spin

You're still dodging, Ben C. The fact that Mark provides you with the information without needing to supply further specifications, such as this wasn't really where he came from originally, or he was shacked up at Peter's, should get you over "a home" and go for "his home". As the text offers nothing other than the simple meaning, you cannot contemplate anything other than that simple meaning.


spin

spin

The narrative didn't touch on his home in 1:21-38. You have a synagogue and then Peter's house, then he went around Galilee, before he returned to Capernaum and went home.


spin

Ben C Smith

Matthew 2.23 has Nazoraean as a gentilic for Nazareth or Nazara, period. Matthew 2.23 is wrong in that respect, period. No matter what Matthew found in his source, then, he was willing to make that connection. If he found Nazarene in his source (Mark, as in my view), then he rejected Nazarene in order to make way for Nazoraean. If he did not find Nazarene in his source (M1, as in your view), then he could easily (and on the model of the Gadarenes) have derived Nazarene from Nazara or even Nazaretene from Nazareth, but he chose not to do so; he instead chose a word that, by your own argument, no speaker of either Greek or Aramaic would naturally identify as the gentilic of either Nazara or Nazareth.

It makes no difference whether or not he found Nazarene in his source; some gentilic such as Nazarene is implied in the place name itself, but Matthew did not use it. The simple fact is that he made an unlikely connection, on purpose, in the interest of fulfilling prophecy.

I claim that Matthew has mixed the order of Marcan elements just as he does in many other pericopes. Call it complication if you will, but the bare fact is that Matthew does switch Marcan words, phrases, sentences, and entire episodes around.

Your table above omitted the oath or curse. Let me ask you these things one at a time:

1. Matthew has Galilean in the first denial whereas Mark has it in the last denial. Is it a coincidence that both Matthew and Mark have Galilean in this pericope at all?
2. Matthew has an oath in the second denial whereas Mark has cursing in the last denial. Is it a coincidence that both Matthew and Mark have Peter saying naughty words in this pericope at all?
3. Matthew has Nazoraean in the second denial whereas Mark has Nazarene in the first denial. Is it a coincidence that both Matthew and Mark have a naz- in this pericope at all?

I completely agree. Nevertheless, Matthew did not remove the term Galilean from the pericope; it is still there, just in an earlier spot. This is similar to what Matthew does with the pericope about being delivered up. Mark has this pericope in chapter 13, the apocalyptic discourse. Matthew has a parallel pericope about being delivered up in chapter 24, the apocalyptic discourse again. But this parallel is not very close to the Marcan version. But Matthew has yet another pericope about being delivered up in chapter 10, with no Marcan parallel. Yet this pericope is much closer to the Marcan version than the pericope in chapter 24 is! You can see this all laid out in my synopsis on my site. I actually had to do this synopsis twice. The first time I used the Matthew 24 pericope as my main parallel, but started noticing that the Matthew 10 pericope was matching better. So I had to go back and use Matthew 10 as my main parallel instead.

Why does Matthew do this? I do not know. But he does it nonetheless. The pericope in chapter 24 is almost like a placeholder for the more Marcan material that he moved to chapter 10. There is simply no comparative problem with Matthew interpreting the term Galilean with the accent bit and also moving the actual term Galilean forward in the narrative. It actually makes pretty good sense that way; we are reminded that Peter is a Galilean, and then we are told that his accent gives him away.

If Matthew got rid of Galilee in this pericope, what is it still doing in the pericope?

Secondary taint. What looks like secondary taint to you?

That is correct. I think Luke used Mark as his primary source document, and supplemented it rather heavily with Matthew and (this is where it gets all fuzzy) probably some other traditions most would assign to Q. I think that Luke got Nazara from Matthew, though if he got it from Q, that is fine for this argument as well. (You keep arguing against Nazara being in Q as if that were my position; it is not. But it would not hurt my position if it did come from Q.)

The feeling, I assure you, is mutual.

Yes, yet again, Nazoraean has nothing to do with Nazareth. Somebody knew that Jesus hailed from Nazareth and that the early Christians were called Nazoraeans, and somebody put those two ideas together artificially.

I fear I do not understand what this phrase means here.

Probably not, but in order to fulfill scripture and explicitly connect Jesus with the sect he (or someone before him) turned it into a gentilic.

Yes, of course he knew Nazarene was a gentilic. He knew about Gadara and called its inhabitants Gadarenes. He knew about Nazara; what do you suppose he would have called its inhabitants if it were not for his desire to link Jesus with the Nazoraeans?

Matthew omitted Nazarene because it meant someone from Nazara, and there were no scriptural points to be scored by constantly linking Jesus with the utterly nonmessianic Nazara/Nazareth. He used Nazoraean because the early Christians were called Nazoraeans and he wanted to justify that sect name with prophecy and tie it all into scripture at the same time.

