Talk:Nazarene (title)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hebrew[edit]

While I think that word origins are fascinating, the addition of "(Hebrew: ha-Notzri, cf. notzrim)" seems more to do with an article on a Judeo-Christian sect than the etymology. It's been proposed that the article be merged with Nazarene (sect) and its addition here seems to imply that the subject of disambiguation, "Nazarene", is more notzrim than anything other meaning. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the disambiguation? Its addition certainly wouldn't serve the purpose of learning the etymology if the articles were, indeed, merged and it linked straight to Nazarene (sect). I think that'd only convince me further that its addition defeats the purpose of the disambiguation. --Aepoutre (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. But still there is a relation there which has interest. Maybe it would be better under the "See also" section. -Stevertigo 23:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, your edits seems to have some veracity issues. In contrast to our statement that "The Hebrew term for Nazareth is "Notzri," (as used in "Yeshu ha-Notzri ("Jesus the Nazarene")," I quote Nazareth: "Nazareth (English pronunciation: /ˈnæzərəθ/; Hebrew: נָצְרַת‬, Natzrat or Natzeret, Arabic: الناصرةan-Nāṣira or an-Naseriyye)..." I only took a little Hebrew in college, but these don't look the same to me, and the English Wikipedia should still be accessible and instructive to English speakers who haven't learned Hebrew and can't assume such lingustic relationships.

Secondly, I agree that a See Also would be great, but the Notzrim article would be a better See Also under Nazarene (sect) (if they aren't merged, that is, in which case the entire point would be moot), since it has a better relationship with that topic than with the broader term "Nazarene". There is a fascinating relationship, but it seems this disambiguation page is being used almost as a stub article. In fact, the See Also section you added to this disambiguation page has its own "See also Netzarim." I'm fairly certain that disambiguation pages aren't meant to be much more than a simple listing and brief explanation, and I fail to see the Netzarim connexion, other than a possible linguistic connexion (but one that is neither mentioned, as far as I can tell, in any of these articles). I sincerely doubt that anyone looking for "Nazarene" would be seeking "Netzarim", which even has a disambiguation page of its own at Netzarim (disambiguation).

Let me know if I've missed something, but I really think we could come to a better arrangement than the current one, which I've left for now. --Aepoutre (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be right. My transliteration was not quite accurate. Thanks -Stevertigo 20:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Page style[edit]

From what I can tell, this is not a disambiguation page. It doesn't seem to look like any other disambiguation page I've ever seen, its lead says it's an article, and it doesn't seem to meet MOS:DAB. --King of the Arverni (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

The lede is supposed to summarize the article. It is not redundant to have the same information in the lede and later in the article. See WP:LEAD. Verse numbers belong in footnotes. The article is about the title for Jesus. So the titles should be given separately and not meshed together with variants that refer exclusively to the city of Nazareth. Kauffner (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusing Synthesis of extremely POV and poor quality Original Research[edit]

I doubt we need yet another page on Nazarene, but if this page is to escape a vfd then please someone butcher it and get it back to basics. Many thanks.82.6.115.62 (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus from Nazareth?[edit]

Pretty much any mainstream writer on this subject will describe Jesus as "from Nazareth"/"grew up in Nazareth"/"boyhood home in Nazareth"/etc. The possibility that Nazareth didn't exist in New Testament times is discussed in the literature and certainly deserves a mention somewhere in the article. But it is not even close to being a mainstream opinion and the article should not be written as if it was. Just because a sentence mentions Nazareth is not sufficient reason to modify it so as to push this marginal theory. Who else portrays the issue as "confessional"? This spin is just OR, as near as I can tell. Kauffner (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nazarene which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 18:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible relation to the term Nazirite?[edit]

I don't know that this has ever been written down by anyone, but it always struck me as kind of obvious that the term "Nazarene" in this context might have been a linguistic slip of someone who was thinking of the above term. Has this been discussed anywhere? John Carter (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The similarity is even closer in Greek. This is already mentioned in the second paragraph. Kauffner (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 07:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)



