Download 4th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Ordinary time, week four
February 1, 2009
Mk 1, 21-28 AN ORIGINAL TEACHER
‘Here is a teaching that is new, and with authority behind it’ (Mk 1.37).
Teaching is a skill, an art. Some say it can’t be learnt, that good teachers are just born with it. If
so, Jesus was surely born with it… He was such a new kind of teacher that the locals felt this kind
of teaching had never happened before…
What sort of teaching were they used to? Mark wrote his Gospel, some four decades after the
death and resurrection of Jesus. In those decades the stories about Jesus must have circulated in
oral form. At that time, when books had to be copied by hand and were consequently rare and
expensive, oral tradition was considered at least as reliable as written evidence. Learning by heart
was an important part of education, so that memories were highly trained. Particularly in Judaism
a religious teacher, rabbi or scribe (= lawyer), was expected to memorize quantities of sayings
and decisions of previous rabbis, which would be quoted as precedents. [Remember that many of
those early Christians could not read or write.]
Paul gives us two short pieces which he must have taught his Corinthian converts by heart. He
uses the two technical rabbinic terms for this process of tradition, ‘handed on’, and ‘received’.
The tradition I handed on to you in the first place, a tradition which I had myself received,
was that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was
buried, and that on the third day he was raised to life, in accordance with the
scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas and later to the Twelve, and next he
appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time. (1 Cor 15.3-5)
Various terms used in the statement itself are uncharacteristic of Paul. He normally speaks of 'Sin' in
the singular, a power almost personified, not the plural as here. He never elsewhere uses the
expression 'the Twelve'. When quoting the scriptures Paul himself says ‘as it is written’, not ‘in
accordance with the scriptures’, and so on. This passage is therefore, a basic credal statement,
memorized by new converts – and old ones..
Similarly about the institution of the eucharist he writes:
For the tradition I received from the Lord and also handed on to you is that on the night he
was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and after he had given thanks, he
broke it, and he said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of
me.' And in the same way, with the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new
covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.' (1 Cor
11.23-25)
This version of the institution has minute variations from the account given in Mk, which has ‘This is
my blood of the covenant poured out for many’ (a more awkward and more Semitic phrase), but
lacks the two commands, ‘Do this in remembrance/as a memorial of me’. They are obviously two
different but very closely related versions of the same scene. This is a basic ritual statement. It is
oral memory teaching.
What sort of teaching did they get from Jesus?
It was precisely Jesus’ failure to use this method of teaching which struck his audience at
Capernaum, ‘Here is a teaching that is new, and with authority behind it’ (Mk 1.37). In teaching,
Jesus is not quoting anyone or anything. He is using his own words and his own ideas. It
comes out of him, originally. He is communicating his own person.
Originally. Mark says it has ‘authority’ behind it. The Greek word for ‘authority’ is ‘exousia’: it
means empowerment, but it is also used as the Greek word for ‘the beginning’. [In Genesis, the
opening words, ‘in the beginning God created…’ are rendered in Greek in LXX by ‘exousia’.]
Only what is originally one’s own can empower someone else. That is the ‘different’ manner of
teaching people found in Jesus. There are no categories to put him in. There are no models for
him. There are no ‘traditions’ he teaches. ‘He’ just relates to ‘you’. It is ‘primary speech’, not a
stringing together of ‘secondary quotations’ – or ideas pinched from somewhere else.
In today’s gospel, we are told that this took place in Capernaum. Did Mark, or even Jesus, live
in Capernaum? It is quite possible. Recently, some biblical scholars are thinking that Matthew,
and Mark, and (earlier) Jesus himself, may have had a residence in Capernaum for a time.
Capernaum. Kefer Nahum (village named after the prophet Nahum) had then a population of
about 1,500. Peter had a home there, and Jesus was there often, perhaps even had his own home
there. He called it his own town. He was actually Jesus of Capernaum! There is archaeological
evidence of the presence of a Christian group there for a very long time after the first century.
Peter’s home seems to have been a centre for meetings of these ‘Christians’ after his death in the
60’s. Excavations of a synagogue there have unearthed stone vessels for purification that come
from the late 2nd or early 3rd century. The foundations of the building are recognized as first
century. It is clear that an unusual amount of renovation took place there in the middle or late
years of the first century. There are two graffiti that include the name ‘Peter’.
I am also struck by the fact that 90% of Mark’s substance is in Matthew and of that, 50% is word
for word. If Matthew was a Jew with Greek speaking capacity from Capernaum, where did he
get hold of his copy of Mark? Could Mark be linked also with Capernaum? [I know of no one
who suggests this….F.Moloney recently (The Gospel of Mark: a Commentary, Hendrickson,
2002) suggests a place reasonably close to Jerusalem, a broad area that might be called ‘southern
Syria’.]
‘When Jesus was at dinner in his house…’ (Mark 2,15: en to oikia autou). Whose house? Levi’s
or Jesus’? Perhaps it is assumed, not narrated, like an undesigned giveaway statement, that Jesus
actually had a home there. Most commentaries take it to mean Levi’s house, but seem to be
under the influence of Luke (who puts the party in Levi’s house). Levi however has just left
everything! Is it a last big bash before his going on the road with Jesus?? Mark’s text would
seem to encourage the reader to imagine Jesus hosting the welcoming party at his own place.
Capernaum is surely the hub of the mission in Galilee – the base of operations. Luke and
Matthew do say he does not have anywhere to lay his head, but that may refer to a later stage of
itineracy. Perhaps as a craftsman he had a career in Capernaum, and perhaps that is how he met
his disciples… If so, when they dug a hole in the roof of the house to let down the paralytic, was
it Jesus’ own house???? The notion of Jesus as a wandering poor man always, is at best inexact.
We do have to be careful not to read into this a modern concept of home ownership divorced
from extended families as they were in those cultures….There is at least a hint that he had a
regular residence known to the populace.
It’s hard to be an original teacher, with authority, if you live around the people you teach! Jesus
did!