The Gentile readers of Canonical Luke were not obliged to know where Capernaum was

[Giuseppe]

Luke 4:23

Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”

Question: Capernaum? Where is Capernaum?

Answer: Capernaum is in Galilee, in virtue of Luke 4:14-15:

14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

Objection: Did the Gentile readers of canonical Luke know that Capernaum was in Galilee?

To my knowledge, the consensus says that Luke is a gospel addressed to gentiles. Gentiles are not obliged to know the geography of the Judea and Galilee. Even less to know a priori where Capernaum is.

Therefore: *Ev precedes Luke.

[StephenGoranson]

Readers did not have to know a priori that Capernaum is in Galilee, since they are told so.
Your "Therefore" does not logically follow.

[Giuseppe]

Readers did not have to know a priori that Capernaum is in Galilee, since they are told so.
Your "Therefore" does not logically follow.

Your use of the magical card of the 'oral tradition' gives implicitly reason to my argument.

[Giuseppe]

It is a true tragedy that the same 'oral tradition' told nothing to Marcion's readers where Capernaum was, obliging the heresiarch to add:

...descended from above to Capernaum, a city of Galilee.

Evidently the deus ex machina called 'oral tradition' was the demiurge.

[Ken Olson]

Giuseppe:

Could you present a sound argument for the conclusion that *Ev precedes Luke? I mean an argument in which true premises are carried through a series of truth-preserving logical deductions to a true conclusion.

You seem to have one two premises so far:

1) Luke's gospel was directed primarily at Gentiles (or Gentile converts to Christianty) rather than at Jews (or Jewish converts to Christianity).

2) Luke's primary audience could not be expected to know where Capernaum was (though it is certainly plausible that some of his audience did).

What's the rest of the argument?

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

What's the rest of the argument?

are you asking me to wrote an entire book as K has done recently? Or are you asking me the resume of another book of my knowledge arguing a similar thesis?

This is a forum and I mean to post something as my interest goes.

In this specific case, I think to have detected a weakness in the theory of the Canonical Luke's priority over *Ev, insofar the Gentile reader of Luke is obliged to know a priori that the Galilee is connected with Capernaum, when he read ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum,’ since not even Luke 4:14-15 can supply his ignorance about where Capernaum is.

[Ken Olson]

What's the rest of the argument?

are you asking me to wrote an entire book as K has done recently? Or are you asking me the resume of another book of my knowledge arguing a similar thesis?

This is a forum and I mean to post something as my interest goes.

In this specific case, I think to have detected a weakness in the theory of the Canonical Luke's priority over *Ev, insofar the Gentile reader of Luke is obliged to know a priori that the Galilee is connected with Capernaum, when he read ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum,’ since not even Luke 4:14-15 can supply his ignorance about where Capernaum is.

This is an extraordinarily weak argument. We don't need to suppose that Luke's entire audience knew that Capernaum was a city in Galilee at the time they heard Luke 4.22. We only need to think the author of Luke knew that and intended it as a back reference to Luke 4.14-15. The audience may have have been able to figure it out from context, if not when they initially heard Luke 4.22, then when they heard Luke 4.31, which identifies Capernaum as a city in Galilee. (Also, on the theory of Markan priority, it would be reasonable to suggest that some of the audience may have heard Mark before hearing Luke and would have made the connection that Capernaum was in Galilee).

Your argument contains an unstated premise that authors will not make references unless they think the majority of their audience will understand the references. This is not true. Particularly with regard to the gospels and the other New Testament literature, I very much doubt their authors expected everyone in their audiences would understand all the allusions to the scriptures of Israel they employed. That didn't keep them from employing them. I suspect they hoped that at least some would get them, if not at first, than upon further reflection.

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

We only need to think the author of Luke knew that and intended it as a back reference to Luke 4.14-15.

you are placing emphasis on the knowledge of background by the author, but I am pointing out the complete ignorance of the gentile readers. The latter could have read a different name from Capernaum and not know more than before about its precise location (and note that already "Galilee" is an excessive zoom for a gentile reader who knew only where was the Judea).
Knowledge of Capernaum from Mark by the reader is denied insofar Luke was meant to replace entirely Mark as "the Gospel" addressed to gentiles. Knowledge derived from Luke 4:31 requires a superfluous complication.

But even so, we don't have other examples in the NT of a town being named without informations about at least his general location. My thought goes to Dalmanhauta that, even if a symbol for Dalmatia (visited by Paul), is said to be localized in Galilee.

[Ken Olson]

We only need to think the author of Luke knew that and intended it as a back reference to Luke 4.14-15.

you are placing emphasis on the knowledge of background by the author, but I am pointing out the complete ignorance of the gentile readers. The latter could have read a different name from Capernaum and not know more than before about its precise location (and note that already "Galilee" is an excessive zoom for a gentile reader who knew only where was the Judea).
Knowledge of Capernaum from Mark by the reader is denied insofar Luke was meant to replace entirely Mark as "the Gospel" addressed to gentiles. Knowledge derived from Luke 4:31 requires a superfluous complication.

But even so, we don't have other examples in the NT of a town being named without informations about at least his general location. My thought goes to Dalmanhauta that, even if a symbol for Dalmatia (visited by Paul), is said to be localized in Galilee.

This is just getting silly.

The author is writing the book, not the readers. The readers do not govern the content.

The first time Capernaum is mentioned in Mark's gospel at Mark 1.21, it isn't stated that it is a city in Galilee, but that may reasonably be inferred from the fact that Jesus previously came into Galilee proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God in 1.14-15 and then saw Simon and Andrew as he walked by the Sea of Galilee in Mark 1.16 and they left their nets to follow him in Mark 1.18.

You are not making strong arguments. You are making conjectures and implying they are are arguments.

[Peter Kirby]

Could you present a sound argument for the conclusion that *Ev precedes Luke?

You are not making strong arguments. You are making conjectures and implying they are are arguments.

Giuseppe also wrote:

are you asking me to wrote an entire book as K has done recently?

I would take the hint and refer to Klinghardt's The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels on this point.