Was Jesus an Illiterate Yokel from Backwater Nazareth?
INTRODUCTION
Some scholars have claimed that Luke fabricated the story of Jesus reading and teaching in the synagogue in Luke 4:16–30, or that he merely reported on a mistaken memory tradition. The idea is that because Jesus was from rural, unsophisticated Nazareth and because he had no training as an educated elite, he couldn’t possibly have been a welcomed reader or interpreter of Scripture in the synagogue settings. This post will challenge that view in a brief exposition of the opening verses to properly historically situation the story.
Structure of the Unit
Luke shifts the Nazareth synagogue unit (Luke 4:16–30) closer to the beginning of Jesus’s ministry, contrasted to Mark (6:1–6) and Matthew (13:52–58) who locate the incident in the middle of his ministry in their accounts. Some scholars have sought to address this discrepancy by prioritizing Mark as the earlier (and thus historical) account, in which case, Luke’s placement of the story is almost certainly not chronological.[1] Chapter 3 already discussed the issue of scholars selectively depriving polemical texts of their claims to historicity. Even if Luke intended to highlight Jesus’s larger mission of reaching outsiders, this would not necessarily call into question the basic facticity of the contents of 4:16–30. However, notably, of the four canonical Gospels, Luke’s is the only one to claim anything like chronological order (Luke 1:2).[2] Moreover, Matthew and Mark generally demonstrate more evidence of thematic “clustering.”[3] Luke’s consistent claim is that Jesus began his ministry in Galilee (Luke 23:5, Acts 10:37), and other Gospels affirm the same (Matt 3:13, 4:12–23; Mark 1:14).[4]
The Lucan account is more extensive, underscoring the early goodwill of the Nazarene congregation. Jesus appears as the provocateur who initiates the conflict even before it has a chance to surface. Mark Strauss observes, “The basic components of Mk 6:1–4 are present in Luke: Jesus comes to his own town where he teaches in the synagogue on the Sabbath; the people are amazed at his words and deeds but take offense because of his local origin.”[5] Luke’s additional material includes some of Jesus’s reading and expository teaching, in addition to an expanded narrative on the congregation’s response to his message. The two versions of the story (Mark and Luke) end differently. The Markan-Matthean accounts conclude with an editorial remark on Jesus’s inability to perform miracles in that area, whereas Luke narrates that he went back to Capernaum to perform miracles.[6] The same elements are present with differing emphases. Otherwise, the two accounts are largely similar.[7]
The Passage as a Chiasmus
Most scholars agree that Luke employs a chiastic design—a compositional structure that utilizes a descending and ascending pattern to achieve literary symmetry.[8] This is usually represented as an A, B, B’, A’ pattern.
A He stood up (ἀνέστη) to read (16c)
B there was handed (ἐπεδόθη) to him (17a)
C opening (ἀνοίξας) the book (17b)
D Isa 61:1f; 58:6 (18–19)
C’ closing (πτύξας) the book (20a)
B’ he handed it (ἀποδούς) back to the attendant (20b)
A’ he sat down (ἐκάθισεν) (20c)[9]
Both Isaiah’s text and Luke’s historical account have undergone a degree of literary compression for the sake of Luke’s readers.
The Passage as Exposition
Let’s look at how this passage is outline as exposition. The outline reveals the scene broken into seven distinct sections. Once Jesus sits and assumes the posture of an interpreter, doubts concerning his credibility begin to emerge.
I. Jesus returns to Galilee (4:14–15)
A. In the Spirit’s Power (4:14)
B. Praised for his teaching in synagogues (4:15)
II. Jesus returns to Nazareth (4:16–20)
A. The place of his upbringing (4:16a)
B. He customarily enters the synagogue on the Sabbath (4:16b)
III. Jesus takes the posture of a reader (4:17–20)
A. He reads from Isaiah 61:1–2; 58:6 (4:17–19)
B. He hands the scroll back to the attendant (4:20a)
IV. Jesus takes the posture of a teacher (4:20a)
A. He sat down (4:20b)
B. All eyes were fixed on him (4:20c)
C. Jesus announces the fulfillment of the text (4:21)
V. Jesus encounters a mixed reception (4:22)
A. All spoke well of him, amazed at his gracious words (4:22a)
B. Some began to question his family of origin (4:22b)
VI. Jesus exposits the text prophetically (4:23–27)
A. Prediction of grievances (4:23)
1. Proverbial challenge: “Doctor, heal yourself” (4:23a–b)
2. Proverbial demand: Do here what we have heard happened in Capernaum (4:23c–d)
B. Sapiential wisdom: “No prophet is accepted in his hometown” (4:24)
C. Prophetic examples (4:25–27)
1. Elijah and the widow of Zarephath (4:25–26)
2. Elisha and Naaman the Syrian leper (4:27)
3. Israel and the implied apostasy of Nazareth
VII. Jesus is expelled from Nazareth (4:28–30)
A. The congregation attempts to silence Jesus’s message (4:28–29)
B. Jesus escapes by passing through their midst (4:30)
The more Jesus teaches as he sits (presumably in Moses’ seat), the more indignant the congregation becomes toward him. The issue of alleged disagreements between the Markan-Matthean accounts and Luke is addressed in the following section.
Dissimilarities Between Mark, Matthew, and Luke
Though Mark, Matthew, and Luke generally agree on what transpired in the Nazareth synagogue, some dissimilarities can be observed—namely, the story’s placement in Luke’s narrative.[10] Additionally, commentators have noted the change in Jesus’s description from τέκτων[11] “carpenter” (Mark 6:3) to ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός “the carpenter’s Son” (Matt 13:55), and finally to υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ “the Son of Joseph” (Luke 4:22).[12] Keith perceives a form-critical development of Jesus’s status to appeal to an increasingly Greek audience who would have been offended by Jesus’s lack of scribal literacy. As carpenters were artisans and allegedly illiterate, Luke would have an apologetic interest in removing that element from the story. Keith reminds the reader that Ben Sira singles out the profession of the τέκτων as ineligible for obtaining sage wisdom. The author states,
Yet they [the artisans] are not sought out for the council of the people, nor do they attain eminence in the public assembly. They do not sit in the judge’s seat, nor do they understand the courts’ decisions; they cannot expound discipline or judgment, and they are not found among the rulers. But they maintain the fabric of the world, and their concern is for the exercise of their trade.” (Sirach, 38:32–34, NRSV)
According to Keith, by changing Jesus from a τέκτων to a τέκτονος υἱός, Matthew begins to move him in the direction of literacy by disassociating him from the artisan class. Luke, therefore, has an interest in further distancing Jesus from carpentry by simply referring to him as υἱός Ἰωσὴφ.
Evaluating the Argument
Keith’s view here is a rather curious assertion, as neither Matthew nor Mark use any terms describing Jesus as an illiterate. Craig Evans remarks, “It should be noted too that in the Gospel stories ... Jesus’ literacy is never an issue. No evidence of apologetic tendencies on the part of the evangelists could be found, in which Jesus’ literary skills are exaggerated, or any sense that Jesus’ literary skills are in some way deficient. Jesus’ ability to read appears to be a given, not an issue.”[13] Keith’s argument concerning the form-critical development of Jesus from a carpenter (Mark) to a literate sage (Luke) overlooks several salient issues.
