spin

As you seem to flee from dealing with the subject... as far as I can see the only reason why one might argue that Luke had Nazara from a written source is the conjecture that it was in Q.

I have argued in this and another thread that the hometown of the rejection from Mk 6 was identified by the Lucan tradition as being Nazara in rejection of the notion that Capernaum was Jesus home. This can be seen by the Lucan removal of any mention of a home at Capernaum, then downgrading the importance of the town, even removing the reference to Capernaum in the healing of the paralytic (a reference reduced in Matt to "his own town", 9:1, after of course having moved Jesus to Capernaum in 4:13).

This downgrading of Capernaum would make the hometown reference unlocated in Luke, though it is transparent in Mark. Ben C argued that the hometown rejection couldn't have been at Capernaum, pleading that the lack of recognition of Jesus' works in that town precludes it from the hometown rejection. This neither considers the similarities between Mk 1:21ff and 6:1ff nor the similarities of people's reactions between the hometown rejection and Jn 6:42, part of a passage which puts Jesus's family in Capernaum.

The suppression of Capernaum required another town for the rejection to happen in, so the specification of Nazara, which was part of the developing tradition as can be seen with Matt (which mentions Nazara in a context totally dissimilar to Luke), seems straightforward: the tradition offered a home town. The reduction of Capernaum was completed with a reference back to the first mention of the town, "do here what you did in Capernaum." There can be no confusion in the Lucan tradition about the home town now.

However, this whole passage containing the second reference to Capernaum was moved from what would have been the beginning of Lk 9 to be placed immediately before the first reference to the town, a move that I see would have been rather transparently problematical to the person who actively demoted Capernaum. However, someone who only had interest now in the further step of placing Nazara earlier, moved the hometown rejection to where it rests today. This relocation requires a detachment from the initial work, which the person who deliberately downplayed Capernaum would not have had.

Ben C wants to argue that the move was done by the same person who changed the references to Capernaum perhaps at a later time. In making it a later time Ben C puts the gospel in the hands of others, unless one would want to claim that it was not circulated between the time the Capernaum changes were made and the passage was moved, which seems hardly likely to me. If the gospel was in circulation before the passage was moved then the hope that it was the same person fades into insignificance. Besides, it rests on the notion that these gospels were the production of lone authors and not part of a community.

The whole Nazara/Nazareth tradition was totally unknown to Marcion who started his account with Jesus going down to Capernaum, not nazara/Nazareth. Unless you can devise some wily heretical purpose for his specifically omitting the insignificant Nazara/Nazareth (something a little more credible than that he rejected Jesus's childhood!), his is the earliest independent reference to the gospel tradition and his attestation is for Capernaum as where Jesus started.

The three synoptic gospels provide three different approaches to Capernaum:

1. Mark accepts Capernaum as where Jesus had his home.
2. Matt saddled with both Nazara and Capernaum opts to move Jesus from one to the other using a prophecy to justify it.
3. Luke removed the Capernaum problem, identifying the hometown as Nazara and reducing the significance of Capernaum.

spin

spin

Ben C, you have failed with your first point. You ignore too much just to claim that the hometown rejection was in Capernaum in the Marcan gospel. Just because there are two versions of Jesus visiting his hometown which conflict with one another is no reason to assume that they are not the same event. I guess you would like to argue that the feeding of the five and the four thousand were separate events.

You have shown no tangible evidence whatsoever to back up your claim of "Mark knowing that Jesus was from Nazareth/Nazara". Your claim is even challenged by the other gospels stuck with competing hometowns and resolving the conflict diversely. Had they believed as you do they wouldn't have needed to take such drastic steps.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Your reluctance/difficulty in explaining why you think "Mark" thought Nazareth was Jesus' Home explains alot. My reason for thinking "Mark" thought Capernaum was Jesus' home is much simpler. Because "Mark" said Capernaum was Jesus' home. You just seemed like the best source for finding out what you meant. Maybe I would be better off looking at "Matthew" and "Luke" to find out what you meant.

JW:
Tough question to answer, isn't it?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page