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

3962Re: Nazara is in Q: official (was Re: Foreign territory)

Expand Messages
  • Ian Hutchesson
    Dec 7 5:19 AM

      I have expressed my concern in the past with the attempts to bring Nazara
      into the Q fold explaining a single word whose immediate context in GMatt
      and GLuke shows no other similarities at all. The only real interest is in
      the fact that both mentions of Nazara comes immediately after the temptation.

      It seems to me that attempting to include Nazara in Q is going against the
      strongest points in favour of Q, ie that in many cases the phraseology is
      extremely similar or obviously derived one from another along with that
      ordering of materials. As the Nazara example is only a single word it is
      *extremely hard* to justify its inclusion. It may in fact have been original
      to the hypothetical document, but it seems outside the mechanisms of Q
      research to make any serious statements about its possible relationship.


      At 13.39 04/12/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
      >> 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
      >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
      >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
      >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?]
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic