Not according to the chronology of the text as I understand it (and as do many scholars including Ehrman). The birth narratives are a later addition, nullifying the relevance of the strong dating indications in Lk 3:1.
MrMacSon wrote:It seems Nazareth was not really a significant place for him.
This "him" alludes to the "lone penman" theory of gospel construction. Not functional. The gospel had a longish history and the rewriting of the hometown rejection (with Nazara) followed by its relocation and the later addition of the birth narratives should indicate at least three distinct writing processes in Lk. That also means three separate points in time. We can trace the movement from no name to Nazara and then to Nazareth, which had to have dominance before the Bethlehem prophecy gained impetus (a fourth point in time).
MrMacSon wrote:One would have expected the teenage Jesus to have infused Nazareth with faith. It seems it was not really a significant place for him.
This (hopefully tongue-in-cheek) addition implies reification of text narrative.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
MrMacSon wrote:It seems Nazareth was not really a significant place for him.
This "him" alludes to the "lone penman" theory of gospel construction.
'him' there refers to Jesus (not the author of gLuke), as with the edit I did -viz. --
MrMacSon wrote:One would have expected the teenage Jesus to have infused Nazareth with faith. It seems it was not really a significant place for him.
spin wrote:
This (hopefully tongue-in-cheek) addition implies reification of text narrative.
Kind of. I guess I wasn't taking note of your commentary on that (not b/c I doubt it, but b/c I was fixed on looking at mentions of Nazareth in Luke and context of those mentions, and I should have taken note of your points).
This is interesting (I presume my use of roman numerals is correct) -
spin wrote:
The gospel had a longish history and the rewriting of the hometown rejection (with Nazara) followed by its relocation and the later addition of the birth narratives should indicate at least three distinct writing processes in Lk. That also means three separate points in time. We can trace the movement from [i.] no name to [ii] Nazara and then [iii] to Nazareth, which had to have dominance before the Bethlehem prophecy gained impetus (a fourth point in time).
and ties to what you said in your post yesterday (and explains "Nazareth belongs to later material in Luke than this mention of Nazara") -viz. --
spin wrote:
Ehrman has accepted the evidence which says the main body of Luke was written before the addition of the birth narratives, which is the only place in Luke that mentions Nazareth. Lk 4:16 mentions a place name Nazara. Textually, Nazareth belongs to later material in Luke than this mention of Nazara, so we can safely say that Ehrman is wrong in his assertion that his author "knew [Jesus] came from Nazareth", unless of course the person responsible for the birth narratives was the same writer who put the main text together—unlikely given the existence of the form "Nazara". Nazara appears in a section of text that has been relocated after being rewritten from its Marcan original, the famous (unnamed) hometown rejection. This indicates that Nazara was not in the earliest strata of the gospel tradition. It would seem that no-one in the beginning knew that Jesus came from Nazareth, working from the literary remains we have.
It would seem only depend on Ephrem, which should indicate there's no implicit statement attributable to Markion.
There is an implicit connection with Marcion.
After these things, he came to his town and was teaching them on the Sabbath in their synagogues. Was there not another people, or another land apart from that of the Jews? But in order that Marcion's lie be refuted, it said after this, He entered the synagogue as was his custom, on the Sabbath day. What was the custom of him who had come just now? He had come to Galilee, and had begun to teach, not outside of the synagogue, but within it, he [came] to talk to them about their God. Otherwise it would have been in order for him to proclaim to them outside of their synagogue. He therefore entered Bethsaida among the Jews. It does not indicate that they said anything to him other than, Physician, heal yourself. They seized him and brought him to the side of the mountain. It is not likely that the word [he] had spoken to them was leading them to anger. For, if he had been speaking to them concerning the Creator, and [if] this was why they had given the response, They seized him that they might cast him down, why then did it not record in other places that it was like this too? That the people of the town hated him, there is this testimony: A prophet is not accepted in his home town. [Ephrem Commentary 23]
Ephrem's text reads "came to Bethsaida his hometown and was teaching them on the sabbath in their synagogues" Luke reads " He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom." The pattern throughout the Commentary is that he indicates Marcionite divergences. Consider "it said after this, He entered the synagogue as was his custom, on the Sabbath day." While it is not absolutely certain the Diatessaron and the Marcionite gospel are related. We can be confident the Marcionite text did not read 'Nazareth.'
