spin

Ben C

I had written a response to this last message, but I decided that there was no point to responding because it was just you ruminating your way to getting on with things.


spin

Ben C Smith

Spin, you wrote (A) that one reason to think that Nazareth is an interpolation into Mark 1.9 is because places of origin are not usually accompanied by their territories. You shortly afterward wrote (B) that Mark 1.9 really does not tell us about a place of origin (provenance, you called it) at all, but only about a place of previous location.

These two statements seem flatly contradictory to me. If I gave you examples that you think were irrelevant, it was frankly because you misled me as to your position.

Which is your position? That Nazareth is an interpolation in Mark 1.9 because, as an alleged place of origin, Nazareth of Galilee is an unlikely thing to write? Or that Nazareth is not even intended as a place of origin in Mark 1.9 in the first place?

Ben.

spin

Due to the verb, you cannot derive provenance, only starting point -- which doesn't mean that Nazareth was there of course. Had it been a statement of provenance, I had said one would have expected just the town. You went on to show that Hebrew texts don't support this latter claim, but we are dealing here with a Greek manifestation, it seems.

What started out as a rough indicator is required by you to be perfect law. Sorry, I don't quite work that way, but I hope it is clearer to you now.

Nazareth is an interpolation because

1) it isn't supported by the near parallel in Matt;
2) it is contradicted by the hometown Capernaum;

Had Nazareth been in the text at Mk 1:9 it wouldn't show provenance due to it being predicated to the verb "came".


spin

Ben C Smith

The LXX is in Greek.

Let me grant for a moment that Nazareth in Mark 1.9 is an interpolation. It is your position that, as it stands, Mark 1.9 does not indicate geographical point of origin, that all it really means is that Nazareth was the previous spot on an itinerary. Our interpolator, then, apparently had no interest in making Jesus hail from Nazareth, right? All he wished to do by his interpolation is to tell us where Jesus had been hanging out right before he went up to be baptized. Is that a correct summary of the motive of this interpolator, in your view?

Ben.

spin

Doh! It isn't by chance a translation of the Hebrew, is it? It's attempting to follow the Hebrew.

It appears -- from the arguments I've put forward -- as a marginal note that was taken by an early scribe as an omission. Some user of the text had added Nazareth in the margin indicating that Jesus came from Nazareth, where the text said he came from Galilee to be baptized by John at the Jordan and the scribe mistook it for an omission. That is my understanding of the easiest way that the text could go from "Jesus came from Galilee" (Mt) to "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee" (and Nazareth being indeclinable needed no change in the insertion).


spin

ynquirer

What is the problem with the verb “came”? I see none. The verbal form Mark uses is hlqen (h=eta, q=theta), aorist of erxomai, which is a verb very frequently used in Greek and, accordingly, endowed with a broad scope of meanings. It may mean either “come” or “go,” “go for a short time” as much as “come to settle” or “return to a previous settlement.” In Gen 11:35, for instance, hlqen is used to mean that Terah - Abram’s father - took his family and went from Ur of the Chaldeans - their place of origin - to Haran - a place of subsequent settlement. In Gen 12:5 the whole family went - the form is hlqon: 3rd person plural - from Haran - their second settlement - to Canaan, where they settled anew. Still, in Gen 13:1-3 Abram and his family went for a round trip to Negeb and back to Bethel - their place of origin in Canaan - and hlqen is used to depict his motion from Negeb - a place of transit - to Bethel. Finally, hlqen is used in Gen 14:15 to depict the journey of a military expedition, which is assumed to be a go-and-return movement. I think all this is enough to illustrate valid uses of erxomai and hlqen. There is nothing in Mr 1:9 that is in discordance with such uses.

In Mk 1:9 hlqen means that Jesus goes from Nazaret in Galilee to the Jordan in Judea: from a place of origin to a place of transit; very much like in Gen 14:15. In Mk 1:14 hlten is used again, this time as meaning that Jesus returns from the Jordan - that is, Judea - to Galilee; very much like in Gen 13:3.

