It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:50 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:58 pm
spin wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:02 pm
Sorry, Steven, the Greek idiom εν οικω is quite clear, = "at home", note no "his" (see 1 Cor 11:34). (When you comment on this sort of issue, you must look at the Greek.)
To illustrate what spin is talking about here....
I tend to agree that spin is right on this, but I assume that's not the real problem.
spin wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:22 am
If you accept that the Marcan writer represents Jesus as having his home in Capernaum as per 2:1 and having an unnamed hometown (6:1) there are two distinct origins given for Jesus (and, though I don't, in you include Nazareth in 1:9 there are three). If the writer knew what Jesus hometown was, it would be alien to the culture to obfuscate it, when gentilics were so important. The writer does not know Jesus' hometown, he has merely collected disparate information.
That may be function in English, but not in Greek. So far I know the meaning of patris (Mark 6:1) is in most cases infact the father's town or the ancestor's town. This town can be also the home of someone, but only when he lives there. Philo wrote in Ad Gaium that his patris is Jerusalem, but clearly he was εν οικω in Alexandria.

spin's view that Jesus was literally a property owner in Capernaum may be not impossible, but I surmise that others tend to understand the passages a bit more spiritually in the sense that the Lord is the head of every believer's household. If I have not overlook something it is at least one major view of Mark 2:15ff. that Jesus became the host in Levi's house. In Mark 14:14 Jesus can say

and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, Where is my guest room (τὸ κατάλυμά μου), where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’


Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Solo » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:58 pm

spin wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:02 am
Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:41 am
spin wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:19 am
(In fact 2:1 tells us that Jesus had his home there.)
More likely "the house of Simon and Andrew, where he was before, and where he used to be when in Capernaum." - John Gill
Lots of pundits have to fabricate stuff to deal with the fact the text specifically says Jesus was at home in Capernaum.
"En oikoo" in 2:1 (repeated w.r. to Capernaum in 9:33) almost certainly does not mean a physical location. This is Mark misleading uninitiated reader: See use of "oikos" (or "oikia") in 2:15, 3:20, 6:4, 7:17, 7:24, 9:28, 9:33, 10:10. I believe Mark alludes to Jesus being "empowered" vis-a-vis his following or in having an intimate tete-a-tete with them. Mark 13:34-35 gives the parabolic key to the use of "the house" in the text.

Best,
Jiri

Steven Avery
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: the critical text corruption spins you around again

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:18 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:39 pm
Note that based on the above the qualitative Textual support strongly favors "home".
First, qualitative is circular to the Critical Text methodology.

Second, you seem unawares that the apparatus hides many Byzantine supports for textual variants, under a rigging concept that is in the introduction. It may be under "consistent witnesses". I did point this out earlier.

Third, by geneology theory, where did the 1000+ or 1500+ Byzantine mss come from?
Collectively they are far more important witnesses than a few mss. Even more so when the extant corruption mss are localized Egyptian-Alexandrian, where the gnostic corruption elements were strong (see the Aland warning about the papyri.) and the scribes were wild and free.

Fourth, Sinaiticus is 1800s.

Fifth, where are the early church writers? (If they weigh in on this at all.)

Steven

Post Reply