tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post8668960053950963696..comments2023-06-16T07:01:52.541-07:00Comments on The Blog of Dr. T. Michael W. Halcomb: Did Jesus own a home?TMWHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06807155020816222182noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-28776878333713702007-09-19T21:59:00.000-07:002007-09-19T21:59:00.000-07:00Michael,Thanks for writing on my blog. Will you b...Michael,<br><br>Thanks for writing on my blog. Will you be at the next SCJC?<br><br>It's very strange, I noticed you had a GMark series and saw we have some very similar ideas (yours are much more full than mine) about Jesus having a house.<br><br>I posted about it on my blog today, and just now read yours. Very cool. I would be interested in your reflections on my post concerning demons in GMark. I'm a Senior Undergrad student, and would appreciate any input you have.Jacob Paul Breezehttp://jacobpaulbreeze.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-21595152925179141962007-07-17T18:26:00.000-07:002007-07-17T18:26:00.000-07:00John,I respectably disagree with you. While you m...John,<br><br>I respectably disagree with you. While you may be correct that the last few points do not offer as strong evidence as the previous ones, when you say that they "clearly" don't, I think you are wrong. From a literary standpoint, these, I think, are very strong points. They may be wrong (though I don't think they are) and they are definitely not "clearly" wrong!T Michael W Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-19528796358414539572007-07-14T11:57:00.000-07:002007-07-14T11:57:00.000-07:00I'll buy into the first two arguments as evide...I'll buy into the first two arguments as evidence for Jesus having a home (either owned or rented), but the rest do not die a home location to Jesus in particular or are clearly parabolic language.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-4298814811242849322007-07-11T10:36:00.000-07:002007-07-11T10:36:00.000-07:00Dan,It is precisely for the reason that people hav...Dan,<br><br>It is precisely for the reason that people have often said that Jesus told His disciples to "abandon" everything that I posted part 1 of my Mark series! This is another one of those things that led me in the direction of understanding Jesus to perhaps, have a home.<br><br>Neither am I hung up on these things, yet, they are worth discussing and searching out. In the end, does it make a huge difference, well, probably not a huge one. But it might give us a little more insight into the type of life that Jesus lived as a human and those types of things.<br><br>Ironically, in an upcoming post, I note that Kazanstakis in "The Last Temptation of the Christ" has the woodworking Jesus actually working as a cross maker for the Romans.<br><br>As for the comfortability of holding a traditional view that's fine. It just makes more logical sense to me, that He probably built boats and perhaps, even did work on homes from time to time.T Michael W Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-16677163363385462272007-07-11T08:01:00.000-07:002007-07-11T08:01:00.000-07:00"Carpenter" could be a boat builder. The..."Carpenter" <i>could be</i> a boat builder. There just is no biblical support for it. "Carpenter" could also be Cross builder (wouldn't that be ironic!) or One who builds time machines out of wood, but there's no biblical support for those positions, either.<br><br>I'm not hung up on it. Just, after having read your suppositions and having reconsidered my traditional view, I feel more comfortable with my traditional view.<br><br>Certainly, Jesus was an intinerant and didn't have multiple homes on the road to stop at. Do we know traditionally if itinerant preachers (and I believe that was not an uncommon "vocation") kept homes?<br><br>There is more than just the verse about no place to lay his head to suggest he didn't have a home. He asked his followers to abandon everything and follow in his community, for instance, and how would an itinerant preacher be able to afford and maintain a home in that day?<br><br>Having no home "feels" right to me, from the whole of the NT story about Jesus. Not that I would say that the Bible establishes that as a beyond-debate fact.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-68997343837750947392007-07-11T07:16:00.000-07:002007-07-11T07:16:00.000-07:00Dan, I some of your points are well taken. I thou...Dan, <br><br>I some of your points are well taken. I thought your "T, Mr. Michael" comment was rather humorous (even if you weren't meaning it to be); it's kind of like the whole J D G Dunn thing. Anyways...<br><br>Some of the results of my exegesis are hunches but that is not the same thing as saying that my exegesis is "based on" hunches. It is the exegesis that leads me to think differently about such passages.<br><br>For instance, when the texts speaks of the "home" nobody else is mentioned at all; how then, can we posit--evidentially--that this was someone else's home? The Greek text and the context both point to this begin Christ's home. That is not just guessing, that is contextual and textual analysis. Therefore, it is not a "huge leap" as you suggest. In fact, the "huge leap" is to take your position and disregard the immediate wording and context of the passage and place Jesus at someone else's home--a someone else who is never mentioned in the story.<br><br>Moreover, your spiritualizing or theologizing of the "follow me" statement seems like a much greater leap than anything I suggested. Why do you make that theological and hermeneutical move when it is not necesarry? Because you want the text to mean something? That is eisegesis.