Ben C Smith

Doug is not denying that Mark makes Jesus out to be a particular member of a group (the group being carpenters in general). Doug is denying that (A) Mark making Jesus a particular and known member of the group of carpenters in general contradicts (B) Matthew making the father of Jesus a particular and known member of the same group. And Doug is correct. There is no necessary contradiction, a fact which should have been immediately obvious to one and all at first glance, but for some reason utterly unknown to me has become a stumbling block the size of Gibraltar on this thread.

Ben.

gstafleu

In 3 he is setting up the prophet-in-his-own-country bit, which is central to the story. In 15 nothing so central is attempted.
For now, either that or the anybody-but-Jesus bit.
Mark wanted to show that his story was part of the Messiah tradition: Paul throws in some people at times, and I, Mark, can also do that. Not very strong, but again, I don't think that these people, except for Ch 3, are all that important. Even in Ch 3 it is not so much the people per se that count as the fact that their relation to Jesus sets up the unhonored prophet bit. IOW, he could have given these people different names, achieving the same effect (unless he was playing off his audience, but I'm talking about the in-story effect here).

Gerard

Amaleq13

No need. The one you provide is accurate and does not provide justification for the reading you want to impose. There is no necessary contradiction between the two references.

gstafleu

Actually, does his mother think he is loony in Ch 3? We have the multitudes who think so in 21, and his family who "are outside seeking" him in 32. But is his family actually portrayed as thinking him loony?

Gerard

Ben C Smith

Well, then, let me introduce you, as if for the first time, to what I think is by far the cleanest option.

Mark identified Simon and Mary by their children rather than by their fathers or other typical identifiers because his readers knew who those children were (here you and I seem to at least potentially agree) and would naturally be interested in what their parents had done (here you and I seem to part ways). It was Simon and Mary who were so identified because they were the ones who had actually done pretty much what was said of them in the text. Mark invented neither the individuals themselves (Simon and Mary) nor what they had done during the passion events. None of this involves undue speculation; that Simon and Mary were eyewitnesses of or even participants in some of the events is explicit in Mark; that readers of Mark would know who their sons are is implicit in the very nature of the identification.

Anemic, in fact.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

In 3.21 his own people go out to reel Jesus in. Do they ever finish the trip? Yes. In Mark 3.31 his mother and brothers arrive.

This is a typical Marcan intercalation.

Ben.

gstafleu

I see. In 21 his family gets under way. In 22-30 we have some intervening narrative, things that were happening as his family is on its rescue mission. And then in 31 they finally arrive, with marginal success. Thanks for that elucidation.

BTW, heroes, and hence I'd say Messiahs, live perilously close to the edge of insanity. Who but a loony, or a bona fide hero like Gilgamesh, would for example try to outrun the sun through the tunnel it uses to traverse from night to day? In normal life, only a basket case would try to travel to the realm of death in order to unseat the goddess of death. Well, unless you are Inanna, of course. IOW, an example of how a real Messiah and real life doesn't go together.

Gerard Stafleu

thentian

What makes you think they reconciled? A mother could well decide to follow her loony son around to be at hand if some harm should befall him.

(So Mary Magdalene used to follow him and "minister" to him (15:41), eh? I wonder if his mother was around all the time... :devil1: )

aa5874

Your statement is completely false, mis-leading and unsubstantiated.

Jeffrey Gibson

Would you please do us the kindness of showing how Jiri's statement is "false, misleading and unsubstantiated"?

And where is your evidence that you are the expert in 1st century Judaism that you have laid claim to being?

Jeffrey