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

Re: Marcion and Capernaum

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    Paul- Since the Marcion experts on the list have not yet saved us from ourselves, ... web ... (1891), ... here is ... (1888), ... doubt some ... In other
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 1, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Paul-
      Since the Marcion experts on the list have not yet saved us from ourselves,
      I guess we have to feel our own way around here a bit. You say:

      > I have a copy of the "Gospel of the Lord" by Marcion of Sinope translated by
      > James Hamlyn Hill, (same as the website). ... I can only figure that the
      web
      > master made a mistake or added words much as he added the bracketed [] words
      > which are not in the book either.

      The discrepancy in texts may be explained by the webmaster's intro:

      > A hypertext version of "The Gospel of the Lord" by James Hamlyn Hill
      (1891),
      > based on the 1823 reconstruction by August Hahn. The version presented
      here is
      > specially revised to also reflect the reconstruction done by Theodor Zahn
      (1888),
      > from his work "Geschichte des n.t. Kanons", vol.II., which places in
      doubt some
      > of the material which Hahn-Hill allowed into their reconstructions.

      In other words, the webmaster has, in some way unclear, combined the
      reconstructions of Hill/Hahn and Zahn. (My remark about the shortcomings of
      reconstructions being doubly pertinent here, I suppose.)

      But what did Marcion believe about Capernaum and Nazareth? The most
      directly-relevant statement that comes to hand is the short article on
      Marcion by H. Dermot McDonald in the Lion Handbook "The History of
      Christianity" (rev 1990), according to which:

      > Marcion stated that JC was not born of a woman; he suddenly appeared
      > in the synagogue at Capernaum in AD 29 as a grown man.

      This assessment is certainly in line with Marcion's known docetic views, as
      you say - as well as with his related attempt to strip J of his Jewish
      roots. But then the interpretation of what I've referred to as "section
      two" becomes quite problematical. Here's what's on the Marcion webpage:

      > The Synagogue in Nazareth (Adv.Marc.iv.8)
      > -----------------------------------------
      > 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, and went into the synagogue
      > on the sabbath day, and sat down.
      > 21 And he began to speak to them,
      > and all wondered at the words which proceeded out of his mouth.
      > 23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb,
      > Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum,
      > do also here in thy country.

      Now you say:

      > I checked the reference. In the [Hill] book it is:
      >
      > 23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb,
      > Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum,
      > do also here.
      >
      > I can only figure that the web master made a mistake or added words much as
      > he added the bracketed [ ] words which are not in the [Hill] book either.

      The phrase which appears to have been added here is "in thy country". Since
      Hill/Hahn doesn't have it, I guess we have to assume that the webmaster is
      relying on Zahn for this phrase. Obviously, the inclusion or exclusion of
      this phrase makes a great deal of difference. On the one hand, Marcion's
      views seem clearly to rule out not only Nazareth, but any other place as
      well, as either the birthplace of J or the place wherein he grew up. On the
      other hand, Marcion seems not to have been entirely successful in
      eradicating all traces of J's past from Luke. (If nothing else, how is the
      saying "Physician, heal thyself" relevant to J in Nazareth, if he didn't
      have any special relation to that place?)

      One point of clarification: are you saying that the place-name 'Nazareth'
      doesn't occur at all in the Hill/Hahn reconstruction of Marcion? If not,
      then what's left of "section two" as it appears above? Where is J when he
      quotes the saying "Physician, heal thyself"?

      Based on my current understanding of Marcion's views, it would seem that
      his adaptation of Luke doesn't help much, even if we could be clear about
      exactly what was, and what was not, in that adaptation. Although Marcion
      may have had access to an early version of Luke (as Yuri speculates), his
      revisions to it have succeeded in obscuring it from our own view. We cannot
      say, for example, that Marcion's Luke had no birth narrative; since Marcion
      didn't want to let J have any birthplace at all on earth, he would just
      have omitted those passages. In sum, what little we can glean from Marcion
      doesn't appear to tell us anything much at all about the Nazareth-Capernaum
      dispute.

