Freethought & Rationalism Archive

S.C.Carlson · 01-08-2007, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This seems to reject the Marcan source for Luke, a source which clearly didn't have Nazara.

No, because Luke's sources are not limited to Mark. We're talking about a non-Markan source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

To claim that "Nazara" was in Luke's source, you'd need just a little evidence, but you haven't offered any and you apparently have none.

Evidence for it has already been cited and summarized multiple times in this thread, especially by Ben C. Smith. Making me reduplicate his fine efforts would be a waste of bandwidth. It's not like you didn't read Ben's work, I hope.

Stephen

spin · 01-08-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

No, because Luke's sources are not limited to Mark. We're talking about a non-Markan source.

Oh? Which source are you talking about??

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Evidence for it has already been cited and summarized multiple times in this thread, especially by Ben C. Smith. Making me reduplicate his fine efforts would be a waste of bandwidth. It's not like you didn't read Ben's work, I hope.

If you adhere to some hypothetical source for Luke's Nazara, I can only say that you are joking when it comes to Occam's Razor. You would be shredded.

I accept that the Lucan writer got the term from the tradition of the time. To postulate a more tangible source for a single word is sadly hopeful at best. The location ploy simply ignores the fact that the hometown scene has been moved.

spin

ynquirer · 01-09-2007, 06:48 AM

Quote:

What you seem blithely unaware of is the difference between my views and that of the writers we are trying to analyse.

That’s an interesting paradox for a deconstructionist. It is perhaps a serendipity that your views deal with theirs and that you have no means to sever the former from the latter. Yet, OK. I’ll take this statement under its best light. What you probably mean is that you’re interested in discussing your views on these writers, not mine. Touché. It’s your thread. Accordingly, I shall presently tell you what I think of your views.

The main problem is that you need a number of “Matthews” and not only two, as you have suggested. Assuming that their original source was Mark, and that Mark mentioned Nazarhnos several times but never did he mention Nazaret - this being, according to you, a later interpolation - you have the following “Matthews”:

M1: Contrives Nazara, a mythical toponym, through back-formation from Nazarhnos, so presented as a pseudo-gentilic from Nazara. Places Nazara in 2:23 and 4:13.

M2: Gets rid of Nazarhnos across the board while keeping Nazara as a mythical topomyn.

M3: Compares M2 with Mark and founds in the former as many voids as times Nazarhnos has been deleted. Replenishes the empty spaces with Nazwraios as an alternative pseudo-gentilic for Nazara.

M4: Introduces Nazareth anew in 21:11 so as to render mythical Nazara an earthly place.

(M2 and M3 could possibly merge IMO. You, however, have stated that they are different “Matthews,” and must have good reason to say that.)

All this theory depends on a critical supposition, that Mark did not mention Nazaret in 1:9. This, against all textual evidence, you haven’t proven so far. Furthermore, you began - first paragraph of the OP - by saying that extant Mark in this lacked support from any other gospel. I have shown your mistake by pointing at Mt 4:13, which precisely lends support to the mention of Nazaret by Mark. Thus, you now count on less evidence that at the beginning of the thread. Although lack of support from other gospels was the sole external evidence you had, argument from silence though it was, loss of it has not yet convinced you that most of your “Matthews” are liable to be beheaded by Occam’s razor. What else can I say?

S.C.Carlson · 01-09-2007, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Oh? Which source are you talking about??

If you have to ask this question, you're not taking this discussion seriously enough. Go back and re-read Ben's good-faith attempts to explain it to you.

Stephen

spin · 01-09-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

If you have to ask this question, you're not taking this discussion seriously enough. Go back and re-read Ben's good-faith attempts to explain it to you.

That's just downright rude. I'm involved in more discussions than you might imagine and you want to play these games. Either you have a source in mind for Luke's Nazara or you don't.

S.C.Carlson · 01-09-2007, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That's just downright rude. I'm involved in more discussions than you might imagine and you want to play these games. Either you have a source in mind for Luke's Nazara or you don't.

You were involved in a huge discussion about it with Ben. I know, I read it. If you can't remember what he explained to you, continuing this would only be prolonging the agony.

Stephen

spin · 01-09-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

You were involved in a huge discussion about it with Ben. I know, I read it. If you can't remember what he explained to you, continuing this would only be prolonging the agony.

If you are unable to defend your positions by yourself, then I guess they aren't your positions.

S.C.Carlson · 01-09-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If you are unable to defend your positions by yourself, then I guess they aren't your positions.

I'm not going to reinvent the wheel. Maybe I don't truly own my car, either.

Stephen

JoeWallack · 01-09-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW

1) "Jesus came from Nazareth" is not much of an implication that Nazareth was Jesus' original home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

This is not the basis of my argument.

