S.C.Carlson

No manuscript of Mark attests the omission of Nazaret(h) in 1:9 so its presence in the archetype is secure. As for the autograph, the text is not visibly corrupt that would suggest such a conjectural emendation. Matthew omits lots of Mark's words, so that detail means little.

Well, there's slightly more evidence that Matt 2:23 may have read "Nazara": P70vid, Origen, and Eusebius. From a text critical perspective, this slim reed does not amount to being "probable." The mention in Matt 21:11 is unproblematic under normal Markan priority, because Matthew knows of Nazaret(h) from Mark 1:9.

You must if your "synoptic core" is to make any relevant sense. Otherwise, under normal Markan priority, everything in Mark is "synoptic core" and that includes Nazaret(h) in Mark 1:9. Without an Ur-Markus, your "synoptic core" is just as valid as considering only the odd-numbered verses in Mark or some other arbitrary exclusion of Mark's text.

OK. I'll bite: what in Mark 1:9 "And it came to pass in those days that Jesus went from Nazaret(h) of Galilee and was baptised in the Jordan by John" clearly indicates that Jesus had a home in Capernaum? In fact, Capernaum is not even mentioned in Mark until 1:21, where it says "And he entered Capernaum."

(a) Nazara in 4:13 may derive from a non-Markan source; and (b) the rare change to Nazara to 2:23 may be scribal assimilation to 4:13.

It is not simple to argue that the writer of Matthew does not know what he wrote in 21:11. Adding yet another unattested stage of development is hardly "simple."

It is common for proper names, particularly of obscure towns, to show scribal variation. There's nothing particularly unusual about this.

Stephen

spin

On the contrary, the omission of Nazareth is quite dramatic. As I have pointed out, if it had been in the text, then how would you explain the Matthean omission of nazarhnos from its Marcan source or the inclusion of Nazara given a nice complete Mk 1:9 and its Nazareth?

The fact that a text shows no evidence of disturbance in the tradition is merely as good as the earliest exemplar, seeing that the evidence is that manuscripts were regularly modified, as in the case of the production of Matthew itself. This is why I have supplied arguments to the matter.

You have no means then to understand Nazara at all. Why is it in 4:13, when it requires that the previous mention would be to Nazara as well and why does 2:23 show signs of disturbance at all?

Rubbish. We have clear evidence that texts get changed. Therefore there is no reason to assume that, once Matthew had used Mark, Mark would become fossilized.

So neither Matthew nor Luke got written, right? Everyone was content with Mark so they didn't bother changing anything.

That's all not strange: you're biting in the wrong place. Try Mk 2:1 which tells you that Jesus was home in Capernaum, blithely unaware that you think he should be in Nazareth.

Well, obviously.

Ummm, why would Nazara be in 4:13??

And who argues that?

I guess you have a better explanation for the removal of nazarhnos from the Marcan source only to put nazwraios in the later material. Do please try to give some explanation for the evidence we have instead of talking the talk.

I don't really understand this process of apparently believing that these gospels were popped out complete in one basic sitting, when we can see the traditions evolving before our eyes in the texts and then further in the church fathers. The approach that I have outlined is simple: the texts evolved with the tradition. The nuts and bolts that make up that evolving tradition are just as much evidence as manuscript signs of change. So calling what I have suggested another unattested stage in the development is not as transparent as you present the claim.

Does the orthodox corruption of scripture conveniently only begin with the earliest evidence we have for it?

Again, you might say why nazaraQ instead of acting as though it isn't really a problem to be dealt with. But you know that it is there and you don't have a better explanation for it than calling the town where Jesus came from an obscure town, so it doesn't matter. At least interact with the evidence, rather than looking at Nazara, Nazareth, Nazarene, Nazorean, and the other manuscript variations and saying "what problem?" Give me a more economical explanation which explains all the data and I'll be happy.


spin

S.C.Carlson

The omission of Nazaret(h) at Matt 3:13 // Mark 1:9 is hardly "dramatic," since Nazaret(h) had been just mentioned in Matt 2:23.

No, not "merely as good as the earliest exemplar," because Vaticanus preverses correct readings of Mark that are older than its earliest exemplar, P45. Clearly, the text of Mark must be older than its earliest exemplar.

Didn't I already address this previously?

Of course, "texts get changed," but any particular change needs evidence. Otherwise, one can just as easily argue that the original text contained lots of mentions of Nazaret(h) than what survived in our manuscript. Sauce for the goose, you know.

Ironically, I'm the one claiming that Matthew changed Mark by omitting Nazaret(h) at 1:9 and you're arguing that he did not.

Your overreading the "home" topos in Mark. As Pierson Parker once put it:

Only in Mark, Jesus occupies at least six different houses: in Capernaum (Mk. 2:1; 9:33), on a mountain (3:13 + 19), somewhere in Galilee (7:17), at the foot of the mount of transfiguration (9:28), in Perea (10:10), and yes (7:24), in "the borders" of Tyre and Sidon! Moreover, each of these dwellings has from for Jesus' entire entourage plus other people. How did Jesus come by all this real estate? Did he own it? rent it? borrow it? We are not told.

Clearly, in Mark, Jesus had lots of "homes", so a pad in Capernaum does not mean much and does not exclude those elsewhere.

How do you know what part of Mark is actually earlier or later, if, as you claim, the text got monkeyed with?

We see traditions evolving because we have evidence of it. We don't have evidence of the specific evolution you are arguing for.

Ah, no.