      Kind regards to all,
      Mike G.
      ------------------------------------
      Resources for the Study of NH Codex2
      http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068
    • Paul Miller
      Mike wrote: One point of clarification: are you saying that the place-name Nazareth doesn t occur at all in the Hill/Hahn reconstruction of Marcion?
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 1, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike wrote:
        One point of clarification: are you saying that the place-name 'Nazareth'
        doesn't occur at all in the Hill/Hahn reconstruction of
        Marcion? ----------------------------------------------
        No its only "of Nazareth " that is omitted.

        Mike:
        Although Marcion
        may have had access to an early version of Luke (as Yuri speculates), his
        revisions to it have succeeded in obscuring it from our own
        view. -----------------------------------------
        Yes its quite a puzzle especially when you consider that the Prodigal Son
        story is not in Marcion's gospel even though it suits his purpose of
        displaying a loving forgiving God instead of the justice oriented Old
        Testament God. Maybe the Prodigal is a late interpolation and Marcion just
        didn't have it to include.

        Mike:
        In sum, what little we can glean from Marcion
        doesn't appear to tell us anything much at all about the Nazareth-Capernaum
        dispute.-----------------------------

        Again I offered that as an aside and not as a cogent argument within the
        Nazareth/Capernaum debate.
        Marcion is an interesting character. Apparently a rich ship owner who after
        getting excommunicated in Rome starts his own church and travels by ship
        spreading his gospel view, thus spreading the Marcionite faith very far,
        fast. There were Marcionite churches in the Middle ages.
        Below is a paste of a bit from the web page:

        The Marcionites have also given us the most ancient dated Christian
        inscription. It was discovered over the doorway of a house in a Syrian
        village, and formerly marked the site of a Marcionite meeting-house or
        church, which curiously enough was called a synagogue. The date is October
        1, A.D. 318 and the most remarkable point about it is that the church was
        dedicated to "The Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Good - "Chrestos", not
        Christos. In early times there seems to have been much confusion between the
        two titles. Christos is the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah, Anointed, and was
        the title used by those who believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. This
        was denied, not only by the Marcionites, but also by many of their Gnostic
        predecessors and successors. The title Chrestos was used of one perfected,
        the holy one, the saint; no doubt in later days the orthodox, who
        subsequently had the sole editing of the texts, in pure ignorance changed
        Chrestos into Christos wherever it occurred; so that instead of finding the
        promise of perfection in the religious history of all the nations, they
        limited it to the Jewish tradition alone, and struck a fatal blow at the
        universality of history and doctrine.

        One wonders if something like this might of been the motivation behind
        Robert Graves in "King Jesus" calling the Jesus folks "Gentile Chrestians" .
        Oh well I'm rambling now so I will weary your eye balls no more for now.

        Paul Miller
      • rene joseph salm
        Lk.1:26-27 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, /27/ to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 2, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Lk.1:26-27
          In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of
          Galilee named Nazareth, /27/ to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was
          Joseph...

          Luke mentions the place-name Nazareth in the first verse of his
          Jesus-story, for up until now he has related the background of Jn. the
          Baptist (Mk.1:9 does similarly). Our supposition at this early
          stage in the narrative is that Mary and Joseph probably live in Nazareth.

          Lk.2:4-5
          And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to
          Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was
          of the house and lineage of David, /5/ to be enrolled with Mary his
          betrothed, who was with child.

          Our supposition from 1:26 is confirmed: we now know that Joseph (and
          Mary-- v.6) lived in Nazareth. This second mention of Nazareth in GLuke is
          natural in the narration, though not necessary for the plot ("from
          Galilee" would suffice). The Galilee > Judea / Nazareth > Bethlehem
          form a literary province/town paralellism.

          Lk.2:39-40
          And when they had performed everything according to the law of the
          Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.
          /40/ And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the
          favor of God was upon him.

