the_cave

That's because they assume Nazara is in Galilee

But what if you don't have any a priori assumptions at all? Then what? Then we need to look at the Greek.

True. But more importantly, we need to look at Matthew--how did Matthew use kai? The examples you supply are from other authors.

Yes--I think it would have made more sense for Matthew to say "He left Nazara and withdrew into Galilee" in 4:12 if that's what he had meant.

I also don't think that Matthew could have meant when Jesus was in the wilderness, he was also in Nazara--otherwise, he would have said so back in 4:1.

But then, I admit you could turn this argument around; Matthew also isn't saying he went back to Nazara--because, then he would have said he withdrew "to Galilee, to Nazara" in 4:12.

Indeed, Matthew uses the aorist voice, suggesting he's speaking indefinitely. So in 4:13 he seems to just be saying "He didn't live in Nazara anymore (in general); instead, he lived in Capernaum."

So where was Nazara?

I admit the kai doesn't totally solve the problem. It could mean that Nazara was in Galilee, but Matthew didn't know where--he just knew it wasn't by the sea (and possibly also not in Z&N).

But it's possible that Matthew simply didn't know where Nazara was--it could have been in Galilee, or not; Matthew would have no idea. He would simply have gotten it from Mark 1:24.

Ben C Smith

The examples I supplied were from Matthew.

I admit I am not fond of the author would have done X arguments.

Nitpick: The aorist is not a voice; it is a tense.

I am not certain I would call the aorist indefinite; I think this is simply an inceptive aorist, that is, an aorist employed to mark the beginning of something. It could be translated: Jesus went and began to live in Capernaum.

Yes, I agree with this, even if I am using fancier words to describe it.

That is correct. From this passage alone we cannot tell where Matthew located Nazara. Your observations (and mine, and those of Amaleq13) are precisely along these lines: We cannot tell from this passage; it does not locate Nazara either inside or outside of Galilee.

That is possible.

This identifies Nazara (in Matthew 4.13) with Nazareth (in Mark 1.24), which is what spin is trying to avoid doing.

But, if Matthew is simply getting Nazareth from Mark, and calling it Nazara, why not Mark 1.9? That verse says that Nazareth is in Galilee. There is also Matthew 2.23 to reckon with, another verse that seems to say that Nazareth or Nazara (textual issue here) is in Galilee (see verse 22). And what about Matthew 21.11? This is why spin is talking about layers upon layers in Matthew. In order to get Matthew 4 to imply that Nazara is not in Galilee, he has to (A) separate Nazara from Nazareth and (B) relegate the different statements to different layers.

(BTW, I give examples on my Rejection at Nazareth page of places with the -t(h) ending losing that ending in ways similar to Nazareth being called Nazara. For instance, what the gospels call Gennesaret the book of 1 Maccabees calls Gennesar and Pliny calls Genesara. Once admit that Nazareth can become Nazara, and the term Nazarene is easy to understand; compare the Gadarenes of Gadara.)

Ben.

spamandham

As an aside, by what process would Nazareth become Nazara? Is there any implication of either a translation being involved, or the evolution of the language?

Ben C Smith

I do not think translation has to be involved, but my suspicion is that translation was involved in this case.

Did you look at my Rejection at Nazareth page? It offers quite a few examples of Hebrew place names with the -t(h) ending being rendered in Greek or in Latin without that ending.

Ben.

the_cave

True, thanks.

No, because "Nazareth" does not appear in Mark 1:24! But "Nazarene" does.

1:9 is suspect and I am leaving it out.

Yes, I agree. Otherwise we could know that Matthew locates Nazara in Galilee, even if he doesn't know where.

But what would be difficult to understand, in that case, is why a demon would use "Nazarene" as a snarled epithet for Jesus.

Ben C Smith

You are right. My mistake.

Why is Mark 1.9 suspect?

Ben.

spin

Contextualised.

Yes, from various authors, showing how it is used by various writers shows that it is not a local use, but a general use. When we see that Zebulun and Naphtali is a functional synonym for Galilee, you should be able to tell that the kai is not being used simply as a coordinating conjunction.

The use of kai argues for my case.

Which the Matthean writer unhelpfully omitted (ETA: along with the rest of the passage).


spin

spin

Doh! Because the Matthean writer didn't use it. Why would he have gone with Nazara in non-Marcan material if he had had a nice Nazareth, the form later tradition did?


spin

Ben C Smith

A general note about coordinating conjunctions, specifically kai. It means nothing, but nothing, that a translation would drop such a word. The gospel writers use them so often that the translations not infrequently drop them for the sake of English euphony. The RSV, for example, completely drops kai in at least Matthew 16.5; 18.5; 21.13, 20; 25.15; 26.1.

I remember well why you think Mark 1.9 is suspect. I was asking the_cave.

Ben.

spin

True, but you avoid the rest of the post on the subject. That a kai isn't translated means that you shouldn't be complaisant as to the meaning of the word.

Did you just avoid this question?


spin