it is not at all a non-sequitur and I explain why:I think that "doubtless" in the Jesus's answer is a strong clue pointing to an explanation found inside the story itself of the gospel of Luke, not assumed a priori external to that gospel (i.e. possibly in Mark).This is a non-sequitur. What is the antecedent for Luke 10.13 ( = Matt 11.21): “Woe to you, Chorazin! woe to you, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes" where either city is explicitly named as having been a place where Jesus performed might works?"Doubtless" in Jesus's answer explains also why *Ev were to choose one city to begin with, even before that the name of the city ("Capernaum") was mentioned.
Best,
Ken
As to Chorazin and Bethsaida, none gospel gives, to my knowledge, an explanation of what happened between Jesus and these cities. But in the case of Capernaum we have indeed a gospel (*Ev) where the connection of Capernaum with a Jesus's miracle is explained before 4:23, hence of course the comparison is fully justified, between Luke and *Ev, in order to realize who of them gives the best explanation of Luke 4:23.
In other words, if we had a gospel where an explanation is given explicitly for the Jesus's hatred against Chorazin and Bethsaida, then ipso facto I would conclude rationally and probably for a such gospel preceding both *Ev and Matthew and Luke.
You can't ignore the explicit character of flash-back in Luke 4:23, and the interesting emphasis "doubtless" that refers probably the reader to something already described ad hoc in the story itself and not outside of it, in a previous source.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Thu Apr 25, 2024 8:54 pm