          Removing any possible doubt as to provenance, Luke directly states here
          that Nazareth is "their own city." If Luke had GMt in front of him, then
          this phrase is added (Mt.2:23-- "And he went and dwelt in a city called
          Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled" -- the
          OT reference is unknown.)
          Furthermore, we now know (v.40) that Jesus not only came from Nazareth,
          but that he also grew up there.

          Lk.2:51-52
          [The 12 year-old Jesus returns with his parents from Jerusalem:]
          And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to
          them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.
          /52/ And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God
          and man.

          Following directly upon the return to Nazareth (as in 2:39 above), v.52
          is now a second confirmation that Jesus grew up in that town. In fact,
          this verse is a paraphrase of 2:40: in addition to having the same
          structure, both verses have "wisdom" (sophia/s) and "favor" (chari/s/iti).

          Lk.4:16
          And he came to Nazareth, *where he had been brought up*; and he went to
          the synagogue...

          This is the second time that Luke qualifies "Nazareth" with a phrase
          confirming J's attachment to that place. GLuke has, in fact, the most
          references to Nazareth of all the canonical gospels: 5 compared to 3 in
          GMt, 2 in GJn, and 1 in GMk. A brief resume of the synoptic usage is as
          follows:

          -----

          Mk. 1:9 "At that time J came from Nazareth in Galilee and was..."

          Lk.1:26 "God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth in Galilee..."

          -----
          Lk.2:4 "So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee..."

          (No //)
          ------

          Mt.2:23 "And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth..."

          Lk.2:39 "... they returned into Galilee, *to their own city*, Nazareth."

          -----

          Lk. 2:51 "... to Nazareth, and was obedient to them... And J. increased in
          wisdom and stature..."

          (No //)
          ------

          Mk. 6:1 "He went away from there and came to his own country..."

          Mt.13:53 "... and coming to his own country, he taught them..."

          Lk. 4:16 "And he came to Nazareth, *where he had been brought up*,..."

          ------
          Mt.4:12-13 "... he withdrew into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, he went
          and dwelt in Capernaum..."

          Lk.4:14 "And J returned by the power of the spirit into Galilee..."

          -----
          Mt.21:11 "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."

          (No //)
          -----

          We see from the above, that:
          (1) a. GLk is the only gospel which stresses J's relationship to Nazareth.
          He is unambiguous in this regard;
          b. GLk gives information on J's youth, and plainly connects those years
          with Nazareth;
          (2) GMt's use of "Nazareth" is functionally minimal: he names it once as
          J's provenance (2:23); has J move from there to Capernaum (4:13); and once
          uses "from Nazareth in Galilee" (21:11) as an identification for Jesus. Mt
          gives us no information as to J's formative years.
          (3) GMark and GJohn omit all reference to J's youth. These gospels also
          have minimal references to Nazareth (1 and 2 respectively).

          ------------------------------

          [Jesus is in the synagogue of Nazareth:]
          Lk.4:23-24
          And he said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb,
          'Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Capernaum, do
          here also in your own country.'" /24/ And he said, "Truly, I say to you,
          no prophet is acceptable in his own country."

          According to Luke, "his own country" is clearly Nazareth. Jesus
          rhetorically assumes his hearers want to see wonders, but he is
          unable to do them in his home village (cf. Mk.6:5).

          Lk.4:25-6
          "But in truth I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of
          Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there
          came a great famine over all the land;
          /26/ and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the
          land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow."

          Here Luke contrasts Israel with the "land of Sidon." Elijah did not help
          those in Israel, but did go to the foreigner's land, and helped her.
          Together with vss. 23-24, Luke is here setting up an opposition, not
          merely between Israel and the "land of Sidon," but between Nazareth
          and Capernaum:

          Home territory (Israel) = Nazareth
          Foreign territory ("land of Sidon") = Capernaum

          Lk.4:27
          "And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha;
          and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian."

