Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben C. Smith wrote:
On the other hand, I can imagine the name becoming so entrenched that people forget even to ask how it came about or what it means; I guess many people never bother to wonder why a famous baseball player was named Babe Ruth. But my impression is that Jesus the Nazarene was much less common for a long time than Jesus Christ or Jesus the Son of God.

TedM wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:
On the other hand, I can imagine the name becoming so entrenched that people forget even to ask how it came about or what it means; I guess many people never bother to wonder why a famous baseball player was named Babe Ruth. But my impression is that Jesus the Nazarene was much less common for a long time than Jesus Christ or Jesus the Son of God.

If Jesus was a human being my impression would be the opposite because it is a way ANYONE would describe either where he was from or what kind of person he was - so it would be more commonly used by non-believers when talking about him - surely THEY wouldn't call him Christ or the Son of God. Nazarene seems to be the early descriptor based on Mark and Acts. I didn't read much of this thread so if I'm out of line, just ignore.

Ben C. Smith wrote: If Nazarene did mean "from Nazareth/Nazara", then of course it would be natural to refer to Jesus as Jesus the Nazarene.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

TedM wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:
On the other hand, I can imagine the name becoming so entrenched that people forget even to ask how it came about or what it means; I guess many people never bother to wonder why a famous baseball player was named Babe Ruth. But my impression is that Jesus the Nazarene was much less common for a long time than Jesus Christ or Jesus the Son of God.

If Jesus was a human being my impression would be the opposite because it is a way ANYONE would describe either where he was from or what kind of person he was - so it would be more commonly used by non-believers when talking about him - surely THEY wouldn't call him Christ or the Son of God. Nazarene seems to be the early descriptor based on Mark and Acts. I didn't read much of this thread so if I'm out of line, just ignore.

My comment was predicated both on Nazarene not meaning "from Nazareth/Nazara" and on its real definition not being known to Mark's readership. If Nazarene did mean "from Nazareth/Nazara", then of course it would be natural to refer to Jesus as Jesus the Nazarene.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote: If Nazarene did mean "from Nazareth/Nazara", then of course it would be natural to refer to Jesus as Jesus the Nazarene.

On the other hand, how natural would it be to refer to someone by the name of a village that supposedly few had ever heard of?

Charles Guignebert pointed out that religious leaders are never labelled by their place of birth.

Ben C. Smith wrote:Okay, Marcan scholars, I am interested in interpretations of the hometown rejection in Mark 6.1-6a:

1 Jesus went out from there and come into His hometown; and His disciples follow 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 this not 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. 6a And He wondered at their unbelief.

The first paragraph above seems to be leading in a positive direction. The local boy has come back home a wise and accomplished worker of miracles. Even the listing of his family members does not seem negative in that context.

But then the tables turn, and people are offended with him. Why? What is the offense?

After the listing of relatives, Matthew 13.53-58 adds, "Where then did this man get all these things?" This seems like a not altogether successful attempt to spell out the source of the offense more clearly. Luke 4.16-30 is much more complete here, and gives ample reason for the townspeople to resent Jesus.

Make no mistake: I can think of reasons for the people to be offended at Jesus (jealousy, past rivalries, a sense that Jesus no longer knows his proper place), but without more of a hint from the author such thoughts are really only guesses.

Even more striking to my eye is the following contrast:

• Where did this man get... such miracles as these performed by His hands?
• And He could do no miracle there... and He wondered at their unbelief.

But they seem to very much believe that he can do miracles; that is a big part of their astonishment. What exactly do they not believe here?

Thoughts?

Ben.

andrewcriddle wrote:I wonder whether there may be a cultural issue ?

In our modern egalitarian dynamic society the idea of an ordinary bloke next door becoming someone special and important is a positive image.

In a traditional hierarchical static society this is much more anomalous and threatening.

The difference between Jesus' original status and his current claims would be much more problematic in ancient Galilee than in the modern west.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

andrewcriddle wrote:I wonder whether there may be a cultural issue ?

In our modern egalitarian dynamic society the idea of an ordinary bloke next door becoming someone special and important is a positive image.

In a traditional hierarchical static society this is much more anomalous and threatening.

The difference between Jesus' original status and his current claims would be much more problematic in ancient Galilee than in the modern west.

Where would the unbelief come into play, especially given the way Mark writes about belief and miracles elsewhere?

andrewcriddle wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

andrewcriddle wrote:I wonder whether there may be a cultural issue ?

In our modern egalitarian dynamic society the idea of an ordinary bloke next door becoming someone special and important is a positive image.

In a traditional hierarchical static society this is much more anomalous and threatening.

The difference between Jesus' original status and his current claims would be much more problematic in ancient Galilee than in the modern west.

Where would the unbelief come into play, especially given the way Mark writes about belief and miracles elsewhere?

Their previous acquaintance with Jesus (presumably involving knowing him as a young child) prevents them taking seriously his current claims. People who have never met Jesus before his arrival as preacher and healer do not have this problem.

outhouse wrote:

outhouse wrote:

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.

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.