gstafleu

So the crucial event that establishes Jesus' Christhood, his death and especially his resurrection, is witnessed (mainly, only?) by women, and the women are identified via their children, right?

This was a patriarchal society. In such a society the top-dogs are the adult males, the underdogs are the females and the children. So the witnesses Mark gives for the most important event of his story are all underdogs. This fits in with the theme we have been discussing in the other thread, to wit that nobody gets it. The top-dogs don't even get to witness the event, and are thus totally out of it. The underdogs do get to witness, but don't get it either.

You can interpret this either apologetically or as a rejection of the efficacy of Christhood, it fits both ways.

Gerard Stafleu

aa5874

When Mark 6.3 is re-visited, it will become apparent that all that has been done so far on this thread is to make assumptions about Mary that cannot be confirmed.

It will be noticed in the first place that the question was directed towards or about a CARPENTER.

In opening verses of Mark 6, Jesus was preaching in a synagogue, and the crowd were astonished and asked, IS NOT THIS THE CARPENTER, THE SON OF MARY.......?

Nowhere in Mark 6.3 is it directly stated that MARY had SONS named James, Joses, Juda and Simon. Nowhere in Mark 6.3 is it directly stated that MARY had DAUGHTERS.

Mark 6.3 is questioning the identity of the CARPENTER not MARY.

Mark 6.3 continues, IS NOT THIS THE CARPENTER.......the BROTHER of JAMES, and JOSES, and of JUDA, and SIMON? and are not his SISTERS here with us? And they were offended at him.

Now, who are the mothers or fathers of James, Joses, Juda and Simon? Who are the sisters, and who are their mothers or fathers? Mark 6.3 does not say.

Mark 6.3, in effect, has virtually no information about MARY. It is a case of FUTILITY to try to establish anything about MARY in gMark, not even Greek can help.

Ben C Smith

For balance? I guess I do not see the trouble, because this is the way I probably would have done it.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Witnessed by women in all the gospels (with at least one man added in John), yes. But only one of the women is identified by her children, and that in Mark alone.

This has been footed before, of course, and it may be so. Crossan, for instance, thinks that Mark has subverted named Jewish males in favor of an unnamed gentile centurion and unnamed females.

But this still does not explain why Mary is identified by her sons. That, I think, virtually requires that the readers were expected to know who those sons were.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

How would you know?

Ben.

aa5874

This is so bizarre. You don't kown if the author did it for balance, yet you GUESS that you would have done it the same way?

This is just mind-boggling. Your are just floating.

aa5874

The day I found out you DID NOT.

gstafleu

This then puts Mary in a special position, doesn't it? And who is the most special Mary we know about...?

Gerard

Ben C Smith

Why? The only position it puts her in is one in which certain readers of Mark know who her kids are.

At this stage, Mary Magdalene.

Later on in catholic history, Mary the mother of God.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I guess not even English can help.

Ben.