Ben C Smith

The nature of following. This is not just tagging along. This is following... like a disciple.

Ben.

thentian

Are you sure?

"These women had followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him."

��*κολούθουν (ēkolouthoun) Strongs number 190: follow, reach
Verb: Third Person Imperfect Active Indicative Plural

Another occurence:
(Mark 2:15) "It happened, that he was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many, and they followed him."

It's not clear to me, but maybe there's something in the grammar? Another place we find it in the Third Person Aorist Active Indicative Singular:

(Mark 3:7) "Jesus withdrew to the sea with his disciples, and a great multitude followed him from Galilee, from Judea,"

Here it seems clear to me that they were just tagging along. So the difference lies in imperfect vs aorist, maybe?

aa5874

So if the English translation is not clear, it is an indication that the Greek is also not clear.

thentian

Well, some paralell translations are clear, but not in the way Ben says it should be understood. For example, we see that the International Standard Version has "They used to accompany him and care for him while he was in Galilee... etc", and there are a couple more translations along those lines. Still, I would like to hear Ben's take on it.

aa5874

But, is the Greek word for "disciple" in the passage, i.e Mark 15.41?

thentian

No, that word is μαθηταὶ (mathētai) and completely different (and not in that verse). It comes from the word for "to learn", so a disciple is a "learner". But a person can be a "follower" without being a disciple, like a modern christian could be said to be a "follower of Christ". (Though there aren't many I'd say that about! ). I think English, too, can convey the difference between these two kinds of followers:

a) Some of his followers...
b) Some of those who had followed him....

English isn't my first language, but isn't there a difference? I think Ben may be talking about something of this sort.

Cheers!

neilgodfrey

Earl pointed to the importance (and simplicity) of seeing this question in the broader context of the evidence of the earliest extra-gospel evidence. It is also worth framing the question within the broader context of the gospel itself. Mark is a master of ambiguity, including the ambiguities of personal identities: Compare James and John and the 2 thieves on the left and right of Jesus in his glory -- are they the same?; the young man fleeing naked and the young man sitting clothed in the tomb, like the naked then sitting clothed Legion-possessed Gadarenes man; the Simon who was told to take up his cross and the Simon who was dragooned into facilitating the crucifixion; the Simon in whose house Jesus was served by a woman and the Simon in whose house Jesus was anointed by a woman; Alphaeus the father of Levi who was called to be a disciple, and Alphaeus (“The Designation Given to a Child Thought of As a Substitute for One Lost” -- as per Dale and Patricia Miller) the father of Jacob/James who was one of the Twelve; is Jesus the Son of David or not?; is there a cipher-type relationship between Rufus (red) and Iscariot (red dyer) or not, et al, not to even broach the Elijah motifs . . .

The Mary question is, I believe, best served when examined within the broader context of person-ambiguities throughout the gospel. But this requires a shift of starting-point assumptions. If we read the gospel as an attempt to record a series of historical events then there is no place for imputing any meaning to the ambiguities above; but if we read the gospel as a theological cipher or parable . . . . ?? And if we really do go there, then maybe we risk the reprimand of Jesus himself who rolled his eyes when his disciples could not see past the literal meaning of yeast and bread!


Neil

JoeWallack

JW:
First we need to rightly divide the question:

Mary

We have the question at the following levels:

1) Historical.

2) Text

3) Sub-Text

The most Objective question is 2), are the Mary's the same at the Text level?
Apologists want to posture that there is little or no difference between 2) and 1). You wouldn't do that now would you Ben? Bauckham asserts that the Text is historical witness but there is a large potential D-I-S-T-A-N-C-E between 1) and 2):

1) "Mark" has no provenance.

2) There is no reliable attribution.

3) The traditional attribution to Peter/Mark is likely wrong.

4) We know that Eusebius often avoided documenting conflicting traditions such as the Hippolytus/Epiphanius tradition that "Mark" was a disciple.

5) "Mark" is anti-historical witness.

6) "Mark" either has Paul or a common source as a major source.

7) The Jewish Bible is a major source.

8) Josephus is a likely source.

9) The basic story is Impossible so we can be certain that it is not historical.

10) "Mark" uses an extreme literary style that everything, including his Jesus, is subject to. Jesus' followers believe all the Impossible things he does (Healing), but do not believe the Possible (Passion). Any potential history in "Mark" is secondary to Literary Style.


JW:
"An identification of Mary the mother of James and Joses (Mark 15:40) with the mother of Jesus would have seemed plausible on the basis of Mark 6:3"

"We may first of all rule out the possibility that she is the mother of Jesus"

How can I claim he has changed his mind if he never made up his mind?

