Jesus' home in Capernaum?

[StephenGoranson]

There are spelling variants of the place name, yes?

A place name can also have an etymological meaning or assumed (even if etymythological) association, yes?

Points 2 and 3 are imo not clear. Can you rephrase?

[spin]

There are spelling variants of the place name, yes?

A place name can also have an etymological meaning or assumed (even if etymythological) association, yes?

Etymology is no use to the discussion of the toponym, as neither of the terms reflect an underlying Hebrew source nun-tsade-resh as found in the rabbinic sources. The tsade is almost always rendered as a sigma in Greek.

Points 2 and 3 are imo not clear. Can you rephrase?

2. not one mention of Nazareth reflects a shared context?

Capernaum mentioned in Mk 1:21ff finds a parallel in Lk 4:31ff. Again, Lk 10:15 is paralleled in Mt 11:23. Mk was written before Lk while Lk 10:15 and Mt 11:23 share a common source. Both instances show that Capernaum is well established in the early gospel tradition. No references to Nazareth in the synoptics are shared. Clearly the references to Nazareth in Mt and Lk are not derived from the other. They are all unique references, reflecting a lectio facilior of a later era.

3. no assumptions about a tradition relationship between Nazara and Nazareth can be made other than that Nazara appears in the main body of each text?

Nazara, the lectio difficilior, is part of the Matthean redactor's structural apparatus, moving Jesus to Nazara, and from thence onto Capernaum. Nazareth only appears in Mt 21:11, added to a Marcan passage, yet the redactor has already established Nazara as the form he used. This points to a later reworking of the section to include the lectio facilior. Various scholars have argued for the birth narratives in Lk as additive to the gospel, yet it is only in the birth narrative that we find Nazareth. It is only Nazara that appears in the main body of Lk. The presence of Nazara in Mt & Lk appear in distinct parts of each gospel from where Nazareth is found, so we are not simply dealing with interchangeable spelling variations. We cannot simply conflate the two forms as if the writers did, ie "no assumptions about a tradition relationship between Nazara and Nazareth can be made".

The simplest understanding of the evidence is that Nazara entered the Jesus tradition before Nazareth did.

[StephenGoranson]

"Etymology is no use to the discussion of the toponym, ...."
Wrong from the get-go.
I may return to this when I have time.

[spin]

"Etymology is no use to the discussion of the toponym, ...."
Wrong from the get-go.
I may return to this when I have time.

Please don't worry. You've only posited the most cursory responses.

[StephenGoranson]

I did write "Nazarenes" in Anchor Bible Dictionary, and have written at length about Nazareth, a place which I know first hand. And am busy today. Do you wish no challenges to your pre-dismissal?

[StephenGoranson]

For example, I wrote in my dissertation, on Nazareth, a section, pages 105 to 122, and elsewhere.

[StephenGoranson]

There are questions about the relationship between Nazareth (and Capernaum) and Nazarenes for which there is not yet a consensus.
Perhaps the most-discussed aspect is about how these two are related in Matthew 2:23.
Thanks for restating your points 2 and 3, thought I found neither persuasive.
One need not rely on assumptions based on Greek transliterations.
In Hebrew, Nazareth and Notsrim (and related forms) are spelled with tsade.
In Greek, in the manuscripts, there are variant spellings that refer to the same thing.
Nazara is not isolated.

[StephenGoranson]

There can, of course, be more than one spelling and more than one name for one place.
Yathrib, Medina
Edo, Tokyo
New Amsterdam, New York
Petrograd, Saint Petersburg, Leningrad, back to Saint Petersburg
Detroit, Motor City, Motown
In the Shem Tov medieval version of Matthew, Nazareth is spelled with a zayin.

[RandyHelzerman]

I did ... have written at length about Nazareth, a place which I know first hand.

Did Nazareth have a synagogue c. 30 ad?

[StephenGoranson]

Whether Nazareth had a synagogue then depends on interpretation. It surely was then an occupied Jewish settlement. Increasingly, late second temple (pre-70) Galilean synagogues are being found--even two at Magdala, for example. Some meeting-places (remains) are more distinct than others.

When possible polysemy of Nazareth and Nazarene may have occurred--an interesting question.