Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 12-14-2010, 09:04 AM

http://news.discovery.com/history/je...andmother.html

Quote:

The great-grandmother of Jesus was a woman named Ismeria, according to Florentine medieval manuscripts analyzed by a historian.

The legend of St. Ismeria, presented in the current Journal of Medieval History, sheds light on both the Biblical Virgin Mary's family and also on religious and cultural values of 14th-century Florence.

[...]

Lawless studied the St. Ismeria story, which she said has been "ignored by scholars," in two manuscripts: the 14th century "MS Panciatichiano 40" of Florence's National Central Library and the 15th century "MS 1052" of the Riccardiana Library, also in Florence.

"According to the legend, Ismeria is the daughter of Nabon of the people of Judea, and of the tribe of King David," wrote Lawless. She married "Santo Liseo," who is described as "a patriarch of the people of God." The legend continues that the couple had a daughter named Anne who married Joachim. After 12 years, Liseo died. Relatives then left Ismeria penniless.

Toto · 12-14-2010, 09:58 AM

A skeptical take from Pastor Jim West

Quote:

Anyway, WHAT? What rubbish. Oh Catherine, what are you doing? What possible historical use can be made of a medieval manuscript concerning the reconstruction of the life of the ‘Historical Mary’ (copyright, Jim West)?

...

So now legend is fodder for historical reconstruction? Have historians lost their minds? Is this the present state of the discipline? Please someone say no.

PhilosopherJay · 12-14-2010, 10:31 AM

Hi Toto,

Apparently, Jim West doesn't like grandmothers.

Actually, this shows how mythology grows.
Anonymous women wrote this fictional legend in medieval times. It is found many years later. It is labeled and categorized not as an historical find of a legend, but as a legendary find of history. We can be sure that thousand of Christian websites will echo this latest headline "Jesus' Great-Grandmother Identified" from "Discovery News" as more proof of the historicity of Jesus.

The process is simple.

Somebody writes fictional story A. Fictional story A is mislabelled as an historical Fact A.
Fictional Story B is written in response to fictional/historical story A. Because fictional story B relates to fictional/historical story A, it is used as historical evidence for fictional/historical story A
We now have fictional/historical story A + B

It is through this type of textual agglomeration that mythologies grow. This grandmother is no more or less fictional or historical than the Mary or Jesus characters.

We should welcome Ismaria, grandmother of Mary to the family.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A skeptical take from Pastor Jim West

Quote:

Anyway, WHAT? What rubbish. Oh Catherine, what are you doing? What possible historical use can be made of a medieval manuscript concerning the reconstruction of the life of the ‘Historical Mary’ (copyright, Jim West)?

...

So now legend is fodder for historical reconstruction? Have historians lost their minds? Is this the present state of the discipline? Please someone say no.

Tom Sawyer · 12-14-2010, 10:57 AM

Ya, I've got to agree with West here. Using some manuscripts from 1500 years after the fact which talks about unsupported legends is no way to go about performing historical reconstructions.

It sounds like there's a damn good reason that these manuscripts have been ignored by scholars for the past 500 years and it would seem like those reasons are good enough for us to continue ignoring them for the next 500 years.

spamandham · 12-14-2010, 11:13 AM

The discovery *is* applicable to medieval history, and it's publication in a journal dedicated to such is appropriate, but then to extend that and claim it sheds light on "the Virgin Mary's family" is quackery at it's finest, i.e., exactly like most of the rest of the field of Biblical history.

Tom Sawyer · 12-14-2010, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The discovery *is* applicable to medieval history, and it's publication in a journal dedicated to such is appropriate, but then to extend that and claim it sheds light on "the Virgin Mary's family" is quackery at it's finest, i.e., exactly like most of the rest of the field of Biblical history.

Yes, and it is relevant in that light and appropriate in the publication it was written in, given how the focus of it seems to be on how St Ismera was a model for how Florentine women were supposed to act during that period.

West's comments, however, were not about the publication itself, but about the Discovery article about the publication, where the focus was put on the side topic about how Ismera was supposed to be Mary's mother and the other aspects of the publication weren't really mentioned until the end of the article. He was rightly derisive of their scholarly work here and, based on what parts of the publication they talk about, they seem to have totally mischaracterized what it was saying.

show_no_mercy · 12-14-2010, 11:28 AM

At the end of the article, she does make an appropriate observation:

Quote:

During the medieval period, "the story may have been used as a model for continent wifehood and active, charitable widowhood in one of the many hospitals of medieval Florence."

"The grandmother of the Virgin was no widow who threatened the patrimony of her children by demanding the return of her dowry, nor did she threaten the family unit by remarrying and starting another lineage," she added. "Instead, her life could be seen as an ideal model for Florentine penitential women."

[...]

"What is so striking about St. Ismeria," Carolyn Muessig of the University of Bristol's Department of Theology and Religious Studies told Discovery News, "is that she is a model for older matrons. Let's face it: Older female role models are hard to come by in any culture."

"But the fact that St. Ismeria came to the fore in late medieval Florence," Muessig concluded, "reveals some of the more positive attitudes that medieval culture had towards the place and the importance of women in society."

Much like how Mark should be a commentary on what the author's life was like, not a historical reconstruction of Jesus.

Russellonius · 12-14-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

The conclusion? Accuracy in reporting appears to be less important to Discovery News than headlines that satisfy their need to provide exposure for their advertisers, including Craftsman, Lincoln, Chevrolet, Shell, GE & Nissan.

Gotta love the product plugs! That what it's all about.

aeebee50 · 12-14-2010, 09:11 PM

I would like to see more scholars investigate the article, especially catholic scholars. I was more interested in the horror stories from space.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-14-2010, 10:57 AM	#4
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	Ya, I've got to agree with West here. Using some manuscripts from 1500 years after the fact which talks about unsupported legends is no way to go about performing historical reconstructions. It sounds like there's a damn good reason that these manuscripts have been ignored by scholars for the past 500 years and it would seem like those reasons are good enough for us to continue ignoring them for the next 500 years.

12-14-2010, 11:13 AM	#5
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	The discovery is applicable to medieval history, and it's publication in a journal dedicated to such is appropriate, but then to extend that and claim it sheds light on "the Virgin Mary's family" is quackery at it's finest, i.e., exactly like most of the rest of the field of Biblical history.

12-14-2010, 09:11 PM	#9
aeebee50 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 5,810	I would like to see more scholars investigate the article, especially catholic scholars. I was more interested in the horror stories from space.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.