The Idiom “Son Of”
In Semitic parlance, the idiom “son of” conveys a certain equivalency of profession or function. Jesus is the “Son of David” (Matt 21:9; Luke 20:41), thereby embodying this kingly career.[14] As David’s Son and God’s Son, Luke places Jesus’s ministry between David’s throne (Luke 1:32, 35) and God’s throne (22:69).[15] Luke often utilizes the phrase “sons of” to describe contrasting domains: “the sons of this world” versus “the sons of light” (16:18); “the sons of this age” versus “the sons of God” or “sons of the resurrection” (20:34–36). Jesus’s followers are “the sons of the Kingdom” while unbelievers are “the sons of evil” (Luke 6:35; Matt 13:38). As the son of his legal father, it would have been understood that Jesus shared his occupation (1:27; 3:23, 24).[16] Luke’s connection of Jesus to Joseph is with a view to his legal status as David’s heir and with respect to his Messianic ministry (2:3–4, 11–12, 16) and has less to do with disassociating him from the artisan class.[17] Growing up in rural Nazareth (4:16), Jesus apprenticed as a carpenter with his father (Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55), who Luke identifies as “Joseph.”[18]
Luke Presupposes his Sources
Furthermore, Luke curiously provides little information concerning Jesus’s parents. Though Luke mentions Joseph five times and narrates an extended conversation between Mary and the angelic messenger, he does not familiarize the reader with their backgrounds.[19] This suggests the intended readers, Theophilus and his community, have already been acquainted with these characters and their circumstances.[20] Matthew describes Joseph as a “just man” and a woodworker by trade (Matt 13:55) who was obedient to the angel’s command (Matt 1:19, 24). Luke foregoes this introduction altogether. His interest is to illuminate issues for the reader that need clarity, and he presupposes that Theophilus had already been instructed in the primary sources (Luke 1:1–4).[21] Hence, the repetition here was simply not warranted. Furthermore, Luke emphasizes that Jesus is Joseph’s legal son by noting his Davidic lineage (1:27; 2:4). Jesus’s legal parentage is traced intentionally through Joseph (3:23); the motivation appears to be to establish his legal right to claim David’s throne.[22]
Torah Education for the Populace
Chapter 3 demonstrated that the scribal-literate class directed much of their educational efforts toward the populace. Ben Sira’s (195 BCE) lament that more craftsmen did not pursue education presupposes that individuals who had the time and opportunity could seek it. Josephus insists that the Pharisaic teaching was “delivered to the people” (Ant. 13:29). This confirms Jesus’s acknowledgement that his Jewish hearers were socially obligated to “do whatever they say” (Matt 23:2). Likewise, the Augustus decree refers to the practices of the Jews (Josephus, Ant. 16.6.163) of educating their people in the synagogue. The edict forbade the theft of “their holy Scripture (βίβλους), or their sacred money, whether it be out of the synagogue on the Sabbath (Σαββᾰτεῖον) or public schools (ἀνδρών),” which included their study materials. In response to Apion’s accusations that the Jewish faith was a recent and, therefore, an illegal religion (religio illicita), Josephus insists that the education of their children held the highest value (C. Ap. 1.60–61).[23] Contradicting Ben Sira’s earlier assertion that artisan workers (such as carpenters) could not “learn wisdom” nor become proficient in Torah, Josephus indicates, “every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the Law and to obtain a thorough and accurate (ἀκριβῶς) knowledge of it (C. Ap. 2.175).”[24] Likewise, Philo refers to the synagogues as “schools of prudence” and every other admirable virtue (Philo, Spec. Laws 2.127).
Ancient Attestations of Lay Reading
As for reading among laymen or non-scribal elites, evidence indicates that the earliest form of the Qumran society was characterized by the “democratization of reading.”[25] All members were expected to share this social responsibility (1Qs 6:6b–8a). Philo also described the public reading of the Scripture in the Alexandrian synagogue as including participants from within the congregation. He states, “one from among them reads” (Prob. Good Person, 81–82). The antecedent to “them” appears to be the elderly and younger members who have already taken their seats in the congregation. Philo notes that congregational readers were followed by “one of especial proficiency,” likely a scribal-literate interpreter. Degrees of reading and interpretive ability existed, in addition to various social expectations of the reader and the interpreter. Philo likewise states that “they” (referring to average devout believers) did not need to inquire persons “learned in the law” because they were not “ignorant” or “unlearned” (ἄγνοια) (Hypoth. 7:14). Moreover, Jews were criticized by their pagan counterparts for their meticulous and prolonged study of “sacred books” and their “ancestors’ philosophy” (Spec. Laws 2:62–64). And lastly, we have seen numerous Greco-Roman texts describing readers of all ability levels—but distinct from professional interpretive readers. According to Quintilian, readers could recite texts without an aptitude to engage in the interpretive arts (Inst. 12.13.2).[26] Reading could be learned without learning to write well, or vice-versa, and one’s ability to write well determined their aptitude for scribal practice.
Scribal-literate Tradesmen?
Scholars who embrace the new majority view of Jesus’s illiteracy primarily assert that an impassable social gulf existed between mere artisan and scribal education. However, substantial evidence suggests that many of the scribal educated elite had also learned various tradecrafts. The scribes and Pharisees may have constituted what Anthony J. Saldarini has called a “retainer class” that bridged lower agrarian and ruling parties. Saldarini notes that a majority of the people in Jesus’s social world were “townspeople who served the needs of the governing class as soldiers, educators, religious functionaries, entertainers and skilled artisans; it is here we will find the Pharisees and scribes.”[27] Roland Deines, however, cautions against stereotyping the Pharisees into a singular distinct group. Members from various classes could espouse Pharisaic principles as both “Paul the artisan and the aristocrat Josephus can boast of close links with Pharisaism.”[28] Some Pharisees and scribes could learn various trades but were still an influential social group among the ruling class.
As an example, according to Josephus, Herod commanded that 1,000 artisan priests be trained as masons and carpenters in order to construct the inner courts of the temple (Ant. 15.390). Although a general stratification between artisans (τεχνῖται) and members of the religious leadership has been acknowledged, some overlap existed between them within Judaism. Manual work was viewed with less contempt in a Judaic setting than it was in a Greco-Roman context.[29] This is evidenced by Paul’s acknowledgment of Corinthian grievances concerning his manual labor among them (1 Cor 4:11; 9:6, 15, 18; 9:18–19; 2 Cor 11:7, 23, 27; 12:13). Yet, Luke notes his acceptance within Jewish synagogues, particularly in Thessalonica where he was both a welcomed reader and preacher (Acts 17:10, 17) and a professed manual laborer (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:7–8).[30] Ben Sira was previously observed to lament the lack of artisan education owing to the demands of manual labor. However, he also highly valued work as a principle of Torah (Sir 7:15). Likewise, the Essenes, a largely literate and devout religious community, combined their priestly and manual labor duties. Josephus states that after their evening meals, “they lay aside their [white] garments, and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening” (J.W. 2.131).[31] In the Mishnah, Shemaiah encouraged manual labor among the students of Torah (ʾAbot 1:10). Keener summarizes, “Jewish tradition was never monolithic on the subject of sages working, though it was more apt to present manual labor as honorable than do extant elite Greek sources.”[32] Critical scholars have simply made too much of the artisan-elitist divide in Judaism with respect to reading in the synagogue.
Being Glorified by All (4:14–15)
Luke’s focus does not appear to be on Jesus’s scribal-literate affectations or pretentions. Instead, Luke introduces the Nazareth incident writing Καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, “And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee” (4:14). Luke’s use of “spirit” (πνεῦμα) is frequent compared to Mark and Matthew’s use of the term.[33] Luke’s apologetic interest is to show Jesus as a Spirit-anointed prophet-Son, hence his mention of Jesus reading is quite incidental. John T. Carroll states,
This inaugural episode is laced with theological concerns that bear great import in Luke’s narrative. Jesus’ messianic vocation is developed with the aide of several significant associations: empowerment by the Spirit of God; fulfillment of Scripture; the prophetic role; a mission of deliverance for the marginalized, the needy, and outsiders; and resulting rejection by well-placed insiders.[34]
Jesus’s predecessor, John, is “filled with the Spirit,” even in the womb (Luke 1:15). The Spirit overshadows Mary during miraculous conception (1:35). John’s father, Zechariah, is filled with the Spirit, resulting in prophecy (1:67). Simeon’s ministry is characterized by the presence of the Spirit (2:25–27) and he prophesied that Jesus would baptize the people in the Holy Spirit and fire (3:16). Jesus’s ministry is inaugurated by the anointing of the Spirit and a heavenly affirmation of his distinctiveness (3:22), resulting in Jesus being “full of the Holy Spirit” (4:1).
