“You got nothing. You're nothing but a lot of talk and a badge!”: in Canonical Luke Jesus merely spoke BEFORE 4:23

[Peter Kirby]

They have another file with some comments, maybe there's something there.

[Peter Kirby]

Nope, they don't really explain their decision.

[Ken Olson]

What I'm really interested in is whether you accept that:

(1) In the Evangelion, Jesus did not exist on earth before he descended to Capernaum

and

(2) if you do, do you allow that the highlighted sections of the passage in Luke, and particularly the word πατρίδιin,were probably not in the Evangelion:

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; 17 and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written,

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” 23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Caper′na-um, do here also in your own country (πατρίδι)’” 24 And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country. 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Eli′jah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; 26 and Eli′jah was sent to none of them but only to Zar′ephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Eli′sha; and none of them was cleansed, but only Na′aman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. 30 But passing through the midst of them he went away.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

What I'm really interested in is whether you accept that:

(1) In the Evangelion, Jesus did not exist on earth before he descended to Capernaum

Sure, yes.

and

(2) if you do, do you allow that the highlighted sections of the passage in Luke, and particularly the word πατρίδιin,were probably not in the Evangelion:

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; 17 and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written,

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” 23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Caper′na-um, do here also in your own country (πατρίδι)’” 24 And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country. 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Eli′jah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; 26 and Eli′jah was sent to none of them but only to Zar′ephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Eli′sha; and none of them was cleansed, but only Na′aman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. 30 But passing through the midst of them he went away.

Sure, yes.

I am also interested in whether there was a hidden identity theme, where the man who descended was misunderstood as Jesus the Nazarene. If the author used Mark (as I've been suggesting) and had Jesus descend from heaven (as we're proposing), he still seems to have retained the story (in Mark) asking about the mother or brothers asking for him. I don't know how that theme would have worked, but it might be worth exploring too.

I also wouldn't necessarily place this scene so early in *Ev (not that I know where it goes).

[Ken Olson]

What I'm really interested in is whether you accept that:

(1) In the Evangelion, Jesus did not exist on earth before he descended to Capernaum

Sure, yes.

and

(2) if you do, do you allow that the highlighted sections of the passage in Luke, and particularly the word πατρίδιin,were probably not in the Evangelion:

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; 17 and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written,

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” 23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Caper′na-um, do here also in your own country (πατρίδι)’” 24 And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country. 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Eli′jah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; 26 and Eli′jah was sent to none of them but only to Zar′ephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Eli′sha; and none of them was cleansed, but only Na′aman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. 30 But passing through the midst of them he went away.

Sure, yes.

I am also interested in whether there was a hidden identity theme, where the man who descended was misunderstood as Jesus the Nazarene. If the author used Mark (as I've been suggesting) and had Jesus descend from heaven (as we're proposing), he still seems to have retained the story (in Mark) asking about the mother or brothers asking for him. I don't know how that theme would have worked, but it might be worth exploring too.

I also wouldn't necessarily place this scene so early in *Ev (not that I know where it goes).

Thanks. I'm wondering how your compositional theory Mark=>Evangelion=>Luke works here.

On my theory (which could be wrong, of course) Mark=>Luke=>Evangelion, the Rejection at Nazareth in Luke 4.16-30 is a major recasting of Mark's (and Matthew's) Rejection at Nazareth from Mark 6.1-6:

6.1 He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands! 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marveled because of their unbelief.

Luke has brought the Rejection at Nazareth forward to the beginning of Jesus' ministry and has Jesus read from the Isaiah scroll as sort of statement of his mission on earth. The pericope serves a a kick-off for jesus' subsequent ministry.

The Evangelion then has a cut down version of the Lukan version of the Rejection at Nazareth from Luke 4.16-30, taking out the references to Jesus family or his home country (and probably the quotation of Isaiah as well).

On the theory that the sequence is Mark=>Evangelion=>Luke, I have two questions:

First, is the Evangelion 4.16-30 based on Mark 6.1-6, with the references to Jesus' own country (πατρίδα) and family removed, as well as probably the reference to a prophet not being honored in his own country (Mark 6.4,; BeDuhn-Bilby do not show a parallel for Luke 4.24 in their text) removed?