Yes, indeed. Mark apparently had not yet thought of tying Nazareth into the grand prophetic scheme of things. To Mark it is just the place Jesus came from. The inconsistencies arose because somebody decided that Nazareth would make a good link with the Nazoraeans.

What is the symbolic difference between calling it Ierosoluma and calling it Ierousalem?

And, if you recall, the point to be proven was, not that a town can have two name forms, but rather that, given two name forms, a writer is free to use one or both of them as he pleases. That much is proven with Jerusalem.

If it had to be an ordinary town, why did you not build that into your request? Before I dutifully march out some ordinary place name with variants, are there any other limitations that I should be aware of?

The fact is that Jerusalem is spot-on as an example of what I was showing. A person can use form A of a place name to the exclusion of form B, and yet still know about form B. The same writer could also call it by two different forms without blinking.

Oh, good. More layers.

I think the parable of the pounds botches it worse because it ends up not making much sense. At least in the rejection at Nazareth nothing ends up senseless. Capernaum is still a town in Galilee, after all. The problem in Luke 4 is not a contradiction but rather an awkward editorial moment.


I think you missed the thrust of my question. If it is obvious, as you say it is, that Nazarene was derived from something like Nazara, then why do you object to there having been a Nazara after which to name a Nazarene? In other words, I am asking you for the derivation of the word Nazarene that Mark uses several times. You say it obviously derives from something like Nazara. What was this Nazara whence the Marcan Nazarene was derived?

But Nazarene obviously derived from something like Nazara, so what did Mark think Nazara was?

Yes, as I have said numerous times now, I am arguing this as a Greek phenomenon.

I already stated in post 104 of this thread that I think Luke conflates Nazarene with Nazoraean. Once he had both names in front of him (from Mark and Matthew) he used both. He seems to have seen them as interchangeable (that is, he fell for what Matthew had done), as did the fathers after him, I think.

You always want examples from me (examples of tsade becoming zeta, examples of points of origins with territories mentioned, and so forth). Now I want examples. I want examples of people adding the Aramaic -t ending to place names that already existed in Greek without it.

The synoptic gospels are the evidence. We do not have any natives of Genesar giving us any information about Genesar anyway. Was the author of 1 Maccabees a native of that area? Was Pliny? Was Josephus? You cannot pretend nobody uses Gennesaret, because the synoptists do. That is the evidence, unless you can explain why they added that Aramaic ending artificially to a place name that already existed in Greek.

And, after you have satisfactorily explained why they did this, you have effectively taken the linguistic and etymological element of the debate clean away, unless you can then show examples of this Aramaic ending being added to Greek place names. Because if they can buck this trend, they can buck any trend.

The possessive adjective your is awkward here, and I am not sure what its force is supposed to be, but yes, I think that Jesus came from Nazareth.

I think that Jesus came from an Aramaic town that Christians transliterated into Greek in a strange, but not entirely unprecedented, way.

Sorry, I am not following.

I am willing to cut ties with the Hebrew (and Aramaic) because the texts we are discussing are in Greek. Whatever the early Christians said about Jesus in Hebrew or Aramaic has now been lost to us except as we can reconstruct it from the Greek.

I think it is based on Hebrew or Aramaic (the synoptists did not invent a town called Nazareth or Nasareth), but once it gets into Greek it can go in other directions.

Starts off in Greek with this form, yes. The Aramaic form underlying it is hidden, though I have assumed for the sake of argument that it was the same as the Caesarea inscription from much later would have it.

Yes.

It did this time, however rare, and for whatever reason.

There are problems. I just think your solution by layering creates more problems than it solves.

I have already said that Nazoraean was probably never a real gentilic.

...but which you yourself have said was obviously the basis for Nazarene.

For which I am grateful. Nazarene sounds better than Nazaretene.

I do take that suggestion, though I was not aware it was your suggestion. I have read at least one article about the Judges connection in the JBL.

I do.

This sounds like you are asking me to solve the synoptic problem right now, on the spot. No way. It is simply a fact that Matthew drops a lot of Marcan details.

I still do not know what you mean by the synoptic core. Do you mean a primitive Ur-gospel? Do you mean Mark? If all you mean is details present in all three synoptics, that is not a real text. It is an exercise, and it has been done before. But just because Matthew and Luke lack a Marcan detail does not mean that the detail was absent from Mark. Sometimes both include a Marcan detail, sometimes one omits it, sometimes the other omits it, and sometimes both omit it.

What editorial intervention am I arguing for? If you mean the Matthean use of Mark, well, of course Matthew made changes to Mark. Lots and lots of changes. I do not have to hypothesize this; it is right there in front of us. Nor do I have to justify each and every redaction. There is simply no single theory that is going to explain everything Matthew did to Mark.

Where, in your judgment, in the text of Mark do we first learn that Jesus is living in Capernaum?

I do not mean that this is the only way to prove an insertion (nor is it the best way, IMHO); but it is the way you have opted for in your main line of reasoning. I mean that in order for you to use this line of reasoning you have to find Nazareth in conflict with something else in the text.