A Spirit-Filled Teacher (4:14a)
After prolonged temptation in the Judean wilderness by the Devil who offered him bogus “authority and glory” (Luke 4:6), Jesus returns to Galilee filled with the Spirit’s power (4:14). He then reads from the prophet Isaiah, declaring that “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me” (4:18; Isa 61:1). Later, the disciples report their demon-conquering activities (4:33, 36; 6:18; 7:21; 8:2, 29, 55; 9:39, 42; 10:20), followed by Jesus’s charismatic response of joy (10:21). He then promises the disciples that the Father will give them the same Spirit of power. This promise is realized in Acts both for Israel and the Gentiles (Acts 2:14–21; Joel 2:28–32; 24:49; Acts 2:30–36; 10:44–47; 11:15–16; 15:8).[35] Marshall makes the connection, “The power of the Spirit is linked especially with the apostolic witness, and hence here [Luke 4:16] the primary reference is presumably to the authority of Jesus to teach.”[36] The Spirit’s work in apostolic witness, preaching, and teaching of the Scripture is paramount (Acts 1:5, 8; 2:4, 17, 33; 4:8, 25, 31; 8:5; 9:20; 13:5; 15:36; 18:25; 28:30). Luke’s emphasis on the Spirit’s outpouring and work centers on his birth narratives and preparation for a “Spirit-bearing community” who likewise will preach, teach, and bear witness to the truth.[37] As was evidenced by Jeremiah “reading” an oracle to his scribe Baruch who “wrote down” the message, prophets could “read” in a culturally significant sense without being considered scribal-literate. Their act of reading was public proclamation of God’s Word.
Charismatic itinerancy characterizes Jesus’s ministry; however, Luke articulates an added dimension to his Spirit-filled activity.[38] Jesus says that the Father is the giver of this eschatological blessing (Luke 11:13). Yet, Jesus directly promises to give the Spirit after his resurrection (Acts 1:5, 8). The Holy Spirit is promised by the Father (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4, 2:23) and yet is bestowed directly by Jesus (3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16).[39] Nina Henrichs-Tarasenkova states, “The language that Luke employs in his narration of the Spirit’s outpouring is reminiscent of YHWH’s theophanies.”[40] In the OT, the symbols of rushing wind (Gen 1:2; 2 Sam 22:16; 1 Kgs 19:11–12; Ezek 1:4, 27; 13:13; Job 37:10;), blazing fire (Gen 15:17; Exod 19:18; 24:17; Deut 4:11–12; Ps 29:7–9), and the Spirit’s reception (Isa 34:16; 61:1–2; 63:10–14) signal Yahweh’s divine presence among the people.[41] Just as Yahweh was the giver of the eschatological gift of the Spirit (Ezek 39:29), pouring him out on all people (Joel 2:28), so too does Jesus offer the Spirit to believers. At Pentecost, Peter declares, “Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing” (Acts 2:33). That Jesus was appointed the Christ signals the availability of Yahweh’s presence for times of refreshing (Acts 3:20). Likewise, through the Holy Spirit, Jesus is present to guide and warn his disciples as “the Spirit of Jesus” (Acts 16:7).[42]
Because of this Spirit enablement, “a report about him went out through all the surrounding country” (4:14b). The term κατά followed by the genitive (καθʼ ὅλης τῆς περιχώρου) stresses the activity extending out in “various directions within an area,” and thus, “throughout” the whole region.[43] Marshall suggests the “region or περίχωρος (3:3) will be the area within Galilee around the town (Capernaum, 4:23) where Jesus was at work.”[44] Jesus’s ministry of teaching, accompanied by miraculous signs and wonders inspired this regional report.[45]
Matthew and Mark also describe Jesus as having experienced stratospheric success almost immediately (Matt 9:26; Mark 5:27).[46] Moreover, Luke briefly states that his ministry was established first in Galilee before his return to Nazareth. Luke summarizes καὶ αὐτὸς ἐδίδασκεν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν, “And he taught in their synagogues.” The term ἐδίδασκεν (imperfect active indicative, 3rd person singular of διδάσκω) can be rendered as a progressive or ingressive action.[47] If progressive, it means “was teaching” (CSB, NIV), and if ingressive, it means “began” or “commenced” to teach (NRSV, NASB), making the ESV rendering “he taught” less appealing. Mark’s phrase ἤρξατο διδάσκειν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ seems to support the idea of an ingressive action: “he began to teach in the synagogue” (Mark 6:2). This exact phrase is used elsewhere in Mark to describe Jesus’s teaching ministry both in the synagogue and outside of it (4:1; 6:34; 8:31).[48] He commenced teaching in their worship houses and openly in various environments.
R.T. France views both texts (Mark and Luke) as an indication that Jesus’s sermon was cut short. Though he “began to teach” or “commenced teaching,” his sermon was interrupted and never quite finished.[49] While Mark uses the infinitive and Luke uses the indicative of the term διδάσκω, they seem to carry the same force. Jesus initiated the teaching in the synagogue. The term “teaching,” while often referring to formal or informal instruction, can also mean to “give direction,” as is the case with officials who engage with innuendo and rumor (Matt 28:15).[50] In the synagogue setting, the instruction is formal and follows established social protocols. Jesus’s reading in the synagogue (Luke 4:16–18) likely took up the middle portion of the service, as the reading of prophetic texts did not conclude the meeting (Meg. 3:1–5, 10; 31a–b).[51] Bock states, “A synagogue service had various elements: recitation of the Shema (Deut. 6:4–9), prayers (including some set prayers like the Tephillah and the Shemoneh Esreh [Eighteen Benedictions]), a reading from the Law, a reading from the Prophets, instruction on the passages, and a benediction.”[52] Readers began with “Moses” each Sabbath (Acts 15:21), the Torah reading preceding the haftarah, or Prophets (Acts 13:15, 17). Nothing that Luke describes here is inconsistent with what is known about synagogue services in the Second Temple period from Josephus, Philo, or the Mishnah. That Jesus was a welcome reader and teacher of the prophets is historically likely.[53] The congregation initially welcomes him as a reader on Sabbath, having heard the report that Galileans in the surrounding area are glorifying him for his teaching. This requires a direct inspection by those who knew him best in Nazareth.
A Glorified Teacher (4:15b)
Again, the argument from Crossan and Keith was that Luke provided a polemical text in defense of Jesus as a scribal-literate reader. Yet Luke’s focus appears to be otherwise. The result of Jesus’s Spirit-anointed ministry of teaching in power is that Jesus “is glorified by all.” The present passive participle δοξαζόμενος derived from δοξάζω means “being glorified” and introduces an unfolding Lucan Christology. The various forms of δοξάζω often appear in contexts that speak exclusively of God’s glory. Jesus’s miraculous ministry inspired fear and awe in the hearts of the crowds who glorified God (Mark 2:12 δοξάζειν; Matt 9:8 ἐδόξασαν; 15:31; Luke 5:26 ἐδόξαζον; 7:16 ἐδόξαζον; 13:13 ἐδόξαζεν).[54]
Fitzmyer downplays the idea that the Galileans were transferring God’s own glory to Jesus.[55] Likewise Nolland, for example, insists that despite Luke’s use of δοξάζω, “we should not think in terms of a divine prerogative being conferred on Jesus.”[56] However, the statement in 4:15b can hardly be understood apart from Luke’s overall portrait of Christ. Thompson maintains, “Every other occurrence of δοξάζω in Luke-Acts refers to glorifying God (2:20; 5:25–26; 7:16; 13:13; 17:15; 18:43; 23:47; Acts 4:21; 11:18; 13:48; 21:20; though cf. 3:13).”[57] To what extent are all the people glorifying Jesus? David Garland states, “The glory that ultimately counts is not the fickle hero worship bestowed by humans. It is the glory that comes from the giving of his life, which is tied to the eternal glory that is to come (9:26; 21:27; 24:26).”[58] The attention of Galileans brings him glory and public fame, but the statement in 4:15b foreshadows the glory that will be revealed in Christ. Jesus predicts that he will return in “glory” (Luke 9:26). He then reveals himself in a luminous, transfigured state with Moses and Elijah (9:32). Luke describes him riding into Jerusalem as Israel’s king, inspiring glorious praise (19:38). At his trial, Jesus assures the high priest that they will witness the Son of Man come in a cloud with power and “great glory”—reminiscent of the exalted Son of Man in Daniel 7 (Luke 21:27). After his resurrection, he reminds his disciples that the Christ was meant to suffer before entering “his glory” (24:26). Stephen witnesses the glory of God’s throne to which Jesus has now acceded (Acts 7:55; cf. Acts 1:9).[59]
Thus, Luke’s statement of Christ δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων (Luke 4:15b) captures a historical reaction and yet foreshadows Lucan divine-Son Christology. The Galileans’ praise of Jesus was more significant than they realized. In their present, they are not yet privy to all that Luke’s readers know. Nevertheless, they become instrumental in the unveiling of Christ’s glory. Luke’s apologetic interest appears to be to frame the synagogue scene with high Christological claims.
