Jesus' home in Capernaum?

[rgprice]

Mark 2:1 A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2 They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them.

Many traditional commentaries on this passage indicate that this is talking about the home of Peter, not the home of Jesus. Is there something in the Greek that would make this more clear? A plain reading seems to indicate that Jesus is from Capernaum. Notably, nothing Mark says that Jesus is from Nazareth. Mark 1 says that he "came from Nazareth" but not that he was "from Nazareth", and then there are places in Mark where Jesus is referred to as "the Nazarene". Mark 6 says that he when to his hometown, but it never names the town.

So, does not Mark indicate that Jesus was from Capernaum as opposed to Nazareth?

[MrMacSon]

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/2.htm and https://biblehub.com/greek/oiko__3624.htm

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

So, does not Mark indicate that Jesus was from Capernaum as opposed to Nazareth?

Spin discussed this topic about seven years ago and Ben did an excellent job of supporting spin's argument with examples from the LXX. (However, Solo pointed out that house in GMark doesn't necessarily mean, or rather doesn't mean, a physical location in the sense of a personal residential building.)

[Peter Kirby]

So, does not Mark indicate that Jesus was from Capernaum as opposed to Nazareth?

Spin discussed this topic about seven years ago and Ben did an excellent job of supporting spin's argument with examples from the LXX. (However, Solo pointed out that house in GMark doesn't necessarily mean, or rather doesn't mean, a physical location in the sense of a personal residential building.)

Thank you for this!

spin was always amazingly well-informed, and you could see his keen interest in separating fact from fiction leaping out from every post. His frustration with other posts that didn't bring the same wit and candor can be sympathized with.

[Peter Kirby]

A couple good posts from spin in that thread:

Mark records an event that happens in the hometown of Jesus (6:1ff): Jesus comes to his hometown and on the sabbath he goes to the synagogue and begins to teach, from which everyone is amazed. This passage is later reworked by the Lucan writer who relates the hometown as Nazareth. There is however a parallel to Mark's hometown scene, starting at 1:21 which reports Jesus going to the synagogue to teach and everyone is amazed. However, instead of the report talking of the hometown of Jesus, it refers to the location as Capernaum. (Stephen Hultgren sets out the strong relationship between these texts in his Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition, DeGruyter 2001, 140.) These two sources were absorbed into the Marcan textual fabric apparently without recognition that these are the same story bones. The most significant outcome of the two versions is that Nazareth is nowhere in sight: the hometown is made to be Capernaum in 1:21 which is extreme odd in a context where the hometown of Jesus should be Nazareth. (In fact 2:1 tells us that Jesus had his home there.) The fact that a tradent used Capernaum for the hometown strongly suggests that Nazareth was not in the earliest Jesus tradition.

---

I put this back per request. I'm tired of posters who don't want to talk about the topic posting here from the get-go. Have fun.

Tradents are those who take a tradition and pass it on (somewhat like a person in a chain of Chinese whispers).

Do you think the writer who incorporated the two synagogue stories chose to call the setting of one "his home country" and the other "Capernaum"? A close reading of the two brief narratives shows that they are rather close in content, pointing to a single source, though they have enough different to indicate that they had lives of their own. They were whole brief stories when the Marcan writer decided to wedge another separate story of an unclean spirit (1:23-26) into 1:21-27, wedging or sandwiching as the writer frequently did. The second synagogue story had a different ending which talked about family and problems, which was part of the same pericope the writer used. We are looking at a redactor who cobbled stuff together rather than writing new stuff. So we have four chronological steps:

1. story develops (Jesus arrives, goes into a synagogue on the sabbath, preaches, people are astonished, ask what's going on where he got his power);
2. two versions are developed through telling, one defining the hometown location as Capernaum;
3. Marcan redactor collects the two;
4. incorporates them as though they were different stories

The significant issue for my purposes is that Nazareth has nothing to do with the process. It isn't in the pre-Marcan phase.

Of course one can try to put these developments onto the one scribe, but they won't make sense, so you'll have to find another way to explain the two different stories simply written by the same person.

We see a more sophisticated version of such proceedings with the French troubadours who presented versions of stories they received and passed on to others each as tradents to traditions such as the Arthurian cycle. And before them Geoffrey of Monmouth was a tradent.

[Peter Kirby]

You make good points too:

I am handicapped by my very poor knowledge of Greek and Mark's Greek in particular. My questions relate as much to "syntactical awkwardness" as they did to the word "grammatical". How much of the Gospel of Mark is syntactically infelicitous and can we draw similar conclusions about sources from every or many or some other instances of syntactical clumsiness?

From the little I know I would say that there are many legends about the writing style of the Evangelists. To me the greatest myth is the „elegant“ style of Luke.

I think overall there are no great differences. All Gospels were written in a simple Koine Greek. It does not mean poor or awkward, but simple. In the eyes of Ben's ancient „snobbish grammarians“ (who prefer Homer) all Gospels would be rated as „not so high“ literature and examined as a bit exotic writings with some interesting points. In comparison, Josephus would ranked clearly higher, even in his retellings of biblical stories in Antiquities (If I remember correct, he wrote in War that he had help from professional scribes).

The same applies to Mark's „awkward“ style. I think in 98-99 percent of Mark's text is nothing incorrect. The first impression you get from Mark could be an „inelastic“ style with frequent repetitions of same words and phrases. Perhaps the second thing is that Mark has some „quirks“, for example Mark's doublings:

Mark 1:32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased

Matthew and Luke shortened here
Matthew 8:16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils
Luke 4:40 Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him

Compare with:
Mark 1:35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place
Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

and
Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme
Mark 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered
Mark 10:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time
Mark 13:20 but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days
Mark 14:46 And they laid their hands on him, and took him.

At the end there are few sentences in the whole Gospel which look in fact completely unusual, maybe awkward. But often it may be a question of point of view. For example: some would think that the verse Mark 14:3 is a little masterpiece, others that it is awkward.

[rgprice]

Spin make a good point that I hadn't previously considered. And it may indeed point to the idea that Jesus did not come from heaven. Spin is saying that the intent of the narrative would have been to indicate that Jesus was a normal person who came from Capernaum and then received these "powers" upon his baptism, and then he returned his home and now people notice that he has all of these powers so they are surprised.

If that's the case then the purpose of the scene is to demonstrate that something about Jesus had changed as a result of the baptism. And of course it also requires that Jesus is from Capernaum, not Nazareth. One could then postulate that the opening of Mark may have read:

9 At that time Jesus came from Capernaum in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

[Peter Kirby]

Spin is saying that the intent of the narrative would have been to indicate that Jesus was a normal person who came from Capernaum and then received these "powers" upon his baptism, and then he returned his home and now people notice that he has all of these powers so they are surprised.

If that's the case then the purpose of the scene is to demonstrate that something about Jesus had changed as a result of the baptism.

Yes, this is also how I read Mark.

[rgprice]

Here is a nice map according to Mark : https://ourhomecommunity.wordpress.com/ ... fographic/

It makes so much more sense that Jesus hometown is Capernaum. Everything in the first part of the story takes place in and around Capernaum, and then he effectively leaves from Capernaum on his journey to Jerusalem. Nazareth is a complete oddball. Now the question is: Does the original story really mention the name of Jesus' family members? Luke and John testify against this, but that's not definitive.

[rgprice]

Thanks to Giuseppe for resurrecting this: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10974

Yes, this all makes much more sense. Instead of Jesus wandering around to random places and then briefly showing up at his home in "Nazareth", the whole first half of the story is actually based out of his home in Capernaum.

Matthew tells us explicitly that Jesus resettled from Nazareth to Capernaum.

Matthew 4:12 Now when Jesus heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee; 13 and leaving Nazareth, He came and settled in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali.

But as we've said, it appears that Matthew has this wrong, because Matthew tells us that Jesus left Nazareth after the baptism and then went to Capernaum. This is also what canonical Mark implies currently, but the story makes more sense if Jesus was already living in Capernaum, then got baptized, then returned home where people noticed that he had changed.

But is the passage in Mark 6 talking about Capernaum?

6:1 Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown; and His disciples followed Him. 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? 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 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.

If this is Capernaum, why are people astonished, as he had already been doing this type of stuff there for a while now?

Compare to Mark 2:

2:1 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 came, 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. 5 And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “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, said 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 said to the paralytic, 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.”

And in Mark 3 we read:

20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered 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 because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

Mark 2 & 3 indicate that Jesus and his family live in Capernaum. In Mark 6 it is implied that he is in the place where his family lives, though the wording could be interpreted differently. But if he had already been active in Capernaum for some time now, why would the people be surprised by his activities?

But in Mark 9 we read (NASB):

33 They came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house, He began to question them, “What were you discussing on the way?”

But here we have:

Καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ γενόμενος

In Mark 6 this is translated:

and in his own household. / καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ

So in Mark 9:33 are they in the house of Jesus or just some random house? He leaves from the house in Mark 9 here to go to Judea. It makes logical sense that he was leaving from his own house. Either the house in Mark 9 is a random house of an unknown person or it is the house of Jesus (from which it would make sense to stock up and get provisions before traveling to Jerusalem). If the place in Mark 2, 3 and 9 is "the house of Jesus", then it would seem to indicate that the place in Mark 6 is also the "house of Jesus", which would be in Capernaum.

So that Jesus is living in Capernaum seems to be beyond question. The issue is whether the place described in Mark 6 as his "hometown" is also Capernaum. The case seems quite strong that Mark 1:9, "Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee ", is a later modification to a narrative that did not originally indicate he came "from Nazareth". Without Mark 1:9 there would be no reason at all to think that the "hometown" of Jesus in Mark 6 would be any other place than Capernaum. Aside from Mark 1:9 there is nothing in the narrative to indicate that Jesus or his family was ever from any other place.