Second, did Luke then conflate the Evangelion's version of the pericope in Ev 4.16-30 with Mark 6.1-6, adding references to Jesus' own country and Jesus' family, and probably the reference to prophets in their own country? If the Evangelion's version is based on Mark 6.1-6, it would seem Luke is adding back in the elements that the Evangelion removed from Mark.

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

3) Finally, the argument presumes that the saying of Jesus in Luke 4.23, 'Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here also in your own country' was present in the Evangelion, but only the 'physician heal yourself' part is positively attested to be there

even assuming the presence in *Ev 4:23 only of 'physician heal yourself', it is rather evident that it is an invitation to pose as a real healer/exorcist (=the religious meaning of a 'physician' in the context). Which means that the people of Nazareth know already (by hearsay) that Jesus has posed as healer/exorcist and therefore they want to test the truth of a such hearsay.

Why do they ask Jesus to heal himself? What do they think is wrong with him?

The just question is: Where do they get the idea that Jesus is a 'physician', if by then (Luke 4:23) Jesus has never done a healing?

• In *Ev the answer is rather simple: the idea of Jesus as healer is born in Capernaum, where Jesus has indeed already posed as a healer/exorcist.

• In Canonical Luke it doesn't seem to me that the idea of Jesus as healer, even the mere claim to be one, emerges before Luke 4:23.

The entire point of this post is that the presence in *Ev only of "Physician, heal yourself!" is entirely equivalent to the presence also of the final words: "What you have done in Capernaum, do also here".

Since in both cases the idea of a healing is derived from a past event that is found in *Ev but is absent in Canonical Luke.

[Ken Olson]

it's also not clear that the previous verse summary of Jesus activity: 'And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report concerning him went out through all the surrounding country' would exclude the possibility that the reports of Jesus returning to Galilee in the power of the Spirit included his giving some evidence of that power in Galilee, though no specific deed nor location within Galilee is named.

my difficulty in accepting the your point here is that the Greek original of 4:23 seems to point out twice that actions by Jesus raised interest in Capernaum and not teachings. This fact (=that actions were made in Capernaum) is even inferred further by a third item: Jesus has already talked in Nazareth before 4:23 hence now the people of Nazareth want that Jesus shows some actions. A fourth item is the strong indication that the required action (a similar action to the action made in Capernaum) has to be an action of healing and/or exorcism: "Physician, heal yourself" implies that Jesus has not still shown himself as a healer and/or exorcist in Nazareth but that he has already posed as such in Capernaum.

Luke 4:15 is evidence of hearsay about teachings, not at all evidence of hearsay about healings/exorcisms, even less about healings/exorcisms in Capernaum.

How did you exclude the possibility that Luke.14: 'And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report concerning him went out through all the surrounding country' concerned actions of Jesus? What was in the report? You seem to be presupposing that you can take the subsequent statement in v. 15 about Jesus' teaching in the synagogues as the content of the report in the previous verse. This is not at all obvious and seems arbitrary. Verse 15 is additional information the narrator gives us afterwards.

[Ken Olson]

3) Finally, the argument presumes that the saying of Jesus in Luke 4.23, 'Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here also in your own country' was present in the Evangelion, but only the 'physician heal yourself' part is positively attested to be there

even assuming the presence in *Ev 4:23 only of 'physician heal yourself', it is rather evident that it is an invitation to pose as a real healer/exorcist (=the religious meaning of a 'physician' in the context). Which means that the people of Nazareth know already (by hearsay) that Jesus has posed as healer/exorcist and therefore they want to test the truth of a such hearsay.

Why do they ask Jesus to heal himself? What do they think is wrong with him?

The just question is: Where do they get the idea that Jesus is a 'physician', if by then (Luke 4:23) Jesus has never done a healing?

So you're not answering the question I asked.

23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself;

Why does Jesus think they will quote this proverb to him, which seems to presuppose they thought he he needed healing? What healing did they think he needed?

