Jesus' home in Capernaum?

[StephenGoranson]

It is possible to have (or have had) two homes.

[lclapshaw]

It is possible to have (or have had) two homes.

Yeah, Jesus was probably just chilling at the family summer house on the lake for spring break.

I mean, that's way more plausible than Mark 1:9 being a later addition. Right?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

And in Mark 3 we read:

31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” ...

Mark 2 & 3 indicate that Jesus and his family live in Capernaum. In Mark 6 it is implied that he is in the place where his family lives, though the wording could be interpreted differently. But if he had already been active in Capernaum for some time now, why would the people be surprised by his activities?

I was kind of surprised by this conclusion because I've never heard it like that before. I want to admit that this may also be due to certain preconceptions and that many take it for granted that the family comes from Nazareth (which I actually see as a preconception). I agree that it is not at all clear in GMark that Nazareth is the birthplace of Jesus and the town mentioned in Mark 6:1. So the first impression of GMark 3:31 could be that the family lives just two streets away and came from there.

However, I think that this impression only seems to emerge when the context of the previous chapters is neglected. The fame of Jesus has already spread far beyond Capernaum in Mark 1:28, he makes a plan to preach elsewhere in Galilee and in 1:39 he is actually traveling everywhere in Galilee.

1:39 And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and

In Mark 3:7ff many followers are already coming from all over Syria-Palestine. Scribes from Jerusalem come and spread their opinions on site (Mark 3:22).

3:7 ... a great crowd followed, from Galilee and Judea 8 and Jerusalem and Idumea and from beyond the Jordan and from around Tyre and Sidon.

3:22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,”

The action in chapters 1-3 therefore already spans a very large region in Syria-Palestine. I therefore think that one can't draw the conclusion from Mark 3:31 that the family only lives around the corner. imho they could have just come from anywhere and we can't make a clear decision from which exact place they came from.

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.

[StephenGoranson]

When I wrote, above
"It is possible to have (or have had) two homes."
I did not limit possibilities to having two homes at the same time (hence the "have had").
E.g., I have had, in sequence, more than one home; though I don't have two homes today, I don't now live where I was born.
I just offered that as a possibility.

[lclapshaw]

When I wrote, above
"It is possible to have (or have had) two homes."
I did not limit possibilities to having two homes at the same time (hence the "have had").
E.g., I have had, in sequence, more than one home; though I don't have two homes today, I don't now live where I was born.
I just offered that as a possibility.

Got ya. Here's another possibility, it's just a made up story that some editor 'fixed' later.

Yeah, I know, "mind blown".

[StephenGoranson]

Well, if it was a made up story, why would it need fixing?

[rgprice]

@KK Agreed, but what is the reader supposed to think given the information they have at hand. Without the preconception that Jesus was "born in Nazareth" how would a reader understand this text?

Firstly, if we look at 1:9 even that is unclear without having already been primed by Matthew, which again indicates that its a late addition:
"1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan."

If this is the only story I know, what do I make of this sentence? For all I know Jesus just happened to be walking from a place called Nazareth to the Jordan river. I really have no reason to think that Jesus was born in Nazareth or that his family currently resides there.

Then we get to Mark 2:
"2 When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home."

There has been no talk about Jesus finding a new home in Capernaum or resettling there, etc. If he is now "at home" then I would assume as a reader that this had been his home for some time. Or that this was where he was always from. Certainly I would assume that this was his home prior to having gone to the Jordan to be baptized. Hence the reason that he is now "back at home".

Now when we have Mark 6:

6:1 Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown; and His disciples followed Him. 2 When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.” 5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And He wondered at their unbelief. And He was going around the villages teaching.

7 And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits;

Prior to this Jesus was at the sea side in " the country of the Gerasenes", then he crossed back over and was in a town by the sea side. Then we pick up at 6:1.

Without having been primed by Matthew, even with Mark 1:9 in the narrative, am I going to understand this he is now in Nazareth? Maybe, only if I think that him being called "Jesus the Nazarene" means that he is from Nazareth. I have already been told twice that Jesus' home is in Capernaum, and I was told that his mother and brothers came to his house in Capernaum.

