The response from Jesus to the
negative reaction from the villagers in Nazareth follows in an apothegm in Mark
6:4 about the reception of a prophet: “A prophet is not without honor except in
his own home town (en tē patridi autou) and among his own kin [ek
tois syngeneusin] and in his own house [oikia].” Here the household
of the prophet is put within a larger context, of kin group and village. It is
uncertain what is the most original version of the saying. Luke 4:24, John
4:44, the Gospel of Thomas 31, and pOxy. 1 have only patris;
Matthew 13:57 has patris and oikia, so maybe Mark’s list is part
of his redaction of the apothegm. However, the triad of household, king group,
and home village (=town or -land) is part of a traditional pattern. A similar
list is found in the description of Abraham’s home place in LXX Gen 12:1:
“Leave your land [gē] and your king group [syngeneia] and your
father’s house [oikos tou patros sou]” (cf. the use of gē and syngeneia
in Acts 7:3). Thus, the household is integrated into a structure that
consists of the larger kin group, and the village community to which it
belongs. It is also implied in the apothegm of Jesus that household kin group,
and village are all of one mind, and they belong to a close, maybe a closed
group. (Halvor Moxnes, Putting Jesus in His Place: A Radical Vision of
Household and Kingdom [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003],
31)
There is also another saying that
places Jesus outside of human society; one version of it is found in Mark 6:4:
“A prophet is not without honor, except in his own hometown, and among his own
kin, and in his own house.” The saying about “a prophet without honor” has
become so familiar, included in a common stock of images that are taken for
granted, that it does not any longer surprise us. This life without honor
appears as if it should be a part of the role of a prophet. This attitude is no
doubt a result of the fact that the role of the prophet has fallen out of use;
there are no longer prophets around. Therefore, we may hold a very reverential
view of prophets, as august men (why are they always thought of as men?), who
spoke a message lifted above ordinary human lives. Then we are certainly on a
wrong track for understanding the meaning of this saying. It shatters the image of
a prophet as a distant person; this is a prophet entangled in household and
kin, integrated into a hometown or village.
We have discussed the scene about
the rejection of Jesus in Nazareth (the Markan passage 6:1-4) above, and seen
how it described the household and village network. Now we will focus on the
conflict that the saying about the prophet makes visible. The original form of
the saying has been much discussed. Its setting in the Nazareth rejection story
may be secondary, as it is found in a different setting in john 4:44 and as an
independent logion in Gos. Thom. 31. However, all interpretations of the
saying presuppose a context of conflict, and there is good fit between the
saying in Mark 6:4 (par) and the present context.
What type of place is it that
becomes visible in this saying, and what are the specific social relations, as patris,
that is “hometown”; sygeneis, the kinship group; and oikia, the
house(hold). This is a description of a village society and the components that
made it up, the kinship groups and the households. The particular activity of
this community in relation to the homecoming prophet is awarding or withholding
honor (time). This is a revealing description of a “little community.”
The main values were measured in honor and shame, and were part of the
interaction within the community. “Honor” is the value of somebody in the eyes
of others. It is a value rating that is always part of a competition within the
community, where the individual is subject to the evaluation of the others.
Honor and shame are intimately connected with place: they are the status of
somebody in his or her place. It is possible to be honorable in a humble
position, and one can incur shame by going beyond one’s place, not respecting one’s
position within the community. (ibid., 51-52)