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

[Giuseppe]

In addition to this already exhaustive list, I think that this further point is decisive:

5) Luke 4:14-15 doesn't talk about miraculous actions of Jesus, but only about a surprising teaching.

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.

...whereas at contrary Luke 4:23 is rather explicit in pointing out well twice the actions of Jesus done in Capernaum:

‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”

ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς τὴν Καφαρναοὺμ, ποίησον καὶ ὧδε ἐν τῇ πατρίδι σου.

The detail is decisive, since in Luke 4:31-37 Jesus does, and not only speaks.

[Peter Kirby]

Note also the detail by WR: "si rempli". Indeed the episode of Capernaum in canonical Luke is rather dense:

31 Then he went down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and on the Sabbath he taught the people. 32 They were amazed at his teaching, because his words had authority.

33 In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an impure spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, 34 “Go away! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

35 “Be quiet!” Jesus said sternly. “Come out of him!” Then the demon threw the man down before them all and came out without injuring him.

36 All the people were amazed and said to each other, “What words these are! With authority and power he gives orders to impure spirits and they come out!” 37 And the news about him spread throughout the surrounding area.

A such density makes it so evident that that is THE miracle done by Jesus in Capernaum, that the exhortation in 4:23 to repeat what has been done done in Capernaum can only be a reference to it and only to it.

I have not still understood in short what are the objections to the following points:

• 1) In Canonical Luke the story of the miracle in Capernaum is too much dense and conspicuous to be not referred in the entire gospel as THE miracle in Capernaum, 'what Jesus had done in Capernaum'.

• 2) Luke 4:14-25 is not sufficient to make the Gentile readers aware that Capernaum is in Galilee.

• 3) Luke 4:37
  
  And the news about him spread throughout the surrounding area.
  
  seems to be a superfluous repetition of Luke 4:14:
  
  Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside.
  
  Isn't it a typical example of editorial fatigue?

• 4) in Mark Capernaum is mentioned after the arrival in Galilee and without being specified as a town in Galilee. But Mark didn't need that detail because in Mark we don't have a flash-back: the sequence is linear (Galilee---> Capernaum) while in Luke the sequence is interrupted (Galilee ---> Nazareth ---> Capernaum? ---> Nazareth ---> Capernaum).

So the my point is that, even if Luke 4:14-15 had ex hypothesi read so:

Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside and in Capernaum.

...this would be yet not sufficient to overcome the other obstacle, i.e. that Luke 4:31-37 is so vivid and dense in the its description of what happened in Capernaum, that hardly it can be replaced by something of different and in addition merely alluded in Luke 4:43:

‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”

Klinghardt, The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, pp. 148-150:

2. Regarding the question about the editorial direction, these insights are important. Reconstructing the tradition history of this pericope presents – within the methodological framework of the common models pertaining to the Synoptic Problem (which consistently imply Luke-priority over *Ev) – complex and much debated challenges. The difficulties arise on the one hand from the close analogies of Luke 4,16-30 with Mark 6,1-6a || Matt 13,53-58, which ensure that all three texts refer to the same event.13 In view of the 2ST, these agreements are interpreted as dependencies of the Lukan and Matthean parallels on Mark 6,1ff within the scope of the triple tradition, the text of which would nevertheless have been significantly expanded in Luke. On the other hand, the striking Aramaic form of the name Ναζαρά (Luke 4,16 || Matt 4,13) constitutes an important Matthean-Lukan ‘minor agreement’, which really should not exist at all according to the 2ST. Moreover, Matthew provides this characteristic name in association with Jesus’ first appearance in Galilee, but not in the context (which it has in common with Mark 6) of the rejection of Jesus in his hometown in Matt 13,53ff. That is why the essence of 4,16-30 is considered to have originated from ‘Q’; this, however, would not only presuppose a methodologically complicated ‘Mark-Q overlap’, but lead to other uncertainties. This short overview shows how confusing the situation involving the 2ST really is. The outcome cannot be sufficiently explained by the assumption that Luke 4,16-30 is dependent only on Mark 6,1-6; it requires an additional hypothetical expansion of (the fundamental assumptions of) the 2ST through the ‘Mark-Q overlaps’. Even then, another ‘minor agreement’ remains unexplained. The converse case of *Ev-priority eliminates all these difficulties because Mark 6,1-6a || Matt 13,53-58 would be dependent on *4,16-30 and not vice versa. This solution, however, can only be outlined and not comprehensively substantiated here: that requires an inclusion of all Synoptic relations (see Part IV). It becomes evident, nevertheless, that the assumption of *Ev-priority notably alters the traditional image of the literary relations between the Gospels and that it drastically reduces its complexity.