          The opposition here is:

          Home territory (Israel) = Nazareth
          Foreign territory (Syria) = Capernaum


          Of course, Capernaum is well within the accepted boundaries of Israel,
          which reach at least as far as Dan 45 km further north (1 Sam.3:20). Yet,
          in this pericope, Luke views Capernaum in some way as 'foreign territory,'
          as 'outside the pale.'

          In what way is Capernaum 'foreign' for the Lucan evangelist?

          Most directly, in at least one way: Capernaum, of all places possible, is
          here categorically excluded from being Jesus' native town. Capernaum is
          excluded with sufficient vehemence that it is compared to lands outside of
          Israel. In this pericope, Luke places Jesus' bond with Nazareth-- which,
          as we have seen, he has taken care to bring out-- in diametrical
          opposition to any notion of an intimate bond between Jesus and Capernaum.

          Mark 6:1-6 and Matt 13:53-58 (parallels) report Jesus' inability to
          do many wonders "in his own country." It is only Luke who, through the
          Zarephath and Naaman allusions, creates the opposition between Nazareth
          and Capernaum.

          Immediately following this pericope, Luke has Jesus proceed from Nazareth to
          Capernaum (v.31), where Jesus manifests a brilliant series of wonders: the
          exorcism of an unclean spirit (33-35), the healing of Simon's
          mother-in-law (38-39), and then (as "the sun was setting") the healing of
          "all those that were sick with various diseases" (40), "every one of
          them."

          -------------------

          Later (Lk 7:1-10) Capernaum is seen as a fitting place for Jesus to
          demonstrate his healing powers to the gentiles. It is in Capernaum that
          Jesus heals the slave of a foreign oppressor, namely the servant of the
          Roman centurion. But Luke does not again make the same point as in
          4:23ff. "Israel" here, as in Mt.8:5-13 and Jn.4:46-54, is not a geographic
          referent but an ethnic/religious one, meaning "the Jewish people."

          Luke's final reference to Capernaum is couched in the language of a curse:

          10:13
          "Woe unto you, Chorazin! Woe unto you, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works
          done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long
          ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
          /14/ But it shall be more tolerable in the judgement for Tyre and Sidon
          than for you.
          /15/ And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be
          brought down to Hades!" (Cf. Mt.11:20-24).

          This apothegm confirms a vehemant anti-Capernaum stance on the part of
          the Lucan evangelist, one insinuated in the foregoing discussion.

          We must ask, then, the next question:
          Why does the Lucan evangelist have a vehement anti-Capernaum stance?

          - Rene
        • Mark Goodacre
          Thanks for the interesting and useful post. A partial and inadequate answer to the final question would be that most would put some of the anti-Capernaum
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 2, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks for the interesting and useful post. A partial and inadequate answer to
            the final question would be that most would put some of the anti-Capernaum
            material down to Luke's source material, either Q or Matthew, especially
            10.13-16 (Woe to you Chorazin . . .).

            A small synoptic comment too on the other data:

            On 2 Dec 98 at 3:57, rene joseph salm wrote:

            > ------
            >
            > Mk. 6:1 "He went away from there and came to his own country..."
            >
            > Mt.13:53 "... and coming to his own country, he taught them..."
            >
            > Lk. 4:16 "And he came to Nazareth, *where he had been brought up*,..."
            >
            > ------
            > Mt.4:12-13 "... he withdrew into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, he went
            > and dwelt in Capernaum..."
            >
            > Lk.4:14 "And J returned by the power of the spirit into Galilee..."
            >
            > -----

            The compilation of parallels here might be re-worked a little with the
            observation that Matt. 4.13 // Luke 4.16 have the unique spelling Nazara,
            usually held to be a sign either of Luke's dependence on Matthew (e.g. Goulder)
            or a sign of Matthew and Luke's mutual dependence on Q (e.g. Schurmann,
            Tuckett, Robinson). The latter causes big problems for the Q theory and it is
            one of the reasons that Q theorists are only tentative about its inclusion.

