Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Tertullian follows to say that he said only a mere proverb to be rejected: not precisely a long teaching, in my view. Tertullian is assuming that "teaching something of new" corresponds to "teaching", in this case. As if Jesus, to distinguish himself, HAD to teach something of new. But this last comment is only my congetture, though.

Giuseppe wrote:Tertullian follows to say that he said only a mere proverb to be rejected: not precisely a long teaching, in my view. Tertullian is assuming that "teaching something of new" corresponds to "teaching", in this case. As if Jesus, to distinguish himself, HAD to teach something of new. But this last comment is only my congetture, though.

Again, suit yourself. I am glad it is not my shaky proposition to defend.

to Ben,

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?

I do not know. It does not matter who made the mistake, or who move the pericope (if it was ever moved), "Luke" or a later interpolator.
The mistake or/and relocation (relative to keeping the reference of Capernaum) is hard to explain regardless if it was done before or after gMarcion was published.
However, if the pericope in gLuke was written with full knowledge of gMarcion, and "following" that gospel, then the mistake would not have been done.

Note: the relocation in gLuke (relative to GMark placement) seems to have been justified by Jesus (naturally) trying to start (and base) his ministry in Nazareth (but he fails). And the author expanded on that, suggesting miracles can be performed by Jewish prophets/healers on Gentiles (showing very indirectly Jesus' interest for Gentiles).

PS: I looked at Lk 4:23: "And he said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Caper'na-um, do here also in your own country.'""
I see another mistake: from the proverb, we would expect Jesus himself to look sick and Jesus also anticipating his audience wanting him to heal himself on the spot. And that Jesus was believed to have been sick in Capernaum but had been known to heal himself there. However, what come after that verse is about "prophet" and Jewish prophets healing others, not themselves.
Verse 4:23 has two mistakes. Maybe Lk 4:23 only is an early insertion by a very (double) stupid interpolator.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

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?

I do not know. It does not matter who made the mistake, or who move the pericope (if it was ever moved), "Luke" or a later interpolator.
The mistake or/and relocation (relative to keeping the reference of Capernaum) is hard to explain regardless if it was done before or after gMarcion was published.

Your solution, then, is to heap the errors all onto one very stupid interpolator. Hey, maybe we can get rid of all the continuity errors in the gospels that way.

A proto-Luke actually makes the issue pretty easy to explain. 1. Someone adds the phrase about what happened in Capernaum. 2. Someone else switches the pericope order.

However, if the pericope in gLuke was written with full knowledge of gMarcion, and "following" that gospel, then the mistake would not have been done.

But you think Luke was written with full knowledge of Mark, and following it, right? What is it about Marcion that would have kept Luke from committing this error when Mark did not? I guess that is why you resort to a doubly stupid interpolator.

Note: the relocation in gLuke (relative to GMark placement) seems to have been justified by Jesus (naturally) trying to start (and base) his ministry in Nazareth (but he fails). And the author expanded on that, suggesting miracles can be performed by Jewish prophets/healers on Gentiles (showing very indirectly Jesus' interest for Gentiles).

I think it makes Luke-Acts both begin (except the infancy narratives) and end with Jewish rejection of the message.

PS: I looked at Lk 4:23: "And he said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Caper'na-um, do here also in your own country.'""
I see another mistake: from the proverb, we would expect Jesus himself to look sick and Jesus also anticipating his audience wanting him to heal himself on the spot. And that Jesus was believed to have been sick in Capernaum but had been known to heal himself there. However, what come after that verse is about "prophet" and Jewish prophets healing others, not themselves.

I disagree. It is a proverb. The underlying meaning has nothing to do with sickness and healing.

Ben.

to Ben,

A proto-Luke actually makes the issue pretty easy to explain. 1. Someone adds the phrase about what happened in Capernaum. 2. Someone else switches the pericope order.

What you call proto-Luke, I would call it the original gospel written by one author: "Luke" (according to my research, a Roman woman from Philippi, Macedonia). Just semantic. I am not against additions or relocations by others, later on, even if they show in all available ancient copies (written at least 3 to 4 generations after the original gospels!).
What phrase? Lk 4:23 or a part of it?
You require two different interpolators. For me, one is enough.
Why point 1.? Why point 2.? Motivation of these two interpolators, please.
Also explain why, according to your proposal, no error would be done.

But you think Luke was written with full knowledge of Mark, and following it, right?

Yes, in most cases.

