Ted Hoffman

I know. I have been reading passages in the past few hours that say something to do with: "do at your home what you have done in Capernaum". Can't remember the exact passages right now though.

Vorkosigan

It's in Luke 4. spin was just talking about it.

Ted Hoffman

You are right Vork. My bad. How do we reconcile:

Mark 2:1 When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home.
With:
Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Let me take this opportunity to repond to chief594.

The winepress and agricultural terraces were found by Dr. Pfann of the Franciscan School of Theology in 1997.

The winepresses do not prove to us that Nazareth was inhabited (or at least, a village) between 70BCE to 60CE and their dating is unclear. As such, its useless to us.

And these prove what? That a family of three lived in a graveyard?

"The area"? What area? Are you agreeing that Nazareth was a necropolis?

Approximate size of Japha you mean, or Sephoris? Remember, Nazareth is a city for the dead - so the corpses must be coming from elsewhere.
1. Julius Africanus is coming too late for his ideas to have any historical weight.
2. He was a Christian who doubtlessly accepted Christian stories uncritically.
3. Records of Christian descent (Josephus nonetheless) do not mention Nazareth. (Unless Julius was talking about the Gospels?)

And this proves that Nazareth existed?

The idea that Nazareth was an obscure hamlet is a last straw that is challenged by the following:
1. Luke says it was a city.
2. The apelation "Jesus of Nazareth", invariably, doesn't elicit the otherwise would be expected "Jesus of WHAT?" response from people.
A little-known village would have drawn such reactions - Nazareth does not, hence Nazareth could not have been a little-known city.

So, its a bogus and hopeless conjecture.
You have misapplied DD here. You have conflated it with embarrasment criterion - the word "disadvantageous", which you have used, is the dead giveaway.

Depending on how NCR in Isaiah 11:1 and NZYR were interpreted, and how sloppy the evangelists or redactors were in transliterating and prophecy slutting - in the 2nd century - Nazareth could be in concert with both Judaism and Christianity - at least in the minds of early Christians hence invalidating DD.

DD, like other so-called positive HJ criteria, is a hopeless enterprise.

If applied faithfully, it renders the applicants (of DD) incapable of separating polemic emications from the theological wars between the evangelists, from fact. For example, Mark has Jesus' siblings imply that Jesus is insane and not a Davidic pedigree. Does that mean Jesus was insane?

Nathaniel's "Can Anything Good Come Out of Nazareth?" in John 1:43-46 is an indication that the idea tha Jesus' came from Nazareth was disputed.
Nathaniel is being used by John to create a speech to serve his (John's) own theological agenda.

spin

As Vork pointed out you should read the post I wrote on the subject, #24. If it's unclear, I'll happily give it another go.

Modern translations have tended to demonstrate these two different gentilic endings -hnos and -ais as -ene and -(a)ean, hence Nazarene and Nazorean.

The major gentilic in Hebrew is the simple masculine plural -YM, as in $MRYM (Shomerim), while the Aramaic form is -YN, though when a plural noun is qualified it loses its final consonant, eg $MRYM keepers, but $MRY H-SP keepers of the door.

I have already pointed out that NCR is a Hebrew verb, "to keep or observe", which is a synonym of $MR, so an Aramaic form is not necessary, though it would be what you have. As I have also already pointed out, nazwraios has a long vowel, an omega as the second vowel, which in transliteration comes almost exclusively from the Hebew WAW. This makes NCR an unlikely candidate and it is why I have advocated NZYR -> NZWR as the only way I can explain the omega. Sid Green is almost certainly wrong.


spin

spin

Look at the tenth post, especially paragraph #5.


spin

Ted Hoffman

I am guilty of selective reading and filtering. Sorry for taking you back.

No, thanks. Let me chew on it slowly. I think that in the neck of the woods of confusion, I was scouting for a preconceived highway to get me out and in the process, I filtered what I read.

Let me note that I have missed the import of the phrase "modern translations". Do earlier translations depart from this? How?

Forgive me if I am becoming tedious here. Bear with me. Philology and etymology of languages I don't speak is the very definition of foreign territory to me. But I can always stick my neck out.

From the use of damaskhnos and gadarhnos, nazarhnos means "from nazr".

From gadarhnos, we can get Gadarean. Why not Nazorean from nazarhnos?