The mention of together Nazaret and Galilee deserves a especial comment. That Jesus departed from Galilee is a necessary remark, since arriving at the Jordan required the crossing of the borderland between two historical regions; also that he departed from Nazaret was necessary, for two different reasons. The first one is concordance of origin and destination: if Jesus arrives at the Jordan, which is a place in Judea, the mention of a place in Galilee seems all too consistent. Thus, the journey is perfectly determined: from region to region, from place to place. There is another reason, though, possibly more important. Everyone knew that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. This was the most conspicuous place of origin for Jesus. He, however, is said to come from Galilee. The immediate question is, “Is Bethlehem a place in Galilee?” Accordingly, the writer anticipates the question and altogether answers it, “He came from Nazaret (not from Bethlehem),” so emphasizing the lectio difficilior - for a contemporary Jewish reader.

Regardless, your translation of Mk 2:1, dealing with the very important issue of Jesus’ hometown, that is, his latest place of settlement, is substandard IMO. You here seem to follow - so to speak - the “canon” of English translations. For instance:

KJV- 1: And again he entered into Capernaum, after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.
NIV- 1: A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home.
RSV- 1: And when he returned to Caper'na-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home.
NASB-1: When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home.

This is the Greek: Kai eiselqwn palin eis Kafarnaoum di’hemerwn hkousqh hoti en oikw estin.

The crucial verbs are eiselqwn and hkousqh - this is the reason why they are in bold type.

There are three sentences in the verse. One of them is the main sentence: hkousqh, and the other two are subordinates: 1) Kai eiselqwn palin eis Kafarnaoum, which is an adverbial sentence, and 2) hoti en oikw estin, which is adjectival. Everything hinges on something that was heard (the main verb=hkousqh); the former subordinate says when it was heard, while the latter clarifies what was heard. (The phrase di’hemerwn = “(several) days afterward” is also adverbial, and it is unclear whether it belongs in the main sentence or in the adverbial sentence; I’d say that it belongs in the main sentence, yet this detail is unimportant.)

Now, a very significant feature of the verse is that the first subordinate verb - eiselqwn - is a participle. That makes the translation somewhat problematic. Its subject is, beyond doubt, Jesus himself. Yet the difficulty rests with the main verb, hkousqh. What is its subject?

The “canon” of English translation chooses an impersonal subject - either “it is heard” or “people heard.” There is no bad reason for such a choice. Translators of the Bible have to translate a great many verses. They, since the early seventeenth century, have abided by a “rule of thumb.” The rule says: If the subject of hkousqh is elliptic, that is, not mentioned, the subject must be assumed to be impersonal. So far so good. If one has to translate the whole Old plus New Testaments, well, such a rule ensures a minimum of errors.

Yet, as you say, the exact meaning of a verse of such critical significance must be ascertained at a case by case level. This is my analysis of the case.

An impersonal subject for hkousqh would be absolutely warranted should the participle verb of the adverbial sentence be either genitive - eiselqonos - or accusative - eiselqona. It is not so, though. Being nominative as eiselqwn is, it is in perfect concordance with the subject of the main verb, hkousqh: in person (the 3rd), in number (singular), and tense (aorist). In such a case, the subject of both verbs, the main and the one in adverbial role, must be assumed to be the same. Therefore, the subject of hkousqh as well as eiselqwn is Jesus.

Accordingly, my translation of Mk 2:1 is: “And upon his returning to Capernaum, after a few days he was heard that he was at home.” (In other words, it was then known that he had decided to settle anew in such a town.)

The only issue that remains to be addressed is “his returning to Capernaum.” Yet this is easy. Jesus went to Capernaum in Mark 1:21 for the first time - BTW, why doesn’t the writer say that he was at home then? He teaches at the synagogue (vv.22-23); he meets a man with an unclean spirit (v.23); he heals him (vv.24-27); he calls for the first disciples (vv.29); he heals more sick people (vv.30-34); he goes throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons (vv.38-39); he heals a leper (vv.40-44); his popularity makes his movements more and more difficult (v.45). Then, he returns to Capernaum.

