Jesus' home in Capernaum?

[GakuseiDon]

What your saying also seems possible. But I don't think it was supposed to be "open to interpretation", I think there is a "right answer" here. Was his reputation declining in Capernaum leading to him being "driven out" of his "hometown", or was his reputation good in his newly adopted town of Capernaum, while bad in his original "hometown"?

If I had to take a guess, I'd say it's symbolic of Jesus being rejected by the people of Judea (astonished but no fame) but accepted outside (astonished and fame). But I haven't really tried to think through that.

[rgprice]

Think about the potential interpretations allegorically.

The two possibilities:
1) Jesus is from "Nazareth" but moves to a new adopted town of Capernaum. Nazareth is his hometown.

Jesus leaves his home in Nazareth and gets baptized. We don't know why Jesus moved to Capernaum. Jesus is welcome in Capernaum and people are amazed at his works. Jesus returns to his hometown and they have no faith in him there. He leaves and goes out to many other towns far and wide.

Allegorical interpretation:
The Lord is welcomed among "others" (who, not sure). The people of Israel do not have faith in the Lord. The Lord goes among the nations and performs wonders among the nations, winning the hearts and minds of other people.

2) Jesus is from Capernaum.

Jesus leaves his home in Capernaum and gets baptized. Upon returning people are amazed at his works. Over time people lose faith in him and become unhappy wit his works. He leaves and goes out to many other towns far and wide.

Allegorical interpretation:
The people of Israel are amazed at the wonders of the Lord, but then lose faith in him as time goes on. The Lord goes among the nations and performs wonders among the nations, winning the hearts and minds of other people.

I'd argue for #2.

[DCHindley]

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/2.htm and https://biblehub.com/greek/oiko__3624.htm

That phrase "ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν" rendered in the interlinear as "in (the)-house he-is" (I added dashes). The noun "house" is in the nominative case, so it doesn't necessarily mean "his" house. The word-for-word translation adds "(the") as if a definite article is implied, but it could also just be indefinite, "a house" (presumably in town) so would be a house of a friend or associate. There is a way to denote that it was "his" house, but that construction was not used here.

Uh oh, my laptop is rattlin'. Gotta go.

DCH

[MrMacSon]

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/2.htm and https://biblehub.com/greek/oiko__3624.htm

That phrase "ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν" rendered in the interlinear as "in (the)-house he-is" (I added dashes). The noun "house" is in the nominative case, so it doesn't necessarily mean "his" house. The word-for-word translation adds "(the") as if a definite article is implied, but it could also just be indefinite, "a house" (presumably in town) so would be a house of a friend or associate. There is a way to denote that it was "his" house, but that construction was not used here.
DCH

I agree (i) re 'a house' and (ii) it's unlikely to be his house. 'He is in a house' seems most likely [to me].

[JoeWallack]

The pericope is about the natural family standing outside and the spiritual one sitting inside the house around Jesus. I don't think Mark should have necessarily said where the family comes from. For us this may be an interesting point that we would have liked to have explained in more detail, but for Mark's message it didn't matter at all.

JW:
As that famous 20th century philosopher Kramer would say, "Uh, bingo!". I think the main source/inspiration in general is Paul and specifically is Galatians 1. I think "Mark's" Jesus would be sore amazed that the credentialed Bible scholars here still search for clues of historicity.

Something you pointed out KK is especially applicable here:

https://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_3

Mark 3:21 And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.

https://biblehub.com/greek/1839.htm

A more literal translation is "outside of himself". So even Jesus is subject (so to speak) to the inside out theme. "Mark" does this alot. Subjecting (so to speak) Jesus to the same ironic contrast as everyone else. This suggests that GMark is primarily art rather than religion. I think the Skeptical observation that GMark is primarily discrediting the Disciples was decades ahead of the field and likewise that GMark parallels best with the genre of Greek Tragedy will be decades ahead and put credentialed Bible scholarship besides itself.


Joseph

[StephenGoranson]

Whew, Joseph, you escaped being "credentialed"--close call?

[JoeWallack]

Whew, Joseph, you escaped being "credentialed"--close call?

JW:
Sorry Stephen, but you just don't have that Jez Nu Say Paul.


Joseph

[rgprice]

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/2.htm and https://biblehub.com/greek/oiko__3624.htm

That phrase "ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν" rendered in the interlinear as "in (the)-house he-is" (I added dashes). The noun "house" is in the nominative case, so it doesn't necessarily mean "his" house. The word-for-word translation adds "(the") as if a definite article is implied, but it could also just be indefinite, "a house" (presumably in town) so would be a house of a friend or associate. There is a way to denote that it was "his" house, but that construction was not used here.
DCH

I agree (i) re 'a house' and (ii) it's unlikely to be his house. 'He is in a house' seems most likely [to me].

Except that it seems Matthew also thinks that Jesus lived in Capernaum.

Matrhew4:12 Now when Jesus heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee; 13 and leaving Nazareth, He came and settled in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali.

It seems to me that Matthew is trying to explain why Jesus lives in Capernaum as opposed to Nazareth. Matthew has Jesus be born in Bethlehem, but then move to Nazareth, and then needs to explain how he ends up in Capernaum. He makes up the part about Capernaum being "by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali" to order to work in prophecy, but he still needed to explain how it was that he ended up in Capernaum.

And it seems to me that what Matthew was working from was a story in which Jesus was not said to be from Nazareth at all. So in the version of Mark that Matthew was working from Jesus was simply from Capernaum. Matthew then adds the birth story that appropriates "Nazarene" and turns it into Nazareth, and explains that Jesus moved from Nazareth to Capernaum in order to rationalize what existed in Mark.

[StephenGoranson]

Herod Antipas built-up (already-existing) Sepphoris as his Galilee capital, then later moved his capital to Tiberias. Not so unusual to move from place to place, like Nazareth and Capernaum.

"...turns it into Nazareth," I doubt.

[spin]

"...turns it into Nazareth," I doubt.

Probably correct as far as it goes. However, There was at least one intermediate step. The earliest manuscript containing part of Mt 2:23 had Nazara (P70bis), while 4:3 also features Nazara, so there is only one mention of Nazareth in Mt, at 21:11 part of a fragment introduced into a Marcan passage and apparently not from Q, as it isn't evinced in Lk.

If one reads "Nazarene" as a toponymic (gentilic), the toponym would naturally be Nazara, yielding a provisional chronology thus:

Nazarene -> Nazara -> Nazareth

The redactor who supplied Nazara twice didn't insert Mt 21:10-11. Nazareth is quite late in the evolution of the orthodox Jesus tradition.

It's also worth noting that

1. while Mt accepted Capernaum as a home for Jesus after Nazara, Lucan redactors reject a Capernaum home completely (an interesting study in itself). And
2. Nazareth only appears in the additive Lucan birth narrative, also suggesting that Nazareth is later in the tradition evolution.