He Came to Nazareth (Luke 4:16a)
Jewish Sepphoris and Judas the Galilean
After generally being glorified by all the people, Luke adds, Καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Ναζαρά, meaning “And he came to Nazareth” (4:16a). Nazareth was a neighboring community five miles away from the town of Sepphoris.[60] Described as “the ornament of all Galilee” by Josephus (Ant. 1:27) and located at the junction of two significant roads in antiquity, Sepphoris was a Jewish city with Roman features.[61] It was built on a hilltop (286 meters above sea level) and was central to Galilee, overlooking the Beit Netofa Valley.[62] Many artifacts were found at Sepphoris, indicating that it was a Jewish town. The evidence includes Jewish stoneware instead of the typical Greek pottery, the lack of pig bones, a Jewish ostracon translated into Greek denoting Jewish officeholders, earlier Jewish coinage devoid of the image of the Roman emperor, and the numerous mikva’ot—ritual baptism tanks.[63] Evidence of pagan and Roman presence was practically nonexistent for the first century before the invasion of the Romans and the temple’s destruction in 70 CE. According to Ken Dark, the “evidence suggests that Jesus’ boyhood was spent in a conservative Jewish community that had little contact with Hellenistic or Roman culture.”[64] During Herod’s renovation of the city, enough stonework projects were underway to require stonemasons and artisans of all kinds. There was also the need to construct many doors, shutters, steps, and mud and wattle roofing.[65] Local Jewish artisans would have been particularly adept at meeting these ongoing construction needs within the Herodian economy.[66] Men in the artisan class constituted an estimated ten percent of the population of Roman Palestine and were generally considered distinct from the agrarian class.[67] These men fulfilled the construction needs of this Jewish region, and Jesus would have had many opportunities for exposure to the broader Judaic culture as a carpenter near Sepphoris.
After the Romans divided Palestine into five distinct regions, Sepphoris became the administrative center and the capital city of Galilee (J.W. 1.170; Ant. 14.91). Herod the Great took up residence there in order to fortify his hold on regional power (J.W. 1.304; Ant. 14.414). After Herod’s death, the rebel Judas of Galilee took up arms against Rome, sparked by the Quirinius census designed to tax Jewish estates and commerce in the region. Josephus describes him, “But a certain Judas, a Gaulanite, from a city named Gamala, who had enlisted the aid of Saddok, a Pharisee, threw himself into the cause of rebellion. They said that the assessment carried with it a status amounting to downright slavery, no less, and appealed to the nation to make a bid for independence” (Josephus, Ant. 18.1.4 [Feldman]).[68] A fierce nationalist, Judas took over the royal palace in Sepphoris, making it his base of operations and armed his militia with the cache of weapons left by Herod (Ant. 18.1.7–10).[69] Josephus records that the Romans killed Judas, burned the city, enslaved its residents, and executed thousands of Judas’s sympathizers (J.W. 2.68; Ant. 17.289). Moreover, the whole rebellion deteriorated resulting in brutal infighting among Galilean factions. He describes Judas’s philosophy as agreeing with the Pharisees on all points, with the addition of “an inviolable attachment to liberty” (Ant. 18.1.23).[70] He calls the revolutionary philosophy an “infection” that spread to every corner of the region (Ant. 18.1.6). The result was an incalculable loss of loved ones, friends, family, and honored leaders, all of which eventually led to the temple’s destruction (Josephus, J.W. 18.1.8).[71] In all likelihood, the impact of this revolution on the inhabitants in the Galilean region was significant. Jesus could not have been anything like Crossan’s “cynic sage” because no such influence appears to have existed in his region.[72]
Devout Nazareth
John’s Gospel captures the disciples’ incredulity toward a prospective Messiah from Nazareth. Who could believe that anything good could originate from such a town (John 1:46)? Nazareth archeology suggests a population of approximately 500 in Jesus’s day and no evidence of pagan temples or gymnasiums have been found. Evans remarks, “In all likelihood, not a single non-Jew lived in Nazareth at this time.”[73] Archeological evidence from the area is “sparse but intriguing.”[74] This settlement excelled in the production of wine and olive oil, barley, wheat, and the raising of sheep and goats. Due to the shallowness of the soil detected in recent excavations, the primary “crop” was likely wine grapes as vineyards were common in the area.[75] Despite the unremarkable nature of the area, Gospel authors often refer to him as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Matt 21:11; Mark 1:24; Luke 18:37; John 1:45; Acts 2:22; also Matt 4:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 2:39).[76] Epigraphic evidence suggests that the local residents who settled there named the town Naṣaret in Hebrew, or “Little-Netzer,” meaning “offshoot of David.”[77] Garland notes, “The clan members ... presumably regarded themselves as descendants of David and gave the place an intentionally messianic name.”[78] Evans observes that the existence of several major highways “cautions against the assumption that Jesus and his fellow Galileans were placebound and unacquainted with the larger world.”[79] Thus, it is very unlikely that Jesus would have been rejected as a possible Messiah due to his artisan background. The townsfolk live in a region where prospective Messiah’s were believed to come from that very region, evidenced by their general approval of Judas’ rebellion and the town’s own patriotic namesake as the “little David.”
The archeological remains of Sepphoris and Nazareth support the insight that Jesus lived and worked in a religiously conservative region. Both areas had little to no Gentile presence or influence. Jesus and his family likely found employment and conducted commerce in Sepphoris. Some men from Nazareth were also plausibly caught up in Judas the Galilean’s insurgency, seeing that it was a revolution of piety and nationalism, fueled by anti-Roman/Gentile sentiment. Later, when Jesus stands to read in the synagogue, everything is heard against the backdrop of profound personal loss at the hands of the Romans. Galilee’s residents had known the hope and disappointment of messianic revolution. This fact becomes significant as the exposition of Luke 4:16–30 unfolds. Jesus’s inclusion of Gentiles (Luke 4:25–27) in the eschatological plan of God will be met with a certain degree of reflexive ethnocentrism.
