Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3903Nazara is in Q: official (was Re: Foreign territory)

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Dec 4, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      > On 2 Dec 98 at 11:16, stephen goranson wrote:
      >
      > > I'd be interested in hearing more about the roots of ambivalence of
      > > Q theorists toward Nazara. And do any of them discuss Julius Africanus on
      > > Judaean (?) Nazara?

      I replied:

      > Not that I know of, but it would be worth checking. I do not yet have the
      > volume of _Documenta Q_ that deals with Q 4.16 but I ordered it at SBL and
      > will let you know if there is anything interesting in there that I had
      > previously missed.
      >
      > The ambivalence of Q theorists to inclusion in Q relates partly to the matter
      > of Q becoming steadily less and less obviously a Sayings Source and more
      > closely connected to something akin to a Luke-pleasing Matthew. But if one
      > excludes Nazara from Q, what does one do with the Minor Agreement between
      > Matt. 4.13 and Luke 4.16? The difficulties are reflected in the {C} rating
      > that Nazara was given by the International Q Project ("hesitant possibility").

      I have now received my edition of the relevant volume of _Documenta Q_ from
      Peeters and I note that there has been a change from the earlier decision to
      rate Q 4.16 with a {C}. It is now has a rating of {B} (a "convincing
      probability"), though the change from the earlier rating is not recorded in the
      Critical Apparatus as it should be. All "readings" rated A or B go into the
      critical text without question, so it is this that we will read in the full
      Critical Text when it is released in 2000.

      I am not unhappy about this move away from hesitancy for it helps with my
      argument about the narrative exordium of Q. Up until now I had been planning
      to make the appearance of Nazara in Q 4.16 only a minor element in this
      argument, but it seems that now it can come forward more strongly. The
      argument, briefly, is that Q (as reconstructed by the International Q Project)
      both presupposes and states clear signs of narrative framing and sequencing of
      it material, especially in its first half, something that is problematic for
      the Q theory as traditionally defined in several ways. [I have set this out on
      Crosstalk in the past; the argument is summarised on my Q web site.]

      On Stephen's question about Julius Africanus, yes reference is made in this
      volume of Documenta Q (p. 399-400). I had been unfamiliar with the reference.
      It is in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. I vii 14, "from the Jewish villages of
      Nazara (APO . . . NAZARWN) and Cochaba".

      Reference is also given to the Gospel of Philip for another attestation of the
      spelling Nazara -- Nag Hammadi Codex II,3: 62, 6-17, where both NAZWRAIOS and
      NAZARHNOS also occur. [Mike -- is there an interlinear in the pipeline for
      Philip too?]

      Mark


      --------------------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

      Recommended New Testament Web Resources:
      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/links.htm
      World Without Q:
      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q
      Homepage:
      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic