Mark 6:5 vs 6:2

[iskander]

Mark 5: 15

The narrator notes that the garments of the soul have been restored, The man described before was wearing no garments since he had demonstrated severe deficiencies in thought, speech and action.

15They came to Jesus and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion; and they were afraid.

That he was now clothed means that he could express his soul .

[MrMacSon]

The whole idea [of] Jesus as god would have been blasphemous to an Aramaic Galilean pious Jew.

Good point. More evidence the story is likely to have been written outside Galilee/Judea.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

[1] Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples.
[2] When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. “Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing?
[3] Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t 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 own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”
[5] He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.

There appears to be some tension between the assertion that the people were amazed at the remarkable miracles Jesus had just performed, and the assertion that he could not perform any miracles there. This pericope is often used to demonstrate Markan priority, as Matthew presents Jesus impotence less starkly. However, what can be derived from the fact that the Markan version is not self-consistent?

I agree if one is reading the pericope for itself. The context of the Beelzebul controversy, related to Jesus' family, (He is possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons) could be an explanation, why the people are asking the questions in Mark 6:2.

[DCHindley]

John 4.43-45, the parallel to this pericope, is a bit weird here:

43 Μετὰ δὲ τὰς δύο ἡμέρας ἐξῆλθεν ἐκεῖθεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν· 44 αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐμαρτύρησεν ὅτι προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει. 45 ὅτε οὖν ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, ἐδέξαντο αὐτὸν οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι, πάντα ἑωρακότες ὅσα ἐποίησεν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, καὶ αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἦλθον εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν.

43 And after the two days he went out thence unto Galilee. 44 For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own fatherland. 45 When therefore he came into Galilee, the Galileans received him, since they had seen all things, as many as he had done in Jerusalem at the feast, for they themselves also had gone to the feast.

So Jesus goes into Galilee because a prophet has no honor in his homeland? And the Galileans accept him? Does this not suggest that Jesus' homeland is some place other than Galilee? Yet John 1.45-46 acknowledges that Jesus is from Nazareth; Galilee is in context, but only as the district in which Jesus is currently doing his thing. Can it be that the author or redactor of John has no idea where Nazareth is, and thinks it is not in Galilee?

I'm kind of thinking that this may be related to the notion of that day that the people who originated from the indigenous inhabitants of the region of Judea were still themselves Judeans. Although a good number of these folks lived in the Diaspora, they were still Judeans. For these Judeans, the region of Judea was their "fatherland" (πατρίδι), and that their status as "Judeans" was not affected by the fact they may not at all reside in that province.

So, the comment may just mean Jesus had no honor in "the-belonging-to-him" (ἰδίᾳ) fatherland (i.e., Judea) even though he did not live there, but in Galilee. It is then ironic that his fellow "Judeans" living, as he also did, in Galilee, loved his miracle doing and high-falutin' talk done in Galilee. Judeans resident in the region of Judea did not respond so warmly. It might be, perhaps, the difference of culture between Saudi Arabia (Sunni Arab Wahhabi) and Iran (Shia Persian's with their own POV, in some ways even more passionate than even Wahhabi style Islam about what constitutes the proper expression of Islam). Then there is Turkey, a much more secular state. The expression of Islam there is, I guess I can say, more tolerant and relaxed.

DCH

[gmx]

In Mark 5.15, after the demoniac has been restored to sanity, the narrator notes that he is clothed; but he was not noted as naked before. I think this sort of thing can happen when narrating a story (indeed, even worse can happen; think of people who cannot tell a joke to save their skin): the narrator may be so familiar with the material that little details become assumed rather than expressed.

With that principle in mind, here is my sense of how the pericope about Jesus' rejection in his homeland may have been intended. I have added bracketed comments:

6 Jesus went out from there and comes into His hometown; and His disciples follow Him. [At this point Jesus starts to perform miracles, as is his usual practice.] 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? [Recognition of the miracles done before the Sabbath arrived.] 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 [from this Sabbath forward] 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.

It seems possible to me that the missing miracles before the Sabbath are simply a storyteller's omission. What do you think? Is there a better explanation?

Ben.

Yes, I think that's a rational explanation. But it begs the question that if Mark was the originator of these stories, and is the genius storyteller he is often taken to be, why was his storytelling so sloppy? That's maybe why I was bringing the question of Markan priority into the OP.

On another point, if the Galilean Jews found the story of Jesus as God blasphemous, and the divine element was added by Hellenized Jews in the Diaspora, what is the original story, other than that of a failed messianic teacher? And why would anyone take that story and say "this looks like a good candidate for building a new religion on"? Not to say it didn't happen that way, but it's got some difficulties.

[outhouse]

But it begs the question that if Mark was the originator of these stories, and is the genius storyteller he is often taken to be, why was his storytelling so sloppy?

.

He/they have always been know as weaker author/s

Never heard he word genius used for authorship of that book

[Ben C. Smith]

Yes, I think that's a rational explanation. But it begs the question that if Mark was the originator of these stories, and is the genius storyteller he is often taken to be, why was his storytelling so sloppy? That's maybe why I was bringing the question of Markan priority into the OP.

There was a thread recently asking whether participants at this forum considered Mark to be a genius. I did not answer that question, partly because I am of mixed mind when it comes to Mark.

On the one hand, something that Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote recently resonated with me; she said something to the effect that Matthew and Luke cannot hold a candle to Mark and John. And there is something about that distinction which I profoundly agree with. I think of those Marcan intercalations and those five apocalyptic moments at which Mark seems to be hitting on all cylinders; and there are some nifty word plays and other literary devices; and it can even be argued that Mark appeals more to the modern mindset than Matthew or Luke, so perhaps the author was (way) ahead of his or her time in some ways; and I start to think rather highly of him.

On the other hand, though, there are some rough spots, certain seams and unexplained oddities that do not seem to jive with brilliant storytelling. Maybe some of them are the result of scribal activity (additions or subtractions, whether intentional or not). But maybe not. Similar issues abound all the more in John, which is simply full of weird editing. It is hard to tell how much redaction these texts have undergone.

Yet John has a certain character about him, a certain raw power, a way of turning everything he touches Johannine. Mark seems to have a certain raw power, too, though of a very different nature: I like to think of Mark as "stark"; the rhyme helps, of course. Nobody does abandonment like Mark. Nobody does mystic revelation quite like Mark. In Matthew and Luke the heavens open; in Mark they rip apart. Yet it all remains realistic and restrained somehow, in an ancient sense that admits of miracles; no intertwined systems of multiple archons or levels of spiritual authority: just heaven and earth and this man named Jesus in between them.

To sum up, I do not think that thinking of Mark as brilliant exempts him from storytelling infelicities. His brilliance, if such it is, lies in what he does well, not in what he does not do quite as well. (That is certainly the case with John!) His brilliance, if such it is, also does not suggest either that he is working with existing materials and/or traditions or that he is freely composing; either is possible. And his brilliance, if such it is, is not an open invitation to assume he is infallible and take whatever acrobatic measures are necessary to salvage his consistency. If he fails at times, we should be able to admit it, at least until such time as our understanding improves in his favor.

Ben.

[outhouse]

what is the original story, other than that of a failed messianic teacher?

There was no original story. If he lived he was just another crucified teacher in Galilean cultures.

The mythology and theology developed in the Diaspora by people looking to divorce cultural Judaism.

And why would anyone take that story and say "this looks like a good candidate for building a new religion on"?

Nobody did that.


He was martyred after his death, due to a perceived selfless sacrifice as he fought the temple corruption when his own disciples ran for the hills.


The mythology and theology slowly developed and was added to yearly at Passover when Hellenistic Proselytes returned yearly for the party/BBQ


There was no one center of this movement, there were many origins all based on martyrdom, and when the movement gained traction they competed against the Emperors divinity all over the Diaspora.

[Ben C. Smith]

Never heard he word genius used for authorship of that book

That is surprising to me.

[outhouse]

Never heard he word genius used for authorship of that book

That is surprising to me.

LOL Thank you Ben.


I never put it past others, and I never use apologetic sources of any kind, not that any link you posted did. Obviously it is an epic piece since it has been so popular for a few thousand years.


I have always followed the piece as a less skilled craftsman then the others.



edit FWIW obviously your much more well read then I