Ben C. Smith wrote:So, if the usual concept is that having faith leads to being healed, why the contrast between the "many" who know that Jesus can work wonders in Mark 6.2 and the "few" who are actually healed in 6.5? Mark is still leaving something out here, I think.
This is understandable and I can not answer conclusively the question.
But let's have a look how Matthew react to Mark.
I think that it is highly likely that Mark has created a triple and not just a sandwich
So: not a Marcan sandwich, but rather a Marcan club sandwich?
belief of the bleeding woman – belief of Jairus – unbelief in the hometown
and that the hometown story should be read in relation to the two preceding stories. I think the opening phrase of Mark 6:1 is an indication for this:
He went away from there
Are not those kinds of link-back connections fairly common in Mark? Mark 1.29: "after they came out of the synagogue"; 2.1: "when he had come back to Capernaum"; 3.20: "and he comes home, and the crowd gathers again"; et cetera.
And now a simple question: Why not trust Matthew? We may not understand everything. But we can see that Matthew worked carefully. When he thought that this repetition is sufficient why should we not trust him.
Sorry, but trust Matthew for what, exactly? I am missing something.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:But Matthew's significant change of the story is that he repeated one phrase
No, but do you know why he made the change is the question. You did not mention it.
Matthew is taking the embarrassing word tekton in its usage in Mark, and he is downplaying the fact as it looks to be embarrassing to that author/s
He is making Joseph the tekton and removing the previous title of Jesus being a tekton that he used as a source.
Yes, but all that has nothing to do with the "why" of the rejection.
Because tekton in this context were displaced renters often evicted off their farms for not making lease payments often being sold into slavery when bad crops had taken place.
It meant hand workers doing odd jobs which makes sense as Nazareth would have been a satellite village for the rebuilding of Sepphoris which would have been for the most part finished by the late 20's leaving sort of a work camp now tending to agrarian needs Sepphoris so desperately needed.
Tekton tends to be very low on the totem pole so to speak, meaning one who lives life below the typical peasant, one wrung above that was a Galilean fisherman.
Ulan wrote:Is that question supposed to mean anything? The evidence in gMark points against "Nazarene" referring to a place, because of the way the word is used.
Can you expand on this ("because of the way the word is used")?
The most peculiar use is here (1:24): "Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God."
Nazarenos is used like a word of power here. A small village that nobody knows around that time does not exactly qualify as a word of power.
Okay, thanks.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
As for the topic question, it doesn't matter one bit, as gMark doesn't identify what town is referred to in 6.1. It's obviously a larger town, as it's contrasted with villages.
Interestingly, the parallel passages in John 6 are placed in Capernaum.
Chapter 3 of gMark also identifies Capernaum as Jesus hometown.
Ulan wrote:The most peculiar use is here (1:24): "Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God."
Nazarenos is used like a word of power here. A small village that nobody knows around that time does not exactly qualify as a word of power.
Okay, thanks.
I take it you see this as weak. OK, maybe I should shelve that particular point.
Ulan wrote:The most peculiar use is here (1:24): "Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God."
Nazarenos is used like a word of power here. A small village that nobody knows around that time does not exactly qualify as a word of power.
Okay, thanks.
I take it you see this as weak. OK, maybe I should shelve that particular point.
Well, yes and no. Mainly I am just thinking about it still. There definitely comes a time when the meanings of Nazareth and Nazoraean become intertwined in the Christian imagination, and I could pretty easily see a Christian viewing the term both as a demonym telling us that Jesus hails from Nazareth and as a fulfillment of prophecies about branches and sprouts. And, in that capacity, "Jesus the Nazarene" could be seen as a composite name of considerable power.
Secret Alias wrote:So I provided some unusual nonsense.
You're saying that I translated your Deutsch correctly, but you've now removed your German statement? I can't un-translate it back for us, because my computer can't type umlauts, Something like, "nicht das uebliche Unsinn", wahr?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
The truth is that the less you use a language the worse you get at it. I can't believe that in university I debated with a Francophone in French for the office of President of the college during an election (before I met my wife) for like half of an hour (the other half was done in English). Crazy stuff. She didn't vote for me.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias wrote:The truth is that the less you use a language the worse you get at it.
Oh, the meanings are fine. I was confused by Adam's translation, as the context of his translation suggested something else.
Anyway, I read your further comments in the thread. Some of those points you had already made earlier, but it's interesting to have the thoughts in such a concise form. In this regard, this thread is a success.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Well, yes and no. Mainly I am just thinking about it still. There definitely comes a time when the meanings of Nazareth and Nazoraean become intertwined in the Christian imagination, and I could pretty easily see a Christian viewing the term both as a demonym telling us that Jesus hails from Nazareth and as a fulfillment of prophecies about branches and sprouts. And, in that capacity, "Jesus the Nazarene" could be seen as a composite name of considerable power.
That is also a possibility. However, I have a principal reservation about the point that Nazareth could play any role in gMark. There is no function assigned to the place in the whole gospel.