If the Marcionite text read 'Nazareth' it would be 'outed' as another 'Marcionite lie.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
and that he should abide in a city called Nazareth: that the saying in the prophet might be fulfilled, that he should be called a Nazarene.
is IMHO best explained as one of many (I have listed many) examples of the editor of the canonical gospels 'reifying' or transforming theological arguments made by the author of ur-Adversus Marcionem into the literal 'word of god.' The original argument (which doesn't seem to know Matthew):
According to the prophecy, the Creator's Christ was to be called a Nazarene.a For that reason, and on his account, the Jews call us by that very name, Nazarenes. For we are also those of whom it is written, The Nazarenes were made whiter than snow,b having previously of course been darkened with the stains of sin, and blackened with the darkness of ignorance. But to Christ the appellation of Nazarene was to apply because of his hiding-place in infancy, for which he went down to Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus, the son of Herod.c My reason for not leaving this out is that Marcion's Christ ought by rights to have forsworn all association even with the places frequented by the Creator's Christ, since he had all those towns of Judaea, which were not in the same way conveyed over to the Creator's Christ by the prophets. But Christ has to be the Christ of the prophets, wherever it is that he is found to accord with the prophets. Even at Nazareth there is no indication that his preaching was of anything new, though for all that, by reason of one single proverb, we are told that he was cast out.
Clearly the original author is not quoting Matthew. He doesn't know that any gospel 'says' this. He was originally arguing that the epithet 'Nazarene' was foretold in the prophetic writings and then Tertullian or some secondary writer adds the bit about Nazareth (which doesn't really have a place here). Then Irenaeus or Tertullian added the argument to Matthew as if it applied to Nazareth (which is quite difficult to follow).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
1. harmony gospel and Marcion's gospel (pre-existent to the text of Adversus Marcionem)
2. ur-text of Adversus Marcionem written by Justin or someone in his circle with side by side textual commentary between lost harmony gospel and lost Marcion gospel often accusing Marcion of erasing things from the harmony next which now appear in Matthew (making for frequent strange argumentation by Tertullian now making the case that the gospel of Marcion is 'cut Luke')
3. ur-text of Adversus Marcionem makes the case that 'Nazarene' is foretold in the OT. Matthew 2:23 (or its equivalent) did not appear in the harmony gospel. Unknown to the author. He makes the argument out of his own imagination.
4. Irenaeus or Tertullian edit the text of ur-Adversus Marcionem to add the connection to Nazareth (which wasn't originally there likely)
5. Irenaeus adds the sense of the original argumentation added by him to Adversus Marcionem to Matthew. Matthew 2:23 is born
There are countless other examples like this (such as Luke's bit about David taking the bread from the temple) which derive their origin from Adversus Marcionem demonstrating that Adversus Marcionem goes back to a commentary older than the canonical gospels.
4.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias wrote:If the Marcionite text read 'Nazareth' it would be 'outed' as another 'Marcionite lie.'
Working from the traces that Tertullian preserves amongst his meanderings in CMarcion 4, what makes you think that Markion acknowledged Lk 4:16 at all? Ephrem is far too late to be of use as anything but secondary support. He may just have made a brainfart and we have no way to check. You are yet to deal with the fact that in the best Greek we have Nazara in 4:16.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Ephrem preserves the Galatians first Pauline canon used by the author of ur-Adversus Marcionem. He is not completely 'out of date.' Traditions die hard.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Funny how when Tertullian puts Galatians first in his commentary but doesn't actually confirm that the Marcionites put Galatians first in their canon (he says something like 'this letter is first because of its attack against Judaism' but the link is not explicit) scholars resist saying the obvious - that he is using a Diatessaron-based (or harmony based) community's Galatians first canon. There is a relationship also between the argumentation in Ephrem and ur-Adversus Marcionem (from what we can glean from existing Adversus Marcionem). They tend not to deal with Marcion's gospel but argue from their harmony and assume that Marcion made small changes to the common text. This leads scholars to conclude that not much difference existed between Luke and Marcion's gospel.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
what makes you think that Markion acknowledged Lk 4:16 at all
I don't know that he 'acknowledged it' in the sense that it was verbatim. It said 'bethsaida' which I take (because of Nag Hammadi's Testimony of Truth and other documents) to be 'house of demons' which is a reference to the temple in Jerusalem. The Marcionite gospel began in or near Jerusalem (so a fragment found by Harnack).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
