Mark 6.16 Text, Translation, and Notes James D. Dvorak Oklahoma Christian University A.

Text and Translation

1

, . 2 , , , ; 3 , ; ; . 4 . 5 , . 6 . .

Then he went out from there and he came to his hometown,a and his disciples followed him. 2 And when the Sabbath came,b he began to teach in the synagogue, and upon hearing [him], many were greatly astoundedc saying, Where did this man get these things? and What [of] this wisdom which has been given to this man, and What of such miracles as these being done through his hands? 3 This is the builder,d the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, isnt it? And his sisters are here with us, arent they?e And they were offended by him.f 4 And Jesus said to them, A prophet is not without honorg except in his hometown and among his kinfolk and in his house[hold].h 5 And he was not able to do a miracle there, except to lay his hands upon a few sick people and heal them.i 6 And he was amazed because of their unbelief. And he traveled around among the villages teaching.j

B. Notes a. b. c. Grk. = Accusative Feminine Singular from , ones place of birth/childhood Genitive absolute provides temporal setting/background information (see Lois Dow article). (Impf Ind Passive 3rd Pl from ) = greatly astounded (attitudinal/emotive process foregrounded by Imperfective Aspect); the peoples emotional reaction of shock/surprise/amazement/confusion toward Jesus teaching not just what he taught, but also that and how he taughtreflects the social dissonance created in that moment. The status that Jesus is claiming by means of his actions and words, and the role he has begun to play as teacher, prophet and miracle worker is dissonant with the status ascribed to him at birth (deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, 162). Note the following with regard to appraisal:

(1) (2)

Lexicalized GRADUATION: FORCE (not just confused or even astounded, but greatly astounded). Negative AFFECT: SECURITY (surprise/confusion). Initially, this lexicalization is ambiguous (if not vague); however, the negativity becomes clearer as the text unfolds. The people react with surprise/confusion because Jesus (presumably authoritative [cf. Mark 1.22, 27]) teaching does not line up with the social location in which the hearers had placed Jesus (see deSilva quote above).

d.

On , listen to Mark Goodacres podcast. The basic idea of the term is probably more general than carpenter; something like someone who works with his hands is probably better. Notice how this is juxtaposed with miracles done through his hands in v. 2 (see below under note i for more on hands). The hearers take up the role of court of public opinion in this text, as indicated by the questions they ask (or, at least, that the narrator has them ask). The questions reflect the dualistic nature of their reasoning (think on the one hand . . . but on the other hand . . .):
on the one hand Where did these things [i.e. Jesus teachings] come from? [token +ve
JUDGMENT: NORMALITY]

e.

on the other hand Isnt this the [token ve

JUDGMENT: NORMALITY]

What of the wisdom which has been given to him? [token +ve JUDGMENT:
NORMALITY]

the son of Mary and the brother of [token ve JUDGMENT: NORMALITY]

Arent his sisters here with us? [token ve

JUDGMENT: NORMALITY]

[What of] the miracles such as these [cf. prior co-text] coming about through his hands? [token +ve JUDGMENT: NORMALITY]

f.

(Impf Ind Pass 3rd Pl from ). The action is foregrounded by Imperfective Aspect. The narrator voices the negative appraisal of the hearers [-ve JUDGMENT: PROPRIETY]. They conclude that Jesus is acting with improprietythat he is acting out of placeand is, thus, socially speaking, a deviant (though no explicit social name calling/labeling appears in the text). His behavior does not align with the social status ascribed to him at birth; nor are the hearers willing to ascribe higher honor status by accepting Jesus in the role he has adopted for himself. Mark gives neither details nor hints regarding what the hearers did, if anything, to correct what they perceived to be improper behavior. The reader, 2

taking into account the culture of the time, can only assume they spoke or acted out some kind of response, particularly after Jesus riposte (see below). Note that if this text corresponds to Luke 4.1630 (see Aland, et. al., Synopsis), then the hearers drove Jesus out of town and tried to throw him off a cliff!! Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the statement of judgment and the riposte together form the climax of this text. g. (nom masc sg ; predicate adjective modifying ) is typically translated without honor, but the sense may also be captured in the albeit awkward honor-less. The hearers negative judgment challenges Jesus honor, which, in an agonistic society, demands a riposte. Many commentators suggest that the riposte is a proverb, axiom, or aphorism (cf. France, Mark, 243 n. 7). Without more data, it is difficult to determine how much of the statement is proverb and how much is Jesus opinion added to the proverb. It may be that the first portion, A prophet is not without honor, is (at least a portion of) the proverb, while the remainder is Jesus addition that gives it a new meaning for the current situation. It may be that the entire saying is a proverb that Jesus takes up to evaluate the current situation. Regardless, in terms of engagement strategy, the saying is a type of disclamation meanings by which some dialogic alternative is directly rejected or supplanted, or is represented as not applying (Martin and White, Language of Evaluation, 117). Specifically, it is an instance of counter-expectancy, whereby the proposition that is offered is presented as supplanting or replacing a proposition that would have been expected in its place (cf. Martin and White, Language of Evaluation, 120). Here, the proposition that a prophet is not honor-less is rejected by adding the counter proposition except in his hometown and among his kinfolk and in his house[hold]. Malina and Rohrbaugh sum up nicely the rhetorical effect of this disclamation: [Jesus] riposte is seriously insulting, posing the possibility that outsiders (people not of his village or family) are better able to judge the honor of a prophet than those who know him best (Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 169). It is also noteworthy the way GRADUATION comes to bear on Jesus saying. The riposte concludes with three locative prepositional phrases (place deixis) conjoined with : in his hometown, among his kinsfolk, and in his house[hold]. It appears that each locative phrase is more precise, forming a series of concentric circles from broader place (outermost ring) to more specific place (innermost ring):