Nazarene (title)The Nazarene — A previous request suggested that this article should become Nazarene, but was closed as a keep. This is an alternative proposal along the same lines. "The Nazarene" is a title referring uniquely to Jesus, and should thus not meet the disambiguation objections made to the previous requested move. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Utilizing "The" at the start of an articles is normally avoided. To be honest, this appears to be an attempt to circumvent around the spirit of the previous discussion that took place 2 months ago (Talk:Nazarene#Requested_move), which had no consensus.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the Nazarene could refer to multiple entries in the dab page Nazarene. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Translating "Nazarene", "Nazorean"[edit]

I changed the translations of these words to correspond to those given by KJV and NKJV. The translations given by User:In ictu oculi don't seem to correspond to those given by any major version. Rather, they seem intended to explain the differences between among the Greek tenses, which IMO is beyond the scope of this article. Just because a noun is masculine in Greek doesn't necessarily mean we have to translate it in the form "man of ...". It is certainly not the way any major translation renders Matthew 2:23, for example.[1] The fact that a form is masculine, nominative, or whatever is still given, so no information has been lost. Kauffner (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kauffner, I can't actually see any difference but if you say they've been KJVised fine by me. You need to go back and correct proper noun for "man of Nazareth". (And btw, with nouns it is declination of grammatical case not verb tense but that's only here on talk). Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I took out "man of Nazareth," but I guess you mean Nazorean. The Blue Letter Bible calls it a "proper masculine noun". Kauffner (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Trophimus the Ephesian etc.[edit]

Someone removed reference to Lucius of Cyrene, I restored it. There's a reason that all Bible versions translate "of Nazareth" not "Nazarene" and that's that this usage is completely natural in Greek. The article should reflect the mainstream view first and fringe views second. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Does any source connect "Lucius the Cyrenian" to "Jesus the Nazarene"? Citing a Greek grammar book certainly looks ORish. I think we can speculate a bit in this article, but the second paragraph should be not be free floating original thinking. Matthew understands Nazorean/Nazarene to be a word from scriptural prophesy, so many commentators have noted that it must have a double meaning. That Ναζαρηνέ translates as "Nazarene" is a "fringe view"? Any lexicon will tell you this. Young's Literal Translation gives, "Jesus the Nazarene" as their main translation. NASB puts "Lit the Nazarene" in a footnote. (Mark 1:24) Read the parallel translations for Matthew 2:23 and then tell me what "all Bible versions" do. Kauffner (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kauffner, if you don't mind me saying you're being a bit difficult lately. Please read what I said above - all Bible versions translate "of Nazareth" not "Nazarene." This obviously relates to the mass of NT uses which have "of Nazareth" not to the 2 outliers which don't. Was it you who deleted the mention of Lukios o Kyrenaios before? Well I was wrong actually, the passing mention of nazaraoios on Wallace p457 is not to nazaraios as a geographical surname (patrial name) such as Kurenaios, Efesios. But nevertheless all Bible versions translate Iesus o Nazaraios as Jesus of Nazareth, and all dictionaries and grammars treat nazaraios/nazarenos firstly as a geographic surname, like any of the 1,000s of other geographical surnames in Greek texts. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
That "Nazarene" refers to the city of Nazareth is implied by the opening sentence. So this aspect of the issue is already given the most prominent mention possible. Getting this sentence in the article required a lengthy edit war, so I find ironic that I am now accused of obscuring this issue. Kauffner (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of an edit war to get "Nazareth" into the lede (it staggers me that an edit war would be needed), even in the muted form it was in. I wasn't accusing you of obscuring the issue, but looking at this edit I don't think removing all of this helps. This is, in effect, an article about a Greek noun and how it should be translated. What else is it about? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Koran translation[edit]

The following translation, which appear on the page, is essentially incomprehensible: "2:113. The Jews say the (Naṣara) Nazarenes are not on anything, and the (Naṣara) Nazarenes say it is the Jews who are not on anything. Yet they both read the Book. And those who do not know say like their saying. Allah will judge between them their disputes on the Day of Resurrection." Chris k (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nazarite[edit]

