The case for Mark 6:4 as an anti-Marcionite interpolation

[Giuseppe]

In past I have written only the following quotes about Mark 4:4 as anti-Marcionite interpolation but at the end I add further evidence:

Note that Markus Vinzent say that in Mcn the Jews believe that Jesus is the Messiah son of Joseph.

This is contentwise a somehow distorted passage, and the comparison with The Gospel teaches, why – it is the result of Luke avoiding to read it as a response to Jesus’ rejection of him being the Messiah ben Joseph, and as Jesus attacking his audience, knowing that they want to provoke him to heal himself, and to fight and to do precisely what they wanted to have proven, that he is the warrior ben Joseph Messiah.

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/search?q=joseph


Now, I don't want to speculate here about the synoptical questions related by prof Vinzent. It suffices only, for the my argument, the allegorical motive behind the Nazaret's question and the reference to Joseph as father of Jesus:

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. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

(Mark 4:1-6)


Let us ignore the fact that here Joseph is not mentioned as father of Jesus but as his brother (possibly the Matthean or Lukan version could be older in this case); the point is:


was the sense of the question "is not this one of us?" more precisely not denigrative at all, but on the contrary more demanding from what Jesus was required to do in order to be accepted by them?

I.e., not something as this:

is not this one of us, i.e. unable to do something wonderful?

...but something as this:

is not this one of us, i.e. the expected Messiah ben Joseph, hence: Shouldn't we expect something wonderful from him?

«And they were offended at him», because Jesus was not their coveted Messiah ben Joseph.


Hence the judaizing apology that is an interpolation:

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.

It is an interpolation because it serves to reiterate the fact that Jesus was from Nazaret and was son of Joseph even if he was just rejected as NOT the Son of Joseph by the same people of Nazaret.

The Judaizer interpolators wanted that Jesus was son of Joseph (as the people of Nazareth would have wanted him be) and was also the son of David (as the people of Nazareth didn't believe him be). The solution was to make Jesus both. How? By making Joseph himself davidic!

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.

It is an interpolation because it serves to reiterate the fact that Jesus was from Nazaret and was son of Joseph even if he was just rejected as NOT the Son of Joseph by the same people of Nazaret.

Note the unexpected absence of the name of the father of Jesus in the equivalent of Matthew, as too much embarrassing for him as reference:

not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas

(Matthew 13:55)

...but still found in Luke:

All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn't this Joseph's son?” they asked

(Luke 4:22)

The Judaizer interpolator was embarrassed by the mention of Jesus as Son of Joseph, because the mention of Joseph was alone sufficient as reference to the Messiah Son of Joseph, as test for Jesus if he was really one of them, a true citizen of Nazateth. It is only us moderns who are inclined to see the reference to "son of Joseph" as reductive/offensive/humble for Jesus, when he seems - and only seems - addressed as such by the people of Nazareth, when at contrary the being a "son of Joseph" was the genuine conditio sine qua non to be accepted by them as really one of them, as really the warrior Messiah son of Joseph.

The same embarrassment, by the Judaizer interpolator, to make it explicit that in the question of the people of Nazareth the name of Joseph was mentioned, is at the origin of the reduction of Joseph to the status of mere brother of Jesus, from the previous status of father of Jesus in the original Gospel.

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?

and of course also in Mark this embarrassment causes the curious anomaly of having only Mary mentioned as mother of Jesus, and not also the too much embarrassing Joseph as father of Jesus.

This is the further evidence:

Note in first place the obsessive insistence of the use of αὐτοῦ, to mean that the author of the verse wanted to point out the fact that Jesus comes precisely from the his πατρις:

καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Οὐκ ἔστιν προφήτης ἄτιμος εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

(Mark 6:4)

The use of πατρίδι in verse 4 marks that author as the same author who used πατρίδα in the verse 1:

Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκεῖθεν, καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσιν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.

Without the interpolations, the original text reads so:

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.

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. And he went round about the villages, teaching

In this way the question «Is not this one of us?" is dubitative about Jesus being really «one of them». The goal of the interpolation is to make that question an affirmative question («he is merely one of us»).

But note that the name of Nazareth is not mentioned. The author knows it only from Mark 1:14. But the entire episode of Jesus being baptized by John is an interpolation. Hence the readers in the original text would be left without knowing which was the name of the πατρις of Jesus: this is impossible. Hence, also the verse Mark 6:1 and Mark 6:4 are very probably interpolations.

[Giuseppe]

Really, the only way to save Mark 6:1 as original:

Jesus left there and went to his πατρις, accompanied by his disciples.

...is to take for πατρις not an earthly town, but the true place of origin of Jesus: the heaven.

In other terms, Jesus ascended to heaven with the his disciples.

Hearing about this return of Jesus in the his πατρις, the Jews had suspected about what was really the true πατρις of Jesus: was he really from Judea? The his true relatives, were they really Jews?

Hence the (originally) dubitative question: «is not this one of us?»

[Giuseppe]

Since Marcion said that Jesus descended to Capernaum the first time from heaven, it is more expected that the wonder about Jesus being really «one of us» as opposed to an alien, was first the reaction of the people of Capernaum, not of Nazareth (since Jesus didn't descend the first time to Nazareth, per Marcion).

Hence, the Judaizers replaced Capernaum with Nazareth, and a skeptical/dubitative question about the Jewishness of Jesus, with an affirmative question about Jesus being really «one of them».

This explains why Luke replaced Capernaum with Nazareth, too.


Curious is the fact that Capernaum means "House of the Comforter". The comforter is by definition one who gives grace. But "John" means "YHWH-gives-grace". Hence a Jesus going to Capernaum is merely a Jesus going to the place where there is the giver of grace. The Judaizers eclipsed the fact that in the original gospel Jesus was the giver of grace (see John 1:17), by introducing John the Baptist in that role.