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

Foreign territory

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.