Just a heads-up the issue of Jesus as a Nazarite, and therefore the term itself as well as the existence of Nazareth in Pre-New Testament and New Testament times is hotly debated amoungst theologians and biblical scholars. It is not a "fringe" view but one held by many respected theologians and biblical scholars. EG: "The practice of a nazirite vow is part of the ambiguity of the Greek term "Nazarene"[32] that appears in the New Testament; the sacrifice of a lamb and the offering of bread does suggest a relationship with Christian symbolism (then again, these are the two most frequent offerings prescribed in Leviticus, so no definitive conclusions can be drawn). While a saying in (Matthew 11:18–19 and Luke 7:33–35 ) attributed to Jesus makes it doubtful that he, reported to be "a winebibber", was a nazirite during his ministry, the verse ends with the curious statement, "But wisdom is justified of all her children". The advocation of the ritual consumption of wine as part of the Eucharist, the tevilah in Mark 14:22–25 indicated he kept this aspect of the nazirite vow when Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." The ritual with which Jesus commenced his ministry (recorded via Greek as "Baptism") and his vow in Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:15–18 at the end of his ministry, do respectively reflect the final and initial steps (purification by immersion in water and abstaining from wine) inherent in a Nazirite vow. These passages may indicate that Jesus intended to identify himself as a Nazirite ("not drinking the fruit of vine") before his crucifixion.[33]" From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite#Nazirites_in_the_New_Testament

also: Matthew 2:19-23

 In this is said to be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Which may be looked upon,

Dr. Matthew Henry's Commentary:

 (1.) As a man of honour and dignity, though primarily it signifies no more than a man of Nazareth; there is an allusion or mystery in speaking it, speaking Christ to be,
 [1.] The Man, the Branch, spoken of, <Isa. 11:1>. The word there is Netzar, which signifies either a branch, or the city of Nazareth; in being denominated from that city, he is declared to be that Branch.
 [2.] it speaks him to be the great Nazarite; of whom the legal Nazarites were a type and figure (especially Samson, <Judg. 13:5>), and Joseph, who is called a Nazarite among his brethren <Gen. 49:26>, and to whom that which was prescribed concerning the Nazarites, has reference, <Num. 6:2>, etc. Not that Christ was, strictly, a Nazarite, for he drank wine, and touched dead bodies; but he was eminently so, both as he was singularly holy, and as he was by a solemn designation and dedication set apart to the honour of God in the work of our redemption, as Samson was to save Israel. And it is a name we have all reason to rejoice in, and to know him by. Or,
 (2.) As a name of reproach and contempt. To be called a Nazarene, was to be called a despicable man, a man from whom no good was to be expected, and to whom no respect was to be paid. The devil first fastened this name upon Christ, to render him mean, and prejudice people against him, and it stuck as a nickname to him and his followers. Now this was not particularly foretold by any one prophet, but, in general, it was spoken by the prophets, that he should be despised and rejected of men <Isa. 53:2-3>, a Worm, and no man <Ps. 22:6-7>, that he should be an Alien to his brethren <Ps. 69:7-8>. Let no name of reproach for religion's sake seem hard to us, when our Master was himself called a Nazarene.

(from Matthew Henry's Commentary)

another viewpoint on the etymology: "Still, even though some claim it from an Aramaic word meaning 'watchtower,' it seems possible that the name Nazareth comes from the same root as the word Nazirite, namely the verb (nazar), to separate (or consecrate). With certain prepositions this verb may be used to mean to keep oneself away from something, or to abstain from something, or to separate to somewhere. Derivation (nezer) is the noun associated with the verb and means separation or consecration. The derivation (nazir) denotes first of all the Nazarite, but also certain special items or people who were separate for a reason other than the Nazirite vow." http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Nazirite.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrConroy (talkcontribs) 00:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)