What is it about Marcion that would have kept Luke from committing this error when Mark did not?

Marcion did not have the mistake of Jesus accomplishing miracles in Capernaum before he went there.

I guess that is why you resort to a doubly stupid interpolator.

I brought this doubly stupid interpolator only in the case of him being the origin of Lk 4:23 only. But regardless who did this(ese) addition or/and relocation, stupidity was at play.

I disagree. It is a proverb. The underlying meaning has nothing to do with sickness and healing.

But the proverb says "Physician, heal yourself", so it has to do with healing oneself, which Jesus is never reported to have done, in Capernaum or anywhere else.
Do you have a different explanation about that proverb?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Why point 1.?

In order to fill out and explain the proverb. So why the proverb? To fill out and explain the rejection at Nazareth.

Why point 2.? Motivation of these two interpolators, please.

We both already discussed reasons to move the Nazareth pericope to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. If you did not like mine, use your own.

Also explain why, according to your proposal, no error would be done.

What do you mean? An error was committed. Moving the pericope forward when it had that stuff about things done in Capernaum was an error. It was just an error of negligence, not a bipolar one in which the same person both moves the pericope and adds the line.

What is it about Marcion that would have kept Luke from committing this error when Mark did not?

Marcion did not have the mistake of Jesus accomplishing miracles in Capernaum before he went there.

Neither did Mark. I am asking why knowledge of Marcion would have spared Luke the error when knowledge of Mark did not.

But the proverb says "Physician, heal yourself", so it has to do with healing oneself, which Jesus is never reported to have done, in Capernaum or anywhere else. Do you have a different explanation about that proverb?

Yes. It is similar to taking the beam out of one's own eye before removing the speck from someone else's. Do not give advice that you do not follow yourself (that is how the proverb is used in Cicero, Letters to His Friends 4.5.5). Do not recommend against falling in love when you yourself are prone to fall in love (that is how Ovid uses it in Cures for Love 314). Do not presume to help others in ways that you cannot help your own self or family; if it does not work for those who know you best, why should we assume it would work for us (that is how Luke uses it)?

"People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" = not about living in fragile domiciles.
"Birds of a feather flock together" = not about ornithology.
"Physician, heal yourself" = not about health care.

Ben.

to Ben,

In order to fill out and explain the proverb. So why the proverb? To fill out and explain the rejection at Nazareth.

Lk 4:23 is not necessary for the narration. Without it, the readers would understand why Jesus, as a prophet, would be doubted in his own town (4:24): because he was the son of a poor man (Joseph), in a family of uneducated people (of course, the people of Nazareth would not know Jesus got his education from the Holy Spirit after his baptism ).
Actually in gLuke, Jesus is rejected not after 4:23 or 4:24, but after 4:27.

It was just an error of negligence, not a bipolar one in which the same person both moves the pericope and adds the line.

My preferred option is that the Nazareth pericope in gLuke was initially where it is now, but that Lk 4:23 was added later. You are the one who proposed the error was done in two steps by different interpolators.

Neither did Mark. I am asking why knowledge of Marcion would have spared Luke the error when knowledge of Mark did not.

But gMark pericope is well after the first visit of Jesus in Capernaum and in gLuke, the similar (but added on) Nazareth pericope is before that visit. But if "Luke" kept close to gMarcion, there would be no mistake.

Yes. It is similar to taking the beam out of one's own eye before removing the speck from someone else's. Do not give advice that you do not follow yourself (that is how the proverb is used in Cicero, Letters to His Friends 4.5.5). Do not recommend against falling in love when you yourself are prone to fall in love (that is how Ovid uses it in Cures for Love 314).

"Luke" or any interpolator did not use the proverb as Cicero & Ovid did.

Do not presume to help others in ways that you cannot help your own self or family; if it does not work for those who know you best, why should we assume it would work for us (that is how Luke uses it)?

There is nothing in gLuke saying Jesus could not help himself then or his family, or that himself then and his family needed help.
And Jesus was not even given the opportunity to show his magic on anybody, those he knew best or others. Certainly Jesus here is not told having tried to heal himself or any family members, and failing at that.
I think your interpretation here is rather far-fetched and not supported by the textual context (which is really about healing according to 4:25-27).

Cordially, Bernard

Post deleted. Never mind. Poles apart.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:


Benson Commentary:


Expositor's Greek Testament:


Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:


Bengel's Gnomen:

LSJ:


Ezekiel 18.2 (LXX):