andrewcriddle

Hi Spin

Before trying to reply can I confirm that I understand you ?

IIUC you are suggesting that Matthew cannot mean "Upper Galilee" by "Galilee of the Gentiles" because he refers to "Zebulun and Naphtali" as being more or less equivalent to "Galilee of the Gentiles" and a large part of Zebulun was in fact in "Lower Galilee".

Or am I misunderstanding you ?

Andrew Criddle

spin

As the northern border of Josephus's Lower Galilee cuts across both tribal areas, I see no reason to consider the possibility of the writer having such divisions as Josephus used in mind (other than fleetingly).


spin

Ben C Smith

I think it does:

And leaving Nazara he went to live in Capernaum, which is by the sea....

There is no problem so far. All it implies, at most, is that Nazara is not very close to the sea (Capernaum, however, is right on it).

...in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali.

Now the writer specifies that Capernaum is in the territory prophesied by Isaiah, and Isaiah is most certainly the reason he does so.

Before the writer mentions Z and N he mentions the sea. There is no necessary implication that the author thought of Nazara outside of Z and N, only that he thought of it as not very near the sea.

Ben.

spin

1. *He moved from Miami to (Clewiston which is on) a lake in Florida.
2. He moved from Miami to (Salt Lake City which is on) a lake in Utah.


spin

Chili

Ben, do you really think that Jesus was mesmerized by the OT, Isaiah here??

the_cave

Unfortunately, Ben is correct--or at least, he's as correct as spin is. It's unclear whether the point Matthew was trying to make was that Capernaum was in Z&N, or that it was beside the Sea of Galilee/Genneseret. FWIW I tend to side with spin here, but I have to admit Ben has a point.

Josephus says Samaria began at Ginea (War 3.4.1). This would place much (if not most of) Issachar inside of Galilee. Not proving anything, besides the point that it's possible either Matthew or his readers (or both) could imagine a "Nazara" within Galilee, but not within Z&N. (Josephus also says Galilee extended to Cabul, which might place some of Asher in Galilee, but this is unclear.)

Note that this is a totally separate issue from the question of Lower vs. Upper Galilee.

spin

The issue is where Nazara was perceived to be, in Z&N or not.

Do you or do you not find difficulty in the following sentence?

He moved from Miami to a town on a lake in Florida.

That should be simple to respond to. At the same time the use of the prophecy precludes the division that Ben C makes with the sentence. Remember that Zebulun and Naphtali are in the dark until a great light comes. The obvious use of the prophecy is to describe Jesus's move into Zebulun and Naphtali.


spin

GakuseiDon

I find difficulty in it. Wouldn't the houses sink?

Ben C Smith

I see no problem with that sentence (except perhaps what GDon jokingly said ). It neither confirms nor denies that Miami is in FL, though of course it asserts that the lake is in FL. Compare:

The topographical maps are detailed enough to be able to get a grasp on how far it is from San Francisco to Los Angeles, CA, for example....

You can fly from Tokyo to Los Angeles CA....

We can tell that these authors place Los Angeles in CA, but we cannot tell whether they think San Francisco or Tokyo is in CA (turns out one is, while one is not). Likewise:

And leaving Nazara he went to live in Capernaum, which is by the sea in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali.

We can tell that the author thinks Capernaum is in Z and N, but we cannot tell whether he thinks Nazara is.

In my view, the seeing of a great light is not the move from Nazara to Capernaum; it is the beginning of the preaching ministry, which the author describes for us. Likewise, the fulfillment of Isaiah is not the move from Nazara to Capernaum; it is the location of Capernaum (and therefore of the base for that ministry) in Z and N.

Unfortunately?!? I regard it as most fortunate when I occasionally get one right.

The second half of your statement is the more correct. It is certainly possible from the wording of the sentence that the author thought of Nazara as outside Z and N; for all we know from this sentence alone he may as well have thought of it as in Italy somewhere. But this is not a necessary reading of the passage, as you go on to observe.

Ben.

spin

The implication should be clear to you. You should not think it possible that Miami was in Florida from the sentence alone.

Inappropriate. The first shows the writer's problem, necessitating the comma (they weren't popular in our gospel writer's day).

A lot of what normally is said is in the implication. By the fact that Capernaum is in Z&N (by the lake) and to get there he left Nazara implies that Nazara is not in Zebulun and Naphtali.

While I agree that it marks the start of the ministry (and would have been a major consideration for the writer), you are sidestepping what the text actually says.

The writer accepts from his source that Capernaum was where Jesus lived and later calls it his "home town" (the setting for the healing of the paralytic, 9:1, specified in Mark as Capernaum), but he had to accommodate the tradition that makes Nazara his home town.

12 When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he returned to Galilee. 13 Leaving Nazara, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali— 14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:

The text specifies that it was the leaving Nazara, the going and the dwelling in Capernaum that fulfills the prophecy. One shouldn't just forget about the tangible aspect of the text. The point of the prophecy in 2:23 has its clear tangible necessity. Josephus made his home in Nazara to fulfill the prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazorean. These two prophecies first and foremost deal with Jesus's movements. The first puts him in Nazara. The second moves him to Capernaum.

15 "Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the way to the sea, along the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
16 the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned."

You must deal with the tangible aspect of the text. It explains why the specific text was chosen, why the chosen prophecy talks about Zebulun and Naphtali -- a fact stuck in your face by the writer who mentions them just before the prophecy so you don't miss what he's saying. Why look past it?

The choice of the prophecy helps show the implication of v.13, ie that Nazara was not in Zebulun and Naphtali.


spin