spin

You did not address my comment. You merely made the apparently false claim that Nazara was in Luke's source. I let you do the footwork work to justify that clanger.


spin

spin

Later tradition if you will. Your fear of interpolations seems to make you despise your author.

So it's not derived from any original source, but invented in Greek.

There was then no Aramaic tradition at all behind it?

His town according to you was Nazareth, so according to simple rules of formation of gentilics, you place the ending at the end of the toponym. The gentilic is not nazarethnos, nazaretaios, nazaretiths, etc. If you want him to have had Nazareth, then you get these sorts of gentilics. If you want him to have had Nazara, then you'd get it in 1:9. It's not in 1:9, though it would be a better source for nazarhnos than Nazareth, so obviously he didn't know it.

Two different names usually indicates conflation of two separate traditions.

You are really struggling here. There is nothing relevant about Bethlehem/Ephrathah to Nazara/Nazareth.

I argued nothing of the sought. You have it the wrong way round.

Nazarene argues against Nazareth, as it is not derived from Nazareth. It is easily derivable directly from the Hebrew NZR with a normal Greek gentilic ending as in the case of "Essene". There is nothing in Mark to make you think that Nazarene has a relation to any town.

You won't convince anyone with Gennesareth. Mispar is a scribal error from Hebrew You'll note that the verse has the word MSPR in the Hebrew and it means "number", but as Misperet was also in the verse, the scribe was confused and repeated Mispar. Nothing more. That leaves the lonely Daberi, which doesn't provide us much information to know anything about, other t han it has nothing to do with the feminine ending of NCRT.

This is just a different viewpoint of what is found in Mk 1:21ff, sabbath in the synagogue and everyone was agog. Where did he get it from? Mark simply has two versions from different traditions.

Unfortunately, your argument about 6:1ff doesn't convince, when you realise first that it is the same situation as Mk 1:21ff, merely developed differently, and that that is reported in John independently. I don't really understand what the people were supposed to have wanted when the text says he did in fact do healings, so not only did he astound with his teachings but also healed people. Some people are just never satisfied.


spin

Ben C Smith

Well, spin, it appears we are at the point of repeating ourselves. So I shall sign off at this point. Thanks for the exchange.

Ben.

Amaleq13

So, either Mark's audience already knew why Jesus would be depicted as coming from there to be baptized or they were left wondering?

spin

If the text had only that he came from Galilee as the Matthean parallel has, there would be no problem, would there? He comes from Galilee to be baptised and then goes back.


spin

S.C.Carlson

I did address it because your argument that Nazara was not in Luke's source involves the special pleading of an uneconomical later hand. Your hypothesis is in need of a shave -- with Occam's Razor.

Stephen

Amaleq13

Right. Gotcha.

ynquirer

Literally? How can I interpret a word literally for which there is no room in koine?

Instead of using such nasty language you could provide us with a bit of evidence, say, just a few Greek names, whether toponyms or patronyms, ending in -ara, which yield gentilics/patronymics ending in -wraios (w=omega, a long /o/).

Of course, it does. Nazarene is a plausible gentilic from Nazara; Nazorean is not so. Why did Matthew substitute an implausible gentilic for a plausible one? The answer is that he didn’t like the plausible gentilic as such. He didn’t think that Jesus was a Nazarene, but a Bethlemite. Yet, he faced two problems. In the first place, he didn’t want to belie Mark as outspokenly as by writing off the former and writing down the latter; secondly, if he just dropped the gentilic without replacement the void would be all too evident. Thus, he replaced the gentilic with a phonetically akin adjective that conveyed a disparate meaning of which you, obviously enough, are not aware at all.

spin

2:3 is not a word.

When you use the same insult frequently, you shouldn't get upset if someone calls you for doing so.

If you had read the thread, you'd know my position isn't what you stated it was.

No, it doesn't.

The answer I gave long ago is that there were two steps: one redactor removed nazarhnos from the text as one of those obscurities eliminated from the Marcan source, while a later redactor confronted with a tradition which included nazwraios brought it into his text.

Funny you should claim that. Where does he call Jesus a Bethlehemite? What he does claim is that he went to Nazara and that made him a Nazorean.

Did Jesus need a gentilic? Did Caiaphas get one? Did Josephus?

What you seem blithely unaware of is the difference between my views and that of the writers we are trying to analyse.


spin

spin

This seems to reject the Marcan source for Luke, a source which clearly didn't have Nazara. To claim that "Nazara" was in Luke's source, you'd need just a little evidence, but you haven't offered any and you apparently have none.


spin