09.02.2013 Views

Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

§9.9 The Historical Context<br />

references to <strong>the</strong> 'tassels' of his garment suggest that he himself was a pious Jew<br />

who took his religious obligations seriously. 301 Almost certa<strong>in</strong>ly he would have<br />

encountered Pharisees and been familiar with <strong>the</strong>ir concerns to <strong>in</strong>terpret <strong>the</strong> Torah<br />

for <strong>the</strong>ir own time. He probably at least knew of Essenes and would hardly be<br />

unaware of <strong>the</strong> history of tensions with <strong>the</strong> Samaritans.<br />

d. Centre at Capernaum<br />

That <strong>Jesus</strong> made Capernaum <strong>the</strong> hub of his mission is also clearly <strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> records. He 'left Nazareth and made his home <strong>in</strong> Capernaum' (Matt. 4.13); he<br />

was 'at home' (en oikö) <strong>in</strong> Capernaum; 302 it was 'his own town' (Matt. 9.1); 'he<br />

used to teach' <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> synagogue <strong>the</strong>re (Mark 1.21/Luke 4.31). 303 The fact that <strong>the</strong><br />

Q material conta<strong>in</strong>s fierce denunciations of Capernaum (Matt. 11.23/Luke<br />

10.15), Choraz<strong>in</strong>, and Bethsaida (Matt. 11.21/Luke 10.13) is also relevant. It<br />

must mean that <strong>Jesus</strong> had concentrated his preach<strong>in</strong>g efforts <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se towns and<br />

had been rebuffed <strong>in</strong> greater or less measure. 304 Choraz<strong>in</strong> and Bethsaida are <strong>the</strong><br />

two towns closest to Capernaum. 305<br />

which may also have characterized <strong>Jesus</strong> as an observant Galilean Jew, would have been taken<br />

for granted and so not mentioned because everybody knows that' (Keck, Who Is <strong>Jesus</strong>? 31).<br />

301. Matt. 9.20/Luke 8.44; Mark 6.56/Matt. 14.36, with reference to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>structions of<br />

Num. 15.38-39 and Deut. 22.12 (note also Zech. 8.23).<br />

302. Mark 2.1; 3.20; 9.33; Matt. 13.1, 36. If Mark 2.15 existed as a tradition separate<br />

from 2.13-14, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> 'house' mentioned <strong>the</strong>re could conceivably have been <strong>Jesus</strong>' own<br />

(Jeremias, Parables 227 n. 92; cf. Taylor, Mark 204). But if <strong>the</strong> archaeological evidence regard<strong>in</strong>g<br />

'Peter's house' <strong>in</strong> first-century Capernaum is anyth<strong>in</strong>g to go by (see, e.g., Charlesworth, <strong>Jesus</strong><br />

109-15; Murphy-O'Connor, Holy Land 218-19), one can certa<strong>in</strong>ly envisage <strong>the</strong> episode <strong>in</strong><br />

Mark 2.2-12 tak<strong>in</strong>g place <strong>the</strong>re, but hardly <strong>the</strong> host<strong>in</strong>g of a large meal.<br />

303. See also Matt. 8.5/Luke 7.I/John 4.46; Matt. 17.24; Luke 4.23; John 2.12; 6.17, 24,<br />

59. Crossan and Reed, Excavat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Jesus</strong> 94-96, tendentiously dispute <strong>the</strong> data marshalled<br />

above on <strong>the</strong> basis of Mark 1.38 ('I came out [of Capernaum]') to support <strong>the</strong> alternative reconstruction<br />

of <strong>Jesus</strong>' mission as constantly it<strong>in</strong>erant ('this covenantal k<strong>in</strong>gdom could not have a<br />

dom<strong>in</strong>ant place to which all must come, but only a mov<strong>in</strong>g center that went out alike to all').<br />

304. Studies of Q deduce, with good form-critical logic, that <strong>the</strong> Q people must <strong>the</strong>mselves<br />

have experienced rejection by <strong>the</strong>se three Galilean towns (cf., e.g., Kloppenborg Verb<strong>in</strong>,<br />

Excavat<strong>in</strong>g Q 147-48, 171-74, 256). But even if <strong>the</strong> passages are designated as Q 2 , it rema<strong>in</strong>s<br />

<strong>the</strong> case that <strong>the</strong>y recall <strong>Jesus</strong> as mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> denunciations. No activity of <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>in</strong> Choraz<strong>in</strong> is<br />

reported <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> tradition; but visits to Bethsaida are (Mark 8.22; Luke 9.10).<br />

305. Choraz<strong>in</strong> was 'up <strong>the</strong> hill' beh<strong>in</strong>d Capernaum, some 3 or 4 km distant, and<br />

Bethsaida was about 13 km from Capernaum. Though technically <strong>in</strong> Herod Philip's territory<br />

(across <strong>the</strong> Jordan), Bethsaida was oriented to <strong>the</strong> towns and villages round <strong>the</strong> north and west<br />

of <strong>the</strong> lake (both Pl<strong>in</strong>y, Nat.Hist. 5.21, and John 12.21 locate it <strong>in</strong> Galilee); see fur<strong>the</strong>r J. F.<br />

Strange, 'Bethsaida', ABD 1.692-93. It is relevant that Peter and Andrew appear to have left<br />

317

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!