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: 1331
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: 526
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

neilgodfrey
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

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

Post by neilgodfrey » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:27 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:45 pm

Mark 2.1-12: 1 When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. 3 And they come, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5a And Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 5b "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, says to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" — He says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 11 "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home." 12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this."

Mark 3.20-35: 20 And He comes home, and the crowd gathers 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 since they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit [ὅτι ἔλεγον, πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον ἔχει]." 31 Then His mother and His brothers arrive, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they say to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." 33 Answering them, He says, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He says, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother."

My claim here is, not just that Mark used sources, but also that the red bits above were spliced into the pericope at some point. I believe that this extra step is justified for several reasons:
  1. There is the matter of the exact duplication in the first case, as if to return the flow of the story to the exact point where it departed.
  2. The red parts of both pericopes above can be cleanly removed from their surroundings, leaving a story which not only still works but indeed is also much more straightforward.
  3. The red parts of both pericopes above deal with essentially the same subject matter: sin, blasphemy, and forgiveness.
What reason could there be for a single author to line up these themes in two different chapters with the same sort of weird interchange between direct dialogue and narration? Is it just a coincidence? I think, rather, that the same hand inserted this material in basically the same way in both pericopes.
What you say is entirely possible but how could it be proven? By the same token could we not argue that Shakespeare's plays could be made much more straightforward if we removed the subplots, which usually focus on the comedic interludes in the plays, etc.?

And if a later hand found it desirable to introduce duplication then why not assume the same desire on the part of the original author? (And if a later hand saw fit to add to Mark's raw material, why not simply assume that "Mark" himself added the extras to his own raw material that he set up in his narrative?)

If Mark's Jesus were built around a Daniel-Isaiah figure (the righteous sufferer who saves those who initially torment and reject him) then is not a theme of blasphemy in these early scenes appropriate as a core element of the narrative? The same charge returns at the trial and execution of Jesus at the end, after all, so early notices of the point have a narrative logic, yes?

Just thoughts and questions. I like to think that there was an original Gospel of Mark that contained significant differences from our canonical text, and like the idea of finding a more primitive text. But . . . . .

neilgodfrey
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

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

Post by neilgodfrey » Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:46 pm

neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:27 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:45 pm

. . . 5a And Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 5b "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, says to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" — He says to the paralytic. . . "

. . . 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 since they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit . . .

My claim here is, not just that Mark used sources, but also that the red bits above were spliced into the pericope at some point. I believe that this extra step is justified for several reasons:
  1. There is the matter of the exact duplication in the first case, as if to return the flow of the story to the exact point where it departed.
  2. The red parts of both pericopes above can be cleanly removed from their surroundings, leaving a story which not only still works but indeed is also much more straightforward.
  3. The red parts of both pericopes above deal with essentially the same subject matter: sin, blasphemy, and forgiveness.

What reason could there be for a single author to line up these themes in two different chapters with the same sort of weird interchange between direct dialogue and narration? Is it just a coincidence? I think, rather, that the same hand inserted this material in basically the same way in both pericopes.
. . . .
If Mark's Jesus were built around a Daniel-Isaiah figure (the righteous sufferer who saves those who initially torment and reject him) then is not a theme of blasphemy in these early scenes appropriate as a core element of the narrative? The same charge returns at the trial and execution of Jesus at the end, after all, so early notices of the point have a narrative logic, yes?. . .
One more key detail in the highlighted and red section is the linking of the theme of forgiveness and sin (in the context of blasphemous thoughts) is the identification of the speaker with the Son of Man. The point of the saying is that hearers understand it is said by the Son of Man. The Son of Man is taken from Daniel (unless you concur with those who treat it as an idiom for "mortal person") and Daniel combines the term with the suffering servant of Isaiah, and its Danielic-Isaianic associations run like a thread through the Gospel of Mark. So though one might remove a few words from a passage that leaves a logical story flow in tact, the same removal process will actually remove one of several markers of a theme that runs right through the gospel.

That's not said as an indisputable fact. It is said as a justifiable interpretation that does find prominent support in the literature. Certainty in any hypothesis relating to the Gospel of Mark is risky.

Post Reply