[Giuseppe]

3) Finally, the argument presumes that the saying of Jesus in Luke 4.23, 'Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here also in your own country' was present in the Evangelion, but only the 'physician heal yourself' part is positively attested to be there

even assuming the presence in *Ev 4:23 only of 'physician heal yourself', it is rather evident that it is an invitation to pose as a real healer/exorcist (=the religious meaning of a 'physician' in the context). Which means that the people of Nazareth know already (by hearsay) that Jesus has posed as healer/exorcist and therefore they want to test the truth of a such hearsay.

Why do they ask Jesus to heal himself? What do they think is wrong with him?

The just question is: Where do they get the idea that Jesus is a 'physician', if by then (Luke 4:23) Jesus has never done a healing?

So you're not answering the question I asked.

23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself;

Why does Jesus think they will quote this proverb to him, which seems to presuppose they thought he he needed healing? What healing did they think he needed?

I think that that accusation is the accusation of diabolic possession: the presumed exorcist Jesus has to exorcize himself because he in primis is possessed by Satan. But in order for Jesus be presumed such, then he had to have already posed as such: the exact thing he doesn't in Luke before 4:23.

it's also not clear that the previous verse summary of Jesus activity: 'And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report concerning him went out through all the surrounding country' would exclude the possibility that the reports of Jesus returning to Galilee in the power of the Spirit included his giving some evidence of that power in Galilee, though no specific deed nor location within Galilee is named.

my difficulty in accepting the your point here is that the Greek original of 4:23 seems to point out twice that actions by Jesus raised interest in Capernaum and not teachings. This fact (=that actions were made in Capernaum) is even inferred further by a third item: Jesus has already talked in Nazareth before 4:23 hence now the people of Nazareth want that Jesus shows some actions. A fourth item is the strong indication that the required action (a similar action to the action made in Capernaum) has to be an action of healing and/or exorcism: "Physician, heal yourself" implies that Jesus has not still shown himself as a healer and/or exorcist in Nazareth but that he has already posed as such in Capernaum.

Luke 4:15 is evidence of hearsay about teachings, not at all evidence of hearsay about healings/exorcisms, even less about healings/exorcisms in Capernaum.

How did you exclude the possibility that Luke.14: 'And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report concerning him went out through all the surrounding country' concerned actions of Jesus? What was in the report? You seem to be presupposing that you can take the subsequent statement in v. 15 about Jesus' teaching in the synagogues as the content of the report in the previous verse. This is not at all obvious and seems arbitrary. Verse 15 is additional information the narrator gives us afterwards.

Not only that. My case is cumulative:

• The verse 15 gives the content of the report in the previous verse;

• The same verse 14, talking about Jesus "in the power of the Spirit", seems to be a clue to the inspired preaching as the content of the report. I.e. Jesus is divinely inspired therefore god is talking via him. God is not acting by him.

While both the two verses 14 and 15 point slightly towards the preaching as only content of the report, we have the verse 4:23 as a pointer to the action being required in Capernaum:

Really a double pointer, given that "Do here as in Capernaum" translates merely what is already in nuce in "Physician heal yourself": the idea that Jesus posed already as exorcist in Capernaum.

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks. I'm wondering how your compositional theory Mark=>Evangelion=>Luke works here.

Here's an idea, or the start of one:

01.00 GOSPEL
03.01 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
04.31 Jesus came down from above to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and was teaching them on the Sabbaths.
04.32 And they were astonished at his teaching because his word had authority.
04.33 In the synagogue, there was a man with an unclean demon who cried out with a loud voice,
04.34 "What have you to do with us, Jesus? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God."
04.35 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent and come out of him!" And when the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him without harming him.
04.36 And amazement seized them all, and they began to talk with one another, saying, "What is this word? For with authority and power, he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out!"
04.37 And the report about him spread into every place in the surrounding region.
04.16 He went to Nazara, and on the Sabbath day, he entered the synagogue and said:
"Here I am, it is written about Me in the scroll: 'I have come to do Your will, O God.'"
04.22 And they said, "Is not this the carpenter's son?"
And they took offense at him.
04.23 And he said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Physician, heal yourself. What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your own country as well.'"
04.24 And he said, "Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country.
But have you not read in the book of Moses, 'When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong'? For I am a stranger with you and a sojourner, and you have forgotten God your Savior."
04.28 And all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.
04.29 They rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built so that they could throw him down the cliff.
04.30 But passing through their midst, he went away.