In the canonical Gospels, Jesus is introduced to the reader in accordance with the expected dignity of a messiah, savior, son of God. As to his birth, Matthew and Luke check the appropriate boxes: (1) born of a virgin, (2) born of the house of David. Likewise John, from his uniquely lofty perspective on the cosmic significance of the Jesus story, follows the pattern of the creation story in Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning…”. Mark invokes OT prophecies.
By contrast, the beginning of *Ev was, for Tertullian and The Church, shockingly mundane:
Beduhn edition:
In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when Pilate was governing Judea, Jesus came down to Capharnaum, a city in Galilee. And he was teaching them in the synagogue...
Klinghardt edition:
...And he taught them on the Sabbath days.
It is good to consider some of the context of Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem 4.7.4, in which the descent "into the synagogue" is mentioned--
| Bene autem quod et deus Marcionis illuminator vindicatur nationum, quo magis debuerit vel de caelo descendere, et, si utique, in Pontum potius descendere quam in Galilaeam. Ceterum et loco et illuminationis opere secundum praedicationem occurrentibus Christo iam eum prophetatum incipimus agnoscere, ostendentem in primo ingressu venisse se non ut legem et pro- phetas dissolveret, sed ut potius adimpleret. Hoc enim Marcion ut additum erasit. Sed frustra negabit Christum dixisse quod statim fecit ex parte. Prophetiam enim interim de loco adimplevit. De caelo statim ad synagogam. Ut dici solet, ad quod venimus; hoc age, Marcion, aufer etiam illud de evangelio, Non sum mis- sus nisi ad oves perditas domus Israel, et, Non est auferre panem filiis et dare eum canibus, ne scilicet Christus Israelis videretur. Sufficiunt mihi facta pro dictis. Detrahe voces Christi mei, res loquentur. Ecce venit in synagogam; certe ad oves perditas domus Israelis. Ecce doctrinae suae panem prioribus offert Israelitis; certe ut filios praefert. Ecce aliis eum nondum impertit; certe ut canes praeterit. Quibus autem magis impertisset quam extraneis creatoris, si ipse inprimis non fuisset creatoris? Et tamen quo- modo in synagogam potuit admitti tam repentinus, tam ignotus, cuius nemo adhuc certus de tribu, de populo, de domo, de censu denique Augusti, quem testem fidelissimum dominicae nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt? Meminerant certe, nisi circumcisum scirent, non admittendum in sancta sanctorum. Sed etsi passim synagoga adiretur, non tamen ad docendum nisi ab optime cognito et explorato et probato, iam pridem in hoc ipsum vel aliunde commendato cum hoc munere. Stupebant autem omnes ad doctrinam eius. Plane. Quoniam, inquit, in potestate erat sermo eius, non quoniam adversus legem et prophetas docebat. |
It is indeed to the good that Marcion's god too should be cited as one who gives light to the gentiles, for so there was the greater need for him to come down from heaven—though, if so, he ought to have come down into Pontus rather than Galilee. Yet since both that locality and that function of enlightenment do according to the prophecy have their bearing upon Christ, we at once begin to discern that it was he of whom the prophecy was made, when he makes it clear on his first appearance that he is come not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them. For Marcion has blotted this out as an interpolation. But in vain will he deny that Christ said in words a thing which he at once partly accomplished in act. For in the meanwhile he fulfilled the pro- phecy in respect of place. From heaven straightway into the synagogue. As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs: for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel. I have plenty of acts, if you take away his words. Take away Christ's sayings, and the facts will speak; See how he enters into the synagogue: surely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. See how he offers the bread of his doctrine to the Israelites first: surely he is giving them preference as sons. See how as yet he gives others no share of it: surely he is passing them by, like dogs. Yet on whom would he have been more ready to bestow it than on strangers to the Creator, if he himself had not above all else belonged to the Creator? Yet again how can he have obtained admittance into the synagogue, appear- ing so suddenly, so unknown, no one as yet having certain know- ledge of his tribe, of his nation, of his house, or even of Caesar's census, which the Roman registry still has in keeping, a most faithful witness to our Lord's nativity? They remembered, surely, that unless they knew he was circumcised he must not be ad- mitted into the most holy places. Or again, even if there were un- limited access to the synagogue, there was no permission to teach, except for one excellently well known, and tried, and approved, and already either for this occasion or by commendation from elsewhere invested with that function. 'But they were all astonished at his doctrine.' Quite so. Because, it says, his word was with power, not because his teaching was directed against the law and the prophets. |
If you have read Steven Davies' book Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity, you might recall his interpretation of the passage in 1 Cor 15, of the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to 500+ brethren, "some of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." Why did this seemingly significant event not make it into the Gospel accounts? We'll never know, but Davies observes that people don't generally cluster in a crowd as large as that unless they are doing something together. And if they are doing something together, and also experiencing manifestations of the spirit world, chances are good that the activity engaging them is a religious activity involving prayer and worship. (I thought Ben Smith had a thread about Davies somewhere but I couldn't find it.)
Similarly, the descent of the savior into the synagogue could be interpreted as a religious event--ie, of someone who was suddenly having an experience that represented to him (presumably "him") the descent of the savior to the lower regions of the cosmos (earth, Judaism), where demons hold sway. Immediately the demons are provoked, confront the savior, and are exorcised by him in the sight of all. "And they were amazed at his teaching, because he spoke with authority." All of this sounds like spirit possession behavior.
So the point is that the savior "descends," presumably in a cosmic sense (and so it was understood by later followers of Marcion, says Klinghardt) not just somewhere or anywhere, but "into" a synagogue. Tertullian thinks what is significant about it being a synagogue is that it proves "that Christ belongs to Israel." But from my point of view, which builds on the Davies interpretation of the NT, the significance has to do with the fact that it is a gathering of people engaged in worship, and prone to having spiritual experiences. If Marcion's text is an echo of such an experience, we would then have a more anthropological account of what it actually meant to the earliest Christ worshippers that he appeared among them, was manifested, became flesh, and so forth. Whether the author of this Gospel was himself one such worshipper can only be a question for speculation. But it could have been someone like Marcion himself, writing of a messiah who appears in the land of the Jews, and among the Jews, but who is not welcomed by other Jewish worshippers in the synagogue. Instead, in the story of the incident at Nazareth (Luke, *Ev), the would-be messiah (or prophet) is almost murdered by them.
