Loading...OK, several readers have asked me why I don’t think the story of Jesus’ violent rejection in Nazareth, according to Luke 4:16-30, is historically reliable. The short version is that Luke has taken a story from Mark and expanded it significantly in light of his own literary and theological interests so that the account of the attempted assassination is not multiply attested and it does not pass the criterion of dissimilarity. It looks instead to be a story that Luke has come up with to make a point, a very important point, for his larger narrative.
First thing to note (this is frequently noted!): Luke has changed the placement of the story. Mark, Luke’s source, places it almost exactly halfway through Jesus’ public ministry in chapter 6 (the ministry is chs. 1-10 of Mark). For Mark it is all part of the “misunderstanding” motif: Jesus’ family misunderstands who he is (they think he’s crazy), so do the Jewish Leaders (they think he’s possessed by Beelzebub), so do his townsfolk (they think he’s simply the local TEKTON), and so do his disciples (who are clueless who he is…).
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, NOW”S YOUR CHANCE!!!
Bart, how does the claim that Jesus’ own family (his mother apparently included) rejected him and thought he was mentally ill fit into this? Did Mary forget how he was allegedly conceived?
And speaking of Mary, why would she not have Jesus’ claim in that Temple story: “His mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” But he replied, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?” Yet his parents did not understand the remark he made to them.” ? Did she forget who allegedly Jesus’ real father was? And is that why she calls Joseph ‘your father’ even though both she and Jesus (and I assume Joseph) should know better?
corr: ‘why would she not have understood Jesus’ answer in that Temple scene’
I think you’re mixing up Gospels. It’s in Mark that his family rejects him, and there is no virgin birth in Mark. That is in Matthew and Luke.
The comment in Luke 2 is indeed puzzling, given Luke 1!
Your thoughts on this are exactly like mine.
You will be happy to hear that I agree with your analysis of Luke’s synagogue story 100%. I also think that Matthew, Mark, John and Paul came up with similar “unhistorical points” to embellish and support their larger narratives. 🙂
Oh my god! I’m going to believe in miracles again!
“When you give a speech: you need to create it in a way that the audience can understand you” my question is: do you think Luke was trying to modify the gospel so that the new target group “the gentiles” will accept the message, as I do not think he was concerned about scrpit audit or historians at that since most people were illiterate.
Yes, I think all the Gospel writers modified their message for their audiences.
It still seems odd to me that Gospel writers would spin such important history and make up stories to make certain points. On the other hand, I guess Fox News does this every night. Ron
Did Nazareth became a village after Jesus or was it always there during the time Jesus? I hope it’s not a silly question.
Not silly at all. I deal with it in my book Did Jesus Exist. Narazreth was definitely there, as a very small village or hamlet, inthe days of Jesus. Archaeologists have dug parts of it up!
As i understand it the Aplostle referred to as James in the synoptic Gospels is James the son of Zebedee (brother of John). But the James that carried the Gospel to Jeresulem was James the brother of Jesus. Is this James mentioned anywhere as being among the famous twelve? How do you account for this?
No, James of Jerusalem was not one of the twelve; he was Jesus’ brother.
It seems to me that Jesus was not rejected in Nazareth (Luke) but more like he rejected them. Jesus says, “this is who I am and what I can do, but not for you.” Up until that point the people were “amazed”. Maybe it doesn’t matter if Jesus “quit” the jews or was rejected by them. The result is the same. Am I just missing something here? On another point. I listen to your Great Courses on my one hour commute to work and I really enjoy the lessons.
My take is that in Luke he is telling them that they are about to reject him, as typically happened with God’s prophets. And for Luke, he was right!
Prof
im reading “the trouble with resurrection by Bernard scott and theres something i dont understand. he writes about “the 500” in Pauls letter (to paraphrase)
“some have suggested the notes about the 500 for apologetics reasons. i find this unlikely because the argument is not about jesus resurrection but the resurrection of the dead, that is, of the corinthians rising up from the dead”.
what does he mean by “of the corinthians rising up from the dead”? when did they come back to life?
thank you prof
He means that 1 Cor. 15 is not an attempt to prove that Jesus was raised, but that it is an attempt to show the Corinthians that they themselves will be raised in the future, in a real physical body, like Jesus had been.
what are your thoughts on the 500 Proff? do you think there was a group of people who saw something? thats a very large group. why exactly 500? are these meant to be greek or jewish people?
It’s a big question mark for me.