spin

Should be ringing an alarm bell there, Ben C.

You're supposed to be considering the lectio difficilior. But you are avoiding, avoiding, avoiding it.

What about 21:11? It presents the orthodox form of later tradition. What exactly do you make of it?

One usually starts by analysing the evidence before making conclusions, not vice versa. We have obvious signs of layering, when we accept the notion that some form of Mark was a source of Matthew. We have signs of difficulty with different Greek forms nazarhnos, nazwraios, nazara, nazaret, nazareth, nazarat, and nazarath. (Fortunately we can coalesce the last four by recognizing later scribal intervention.) In Matthew we can see the omission of nazarhnos from the Marcan source, but the inclusion of nazwraios in non-Marcan material (arguable except being in Peter's denial, 26:61, but argument there seems unconvincing).

This is simply conjecture based on apparently poor analogy.

This explains why the Matthean writer omitted nazarhnos.

Why should you admit -- using your biased term -- that Nazareth can become Nazara (against the stream of tradition)?

But the relationship between nazarhnos and Nazara seems obvious, doesn't it? Once you admit that nazarhnos looks like an ordinary gentilic, what would be more obvious than a source like Nazara? "[C]ompare the Gadarenes of Gadara."


spin

the_cave

Basically for the same reasons as spin. Why doesn't it show up in the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke?

You are arguing that we can know that Nazara was not in Galilee. But kai all by itself does not tell us this. If Mt 2:23 was written at the same time as 4:12-13, then it seems Nazara must have been in Galilee. Only if Mt 2:23 is a later addition could we say its location was completely unknown.

Where else do you think Matthew could have gotten Nazara from? We don't see it again until much later in Mark.

I agree it's unhelpful he omitted it.

spin

Only Zebulun and Naphtali -- which are a synonym for Galilee -- does not contain Nazara. Jesus withdrew to Galilee: he moved to Capernaum by the sea in Zebulun and Naphtali (ie in Galilee); ie he moved from Nazara to Galilee.

I don't understand the last sentence or its relationship with the previous one -- unless you meant Luke rather than Mark?

Both Matthew and Luke have the term, though not for the same reason nor in the same contextualization. This suggests that Nazara had come into circulation after the writing of Mark: both M&L received it -- not, as some would like, Luke from Matt -- from elsewhere, ie a tradition that had reached them separately, given its different employment in each. It seems obvious to me that it came to Matthew after the first redaction of Matthew: why remove nazarhnos if you knew Nazara? And if you already knew nazwraios, why not use it instead of nazarhnos?

[I note once again that I'm in a situation in which a relatively simple analysis of a passage has become complicated by the need for a total explanation rather than attempting to see what the passage itself in its context says.]


spin

Ben C Smith

Since I consider Nazara to be the lectio difficilior in Matthew 2.23, and since I tend to favor Nazara as original (though I am far from 100% certain), I can only assume you are saying that I am avoiding Nazareth in Matthew 2.23. But I am open to your argument(s): Tell me, why is Nazareth the lectio difficilior in Matthew 2.23, and why should I pay more attention to it?

No, it does not explain why the Matthean writer omitted it. I was not even attempting to answer that question in the statement you flagged. :huh:

I use the term admit at least as much of my own views as of the views of others.

You apparently have no recollection of our past exchanges on this issue.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Yes, I did. I am trying to avoid covering ground already covered in our previous exchanges.

Ben.

spin

Here's an example for you: Mt 20:28b says,

"the son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life, a ransom for many."

The kai is not co-ordinating here: it is explaining how the son of man was to serve and the following might be a closer rendering of the Greek:

"the son of man came not to be served but to serve, namely to give his life, a ransom for many."

spin

spin

You said,

There is also Matthew 2.23 to reckon with, another verse that seems to say that Nazareth or Nazara (textual issue here) is in Galilee (see verse 22).

This wording gives no indication that you "tend to favor Nazara as original". It just seems to be more "Nazareth" with lip-service to "Nazara".

(And interestingly you said "another verse that seems to say that Nazareth or Nazara... is in Galilee". What's the first?)

Well, why do you seem to work from the presupposition that Nazara can come from Nazareth, when you have no evidence for it?

Once admit that Nazareth can become Nazara, and the term Nazarene is easy to understand

Sorry, I don't remember you actually tackling the subject. Can you point me to a nutshell presentation of your views as to the apparent close relationship between nazarhnos and Nazara in the archives, thanks?


spin

ynquirer

This thread is difficult to understand.

On the one hand, the op asks the question whether Matthew’s Nazara was in Galilee.

On the other, the writer of the op – no-one else – at a moment revealed, as an argument in favor of a doubt as regard the answer to the question, that papyrus P70, which contains, amongst other fragments, Mat 2:22-3:1 and is the oldest witness thereof, says ‘Nazara’ instead of ‘Nazaret’, so belying the Alexandrian text.

If so, 2:22-23 says:

If 2:19-21 says that the Lord instructed Joseph to take the son and his mother from Egypt back to Israel, 2:22 adds that he then withdrew to Galilee, 2:23 concludes that the family specifically began to live in a town called Nazara, and the two last verses are supported by Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2384 (P70), can anyone tell me what this thread is about? :huh:

the_cave

Do you disagree that 2:23 seems to pretty clearly state that Nazara was in Galilee? You need to get rid of 2:23 before you can claim that the author of 4:13 didn't know that Nazara was in Galilee.

I was under the (mistaken) impression that you were arguing Matthew got Nazara from Nazarhnos. I take it you are not in fact arguing this?

Yes, I am tentatively agreeing with this, though I disagree that there is no relationship between Matthew's use of Nazara and Luke's.

Don't you think Matthew is keen on calling Jesus nazwraios rather than nazarhnos? Are you saying that Mark added nazarhnos after Matthew added Nazara?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Matthew used it, and ignored nazarhnos. Do you disagree?

You should know by now that nothing is simple in the synoptic problem You have to look at all the ramifications of the smallest claim.

spamandham

Since I don't know Greek, I'm having a hard time following it as well. But I believe the thread is about trying to determine whether or not the writer of Matthew 4 considered Nazara to be within the region known as Galilee.

Having followed the thread for several pages mostly as an observer, I'm leaning toward spin's argument as being stronger, that the author does not seem to recognize that Nazara is in Galilee.