Why 'Nazareth' ?

[Giuseppe]

But it is not clear that Marcion has more than one thing done at Capernaum (as Mark and Matthew do).

This means hyper-defining excessively a thing in order to remove the problem. It doesn't work, sorry. Jesus has at least 2 things done at Capernaum: to teach and to heal.

Suit yourself, To me, it is no more a hyperdefinition than pointing out that Jesus has not yet visited Capernaum yet. Greek (like English) has both a plural and a singular, and the plural is used here.

And Jesus is already teaching when he gives the statement.

Note that in Luke 4:16-22, Luke says precisely which were the words of Jesus. He doesn't leave them into the vague as does in Luke 4:32. Therefore to Luke, too, what Jesus did in Capernaum was more than what he did in Nazareth.

[Ben C. Smith]

Note that in Luke 4:16-22, Luke says precisely which were the words of Jesus. He doesn't leave them into the vague as does in Luke 4:32. Therefore to Luke, too, what Jesus did in Capernaum was more than what he did in Nazareth.

None of this turns teaching into not teaching. But, if you are content with that explanation, then go for it. I for one am not. It appears obvious to me that the things he is imagining they would demand of him are things he has not yet done in Nazareth; but he is already teaching in Nazareth, so why would they demand that he teach? Teaching is obviously not one of the things being imagined. What he is not yet doing is healing. And that, of course, is what they would demand of him.

[outhouse]

Note: ne.tser (natser/natsar) is transliterated to nazir

and Nazirite/Nazarite, which comes from nazir, means (i) under a vow; (ii) consecrated; (iii) vow of 'separation'; or (iv) crowned


The Vow of the Nazarite - http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/document ... %20Vow.htm
.

This is more accurate.

"Nazareth" is derived from one of the Hebrew words for 'branch', namely ne·ṣer, נֵ֫צֶר,[6] and alludes to the prophetic, messianic words in Book of Isaiah 11:1, 'from (Jesse's) roots a Branch (netzer) will bear fruit'. One view suggests this toponym might be an example of a tribal name used by resettling groups on their return from exile.[7] Alternatively, the name may derive from the verb na·ṣar, נָצַר, "watch, guard, keep,"[8] and understood either in the sense of "watchtower" or "guard place", implying the early town was perched on or near the brow of the hill, or, in the passive sense as 'preserved, protected' in reference to its secluded position.[9] The negative references to Nazareth in the Gospel of John suggest that ancient Jews did not connect the town's name to prophecy

[outhouse]

Why 'Nazareth' ?

Most likely

Because that is where the dude was probably from.

[Giuseppe]

Note that in Luke 4:16-22, Luke says precisely which were the words of Jesus. He doesn't leave them into the vague as does in Luke 4:32. Therefore to Luke, too, what Jesus did in Capernaum was more than what he did in Nazareth.

None of this turns teaching into not teaching. But, if you are content with that explanation, then go for it. I for one am not. It appears obvious to me that the things he is imagining they would demand of him are things he has not yet done in Nazareth; but he is already teaching in Nazareth, so why would they demand that he teach? Teaching is obviously not one of the things being imagined. What he is not yet doing is healing. And that, of course, is what they would demand of him.

mmm... I don't think Jesus is teaching espliciter in Nazaret. He is reading and saying that enigmatic wonderful things happened that day.
The people of Nazaret wonder not because Jesus was wonderful, but because he proclaimed that that day a prophecy was realized. Rightly, they didn't listen and see nothing of extraordinary, yet, but only the mere promise of that. This makes sense only if Jesus didn't still realize neither teaching "with authority" nor miracles, yet, in Nazaret (at contrary of Capernaum).

[Bernard Muller]

Marcion definitely takes care of the first one (as do Mark and Matthew) by making Capernaum come before Nazareth. But it is not clear that Marcion has more than one thing done at Capernaum (as Mark and Matthew do). The situation is rather complex, and unidirectional solutions (like "Luke inflated Marcion" or "Marcion mutilated Luke") struggle to cover all the bases.

OK, with Marcion having Jesus going to Capernaum first, then going to Nazareth next:
A) If gLuke was written after gMarcion (with the Nazareth episode obviously relocated before Jesus going to Capernaum):
a) why not "Luke" followed Marcion in that regard?
OR
b) if "Luke" or a later interpolator wanted the Nazareth passage (with mention of miracles already performed) to appear before Jesus starting his ministry (in Capernaum), why not mention that Jesus did miracles on his way from the lower Jordan valley up to Nazareth?

However,

B) If gLuke was written before gMarcion (with the Nazareth episode obviously relocated before Jesus going to Capernaum):
a) Marcion "corrected" gLuke.

I think B) is much easier to fathom than A).

Furthermore, gLuke, on the Nazareth visit (besides the relocation), followed more closely gMark (with some additions) than the gMarcion version, which had very little in it:
"And yet even at Nazareth He is not remarked as having preached anything new, whilst in another verse He is said to have been rejected by reason of a simple proverb." Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.8.2-3

Notes:
a) the reason of Jesus' rejection does not make much sense in gMarcion, but does in the Synoptics.
b) "Luke" needed gMark only for her Nazareth passage, but not gMarcion.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Bernard, how did Luke make the mistake in the first place? Once the mistake is made, one can perhaps imagine somebody correcting it, but how do you see the mistake having been made to begin with? Who added the line about things done in Capernaum? Who moved the pericope? If they are both the same person, how did that happen?

[Giuseppe]

a) why not "Luke" followed Marcion in that regard?

That is not strange insofar you call it "editorial fatigue". You should raise rightly that question and not say that the question is absurd. Your apology is to insist that the question is NOT surprising.

[Giuseppe]

And yet even at Nazareth He is not remarked as having preached anything new, whilst in another verse He is said to have been rejected by reason of a simple proverb." Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.8.2-3

Thus Tertullian is saying that Jesus was not teaching in Nazaret. This makes my point above.

[Ben C. Smith]

And yet even at Nazareth He is not remarked as having preached anything new, whilst in another verse He is said to have been rejected by reason of a simple proverb." Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.8.2-3

Thus Tertullian is saying that Jesus was not teaching in Nazaret. This makes my point above.

That is not what Tertullian is saying at all. His words are right there: "not remarked as having preached anything new," which you turn into "not teaching in Nazaret" (somehow).