Ben C Smith

My problem (too strong a word for it right now) is not the delay, but rather the nature of the first reference. It is just plain Jesus, with no proper introduction as such. When everybody was getting baptized, Jesus did it too. It seems to come out of the blue.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Are you saying that you think Matthew (as well as Luke) was originally written without an infancy narrative? If so, where would this Ur-Matthew have begun?

Ben.

spin

I don't see it as a problem, but as technique. Dramatic.

Where Mark began. The writer has rewritten the source, removing the quote from Malachi and introduced his favored "kingdom of heaven" immediately in the mouth of John "repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand", which is the Matthean version of what Jesus said in Mk 1:15, "the kingdom of god is at hand, repent". (If you're wondering, 1-Matt and 2-Matt were merely handles to show different times in the evolving tradition. I'm not advocating an Ur-Matthew, but different stages in the same tradition.)


spin

ynquirer

The story, obviously, is not the same. The parallel is valid.

Of course, it is. A famine is mentioned just five words before a verb that means that a family was moved to settle anew far away. One doesn’t need to read beyond the verse to infer that the famine is implied to be the agent.

Thus, you have another translation for Ruth 1:1, one that not says what I want it to say, but the one that matches what the LXX really says, don’t you?

Actually, it is the other way around. It is you that say that Jesus goes for “a quick trip” that makes a false parallel with Ruth, just because you know Mk 1.14.

Ted Hoffman

This assertion, which is voiced by Goguel, Meier and Reed, is not based on evidence, archaeological or otherwise. Nazareth is described as a "conservative Jewish village" according to Strange and "village of trifling importance" according to Goguel. They use these conjectures to explain why the Talmud, Josephus, Paul, and the OT (Joshua) fail to mention Nazareth.
Edersheim Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (or via: amazon.co.uk) (and others I cant remember now) says that Nazareth was one of the Major cities located along the Caravan Route from the Mediterranean sea to Damascus - and hence an important city.
IIRC, Crossan also disputes the assertion that Nazareth was a relatively unknown place. In any event, Crossan disagrees with Meier (Marginal Jew (or via: amazon.co.uk)). I dont have my books and my ass got lazy and I left the Nazareth question unfinnished.
You know that Origen Homily 33:1 stated that Nazareth was a mythical place - dont you Ben?
If you check the TDNT, you will see that Nazareth has etymological problems that remain unresolved.
Anyways, go on with the discussion. Very edifying.

spin

You invalidate it shortly...

See what I mean?

OK, so you took "verse" a little too literally, but it is not the saying that they went from Bethlehem in Judea to Moab, but all sorts of other indications.

I don't need one. You are fishing and nothing more.

Oh, it makes a false parallel does it? Hmmm, funny that. You can't simply go on the meaning of the specific clause now, can you?


spin

Newton's Cat

The Greek text of Mark 1, 9-11 was a "structured" text which originally read:

'And it came to pass in those days came Jesus from Galilee .....'

Nazareth was interpolated into the text at a later date.

Mark, in its original form (before a great deal of material was interpolated into, or added to the text) was not intended to be understood as anything other than a fictional story.

The voice that spoke to Jesus in verse 11 was supposed to be understood as the voice of his deceased father.

Later, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was depicted as praying at his father's grave.

Finally ... it wasn't Jesus who was crucified - it was Simon of Cyrene (but the Jews were depicted as believing that it was Jesus).

Simon of Cyrene represented Simon bar Kochba, the leader of the 130s revolt.

The story was written in the 130s ad ... more or less a hundred years after it's historical setting.

spin

This is Origen's Homily 33:1...

INSOFAR AS LUKE' S narrative is concerned, Jesus has not
yet stayed in Capernaum. Nor is he said to have per-
formed any sign in that place, because he had not been
there. Before he comes to Capernaum, it is recorded that he
was in his native territory, that is, in Nazareth. He says to his
fellow-citizens, "Doubtless you will quote me this saying: 'Physi-
cian, cure yourself. Do here, too, in your native territory, what-
ever we heard was done in Capernaum.'" For this reason, I
think that some mystery is hidden in this passage before us.
Capernaum, a type of the Gentiles, takes precedence over Naz-
areth, a type of the Jews. Jesus knew that he had no honor in
his own native territory--neither he, nor the prophets, nor
the apostles. So he was unwilling to preach there. Instead, he
preached among the Gentiles, so that the people of his native
territory would not say to him, "Doubtless you will quote me
this saying: 'Physician, cure yourself.'"

Perhaps the Greek hides something, but nothing here suggests any problems, does it?


spin

spin

You may be right somewhere here, but one usually needs evidence to support a position, rather than simply stating it, so I think for each sentence you'll need to justify the content, don't you think? Ontology is only part of the business: epistemology is the other essential part.


spin

Ben C Smith

You will note that I wrote that Nazareth seems to have been relatively unknown. As assertions go, that is pretty mild. It seems so to me for exactly the reason you adduce; it goes unmentioned except in connection with Jesus.

I would be interested in any evidence you have to that effect. Although I am familiar with Edersheim, I do not recall that discussion offhand.

No, I do not know that. Do you? If you would be so kind as to quote the part of the text you have in mind and explain to me why you think it means Origen thought Nazareth was mythical, I would be most appreciative. Thanks.

Ben.