3. At least for one small element, the rearrangement of the pericopes Luke 4,16-30 and 4,31-37, this can be substantiated. When assuming *Ev-priority, this rearrangement goes back to the Lukan redaction. It is informative, since it impairs the narrative logic considerably: the referral to what “you did at Capernaum” (4,23) is no longer covered by the previous account in the canonical sequence of pericopes as was the case in *Ev with *4,31-37, and as it is also attested by Mark 1,21f (|| Matt 4,13) and 1,23-28. Luke tries to mend this break by inserting the summary 4,14f,17 but only with marginal success. That the teachings of 4,15 also include healings and miraculous signs is not immediately obvious. When Luke 4,16-30 is supposed to programmatically account for Jesus’ first public appearance, this narrative break could have been avoided only by the deletion of *4,23; but this very manifestation is indispensable for the intention of the Nazareth pericope in Luke. The resulting contradiction is therefore systemic and unavoidable.

It has been frequently observed that Luke altered the sequence of pericopes for a programmatic emphasis of the Nazareth pericope and thereby accepted a considerable impairment of the narrative coherence. However, in 4,16-30 Luke did not edit Mark 1,21-28 and Mark 6,1-6a, but *Ev. As illustrated with appreciable clarity in Tertullian’s presentation, *Ev included (beyond Mark 6,1-6a) referrals to the hostility of Nazarene Jews: the murderous intentions at ‘the brow’, and Jesus’ escape. Luke 4,16-30, accordingly, is not an editorial expansion of Mark 6,1-6a, but of Marcion’s Gospel which did (in contrast to Mark 6) include a failed murder attempt, but which was unaware of either the Isaiah quotation with its exegesis nor the referrals to Elijah and Elisha as examples for the influence of prophets outside Israel.

[Giuseppe]

I see with satisfaction that the "Argument à la Robert De Niro" has been made independently from me by Klinghardt by this little remark:

'That the teachings of 4,15 also include healings and miraculous signs is not immediately obvious.

[Peter Kirby]

It's good scholarship. It's been observed by many, many people, Giuseppe.

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonm ... reth-first

As already noted, in Luke the Nazareth episode occurs immediately before Jesus goes to Capernaum in Lk 4:31-41. However, what Jesus says in Lk 4:23-24 indicates that he had previously performed healings in Capernaum that are by then already known in Nazareth. This suggests that in Luke the Capernaum episode should precede Nazareth, and in a presentation to the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), E. Bruce Brooks gave the following possible explanations for this different order in Luke:

In Lk 4:16-37, Jesus preaches at Nazareth, and people ask why he did not do miracles of the kind he had earlier done at Capernaum. But at that point in Luke's story, the Capernaum miracles have not yet been narrated. We might say, well, that detail was in the story as Luke got it from Mark. But there is no such feature in Mk 6:2, where the audience do not mention Capernaum. Or perhaps, we might say, Luke expects his hearers to know of Jesus' miracles in Capernaum without being told, and does not feel a need to introduce them to Capernaum.

That possibility can be tested. When Luke's narrative first comes to Capernaum, in Lk 4:31, what does it do? Answer: It locates Capernaum: "And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee." I think we must take Luke's word for it, that his audience needed to be narratively introduced to Capernaum. If so, then the second explanation fails. I cannot think of a third.

I conclude that Lk 4:16-30 is out of place. It needed to follow, at whatever distance, something like the end of the Capernaum miracle narrative, which concludes, "And reports of him went out into every place in the surrounding region" (Lk 4:37). It is exactly this which would make the present Lukan Nazareth story work right. As that story now stands, at least in this respect it does not work. It was written for a different position in the Lukan narrative than the one it presently occupies.

