andrewcriddle

The argument is that IF "Galilee of the Gentiles" in 1 Maccabees corresponds to one of the standard divisions of Galilee ie Upper Galilee or Lower Galilee it must correspond to Upper Galilee (It could correspond to neither but it cannot correspond to Lower Galilee.) Now Capernaum according to the description of Galilee in Josephus' "Jewish War" seems to be clearly in Upper Galilee. Hence IF "Galilee of the Gentiles" is not just a part of Upper Galilee but equivalent to it, then Capernaum (unlike Nazareth) is in "Galilee of the Gentiles".

This argument obviously has weak links but each step seems at least plausible.

Andrew Criddle

spin

OK. Bring it up when you've got some evidence.

You know Galilee contained many gentile towns throughout, including Sepphorus and Tiberias -- both of which were in Lower Galilee. There is no reason to believe that "Galilee of the Gentiles" in 1 Macc is anything but a reference to Galilee (minus its Jewish population).


spin

the_cave

Why not when canonical Matthew was composed? (BTW, what do you think of the idea apparently floated by E.S. Drower in The Secret Adam that nazwraios (and possibly even "Nazareth") derives from an Aramaic term that means "enlightened"?)

But this doesn't answer my question--let me put it this way--how do you see the tradition evolving?

1) You seem to think that originally, Jesus was said to have come from a Nazara, which was not in Galilee. This produced Mt 4:13-16.
2) You then seem to think that this evolved into a tradition that Jesus came from a Nazara which was in Galilee. This produced Mt 2:22-23.

Am I correct so far? If so, why did 2) happen? Why did Nazara need to be in Galilee at all?

(Finally, what manuscripts have "Nazara" in 2:23?)

Toto

The Secret Adam: A Study of Nasoraean Gnosis is online and can be downloaded from here in pdf format

Ben C Smith

To quote S. C. Carlson on M. Goulder:

Goulder then appeals to text-criticism, pointing out that some of the earliest witnesses of Matt. 2:23, namely P70, Origen, and Eusebius, have Nazara instead of Nazaret (367-368).

I have not checked for myself, and Matthew 2.23 is not within the range of P70 given on page XV of the SQE by Aland... but I have found it is not unusual for the ranges in that list to be somewhat incomplete when it comes to highly fragmented verses.

Ben.

spin

M. Naldini published holdings in the Museum of Papyrology in Florence that the museum recognized as a part of P70. Here's what Aland et al. say in Text of the New Testament, on p.100:

p70 Matt. 2:13-16; 2:22-3:1; 11:26-27; 12:4-5; 24:3-6; 12-15; third. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum; Florence: Istituto di Papirologia G. Vitelli, CNR 419, 420. Edgar Lobel, Colin H. Roberts, E.G. Turner, and J.W.B. Barns, Oxyrhynchus Papyri XXIV (London: 1957):4-5 (P. Oxy. 2384); M. Nardini, "Nuovi frammenti del vangelo di Matteo," Prometheus 1 (1975):195-200. (Strict text, somewhat carelessly written, category 1)

Goulder points out that, coming in at the end of the 3rd c. or early 4th c., P70's the earliest witness to 2:23 and it has Nazara. Of course both Origen and Eusebius are witnesses to the form earlier than any other source, so it must be given as superior.


spin

spin

You're assuming that there was a single authorial moment when you talk about "when canonical Matthew was composed". This goes against the evidence. We have conflicting or at least divergent forms within texts, which are evidence for diverse moments in the composition of these texts.

I don't. I'd guess it's based on an erroneous idea from the gospel of Philip.

Try the archives. It's been said, but I can't give it shortly.

I'm working with what texts say. I've already pointed out that Mark says Capernaum was where Jesus had his home. The Matthean writer has to deal with this fact.

Nazara came into the tradition found in Matthew, but after the removal of the mention of nazarhnos. Can you imagine someone who knew Nazara in this situation still simply removing nazarhnos, given the obvious apparent relationship?

I can only theorize on why. My task is to account for the (relative) chronological sequence in the synoptic tradition that shows how we can reasonably end up with the disparate forms of toponym and gentilic.


spin

spin

On second thought, Andrew, the text by specifically referring to both Zebulun and Naphtali, the writer excludes Josephus's division which cuts across these traditional tribal lands.


spin

Ben C Smith

Matthew 4.12-16:

12 But hearing that John had been delivered up he withdrew into Galilee. 13 And he left Nazara and came and housed in Capernaum by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and of Naphtali, 14 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, and those sitting in the place and shadow of death, light dawned on them.

I doubt that Matthew has any knowledge of or real geographical interest in the historical boundaries of Galilee (of the gentiles), of Zebulun and Naphtali, or of the Jordan river. He is simply reading Isaiah and trying to fulfill prophecy.

The wording of the transition between verses 12 and 13 implies to me that the author thinks of Nazara as part of Galilee: Jesus withdraws into Galilee, and then he leaves Nazara, which must in that case be in Galilee.

The trip to Capernaum is necessary because Matthew knows (at least from Mark) that Jesus based his ministry there. That is the key. Jesus hailing from Nazara does not in and of itself fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah, since Nazara is not where Jesus had his ministry, and therefore that is not where the people sitting in darkness would see a great light.

The next verse confirms this:

From then on Jesus began to preach and to say: Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.

It is now, after moving to Capernaum, that the ministry begins; therefore it is here, in Capernaum, that Jesus fulfills the prophecy.

Ben.

spin

He is simply giving a reason for the move from Nazara to Capernaum apparently to deal with competing traditions and that is from outside Z & N to inside.

This is a form of gap theory. It doesn't seem to take into consideration what the verse actually says.

"And leaving Nazara he went to live in Capernaum, which is by the sea in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali": Capernaum is in the territory of Z & N and he moved there from Nazara.


spin