lpetrich

I once checked on the original Greek of the New Testament; my results are in this post and especially this post.

I found that it uses either Mariam (indeclinable) or Maria, and never Mariamme or Mariamne.

The Septuagint's authors had borrowed Old Testament names in indeclinable forms, like Mariam, which makes them fit rather awkwardly into Greek. This practice is also contrary to the usual practice of giving foreign words Greek noun endings, like Mariam > Mariamme. The New Testament follows the Septuagint, though it also does Mariam > Maria.

So what are the statistics of Mariam vs. Maria vs. Mariamme vs. Mariamne?

Ecrasez L'infame

The translation can go either way: either Jesus' mother was there with her sister AND with Mary of Cleophas (and Magdala - 4 women altogether), or Jesus' mother was there with her sister WHO WAS Mary of Cleophas (and Magdala was there as well - only 3 women). I would love to be able to use the 3-women theory, since two sisters with the same name is strong evidence that there's something meaningful in the evangelists' choice of that name - although even here there's wiggle-room, for example, if Cleophas was Joseph's brother. In any case, so long as the 4-women translation is possible, we have to give the benefit of the doubt to coincidence.

Here's a summary of how various bibles treat the phrase:

So take your pick.

Ecrasez L'infame

Ach, I concede your point - outside the Hellenistic period and excluding Simon the tribe, there's only one or two very minor Simons in the OT proper. I got the idea that there were more from my source Odelain & Seguineau who include Deuterocanonical books, mostly Hellenistic. Here's their list:

OT proper
Simeon son of Jacob, his territory and his tribe
Shimeon, married to a foreign wife - Ezra 10.31
Simeon, ancestor of Mattaniah, ancestor of Hanan. This is a bit mysterious: O&S don't give a passage, and I think they've made a mistake here. There's certainly no Simeon at Nehemiah 13:13.

Deuterocanonical
Simon, high priest - Ecclesiasticus 50:1-21
Simon Maccabee
Simon, administrator of the Temple, 2 Maccabees 3 & 4

NT genealogy
Symeon, ancestor of Jesus, Lk 3:30 (but not in Mt 1). Possibly the same individual as the Shimeon in Ezra?

Gospels - the usual suspects
Simeon at the Temple who welcomes Jesus
Simon Peter
Simon the Zealot
Simon the brother of Jesus
Simon Iscariot
Simon the Pharisee
Simon the leper of Bethany
Simon of Cyrene

Acts
Simon Magus
Simon of Jaffa
Simeon called Niger

Apologies for the confusion.

Ecrasez L'infame

'Tis vanity to flog a dead thread - especially for the OPer -, but there's just a couple more things I wanted to say.

ipetrich: in your link, you give a list of Bible Maries. I can't see any justification for identifying Bethany (the sister of Lazarus and Martha) with the mother of James in your system (you allocate them both to #3). Except for Lk 10.38, Bethany only appears in John; whereas the other Mary is around the Cross in the synoptics, but, in John, is replaced by Mary of Clopas. No suggestion at all that Bethany is one or both of the Cross Maries. (Interesting if they were, however...). Any source on your identification?

Ben: IIUC, you're saying that in Herodian times certain names became suddenly fashionable, and that the surfeit of Maries (and Simons and Jameses and Johns) we see in the NT are simply because there were lots of people about with that name. Well, I'm inclined to dispute that, but even if so, it doesn't affect my main argument, which is: the Evangelists could have simplified the naming; they seem to have had the storytelling skills to recognise they should have simplified the naming; yet they didn't simplify the naming. That strikes me as deliberate, regardless of whether the naming is historically true or not.

