[1] The original text of Mark 6. 3 is itself problematic. The manuscripts of Mark have the following variant readings: (a) ό τέκτων, ό υίός τη¯ς Μαρίας appears in all uncials and many minuscules, it (some MSS.) vg sy ^P, ^h co, (b) but ò τοū τέκτονος νίός (or τοūτέκτονοςόυίός) is read by p^45Vidf 13 33 al it (majority of MSS.) vg (some MSS.) bo arm. This latter reading is also supported by Origen who denies to Celsus that any of the Gospels currently in use in the churches describes Jesus as a carpenter (Against Celsus vi.36). While the textual evidence is difficult to assess, the more probable original text of Mark 6. 3 appears to be ò τέκτων, ò νίός τη¯ς Mαρίας. Aland, Kurt et al. , The Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society, 1966), p. 141.Google Scholar In the judgement of the editors ‘the carpenter, the son of Mary …’ is virtually certain. Also see Stauffer, Ethelbert, ‘Jeschu Ben Mirjam’, Neotestamentica et Semitica, edited by Ellis, E. E. and Wilcox, Max (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969), pp. 120 f.Google Scholar Even if the reading ‘son of the carpenter’ is taken as the original, Jesus would have grown up in the home of a carpenter and would have been familiar with the trade, probably as an apprentice to his father. Taylor, Vincent, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan and Company, 1959), p. 300Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Cambridge: University Press, 1959), p. 194CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lohmeyer, Ernst, Das Evangelium des Markus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1963), p. 110Google Scholar; Grässer, Erich, ‘Jesus in Nazareth (Mark VI. l–6a)’, New Testament Studies 16 (October 1969), p. 14Google Scholar; Klostermann, Erich, Das Markusevangelium (HzNT) (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1950, 1971), p. 55.Google Scholar

[2] Tέκτων is derived from the root TEK which means ‘to produce’ and may be used in a rather loose sense to describe any artisan. But, the most frequent usage of tektōn is to denote a worker with wood, i.e. a carpenter or cabinet maker. The basic meaning suggested by tektōn is that of a worker with a hard material that retains its hardness throughout the operation, e.g. wood and stone or even horn or ivory. Soft materials such as clay or wax would be excluded. Strictly speaking, so would metals softened by heat. However, on occasion a smith could be described as a tektōn. (The translation of tektōn into Latin by the somewhat ambiguous term faber misled the Latin Fathers into thinking that Jesus and Joseph were blacksmiths.) The best understanding of the meaning of tektōn in Mark 6. 3 is ‘carpenter’. (1) This is the most common usage in classical Greek, (2) and is so understood by the Greek Fathers. (3) The ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Gothic) translate tektōn by words that clearly denote a worker with wood. Blümner, Hugo, Technologic und Terminologie der Gewerbe and Künste bei Griechen and Römern (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1879), 2, pp. 164–9Google Scholar; Höpfl, Hildebrand, ‘Nonne hie est faber fllius?’ Biblica 4 (1923), pp. 41–55Google Scholar; Lombard, Emile, ‘Charpentier ou macon?’ Rev. de Théol. et de Phil. 36 (1948), p. 168.Google Scholar E. A. Judge has pointed out to me the need to collect and analyze the uses of tektōn in the Greek papyri. Furfey, Paul Hanly, ‘Christ as Tektōn’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (April 1955), p. 204.Google Scholar

[3] Furfey is a good representative of this point of view, p. 215. The tools that an artisan uses are an essential aspect of his craft. Although tools may be simple, with them a skilled craftsman can produce an excellent finished work – both functional and beautiful. The carpenter's tools uncovered by archaeologists and surviving on reliefs include the basic tools still used today: hammer, mallet, chisel, saw, hatchet, ax, adze, gimlet, bow drill, knife, plane, rasp, and lathe. Used to lay out the work were the square, straightedge, ruler, chalk line, plumb line, level, and compass. Krauss, Samuel, Talmudische Archeologie (Leipzig: G. Fock, 1910–1912; reprinted Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1966), 2, pp. 266–9.Google Scholar

[4] Pp. 14–22. The same ideas were repeated in Jesus, A New Biography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927), pp. 199–212.Google Scholar

[5] Waterman, Leroy, Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan Excavations at Sepphoris, Palestine, in 1931 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1937), p. v.Google Scholar

[6] Monson, J., ed., Student Map Manual (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), Sec. 12–14Google Scholar; see also Alt, Albrecht, Where Jesus Worked, trans. Grayston, K. (London: The Epworth Press, 1961), pp. 13 f.Google Scholar

[7] Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel According to John (i–xii) (AB) (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1966), p. 98.Google ScholarMeyers, Eric M. and Strange, James F., Archeology, The Rabbis, and Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1981), p. 43.Google Scholar

[8] See Hoehner, Harold W., Herod Antipas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), pp. 124–31.Google Scholar

[9] Boelter, Francis W., ‘Sepphoris – Seat of the Galilean Sanhedrin’, Explor (Winter 1977), pp. 41 f.Google Scholar

[10] Case, , Jesus …, p. 206.Google Scholar

[11] Waterman, , p. vi.Google Scholar

[12] Ibid., pp. 18–21. This section of Waterman's Preliminary Report … on ‘Historical and Archaeological Notes’ was written by S. Yeivin. Also see Avi-Yonah, Michael, ‘Sepphoris’, Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978), pp. 1051–5Google Scholar; Hoehner, , pp. 84–91Google Scholar; Freyne, Seán, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E. (Notre Dame: University Press, 1980), pp. 122–8.Google Scholar

[13] A detailed description of the theatre is made in the Waterman Preliminary Report … by Manasseh, N. E. who contributed the section on ‘Architecture and Topography’, pp. 6–12.Google Scholar Also see Schwank, Benedikt, ‘Das Theater von Sepphoris und die Jugendjahre Jesu’, Erbe und Auftrag (1976), pp. 199–206.Google Scholar

[14] Waterman, , p. 29.Google Scholar Unpublished photographs stored in the Kelsey Museum at the University of Michigan show the theatre's splendid construction. W. F. Albright in a review of the Waterman Preliminary Report. … dates the construction of the theatre to the late second or third century. This date is based primarily on the conviction that the masonry is typically late second century Roman. Classical Weekly 31 (April 7, 1938), p. 148.Google Scholar

[15] Waterman, , Preliminary Report …, p. 28.Google Scholar

[16] Ibid., pp. 14 f.

[17] Hoehner, , p. 52.Google Scholar

[18] Freyne, , pp. 126–8Google Scholar; see also Manns, Frederic, ‘Un centre judeo-chrétien important: Sepphoris’, Essais sur le Judéo-Christianisme. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Analecta 12 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1977), pp. 170–8Google Scholar; Klein, Samuel, Beiträge zur Geographic und Geschichte Galiläas (Leipzig: Verlag von Rudolf Haupt, 1909), pp. 26–40.Google Scholar

[19] Freyne, , pp. 123–5.Google Scholar

[20] Hoehner's, chapter on ‘Antipas and Jesus’is illuminating (pp. 184–250), especially pp. 239–49.Google Scholar

[21] A valuable and up-to-date discussion of the languages of Roman Palestine is in Meyers, Eric M. and Strange, James F., Archaeology, The Rabbis, and Early Christianity, pp. 62–91.Google Scholar

[22] See Lombard, pp. 185–92.Google Scholar