As Was His Custom (4:16b)
A Sabbath Observant Reader
Luke states that Jesus entered the synagogue κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς αὐτῷ translated, “according to his custom” and infers that Jesus traditionally entered the synagogue for the hearing and reading of the Scripture on the Sabbath. The term εἰωθὸς is articular and marks a definite pattern emphasizing the maintenance of behavior or tradition (Matt 27:15; Mark 10:1).[80] The word αὐτῷ is a dative of reference or possession, hence the rendering “as was his custom” (ESV and NIV).[81] That he usually did this in his hometown is debated. However, Morris states, “From Acts it is plain that it was not uncommon for distinguished visitors to be invited to preach. The synagogue was used for instruction as well as for worship; indeed, teaching may be held to be its primary function.”[82] Referring to synagogue services, Luke seems to be under the impression that the synagogue meetings were ancestral, “For generations Moses has been preached in every town and has been read aloud on every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21). By the time Jesus reaches Nazareth, however, he has already been ministering in the Spirit’s power. This has given him access to local synagogues—presumably as a prospective prophet.[83]
This is one of six passages that mention the Sabbath in Luke’s Gospel.[84] After the Nazareth incident, Jesus continues to teach in the synagogues, beginning with Capernaum (4:31–37; 13:10–17). His activity becomes increasingly subversive, especially as it relates to his authority with Torah law.[85] He declares himself “Lord of the Sabbath” (6:1–5), authorized to do “good” on the Sabbath (6:6–11). This declaration sparks a firestorm of controversy, provoking a debate over healing the sick (13:10–7; 14:1–6). Jesus questions the logic of religious leaders who allowed the rescuing of a donkey yet refused to assist people on the Sabbath (14:3). He also warns against the synagogue as a place of ostentatious religion (20:46; Matt 6:2, 5) and prophesies that believers will be arrested and “delivered up to the synagogues”—the equivalent to imprisonment (21:12; Matt 10:17). That Luke is establishing his “custom” counterbalances this otherwise provocative narrative thread.[86] Contrary to the assertion that Luke casts Jesus as a welcome scribal-literate authority, Luke intends to show him in conflict with the elites. Despite this escalating tension between Jesus and the scribal and Pharisaic class, Luke portrays him as a Torah-observant Jew who regularly observes the Sabbath. Bock states, “This point is especially important, because Jesus’ controversy with the Jewish religious leadership may have left him with a reputation of being a religiously insensitive rebel.”[87] His message greatly challenges the religious establishment of the time, and it is his identity as Christ and the global horizons of his mission that threatens local religious authorities who govern that institution.
Jesus Exposed: A Scribal Literate Pretender?
It is here that Keith asserts a discrepancy (Mark 6:1ff; Matt 13:52ff). He states, “Whereas the Markan and Matthean Jesus never again enters a synagogue after his rejection, the Lucan Jesus teaches in a synagogue immediately in the next pericope (Luke 4:31, 33) and continuously in his gospel. As was mentioned earlier, Luke describes synagogue teaching as Jesus’s custom.”[88] According to Keith, the purpose of the Nazareth encounter in Mark and Matthew is to expose Jesus as a fraudulent scribal-literate reader. Everyone else in Galilee may have mistaken him for an elitist teacher, which dubiously gave him access to their synagogues; however, the townsfolk in Nazareth knew better. On Keith’s view, Matthew and Mark reflect a collective memory that reveals the truth about Jesus. Christ was occasionally mistaken as a scribal-literate Jew giving him access to the synagogues. In Luke, however, the purpose of the Nazareth scene is to help establish that he is a scribal literate who handles texts. Therefore, for Keith, “In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus is not a member of the manual-labor class but rather a legitimate scribal-literate authority.”[89] Keith’s approach is historically plausible; however, does it present the best historical explanation? Several factors may call this into question.[90]
Christ’s Duplicity in Matthew and Mark?
The issue of how an illiterate artisan who was unable to read could have misled so many, especially those who were in a position to falsify his credentials as a scholar, must be accounted for. Keith clarifies that Jesus was perceived as a scribal-literate teacher by some groups. While Christ may not have intentionally fostered this perception, it is unlikely that he was entirely unaware of this oversight.[91] But surely in order for Jesus to have taught regularly in Galilean synagogues (prior to the Nazareth incident), the local synagogue rulers would have granted him access. How could the local scribal-literate elite, through whom Jesus must have gained entrance and approval, have failed to discern him as an imposter? One would think that Jesus’s very first attempt to handle and read Scripture would have been enough for each congregation and their rulers to quickly discover their mistake. And one would further assume that the word would spread rather quickly that a false scribal-literate was on the loose. Instead, the only word spreading like wildfire about Jesus is his exceedingly excellent teaching and ministry.
Second, Keith’s view presents a curious interpretation, as one wonders why Mark and Matthew would have any interest in casting aspersions on Jesus’s character. If Keith’s interpretation is correct, then this would be the only instance in the Gospels where the Synoptic authors portray Christ with negative intentions. If Jesus has allowed congregants and local Pharisees, scribes, and synagogue rulers to believe he is a scribal-literate (Mark and Matthew) in order to dubiously gain access to teaching in the synagogues—then the Nazarenes have every right to “out” him—he is a fraud. The implication of Keith’s view is that Mark and Matthew record Christ’s duplicity—a surprising claim given the Synoptic authors’ assertions of his essential holiness (Mark 1:24; Luke 1:35) and the inability of his opponents to contrive even one legitimate accusation of sin at his trial (Luke 22:66–70; Matt 26:60).[92]
Lastly, why is Jesus not charged at his trial with faking scribal literacy? If Keith’s assertion is true, and if important, then this would have been a legitimate area of vulnerability for Jesus. Yet, all Gospels are silent on the matter. No one raises the issue because Jesus’s reading ability simply is not an issue for anyone who heard him teach and saw him handle Scripture.
Christ’s Rejection in the Synagogue
Keith gives the impression that Jesus’s ongoing teaching in the synagogues (Luke’s Gospel) is evidence that he was a welcome scribal leader, thereby signaling his legitimacy.[93] However, Luke’s portrait is far from this reality, because Jesus is increasingly unwelcome in these settings.[94] In fact, Luke more often portrays Jesus as an unwelcomed outsider.[95] The Synoptic authors regularly depict the scribal elite accusing him of being a “friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 5:30; 7:34; cf. Matt 11:19;), stressing his artisan and low-class associations. Scholars have long noted that Jesus’s willingness to fellowship with the disenfranchised and the downtrodden is especially characteristic of Luke’s Gospel.[96]
As shown above, each Lucan synagogue encounter after Nazareth portrays Jesus embroiled in controversies, with synagogue officials making claims that would otherwise cause him to be expelled from the local worship houses. Jack Kingsbury states, “Jesus’ conflict with Israel (the religious authorities and the people) is to bring the nation to receive him as God’s supreme agent of salvation, the one in whom God’s scriptural promises to Israel attain to their fulfillment. Virtually from the outset of his ministry, Jesus causes division in Israel.”[97] Christ’s assumed authority demonstrates that he is no mere “scribe-gone-rogue” but has from the outset of his ministry presumed to occupy a position of authority well beyond both his station in life as an artisan, and exceeding the social power of the scribal-elite teachers.
Larger Crowds Necessitate Larger Venues
The commensurate growth in crowd size and venue size seems to offer a more plausible explanation for his increasing departure from the synagogues.[98] Matthew describes large crowds following Jesus immediately as a result of his popular synagogue teaching, “And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.... And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan” (Matt 4:23–25; see also Mark 2:13; Luke 5:15). A direct causal relationship can be observed here—he teaches with miraculous power in the region’s synagogues, which necessitates him leaving the assembly houses for larger venues on many occasions. The very next passage describes Jesus teaching in the open air on hillsides (Matt 5–7; cf. Luke 6:17–49), then in homes with a large crowd pressing in on him (Matt 9:1; Mark 2:4; 3:9), by the lake with great crowds on the shore (Matt 13:12), and in the temple portico before the masses of festival attendees (Matt 26:55; Mark 12:35). As his popularity grew, Jesus taught in venues that could accommodate increasingly larger gatherings (Luke 9:37).
Jesus Continues to Teach in the Temple
Jesus teaches freely in the temple courts on multiple occasions in Mark and Matthew right up to the end. His last discourse is delivered adjacent to the temple complex (Mark 13; Matt 24–25). At his trial, he cited the fact that “Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me” (Matt 26:55). The temple was the most sacred space in all of Judaism.[99] If he was no longer welcome in the Galilean and Judean synagogues in Mark and Matthew (because Nazareth had exposed him as a fraudulent teacher), then how could he have been allowed to teach openly and freely in the temple itself without being equally exposed? Moreover, when Jesus is accosted for teaching in the temple in Luke’s Gospel, the very issue in question is “by what authority do you do these things, or who is it who gave you this authority?” (Luke 20:1). This question immediately follows his prophetic act of cleansing the temple (Luke 19:45–46), which motivated the religious leaders to conspire to kill him (Luke 19:47; cf. Matt 21:23). Their assumption is that he does not possess the right to “do these things” with respect to the prophetic and symbolic act of cleansing the temple—not that he lacks scribal-literate authority to teach in the temple courts. In the very places where one would expect the issue of his scribal illegitimacy to surface, the issue is just missing altogether.
Subversion of Ancestral Laws
For the sake of argument, one can concede that Jesus stopped teaching in synagogues after a certain point in his ministry. In addition to crowd size, this may also have more to do with his incendiary rhetoric and the controversy surrounding his subversion of their hallowed traditions through his supernatural ministry.[100] Each of the canonical Gospels record the escalating tensions between Jesus and the religious establishment. At least in the Synoptics, the scribes, Pharisees, priests, synagogue rulers, and local elders never raise an issue with his education or ability to read.[101] Their issue is with his miraculous ministry through which he appears to be undermining their ancestral laws. The subversion of their social authority comes via the Gospel authors’ high Christology which always seems to be at the heart of the controversy between Christ and the elite.
Luke’s Midway Point: A Literary Answer
Finally, Luke himself downplays Jesus’s teaching in the synagogues after his last conflict with a synagogue ruler (Luke 13:10–14). This midway point is traditionally about where the Nazareth sermon is placed in Mark and Matthew. If Luke has indeed moved the scene forward for programmatic reasons (and the Markan-Matthean placement is preferred), then practically, it does not change much. As in the case in the Markan-Matthean account, Jesus no longer teaches in synagogues after about the midway point of Luke.[102] Moreover, after 13:10–14, his rhetoric decidedly turns against the synagogue (20:46; 21:12) and is no longer in favor of it.
Summary Conclusion of Chapter 4
In his opening chapters, Luke seems to set the readers’ expectations very high. After a series of angelic and divine confirmations pertaining to Jesus’s identity and mission (Luke 1:26–56; 2:8–21, 22–38; 41–51; 3:1–21), and after a successful confrontation with the Devil who offered him counterfeit “glory and authority” (4:1–12), Jesus returns to Galilee. His teaching ministry is infused with the enabling presence of God, resulting in him “being glorified by all” (4:14–15). Based on 1:5–4:1–12, the reader has every reason to expect that Jesus will have an auspicious messianic career. However, Luke’s readers know better—the Christ will have to suffer many trials before entering his glory (Luke 24:26). Jesus suffers the first of many rejections in the town of his youth, the place where he had first learned Torah. It is the home where he had been largely insulated from the indiscretions of pagan life—a place marked by profound loss due to Gentile cruelty and Roman injustice. Jesus’s message, therefore, will strike a discordant note among friends.
The study began with an inquiry into what accounts for his authority to teach and what caused the furious response to Jesus in the Nazarene synagogue. Dunn is correct. Luke’s “reading Jesus” (4:16–30) is an entirely credible depiction of synagogue practice in the first century. Judaism likely had plenty of local, lay readers who were less than scribal-literates and possessed more than mere signature or craftsman’s literacy. However, Keith is also correct in that as a member of the artisan class, Jesus was not expected to interpret the text with scribal or Pharisaic authority. The fact that Jesus sits in Moses’ seat to then interpret the text he reads signals to his audience that he intends to usurp the public authority held only by recognized and trained leaders. In our next post, it will become clear that Jesus reaches far beyond mere scribal-literate social authority.
__________________________________________________
Notes
[1]. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978), 177. Marshall bases this on two salient features: (1) Mark and Matthew were written first—an insight shared by a majority of scholars. Furthermore, (2) internal evidence (4:23) supports an already effective and popular reputation in Galilee. While the first point may be conceded, the second is not at all clear. Why think that Jesus’s ministry between his baptism and his Nazareth appearance would not have already been characterized as “in the power of the Spirit” (4:14)? If the sequence in John's Gospel has any usefulness, then this scene likely occurred a year after Jesus’s baptism, giving him plenty of time to minister in Capernaum first. See also Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, vol. 1, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 386.
[2]. BDAG, s.v. καθεξῆς, 490. The word καθεξῆς, meaning “to being in sequence in time, space, or logic, in order, one after the other.” Scholars debate the meaning of the Greek phrase πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς (Luke 1:3b). Extra-biblical references use the term to mean “in sequential order.” This interpretation seems affirmed by Luke’s description of Moses coming before Samuel, Samuel coming (in sequence) before all other prophets (Acts 3:24), and Peter explaining the Gospel events in the καθεξῆς “order” in which they occurred (Acts 11:4).
[3]. David Franklin Noble, “An Examination of the Structure of St. Mark's Gospel,” (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1972), 19, 232–33. Noble asserts that Luke contains more “pattern irregularities,” which are suggestive of a stricter chronology and less thematic clustering. Examples of narrative or discourse clustering include Matthew’s opening salvo of OT citations between Ch’s 1–2, compression of the parables of the Kingdom in Matthew 13:1–56 (which are dispersed in Luke), grouping sapiential sayings into more thematic blocks of material such as the “Sermon on the Mount” (versus Luke’s briefer and more diffuse treatment), including five distinct discipleship discourses (Matt 5–7; 10; 13; 18; 24), also the bundling of eschatological parables with apocalyptic discourse (Matt 24, 25), and the alternating pattern of speech-acts in which Jesus’s speeches and teachings are followed by direct action in relation to that teaching. For Mark, this would include the clustering of divine miracles that attract both the attention and ire of the elites (1:1–8:29) followed by the theme of the suffering Messiah (8:30–16:8).
[4]. Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 53. Both Matthew and Mark note that Jesus ventured outside of Galilee at times; Luke only records that Jesus crossed over into the territory of the Gerasenes (8:20).
[5]. Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke–Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lucan Christology, JSNT 413 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 219.
[6]. John S. Kloppenborg, “On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew,” NTS 49 (2003): 210–36.
[7]. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, 219.
[8]. John Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, WBC 35A (Waco, TX: Word, 1989), 191.
[9]. Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke, 57.
[10]. Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, 191. Nolland states, “The Nazareth scene has been brought forward by Luke from its Markan position (6:1–6) and is used to encapsulate major features of the ministry of Jesus.”
[11]. “One who constructs” as in a “builder” or “carpenter.” Epict. Diss. 1, 15, 2a describes a τέκτων as a wood worker; The Didache refers to a τέκτων as a stonemason. See BDAG, s.v. τέκτων, 995.
[12]. Chris Keith, Jesus Against the Scribal Elite: The Origins of the Conflict (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 33.
[13]. Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013), 86.
[14]. Geza Vermes, “The ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” JSNT 1 (1978): 28–9; C. H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1970), 110–3; For other uses of the idiom “son of” as vocational equivalency see 2 Thess 2:3; cf. Dan 11:36–37; Sib. Or. 5:33–34; T. Hez. 4:6; 2 En. 29:4.
[15]. Joseph Plevnik, “Son of Man Seated at the Right Hand of God: Luke 22.69 in Lucan Christology,” Bib 72 (1991): 331–47. Plevnik sees a difference in vocation between David’s throne and God’s own throne. However as “God’s Son” and “David’s Son,” Jesus is assumed to take up his fathers’ vocation.
[16]. Philip W. Jacobs, “Joseph the Carpenter,” in BibInt 5 (Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2016), 46, 48.
[17]. Jacobs, “Joseph the Carpenter,” 55.
[18]. BDAG, s.v. τέκτων, 995. “One who constructs” as in a “builder” or “carpenter.”
[19]. Much has been written on Luke’s attention to Mary instead of Joseph. See John M. Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke (New York: Macmillan, 1950), 16; François Bovon, A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, trans. James E. Crouch (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2002), 26–30; Nolland, Luke 19:20, 133; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I–IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AYB 28 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 307.
[20]. Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, “Introduction and Provenance.”
[21]. Nolland has little confidence that scholars have identified Luke’s unknown source material, see Luke 1:1–9:20, xxxi. With respect to his close use of Matthew and Mark, Keener suggests, “We should expect them [Synoptic authors] to adapt their sources where we cannot test them in ways comparable to where we can.” see Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019), 499.
[22]. Garland, Luke, 474.
[23]. C. Ap. 2.175 (Thackery, LCL).
[24]. C. Ap. 2.175 (Thackery, LCL).
[25]. Charlotte Hempel, “Interpretative Authority in the Community Rule Tradition,” Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003): 59–80.
[26]. Paul Foster, “Educating Jesus,” 30; cf. Quintilian, Inst. 1.1.4–7; Leofranc Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and His Achievements (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); As revealed in the insights of Dionysius, reading was usually developed first and not considered to be scribal expertise until the students developed writing ability. Thus, reading could be conducted without much scribal-literate instruction. In some cases, writing could also be developed as a rote skill without much attention to reading. Mikeal C. Parsons, “The Character of the Lame Man in Acts 3–4,” JBL 124 (2005): 295–312.
[27]. Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 38. Contrary to Keener, Saldarini estimates the artisan class to constitute no more than 7% of the population. This percentage could increase depending on the size of the city, as artisan and merchant guilds could wield significant influence and social power, as is evidenced by Demetrius who led the silversmith guild in Ephesus (Acts 19:24–27).
[28]. Roland Deines, “The Social Profile of the Pharisees,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, ed. Reimund Bieringer et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 124. Paul was a tentmaker by trade (1 Thess 2:9; 1 Cor 9:6), whereas Josephus was a self-admitted Aristocrat; cf. Naham Avigad, “Jerusalem Flourishing—A Craft Center for Stone, Pottery and Glass,” BAR 9 (1983): 48–65.
[29]. Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: 15:1–23:35, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 2726.
[30]. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 2726. Provided the rabbinic traditions in the Mishnah were well preserved orally until the early third century CE, then there is good reason to think, as Keener suggests, that “most sages worked.”
[31]. Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (trans. William Whiston; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 605.
[32]. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 2726. He states further, “As might be expected, some Tannaim also emphasized that the study of Torah was the most important toil (R. Eleazar in b. Sanh. 99b). Jewish people more generally condemned idleness. A Diaspora Jewish writer warned that one who does not learn a craft must wield a hoe—that is, engage in the strenuous and truly despised labor of digging.”
[33]. The Gospel of Luke certainly is not the only Gospel interested in the Holy Spirit. See Blaine Charrette, Restoring Presence: The Spirit in Matthew’s Gospel (London: Bloomsbury, 2000); George Johnston, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospels of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); M. Robert Mansfield, Spirit and Gospel in Mark (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987).
[34]. John T. Carroll, Luke: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 110.
[35]. Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, vol. 1, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 32.
[36]. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 176.
[37]. C. K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK, 1966), 153.
[38]. Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, 184.
[39]. Garland, Luke, 474.
[40]. Nina Henrichs-Tarasenkova, Luke’s Christology of Divine Identity, LNTS 542 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2016), 174.
[41]. Henrichs-Tarasenkova, Luke’s Christology of Divine Identity, 174.
[42]. Henrichs-Tarasenkova, Luke’s Christology of Divine Identity, 14–5; cf. H. Douglas Buckwalter, The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology, SNTSMS 89 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Summarizing Buckwalter’s position, Tarasenkova explains, “Buckwalter stresses the fact that in Acts Jesus is the only other being, besides YHWH himself, who is said to give the Spirit.”
[43]. Thompson, Luke, 72.
[44]. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 177.
[45]. Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, 187.
[46]. See Barbara Shellard. New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context, JSNTSup 215 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 18. No doubt both Mark and Matthew adopt literary compression in their opening chapters. However, given the fact that Jesus ministered for only three and half years, it seems plausible that his popularity coincided almost immediately with his public baptism.
[47]. Thompson, Luke, 72
[48]. Robert Stein, “Mark,” in BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 280. A similar phrase “began to speak” occurs in 10:32; 12:1; 13:5.
[49]. R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 242.
[50]. BDAG, s.v. διδάσκω, 241.
[51]. Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 7b (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2011), 111. Meg. 3:1–4 reads “He who reads the scroll may stand or sit; if one read it, of if two shall read it, they have fulfilled their duty. In the place where the custom is to recite a benediction one should recite it, but where it is not customary to recite a benediction he does not recite it. On the second day of the week, and on the fifth day, and on the Sabbath day at the afternoon service three persons read; they must not reduce the number nor add to it; nor do they conclude with a reading from the Prophets. He that begins the reading from the Torah and he that concludes it recites a benediction, the one at the start and the other at the conclusion.”
[52]. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, 403.
[53]. The miraculous nature of Jesus’s teaching ministry elevated him to the status of a prophet in the eyes of his countrymen All the Synoptics attest that the crowds viewed him as “one of the prophets” (Matt 16:14; 21:11; Mark 6:4, 15; 11:32; Luke 7:16). This point will be further discussed in Ch. 6 of this dissertation when Jesus actively proclaims himself as the fulfillment of the Isaian oracle about a royal prophet who inaugurates God’s eschatological Jubilee.
[54]. Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period, JSOTSup 291 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 83. Some attention has been paid to the phrase δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων, meaning “being glorified by all,” and its relationship to the Messianic vision of the pseudepigraphical work, the Testament of Levi (T. Levi 17:1–3), which appears in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (4QLevia) and reads, “In the second Jubilee the Anointed One shall be conceived in sorrow of the beloved one, and his priesthood shall be prized and shall be glorified by all.” This is the same phrase in Greek that Luke uses in 4:15b when referring to Jesus who lived in Galilee being “glorified by all.” While Luke likely did not cite this T. Levi text directly, both he and his sources were influenced by prevalent messianic traditions in his time. This is likely another example of an author “breathing the worldview air” of his culture rather than direct borrowing. See John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 19.
[55]. Fitzmyer, The Gospel, 524. Fitzmyer, for example, ignores the subject of Jesus’s glory altogether; cf. Morris, Luke, 139. Morris does not comment on the glorification but later insists that the healed paralytic “glorified God” not Jesus.
[56]. Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, 187.
[57]. Thompson, Luke, 73.
[58]. Garland, “Luke,” 194–5.
[59]. Raymond Abba, “The Divine Name Yahweh,” JBL 80 (December 1961): 320–8; cf. J. Gordon McConville, “God’s Name and God’s Glory,” TynBul 30 (1979): 149–63. Estimates of its population range from 8,000–30,000. See Richard A. Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1996), 49–65.
[60]. Ken Dark, “Has Jesus’ Nazareth House Been Found?” BAR 41 (2015): 54–63, here 61.
[61]. Mark Chancey and Eric M. Meyers, “How Jewish was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?” BAR 26 (2000): 18–33, here 23–4. Sepphoris was an urban center with administrative units, entertainment structures, and average-sized domiciles for the region.
[62]. Eric M. Meyers, Ehud Netzer, and Carol L. Meyers, “Sepphoris: ‘Ornament of Galilee,’” BAR 49 (1986): 4; Richard A. Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1996), 49.
[63]. Chancey and Meyers, “How Jewish was Sepphoris?” 23–24.
[64]. Dark, “Has Jesus’ Nazareth House Been Found?” 63.
[65]. Michael Woods and Mary B. Woods, Ancient Construction: From Tents to Towers (Minneapolis: Lerner Publishing, 2000), 21–2. Mud and wattle roofing was, by far, the primary roofing for ancient Jewish homes, contrasted to the often-haphazard construction of Greek tile roofing.
[66]. Chancey and Meyers, “How Jewish was Sepphoris?” 23–24; cf. Carol L Meyers et al., “Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Cultures,” ed. Rebecca Martin Nagy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996); Mark A. Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee: The Population of Galilee and New Testament Studies, SNTS 134 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 82.
[67]. Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus, 21; cf. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society, 3. Saldarini categorizes the Pharisees in the artisan class since they had various trade skills. He also disagrees with Crossan and asserts that the Pharisees are evidence of an urban middle class.
