spin

Greetings. :wave:

Here's a strange analysis of a well-known biblical passage, Mt 4:12-16. First the passage:

12 When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he returned to Galilee. 13 Leaving Nazara, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali— 14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:

15 "Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the way to the sea, along the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
16 the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned."

("Nazara" is the best attested form of the place name in Mt 3:13 in the manuscript tradition.)

Verse 12 is a rewrite from Matthew's source (ie Mk 1:14). The rest has been added by our Matthean writer, including a supporting prophetic source which we don't directly have to worry about.

What's interesting is that, if Matthew is explaining v.12 by saying that Jesus left Nazara and went to Capernaum to fulfill the prophecy, it should mean that by going from Nazara to Capernaum he was going from outside Zebulun and Naphthali (ie outside Galilee) to Galilee (thus fulfilling the prophecy), indicating that at that stage he thought that Nazara was not in Galilee.

(Yes, 2:23 places Nazara in Galilee, but that verse is a means of connecting the Bethlehem birth tradition onto the front end of the gospel, so it should be added later than 4:13. -- And "Nazara" is the earliest attested form in 2:23.)

Anything contentious about this interpretation?


spin

Casper

Just from that verse, in the English above, I assume the leaving of Nazara for Capernaum reinforces the first sentence of returning to Galilee from outside of Galilee.

Unless Matthew's source(s) may have included some other bits that he didn't like, and Nazara was on the way but still in Galilee, like this:

12 When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he returned to Galilee. xx.On his way he stopped in Nazara to visit his buddy Joe and play Nintendo for a few days. 13 Leaving Nazara, he went and lived in Capernaum.

The example I used is intentionally silly just to make a point of course. I don't know.

edit: the more I look I notice some other things; Mark's story is simpler. He very skillfully (or by chance?) places Nazareth in Galilee in 1:9, and then in 1:12 moves him into "the desert". In 1:14 Mark sends Jesus back into Galilee (from "the desert"). I don't know what his intention was but this makes for a very smooth transition if one were writing stage set scripts for a theater play: Village, River, Desert, Lake and finally back to Village.

Matthew starts in 3:13 to really flesh this all out, but in doing so it is as if things take on different import, and a set manager would have to really think about how to make the transitions and what props go with what. Even some significance, IMHO, is changed; Mark takes fishers from their father and gives them a new father and a new kind of fish; Matthew seems to be concerned that Zebedee was left alone and gives him some hired men to keep him company, as if he were more concerned about the (anti-jewish?) symbolism of abandoning their father.

I gots nuthin really.

spin

This is the gap theory approach to the common understanding of the text, ie he went from wherever his temptation occurred to Nazara (time gap), then he moved to Capernaum. But the text doesn't say this. You are trying to make it work. It says,

1. "Leaving Nazara,
   
2. he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali
   
3. —to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah".

Do you think that says that Nazara was in "the area of Zebulun and Naphtali"?

Matthew doesn't support Mk's use of Nazareth in Mk 1:9. This lack of support clarifies why Matthew later has Nazara. There doesn't seem to have been a prior use of Nazareth in his source.


spin

Casper

Good catch, way to mess up my thought process It obviously is outside of the area, to be written like that (in English, and you generally point out any issues with English translations so I'm taking that for granted).

That was the trigger for my long edit, after the fact. You forced me to think about it and do a little legwork to support (or refute) my earlier statement. Thanks for that bit of discipline as well

Amaleq13

Welcome back! :wave:

I've found references that equate "Nazara" with Mar Saba in Judea but I haven't found an explanation for the connection. That would work with your reading, though.

spin

Hey!
I think it's Thieringesque , but couldn't get any further on the connection.

I don't think the Matthean writer knew where Nazara was. He just received the Nazara tradition. Later in the gospel's development the writer knows that Nazara is in Galilee -- more tradition development. What I'm trying to deal with in the overall scheme of this subject is to map the evolution.


spin

Casper

Did he not have it from Mark or did he misunderstand, or possibly bungle or even ignore it?

spin

The Marcan text 1:9 now says that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee (apo nazaret ths galilaias), while Mt 3:13 says that Jesus came from Galilee (apo ths galilaias). Had Mark had Nazareth, ie a town and apparently a town of origin, he should have been happy to use it. Instead, he is forced to use a far more generic territory rather than a nice specific town, not only not supporting his source, but suggesting that Nazareth was not there for him to misunderstand, bungle or ignore. This should be read in the context of the Marcan text saying that Jesus had a home in Capernaum in Mk 2:1.


spin

Casper

Got it. I just didn't want to assume what you meant. Now I see why you asked the original question the way you did.

JoeWallack

JW:
The Spinster! Obviously and appropriately "Mark" is within the scope of this Thread so I feel it is my Skeptical responsibility to point out that "Mark" has evidence within that "Naz*" is not original to 1:9:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

JW:
The text is clear that where Jesus goes to is Galilee. To keep the Literary balance, Jesus must come from Galilee. This author in general is big on Literary balance and especially Irony. This could still be accomplished with a Naz* in 1:9 but the balance is better without.

Somewhere in original "Mark" the author "established" that Jesus was a Nazar* and being from Naz* is the best candidate to do that. The combination of the unlikely existence of any Naz* for the time period and "Mark's" generally willingness to write Fiction to achieve religious allusions make it likely that Jesus was not from Nazareth.

Now "Matthew" 3:13 could be argued the other way. The author may have exorcised an existing Naz* in "Mark" 1:9 because of a belief (or even knowledge) that there was no Naz* Jesus could have come from in Galilee at the time.

Infancy "Matthew" explicitly says that Nazareth was in Galilee but this was probably added/forged to original "Matthew" which I would guess the Ebionites had. The Ebionites were Jewish followers. They kept the Law (like Jesus), didn't believe in the Virgin Birth (like Jesus) and knew that there was no Naz* in Galilee that Jesus came from.



Joseph

HOMOEOPATHY, n.
A school of medicine midway between Allopathy and Christian Science. To the last both the others are distinctly inferior, for Christian Science will cure imaginary diseases, and they can not.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page