Jesus' home in Capernaum?

[RandyHelzerman]

Tertullian inadvertently argues for Jesus being a Caphernum homeboy.

He balks at Jesus--who had just beamed down to Capharnum--being able to just walk into the Synagogue there and start teaching--even before any miracles have been performed. Why would the synagogue let him do this? Tertullian points out that, at the very least, the good parishioners would have know that Jesus was circumcised. But even beyond that, to be able to get up and teach he SURELY must have had some prior cred.

It sure would make more sense if Capharnum was his hometown.

SIDE NOTE: another example of Tertullian's amazing text-critical skills. He knows that the text has been altered here *somehow* because the story as it stands doesn't make any sense. He must have been a *killer* lawyer.

[spin]

Notwithstanding Tertullian's amazing text-critical skills, writing circa 200CE renders him worthless for any historical analysis of texts that had reached their final forms.

And compare Mk 6:1-2 and Mk 1:21-22, 27. They are fundamentally the same story. Which was earlier, the "hometown" version or the "Capernaum" version?

[RandyHelzerman]

compare Mk 6:1-2 and Mk 1:21-22, 27. They are fundamentally the same story. Which was earlier, the "hometown" version or the "Capernaum" version?

I tend to agree with this random person on the internet who wrote:

These two sources were absorbed into the Marcan textual fabric apparently without recognition that these are the same story bones

Put together with Kunigunde Kreuzerin's observation that Mark is quite redundant and repeats himself, and I learned something new about Mark today. I mean, I always wondered why he had 2 stories about feeding the multitudes, but never even noticed, let alone connected, his more pervasive tendency to double things. And here we have another doubling! Gunna be thinking about that for a while..

Amazing how no matter how many times you read Mark, and no matter how many decades you study it, there's always still more to learn about it.

Notwithstanding Tertullian's amazing text-critical skills, writing circa 200CE renders him worthless for any historical analysis of texts that had reached their final forms.

Worthless for *any* historical analysis of the text? IMHO that's......hyperbolic; Tertullian is the earliest witness we have for Luke, which makes him the earliest witness we have for Mark. And whether or not Marcion cut down Luke, or Luke cribbed from Marcion, there's some textual evolution there as well---both Luke *and* the Evangelion are witnesses to the text of Mark, and perhaps even witnesses to two very early, but different stages in the composition of Mark.

As such, they may very well have something to say about the historical evolution of the text of Mark. For example, Marcion doesn't have the secrecy motif, or the baptism by John---does this mean that they were tacked on after Marcion wrote his gospel, but before Luke wrote his?

As I said in the last post, I'm swimming lost in these considerations and any help would be appreciated.

[Peter Kirby]

I tend to agree with this random person on the internet

Pseudonymous but spin's been around for some 20 or so years and has brought forward some good stuff in that time.

[Secret Alias]

spin is my Ben C Smith. They all weep for Ben like he's the dying Adonis.

[RandyHelzerman]

Has anybody ever seen spin and Clark Kent in the same room?

Sure gave me something cool to think about, and it’s always nice to find something new in a mundane world.

[Peter Kirby]

Surely spin will dine with Ben C. Smith in elysium together with Kunigunde, Ken, Andrew, and all the saints.

Or something like that.

[spin]

spin is my Ben C Smith. They all weep for Ben like he's the dying Adonis.

Hey, what's this story about Ben C?

[StephenGoranson]

A simple possibility is that Jesus was known in Nazareth and Capernaum at different times.

[Secret Alias]

Spin

They all make Ben C Smith into a martyr because of his departure from the forum. You were always number 1 to me.