Ted Hoffman

You are arguing that Q has a Matthean spelling of Nazareth.
Spin is saying that you cannot argue this because the contexts are independent (which, by itself, argues against influence/borrowing). And that for your argument to have a starting point, you must first "explain why the contexts have nothing to do with each other".

In addition he argues that between Matt and Luke, we find diverse references to Nazara, not common, or agreeing spellings.

The forms of Nazara in Matt 4:13 //
NAZARA__________GMt 4:13___Variants: NAZARET, NAZAREQ, NAZARAQ
NAZARA__________Luke 4:16__Variants: NAZAREQ (Textus Receptus), NAZARET(Byzantine), NAZARA (Alexandrian and W & H)

I think if we stick to the Alexandrian Text and stick to Matt 4:13 //Luke 4:16, Carlson is correct though we do see variants accross various translations and passages.

spin

Sorry, this doesn't deal the basic problem, assuming what needs to be proven. First, Nazareth is an addition to Luke occurring only in the birth narrative, beside which there is only the one reference to Nazara, so one cannot call Nazara "a very unusual spelling". "Nazara" is an obvious back-formation when one doesn't really understand what nazarhnos means. And obviously Mt didn't understand because the writer left out all examples from Mk, though Lk didn't.

It's a non-argument to say that Nazara is part of Q because it is between the temptations and the sermon. There's a lot between the temptations and the sermon in Lk. It's a good place for Mt because the writer wants to move Jesus to his new home in Capernaum which is based on his reading of Mk and his assumptions about Nazara being the early home of Jesus as per 2:23 which also has some early tradition for the Nazara form.

(Our problem is that Nazareth is an odd spelling. How does Nazara derive from NCRT? It is easily derivable from nazarhnos, so that Nazara could have been in circulation, based on this derivation, early within the christian community throughout the Mediterranean, before Nazareth. The spelling of Nazareth is a crux.)

And Nazareth is more poorly represented in the earliest layers of the gospel than Nazara.


spin

andrewcriddle

Leaving aside the precise spelling of Nazareth, it is clear that in both Matthew and Luke after Jesus' baptism he goes into Galilee first stop Nazareth then after leaving Nazareth goes straightway to Capernaum. Mark is quite different. It would be surprising if this agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark was pure coincidence.

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

What assumption is that?

GakuseiDon

Well, my essay on Doherty and the Second Century apologists is all but completed. I hope to have it up on my website sometime this weekend. I'll post a link when it is up for anyone who is interested in looking at it.

My summary: Doherty shamelessly misrepresents the 2nd century apologists. There is no reason to believe that any 2nd century apologist didn't believe in a historical Jesus.

Ted Hoffman

This is inconsistent with your earlier position, which was that there is "insurmountable evidence that there were numerous permanent structures [in Nazareth in the first century]". If there was no "consensus" among experts, on what basis did you find the alleged "evidence" insurmountable?

You also write:
This is contrary to the archaological findings of Meyers and Strange. How did you determine that the inhabitants of Nazareth were enjoying economic success?
The finding of "considerable quantities of imported pottery and lamps from the first century have also been found there" whose dating is uncertain is certainly inadequate for concluding that Nazareth's inhabitants were experiencing significant economic success in the first century. What we have is evidence of agricultural and funerary activities. There is no evidence that shows that the locals significantly engaged in trade and the like. Please enlighten me.

And this is the best argument since it accounts for the discrepancies in the gospels.
Not Mark, Luke.
Doherty dates Luke-Acts to the second century. The following scholars do too.
1. John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p.124 - mid second century dating
2. J. T. Townsend, "The Date of Luke Acts", in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, p.47f. - mid second century dating.
3. J. C. O'Neill, in The Theology of Acts, p.21 - dates them c.115-130
4. Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, p.167 - dates them circa 120.

This shows us that the usage of the expression may have been anachronistic.
The best theory is the one that adequately accounts for the evidence. Theories are not facts and the strength of a theory lies not in how it is a fact, but how it fits with the facts. The above distinction therefore does not, in any way diminish the strength of the position Carrier incorrectly juxtaposes with fact.
I want to insist that what Luke stated regarding Nazareth (Re: cliff and synagogue as an architectural artifact) is incorrect. Whether he lied is another matter altogether.

Not true. Your conclusion has been that everything in the NT is consistent with the evidence and that therefore, we can conclude that there was a synagogue in the first century Nazareth. Here:
This is clearly incorrect. The Evolution of the Synagogue by Kee and Cohick is one resource, Lee Levine's The Ancient Synagogue : The First Thousand Years is another and Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress by Howard Clark Kee and Lynn H. Cohick is another among several other authoritative resources.
I am amazed that for someone of your erudition your view is that the research regarding 1st cent Nazareth starts and stops with a Franciscan Sociologist whose incompetence is well known to experts in the field.
The burden of proof lies in the one making the positive assertion. Lacking external corroboration, or having contradicting evidence, we have no reason to believe the architectural edifices and topography of Nazareth as described in the relevant gospel(s) is accurate.
Do you have evidence that shows that there was a man-made synagogue built in Nazareth at the time of Jesus? No.
Do you have evidence that shows that there was a cliff at Nazareth at the time of Jesus? No.

I fail to grasp the substance of this. What would qualify as evidence that there was no synagogue in first century Nazareth?
If is you to show us the archaeological findings. It is you to show us that synagogues as architectural edifices were widespread phenomena in the region. It is you to demonstrate that the inhabitants had the required skills and tools and wherewithal to engage in activities like building a synagogue.
I repeat the comments by an archaeologist:
The arguments you have presented regarding a synagogue and a cliff in first century Nazareth have been rebutted. Until you counter the rebuttals, your assertion above is made at too reclining a position to have much value.

Your recent formulation of the JM theory with the Bayesian formula is definitely more rigorous. Especially since you have set a boundary. I will look at it later.

spin

That Nazareth was the status quo when the verses were written. All you have to do is demonstrate it, not assume it.


spin

spin

The spelling is significant. nazaret doesn't derive easily from NCRT. How many examples of tsade -> zeta in transliteration can you find??

This seems to be misrepresenting the situation.

Mt has Jesus move from Nazareth to Capernaum, as Mk has Jesus's home in Capernaum, and Mt has to make sense of the two diverse indications.

Lk has nothing like this. You just have at some stage after Jesus's family went to live in Nazareth (according to the birth narrative) and when Jesus had become of age, he visited Capernaum. That visit can be derived from Mk, who didn't have the Nazara tradition available.


spin

andrewcriddle

The implication of Luke chapter 4 is that after the people of his home town have tried to kill him Nazareth is no longer his home in any meaningful sense. In so far as Jesus has any settled residence in Luke after his attempted lynching at Nazareth it seems to be Capernaum.

The main difference between Matthew and Luke is that in Matthew Jesus chooses to move his base of operation from Nazareth to Capernaum, In Luke the move is forced upon him.

Andrew Criddle

spin

Sorry, I should have been more careful. I should have said in this case, Nazara. I don't think they are the same at all.

And where in Lk does the text indicate that Jesus moved to Capernaum?? I seem to recall -- I'm away from texts -- that Lk was plain in not giving such an indication.


spin