            Mark
            --------------------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
            University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
            Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

            Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          • stephen goranson
            Thanks to Mark Goodacre for a useful post, which read, in part: [....] ... I d be interested in hearing more about the roots of ambivalence of Q theorists
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 2, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks to Mark Goodacre for a useful post, which read, in part:
              [....]
              >The compilation of parallels here might be re-worked a little with the
              >observation that Matt. 4.13 // Luke 4.16 have the unique spelling Nazara,
              >usually held to be a sign either of Luke's dependence on Matthew (e.g.
              >Goulder)
              >or a sign of Matthew and Luke's mutual dependence on Q (e.g. Schurmann,
              >Tuckett, Robinson). The latter causes big problems for the Q theory and
              >it is
              >one of the reasons that Q theorists are only tentative about its inclusion.

              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 have been trying to follow the threads, though some are tangled.
              On the chance that some disparate observations are useful here, here's a
              try.
              Archaeologists who have spent a lot of time in Nazareth, e.g., the very
              experienced James F. Strange, know it was inhabited in the time of Jesus.
              But the question of the name, perhaps we all can agree, is complex. The
              Semitic placename spelling surely was with tsade, not zayin. (If the writer
              of Matt 2:23 read Hebrew/Aramaic, this is relevant, as noted in Anchor
              Bible Dictionary.) The root nazir (though the spelling "nazarite" also
              appears in English) may have been a later association. But the
              more-relevant spelling nun-tsade-resh probably actually represents two
              roots: netser (as in Isa 11) and natsar (as in "observants" and in the
              Mandaic Aramaic). (And isn't "Netsarim" a modern invention?)
              To take one example from someone well familiar with Greek and
              Aramaic and Hebrew, Albright, in "The Names 'Nazareth' and 'Nazoraean,'"
              JBL 65 (1946) 397-401, has shown that the place name *could* have been
              derived, grammatically, from nun-tsade-resh; this, however, does not prove
              that is *was*, merely that it could have been. If the author (or an author)
              of Matthew knew Semitic language(s) or had Semitic sources, this may be a
              factor in usage of -aios vs. -enos endings.
              It may be useful to consider, e.g., the parallel of "Essenes" with
              "Nazarenes"--parallel at least insofar as appearing with both endings (and
              both coming into English via the more Hellenistic ending). Josephus and
              Epiphanius--both multilingual--use both endings (Ant 15 is especially
              interesting in its use of both, combining, I think, a source with -enos and
              Josephus' comment that we call them -aios). Essenos (and Latin cognates)
              appears in Pliny, Synesius, Hippolytus, Filaster, Solinus, and others.
              Essaios appears in Philo (the oldest extant Greek source who, not knowing
              the Hebrew [from 'asah] clearly was baffled by its significance),
              Hegesippus, Apostolic Constitutions, Porphyry (in his section similar to
              War 2 where Josephus has Essenos), Jerome, Nilus, and others. Clearly, the
              second group has more Semitic language knowledge and sources. Q (even, for
              sake of argument, accepting it existed) is not the only possible reason for
              the distribution of endings on "Nazarenes."
              If Tatum's translation of Matt 2:23 (cited 27 Nov) is correct, no
              direct OT verse quotation is called for.
              If the town name were invented after the time of Jesus by
              Jesus-followers, would the priestly course list have used it? Would they
              have moved there if so? When is it proposed (if anyone here does) that the
              town was invented? Who, is it proposed, would have been fooled? And why?
              Since it was inhabited, what was its proposed earlier name?
              When Pharisees were in Galilee and how many is a question that, I
              think, requires a close look at who used "Pharisee" and when. And also a
              close look of usage--and sometime overlap--of the terms "Galilee" and
              ioudaios (and cognates). "Pharisee" has more than one meaning (positive and
              negative), if one accepts the arguments in Albert Baumgarten's excellent
              "The Name of the Pharisees" JBL 102 (1983) 411-28. Not everyone identified
              or claimed at one time or another as a Pharisee (sometimes retroactively)
              was always called "X, the Pharisee." Various rabbis were ambivalent or
              negative toward the term "Pharisee," perhaps reflecting concern with
              heresy/minut. A book forthcoming from Eisenbrauns, perhaps titled Galilee
              through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, includes contributions which
              argue, pro and con, about early or late presence of priests, Pharisees,
              rabbis, and others, at Galilean sites, especially Sepphoris--mikvaot,
              incense shovels, stone vessels, being among the archaeological data under
              discussion.
              On Judaea, briefly: I discussed the usage of "Judaea" in two senses
              at http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Goranson98.html
              Besides the usual sense, Pliny also uses it in the Roman administrative
              sense, which included Galilee and Peraea. Of course the much-discussed
              issue of when ioudaios indicates geographic origin and when it indicates
              religion (or both) is involved here. Briefly, Josephus, apparently, also
              uses the term in more than one sense. For example, an epimeletes in
              Sepphoris, Galilee, held the office at one of the five synhedria of Judaea
              in the Roman administrative sense. (And, incidentally, an ostracon found at
              Sepphoris has, in Aramaic letters, what may refer to an epimeletos...though
              it is uncertain, and the word is common.)
              best wishes,
              Stephen Goranson
              goranson@...
            • Mark Goodacre
              ... 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
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 2, 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?

