Why was Jesus rejected in his hometown?

[Ulan]

It is the only time the town name is used at all in Mark, I believe.

The term Nazarene is used in Mark 1.24; 14.67; 16.6.

It's a single word, and scribes seemed to have problems with "Nazarene" or "Nazaraios". The earliest textual witnesses are Sinaiticus/Vaticanus. With a single word, you never know where it comes from. It may just have been a harmonizing addition by a scribe.

[Ben C. Smith]

That is not how I read "faith/belief" elsewhere in Mark, at least not in conjunction with miracles:

Mark 2.4-5: 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 says to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
Mark 5.30-34: 30 Immediately Jesus, perceiving in Himself that the power proceeding from Him had gone forth, turned around in the crowd and said, “Who touched My garments?” 31 And His disciples said to Him, “You see the crowd pressing in on You, and You say, ‘Who touched Me?’” 32 And He looked around to see the woman who had done this. 33 But the woman fearing and trembling, aware of what had happened to her, came and fell down before Him and told Him the whole truth. 34 And He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your affliction.”
Mark 10.50-52: 50 Throwing aside his cloak, he jumped up and came to Jesus. 51 And answering him, Jesus said, “What do you want Me to do for you?” And the blind man said to Him, “Rabboni, I want to regain my sight!” 52 And Jesus said to him, “Go; your faith has made you well.” Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him on the road.

In other contexts, he is able to work miracles even while surrounded by disbelief or hostility (Mark 3.5; 4.39-40).

But here? Here the townspeople believe he can do miracles; their astonishment is at how he does them; they do not express doubt that he does them. The start of the pericope looks like another Marcan story of faith leading to healing. And yet, without warning, the pericope turns, and we find Jesus marveling at their disbelief.

Your guess, Kunigunde, at what this disbelief consists of is a good one, maybe even a great one. But I think it is still a guess.

In the parts of John that you quoted, the disbelief is patently obvious. They disbelieve Jesus' unlikely words ("the bread that came down from heaven"). No issue there.

But here, in Mark, the disbelief is specifically mentioned as the reason for Jesus not being able to do (many) miracles; that seems to tie it in to those other Marcan pericopes in which faith is the basis for miracles, but it does not fit in that context very well.

I agree that we find verses which seem to express a different idea, but basically the concept seems to me as follows.

Mark 11:23-24

Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it (ἐλάβετε – active – you have taken it), and it will be yours.

first - believe that you have received it/will receive it
second - then it will happen

Mark 5:27-29 - the prototype: the bleeding woman

She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well (σωθήσομαι - saved).” 29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.

Mark 5:36 - Jairus, the successor of the woman

But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.”

Mark 6 – the unbelief

1 He went away from there and came to his hometown
2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? ...“
5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.

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.

[Ben C. Smith]

It is the only time the town name is used at all in Mark, I believe.

The term Nazarene is used in Mark 1.24; 14.67; 16.6.

It's a single word, and scribes seemed to have problems with "Nazarene" or "Nazaraios". The earliest textual witnesses are Sinaiticus/Vaticanus. With a single word, you never know where it comes from. It may just have been a harmonizing addition by a scribe.

Right: "you never know." Hence my assertion that Mark 1.9 becomes confusing.

If a scribe added it, then it may be harmonizing, or it may also be an anti-Marcionite attempt to ground Jesus with a place of origin.

[Ulan]

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.

I can imagine that the sentence "and he could do no mighty work there" was a bit upsetting.

[Ulan]

... or it may also be an anti-Marcionite attempt to ground Jesus with a place of origin.

That's always a given. It's remarkable that much of the anti-Marcionite stance in the early texts often just hinges on very few, select words.

[Secret Alias]

The name of the Canaanite woman:

There is amongst us one Justa, a Syro-Phoenician, by race a Canaanite, whose daughter was oppressed with a grievous disease. And she came to our Lord, crying out, and entreating that He would heal her daughter. But He, being asked also by us, said, It is not lawful to heal the Gentiles, who are like to dogs on account of their using various meats and practices, while the table in the kingdom has been given to the sons of Israel.' But she, hearing this, and begging to partake like a dog of the crumbs that fall from this table, having changed what she was, by living like the sons of the kingdom, she obtained healing for her daughter, as she asked. For she being a Gentile, and remaining in the same course of life, He would not have healed had she remained a Gentile, on account of its not being lawful to heal her as a Gentile.

She, therefore, having taken up a manner of life according to the law, was, with the daughter who had been healed, driven out from her home by her husband, whose sentiments were opposed to ours. But she, being faithful to her engagements, and being in affluent circumstances, remained a widow herself, but gave her daughter in marriage to a certain man who was attached to the true faith, and who was poor. And, abstaining from marriage for the sake of her daughter, she bought two boys and educated them, and had them in place of sons. And they being educated from their boyhood with Simon Magus, have learned all things concerning him. For such was their friendship, that they were associated with him in all things in which he wished to unite with them

In Recognitions we receive the additional information that the daughter's name was Berenice and the circumstances of the adoption of the two boys:

After the wreck of the ship on which their mother had taken them they were brought by pirates to Caesarea Stratonitis on the Mediterranean coast of Judea. The pirates starved and beat them, changed their names and offered them in the slave market. Niceta reports, "They sold us to a certain widow, a very honourable woman named Justa. She having bought us treated us as sons, so that she carefully educated us in Greek literature and liberal arts. And when we grew up, we also attended to philosophic studies, that we might be able to confute the Gentiles, by supporting the doctrines of the divine religion by philosophic disputations. But we adhered, for friendship's sake, and boyish companionship, to one Simon, a magician, who was educated along with us, so that we were almost deceived by him.

That 'Clement' himself was related to Justa seems to be certain owing to the parallels with the Matthidia story which frames the entire narrative. https://books.google.com/books?id=M6LoB ... ia&f=false

In the ur-narrative a shipwreck leads to a mother in search of her children, one of whom is the narrator of the story.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

I can imagine that the sentence "and he could do no mighty work there" was a bit upsetting.

No doubt why Matthew changes it and Luke omits it. But Marcan Christology seems rather different than Matthean and Lucan Christology; such limitations do not seem to bother Mark so much (compare the indifference to making certain that Jesus was not going to get baptized for his sins in Mark 1.5, 9).

[Ben C. Smith]

... or it may also be an anti-Marcionite attempt to ground Jesus with a place of origin.

That's always a given. It's remarkable that much of the anti-Marcionite stance in the early texts often just hinges on very few, select words.

It still happens today: conservative versions of the Bible include textually dubious verses and maintain linguistically dubious translations; this protects the average churchgoer from having constantly to think through the implications, say, of finding 'young woman" in Isaiah 7.14 where one might have expected "virgin". What in our time comes across as selecting from an array of textual or translational possibilities may well in future centuries look more like making small changes to the original text.

[Ulan]

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.

I can imagine that the sentence "and he could do no mighty work there" was a bit upsetting.

No doubt why Matthew changes it and Luke omits it. But Marcan Christology seems rather different than Matthean and Lucan Christology; such limitations do not seem to bother Mark so much (compare the indifference to making certain that Jesus was not going to get baptized for his sins in Mark 1.5, 9).

That seems to be clear to me. It goes with my understanding that "Jesus" the human is just the vessel for God's visit to the temple in Mark. A vessel that has to be purified before use. This here maybe points to an understanding that a God's power is derived from belief.

However, in my last answer I supposed that scribes or editors may have been upset by the sentence in question. Instead of striking the sentence, they just added something to lessen the impact.

[Ben C. Smith]

However, in my last answer I supposed that scribes or editors may have been upset by the sentence in question. Instead of striking the sentence, they just added something to lessen the impact.

Oh, I see. I did not see the thrust of your statement. Yes, that would make some sense too. The few miracles would be a scribal patch to protect against total failure on Jesus' part.