h.

Hometown ()

Kinsfolk ()

House[hold] ()

Rhetorically, this has two effects. First, like basic repetition, the construction here has the effect of increasing the intensity of the counterproposition (cf. Martin and White, Language of Evaluation, 144). For the sake of illustration: one may not be that shocked/surprised if someone in the broader group (hometown/village) does not honor a prophet who rose up among them; it would be a little more shocking/surprising if one or more of the relatives of the prophet did not honor him; it would be quite a bit more shocking if someone from the prophets own house[hold] did not honor him. A second effect of this kind of construction may be felt at the readers/hearers level (i.e. not at the level of the characters in the story itself): it may be implied that even some of Jesus own blood relativessome of his brothers and sisterswere scandalized by him. This is not unfamiliar in Marks gospel (cf. Mark 3.2021, 3135). Also, since it was not uncommon for synagogues to meet in private homes (cf. Chilton and Yamauchi, Synagogues, 114750, who argue that buildings built expressly for synagogue were not popular until the 3rd century), this saying might imply that the synagogue in Nazareth where Jesus taught was possibly in his familys house! But such is only speculation. i. This verse is often over-baked by preachers and teachers to the point that undue emphasis is placed on the first clause (and he was not able to do a miracle there) with virtually no attention paid to the second clause (except to lay his hands upon a few sick people and heal them). Jesus was able to work miracles among the people of Nazareth (cf. also v. 2); the point is that his healing ministrylike his teaching ministryhad limited effectiveness among people who did not believe (see v. 6). Linguistically, there is more counter-expectancy here. The proposition that Jesus was not able to do a miracle there is supplanted (though not fully, thanks to a few) by the counterproposition except to lay his hands upon a few sick people and heal them. Note the language regarding the use of hands in this verse and compare to hands in v. 3 and in v. 4. In the ancient circum-Mediterranean world, hands represent that part of the human being Malina refers to as the zone of purposeful action (New 4

Testament World, 69). Because people of the New Testament depicted persons and
events concretely (i.e. from the outside), they tended to evaluate behavior on the basis of externally perceptible activity and in terms of the social functions of those activities (cf. Malina, New Testament World, 68). In that regard, that Jesus was not able to do a miracle there, except to lay his hands upon a few sick people and heal them is a negative judgment of Jesus with regard to capacity (-ve JUDGMENT: CAPACITY). However, that negative judgment is, in effect, wakened if not completely diminished in v. 6 by the more forceful negative judgment of the hearersapparently, it is the obstacle of their unbelief that hinders Jesus ministry. j. (Impf Ind Act 3rd Sg ). Attitudinal/emotive process foregrounded by Imperfective Aspect. Given the negative prosody created in v. 4 and continuing through v. 5, one expects this to be an instance of negative attitude, and it is (-ve AFFECT: DISSATISFACTION). This emotional response is because of their unbelief. Unbelief culminates the negative prosody in this chunk of text. It is a negative judgment of the hearers (made by the narrator) with regard to their lack of belief in/loyalty to Jesus (God?) (-ve JUDGMENT: TENACITY).

1-Aug-2010

Scandal in Nazareth
Mark 6.16

South Brooke Church of Christ

Intro Story/Illustration A. Last Monday night, July 26, Matt Garza, a pitcher for the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, did something special. He pitched a no-hittera no-no as baseball fans call it against the Detroit Tigers. Now, some of you might be wondering, Whats so special about that? Havent several others pitched no-hitters this year? Yes, as a matter of fact, at least 5 others have done so this year. But, a number of things make this one stand out. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. It was the first no-hitter ever pitched in the history of the Devil Rays. The Tigers hadnt been no-hit since Randy Johnson did it to them way back in 199020 years! Garza pitched all nine innings and faced 27 batterswalking only one batter who ended up being erased by a double-play. In Garzas prior start against the Marlins on June 18, he pitched 1 1/3 innings and allowed 7 runsso he was coming off a bad performance. And he told reporters that during warm-ups for the game against the Tigers nothing felt right about his mechanicsso he was anxious coming into the game.

