spin

TO quote you, "No."

This doesn't put my mind at ease.

Nazara is generally treated quite poorly in handling the synoptic problem. The problem with putting Nazara in Q is specifically the fact that the passage about the hometown rejection which holds the reference to Nazara in Luke has been moved and moved after Nazara was added to the passage. Nazara was not in Q. It is not a textual agreement, but part of the tradition in which the writers were working.


spin

Ben C Smith

If showing you a page dated months ago in which I discuss a place called Nazara does not convince you that I knew there was a place called Nazara before this conversation, what will?

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Looks like a "no-brainer" to me.

ynquirer

Con piacere.

Let’s try another standpoint to examine the same issue.

Let’s read the texts:

Mk 1.9: In those days Jesus came from Nazaret of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Mt 3.13: Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.

Mark says that Jesus came from Nazaret of Galilee, but he lacks support from Matthew, who only says he came from Galilee. Therefore, Nazaret must be dropped as being, as it undoubtedly is, a later interpolation by too zealous a Christian scribe that desired to support the traditional reading of Nazaret as Jesus’ hometown prior to going to meet John. Why do you know of the interpolation for sure? Because Mk 2:1 says that, after returning to Capernaum from his first preaching tour, everyone knew he was at home. Thus far, so good.

The issue for you is over, of course. Yet, may I point, a little casually, to another two verses of the gospel of Matthew? These ones:

Mt 4.12: Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee; 13: and leaving Nazara he went and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali

It is strange that you don’t see it as clear as I. Do these verses support the theory that Jesus’ hometown prior to going to the Jordan to be baptized by John was Capernaum? Nope, sorry. They quite clearly imply that he dwelt in a place that he calls Nazara; that after baptism, he stayed for a while outside Galilee only to return to his land of origin when he knew that John had been arrested. And once in Galilee he left Nazara to settle anew in Capernaum.

A pair of candid conclusions:

1) Mt 4:12-13 provides Mk 1:9 with at least some support, so far that the identity of Nazara with Nazaret makes sense.

2) Mt 4:12-13 belies your reading of Mk 2:1 and provides mine with strong support - though this is unimportant now.

Do you still want to go on with this?

Amaleq13

The theory-in-question is that Mark's author considered Capernaum to have been Jesus' hometown. Within the context of that theory, it seems to me that this passage from Matthew's author can be understood as suggesting he was aware that Mark considered Capernaum to have been Jesus' hometown and deliberately denied it.

ynquirer

Thus, you have the text say whatever you want it to say. How easy.

Yet, the problem is not that. The problem is that Mt 3:13 was supposed to deny support to Mark’s mention of Nazaret in 1:9. Now, it's evident that Mt 4:12-13 supports that mention.

Amaleq13

Just following your lead.

Removing the alleged denial of Mt 3:13 doesn't appear to change the theory since spin has already indicated that he relies on Mark 2:1 to understand 1:9.

With regard to Matthew 4:13, spin has already argued that Nazara offers no support for Nazareth so you'll need to address that argument.

ynquirer

All this is irrelevant. As regard the relationship of Nazara to Nazaret, spin has quite clearly stated that both of them are names for the same place, whether real or imaginary. It is the place what is at the stake, not the name. All what you say deals with the name alone.

spin

If you're so worried about defending your honor over a flippant comment, then feel assured there was no great significance placed in the original statement there, Ben C.

What didn't put my mind at ease was #25, which is real desperation stuff.


spin

Ben C Smith

Strange that Q defenders, who have just no interest at all in finding narrative elements to put into Q, somehow feel compelled to put this particular one into Q if it is such a desperate measure to see a Matthew-Luke agreement against Mark.

Ben.