[Peter Kirby]

Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts, p. 83:

For Baur the most convincing evidence for the derivative nature of canonical Luke consists of a number of inconsistencies that he perceived in it. For most of them he drew on Ritschl. One such inconsistency has to do with the order of pericopes in our Luke 4. In the gospel as we now have it the narrative of Jesus' rejection at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30) comes before that of an exorcism at Capernaum (Luke 4:31-37). But the former narrative refers to an earlier visit of Jesus to Capernaum. In Luke 4:23 we have, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Doctor, cure yourself!' And you will say, 'Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum."" As the order in canonical Luke stands there is a reference to an event in Capernaum that has not yet been described. Baur also comments that Luke 4:24 makes better sense in a context in which the reader can see a contrast with Jesus' reception outside his hometown.

[Secret Alias]

From memory Origen addresses this in Commentary on John.

[Ken Olson]

For context, I posted on this argument on the Facebook Synoptic Problem Study Group back on February 23, 2024, and got feedback from Josen Rael and others.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10 ... 2206399733

I have not yet reformulated the argument to take Jeff Cate's observations into account, but I stand my my comment that, on the theory Marcion used Luke, it would be necessary for him to place the Nazara (Nzareth) story from Luke 4.16-30 after the Capernaum story from Luke 4.31-37 because, in the Evangelion, Jesus had no earthly existence before he descended to earth at Capernaum in Evangelion 4.31. The identification of Nazara as 'where he had been brought up' in Luke 4.31 not attested for the Evangelion, nor is the question 'Is this not Joseph's son?' in 4.22, nor are the the references to Jesus' own country in 4.23 and 4.24.

If Marcion wanted to use the Nazareth story, he would have to place it after the Capernaum story, because that was the beginning of Jesus' existence on earth.

I do not think Klinghardt's understanding that 4.31 in the Evangelion probably refers to Jesus 'coming down' to Capernaum from Jerusalem or the hills around the Sea of Galilee can be maintained in light of the absence of an account of an earlier history of Jesus in the Evangelion or of his earthy lineage in the Evangelion or the Apostolikon.

Tertullian seems to have been familiar with the implication that Jesus ‘coming down’
had with his appearance from heaven. That the presentation of Adamantius and Hippolytus
substituted a corresponding meaning suggests that it involved a widely held interpretation
of the Marcionite theology but not necessarily an element of the text.

This means: the theological interpretation which understood Jesus ‘coming
down’ as Jesus ‘being revealed’ was most likely not part of *Ev. It is not even certain
that *Ev mentioned a ‘coming down from above’ (κατέρχεσθαι ἄ ν ω θ ε ν ).
Whether *Ev implied that Jesus ‘came down’ from heaven or from Jerusalem or
only from the hills around the Sea of Galilee is unclear; the latter, however, is

most likely: Galilean Nazareth (according to *4,16: Nazara) is the hometown
of Jesus (*4,23). [Klinghardt, Oldest Gospel, 2.516-517]

The Greek text of BeDuhn-Bilby has:

04.16.05B Ναζαρά ὅπου ἦν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν.
04.23.05B καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς πάντως ἐρεῖτέ μοι τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην· ἰατρέ θεράπευσον σεαυτόν — [ ὧδε] — ().
04.29.05B καὶ ἀναστάντες ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἕως τῆς ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους ἐφ᾽ οὗ ἡ πόλις ᾠκοδόμητο αὐτῶν ὥστε κατακρημνίσαι αὐτόν.
04.30.05B ἐπορεύετο.
04.40.05B [() ()] () ὁ δὲ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν6 τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιτιθεὶς ἐθεράπευεν αὐτούς.
04.41.05B καὶ λέγοντα σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. καὶ ἐπιτιμῶν οὐκ εἴα αὐτὰ λαλεῖν.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

For context, I posted on this argument on the Facebook Synoptic Problem Study Group back on February 23, 2024, and got feedback from Josen Rael and others.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10 ... 2206399733

I have not yet reformulated the argument to take Jeff Cate's observations into account, but I stand my my comment that, on the theory Marcion used Luke, it would be necessary for him to place the Nazara (Nzareth) story from Luke 4.16-30 after the Capernaum story from Luke 4.31-37 because, in the Evangelion, Jesus had no earthly existence before he descended to earth at Capernaum in Evangelion 4.31. The identification of Nazara as 'where he had been brought up' in Luke 4.31 not attested for the Evangelion, nor is the question 'Is this not Joseph's son?' in 4.22, nor are the the references to Jesus' own country in 4.23 and 4.24.

