Nazerite?

[Crucifiction]

One of the arguments I hear against Jesus being the Messiah {primarily from Orthodox Jews} is that the Messiah is supposed to be a Nazerite, and Jesus was not.

Can anybody provide more information on this? It seems to be a pretty fascinating subject. Why wouldn't Luke recognize this? Was he simply unfamilliar with a Nazerite, and chose to place Jesus' birth in Nazareth {a purely fictional town}?

[Toto]

Could you show where the Messiah was supposed to be a Nazerite?

[Crucifiction]

Could you show where the Messiah was supposed to be a Nazerite?

Unfortunatly, no.

All I know about the matter is that I read an essay on the Internet a few years ago writen by a Rabbi which said that Jesus couldn't possibly be the Messiah, because he was supposed to be a Nazerite; the same Jewish sect as Samson.

I was just wondering if anybody else had heard of this argument against the divinity of Christ, and if it was factually relevant.

[Atheos]

Unfortunatly, no.

All I know about the matter is that I read an essay on the Internet a few years ago writen by a Rabbi which said that Jesus couldn't possibly be the Messiah, because he was supposed to be a Nazerite; the same Jewish sect as Samson.

I was just wondering if anybody else had heard of this argument against the divinity of Christ, and if it was factually relevant.
I don't believe that there is any prophecy in the Old Testament canon commonly accepted today that says anything about the messiah being a Nazerite. You may be confusing the odd reference made by whoever wrote the book of "Matthew" (Matt 2:23) where it says "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene".

There was a difference between taking a Nazerite vow and simply being from the city of Nazereth.

HTH

-Atheos

[Crucifiction]

Well, I did confuse Nazareth; it's real, Bethlehem wasn't.

And I'm thinking this is more like an extra-Biblical Judaistic tradition; anybody have an idea?

[Ted Hoffman]

One of the arguments I hear against Jesus being the Messiah {primarily from Orthodox Jews} is that the Messiah is supposed to be a Nazerite, and Jesus was not.

Can anybody provide more information on this? It seems to be a pretty fascinating subject. Why wouldn't Luke recognize this? Was he simply unfamilliar with a Nazerite, and chose to place Jesus' birth in Nazareth {a purely fictional town}?
"Epiphanius, an early Christian cataloguer of 'heresies' mentions a pre-Christian sect called 'the Nazoreans' their name meaning the Keepers of the Torah, or possibly, the secrets (see Mark 4:11, 'To you has been given the kingdom of God but to those outside all is by way of parable'). These Nazoreans were the heirs, supposedly of the neoprimitivist sect of the Rechabites descending from the times of Jeremiah (Jer. 35:1-10). They were like Gypsies, itinerant carpenters. 'Nazorean' occurs once unambiguously in the New Testament itself as a designation in Acts 24:5: 'a ring leader of the sect of the Nazoreans'. Robert Eisler (The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist), Hugh J. Schonfield (North Palestinian Sectarians and Christian Origins), have plausibly suggested that Jesus (an early Christians generally) were members of this Jewish pious sect"

Robert Price, Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, p.53

Jdges 13:5 says "He will be a Nazirite". Matthew appears to have got Nazwraois (in the Alex Text) from that. This was later redacted to Nazarene.

I know, I have delayed in finalizing my Nazareth paper. :(

[TySixtus]

I was under the impression that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus, as the Romans had no record of the place. And they wrote down everything; so I can't see them missing a whole city.

I am of the opinion (like many others) that he was a Nazarene, a member of the cult that supposedly camped out in the wilderness and were in charge of maintaining the secrets hidden under the Temple.

Ty

[andrewcriddle]

One of the arguments I hear against Jesus being the Messiah {primarily from Orthodox Jews} is that the Messiah is supposed to be a Nazerite, and Jesus was not.

Can anybody provide more information on this?

I'm not aware of such a view.

Is it possible that the actual argument went something like this ?

Christians believe according to Matthew 2:23 that the scriptural
prophecies require the Messiah to be a Nazerite.

Jesus however was clearly not a Nazerite (he drank wine etc)

Hence by Christians own arguments Jesus is not the Messiah.

I don't myself find it a very solid argument but there are several Jewish websites putting forward this sort of argument ie one based not upon Jewish Messianic beliefs but upon alleged contradictions and inconsistencies within Christian beliefs about the Messianic status of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

[Crucifiction]

Hmm... that could be it; in fact, I think it is.

By the by, why do you not find it solid?

[andrewcriddle]

Hmm... that could be it; in fact, I think it is.

By the by, why do you not find it solid?

Matthew 2:23 is a puzzling verse but I doubt if Matthew meant to claim that scripture says that the Messiah will be a Nazerite in the sense of Samson or Samuel. Particularly since I can't see where in the Hebrew Bible Matthew would have got that idea.

