and sins are, after all, not forced on us by our environment. Tlio.se oU'encesby which we provoke God, lie in our nature; lliey are no mere casual acts, they behing to our bias and disposition ' (G. G. Findlay, Expositor's Bible, ' The Kpistle to the Epbesians,' London, 1892, p. 104). In the con- text of this passage St. Paul explains what it is to be 'saved by grace.' His teaching agrees with the statement in 2 P l* that ilie inomises of grace are given in order that men who inherit a sinful nature may ' become partakers of a divine nature.'
Literature. — J. Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, London. ISltl) ; P. N. Waggett, Is there a Religion of Nature !, do., lilD'i ; W. L. Walker, Chrintian Theism and a Spiritual Monism, Edinburgh. 1906; J. O. Dykes, The Divine Worker in Vreatiim and I'roeidence, do., 1809 ; C. F. D'Arcy, Vhristianily and the Siipernalurat, London, 1909 ; R. Eucken, A'aturatiem or /(fooiism >, Cambridge, 1912. J. G. TaSKER.
NAVIGATION.— See Ship.
NAZARENE.— In 18 passages of the Gospels and Acts Jesus is called 'the Nazarene ' (the reading fluctuating between Nafapiji'ds and Nafupaios). The use of this designation agrees with the fact that Nazareth was His home until He entered on His public ministry. The incident of the census was the occasion of His birth taking place at Bethlehem according to prophetic intimation. After the Egyptian episode, the family returned to Nazareth. After the Temptation, Jesus returned and re- mained there until the violence of the people drove Him to Capernaum, which henceforth was known as ' his own city ' (Mt 9'). The behaviour of the people (Lk 4^) illustrates what is suggested respecting the repute of Nazareth in Jn l*". In Ac 24° ' the sect of the Nazarenes ' refers to Chris- tians as a body, and is no doubt meant in a dis- paraging sense.
As indicated above, the name 'Jesus of Nazareth,' in the Eng. version, is universally used to translate without distinction two Greek names, 'I?7croCs Nafa- prjvdi and'Ii7iroOs Nafupaios. A recent essay by E. A. Abbott makes it necessary to ask if both terms 'Nazarene' and 'Nazorsean' connote simply 'be- longing to Nazareth.' He holds and argues very successfully that the name Nazoraios is significant of more than mere place-origin. His thesis is that Nazarene, meaning a man of Nazareth, and Nazorcean, meaning the Neser or Rod of Jesse mentioned by Isaiah, were probably interchanged by a play on the two words; so that the populace, acclaiming Jesus as the Lifegiver and Healer, altered ' Jesus the Nazarene ' into ' Jesus the Nazoraean.' To state the theory more exactly, we should say that they called Him Jesus the Neser, or the Na(t)zora;an, partly because there was a pre-existing belief that the Messiah would be the Neser, and partly because they vaguely felt what Matthew ventured definitely to express, that His residence from childhood onward in Nazareth had been ordained to fulfil the prophecy, ' He shall be called Nazonean (i.e. Neser).'
This theory involves the conclusion that the use of ' Nazarene ' by Mark and Luke was an error, except in special contexts which may prove that the place-name, not the Messianic title, was meant.
There can be no doubt that the Nc.scr (the Branch) of Is 11' was interpreted of the Messiah, the Targum on the passage making that quite definite ; and it is quite probable that among the many names in popular use for the Messiah in the 1st cent. Neser had a place.
The evidence from hostile sources is confirmatory. Christians were contemptuously called ' Nazarenes' by the Jews. But the actual word used was NSsri. This does not closely resemble Nazareth, but it does resemble N6ser as used in Ben Sira xl. 15, referring to ' the branch of violence which is
NAZAKENE
NAZARETH
79
not t<i be unpniiislied.' Tli.it tlie enemios of Jesus slionlil call Him yvsri, ' iirancli ol violence,' is intellijjible if His friends called Him Ne^er, ' the true liranch.'
Tlie question, as Abbott admits, is a difticnlt one, but it must be acknowledged that he has made out a stronix case for regardini; the name Nazonean as more than a mere variant of Nazarene (see Edwin A. Abbott, Miscellanea Evangelica, II. i., Cambrid'je, 1913).
We lind ' Nazarenes ' used at a later period as the name of a .Jewish Christian sect liaviiig .some affinity with the Ebionites (see Ebioni.sM). The <;reatest obscurity envelops these Jewisli Christian parties. The information coming down to us is meagre, and there is little likelihood of additions being made to it. The Jewish side of Christianity, which gave so much trouble to St. Paul, declined rapidly, especially after the fall of the Jewish State, and eventually disappeared. Our best course will be to summarize the views of two authorities of our day.
R. Seeberg (Leiirbuch dcr Dogmengeschichte, i. [1S95J 50) endorses the ordinary opinion that there were two sects, the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, agreeing with one another in some things, diH'ering in others. Justin Martyr refers to the former when he speaks of some Jewish Christians who keep the Jewish Law strictlj' themselves, but do not impose it on all Christians. Jerome also says that they believe in Christ as the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again. They recognized St. Paul and his work, and used a Hebrew Gospel. Eusebius distinguishes them sharply from Ebion- ites, but says that they did not accept the pre- existence of the Logos. Seeberg thinks that Eusebius was mistaken in the last statement, confusing the Nazarenes with the Ebionites, who (lid deny Christ's Deity. The Nazarenes, Seeberg thinks, simply put aside Logos speculations. The Ebionites, on the other hand, required all Chris- tians to conform to the Jewish Law of rites and ceremonies, rejected St. Paul as an apostate, and regarded Christ as the son of Joseph and ]\Lary. Origen seems to know a second Ebionite party, who, while holding these Ebionite tenets, said that Clirist at His baptism received the fullness of the Holy Spirit, constituting Him a Prophet and Son of God in a high degree. They also held millen- narian views. If the Nazarenes had so much in common with the Church, it is strange that Jerome should say that, ' while they claim to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither.' Seeberg says that the Nazarenes were Jewish Christians, the Ebionites Christian Jews.