gstafleu

Why not start by keeping things simple, and just look within Mark. If we see gMark simply as a story created by aMark, then the answer to the question in the OP is most likely Yes. After all, why would aMark create characters with the same names, and the same mother, intend them as different characters, and not say so? The question then remains: why not call Mary the mother of Jesus, given that he was the main character? AA's idea that the intention was to have the reader make the connection does not seem unreasonable.

If we want the Jude of the epistle to be the same character as the one in Mark, then we need some more evidence. As it stands I'm not sure that more than a "maybe" is warranted. But maybe evidence exists in the form of connecting documents? Note that this evidence does not need to be outside the mythology: it could establish the mythological identity of the two. If we need historical equivalence we are in the usual situation where we need to show these figures were historical to start with. For that we do need to go outside the mythology.

So, did you mean mythological or historical equivalence? There is a difference. E.g. the superman in the original comic books is the same as the one in the movies is the same as the one in the Lois and Clark TV series--but this is mythological identity only.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

I have never conducted a survey of it. Since the more usual custom is to identify a fellow by his father, and one can have only one father, not much variation is ordinarily possible.

However, I do know that Josephus twice identifies Herod as the brother of Agrippa; yet he uses other ways of referring to him elsewhere. This is not exactly on target, but it shows some variation.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Which others? What do you mean?

So you think Mark was written the way it was because of the conflict between Jesus and his relatives?

Ben.

aa5874

The passages in Mark 6.3, 15.40, 15.47 and 16.1 are indications that the author knew he was writing fiction.

It can be seen that the author is making a conscious or deliberate effort to avoid what should have been a simple straight-forward acknowledgement.

The author just could not answer the questions, "Was Mary the mother of Jesus at the crucifixion?"

"Mary, the mother of James and Joses and Salome."

"Was Mary, the mother of Jesus, observing the burial?

"Mary, the mother of Joses."

"Did Mary, the mother of Jesus, visit the tomb?"

Mary the mother of James and Salome."

And now the final question to the author:

"Is Mary the mother of Jesus?"

The author of gMark responds with a question.

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary.....?

And the author of gMatthew answers the questions with an even stranger question.

Is not this the carpenter's SON.....? (Matt 13.55)

"Did Mary the mother of Jesus visit the tomb?"

"The other Mary" (Matt 28.1)

It would appear that the author of Mark knew he was writing fiction.

gstafleu

Yes, agreed, and the reason he knew is because he created (most of) it. The whole business of "Mary the mother of X" certainly looks like a literary device to me. But what I'd like to know is: What is it supposed to accomplish? Your idea about having the reader come to a conclusion seems reasonable, but is that the whole answer? And why does the reader have to make this, and not other, connections?

Gerard

Ben C Smith

The parallel in Mark with Simon of Cyrene ought to inform us. Mark may be obscuring the connection between Mary and Jesus somewhat in this case, but to identify Simon by his sons is just as unusual as to identify Mary by hers.

The only explanation I have yet seen that explains both identifications (Mary and Simon) is that the readers were expected to know who Alexander, Rufus, Joses, and James were.

We do this ourselves, do we not? When speaking of Philip II of Macedon, a ruler not everybody is very familiar with, are we not tempted to hook our audience with the datum that Philip was the father of Alexander, a figure that everybody has heard of? Look at the introduction to the Philip II of Macedon entry on Wikipedia, for instance. His father is not mentioned until the section on his life, even though fathers are pretty important for kings (what with succession and all), presumably because almost nobody has heard of king Amyntas; that is new information for the average reader.

Likewise, if the Marcan readers do not know who Alexander and Rufus are, or who Joses and James are, these references become a complete mystery. If the Marcan readers do know who they are, the existence of these references is all cleared up; there are still mysteries, to be sure, but that is probably because we are not the originally intended readers.

Ben.

Toto

More likely a conflict between the author of Mark and the claimed relatives of Jesus.

gstafleu

This could be the case. The problem I have with this kind of explanation is that it is a bit of a catch-all: at any time you have something unintelligible you can "explain" it by saying that it wasn't unintelligible for the intended audience. Further, it introduces two more unknowns in order to explain one given unknown. The given unknown is why Mark wrote thusly, the two knew unknowns used to explain it are (1) that his audience knew what was going on (we have no evidence of that) and (2) what it was that his audience knew was going on.

So yes, what you offer could be an explanation. But it is a poor person's explanation at best.

Gerard

the_cave

IMO the presence of Petronius in GPet is almost certainly connected to Josephus' War. What's more interesting is that the centurion in "Q" (i.e. GMt/GLk) is also almost certainly connected to Petronius. Which strongly suggests that GPet is connected to "Q" (it would probably be more accurate to say it is connected to proto-Mt or proto-Lk, as I don't think there was a Q document; instead, there was a proto-Mt or proto-Lk that contained the material we currently call "Q".)

IMO there is also much to find in the connections between the version of War found in the Slavonic Josephus, and GMt and GLk, but I'll leave that for another thread sometime.

the_cave

Matthew, coming later and trying to reconcile his version of GMk with the emerging orthodox line, may be embarrassed by any hint that there might be a Mary who was the mother of both Jesus and James (not to mention Joses). So he tries to hide it by being vague about the identity of Mary, the mother of James (and of Joses).

OTOH, he does preserve Mark 6:3 (in Matthew 13:55). So maybe it's just editorial fatigue. Or else he doesn't want Jesus' mother bowing down to him (in Mt 28:9).