Going back to the Textual Criticism of 1:9:
Let's see what the Legendary Vorkosigan has to say on the subject (so to speak):5) Spelling of "Nazareth" =
- Ναζαρὲτ] א B L Γ Δ 0133 28 33 565 700 892 1241 Byz ςStephanus
Ναζαρὲθ] D K W Θ f1 f13 1010 1424 pm ςScrivener
Ναζαρατ] A P pc
- Spelling variation is evidence that "Nazareth" is either an addition or whatever was original was not understood.
Note that the parallel verse in "Matthew" does not have "Nazareth". The basics of the verse are represented in "Luke" without the detailed parallels though, but "Luke" has no mention of Nazareth or Galilee.
At the end of "Mark" Jesus is described as returning to Galilee (16:7) and in the verse before is described as a Nazarene. If the author intent was to balance the ending here with the opening, than this is evidence that the "Nazareth" at the beginning was likewise an adjective of Jesus and not part of a geographical location.
Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark
JW:v9: "Nazareth." The problem of Jesus' origin in Nazareth is really two problems. First, what does the author of Mark say is the relationship between Jesus and Nazareth? Second, was there a village by that name existing in the first century?
The first question is the more easily resolved of the two. Here in Mark 1:9 "Nazareth" is apparently a later addition to the text.
First, it does not appear in the parallel passages in Matthew or Luke. In Luke Jesus goes to the baptism from Galilee, but there is no Nazareth.
Second, this is the only use of the word "Nazareth" in Mark; all other usages are a Greek word, nazarhnos, generally translated as "Nazarene." "Nazarene" can mean either a sectarian designation, or "of (the location of) Nazara," but it cannot mean "of Nazareth." How the ending "th" became attached to it is a mystery that no one has yet solved. The key idea here, as a friend pointed out, is that if the writer of Mark really thought that Jesus was from Nazareth, why does he keep saying that he is "of Nazara?"
In Mark 2:1 the writer identifies Capernaum as Jesus' home, not Nazareth. This identification of Capernaum is supported by Matthew 4:13: "Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali--." Why else would Capernaum have appeared here, if Matthew did not understand that Jesus had a home there? Against this Painter (1999) argues that the use of en oiko -- "at home" in Mark 2:1 is supposed to reflect back to Mark 1:29, where the home in question is that of Peter's mother-in-law, not that of Jesus. Yet the writer has the news of Jesus' being "at home" reported, as if his connection with the place were known. This implies that we should read 2:1 as referring to Jesus' home, not the home of Peter's mother-in-law. Further, the writer of Mark does not clarify whether Nazareth or Capernaum was Jesus' home, indicating that perhaps he did not write "Nazareth." This is supported by Zindler's (2000) observation that Capernaum should be read as "Home of the Paraclete," a signifying name that would well suit Jesus' mission.
It should also be noted that one editor of Matthew removed all the references to nazarhnos in his original source. This is usually done when terms were found to be obscure. If the writer of Mark had mentioned nazaret at 1:9, would the editor of Matthew have removed the references to nazarhnos from the text? Had both terms been present in the text, nazaret would have explained nazarhnos.
Yet another strike against the presence of "Nazareth" in this verse originally is that the writer of Mark never explains or apologizes for the identification of Nazareth as Jesus' hometown in his gospel (compare Matthew 2:23: "and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: 'He will be called a Nazarene'.")
Further, the usage of "Nazareth" is apparently untypical of the writer's style. Gundry (1993, p388) notes that in Mark's entire gospel only in v9 does he place a geographical location in a larger context (Nazareth....of Galilee).
A clue that this passage has been redacted is that the writer of Mark characteristically uses the name "Jesus" with the definite article -- "the Jesus" -- but here in v9 there is no definite article, perhaps indicating that the text has been tampered with. Gundry (1993, p47), however, argues in a very strained way that the definite article was dropped to emphasize "Nazareth" and "Galilee" in v9 against the Jerusalemites and Judeans in v5. Additionally, Andrew Criddle (2004) points out that some Greek lexicons say that the first appearance of a character in a narrative may lack a definite article. However, Jesus has already appeared in v1 above.
So the Vorkmeister concludes that "Nazareth" is an addition. A bold statement without any Manuscript or Patristic text to support it. But do we have a reasonable explanation as to why "Matthew" may have exorcised it at this point in the story? Keep in mind that "Mark" likely wrote the original Gospel narrative. So at this point in time, that is all "Matthew" has to work with that is considered Gospel. We would all agree that compared to each other "Matthew" is moving "Mark" towards historical sounding and less contrived. If "Nazareth" is original to 1:9, by Markan standards, could a spirit next identify Jesus as a "Nazarene" with the only textual support that Jesus came from Nazareth? You betcha. In general "Mark" sets the Bar low for making connections and specifically has a number of names that sound punny. And as already pointed out, "Nazareth" at 1:9 balances with Nazarene at 16:6.
Back to "Matthew". "Matthew" is looking for straight-forward (so to speak) connections compared to "Mark". "Matthew" sees "Mark" say that because Jesus came (just came, not was born/raised or was from) from Nazareth, Jesus was a Nazarene. Works for "Mark", but not for "Matthew". You would not ascribe nick name just because someone just came from a place to another place. "Matthew" accepts that Jesus was a Nazarene but provides the more historical sounding explanation (explicitly) that it was because Jesus was raised in Nazareth. Thus "Matthew" exorcises "Nazareth" from Jesus' adult departure point as it is not a/the reason that Jesus was a Nazarene. Does "Matthew" in general exorcise Markan words that he thinks have no or misleading purpose? As The Dictator said in the classic Moon Over Parador when asked by the Karl Rovian Raoul whether he gets stage fright often, "All de time".
Joseph
ErrancyWiki