If Marcion wanted to use the Nazareth story, he would have to place it after the Capernaum story, because that was the beginning of Jesus' existence on earth.

I do not think Klinghardt's understanding that 4.31 in the Evangelion probably refers to Jesus 'coming down' to Capernaum from Jerusalem or the hills around the Sea of Galilee can be maintained in light of the absence of an account of an earlier history of Jesus in the Evangelion or of his earthy lineage in the Evangelion or the Apostolikon.

Tertullian seems to have been familiar with the implication that Jesus ‘coming down’
had with his appearance from heaven. That the presentation of Adamantius and Hippolytus
substituted a corresponding meaning suggests that it involved a widely held interpretation
of the Marcionite theology but not necessarily an element of the text.

This means: the theological interpretation which understood Jesus ‘coming
down’ as Jesus ‘being revealed’ was most likely not part of *Ev. It is not even certain
that *Ev mentioned a ‘coming down from above’ (κατέρχεσθαι ἄ ν ω θ ε ν ).
Whether *Ev implied that Jesus ‘came down’ from heaven or from Jerusalem or
only from the hills around the Sea of Galilee is unclear; the latter, however, is

most likely: Galilean Nazareth (according to *4,16: Nazara) is the hometown
of Jesus (*4,23). [Klinghardt, Oldest Gospel, 2.516-517]

The Greek text of BeDuhn-Bilby has:

04.16.05B Ναζαρά ὅπου ἦν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν.
04.23.05B καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς πάντως ἐρεῖτέ μοι τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην· ἰατρέ θεράπευσον σεαυτόν — [ ὧδε] — ().
04.29.05B καὶ ἀναστάντες ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἕως τῆς ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους ἐφ᾽ οὗ ἡ πόλις ᾠκοδόμητο αὐτῶν ὥστε κατακρημνίσαι αὐτόν.
04.30.05B ἐπορεύετο.
04.40.05B [() ()] () ὁ δὲ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν6 τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιτιθεὶς ἐθεράπευεν αὐτούς.
04.41.05B καὶ λέγοντα σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. καὶ ἐπιτιμῶν οὐκ εἴα αὐτὰ λαλεῖν.

Best,

Ken

How is this a response to the argument made?

[Ken Olson]

For context, I posted on this argument on the Facebook Synoptic Problem Study Group back on February 23, 2024, and got feedback from Josen Rael and others.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10 ... 2206399733

I have not yet reformulated the argument to take Jeff Cate's observations into account, but I stand my my comment that, on the theory Marcion used Luke, it would be necessary for him to place the Nazara (Nzareth) story from Luke 4.16-30 after the Capernaum story from Luke 4.31-37 because, in the Evangelion, Jesus had no earthly existence before he descended to earth at Capernaum in Evangelion 4.31. The identification of Nazara as 'where he had been brought up' in Luke 4.31 not attested for the Evangelion, nor is the question 'Is this not Joseph's son?' in 4.22, nor are the the references to Jesus' own country in 4.23 and 4.24.

If Marcion wanted to use the Nazareth story, he would have to place it after the Capernaum story, because that was the beginning of Jesus' existence on earth.

I do not think Klinghardt's understanding that 4.31 in the Evangelion probably refers to Jesus 'coming down' to Capernaum from Jerusalem or the hills around the Sea of Galilee can be maintained in light of the absence of an account of an earlier history of Jesus in the Evangelion or of his earthy lineage in the Evangelion or the Apostolikon.

Tertullian seems to have been familiar with the implication that Jesus ‘coming down’
had with his appearance from heaven. That the presentation of Adamantius and Hippolytus
substituted a corresponding meaning suggests that it involved a widely held interpretation
of the Marcionite theology but not necessarily an element of the text.

