Probably correct as far as it goes. However, There was at least one intermediate step. The earliest manuscript containing part of Mt 2:23 had Nazara (P70bis), while 4:3 also features Nazara, so there is only one mention of Nazareth in Mt, at 21:11 part of a fragment introduced into a Marcan passage and apparently not from Q, as it isn't evinced in Lk."...turns it into Nazareth," I doubt.
If one reads "Nazarene" as a toponymic (gentilic), the toponym would naturally be Nazara, yielding a provisional chronology thus:
Nazarene -> Nazara -> Nazareth
The redactor who supplied Nazara twice didn't insert Mt 21:10-11. Nazareth is quite late in the evolution of the orthodox Jesus tradition.
It's also worth noting that
1. while Mt accepted Capernaum as a home for Jesus after Nazara, Lucan redactors reject a Capernaum home completely (an interesting study in itself). And
2. Nazareth only appears in the additive Lucan birth narrative, also suggesting that Nazareth is later in the tradition evolution.
Statistics: Posted by spin — Thu Apr 18, 2024 9:57 pm