CX

Not a thing. Your explanation was completely satisfactory, thanks.

CX

According to the critical apparatus in NA27, NAZARET (which is the preferred reading in the NA27) is supported by Aleph, B, D, L and some others. NAZAREQ is supported by C, K, N, W, Gamma and others. NAZARA is supported only by P70 and Eusebius. Since P70 is technically referred to as P. Oxy. 2384. indicating that it was found in Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, it is not unreasonable to suppose it is Alexandrian in nature. I've never looked at the actual text of P70 so I can't say for sure but I've not come across a western, nor certainly Byzantine, fragment that came from Oxyrhynchus.

CX

It's worth noting that NA27 agrees with WH in both these instances, though in general WH is not well regarded by modern biblical scholars most of whom definitely prefer the Nestle-Aland critical text over all others, save a handful of scholars who reject the primacy of the Alexandrian text in favor of a Western text. (BTW it's Lk 4:16)

CX

<columbo voice=on>

There is one more thing...

</columbo>

I'm not sure how this discussion of the redaction/insertion whatever of NAZARET etc. has bearing on the implication in the OP that mutliple authors worked on GMt. This to me seems like simple "correction"/redaction. The impression I got from the OP was that it claimed GMt had major portions written by different authors. It is rather convincingly argued that GJn was worked on in this fashion, but I had never seen the same argument applied to GMt.

spin

Thanks.

I think I'll have to either get a copy of this text or stop meddling in nt. I think the latter is wiser. I use bible software to supply the basics of the Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions, W&H and Maurice Robinson's edition for the Online Bible.

I'll have to chase up the Goulder article for the exact reference to Origen, because that will be another good early witness.

In trying to find a transcription of POxy 2384, I found a bit of information, but no text or photo. It's three fragments and the one which is relevant here is tiny. It's categorised as a "strict" text, but can't be classified as Alexandrian for some reason (may of course be size, ie not enough to judge).

What would be interesting is how Mt. 2:23 could end up with Nazara if it originally had Nazaret. I can understand a correction from Nazara to Nazaret, as the latter was the accepted form (along with Nazareth, the pair being close to reflective of the split between Alexandrian and Byzantine, with a few important exceptions). So, why should a scribe change it from Nazaret to Nazara? The only thing that comes to mind -- and this is not convincing to me -- is through the influence of Nazara in 4:13.

You said later, This to me seems like simple "correction"/redaction.

The process of multiple redaction I have proposed is based on the steps taken to go from Mark's use of nazarhnos and his assumption that Capernaum was Jesus home (the one use of Nazareth in Mk 1:9 is not attested by Mt, as I've pointed out elsewhere) to Matthew's nazwraios and Jesus home as Nazara/Nazareth. (I would also add that the two different sources for fulfilled prophecies (LXX and Hebrew types) also reflect different redactions.) And Matthew took Capernaum in Mk to have been where Jesus had his home, for, though accepting the Nazareth tradition, the Matthean writer felt the need to move his Jesus from Nazara to Capernaum.

I pointed these steps:

1. the removal of the unknown term nazarhnos, ie nazwraios was not yet in circulation (this is the reflection of one redactor),
2. the addition of nazwraios and perhaps at the same time the home town at Nazara/Nazareth

These are clearly two separate phases requiring a certain time for the unknown tradition regarding a) nazwraios and b) Nazareth to appear.

spin