Hypothesis 1) The Gospels are stories, not history. I don't claim they are fiction, because I'm not sure the ancients had the concept; but simply that the Evangelists do not regard what actually happened as anywhere near as important as how they tell it. We can see this from the process in which the text is sexed-up from Mark to Matthew/ Luke to John (and we have no reason to doubt that Mark also sexed-up his sources). For example: in Mark 6, the boat that Jesus walks to (across the water) is in the middle of the lake and is rowing against the wind, in Matthew 14 the boat is a long way (a mile?) from shore and being tossed about in the waves (and the Peter comedic interlude is added), and by John 6, it is several miles from the shore, and the sea "arose by reason of a great wind that blew" (KJV). At each step the text is sexed-up to make a better story. The basic rule is: make things dramatic, make your language more specific. "It was a dark and stormy night" is much better (in story-telling terms) than "the wind was blowing a bit". In short, each of the Evangelists sees the source in front of him as a draft, and themselves as a writer-editor; they do not alter it gratuitously, but they don't hesitate to alter it where they think that improves the story.

Hypothesis 2) The surfeit of Maries (and Jameses and the rest) IS distracting. The reader DOES stop to think "which Mary are they talking about now?", and the story-telling spell IS temporarily broken. Furthermore, the surfeit of Maries is unnecessary. The most extreme case is Mary mother of James (who may or may not be the same as Mary of Clopas). There is NO reason (in story-telling terms) why her name is given. She does not appear anywhere else except at the Cross, she has no character, she plays no part in the plot, and no information is given in the texts we have other than her definition: mother of James. The editor in me is screaming that she needs to be cut, or at least that her name needs to be. By hypothesis 1), the Evangelists could have done so. Why didn't they? All these other BIG changes they make - just look at the Infancy stories, for example -, and this one tiny little change to make things a little clearer... and they don't do it. I argue that the same is true of the other Maries, although the case is less straightforward. Bethany could have been identified with Magdala, via the sinful woman of Luke 7. It might not be historically accurate - Geza Vermes, an arch-historicist, calls the idea "far-fetched", tho' it isn't so far-fetched that it doesn't have its scholarly defenders - but it sure makes the story simpler. And why does Mark - the first Evangelist - give us Jesus' mother's name in his Gospel? Again, she serves no purpose - no infancy verses, and she's not at the Cross according to him - just a couple of off-camera asides. Cut, cut, cut.

And, as I say, the same could be said about the Simons, the Jameses, the Judes, and even the second "Jesus" (Barabbas). It all screams at me: deliberate. We are telling you something here. My OP was simply asking what.

Thanks

Robert

Julian

One time when I was in Ecuador I noticed that people were referring to the 'indian' (a mountain-dwelling remnant of the original indigenous population) women who sell vegetables (and sundry goods) on the street as 'Marias.' Apparently, they are all named Maria with a distribution of that name that approaches, or maybe even reaches, 100%. Imagine having to tell a story or explain something that involves more than one woman.

Julian

P.S. Did I mention that they dress alike, too? And look quite similar as well, although that could be my western eyes.

Ben C Smith

These are excellent points, and I think they might well point you in the right direction.

You say that there is NO reason for the naming of certain women; but let me suggest that you have already given the perfect reason for naming these women: They were at the cross and at other key places during the execution of Jesus.

Mark 15.40:

And there were also some women observing from a distance, among whom were [A] Mary Magdalene, and [B] Mary the mother of James the less and Joses, and [C] Salome.

Mark 15.47:

And [A] Mary Magdalene and [B] Mary the mother of Joses were observing to see where he was laid.

Mark 16.1, 4-5:

And when the sabbath was over, [A] Mary Magdalene and [B] Mary the mother of James and [C] Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. .... And, looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. And, entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed.

These women are named at the cross, at the tomb during the burial, and at the tomb on resurrection morning. In all three places Mark specifies what they saw.

Why?

Simple. The male disciples had fled. Who was left to witness and testify to these events? The women. Mark is blatantly calling these women eyewitnesses; hence their names in his gospel, despite any possible name confusion. These women were important in the early church as witnesses to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (compare exactly those three key elements in 1 Corinthians 15.3-4, also in the context of naming eyewitnesses).

Again, this explanation is not very sexy, but it fits the bill. It is basically what Bauckham argues in one of the chapters of his latest book. I think he takes the point too far throughout the gospels; but I think he is on solid ground in the passion narratives.

Ben.