ynquirer

Andrew,

To end with the side-issue of successive layers in Matthew, I must confess I haven’t seen a copy of P70. spin says it in 2:23 has the word ‘Nazara’ instead of ‘Nazaret’. It makes sense.

Regardless, I have for a long time been puzzled by an enigma. It is beyond a doubt that the accusative ‘Nazara’ in 4:13 is entirely consistent with the genitive ‘Nazareth’ in 21:11 – for a declinable though irregular form that parallels Josephus’s declinable use of Gennesareth in AJ. To the contrary, the accusative ‘Nazaret’ in 2:23, as displayed in the great uncials, was usage inconsistent with 4:13 and so rendered the whole affair dubious.

One still had recourse to the theory of different layers. Provided that the Nativity and round trip to Egypt make up an added block (chapters 1 and 2), odd mention of Nazaret in 2:23 would be a part of wholesale addition to the earliest Matthew (Mat-1) so as to have Mat-2 (= chapters 1 and 2 plus Mat-1). That was tantamount to assuming that the beginning of Mat-1 (chapter 3) was almost a paraphrase of Mark, then one had Nazara mentioned in the first place (4:13) and Nazareth in 21:11 interpolated later on so as to have the gospel (Mat-3) aligned with the rest of the canon. (I guess that your chronology would be different, but that is the problem with hypothetical layers: almost every chronological order is possible, so that the ordering becomes an undecipherable labyrinth, something very convenient for groundless speculation.)

What seems more intriguing in this deconstruction is the assumption that Nazara might appear alone in Mat-1.

To begin with, I do not condone the prejudice that Nazara in 4:13 and Nazareth in 21:11 are inconsistent with each other. One can say that if ever reads nothing of Greek and knows nothing of Josephus. Or else, if one ignores the significance of Josephus for the Matthean community – let’s speak the fashionable jargon. Whether the original 2:23 said ‘Nazara’ or ‘Nazaret’, the rest of Matthew, from chapter 3 to the end, makes up a harmonious text in which no internal cleavages I have been able to find. Perhaps you know better.

A final remark on mysterious overtones of Nazara. Someone on this board seems deeply impressed with the phonetic likeness of the Greek Nazara and the Hebrew N-TS-R, which means ‘to keep in safe’. Assuming that mention of Nazara at the precise moment Jesus moves to Capernaum implies Nazara meant ‘private life wherever’, so that the movement really meant shifting from the safeness of anonymity – perhaps in the wilderness near the Jordan in Judea – toward the risks of public life in the land of Naphtali and Zebulon aka Galilee of the Gentiles, is an ingenious idea though one-sided.

Such an overtone is of course present as a connotation, among others, of the word Nazara. Yet, having the denotation of a word be reduced to one of its connotations is conducive to impoverished interpretation of the text. Names of cities and places are seldom declinable in Greek language. Only the names of very important places were so, and Nazareth was not such a place. Therefore, Nazareth was probably not an exception. The Matthean community, so as to pay homage to Jesus’ birth place, attempted to render the name ‘Nazareth’ declinable – it would be odd that no-one ever made the attempt. After all, that was what Josephus had done with Gennesareth in Antiquitates Judaicae: compare with indeclinable Gennesar in De Bello Judaico. And one of the by-products of inventive declension was the opportunity to choose words for the different cases. ‘Nazara’ resembled the Hebrew word for ‘to keep in safe’, and that was of course a bonus of the linguistic innovation.

Amaleq13

The examples I mentioned suggest to me much less than the precise exegesis your interpretation appears to expect from the author(s).

Then I guess I can't help you. I don't know how else to describe a text that has no problem "fulfilling" non-prophecies or creatively stretching for such "fulfillments". It just doesn't make sense to make much it when this same text fails to provide a perfectly parallel "fulfillment" elsewhere. A prophecy that is only partially "fulfilled" seems to fit right in with the rest.

andrewcriddle

When I said perfectly plausible I meant just that. IE it might very well be true. I didn't mean to suggest that I definitely believed it.