[68]. Elsewhere, Josephus will refer to him as simply “Judas the Galilean.”
[69]. Judas’ sons followed Theudas the magician and inflamed the country, eventually leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
[70]. He records the phenomenon of social banditry in this region, mentioning several historical “bandits” who agitated Rome at the time. Josephus J.W. 1.10.5–7; 1.204–11; Ant. 14.9.2–4; 159–74; Herod attempted to eradicate the land of brigands (1.16.2; 1.304).
[71]. Josephus, J.W. 18.1.8. The revolution apparently continued under the leadership of Judas’s sons, James and Simon, who were later crucified by Tiberius Julius Alexander.
[72]. Strictly speaking, Crossan asserted that Jesus was a “Jewish peasant sage.” See John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography: A Startling Account of What we Can Know About Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), prologue; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991); Crossan, “Open Healing and Open Eating: Jesus as a Jewish Cynic,” BR 36 (1991): 6–18.
[73]. Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013), 3. Evans states, “Nazareth is located in the Nazareth Mountains in lower Galilee, about 500 meters above sea level. The name ‘Nazareth’ appears inscribed on a stone tablet that lists the priestly courses (1 Chron. 24:15–16). The second line reads: ‘The eighth course [is] Happizzez of Nazareth.’ The tablet was found in the ruins of a third- or fourth-century synagogue in Caesarea Maritima.” cf. B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth: Vol. 1, From the Beginning till the XII Century (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1969).
[74]. Dark, “Has Jesus’ Nazareth House Been Found?” 61; cf. Evans, Jesus and His World, 138. Evans notes, “The famous ‘Nazareth Inscription,’ an edict of Caesar forbidding vandalizing or tampering with tombs, including the unlawful removal of a corpse. The inscription is now housed in the Médailles et Antiques de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France.”
[75]. Stephen Pfann, Ross Voss, and Yehudah Rapuano, “Surveys and Excavations at the Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002),” BAIAS 25 (2007): 19–79, here 21.
[76]. E.P Sanders and Jürgen K. Zangenberg, “Pure Stone: Archaeological Evidence for Jewish Purity Practices in Late Second Temple Judaism (Miqwa’ot and Stone Vessels),” in Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism, (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 537–72; Pfann, Voss, and Rapuano, “Surveys and Excavations,” 23, 46. See also Dark, “Has Jesus’ Nazareth House Been Found?” 61; Roland Deines, “The Pharisees Between ‘Judaisms’ and ‘Common Judaism,’” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. D.A. Carson et al., WUNT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 443–504; Martin Hengel and Roland Deines, “‘E.P. Sanders’ ‘Common Judaism’, Jesus and the Pharisees: Review Article of Jewish Law from the Jesus to the Mishnah and Judaism: Practice and Belief by E.P. Sanders,” JTS 46 (1995): 1–70.
[77]. Garland, Luke, 202.
[78]. Garland, Luke, 202.
[79]. Evans, Jesus and His World, 141.
[80]. BDAG, s.v. εἰωθὸς, 295; Thompson, Luke, 73. Jesus has already been established in Mark’s Gospel as a customary teacher, “and as was his custom he taught all of them” καὶ ὡς εἰώθει πάλιν ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς.
[81]. Thompson, Luke, 73.
[82]. Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC 3 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 125.
[83]. This study will detail the case for Jesus functioning prophetically in Chapter 6.
[84]. Thompson, Luke, 73. For other references of Jesus teaching as a welcomed synagogue reader, see Matt 4:23; 9:35; 12:9; Mark 1:21; 39; Luke 8:40; 9:11; John 4:45.
[85]. Craig A. Evans, “‘Have You Not Read ...?’ Jesus’ Subversive Interpretation of Scripture” in Jesus Research: An International Perspective, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 182–98.
[86]. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, 404.
[87]. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, 401.
[88]. Keith, Jesus Against the Scribal Elite, 92.
[89]. Keith, Jesus Against the Scribal Elite, 91. Others have taken issue with this view. See Hughson T. Ong, “Jesus’ Bilingual Proficiency,” in Sociolinguistic Analysis of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 88–112, fn. 56. Ong states, “I disagree with the opinion that Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3 indicate that Jesus was unlearned because he was a carpenter’s son, since for all we know those who heard him in the synagogue (Matt. 13:54; Mark 6:2) did not know him well or only met him for the first time. I would even argue the same for the case in John 7:15. The Jews not only may not have known Jesus, but they also may just have assumed that Jesus was unlearned. Unless they actually had witnessed Jesus growing up from childhood to adulthood, they could not have possibly known the education of Jesus. The population of the 204 settlements and villages in Galilee was estimated to be about 630,000, so how would it be possible for everyone to know each other’s name and family, much more their education, unless they lived in the same neighborhood or village?”
[90]. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 2726. Keener highlights the possibility of Luke citing from a source that predates Mark, in which case it is Mark who adds the word τέκτων to the original source.
[91]. Keith, Jesus’ Literacy, 176–77. He states, “For the sake of clarity, I state explicitly that this argument does not require that Jesus intended to create multiple perceptions of his scribal-literate status, although I consider it rather unlikely that he was entirely unaware of the effects of his activities.” Which of course, would have made him complicit in the ruse, nonetheless.
[92]. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I–IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AYB 28 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 303. That Jesus would claim blamelessness is not surprising, and Luke begins by describing Jesus’s family, Elizabeth and Zechariah as ἦσαν δὲ δίκαιοι ἀμφότεροι ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ, πορευόμενοι, literally translates to “they were both righteous in the sight of God living blamelessly” (Luke 1:6). Later at his trial, the Sanhedrin could not even find legitimate witnesses against Christ (Matt 26:59–60).
[93]. Keith, Jesus Against the Scribal Elite, 95.
[94]. Kingsbury, Conflict in Luke, 84.
[95]. Dennis E. Smith, “Table Fellowship as a Literary Motif in the Gospel of Luke,” JBL 106 (1987): 613–38.
[96]. See Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, 624 in which the “downtrodden of life: the poor, the hungry, the weeping and the persecuted” are contrasted in Luke with the powerful, socially advantaged. See Talbert, Reading Luke, 93. Talbert notes Jesus especially ministered to women as they feature prominently in his ministry. Nolland also suggests that Luke intended the Messianic community to be “a disapproved-of minority, or more-or-less socially disenfranchised," Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, 296.
[97]. Kingsbury, Conflict in Luke, 35.
[98]. Lidia D. Matassa, Invention of the First Century Synagogue: Ancient Near East Monographs, ed. Jason M. Silverman and J. Murray Watson (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2018), 3, 148. Matassa argues that “the physical institution of the early synagogue into a multipurpose communal assembly space which was used for everything from commercial trading to a threshing floor, from school to law court and, of course, to a locus of religious activity in some form or another.” Most synagogues or spaces that could be used as assembly houses were limited in their seating capacity. It has been estimated that the Masada ruins, for example, likely had a seating capacity of only 250 but served a community of over 900.
[99]. Bertil Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 16. This, of course, would not be true for the Qumran Jews in the desert. They affirmed the presence of new eschatological temple, instituted by the Spirit, in their “true and pure Israel.”
[100]. Craig Evans, “‘Have You Not Read ...?’ Jesus’ Subversive Interpretation of Scripture” in Jesus Research: An International Perspective, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 182–98.
[101]. Craig A. Evans, “Jewish Scripture and the Literacy of Jesus,” in From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith: Essays in Honor of Lee Martin McDonald, ed. William H. Brackney and Craig A. Evans (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2007), 43. Even though Luke includes novel material in this chapter, he also echoes various themes in Matthew 13, such as the parable of the mustard seed (Luke 13:18–21; Matt 31–32). As was mentioned in Chapter 2 of this study, even in John’s Gospel where certain questions regarding his educational background. As Craig Evans has shown, Jesus’s ἰδιῶται status means “outsider to the guild” not “uneducated” or “illiterate.” As Paul applies this term to himself with respect to certain schools of philosophy.
[102]. Bock, Luke: 9:51–24:53, 1214.