                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").

                Mark
                --------------------------------------
                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
              • Mark Goodacre
                ... 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
                Message 7 of 20 , 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
                • stephen goranson
                  Thanks, Mark Goodacre, for the report on Q and Nazara. Keep us posted. Stephen Goranson
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 4, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks, Mark Goodacre, for the report on Q and Nazara. Keep us posted.

                    Stephen Goranson
                  • Ian Hutchesson
                    Mark, 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
                    Message 9 of 20 , Dec 7, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mark,

                      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.


                      Ian


                      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
                      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 Goodacre
                      ... I suppose that the question that comes to mind, therefore, is what is the alternative to presence in Q? Both my solution and the 2ST solution are attempts
                      Message 10 of 20 , Dec 7, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 7 Dec 98 at 14:19, Ian Hutchesson wrote:

                        > 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.

                        I suppose that the question that comes to mind, therefore, is what is the
                        alternative to presence in Q? Both my solution and the 2ST solution are
                        attempts to explain the combination of (1) unique spelling and (2) order. The
                        unique spelling alone would not be enough to suggest a literary link, but the
                        unique spelling in the same location, viz. after the Temptation story, in both
                        Gospels suggests some sort of literary link, either Luke's use of Matthew
                        (Farrer, Griesbach) or Luke and Matthew's dependence on Q (2ST). What I share
                        here with the IQP (specifically in this case Carruth, Kloppenborg and Robinson)
                        is the assumption that the presence of Nazara is unlikely to be due to
                        either coincidence or independent redaction of material in which the term was
                        absent.

                        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
                      • Ian Hutchesson
                        ... I don t know if this is really a useful question: the logic seems to be by eliminating the few other insufficient possibilities, one is left with another
                        Message 11 of 20 , Dec 7, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mark responded to my:

                          >> It seems to me that attempting to include Nazara in Q is going against the
                          >> strongest points in favour of Q [..]

                          thus:
                          >I suppose that the question that comes to mind, therefore, is what is the
                          >alternative to presence in Q?

                          I don't know if this is really a useful question: the logic seems to be by
                          eliminating the few other insufficient possibilities, one is left with
                          another insufficient possibility, Q, which has to be undermined to include a
                          single word whose local context in GMatt and GLuke is completely different.
                          There is no way to say what the underlying text may have been, unlike all
                          other Q textual reconstructions. This seems to be explaining "Nazara" at the
                          cost of weakening the Q hypothesis.