This means: the theological interpretation which understood Jesus ‘coming
down’ as Jesus ‘being revealed’ was most likely not part of *Ev. It is not even certain
that *Ev mentioned a ‘coming down from above’ (κατέρχεσθαι ἄ ν ω θ ε ν ).
Whether *Ev implied that Jesus ‘came down’ from heaven or from Jerusalem or
only from the hills around the Sea of Galilee is unclear; the latter, however, is

most likely: Galilean Nazareth (according to *4,16: Nazara) is the hometown
of Jesus (*4,23). [Klinghardt, Oldest Gospel, 2.516-517]

The Greek text of BeDuhn-Bilby has:

04.16.05B Ναζαρά ὅπου ἦν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν.
04.23.05B καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς πάντως ἐρεῖτέ μοι τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην· ἰατρέ θεράπευσον σεαυτόν — [ ὧδε] — ().
04.29.05B καὶ ἀναστάντες ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἕως τῆς ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους ἐφ᾽ οὗ ἡ πόλις ᾠκοδόμητο αὐτῶν ὥστε κατακρημνίσαι αὐτόν.
04.30.05B ἐπορεύετο.
04.40.05B [() ()] () ὁ δὲ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν6 τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιτιθεὶς ἐθεράπευεν αὐτούς.
04.41.05B καὶ λέγοντα σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. καὶ ἐπιτιμῶν οὐκ εἴα αὐτὰ λαλεῖν.

Best,

Ken

How is this a response to the argument made?

Did you read the linked post/thread? No matter, I will recapitulate.

I used to consider this the strongest argument for the originality of the Evangelion's order over Luke's, as in Capernaum (4.31) Jesus cast an unclean spirit out of a man (4.35), so that all were amazed and asked “What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out" (4.36), and 'reports of him went out into every place in the surrounding region' (47). This would seem to make a fitting antecedent to Jesus' statement in Luke 4.23. 'Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Caper′na-um, do here also in your own country.'

But the fact that Luke 4.31-37 would seem to make a fitting antecedent to Luke 4.23 if it ocurred before Luke 4.23 is not proof that it did originally occur before Luke 4.23. There are some problems that undermine the argument:

1) The fact that Luke 4.31-37 might make a fitting antecedent for Luke 4.23 does not mean Luke 4.14-15 is not a fitting precedent for Luke 4.23. Klinghardt's claim 'That the teachings of 4,15 also include healings and miraculous signs is not immediately obvious' is true enough, but 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. Klinghardt's attempt to limit the content of the report to Jesus teaching in the synagogues described in the subsequent verse is at least unnecessary.

2) I find Klinghardt's argument that 'Luke tries to mend this break by inserting the summary 4,14f,17 but only with marginal success' uncompelling. Klinghardt's theory that Luke recognized that 4.23 did not not have a proper antecedent, and therefore supplied it with an improper antecedent, a bit lame. Note that Klinghardt isn't claiming that Luke failed to recognize that 4.23 needed an antecedent, nor that he failed to provide one, but that, in Klinghardt's own judgment, the antecedent that Luke consciously provided for 4.23 isn't good enough. I will trust Luke's judgment over Klinghardt's as to what constitutes a proper antecedent according to the narrative logic of the Gospel According to Luke.

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. BeDuhn does not include the remainder in his minimal reconstruction, and the final part about his own country ('fatherland' might be a more literal translation) is, in my opinion, very unlikely to have been in the Evangelion because Jesus had just arrived on earth in 4.31, and he had not grown up in Nazareth and it was not his fatherland. Therefore the latter part of the saying is suspect. The main reason for assuming it was in the Evangelion is that 4.31-37 would be a fitting antecedent for it if it were there.

And also, of course, it would make sense for Marcion to place the Nazara pericope after the Capernaum pericope because Jesus didn't exist on earth until after he descended at Capernaum, as I said in the previous post.

Best,

Ken

PS Hope to get to the spelling of Nazara soon.

[Peter Kirby]

Did you read the linked post/thread? No matter, I will recapitulate.

Ah, I didn't. I saw only your comment, echoing the post shared here.