“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]

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.

In contrast to what Klinghardt says or concedes, I'm not quite convinced that the author of Luke 'recognized' this or that about 4:23.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

I tend to agree with you here, at least based on what I've seen so far.

The redaction (I suggest of Mark, you suggest of Luke) in the "mother or brothers" episode does put some weight on the scale.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

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.

I don't know.

Sometimes I might categorize (to myself) some counter-arguments or refutations as either a "primary" or "mop up" type. The primary type are those that are destined to win wide assent because they expose a clear problem with the argument such that the argument shouldn't have been made in the first place. These primary type counters are the kind that take the evidence off the table because they eventually win over even some supporters of the hypothesis, to convince them to drop the argument. They show that it's not evidence.

This doesn't feel like a primary refutation to me. It feels like a "mop up." If at some point I became convinced on other grounds that *Ev was written using Luke, then I would need to explain these facts, and I would have to do it in something like this way.

This is a first impression response. Maybe I will become convinced on other grounds that *Ev used Luke. But I haven't yet.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

This is something I need to think about further.

I think it advances the discussion. Thank you for this.

[Peter Kirby]

FWIW, I am not a true believer. I'm still not sure of what I'm doing when it comes to "solving" the synoptic problem or "reconstructing" the gospel of Marcion. But I understand the value of being a true believer. Klinghardt took a chance on the idea that *Ev was the "oldest gospel," and by now I think he is well convinced of it. Is it true? I doubt it. I think it goes off the rails at the point of misunderstanding the testimony of Tertullian, and then probably again at making *Ev the oldest gospel (I know, controversial). But it's still good to have someone going up that branch, if they're otherwise diligent and conscientious, which Klinghardt is. There's value in seeing the perspective developed, and individual bits that are gleaned therefrom. Including stuff that he wouldn't consider if he didn't take the "oldest gospel" and sort-of-maximalist Luke-lite premises, which may still throw off some little kernels of truth.

So am I a true believer in Mk -> *Ev -> Lk, no. Have I proven that the not-Luke-lite premise is true, no. But I think it's plausible. I think it's interesting. I know that it's under-explored. If I act a little bit like a true believer, I think interesting things can develop. Stuff that I wouldn't learn if I were taking a more detached, shrug-my-shoulder, too-hard-might-as-well-forget-it kind of approach.

[Giuseppe]

and got feedback from Josen Rael and others.

"Josen Rael" is me.

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.

I agree. But I think that it would be not correct to question the general thesis of K based on the K's omission of the other alternative (that the incipit reflects the idea that Jesus descended from heaven as he was a celestial being). In this case Marcion was not obliged to find in Mark what could be easily misinterpreted as a descent from heaven.

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.

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.

Not even when I have just shown above that well 4 pointers in the Nazareth's episode are to an action by Jesus, and precisely to an action of healing and/or exorcism?

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.

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.

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.

just as it would make sense for Luke to place the Capernaum pericope after the Nazareth pericope because Jesus existed on earth even before he descended at Capernaum.

[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?

[Peter Kirby]

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.

This is something I need to think about further.

I think it advances the discussion. Thank you for this.

I have since seen that Bilby-BeDuhn doesn't attempt to include the word πατρίδι in their 2023 reconstruction:

ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς τὴν Καφαρναοὺμ ποίησον καὶ ὧδε

This isn't their statement that the rest wasn't there, but they view this (unattested) phrase as plausible enough for their Greek text.

I understand that a proposal like this by itself doesn't necessarily swing the argument, but it does outline one alternative.

[Ken Olson]

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.

This is something I need to think about further.

I think it advances the discussion. Thank you for this.

I have since seen that Bilby-BeDuhn doesn't attempt to include the word πατρίδι in their 2023 reconstruction:

ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς τὴν Καφαρναοὺμ ποίησον καὶ ὧδε

This isn't their statement that the rest wasn't there, but they view this (unattested) phrase as plausible enough for their Greek text.

I understand that a proposal like this by itself doesn't necessarily swing the argument, but it does outline one alternative.

They include [ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς τὴν Καφαρναοὺμ ποίησον καὶ ὧδε] in brackets as unattested to be in the text and unattested to be absent from the text, and therefore plausibly present.

What about the word πατρίδι, which they do not include? Is it unattested, but plausibly present?

It seems to me that it is not. In the Evangelion, Jesus just descended from heaven to Capernaum, so he would not have Nazareth as his hometown (or fatherland).

Nazareth is, of course, Jesus' hometown in Luke (though not the town of his birth) as Luke previously stated in Luke 1.26 (it's where Mary lived), 2.4-5 (Joseph and the pregnant Mary leave there for Bethlehem), 2.39 (Joseph and Mary and the baby Jesus return to their own city, Nazareth, after presenting Jesus in the temple), and 2.51 (the boy Jesus returns to Nazareth with his parents after teaching in the temple).

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

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.

This is something I need to think about further.

I think it advances the discussion. Thank you for this.

I have since seen that Bilby-BeDuhn doesn't attempt to include the word πατρίδι in their 2023 reconstruction:

ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς τὴν Καφαρναοὺμ ποίησον καὶ ὧδε

This isn't their statement that the rest wasn't there, but they view this (unattested) phrase as plausible enough for their Greek text.

I understand that a proposal like this by itself doesn't necessarily swing the argument, but it does outline one alternative.

They include [ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς τὴν Καφαρναοὺμ ποίησον καὶ ὧδε] in brackets as unattested to be in the text and unattested to be absent from the text, and therefore plausibly present.

No, I don't think that "unattested to be in the text and unattested to be absent from the text, and therefore plausibly present" sums it up for Bilby-BeDuhn. That would result in a lot more text being there than they have in what they offer.

This seems like it could come closer:

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.

Except that I wouldn't quite put it that way, and I doubt they would.

This is what they say about brackets:

[square brackets] for “connective content” necessary for the intelligibility of adjacent attested content

What they're saying is stronger than only 'plausible'.