the_cave

I guess what stumps me in 4:13 is the kai at the beginning; this implies an event in addition to the events of 4:12.

As for 4:15, maybe Matthew just thought that the prophecy could only be fulfilled by a seaside town in Z&N. He's just quoting the prophecy and being poetic when he talks about Galilee; he isn't saying Z&N are all that there is to Galilee. He's just saying they are in the land of Galilee.

If you called Massachusetts "New England", you would be correct, even though there is more to New England than Massachusetts.

But if kai in 4:13 doesn't matter, that would make an important difference.

Amaleq13

I don't have any difficulty. I just recognize that some of the "fulfillments" aren't as exact or perfect as your interpretation so I'm wondering why I should assume that this particular prophecy fulfillment must be intended as a perfect parallel of the passage from Scripture.

None of this is in any way relevant to my argument and I have no idea where you get it. :huh:

It isn't my desire but what appears to be required by your interpretation. IOW, your conclusion about the location of Nazara appears to require that we assume the author(s) intended for the entire "prophecy" to be fulfilled or the parallel to be perfect. But I see no reason to assume this of the author(s) given these other examples of imperfect prophecy fulfillment accepted apparently without qualm.

If all of these other less-than-perfect fulfillments were acceptable, why couldn't this prophecy be just as acceptable even if it only refers to the final destination?

Inerrancy is a complete irrelevancy here. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my point.

Based on the examples I've mentioned, not necessarily.

No. I think, given the context of the examples I've mentioned, it is entirely possible that the author(s) and readers were only interested in the destination as a fulfillment regardless of whether the location of Nazara fit.

IOW, your argument appears sound but seems to me to expect more of the author(s) than the text suggests we should.

spin

Exact regarding what?

Sorry, I'm the one who is huh-ing you. I haven't got a clue what you are saying. So I went finshing. OK, I'll stop fishing and ask you once again to explain yourself. Your thought is not making sense to me as yet.

I simply work from the text using the clues the writer provides. I haven't said anything about perfection. You are reading this in. I dealt with the fact that the writer included material that said that Jesus moved from Nazara to Capernaum, the latter of which is beside the lake in Zebulun and Naphtali, which was to fulfill a prophecy. The prophecy itself talks of Zebulun and Naphtali, so the writer is making the connection as overt as possible. If the writer wasn't concerned with the practicality of this move why add the precision regarding Zebulun and Naphtali in his preparation for the prophecy? This is nothing to do with perfection, but coherence of communication.

What do you mean by "less-than-perfect fulfillments"? You haven't made this clear though I have tried to get you to come clean with the idea.

More fishing on my part. I was trying to contextualise your obscure problems with Matthean prophecies.

Make the point. Don't just act like it's obvious. Illustrate the idea from the examples you've mentioned.

The writer has added in information in the gap between 4:12 and 4:17 about both Nazara and Capernaum. You need to deal with the writer's intention.


spin

ynquirer

Participles do not play a verbal function, but adjective instead. Therefore, there are in Mat 4:12-13 two verbs for two statements. That’s correct.

On the other hand, if the linguistic theory that has aorist be a representation in speech of single moments in the straightforward running of Chronos – be accurate, then two verbs in aorist with the same subject, however close to each other, like anechwrhsen in 4:12 and katwkhsen in 4:13, could not possibly represent but two actions performed by the subject at subsequent moments in time.

In other words, Jesus’ returning to Galilee upon knowing of John’s arrest and his moving from Nazara to Capernaum might not be performed at a single stroke.

Ben C Smith

That is exactly what I think, too. Matthew has described the move to Galilee in verse 12. To now add that kai fits more naturally with a reading that has verse 13 adding another leg of the itinerary, not redescribing the one already listed in verse 12.

Spin has:

1. Jesus withdrew into Galilee.
2. This withdrawal into Galilee involved leaving Nazara to go to Capernaum.

I think rather:

1. Jesus withdrew into Galilee.
2. And he (then) left Nazara to move to Capernaum.

I agree. The prophecy mentions the sea, and Matthew makes a point of telling us that Capernaum is by the sea. He obviously intends to make the seaside location of Capernaum a fulfillment of the prophecy. If Nazara is not by the sea, then Nazara is less fit as a match.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Both of them are. They are aorist participles.

Ancient Greek loves to subordinate participles to main verbs. What I mean is that, whereas other languages (like English) might prefer to use two finite verbs and a conjunction like and, Greek often prefers to use a participle and a finite verb, without a conjunction. Compare:

He sat down and ate.
Having sat down, he ate.

We speakers of English are probably more comfortable with the first option, two finite verbs conjoined. But ancient Greek likes the second. The aorist (simple past) tense usually implies a time prior to the main verb; in this case, sitting down precedes eating.

So Matthew 4.12-13 runs as follows, translated more literally:

[Jesus] withdrew into Galilee. And, having left Nazara, having come, he housed in Capernaum....

It might be tempting from an English point of view to see these participles (having left, having come) as preceding the withdrawal in verse 12, but that is not how they normally work. They precede the main verb in their own clause or sentence, in this case housed or dwelt in verse 13. This is why so many translations just fill the participles out as verbs; it makes more syntactic sense in English and actually better conveys what the Greek is saying.