If we can get 'Nazorean' from nazarhnos, it would challenge the transliteration of NCR to nazarhnos because the former is geographical while the latter sectarian.
:banghead:

Where does that leave NZYR --> nazwraios?
:banghead:

That would be Matthew Black. I will see if I can alert Green - who is an amateur like most of us here.

spin

They tend to simply use -ene in most cases in English, so KJV an ASV both give us "Nazarene" in Matt 2:23, when it should be "Nazorean".

If NCR is a title, such as "the keeper (of t he covenant)", a nazarhnos would be a follower of the keeper.

It should be "Gadarene".

1) -ean in English comes from Greek -aios,
2) the "o" in Nazorean actually comes from an omega in Greek it's a long vowel, which must be justified.

We can't.


As I pointed out the process as I understand it, NZYR ->NZWR because of a common problem in the writing of WAWs and YODs. The WAW in NZWR produces the omega in nazwraios.

I'm not really a person in any position to challenge Matthew Black, but I'd guess he was blinded by habitual harmonization of nazarhnos and nazwraios of the kind which represents them both as "Nazarene". For the life of me though I can't justify why some translations have "Nazarite" instead of "Nazirite" (NZYR); it just seems like tainting from "Nazarene".


spin

Ted Hoffman

Thanks spin.
I will see if I can contact Matthew Black and solicit his comment. I like having big names in my inbox.

For those who don't know, Black is a multilingual Qumran Scholar who had translated the DSS and many other works - including the Bible.

Ted Hoffman

I think we can crack this nut somehow. I read this thread twice yesterday. This time examining all the tiny paths and not scouting for the bug highway out of this rut.

The Two-Phase Redaction Hypothesis

This is largely spins' hypothesis. Lets examine it. I have reduced the steps to three and IMO, the main hypothesis is fully intact and not weakened in any way.

Step1: Matthew copies Mark, which has Nazarhnos.
Step2: Matthew's first redactor, who doesn't understand Nazarhnos, meets or knows a source, probably based on Judges 13:5 NZWR, which gives nazwr, and adds a gentilic suffix to get nazwraois. This redactor replaces nazarhnos with nazwraois.
Step3: The second Matthean redactor, who is working at a time when Nazareth is known, goes further to correct Mark 1:9 and replaces Nazwraois with Nazareth.

Diagrammatically, we can represent two traditions which finally converge and coalesce to Nazareth as below.

I. Markan tradition NCR (Isa 11:1)->Nazarhnos
......................................\
........................................\
..........................................\
....2nd Matthean redactor.........\
reworking of Mark and Matthew...-> Nazareth
....2nd Matthean redactor........./
1st Mtthean rdctor NZWR (Jdgs 13.5)->Nazwraios and replaces Nazarhnos
......................................../
..Matthew gets Nazarhnos from Mark
..................................../
II. Matthean Tradition

Assumptions

1. Nazara (in the Alexandrian text) resulted from removing the ending from nazarhnos. It is unclear how secure this assumption is and whether we have adequate examples of similar practices.

2. The second redactor worked on Mark at a time when Nazareth was relatively well known.
This assumption runs into serious problems because Nazareth was refounded in the second century (per Crossan's The Historical Jesus). And archaeological evidence and textual evidence seriously challenge this assumption.

In order to prop this tenuous assumption, spin erects another assumption - which is that Nazareth existed in the first century.

This hypothesis, at this stage, has one foot stuck in the hole of ad-hocness and as it struggles to break free, the archaeological evidence has bloodied its nose while the textual evidence is choking the air out of it.

A rapid-response rescue team needs to be deployed. Fast.

Strengths of this hypothesis

1. Where Mark has Nazarhnos, there are no equivalents in Matthew, meaning that these are two separate traditions. And where Matthew has nazwraios, there are no equivalents in Mark.

2. It explains the presence of Capernaum as Jesus' hometown in Mk 2:1 alongside Nazareth in Mk 1:9. Perhaps Goodacre's Editorial Fatigue can explain the incongruity arising from the partial interpolation.

3. It fits well with the absence of any evidence that there was a city called Nazareth in the first century Galilee.

Issues and Clarifications:

1. IMO, a pre-markan tradition using Nazarhnos is not necessary because Mark used Arimathea, Golgotha, Capernaum, Gergasenes(sp?) and other geographical names without any clear pre-Markan antecedents.

To expect a pre-Markan source is to put a contol, post hoc, on one who operated without any - in fact, Mark even seems to go against the current with respect to Davidic pedigree we find in Lk and Matt. This further challenges the idea that Nazarhnos (assumption 1) could be from NCR because AMark is keen to obliterate any putative "branches".

