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

Re: Foreign territory

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