Ben C Smith

Jeffrey Gibson emailed this to me a few days ago from Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (or via: amazon.co.uk) (emphasis added):

H. Dixon Slingerland, ‘The Transjordanian Origin of St Matthew’s Gospel’, JSNT 3 (1979), pp. 18–28, has proposed that the geographical perspective of this verse (along with 19:1 and perhaps 4:25) points to east of the Jordan as the place of Matthew’s composition. This is because ‘beyond the Jordan’ qualifies what precedes, namely, land of Zebulun and Naphtali. The perspective is thus of one standing in the east and seeing Galilee on the other side of the Jordan. Contrast the LXX, where there is a καί before the πἑραν; this makes ‘beyond the Jordan’ not a point of reference but a place like Zebulun and Naphtali and Galilee. So the LXX has a western perspective:

Galilee is on its author’s side of the Jordan, that is, in the west.

Slingerland has undoubtedly made an intriguing observation, one which should henceforth be seriously considered in attempts to locate the origin of Matthew. We offer, however, three caveats. First, ‘beyond the Jordan’could be thought of as standing on its own (cf. 4:25) and mean either the transjordanian region or Peraea, as in Isa 8:23 LXX (so BAGD, s.v., π* αν, and Soares Prabhu, p. 97; cf. m. *eb. 9:2). In this case, Galilee of the Gentiles’ would be conceived of as a theological term encompassing more than the normal boundaries of Galilee. Secondly, and more importantly, there are several agreements between Mt 4:15–16 and the MT; and the MT (with the OT Peshitta) shares Matthew’s geographical perspective: Galilee is to the west. Perhaps, then, Matthew has in this particular just followed the MT. The slip, if such it be, is not unthinkable. Lastly, our gospel may have been written in Antioch on the Orontes, and if one looks at a map and extends the north-south line created by the Jordan river, Antioch appears east of that line. Thus it might have been natural for Matthew to think of Galilee as on the other side of the Jordan.

Ben.

spin

Continue with these trivialities. Commas serve a purpose more than your simple application of formal rules.

More form versus content. If you want to continue about commas and not the o.p., why not open a thread elsewhere?

Hmm, avoiding something, aren't you? Decontextualising a statement changes its meaning, so you have deliberately misrepresented the content of the statement.

For me, if he'd said simply that Capernaum was by the sea then he would have been non-commital about Nazara being in Zebulun and Naphtali, but, by saying that Capernaum was by the sea in Zebulun and Naphtali, he implies that Nazara was not in Zebulun and Naphtali.

Try and equivocate. You may disagree -- by not dealing with the direct connection between the prophecy and the material it was used to support --, but hopefully we can reduce the equivocation.


spin

No Robots

Let me put this in another place, and see if it makes sense:

Leaving the city of Edmonton, he came and dwelt in Jasper in the mountains within the borders of Alberta.

Nothing there to say that Edmonton isn't in Alberta, too.

Toto

Wouldn't the real analogy be:

Could X be in Canada and this make sense?

Ben C Smith

This is exactly my point. Matthew does not add the explanatory words you add. Until you add those words the potential meaning is unclear.

Ben.

No Robots

Fleeing the persecution suffered by John and his followers, he left the Jordan to return to Galilee, going first to Nazareth, then to Capernaum. So, it would be:

He fled the Ohio valley, came to Edmonton, then moved to Jasper in the mountains in Alberta.

spin

No, it wasn't. Your point was about there not being the implication I noted. You tended to avoid the context of the original.

When one is commentating on the verse, One supplies explanatory words. That's the point of explanation.

If you don't do the reader's job, it's unclear. You don't have difficulty seeking implication from the great light and not getting involved int he actual statement of the prophecy. You do the contrary with the previous sentence.


spin

the_cave

How do we know that it is not a point of reference? I certainly don't know Hebrew, but doesn't it also say "across the Jordan"?

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...OTpdf/isa9.pdf

Why does the Septuagint add "and"?

I like the thought about Antioch-on-the-Orontes. I have sometimes wondered about that myself.

Ben C Smith

Then here are my (potential) explanatory words:

12 But hearing that John had been delivered up he withdrew into Galilee [specifically to Nazara, mentioned next]. 13 And he left Nazara [in Galilee] and came and housed in Capernaum[, which is] by the sea within the borders of Zebulun and of Naphtali, 14 [a handy location for Capernaum, prophetically speaking, because things needed to work out so] that the word through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: 15 Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles. 16 The people sitting in darkness saw a great light [based in the ministry in Capernaum], and those sitting in the place and shadow of death, light dawned on them. 17 From then on Jesus began [his ministry of shining light in Galilee, since he now began] to preach and to say: Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.

Again, in this reading, it is the location of the base for ministry, Capernaum, that fulfills the prophecy, not the move away from Nazara, which is implied in verses 12-13 as being in Galilee:

But hearing that John had been delivered up he withdrew into Galilee. 13 And he left Nazara....

If Jesus is withdrawing into Galilee, but then leaving a locale that is not in Galilee, then we have a gap in the logic. However, if Jesus is withdrawing into Galilee, then leaving a locale that lies in Galilee, no such gap is present.

Compare:

Dave moved to Colorado, then left Denver to live in Boulder.

Dave moved to Colorado, then left Wichita to live in Boulder.

Which makes more sense to you?

In this case X is probably not in Canada. However, the analogy is flawed, since escaping the draft depends merely on living in Canada, whether in Edmonton or in Jasper or in the Yukon somewhere. In our text, Jesus merely living in Nazara does nothing to fulfill Isaiah. He has to start ministering, or shining light. And, according to Isaiah (the way Matthew is interpreting it), he has to start ministering by the sea. So:

Leaving the city of X, he came and dwelt in Jasper in the mountains within the borders of Alberta in order to fulfill his lifelong dream of living in the mountains in Alberta.

If X is not in the mountains of Alberta, this is fine. Dreaming of living in the mountains is a better match than draft-dodging for fulfilling a prophecy of shining light by the sea, since dodging the draft does not depend on living in the mountains.

To put it another way, Matthew wants Jesus to fulfill the prophecy as closely as possible, and the prophecy says that the light has to shine by the sea in Z and N. If Nazara is not by the sea, then Nazara does not fulfill the prophecy very well. Capernaum fits it better.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Those are good questions, and I am not certain what the best answers might be. The whole issue of beyond the Jordan has confused me for some time. Some seem to hold that it is always relative, meaning the other side of the Jordan; others seem to think that it can designate a particular territory in an absolute sense, meaning something like Transjordania.

I just do not know. Sorry.

Ben.