Andrew Criddle

[Chris Weimer]

Judges 13:5 as said earlier? :huh:

[Notsri]

Judges 13:5 as said earlier? Is it really likely, though, that Matthew had a single verse in mind? He says the passage was "spoken through the prophets (plural)." All other specific and direct quotes from the HB are said to have come from "Isaiah" or "Jeremiah" or "the prophet," etc. D.A. Carson also points out in his commentary on Matthew, that aside from the unique usage of "prophets" in 2:23, "only here does he omit the Greek equivalent of "saying" and replace it with the conjunction [I]hoti, which can introduce a direct quotation, but more probably should be rendered "that," making the quotation indirect...In other words Matthew gives us the substance of several OT passages, not a direct quotation."

[Chris Weimer]

never said he had only one saying in mind, but mind you that it might be the primary verse and Judges technically is part of the neviim.

[Toto]

Judges 13:5 as said earlier? :huh:

The passage (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2013-16;&version=31;) specifically refers to the birth of Samson, not all messiahs to come.

2 A certain man of Zorah, named Manoah, from the clan of the Danites, had a wife who was sterile and remained childless. 3 The angel of the LORD appeared to her and said, "You are sterile and childless, but you are going to conceive and have a son. 4 Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean, 5 because you will conceive and give birth to a son. No razor may be used on his head, because the boy is to be a Nazirite, set apart to God from birth, and he will begin the deliverance of Israel from the hands of the Philistines."

I can see how Christians would not want to apply this directly to the Messiah, since they rejected the requirements of kosher eating. But they may in fact have had an unconventional interpretation of this, as they did of the passage in Isaiah used to "predict" a virgin birth.

[Chris Weimer]

Yes, the early Christians indeed weren't known for keeping history as history.

[Chili]

Take no offense to this cweb but what I think is so pity full about the above statement is the implication that if we had better records we might believe (and be happy). The problem is that mythology is not history and history is not mythology so we might believe and any evidence we find in history or even in the sacred scriptures is and will always be like a strike against us.

[Atheos]

Judges 13:5 as said earlier? :huh:
Judges 13:5 clearly refers only to the birth of Samson, not the messiah. Also, this message was delivered by "an angel of the LORD" who ascended back into heaven on the flame of an altar, not just your average sackcloth clad, smelly, dirty, prophet with a scruffy, lice infested beard.

While it's possible that the writer of Matthew 2:23 misunderstood Judges 13:5 I don't see how it's possible that any reasonable person could conclude that the passage in Judges somehow justifies the claim made by "Matthew". Nazarene and Nazarite are not the same thing. One refers to a place from which a person came, the other refers to a vow that included (possibly among other things) abstinance from alcohol and not cutting one's hair.

-Atheos

[Chris Weimer]

Atheos, as I said earlier, Christians weren't known for keeping history as history. The fall of Sennacherib referenced in Isaiah was taken by Christians to represent the fall of Satan, the "seed" of Abraham instead of referring to the Hebrews was taken to refer to Christ, etc... the list goes on and on forever. It's like the pesharists who took lines from Habakkuk to show how they prophesied current events. No difference with Judges 13:5, IMO.

[spin]

For the record, neither "Nazarite" nor "Nazerite" are correct forms, despite the fact that some translations may use one of these. The term is "Nazirite" from the Hebrew word NZYR.


spin

[Chris Weimer]

My Septuagint has Nazir for Judges 13:5, Matthew has Nazwraioc.

[Chris Weimer]

Also, Isaiah 11:1 and 53:2 could also be the root of Matthews 2:23.

Seriously, though, that gives a more solid understanding, if I'm not mistaken NZYR also means branch or root?

[Toto]

Also, Isaiah 11:1 and 53:2 could also be the root of Matthews 2:23.

Seriously, though, that gives a more solid understanding, if I'm not mistaken NZYR also means branch or root?


Isaiah 11:1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

Isaiah 53:2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

?

[spin]

Also, Isaiah 11:1 and 53:2 could also be the root of Matthews 2:23.

Seriously, though, that gives a more solid understanding, if I'm not mistaken NZYR also means branch or root?
No, that's NCR, netzer... but I don't really feel like rehashing this thaing.


spin

[Chris Weimer]

nun tzaddi resh? So, is it true what the Jews say? Do they call him the Nazorean (the Latinisation of Nazwraioc)? And if so, is this the same root as NZYR?

[Anat]

NZYR, as in Samson's context, is nun-zain-yod-resh. From this root there is the word 'nezer' (NZR) meaning 'crown' (I guess the connection is to the nazir's long hair).
netzer, NTzR, meaning young branch, shoot (in the botanical sense) is nun-tzadi-resh. Another word from the same root is the verb 'notzer' - meaning guard, protect.
There are cases of related roots where one has zain and the other tzadi - for example za'ak and tza'ak both mean to shout, call out, but I am not sure how common this phenomenon is.

[Chris Weimer]

And while we are at it, is nazi related to any of this, i.e. prince?

[Anat]

That's 'nasi', spelled nun-sin-yod-aleph. Related to 'nisa' - high. Another meaning of 'nasi' is cloud. Totally unrelated to nazir or netzer.

[Chris Weimer]

ah, my mistake, it is late afterall. I should have caught that. :banghead: