RUmike

After reading Michael Turton's (Vorkosigan) historical commentary, and reading his posts on this forum, it is clear that his opinion of Mark 1:9 is an interpolation, and that Jesus' home, according to Mark, is really Capernaum. However, I just recently came across a post on an old Yahoo discussion group where this exact argument appears to be addressed, and in my opinion, thoroughly refuted. I was wondering your opinion on it, Michael, or anyone else who holds his same opinion.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk/message/2587

Particularly, Michael never seemed to address the GSigns stratum, or Mark's own account of Jesus' rejection in his "hometown", the latter being the nail in the coffin that demonstrates conclusively that Mark did not view Capernaum as Jesus' hometown.

Vorkosigan

(1) There is no evidence that GSigns predates Mark. Smith's argument:

• The identification of Nazareth as Jesus' town of origin is taken for
  granted in the intro to the Signs Gospel stratum of GJohn (1:45-46). The
  independence of this verse from any synoptic source is shown by the fact
  that it is the only verse in the NT in which Jesus is correctly
  identified according to Palestinian Semitic patronymic convention:

...it is nice that this is independent of the Synoptics, but even if true, that does not make it early. Indeed, one could just as well argue that the fact that it knows Nazareth is evidence that it is a late tradition. Unless you have a way of showing that this predates Mark, this bit is not decisive. It could easily be read as evidence for my view.

• 3. As for GMark, I beg to differ with Ian's claim that "from the text
  one can glean that Capernaum appears to be Jesus's home" if by that he
  means that Mark infers that Capernaum is Jesus' native place (*patris*).
  Mark insists that Jesus can do no *dunamis* in his "fatherland" because
  his hometown neighbors know both him & his blood kin too well to believe
  in him (6:1-4). This leads Jesus to wryly quip that the *only* place a
  prophet gets no respect is in his own homeland (*patris*) & household
  (*oikia*).
  
  In Capernaum, on the other hand, Mark insists that Jesus performed many
  cures including some that left people totally amazed. Moreover, Mark
  never associates any member of Jesus' family with Capernaum. On the
  contrary, after leaving the "synagogue" at Capernaum (where he has just
  amazed everybody) Jesus enters the "household (*oikia*) of Simon &
  Andrew" where he precedes to perform another cure that gives him such a
  reputation for healing powers that "the whole city gathered before the
  door" (Mark 1:33) bringing people with all kinds of illnesses. After a
  brief prayer retreat in the wilderness J returns to Capernaum where
  again so many people gather before the door that the family of a
  paralytic goes to extraordinary measures to get near him & this results
  in a cure that leaves everybody ecstatic, amazed & glorifying God (Mark
  2:12).

This is an interesting argument. (1) Unfortunately, the writer of Mark does not associate any of Jesus' family with Nazareth either. A null argument either way. (2) For in fact the scene in Mark 6 implies that Jesus DOES have a rep for doing mighty works, which the locals poke fun at (6:2-3). Smith's argument about crowds is interesting until of course one recalls the crowd that avers Jesus is the Messiah one day and then demands he get whacked the next. In Mark the writer uses crowds as plot devices -- he is not recording history but inventing a narrative. Smith's underlying assumption is that this is history. That is the basic problem here. The writer of Mark is trying to be interesting, not consistent. If Mark 6 is really about Nazareth, then where is the synagogue mentioned there? It never existed....all of this is fictional, and exists only to serve the author's narrative goals.

Vorkosigan

RUmike

It's my understanding that many if not most scholars think GSigns predates 70.

Although you reject everything as fictional, we can still try to figure out what Mark believed, or at least was trying to show, regardless of whether it was historical or not. And the idea that Capernaum was Jesus' home is thoroughly refuted by the fact that Mark has Jesus being received extremely well in Capernaum earlier, yet says that "A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household." Clearly, Mark could not have thought the two (hometown and Capernaum) to be the same place.

Amaleq13

Peter Kirby gives a range from 50-90 at Early Christian Writings.

"On the dating of the Signs Gospel, there is little to go on. The reference to the Pool of Bethesda as still standing in 5:2, even though it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, suggests a dating before the year 70 CE or not too long afterwards. The latest possible date is set by its incorporation into the Gospel of John."

I think you have to admit that is a rather tenuous basis for dating the entire text since it could only indicate that the author had personal knowledge of the existence of the pool.

I'm not sure of the impact on the argument but, according to Young's Literal Translation, that isn't what Mark wrote:

"And he went forth thence, and came to his own country, and his disciples do follow him,"(6:1, emphasis added)

"And Jesus said to them -- `A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his kindred, and in his own house;'"(6:4, emphasis added)

Vorkosigan

Amaleq has already dealt with this.

We cannot know what the writer of Mark believed precisely because everything is fictional. The contradictions prove nothing -- why did the scribes and chief priests express fear of arresting Jesus on a festival due to the tumult it would cause, and then go ahead and arrest him in a festival? Why does the writer have the disciples not know who Jesus is despite the fact that demons were shouting it all over Galilee? etc. Contradictions do not express anything except the author's desire to tell a good story.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Yet we find Q (or Mt&Lk if you don't accept Q) depicting Jesus cursing Capernaum for its lack of faith:

"`And thou, Capernaum, which unto the heaven wast exalted, unto hades thou shalt be brought down."(Lk 10:15, YLT)

"`And thou, Capernaum, which unto the heaven wast exalted, unto hades shalt be brought down, because if in Sodom had been done the mighty works that were done in thee, it had remained unto this day;"(Mt11:23, YLT)

andrewcriddle

The word is PATRIS which very literally should be rendered 'father-land'. However it could in late Greek be used as the equivalent of 'home-town'.

It does seem that Mark is distinguishing between Jesus' home OIKOS at Capernaum, the place where he was living, (see Mark 2:1 and 3:20) where his relatives have to come visit (see Mark 3:21 and 3:31); and his home town PATRIS where his relatives are living. (see Mark 6:3).

Andrew Criddle