So when I get to Mark 6 and I am told that he came to his hometown, my immediate thought would be that he was back in Capernaum. Capernaum seems to have been established as a "base of operations" as a place he comes and goes from. And we have been told that Capernaum has a synagogue.

We also have this strange transition with 6:6a to 6:6b.

Then they go to a number of other cities and some quite distant travels, then in Mark 9 they come back to Capernaum before leaving for Jerusalem.

While back in Capernaum Jesus performs no additional wonder works, he just discusses various matters with the disciples.

So we know that Jesus did perform miracles in Capernaum prior to Mark 6. We are told in Mark 6 that he could do no miracles in his hometown. Then he leaves. Then he comes back to Capernaum in Mark 9, without much hoopla and leaves without performing any miracles.

I think without having been primed by Matthew, a reader would not conclude that the hometown in Mark 6 was Nazareth. Certainly without the mention of Nazareth in Mark 1:9 the reader would certainly not come to this conclusion. Would a reader think that the "hometown" of Jesus in Mark 6 was a place other than Capernaum? Possibly, but why would a writer talk about a "hometown" and not tell the reader where it was?

So, if the hometown is not Capernaum, then it is an unnamed place, which would be very strange considering that the writer tells us the names of many, many towns in the story. Which leads me back to the conclusion that we are supposed to understand the hometown to be Capernaum.

[rgprice]

Looking at the mentions of Nazareth in the other Gospels:

1) If we accept that the Gospel of John is a composite writing that has 3 or 4 layers to it, and that final revisions were made to John when it was put into the four Gospel collection, then the mentions of "Nazareth" in John appear to be from the final editor: https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... =50&end=50

There are two mentions of "of Nazareth" in John, both in John 1. Three times Jesus is referred to as "the Nazarene", from John 18 & 19. I suspect all uses of Nazareth or Nazarene in John come from later layers, though "of Nazareth" was likely added by the final editor while "the Nazarene" could have been from a prior revisor.

Notably, other than the mentions of Nazareth in John 1, there is no mention of a "hometown" of Jesus. Also, the mention of Cana almost looks like this was equivalent to Capernaum in some level of the narrative, as it is said to be in Galilee and also the first place he performs a miracle. It looks like the identification of Cana and Capernaum as two separate places comes from confusion between layers of the narrative.

2) Luke establishes that Jesus was from Nazareth in the birth narrative of chapters of 1 & 2. This is also reinforced in Luke 4:

16 And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read.
...
23 And He said to them, “No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me, ‘Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’” 24 And He said, “Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown.

But this passages suffers from a recognized dislocation. From BeDuhn:

Order: 4.31–35 precedes 4.16ff. Tertullian, Marc. 4.7.1, 5–6; Adam* 2.19;
Hippolytus, Ref. 7.31.5. The order of these two episodes is reversed in
the Evangelion’s text relative to Luke, and evidence suggests that the
Evangelion’s order is more original. The most important of these is the
expectation of the people of Nazara that Jesus would perform healings
there as he had in Capharnaum (4.23)—before Jesus has ever been to
Capharnaum in the narrative (4.31). It does no good to argue, as some
have, that this narrative displacement is caused by Luke’s editorial
decision to move the visit to Nazara to an earlier place in the activities
of Jesus than where it stands in Mark (and Matthew), jumping
it ahead of Capharnaum material. The offending phrase “what you
did in Capharnaum do also here” is not found in Mark, but is unique
to Luke, and presumably also found in the Evangelion. Why would
Luke introduce a clause that contradicts his ordering of events? The
identification of Capharnaum as “a city of Galilee” also suggests that
this episode originally stood first, and is redundant in Luke, where
Jesus’ presence in Galilee was already noted, and where his visit
to the town of Nazara was not similarly qualified as “of Galilee.”
Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, vol. 1, 246–47, sees this as evidence
that the Capharnaum episode preceded that of Nazara in a stage of
the material prior to Luke (which he takes to be Q). A possible motive
for a redactional reordering from Luke’s sequence to the Evangelion’s
is not particularly obvious, unless it be to solve the problem of the
phrase “what you did in Capharnaum.” Elements in favor of the order
of Luke include the expression “came down to Capharnaum,” which
suits a transition from Nazara in the hill country to Capharnaum in
the valley of Lake Gennesar, and the continuity between activity in
Capharnaum and the episode along the shore of Lake Gennesar that
follows (but see the intervening 4.43, where Jesus says he is going
away). But precisely such a logic might have induced reversing the
order of the two episodes in a redaction from the Evangelion to Luke.