<br><br>I think that as far as the "lay His head" passage, you have to read that in its literary context; you just have to; to not do that is to miss the point. All of the writers who include that passage place it after He has begun His Jerusalem trip and this is not accidental. These are literary cues that the reader is meant to pick up. <br><br>Like you, I am not being offensive, just discussing the issues at hand. And not all KY people are idiots; I live in KY myself and I don't consider myself an idiot. From what I can gather, you don't seem to be one either.<br><br>I do think that our traditional understandings and readings of Jesus prevent us from seeing new things many times; especially seeing things from narrative and socio-rhetorical perspectives. <br><br>As with your previous comments about "prooftexting" I find the same type of unfounded claims made by you here with the "huge leaps" and "what ifs" language. I have not done either of those; I feel like I have offered evidence to prove my point (though I may need more on some points--e.g. the boat building). But why does carpenter automatically equal home builder? Whe couldn't it have been boat builder? Indeed, Mark is keen on making sure that his readers notice that Jesus loves being around the lake/water.T Michael W Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-17767961395870024952007-07-10T19:19:00.000-07:002007-07-10T19:19:00.000-07:00From Locusts & Honey, where Michael said:"...From Locusts & Honey, where Michael said:<br><br>"post your rebuttals on my blog; I'd love to engage you in this if you have some good arguments against me."<br><br>T Michael (T? Michael? Mr. Halcomb?), you should know I mean no offense, I just didn't think the argument was well supported.<br><br>I have no rebuttals - your suggestions are all within the realm of possibility. This topic just seems to fall into that category of unknowable knowledge. That is, your exegesis just seems like hunches - "maybe because the writer used the word "home" in this sentence, he is indicating Jesus' home". <br><br>Or, more specificially, how do you get from "follow me" to "follow me and let's go to my house"? Is not the context of that statement, "follow me in my way of life and leave behind your way of life?"<br><br>Or, "While Jesus uses the metaphor of a wedding here, the analogy might suggest that the while He was having a meal at His home"... well, maybe. But it might also suggest that he was dining at the governor's house or maybe at the local pub. <br><br>Maybe I'm just a poor dumb Kentucky boy who doesn't understand exegesis, but you seem to be making just incredibly huge leaps. Sure, all your suggestions are a possibility, but I see nothing in the text to suggest there's any reason for us to consider them as any more likely than any other suggestion.<br><br>You may well be right, that Jesus wasn't homeless. I may have just been reading the passage about having no place to lay his head and making a leap to the what-seemed-obvious-to-me (and many others) conclusion that he was homeless for so long that it's hard for me to see any other possibility.<br><br>It's just that, to me, you have made some huge leaps. As I said, I intended no offense, I just don't see any significant evidence in your hypotheses, just some guesses.<br><br>As you do just above in your statement:<br><br><i>"We have to remember that, like Paul, Jesus was a vocational, iternerant evangelist. I tend to think that Jesus worked with the disciples building boats"</i><br><br>??! That's not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. It is a supposition based on some evidence but with no real support, is it not?<br><br>If all you're doing is taking the evidence and providing some What ifs?, to fill out the stories with more detail, that's fine. I just wouldn't go so far as to suggest that it's anything near a solid explanation.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-82515462815340354882007-07-10T17:42:00.000-07:002007-07-10T17:42:00.000-07:00John,I see no problems with what you're sugges...John,<br><br>I see no problems with what you're suggesting at all; this is probably correct. I think we need to look at the "social networking" aspect of "making disciples" (e.g. making social relationships) and the things that come along with that (benefaction, honor, shame, etc.). This is why, for instance, in chapter 2, we see Him going into Peter's home (or one of Peter's family members' homes). I'm sure they all did that; it was social network!<br><br>I would be careful when I say that He "relied" on the "charity of others" though. We have to remember that, like Paul, Jesus was a vocational, iternerant evangelist. I tend to think that Jesus worked with the disciples building boats (e.g. woodwork) or something of that nature; that could be where He met them. <br><br>Though I don't agree with it, Kazanstakis posited the idea that Jesus was even a cross maker for the government. Again, I don't agree with that but it is interesting to think about nonetheless. <br><br>Getting back to Paul, I think that his "social networking" mirrored that of Jesus's. There seem to be a lot of comparisons there! <br><br>Good stuff!!!T Michael W Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-12254106389806825312007-07-10T13:10:00.000-07:002007-07-10T13:10:00.000-07:00Could he have both had a home and also spent a goo...Could he have both had a home and also spent a good amount of time wandering and relying on the charity of others?<br><br>Afterall, when he sends out the apostles he tells them to take nothing with them and rely on hospitality in the towns they visit. Perhaps that is because that is the way he operated.<br><br>Not all who wander are lost.John Meunierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15640046073453219165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-21099757584870685182007-06-21T03:06:00.000-07:002007-06-21T03:06:00.000-07:00Really good post. Thought provoking!Really good post. Thought provoking!Josh McManawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03503876183620206761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-54747627199973154022007-06-20T19:05:00.000-07:002007-06-20T19:05:00.000-07:00P-Style,Just to put the question out there, what i...P-Style,<br><br>Just to put the question out there, what if Joseph was around? While this is not the general consensus, it certainly cannot be ruled out. We might speculate for instance, why Jesus used so many "father/son" real-life parables when He spoke? Could it have been because He had a close relationship with Joseph? Also, if you read the infancy accounts closely, there seems to be a lot of emphasis on Joseph; we tend to think that because He isn't mentioned a lot of other places, he was dead or unimportant--that's not necessarily true. <br><br>Next, did Jesus as the eldest male of the family (if Joseph were dead), (have to) take care of the family? To this I would say, "Not necessarily." In fact, while this may have been a cultural norm, I would argue that the Synoptic Gospel writers go to great lengths to show that He separated Himself from the customary "household" expectations (see: Mt. 4.13-6; Lk. 4.16-30, 31-32 and Mk. 2.1). Thus, we should probably be careful when applying ancient Jewish “norms” to every ancient Jew or Jewish family, especially as the Gospels portray Jesus as one who shattered many of those expectations. Moreover, you only need to take another look at the story of the Prodigal Son to see that not everyone stuck to the norm! <br>And this may be precisely one of the reasons He is met with dishonor in His hometown!!! No doubt in Mk. 6.4 the crowds are "shaming" Jesus (especially as they refer to Him from the female line; this is not simply an indicator that Joseph was dead or something like that, it was a shaming tactic). This is probably akin to what his family was doing earlier in 3.20ff. They seem to have "shamed" Him as they went along with the accusations that He was possessed (notice, it is His family who says that "He is out of His mind). It is not accidental, then, that in this episode, the family members of Jesus are "outside" the house. In an "insider/outsider" culture, hearing this would have jolted the audience. That said, Jesus doesn't seem to be living in the home of His parents. In 3.20-35, the family "comes" to the house where Jesus is at—insinuating that it is not theirs. <br><br>As for the "honor" being enhanced by Mark suggesting that the family is upset with Jesus, I think that claim is, for a lack of better terms, quite backwards. Again, the family "shames" Jesus here. She may be concerned about her honor, but that is my point exactly, her and the other family members are concerned about their honor alone--at the cost of going along with the crowd and suggesting that Jesus was demon possessed. Ironically, to have a demon-possessed son would taint your honor incredibly. Perhaps the family is pulling out all of the last ditch efforts here and they are shaming Jesus in front of everyone else in hopes that they might retain their own honor. It's like a parent today saying, "I raised them as good as I could have" when their child does something horrible. In that instance, as rough as it might sound, the parent is more concerned about preserving their honor and the family's honor, not necessarily trying to make the bad child seem honorable!T Michael W Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-70683618303760362602007-06-20T17:31:00.000-07:002007-06-20T17:31:00.000-07:00If Joseph was presumably not around (dead or other...If Joseph was presumably not around (dead or otherwise) by this stage, would not the family home have becoem Jesus' by virtue of being the eldest male in the family?<br><br>If Mary etc.. had a home, then perhaps this is the very home that Jesus dwelt in - thus explaining the immediate proximity question. <br><br>It also enhances the notion of "honour" to the family home that would have upset Mary and the brothers so much, and helps explain the complexing nature (which skeptics seem to love) of that family intervention.P-Stylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04605470284153454825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-70729847105603408722007-06-20T06:57:00.000-07:002007-06-20T06:57:00.000-07:00John,Thanks for your comments. I agree, the evide...John,<br>Thanks for your comments. I agree, the evidence (at least according to Mark), seems to suggest that indeed, Jesus did own a home. The more I think about it, it doesn't even seem logical that Jesus would have spent His adult life as a homeless person (even though there were philosophical sects who tended to promote such ideas during this time). Yet, Jesus was not a Cynic! We know that He worked so, why wouldn't we assume that he had a home, even if it were in close proximity to the home of His immediate family members?T Michael W Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-65672285028399295642007-06-19T16:05:00.000-07:002007-06-19T16:05:00.000-07:00This is a fascinating and detailed study of a subj...This is a fascinating and detailed study of a subject that I've never thought of before. I've always assumed that Jesus wandered to and fro without an actual house, but the evidence might suggest otherwise.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.com