JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1
1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.
Now let's take a look at early Patristic commentary (or lack of) regarding the offending verse:
From another of The Young Wolf's great sights:
e-Catena Mark
Mark 1:9 - NIV, NAB - in Pseudo-Tertullian Against All Heresies
came down on Jesus;[66]
This has no reference to "Nazareth of Galilee".
The parallel verse in "Matthew":
3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
e-catena Matthew
Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments = Mainly "Matthew" baptism story with no unique quote of "Mark" and no mention of Nazareth.
The parallel verse in "Luke":
3:21 Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
e-catena Luke
No mentions of Nazareth of Galilee
The parallel verse in "John":
1:29 On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!
e-catena John
Obsession with "the lamb of god". No mentions of Nazareth of Galilee.
For a supposed connection (Jesus the Nazarene because he was from Nazareth) that you would think the Patristics would be interested in, if not fascinated by, no early Patristic comments. Possible reasons this Thread has developed:
- 1) This supposed connection did not exist in the originals so early Patristics were either unaware of it or recognized it as probable addition.
2) It was original but early Patristics had some problem with it (like Jesus being from or coming from Nazareth of Galilee to The Baptism).
The brave and truthful early Patrician Origen, probably the outstanding scholar of The Church, supports 2):
Origen. Commentary on John Book X
2. THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN JOHN AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AT THIS PART OF THE NARRATIVE, LITERALLY READ, THE NARRATIVES CANNOT BE HARMONIZED: THEY MUST BE INTERPRETED SPIRITUALLY.
The truth of these matters must lie in that which is seen by the mind. If the discrepancy between the Gospels is not solved, we must give up our trust in the Gospels, as being true and written by a divine spirit, or as records worthy of credence, for both these characters are held to belong to these works. Those who accept the four Gospels, and who do not consider that their apparent discrepancy is to be solved anagogically (by mystical interpretation), will have to clear up the difficulty, raised above, about the forty days of the temptation, a period for which no room can be found in any way in John's narrative; and they will also have to tell us when it was that the Lord came to Capernaum. If it was after the six days of the period of His baptism, the sixth being that of the marriage at Cans of Galilee, then it is clear that the temptation never took place, and that He never was at Nazara, and that John was not yet delivered up. Now, after Capernaum, where He abode not many days, the passover of the Jews was at hand, and He went up to Jerusalem, where He cast the sheep and oxen out of the temple, and poured out the small change of the bankers. In Jerusalem, too, it appears that Nicodemus, the ruler and Pharisee, first came to Him by night, and heard what we may read in the Gospel. "After these things, Jesus came, and His disciples, into the land of Judaea, and there He tarried with them and baptized, at the same time at which John also was baptizing in AEnon near Salim, because there were many waters there, and they came and were baptized; for John was not yet cast into prison." On this occasion, too, there was a questioning on the part of John's disciples with the Jews about purification, and they came to John, saying of the Saviour. "Behold, He baptizeth, and all come to Him." They had heard words from the Baptist, the exact tenor of which it is better to take from Scripture itself. Now, if we ask when Christ was first in Capernaum, our respondents, if they follow the words of Matthew, and of the other two, will say, After the temptation, when, "leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea." But how can they show both the statements to be true, that of Matthew and Mark, that it was because He heard that John was delivered up that He departed into Galilee, and that of John, found there, after a number of other transactions, subsequent to His stay at Capernaum, after His going to Jerusalem, and His journey from there to Judaea, that John was not yet cast into prison, but was baptizing in AEnon near Salim? There are many other points on which the careful student of the Gospels will find that their narratives do not agree; and these we shall place before the reader, according to our power, as they occur. The student, staggered at the consideration of these things, will either renounce the attempt to find all the Gospels true, and not venturing to conclude that all our information about our Lord is untrustworthy, will choose at random one of them to be his guide; or he will accept the four, and will consider that their truth is not to be sought for in the outward and material letter.
JW:
Origen correctly points out that there is no room in "John's" version for Jesus to return to Nazareth after The Baptism. And if Jesus is returning to Nazareth per the Synoptics after The Baptism, than he came to The Baptism from Nazareth.
This may explain the lack of Patristic reference to Jesus coming to The Baptism from Nazareth as well as the early Patristic references to Nazareth being in Judea.
I also note with interest that Sinaiticus, probably the most authoritative manuscript, has Nazareth as a city of Judea in Luke 1:26.
Joseph
ErrancyWiki