JW:
It should be. Without it you have nothing. Speaking of Jesus coming/going
to/from Galilee I've been meaning to ask you. Regarding 14:28 & 16:7 saying follow Jesus to Galilee, does that sound Historical? How much practical help would that be trying to find Jesus somewhere in Galilee? Couldn't they have just had a rendevouz at the BenAgain's in Nazareth at the Sushekinah Bar? It's like someone saying to me, "Okay Joe, you're from New York, right? Do you know Tony Johnson? I mean what kind of a question is that? Turns out I do know Tony Johnson but it's still no excuse for such an asshole question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW

2) "Jesus came from Nazareth" is a better implication of Jesus' home at the time than Jesus' original home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Right. I think that Jesus lived in Nazareth until he underwent the baptism. I also think he was originally from Nazareth, but not because of Mark 1.9.

JW:
So Jesus moves to Capernaum with no explanation and no visible means of support (pun intended). I think that "Jesus came from Nazareth" is intended to show that Jesus came from nowhere (a nobody). Ironically, the very same place Spin is from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW

4) The dissed hometown Prophet theme of "Mark" works proportionately to just how much Capernaum was Jesus' "Hometown".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Where in Mark does Capernaum reject Jesus?

JW:
A little Dove tells me this is where your Edit was. In "Mark's" Capernaum rejects Jesus story of course. "Mark" explicitly identifies Capernaum as Jesus' Home in the first version of the story. In the second he just refers to Jesus' Hometown. Looking at different authors and related textual variation is no substitute for what "Mark" wrote.

"Mark" has a Theme of intial Acceptance of Jesus but ultimate Rejection. The author has interjected something into his Narrative between the first and second Capernaum story. What is it? Something turned the Masses against Jesus. What was it?

I guess you subsequently realized what "Matthew" and "Luke" had to say about Carpernaum. Not a problem for me since I rely on "Mark" to explain what "Mark" meant. But you seem to be blissfully ignoring them here. Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW

Sure, that "Matthew"/"Luke" both use the unusual "Nazara" is evidence of dependence but I agree with you that the dependence is each other. I disagree though that it was original "Luke" who copied. My guess is it was just Editor harmonizing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Another (pair of) interpolation(s).

JW:
So this is your son of Mantra against:

1) Capernaum first explicitly ID'ed as Jesus' Home.

2) Capernaum presumably next just referred to as Jesus' Home.

3) Nazareth never referred to as Jesus' home.

4) Jesus never shown as moving his Home.

5) Hometown prophet rejected working best with one Home.

6) Historical improbability that Nazareth was anyone's home at the time let alone had a synagogue.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith · 01-09-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
It should be. Without it you have nothing. Speaking of Jesus coming/going
to/from Galilee I've been meaning to ask you. Regarding 14:28 & 16:7 saying follow Jesus to Galilee, does that sound Historical? How much practical help would that be trying to find Jesus somewhere in Galilee? Couldn't they have just had a rendevouz at the BenAgain's in Nazareth at the Sushekinah Bar? It's like someone saying to me, "Okay Joe, you're from New York, right? Do you know Tony Johnson? I mean what kind of a question is that? Turns out I do know Tony Johnson but it's still no excuse for such an asshole question.

JW:
So Jesus moves to Capernaum with no explanation and no visible means of support (pun intended). I think that "Jesus came from Nazareth" is intended to show that Jesus came from nowhere (a nobody). Ironically, the very same place Spin is from.

JW:
A little Dove tells me this is where your Edit was. In "Mark's" Capernaum rejects Jesus story of course. "Mark" explicitly identifies Capernaum as Jesus' Home in the first version of the story. In the second he just refers to Jesus' Hometown. Looking at different authors and related textual variation is no substitute for what "Mark" wrote.

"Mark" has a Theme of intial Acceptance of Jesus but ultimate Rejection. The author has interjected something into his Narrative between the first and second Capernaum story. What is it? Something turned the Masses against Jesus. What was it?

I guess you subsequently realized what "Matthew" and "Luke" had to say about Carpernaum. Not a problem for me since I rely on "Mark" to explain what "Mark" meant. But you seem to be blissfully ignoring them here. Why?

JW:
So this is your son of Mantra against:

1) Capernaum first explicitly ID'ed as Jesus' Home.

2) Capernaum presumably next just referred to as Jesus' Home.

3) Nazareth never referred to as Jesus' home.

4) Jesus never shown as moving his Home.

5) Hometown prophet rejected working best with one Home.

6) Historical improbability that Nazareth was anyone's home at the time let alone had a synagogue.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Joe, I see no evidence here that you have read (A) my arguments on this thread against Mark 6.1-6a referring to Capernaum, (B) my arguments for Mark knowing that Jesus was from Nazareth/Nazara, (C) anything concerning what I do and do not take from Matthew or Luke to interpret Mark, or (D) my comments on Mark requiring prior information of his readers (and not just in 1.9).

Furthermore, your brief interlude about Mark 14.28 and 16.7 comes out of nowhere, leading me dangerously close to believing that someone has interpolated your post with these misplaced comments.

Finally, I am by no means sure what a son of Mantra is.

I already bowed out of the discussion when I found myself starting to repeat what I had already written, and you seem to be asking me to repeat it yet again. I already once literally went back to one of my previous posts to cut and paste my own words for you; please do not ask me to keep doing that.

Thanks.

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.