I was trying to argue that even if (as may or may not be true) there was an early version of Matthew without the birth narratives it is unlikely to have clearly implied that Nazareth was outside the Galilee.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

The relevant passage in Josephus Jewish War is I interpreted this as a division between Upper and Lower Galilee on a North-South basis with Upper Galilee in the North and Lower Galilee in the South.

Andrew Criddle

spin

I don't know what difficulty you have with the fulfillments of prophecies in the Matthean tradition. Do you think the community didn't imagine Jesus as god amongst them? Do you think they didn't think that Jesus was called a Nazorean (thus showing why he moved to Nazara)? Wasn't Jesus the great light that moved into Galilee (explaining the move to Capernaum)? What's your gripe with them? When you set aside your desires to have nice accurately fulfilled prophecies otherwise they're fraudulent, I can't see how you'll continue seeing the problems you seem to. Just imagine some of the lesser educated inerrantists who come here and the sorts of positions they take upon themselves to maintain their inerrancy, then you should have no trouble with the Matthean community, whose members had no education. You're not dealing with inerrancy here: you're trying to understand how traditions developed.

When every word of the Hebrew bible could be seen as prophetic -- as the original context is lost -- then your notion of what is, and what is not, prophecy may be inappropriate here. Remember bits of psalms get perceived for some deeper meaning in the passion play. Judges are a part of the former prophets. The Matthean community didn't have the basis for judgment on matters that a modern-educated person ostensibly has. This doesn't mean that they have to seek recourse in stupidity or dishonesty, but it means the received tradition and who communicates it has value while other sources don't. If that tradition indicates that something has been fulfilled, then for them that's how it's perceived. If the bible says that Jesus would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and the gospel tradition indicates that it happened so, it's miraculous, but believed, isn't it? Who are you to poo-poo their traditions as being fast and loose?

And on the o.p., when the text is specifically signalled by using the same information found in the prophecy, shouldn't that tell you what is considered to have been involved? Do you think that the writer would have said that Jesus went to dwell in Capernaum by the sea in Zebulun and Naphtali -- an odd geographical reference for the situation, only made sense of when seen in the light of the prophecy -- if that was not the tradition?

You haven't elucidated a case. I'm trying to tease it out of you.


spin

ynquirer

Reading the text you provide us with, it certainly seems that Upper Galilee was the lands north of a notional line from Tiberias to Zabulon, which line runs east-west. But for a detail, Bersabe, being rather north of the notional borderline, is said to furnish the actual borderline between both Galilees. On that account, I have always been led to think that Capernaum, which is south-east of Bersabe, might be Lower Galilee as well.

Nevertheless, I might be wrong.

the_cave

Is it of any help that my various interlinear resources inform me that there are three verbs in 4:13--leaving, going, and dwelling? Doesn't that seem like one verb too many?

spin

Leaving [katalipwn] Nazara, he went [elQwn] and dwelt [katwkhsen] in Capernaum...

Problem? It all seems sufficient to me.

(Greek also has the idiomatic structure "go/come and do" -- without the "and".)


spin

the_cave

I agree it seems fine, but couldn't both katalipwn and elQwn be participles?

Let's assume it's fine as it is. Then what is the most natural interpretation of kai katalipwn Nazara--that it logically (and chronologically) follows after anecwrhsen eiV thn galilaian in 4:12, or that it is a kind of recapitulation, repeating the same information? You seem to think it is the latter, whereas I think it is more natural to assume the former. But I could be wrong.

Others' comments are also welcome here. This is kind of the crux of the argument.

spin

It's a Matthean redactional addition into Marcan material which goes into detail regarding the withdrawal into Galilee. (If you see that as recapitulation, then fine.) We have to see the addition first in itself for what it does and that involves a move from Nazara to Capernaum, a move to Zebulun and Naphtali, and, from the prophecy, a move to Galilee. If you don't get a move to Galilee from 4:15 when read in relation with 4:13, could explain why not?


spin