[17] That the hypothesis of Smith here mentioned is quite admissible from the linguistic point of view has lately been maintained by Schmiedel in opposition to Weinel (Protestantenbl., 1910, No. 17, 438). [↑]
[18] Epiph., “Hæresiol.” xxix. [↑]
[19] Smith, op. cit., 37 sq., 54. [↑]
[20] [Isa. ii. 1]. Cf. Epiphanius, op. cit. [↑]
[22] “Enc. Bibl.,” art. “Nazareth.” [↑]
[23] “Since ha-nosrîm was a very usual term for guardians or protectors, it follows that when the term or its Greek equivalent hoi Nazoraioi was used the adoption of its well-known meaning was unavoidable. Even if the name was really derived from the village of Nazareth, no one would have thought of it. Every one would have unavoidably struck at once upon the current meaning. If a class of persons was called protectors, every one would understand that as meaning that they protected something. No one would hit upon it to derive their name from an otherwise unknown village named Protection” (Smith, op. cit., 47). [↑]
[24] Cf. in this connection Smith, op. cit., 36 sq., 42 sqq. [↑]