B.

C.

When you combine all these factors, the accomplishment seems extra-special! But what really makes this story interesting to me is what happened when he called home to talk to his 8-year-old son, Matthew, about the no-hitter. The conversation went something like this: 1. 2. 3. Matthew, did you watch the game? Nine innings, no hits what do you think? The 8-year-old boy responded, Youre still not an All-Star! Youre still not the best yet, so dont go floating away just yet! Ouch! I think Rodney Dangerfields sayingI dont get no respect would be an appropriate response to that!

D.

You know, the young Matthew Garza did what most of us probably would have done. 1. 2. He measured up his Dads performance based on the outstanding performances of others. Rather than think about what makes his Dad special as a Dad, he sized him according to baseballs All-Star standardsthe standards of the world/culture of baseball.

E.

This leads nicely into our text, which teaches us that measuring people by the standards of our world/culture hinders us from honoring the Lord.

I.

Read/Retell the Story (Mark 6.16) (pars. Mt 13.5358; Lk 4.1630) A. Setting/Occasion (6.12a) 1. Jesus goes home c. 2. Here in Mark 6, during his Galilean ministry, Jesus returns to the village in which he was raised. So what does he do? The text says that when the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and when the people heard him, they became greatly astounded or extremely confused. Now, we might read this text and ask, Whats all the fuss about? There are a few cultural features of the NT world that we need to know to help us grasp whats going on here. (1) Honor/shame culture (cf. Malina, NT World) (a) (b) (2) Honor refers to a claim to worth along with the social acknowledgement of that worth; its the value of a person in his/her own eyes + that persons value in the eyes of his social group.

Jesus teaches in the synagogue a.

b.

Agonistic world of limited goods (including intangibles like honor)constant struggle, not just to gain honor (not a lot of upward mobility in their world), but to maintain what you had! Kin and fictive kinthe focal social institution in the ancient circum-Mediterranean world (and still today) is family or ones kin group. Benefits: (a) In the kin group, solidarity and cooperation was the hallmark of kinship, not competition (there was still some, competition, but not nearly as much). Plutarch who lived and wrote in the 1st century had a lot to say on this: i. It isof no slight importance to resist the spirit of contentiousness and jealousy among siblings when it first creeps in over trivial matters, practicing the art of making mutual concessions, of learning to take defeat, and of taking pleasure in indulging siblings rather than in winning victories over them This is the same spirit that lies behind the biblical concept of (sibling love). 2

(3)

ii.

(b)

This is what would some reprieve from all the honor competition that surrounded them in the world

c.

When Jesus goes into the synagogue on the Sabbath and teaches, he takes on the role of the prophet/teacher; doing so results in the peoplecomprised of his fictive kin and blood kinbecoming greatly astounded. Why? Because the honor Jesus assumed for himself by taking on that role did not match up with the honor ascribed to him at birth (cf. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity). Watch what happens next in the story . . .

d.

B.

The Court of Public Opinion (6.2b3b) 1. Note the dualistic weighing of the facts a. b. 2. a. b. On the one hand . . . On the other hand Became a competitive issue for themnot normal among fictive kin and kin groups! Their questions betray their standardswhat counts in their society: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) family of origin blood relations inherited honor social status achievement of family members group honor

They judged by the wrong standard(s)

C.

The Verdict: Scandal! (6.3c4) 1. They were scandalized by himbasically this means Jesus loses the honor competition and they rejected him. a. The ones who should have most readily accepted Jesus status as the one sent by Godthe people of his hometown (fictive kin) and his blood relatives (kin)were scandalized by it and thus rejected him. They couldnt get past Jesus human honor as determined by worldly standards in order to see his divine role (prophet/teacher).

b.

2.

Jesus response: A prophet not without honor, except in his hometown, among his kinsfolk, and in his household a. This is a strong insult in that it poses the possibility that outsiders are better able to judge the honor of a prophet that those who know him best. (Malina and Rohrbaugh, 169) In the end, their rejection of him resulted in his rejection of them!

b. D. 1. 2. II. A.

Impact of their judgment (6.56a) Limited effectiveness of Jesus teaching. They couldnt hear his message. Limited effectiveness of Jesus healing. They couldnt

Focus on Theological Truth (The Point) The point of this text is really relatively simple and can be summed up in a single sentence: We cannot judge othersand especially brothers and sisters in Christby the standards of the world. If we judge others solely by the standards of our world/culture, we will not be able to hear the teachings of Jesus. If we judge others solely on the standards of our world/culture, we will not be able to experience the healing of Jesus. If we judge others solely on the standards of our world/culture, we will not be able to win others to Christ. If we judge others solely on the standards of our world/culture, we will risk being rejected (judge not, let you be judged).

III.

Application A. B. C. D.