Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Mark 6 wrote:[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 there may be some tension there. But, just to be clear, in verse 2 the people are amazed at his teachings, not at any miracles.

Ben C. Smith wrote:I agree there may be some tension there. But, just to be clear, in verse 2 the people are amazed at his teachings, not at any miracles.

Hey, thanks for the reply Ben! Your point above, "just to be clear", doesn't seem clear to me... maybe verse 2 renders differently in the Greek?

In English, verse 2 says:

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?

Yes, it says "many who heard him were amazed". However, the ensuing questions the people ask seem clearly (there's that word again) connected to the previous statement about the crowd being amazed. For if they were not amazed at his miracles, why would they make reference to his "remarkable miracles?" Or asked slightly differently, what group of people who had just witnessed "remarkable miracles" wouldn't be amazed? It seems to me that connecting the "amazement" to the "remarkable miracles" (as well as his teachings) is fairly obvious.

As always, happy to be corrected...

gmx wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:I agree there may be some tension there. But, just to be clear, in verse 2 the people are amazed at his teachings, not at any miracles.

Hey, thanks for the reply Ben! Your point above, "just to be clear", doesn't seem clear to me... maybe verse 2 renders differently in the Greek?

No, you are right. I was wrong. The initial response is to the teaching; but the people do go on to talk about miracles. I was replying on the basis of the (common, I think) view that they are referring to miracles accomplished in other towns, the fame of which has spread. But the Greek is αἱ δυνάμεις τοιαῦται ("miracles such as these"), which can of course even more easily be interpreted as miracles performed right then and there. The same word for "such as these" is used in Mark 4.33; 7.13; 9.37; and 10.14 of examples that are present in context. In Mark 13.19 it is used differently, but in coordination with οἷος, which is a different sort of thing.

This is a good point.

gmx wrote:

Mark 6 wrote:[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?

Mark 6
" 6He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. 2On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! 3Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary* and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offence* at him. 4Then Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.’ 5And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. 6And he was amazed at their unbelief "
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Mark+6


One set of people are dismissive of him and this group will be ignored. The people who are sick expect his help, and on those he will perform his deeds of power.

Some other group may be hostile to his teaching , they may say, Does the All-Merciful perform deeds of power for liars?.

Move on , move away from those who may not see past the child that he was once .

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


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?

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:


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.

" Mark 6: 4Then Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.

John 4
3he left Judea and started back to Galilee. 4But he had to go through Samaria. 5So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6

25The woman said to him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.’ 26Jesus said to her, ‘I am he,* the one who is speaking to you.’

39 Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me everything I have ever done.’ 40So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there for two days. 41And many more believed because of his word. 42They said to the woman, ‘It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Saviour of the world.’ "


He had started the journey back to Galilee, apparently wanting to avoid the Pharisees .
In Samaria he gets a very warm welcome.
He continues his journey back to Galilee musing on the reluctance of his compatriots to accept his teaching , and the contrasting willingness of aliens to believe in his teaching .He found Samaria as dear to him as the childhood home is usually remembered; Samaria was a happy experience among brother aliens.


(The phrases in parenthesis seem like an explanation added by a second rate editor.)

gmx wrote:

Mark 6 wrote:[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?

This is for the most part fictional IMHO and the authors are answering to traditions that a low life peasant that had family was not viewed as divine or a "son of god"


"I think" the Aramaic Galileans after the Martyrdom were not choking down the Hellenistic mythology and negative stories were being spread around Passover and this was a simple way to address such traditions.

if Jesus is historical, the Aramaic Galileans would have known he was just Johns replacement who died/failed just like John promoting Aramaic Galilean apocalyptic theology as a replacement teacher. To them he was a failed teacher a simple man, nothing more. And our Hellenistic authors were building divinity and needed to address these peasant traditions.

The whole idea as jesus as god would have been blasphemous to an Aramaic Galilean pious Jew.