spin

You prefer the foxtrot?

No, there doesn't have to be, but the connection will be irresistible for those who'll wish to repudiate the value of the Nazara reference.

I couldn't disagree more. This is the blind alley that many have wandered up, including Eisenman.

1. Both Tertullian and Eusebius refer to different HB references dealing with Nazirites, while Matthew's "prophets" reference in 2:23 refers back to the birth of the Nazirite Samson.
2. I have argued here and will eventually finish a paper which partly deals with the fact that the Semitic Tsade is almost never transliterated as a Greek zeta.

spin

DCHindley

Before you make that a hard and fast rule, you might consider some information that Ben has on his Text Excavation site:

"However, the transliteration of a Hebrew tsade with a Greek sigma is not a hard and fast rule, as the same article reminds us (though without giving examples, which I intend to supply here). The Hebrew tsade can sometimes produce a Greek zeta or even a Greek xi (which letter is simply a consonant blend of kappa and sigma). Genesis 13.10 has צער, which the LXX renders as Ζογορα; Josephus renders this as Ζωωρ in Antiquities 1.11.4 §204. 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. 1 Samuel 14.4 mentions a crag named בוצץ, which the LXX renders as Βαζες, turning one tsade into the expected sigma and the other into a zeta. (A Hebrew name in Genesis 14.7 with a double tsade, חצצון תמר, is transliterated into Greek as Ασασανθαμαρ, with the expected double sigma.) 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. 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."

http://www.textexcavation.com/rejnaz.html

"Almost never" really means "sometimes it is."

DCH (taking my union mandated mid-morning break)

Ben C Smith

Spin has seen those examples before; I compiled them mainly in response to his arguments about Nazara and Nazareth on an IIDB thread.

Ben.

spin

You have the rule contrary to reality. In the nt manuscript tradition, there is not a single sigma in the representation of Nazara/Nazareth/Nazarene/Nazorean.

All known about naturally. As Zoara is mentioned several times in the HB, you should see how often it is rendered with a zeta and how often with a sigma. Multiple attestations of a word are more useful -- against simple transcription errors --, so while I know of the others, it is only Zoara that is really useful, for so far it is the one example I can find in the LXX that is rendered with a zeta (even a few times). And Zoara was not a Hebrew town, so you cannot expect its name to follow Hebrew related behaviour.

How many times have you seen Zion rendered with a zeta in Greek? Zadok? Zephaniah? Zedekiah? Try Jabez, Jehozadak, Mizraim, Perez, Tirzah. I mean ever? Not just LXX, but Josephus?

(And didn't I supply Zoara and Bozez, Ben? Or did you go off and do your own thing?!)

There had to be a reason I used "almost", didn't there?

But I find once again that it is not the o.p. that's being dealt with now, but related issues.


spin

Ben C Smith

To the best of my recollection, you stated that examples existed, but did not give me any personally. An IIDB search produces a couple of hits for Zogora under your name, but from before my time (I joined in 2005). I am pretty sure I found those examples on my own.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

In 1 Maccabees 5:14-15 we have One problem is that Galilee of the Gentiles here literally "Galilee of the Foreigners" is different Greek from that in LXX Isaiah and Matthew which is literally "Galilee of the Nations".

However, Galilee of the Gentiles in 1 Maccabees seems to be the part of the Galilee adjacent to Tyre and Ptolemais IE Upper Galilee.

Andrew Criddle

the_cave

I agree that "Matthew" had more than one author--or, rather, there was at least a proto-Matthew, and then a canonical Matthew, which used the earlier document. Beyond that I couldn't say for certain. Why do you think there are at least three layers? I only see evidence for two in your description--one which spoke of Nazara and Capernaum in 4:13-16, and then another which added 2:22-23.

I guess my confusion with this explanation is a) why did the author of 2:22-23 bother to put Nazara in Galilee at all, and b) once he did so, why didn't he rewrite 4:13-16?

spin

I believe you! I merely supplied them to the forum before you arrived.


spin

spin

When were the references from Mark mentioning nazarhnos omitted?

a) The tradition had evolved;
b) One only changes things that are perceived to be a difficulty.

How many people have perceived the difficulty regarding location changes in the birth narratives?

Mt: 1) Bethlehem -> Egypt -> Nazara
Lk: 1) Nazareth -> Bethlehem -> Nazareth

[Note how Mt introduces Nazara in 2:23 ("Joseph made his home in a town called Nazara")?]

If you don't perceive the problem there isn't one.


spin

spin

Assuming for a moment you're right, I said earlier:

Cabul is to the west of Zebulun in Asher, Josh 19:27. Solomon giving cities from the area around Cabul has no impact on the areas we are discussing.

If we imagine a zone in the north west that is this hypothetical "Galilee of the Gentiles" distinct from the rest of Galilee, it has no relevance -- as I u nderstand it -- to the issue of Capernaum and Nazara which are in the east or south.


spin