Regarding Bauckham concluding that they are the same Marys, he never says that in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (or via: amazon.co.uk). Where he says it is in They Never Said That. It's actually Tabor (or via: amazon.co.uk) who says that:

http://books.google.com/books?id=CKF...um=7&ct=result *

Maybe I was on vacation and competing for two minutes of quality time with the soul laptop against wife and kids while being distracted noticing what appeared to be the outline of a diaper under a Chinese gymnast's outfit without my reference materials. Or maybe I was just messing with you. In any case, my apologies (to Tabor for confusing him with Bauckham).

Bauckham claims the Marys are the same inter-Gospel. The beauty of Bauckham is that you can go Daily Show on him. Just quote his own words:

Page 49:

JW:
Shovel please. This is more than just bad scholarship. Worse, and with Apologies to Jeffrey Gibson, the failure of Christian scholarship as a whole to condemn Bauckham impeaches it's credibility as well.

If nothing else, I made you read all of the god-awful Jesus and the Eyewitnesses trying to prove me wrong. The Key is knowing how to motivate people.

JW:
With more Apologies to Jeffrey, brother of Joseph and James, Bauckham's Assertian as fact that Peter is the witness for "Mark" impeaches his credibility all by itself. Presumably Bauckham has credibility which can be impeached due to a presumably prestigious teaching position, a presumably full-time bible profession and presumably notorious authorial postion. Contrast with someone like me who's public presentation consists of these posts written at whim in a matter of minutes with a priMary objective of entertaining.

Dropping down to is "Mark's Mary the same at the end of "Mark":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_15

Mark 15.40
And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom [were] both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Mark 15:41
who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him; and many other women that came up with him unto Jerusalem.

Mark 15:45
And when he learned it of the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph.
Mark 15:46
And he bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
Mark 15.47:
And Mary Magdalene and Mary the [mother] of Joses beheld where he was laid.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

Mark 16.1
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.

The Text is clear that the (M)other Mary is different:

"Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses"

"Mary the [mother] of Joses"

"Mary the [mother] of James"

The Sub-Text level has clear Literary Contrivance everywhere:

1) In a Gospel with a major theme of and illustrations of name switching, the Mary at the end has the same name as Jesus' mother. More subtle is these Marys are defined the same way, as the "mother of", rather than the expected "wife of".

2) The first Marys are part of a group that is watching Jesus' die. Note that those "following" Jesus shrinks after Jesus dies. Easy to take this as figurative which makes it easier to take name choice as figurative.

3) The middle Mary is mother of Joses and is joined to another Joseph (of Arimathea). What are the odds and what does "Arimathea" mean? Another subtlety is that "Mary" is defined as mother and so is Joseph:

"And he bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb"

Just like a mother would do with a new born. The author is must better than you give him credit for Ben. You're just looking for the wrong things.

4) The mother of James refuses to believe that Jesus was resurrected. You and I agree that a James was the leader of the Jerusalem church.

The sub-text level is full of Literary Contrivance casting serious doubt as to historicity of any specific peace of information.

Doug, what do you think (not about "Mary", about Sarah)?


Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

* mod note - the reference is to The Jesus Dynasty (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 79

Ben C Smith

This is just the meaning of follow I am applying to Mark 15.41. It is following in a positive sense, as if to learn from the one being followed. The word can be used neutrally, but with ministering in the immediate context any neutral sense is probably ruled out; I do not think a negative sense (like stalking, or like what we find in 3.21) is feasible. And the imperfect tense in 15.41 indicates that it was a habitual following.

I did not mean to imply that the women are disciples, though that is not impossible, given the vocabulary. But they are following Jesus in a positive sense, quite in contrast to the tracking down going on in Mark 3.21. This suggests that the Mary in 15.47 is not the mother of Jesus.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

In context:

In the early church Mary of Bethany was frequently identified with Mary Magdalene.... Readers of John would know that the unnamed woman of Mark 14:3-9 was Mary of Bethany (John 12:1-8).

An identification of Mary the mother of James and Joses (Mark 15:40) with the mother of Jesus would have seemed plausible on the basis of Mark 6:3.

He means, of course, that such an identification would have seemed plausible to certain early Christians. Bauckham has frequently commented on the tendency of many early Christians to simply equate people in the texts who share the same name; he often comments on this tendency precisely in order to argue against it, as is the case here.

Apologizing to Tabor for misrepresenting Bauckham? I submit that an irrational hatred of Bauckham is clouding your judgment.

I agree that his point (in this case, as well as in others) is weak. That does not make him a bad scholar.

I had already read it, and even knew pretty much where to look, but thanks anyway.

Consider me entertained, then. For enlightenment and education, I will stick to the scholars, of which Bauckham is one. Even when I disagree with him.

Ben.