Evidence for first-century Nazareth?

[Secret Alias]

Because the same thing happens in English transcriptions.

[Bernard Muller]

Because the same thing happens in English transcriptions.

But there is a pattern:
GLuke & Acts have 'Nazareq' and never 'Nazaret'
GMark & gJohn have only 'Nazaret' and never 'Nazareq'.
GMatthew has both 'Nazaret' and 'Nazareq'.

If "Mark" had 'Nazaret' (kind of confirmed by gJohn), and the other gospel authors were working from gMark, from where and why 'Nazareq' appears in gLuke & Acts and gMatthew?

What theories can we assume from that?

And for the ones who do not accept gMark as the first gospel, and/or think that gLuke was written well after gMatthew, what kind of conclusions can they draw from the aforementioned pattern?

Cordially, Bernard

[DCHindley]

I am perplexed because "Nazareth" is written as Ναζαρὲτ ('Nazaret') and as Ναζαρὲθ ('Nazareq').
Why the different spelling in the Greek texts?

I'm a little confused by the retaining of the old ASCII "q" as a substitute for the Greek letter θ, rather than the sound equivalent "th". Now it is only a difference between Nazaret and Nazareth. I do not think it is normal for Greek place names to end with θ, but sometimes such names, normally pronounced in Aramaic, were transliterated into Greek a variety of ways.

DCH (work ... work ... work!)

[Secret Alias]

Epiphanius does say he knew or saw of a Hebrew text of Acts. Interesting point Bernard.

[Secret Alias]

It would be helped if you could provide a second 'Semiticism' from Acts and Luke.

[Secret Alias]

Apparently also 'Luke' intentionally changes the spelling of Jerusalem - https://books.google.com/books?id=wtNuY ... ic&f=false (bottom of the page)

[Secret Alias]

Jerome's discussion of Luke often 'correcting' a Hebrew text might also be relevant here - https://books.google.com/books?id=1_kn- ... ts&f=false

[spin]

BGMark & gJohn have only 'Nazaret' and never 'Nazareq'.

Mark has both Ναζαρεθ/τ, though mainly Ναζαρετ, plus for variety Ναζαρατ.

As I understand it, the tendency was that Hebrew plosive consonants appeared affricated in Greek transliterations in specific phonological contexts.

● The TAW usually became a theta. Shelomith, Meraioth, Nathan...
● The KAF usually became a chi (and QOF usually became a kappa). Ahab (Αχααβ), cherub, Ahimelech...
● The PE usually became a phi at ends of syllables and intervocalically. Joseph, Ephraim, Ophir...

This shows a systemic tendency (not general rule) going from Hebrew into Greek. But it does highlight Nazareth as the frontline form and I'd guess in language contexts without a theta there would be no recognition of the affrication and you'd just get a tau as in Ναζαρετ. (Next guess is that the tau would creep in in the west, away from native Greek.)

I work under the notion that where there are signs of scribal variability regarding the form of a significant word, instances of lack of variability for the word suggests late addition, ie less time for scribal variation before more standardized practices.