Originally Posted by spin

So we can forget the passage altogether though, can't we?

You'll note that I based part of the analysis on the fact that this Mary was mother not only of James, but of Joses, this latter being a rare form of the name.


We could end up with the scene at the end of The Life of Brian with a dozen Jesuses on their crosses, but now let's throw in a few dozen Marys as well.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

you don't have a choice. the Mary's are already there.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

apparent over-defintion is also a necessary solution to an abundance of mary's.

Originally Posted by spin

The existence of this "Mary, the mother of James and Joses" in Mk 15:40, 47 and 16:1, calls into question the value of Mk 6:3, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" Were there really two Marys, both mothers of Jameses and Joseses? If not would a writer have omitted the famous son defining who the mother was?

It's very hard to consider Mk 6:3 as part of the earliest christian tradition. !

Originally Posted by judge

Two points I think you still need to address.

1. Seeing as mark 6:3 gives the most information about Mary and the sons, including Jesus. Why is it not at least possible that later references didnt need to include , all the information, for anyone who just read mark from start to finish?

Originally Posted by judge

Particularly if Jesus was long dead and the other brothers still alive or not long dead and known to the community?

Originally Posted by judge

2. Why if it was important that mark must mention Jesus at every juncture, did matthew not do so when he had mark 6:3 in front of him. Of course one might say that matthew jusr slavishly copied mark, and thats possible I guess.

Originally Posted by spin

But the writer didn't. He interpreted Mark and made no connection between the family of Jesus found in Mk 6:3 and the Mary of Mk 15:40, 47, & 16:1. He provides a clear example of an ancient reader's reaction to Mark in this issue. And he finds this other Mary of little interest.

Originally Posted by judge

How can we know he made this interpretation, as opposed to just copying what he saw?

Originally Posted by spin

Only when you mix and match.

(The apostrophe in "Mary's" doesn't work. The plural is Marys.)

Assuming your conclusion. And obviously, "Mary of Clopas" is sufficient.

But this conversation is becoming an extended tangent to the thread.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

actually, the identity of mary is relevant to the identity of james since one of them is his mother.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Mary of Clopas would only be sufficient if John was written very early, wouldn't it.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Presumably, John was written later, there is no reason for his audience to know who Clopas was.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Identification as Jesus' mother was necessary as no one knows who Clopas is otherwise.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

if assuming my conclusion makes this work then my conclusion remains a possibility.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

What I am trying to understand is how this conclusion is rated 'unlikely' by you when:

all indications are there are two mary's in Mark. you say it is strange to refer to Mary as the mother of James if he is the mother of Jesus and then reject the premise that she is the mother james and not jesus.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

John, rejected by you because it is too late to be informed on the subject is also rejected for stating the very case that there are two marys.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yet, John was also written early enough for everyone to know who Clopas was without any further clarification as to the the fact that he is related to the mother of jesus.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I accept the remote possibility of what you say even as it diminishes. What every skeptic should be skeptical about is your arbitrary system of probability calculations.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

(feel free to correct my spelling and grammar as much as you like if you think it is relevant)

Originally Posted by spin

This misses the discussion.


Why do you claim this?


You might like this assertion.


Why mention Clopas at all then?

And what has this Mary of Clopas got to do with anything anyway? She's only mentioned in John. Nowhere else.


Assuming your conclusion guarantees that it doesn't make anything work. You know what the conclusion must be, so you make assertions so it can happen for you. That is not meaningful. You aren't entering into a functional dialog that way.


You don't seem to be saying what you want to say. I gather you mean that I "say it is strange to refer to Mary as the mother of James if he is the mother of Jesus and then reject the premise that she is the mother of jesus."

There may still be some confusion on your part between Jesus and Joses. I don't know. The Marcan writer has no confusion using both in 6:3. Joses is a rare form of the name "Joseph".


I said that one cannot relate the tradition of John to that of the synoptics. While we can make meaningful hypotheses about the relationships between the synoptics, we can't do so adding in John to the mix.


You seem to be contradicting something you said earlier here:

Identification as Jesus' mother was necessary as no one knows who Clopas is otherwise.

Whatever the case, you have no means of asserting the earliness of John by mention of a name. Frequently the longer a tradition has been around, the m ore people know it.


I presented a very simple, obvious example of failure of discourse under the current interpretation of the material. You have not dealt with it. You have tried to sidestep the particular issue, I've given you in the form of "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund". This is unreasonable discourse: the defining information of "mother of Gustav and Edmund" doesn't define, whereas "mother of Adolf" immediately functions as defining. If the Marcan mother of James and Joses were also the mother of Jesus, then we'd have the same issue. While Jesus is immediately defining, other possibilities simply do not achieve the transparency and the omission of Jesus suggests that he wasn't involved.

It's the sense that frequently seems to need work.