At any rate, the writer of Luke is attempting to clarify that the "hometown" of Jesus is Nazareth, not Capharnaum. It is almost as if the writer of canonical Luke is going out of their way to make this point. I view is that the writer re-ordered events because he wanted Jesus to start in Nazareth as opposed to Capharnaum, since it would make more sense for Jesus to start out from his hometown and this writer is making Nazareth his hometown. The writer is likely entirely adding content or has greatly reworked a passage that originally said that Capharnaum was his hometown.

Nowhere in Luke does it indicate that Jesus had any home of any kind in Capharnaum. In fact, Capharnaum is cursed in Luke 10:

13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades!

This is noted as unattested in *Ev.

So in Luke we have clear statements in the birth narrative that indicate that the "hometown" of Jesus was Nazareth. Of course he was born in Bethlehem. So canonical Luke is clearly following a formula trying to check some boxes to show that he is from multiple places, both Bethlehem and Nazareth, and trying to discredit Capharnaum as any sort of place of residence or prestige.

3) Now Matthew: In Matthew we are told:

Matthew 2:22 Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee, 23 and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

Previously we are told:

4 Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:

6 ‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah,
Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah;
For out of you shall come forth a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”

7 Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared.

So Matthew tells us that Jesus is born in Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy and that he moves to Nazareth to fulfill prophecy.

In Matthew 3 we read:

3:13 Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him.

Here it is not said that he was from Nazareth, like it says in Mark.

Then Matthew explain that Jesus moved from Nazareth to Capernaum:

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. 14 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:

In Matthew Jesus is ironically not referred to as "the Nazarene" in spite of the fact that he is identified as such in the birth narrative.

In Matthew the "hometown" of Jesus is still left somewhat unexplained.

13:53 When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. 54 He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?

This is just as confusing as in Mark, because Matthew has told us that Jesus moved to Capernaum, so that could be his "hometown", but the usage seems to imply where he grew up, which would be Nazareth.

When Jesus enter Jerusalem Matthew tells us:

21:10 When He had entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, “Who is this?” 11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.”

So it looks to me like the writer of Matthew is the one who made the call to locate Jesus' "hometown" in Nazareth, and that canonical Luke, John and Mark were all conformed to Matthew.

[GakuseiDon]

Just thinking outloud... In Mark 6:5, Jesus couldn't do any "mighty work" "in his own country", other than "healing a few sick folk":

Mark.6
[1] And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
[2] And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
[4] But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
[5] And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
[6] And he marvelled because of their unbelief.

Jesus "marvelled because of their unbelief" at the people in his own country, even though they were astonished. But in Capernaum, his fame grew:

Mark.1
[21] And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
[22] And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
[23] And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
[24] Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
[25] And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
[26] And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.
[27] And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
[28] And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

Obviously a similar story, maybe the same one. Whether an exorcism equates to healing a sick person, I'm not sure. But the people in Capernaum seemed amazed at Jesus, while Jesus was amazed at the unbelief of the people in his hometown. Might this be a deliberate contrast?

[rgprice]

Obviously a similar story, maybe the same one. Whether an exorcism equates to healing a sick person, I'm not sure. But the people in Capernaum seemed amazed at Jesus, while Jesus was amazed at the unbelief of the people in his hometown. Might this be a deliberate contrast?

Certainly that's one possibility. But there are oddities that make it difficult to easily know for sure.

20 And He came home [to his home in Capernaum], and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.” 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.” 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! 27 But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.

28 “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He *said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

I take "his own people" to be his family. The family was in the town where his home is. We have been told that his home is in Capernaum.

It sounds to me like the narrative is that at first people were amazed with what Jesus was doing in Capernaum, but over time there was increasing unease with his actions in Capernaum, finally resulting in what we see in Mark 6, where he is no longer welcome.

After being no longer welcome in Capernaum, he moves on and goes to many other places. He then comes back to Capernaum briefly before moving on to Jerusalem.

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"?