paul to the risen Christ (Acts, 22:8). Matthew 2:23 reads that “coming he dwelt in a city said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene”. Although no convincing identification of the prophecy concerned has been found, either in the canonical books of the Old Testament or in the midrash traditions, the phrasing again strongly suggests that the author of Matthew meant Nazarene to refer to a place name.

the word netzer meaning “branch” or “off-shoot” (as in Isaiah 11:1 נֵצֶר). This could in turn refer to the claim that Jesus was a “descendant of David”, or to the view that Jesus (or rather the teachings he or his followers advocated) were an offshoot from Judaism.

the word nosri which means “one who keeps (guard over)” or “one who observes” (as in Jeremiah 31:5-6 נֹצְרִים)

the word nazir, meaning separated. There are a number of references to Nazirites in the Old Testament. A Nazirite (נְזִיר) was a Jew who had taken special vows of dedication to the Lord whereby he abstained from alcohol and grape-products, cutting his hair, and approaching corpses for a specified period of time. At the end of the period he was required to immerse himself in water.

None of these interpretations is unproblematic (for example, the gospels describe Jesus as avoiding ascetic practices, which would make it odd to describe him as a Nazirite). The word translated into English as “Nazarene” was possibly a deliberate play on words that suggested more than one of these interpretations.

Versions of the word "Nazarene"

Matthew 2:23 uses the Greek word Nazoraios to refer to Jesus; in English this has traditionally (e.g. in the King James Bible) been translated as “Nazarene” (plural “Nazarenes”). However Mark 1:24 refers to Jesus as Nazarenos; in English this has traditionally (e.g. in the King James Bible) been translated as “of Nazareth”; however, because the correct Greek form of “of Nazareth” would be Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios, most modern translators prefer “Nazarene” here as well. “Nazarene” is also spelled in a variety of ways, including “Nazarean”, “Nasarean”, “Nazorean”, “Nasorean”, “Nazaraean”, “Nasaraean” (plural “Nazarean”, “Nasareans”, “Nazoreans”, “Nasoreans”, “Nazaraeans”, “Nasaraeans”). Modern groups which relate the Greek words Nazoraios and Nazarenos to the Hebrew Netzer (branch or shoot) prefer to use the transliteration Netzarim, the plural form of Netzer. A common Arabic word for “Christian” is Nasrani, believed to be derived from the same root as Nazorean, ultimately Nozrim.

No, I did not add the winking smileys, nor are they visible on the original page; must be a code-translation problem.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@BrainGlutton

The word could mean still more things. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene:

Yeah, there’s that “Nazarene” thing too. When you examine that particular word, you still basically get left with the same question of whether it indicated a place name or a sect.

This is one of those questions that will just drive you more and more nuts the more you examine it. Jesus was not an ascetic according to the Gospels, but the Gospels also imply that he was a follower of John the Baptist which implies that he may have been an ascetic at some time prior to his ministry. I personally nurse a hypothesis that Jesus was a former ascetic and follower of John who underwent some sort of personal or mystic transformation (perhaps precipitated by John’s arrest and execution) which caused him to abandon his vows and redefine his ministry.

Imagine if a monk abandoned his vows, started his own ministry and became popular. Would people still call him a “monk” even though he no longer was one? They might. I can’t say they wouldn’t. In fact, the irony of that title might be the point. A former monk going out and partying might seem unusual and incongruous enough that he could be identified by bemused onlookers as the “Party Monk.”

So a former Nazrite ascetic dining with prostitutes and drinking wine migh elicit the same kind of curiosity and his identification as a Nazarite might be retained for its irony, not for its technical accuracy.
Then again, maybe he was from a place called Nazareth. Mark pretty clearly identifies it as a place.

This is a question that just isn’t going to have a satisfactory answer.