Ben C Smith

Yes, I believe I have heard somewhere that it was a translation of the Hebrew.

But my point was that the evangelists were influenced by the LXX. If they happen to use a type of introduction by locale that is found in Greek only in the LXX (and I frankly have no idea how common it is outside the LXX), that should surprise nobody.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. In your favor, I can even point out that the term Galilee would not even have to be redeclined. It would be in the genitive either as the (original) object of the preposition apo or attached to Nazareth as its territory. You are right. This would be a very easy insertion to make.

The next step will be to determine whether, of the thousands upon thousands of words or phrases that could potentially have been inserted into virtually any literary text, this is likely to be one of the actual insertions.

There is no problem with that verb, IMHO. I do not think spin is arguing (anymore) that the phrase itself forbids Nazareth to be a point of origin. It is just that the phrase, worded as it is, cannot be used to prove on its own merits that Mark was thinking of Nazareth as a point of origin. Make no mistake, I think that several weighty considerations, interpreted in conjunction with this phrase, make it virtually certain that Mark knew it was his point of origin, similarly to how Ruth 1.1 uses basically the same construction, and Bethlehem turns out indeed to be a hometown.

Ben.

spin

What makes you think that the writer of Mark knew anything about Bethlehem?

You are merely transforming the Greek into a Romance language structure then clouding the issue. One could just as easily have said in English, "he was heard to be at home", though you can complain that I have removed a finite verb. Your "[i]n other words" simply doesn't follow from the text.

What is problematical in your attempt to render the verse is that you ignore the kai which marks the clause boundary. The implication is that you find yourself free to move di hmerwn from the first clause where it belongs to the second clause and therefore to alter the meaning of the statement. Now that's sophistry.

This "first time" is simply conjecture.

The text doesn't deal with his home.

OK.


spin

ynquirer

Bearing in mind that you have striven very hard in this thread to prove that the issue of Nazara/Nazoreans is evidence of innovation by either Matthew or Luke, or both, regardless of Mark; that the issue of Bethlehem could possibly be connected to the former one, though you haven’t yet mentioned the connection, and in spite IMO you are far from having proven your argument beyond a doubt, I am ready to waive this part of my argument. Still I gave you two reasons. The second, a purely literary one remains perfectly valid. And if it, as taken alone, does not warrant the necessity for Mark to mention Nazaret in 1:9, shows that it is not unnecessary either - which is your argument.

This strikes me as recognition that my analysis of the Greek in Mk 2:1 is not that bad. Thank you. Thus, the issue seems to be the good English for a syntactical structure I‘ve evinced. That’s something to begin with.

In any event, let me rise a little point. Your argument begins to look like syntax-resistant. That it remains untouched even though the grammatical terms have changed, quite strongly suggests that it depends on prior beliefs, say, your position on the Nazara/Nazoreans issue, rather than on linguistic evidence.

You’re right. The Greek doesn’t say that Jesus was heard as shouting: “Home! Sweet home!”

Yes, it does. Yet, in any event, you may delete it. My translation is clear enough.

That might be sound. Yet it doesn’t render my translation problematical. I said the issue was unimportant. See below.

Try this alternative translation: “And upon his returning to Capernaum after a few days, he was heard that he was at home.”

Now, you have the adverbial phrase in the clause you want it. Do you perceive any major change of meaning? There is one, of course, but minor though interesting.

Remember Mk 1:1? “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Why must I suppose that there is anything else but that he was in Nazaret, then went to the Jordan to be baptized by John, then returned to Galilee and entered Capernaum for the first time, then recruited the first disciples in there, then toured Galilee for a few days while thinking to settle in the town where his first disciples were, then returned to Capernaum with his mind made up, then avowed his decision to be at home in there?

Thus, 1:21 does not deal with his hometown, but 2:1 does? That's is what I say, precisely.

spin

Wrong conclusion, based on false assumption.


spin