If the having left Nazara part were in the same clause as withdrawing into Galilee, spin would be reading these verses correctly, since the leaving of Nazara would now precede the withdrawal into Galilee. But that is not how the passage is written. As it stands, the withdrawal into Galilee occurs in verse 12, and the departure from Nazara precedes the move to Capernaum in verse 13.

I think your observation about the kai is spot-on. In simple narration it most naturally serves to move the action along. Compare Matthew 5.1-2:

...[Jesus] went up the mountain, and after he sat down his disciples came to him. And having opened his mouth he taught them....

The sequence is clear; the disciples come, then Jesus opens his mouth in order to teach. Or Matthew 6.6:

Go into your closet, and having shut the door pray to your father.

Again the sequence is clear. First go into the closet, then shut the door and pray. Same thing in our passage at hand, I think:

[Jesus] withdrew into Galilee. And, having left Nazara, having come, he housed in Capernaum....

First Jesus withdraws into Galilee, then he leaves Nazara to come and dwell in Capernaum.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Your reading of the passage assumes, on the part of the author, a desire for an exact or perfect parallel of the entire prophecy (ie both departure location and destination location) but I don't find these other examples of prophecy fulfillment in Matthew to support that assumption.

The examples suggest that the author(s) was not necessarily interested in a perfect match or literal fulfillment so I see no reason to assume your reading is what was intended by the author.

I'm afraid I can't be more clear and, after PMing a couple folks for a reality check, I have to conclude the problem is on your end.

Then think of it as "complete". Whatever you want to call it, your reading involves assuming the author intended for the entire prophecy to be fulfilled by the passage about Jesus' move to Capernum. Your opponents have suggested that the author was really only interested in the destination portion being fulfilled. The examples I have pointed to suggest that your reading is not necessarily what the author intended and that your opponents might very well be correct. In other words, this is just another example of Matthew's less-than-precise appeals to prophecy fulfillment.

spin

The following is fine to me:

Hearing that the weather was good there he moved to Colorado. And leaving Wichita he went to live in Boulder.

The case against seems now to hinge on a kai, a conjuction that is often not translated. Take the RSV, NIV, and the ISV: none of them translate it in 4:13.

One must remember though that interpretation of the significance of the passage will often say how one translate kai. If you understand a priori that Nazara is in Galilee then the "and" will be natural and will mean what is normally intended by the term. We know from Semitic influence that kai is overused in the gospels. In fact there are places where kai cannot be meaningfully translated as "and": see the second kai in John 1:16, or the kai in Mk 2:28.

Does the kai in Eph 1:1 which separates "the saints who are at Ephesus" and "the faithful in Christ Jesus" indicate two separate groups or is the second clause explanatory? In Jn 12:48 are there two separate groups, those "who reject me" and those "who do not receive my word" or is the second an explanation of the first? What value does the kai have in Mk 14:1: is the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread two separate events?


spin

spin

I don't know about that at all. All I said was that the prophecy connects strongly with the move to Capernaum; seeing as the text and the prophecy both mention Zebulun, Naphtali and Galilee, they must be significant. If you cannot accept that, can you please explain why a passage was chosen that specifically mentions locations which had just been mentioned in the main text -- some obviously specifically added to make extra connection with the prophecy --, if they aren't of interest to the writer?

I think you need to deal with the efforts the writer made in order to use the prophecy.


spin

ynquirer

Hmmm… no education? They were able to write in Greek – probably not their mother tongue and not an easy foreign language, BTW – so beautiful a text as the gospel of Matthew, still they had no education?

Precisely, it was not the tradition.

There is a difference from tradition to innovation, though spin seems not to know of it.

To be sure, the Matthean mentioning of Isaiah’s prophecy as regard the light from Zebulun and Naphtali was not the tradition. To support the contention it was, spin ought to produce a precedent that such prophecy was cherished prior to Matthew. It is only too easy to say something was so and so without the least evidence.

IMO, there is no such precedent. In all likelihood, the Matthean community had to dig into a great deal of prophecies since old fallen into oblivion to find out one that fitted in with their agenda. Isaiah’s did.

That it was innovation is proven by the fact that the mention of the prophecy in 4:13ff is signal that Matthew departs from Mark. Notice that 3:1-4:12 is almost a paraphrase of the beginning of Mark. After Mat 4:13, however, there is a significant change. Jesus in Mark spends some time touring Galilee and calling for the first disciples before Capernaum is mentioned for the first time:

Of noteworthy difference is Matthew:

See the difference? Both passages begin with John’s arrest. Yet, Mark has Jesus tour Galilee, preach the ‘kingdom of God’, and call for the disciples before arriving in Capernaum. Jesus does not move to Capernaum because the light must come from so and so, since he actually begins to throw the light before arriving in there. In other words, Mark is unaware of Isaiah’s prophecy.

In turn, Matthew has Jesus abstain from preaching, calling for, and touring, before moving to Capernaum. It is to make good the subversion of the Marcan narrative at that point that Matthew introduces Isaiah’s prophecy as a plausible justification. That is innovation, not the tradition.

spin, therefore, doesn’t know who the Matthean community were and ignores where they were located, what goals they aimed at, what their level of education was, what purpose to write a new gospel they entertained, even whether they were following the tradition or innovating at this precise point… and yet pretends to tell us what the passage really meant. Nonsense.