Scribes' mangling obscure, foreign names is the economical explanation, because it is a very common occurrence in the manuscripts and requires no otherwise unattested stages of development.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

No. Nor am I suggesting an actual change in the name of the place in the case of Nazareth. I am suggesting that the same town could be known by two slightly different names, one with and one without the -t ending. (I am thinking of variants, not of one name cleanly and universally replacing the other.)

You seem to be assuming that the variant in Numbers 34.11 is the work of the translator himself, not something he got from tradition.

That is no longer an assumption. In Numbers 34.11 the -t verifiably got lost.

I am guessing that 2nd-Matt is the author of our extant gospel of Matthew. Who is 1st-Matt?

(A lot of guessing going on here.... )

Okay, this helps. Give me a bit to go over this. Thanks.

Ben.

spin

It is dramatic because of the omission in Matt of nazarhnos. Had Nazareth been there in Mk 1:9, why wouldn't the Matthean writer have recognized what you by the later developed tradition think is obvious, ie that there was a relationship between Nazareth and nazarhnos?


P45 is dated at best at 200 CE. When do you think Mark was written?

Ahh, please refresh my memory.

Goodbye to the earliest exemplar.

So, while admitting that writers change their sources, are you not admitting that it didn't happen with Mark after the state of the text received by Matthean and Lucan communities? Didn't they themselves radically change Mark?

A change of locale in a narrative is no indication of of being at home [eis oikon].

ETA: Where do you think Mk 3:19b took place and why?

In the case of nazarhnos Luke attests to two counts.

Not the smoking gun that you require, but there is other evidence.

Then what do you claim that it didn't happen before and close your eyes to other evidence?

The omission of nazarhnos, the inclusion of nazwraios clearly attest to stages of development.


spin

spin

You need to distinguish between a one-off scribal choice, as in the case of Num 34:11, and a change which jumped off the page -- as you would have it -- and entered the tradition. As I indicated, all other examples of Kinnereth didn't change.

Hopefully the list of perceived events I provided cleared this up, ie that they were dealing with different states of the Matthean text. 1st-Matt responsible for certain redactional decisions and 2nd-Matt responsible for others at a later time.

((That's quite a knee-jerk reaction, isn't it? ))

I was giving an aside which argued for economy based on the evidence, ie it's easier to think that the Lucan redaction moved the rejection scene with its reference to Nazara forward before the writing of the birth narrative which contains Nazareth four times, otherwise there doesn't seem to be any reason while working on the specific text, not to change Nazara to Nazareth.


spin

Ben C Smith

Numbers 34.11: ...επι νοτου θαλασσης Χεναρα (upon the back of the sea of Chenara). No final -t.

Pliny, Natural History 5.15: ...in lacum se fundit, quem plures Genesarem vocant (it drains into a lake, which many call Genesara). No final -t.

Also consider Joshua 19.21: ורמת (and Remeth) in Hebrew, but και Ρεμμας (and Remmas) in Greek. Again the -t disappears (unless it is elided into the final sigma; I do not know any of the objective forms, so this may be moot).

I already mentioned το υδωρ του Γεννησαρ in 1 Maccabees 11.67, but you have disputed its connection to Gennesaret. I myself think it quite likely that, even if a river is in mind, it is a river named after Gennesaret. The Vulgate, interestingly, transliterates Γεννησαρ as Gennesar in 1 Maccabees 11.67, but also transliterates Γεννησαρετ as Gennesar in Matthew 14.34.

In 2 Kings 21.19 the mother of Amon is משלמת, with the feminine -t ending. But the LXX eliminates that ending to get Μεσολλαμ.

In short, I do not think we can predict in advance how that -t ending will necessarily be treated in another language. The case of Gennesaret is instructive; the -t could be either retained or eliminated, and even the final vowel could be stripped away if need be. Your objections having to do with what would have happened to the feminine ending of Nasareth depend on reconstructions of translation and transliteration that are too precise for the evidence.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

Expounding upon this would not be appropriate for this thread, methinks. However, I'd like to see this stated in detail. Can you start a new thread for this?

Many thanks,

Chris

spin

See below...

The final sigma often takes the place of a final root tau, eg fws/fwtos, Constans/Constantinos, etc.

And I still do in origin. Go back to 1 Macc. and see that Jonathan was coming from Damascus to catch up with Demetrius who was heading south, last seen at Kadesh and the forces met on the plain of Hazor. It should be obvious that any connection between Gennesar and Kinnereth is post hoc, as in the case of Pliny and Matthew. What we have is a literary conflation of Gennesar and Kinnereth.

But I'm a little intrigued by the spending of so much time with something that is so evident, that there is so little evidence to justify first the dropping of the -t and that the fact that the gentilic in Hebrew would require the -t if we were dealing with a reduced feminine noun as I have already indicated. Is it so important to chase a tiny part of an argument (which must be considered in respect to the other evidence rather than by itself)?

Scratch this one, for there is a bunch of related names, Shallum, Shelamith, Messhallum, Meshalomoth and they get mixed.

You need to have a decent parallel, but as yet you don't. If this is so important, ie you're not interested int he rest of the argument, keep trying.

What we have is evidence of the confusion of two names, Gennesar and Kinnereth in literature.

When you come up with some evidence for this claim, let me know.

And assuming the reduction of the feminine for the moment, why shouldn't we expect the -t to be reinserted for the gentilic, as per the various examples I've given? Or didn't the gentilic come from Hebrew?


spin

spin

This position is founded on the Nazareth evidence. I just think it clears up the writing process a little. So, as this thread is about Nazareth, what needs expounding in the process which involves at least two redactions of Matthew as I've outlined from the text's treatment of Nazareth et al.?


spin