2. Is it the case that Nazara (in the Alexandrian text) can only come from Nazarhnos and absolutely no other word?

3. spin slammed Price for deriving a sectarian meaning from the gentilics -hnos and -aios when Price attempted to argue that 'the Nazorean' is a sect name. The implication being that the suffix -ean is gentilic not sectarian.

I attempted to derive Nazorean from nazarhnos and spin stated that -ean in English comes from Greek -aios. Meaning Nazorean can only come from nazwraois (as it were). The explanation being that the "o" in Nazorean actually comes from an omega in Greek and it's a long vowel, which must be justified.

The end result being that we cannot contrive Nazorean from nazarhnos.

This, IMO, is favourable to spin's hypothesis because is supports the idea that nazwraois and nazarhnos were separate traditions that later coalesced into Nazareth through no linguistic paths.

4. Could spin break down the issues of possible transcription is the tsade and zayin between the words NCR,NCRT and words like NZYR,NZWR, NCRY and NCRT, the possibilities, the resultant and possible meanings and possible convergences so that we can freeze all the apparent textual fluidity and get a hold on this slippery problem?

As in, in terms of whats possible and what is not, whats likely and what isnt, what makes linguistic sense and what doesn't etc. So that we can rule out some paths and concentrate on a possible few?

Is this possible?

5. To what extent does Crossan's Nasaret offer a possible linguistic avenue for this problem from NCRT<-NCR?
Can it be useful for our problem - or does it just raise more questions?

Edited many times to rework diagram

spin

Can we try it this way:
As Nazara has never been identified, we can look for other explanations, such as, as a back-formation from nazarhnos, which is an ideal candidate, Gerasa <- Gerasene, Gadara <- Gadarene, Magdala <- Magdalene all show how we get a gentilic from a place name and vice versa.

I don't see any problem with the 2nd redactor working in the second century.

No. Ultimately, I don't care about Nazareth, as it is not directly related to either nazarhnos or nazwraios. If it is not directly related to them, then one has to seek a reason for its existence elsewhere, the simplest being a place name. (: But as I have said, Nazareth is fundamentally irrelevant and is not part of the synoptic material.

I'll leave that to you.

Strengths of this hypothesis

What's interesting is Matt 2nd redactor's approach to Capernaum: he accepts Mark's tradition that Capernaum was Jesus' home town and moves Jesus there, Mt 4:13, a further argument against Mk 1:9 having Nazareth, for Matt supports Capernaum.

I would assume using a back-formation that it's Gergasa, though this may easily be an error for Gerasa.

The problem with the above statement is that it is comparing geographical terms with nazarhnos which we are arguing simply isn't geographical. If nazarhnos is by chance some sectarian idea then it would probably have had existence before Mark if it already has a specific name.

I've already indicated that NCR has two meanings and both have relevance to messianism: one through David and the restoration of the royal line (the branch), the other through those who observe, the covenant, but also the coming end as seen in Mk 13 which ends with the repetition of "keep vigilant" (as in observe/watch).

Any better suggestions will be appreciated.

And almost certainly in Greek: I'd say that there is too much dissimilarity for a native Hebrew speaker to tolerate between the various terms used.

First, I got NCRY straight from the Peshitta, so it's an after the event form and the Peshitta is unable to provide a coherent form of gentilic from NCRT which should look like NCRTY.

We have similarity of appearance and nothing more between NCR and NCRT: where did the T come from?

We have the curious fact that the Semitic form of Nazareth is with a tsade and not a zayin, as we would expect from the Greek zeta.

I have to say that in most cases the Hebrew tsade is transliterated into Greek as zeta, though exceptions can be found, eg Gen 13:10 Zoar, Heb: C`R and Grk Zogora; 1 Sam 14:4 Bozez, Heb: BCC and Grk Bazes.

My basic way of thinking is a bit like analysing how people who don't know the languages would analyse it, ie by simple appearance. This why I can't see any Hebrew mediation in the process we are trying to understand. We almost certainly are dealing with most of the linguistic association in Greek, which makes much of what we see in the sense of associations possible.

It's a wildcard for me at the moment, other than for the fact of it telling us that Mt 2:23 was certainly not worked out in Hebrew or Aramaic. He came from NCRT so that he could be called a NZWRY... naaa, too different. However, when there are the confusions of conversion into another language, it starts to become more reasonable that the associations we see are made.


spin