                          Ian
                        • Jacob Knee
                          Just to let people in the UK know if you don t already that SCM Press run a subscription based (£8/year) Special Offer catalogue twice a year. The catalogue
                          Message 12 of 20 , Dec 8, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Just to let people in the UK know if you don't already that SCM Press run a
                            subscription based (£8/year) Special Offer catalogue twice a year. The
                            catalogue offers current titles from their own list at greatly reduced
                            prices.

                            The current one - which 'expires' after December 31st 1998 - runs to 12
                            pages A4 and includes titles such as Stevan Davies, 'Jesus the Healer' (£3),
                            Frances Young, 'From Nicea to Chalcedon' (£8.50), Lester Grabbe, 'Judaism
                            from Cyrus to Hadrian' (£10), William Klassen, 'Judas' (£6.50), John
                            Rousseau, 'Jesus and his World' (£7.50), Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza,
                            'Jesus: Miriam's Child, Sophia's Prophet' (£5), James Dunn, 'The Partings of
                            the Ways' (£8.50), Joseph Blenkinsopp, 'The Pentateuch' (£7.50).

                            Their address is:

                            SCM Press Ltd,
                            9 - 17 St. Albans Place
                            London
                            N1 0NX

                            As far as I know this Special Offer catalogue is only good for the UK; (I'm
                            unsure about the rest of the EU).

                            Maybe someone will find this useful,
                            Jacob Knee
                          • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
                            Mike, Sorry for late response, but better late than never. Other matters seemed to interfere at that time... On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Mike Grondin wrote: ... I m
                            Message 13 of 20 , Dec 14, 1998
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Mike,

                              Sorry for late response, but better late than never. Other matters seemed
                              to interfere at that time...

                              On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Mike Grondin wrote:

                              ...

                              > Based on my current understanding of Marcion's views, it would seem that
                              > his adaptation of Luke doesn't help much, even if we could be clear
                              > about exactly what was, and what was not, in that adaptation.

                              I'm not actually saying that Marcion's adaptation of Luke will help us a
                              great deal, necessarily. But it may help a little. And in this area,
                              seeing how sparce our evidence really is, every little bit should count.

                              As to the reliability of our reconstructions, seeing that there's
                              substantial evidence about Marcion's gospel from a variety of sources, we
                              should not despare too much. Something reliable may emerge if enough
                              research is done, even supposing it has not emerged as yet.

                              > Although Marcion may have had access to an early version of Luke (as
                              > Yuri speculates),

                              I think this is more than speculation. Probability is more like it. For
                              one thing, the nativity stories lacking in Marcion is a very good
                              indication that he had something earlier than the canonical Lk.

                              > his revisions to it have succeeded in obscuring it from our own view.

                              This may be so. But may be not.

                              > We cannot say, for example, that Marcion's Luke had no birth narrative;

                              But I think this is well established.

                              > since Marcion didn't want to let J have any birthplace at all on earth,
                              > he would just have omitted those passages.

                              The question is of course if he omitted, or if the orthodox added. But now
                              even the J Seminar accepted that the proto Lk did not have the nativity
                              passages. Occam's Razor would rather indicate that the orthodox added.
                              The simplest hypothesis.

                              > In sum, what little we can glean from Marcion doesn't appear to tell us
                              > anything much at all about the Nazareth-Capernaum dispute.

                              The way I see it, Marcion opened his gospel with Jesus preaching in
                              Capernaum. I cannot see that the choice of this location would have been
                              entirely accidental. There must have been some early tradition indicating
                              the importance of Capernaum. I would attribute this opening to proto Lk
                              until there's some clear evidence to the contrary.

                              Nazareth could have been added up later from other gospels or sources.
                              Even if his gospel also featured Nazareth as important (and we don't know
                              this), Marcion could have added Nazareth himself, or the author of proto
                              Lk could have added it on top of Capernaum. Lk was of course not an early
                              writer by my lights, but s/he clearly preserved some early and important
                              traditions.

                              In sum, while possessing no certainties, we seem to have some good
                              probabilities.

                              Regards,

                              Yuri.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.