Absolutely.

Sure. It can also supply enough grounds to think that maybe he really was from Nazareth.

Of course. And I have the textual evidence to back it up.

Yes, I think so. And I have the textual evidence to make just that argument.

Yes, I know. But without textual evidence this time.

Sure does. I tried to cut it down as much as possible.

Ben.

Amaleq13

No, that he had left his family.

Ben C Smith

Okay, yes, I see now. That is a good point.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

This is very speculative and may be nonsense but I wondered if the reason Nazareth is rendered in Greek with a Z instead of an S could be to avoid malicious punning on a resemblance to NOSHROS Diseased

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Kind of funny, when you think about all the κακως εχοντες ποικιλαις νοσοις Jesus heals in the gospels.

I doubt spin will be persuaded, however. The tsade/zeta issue is his strongest (and IMHO only real) piece of evidence.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I have already noted that Genesis 13.10 has צער, which the LXX renders as Ζογορα, a rare case of the Hebrew tsade coming out as a zeta.

I would now like to present the following interesting treatments of Hebrew letters in Greek transliteration:

1. Genesis 22.21 gives us the two names עוץ and בוז; note that the former ends with a tsade, the latter with a zayin. In the LXX these names come out as Ωξ and Βαυξ; in Josephus, Antiquities 1.6.5 §153, they come out as Ουξος and Βαουξος; note that both now have a xi to transliterate the Hebrew tsade and zayin. This is not a direct analogy to Nasareth or Nazareth, but it is an interesting new twist on transliterating the Hebrew tsade.
2. Also, it is interesting that the Hebrew name for the Philistine city of Ashdod, אשדוד, becomes Αζωτος in Greek (see Acts 8.40), with the expected sigma becoming a zeta.

But these two examples are peripheral to the Nazereth issue. Of central relevance is the following:

3. Genesis 8.5 gives the name of one of the kings of Midian as צלמ�*ע. The LXX renders this name as Σελμανα, but Josephus renders it as Ζαρμουνη in Antiquities 5.6.5 §228.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Josephus, AJ 1.11.3 § 204, calls this place Ζοωρ, confirming the zeta.

Stephen

JoeWallack

JW:
The only thing I Am certain about at this point is when betting on Women's tennis, always bet against the heterosexual.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1

1:21 "And they go into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught.
[Jesus into Capernaum]

-----1:22 And they were astonished at his teaching: For he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes.
-----[Amazed at Teaching Authority]

----------1:23 And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
----------[Unclean Spirit]

---------------1:24 saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Nazarene? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
---------------[Evil Spirit Affirms Christ]

---------------1:25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
---------------[Jesus Denies Christ]

----------1:26 And the unclean spirit, tearing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him.
----------[Unclean Spirit]

-----1:27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What is this? a new teaching! with authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.
-----[Amazed at Healing Authority]

1:28 And the report of him went out straightway everywhere into all the region of Galilee round about."
[Jesus out of Capernaum]


JW:
You've seen enough Markan Chiasms now Ben to stop Denying them I think. The Key to the Markan story in general and specifically to the Chiasms is Contrast. The Point of this Chiasm is the Contrast in the middle. The Evil Spirits want to Affirm Jesus as the Christ. Jesus Denies them from doing so. Pure Separationist Theology. The Author is building a Theme that it wasn't the Glory of Teaching/Healing that made his Jesus the Messiah. It was the Passion that made the son of man. Note that this Theme is continued with the Disciples. Jesus teaches Indirectly and instructs his Disciples to remain silent during his Teaching/Healing Ministry. Then he Flips and Directly instructs his Disciples to speak out during and after his Passion. This is likely the Author's Reaction & Rejection to the Historical Disciples who taught the Glory of a Teaching/Healing Jesus.

As the above relates to the issue at hand, Where was Jesus' home per "Mark", this is the first story for Capernaum. "Mark" has an overall Structure of Jesus journeying from Home (or at least close to or in the area) to the surrounding area, to Israel, to neighboring countries and finally to Jerusalem. This structure isn't perfect as for instance Jesus returns home but I think that's to make a theological point (surprise) and I think the overall Journey from Home to Jerusalem is there. I think "Mark's" implication is that after Jesus' Baptism under Fire, so to speak, he returned Home. To Capernaum. And began his Ministry there.

So for Starters, I think "Mark" Specifically places Jesus back Home after his Baptism and Generally wants him "Home" for the Start of his Ministry for Structural reasons. Thus, only considering the Specifics of Mark 1 and the General structure of "Mark" and not considering the specifics of the other Markan Capernaum/Home stories I ID Capernaum as what "Mark" wanted to communicate was Jesus' "Home". As far as Jesus' possible New home vs. Old home that's a distinguishment the Author doesn't address and in my opinion doesn't care about. The Author's Primary concern here is Literary Style and not History. If you are trying to get History out of it than the implication is that this was Jesus' home any way you look at it.



Joseph

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