spamandham

Why would I need to show that? It has nothing to do with anything I've said.

What I proposed does explain all the data. It explains the legendary nature of Jesus, the differing genealogies, and the chastisements against appealing to genealogies. Unless you're taking mountainman's position that Constantine invented Christian history, then we know 2nd century authors thought Jesus had been historical. That's sufficient to explain why they would attach bogus genealogies to him.

Your position fails to explain why the genealogies exist at all, why they differ, or the chastisements against genealogies.

DCHindley

Ben & Gerard,

I am kind of catching the tail end of your exchange, so apologies in advance if someone has already touched on something I suggest here.

Yes, Ben is correct that some of the relationships between characters as found in the canonical Gospels seem to deviate from the "normal" ways of identifying people in literature of the time (as opposed to personal letters or something else, but let's ignore the issue of genre for the moment). I also agree with Gerard that is is a bit too easy to just wave away the problem and assume that the identifications must have been "obvious" to the intended audience.

There are actually a couple problems that I see here.

One: Is it wise to suppose that the intended audience was always fellow believers? John I'll concede was likely intended for the ears of other Christians. The synoptic gospels, on the other hand, I am not so sure about. Now I would not argue that Christians of the 2nd century and later took to them and used them for internal instruction in matters of faith and for common worship. But was that the purpose for which they were originally written?

I have mentioned this before, and I'll say it again, that the period of Christian development in which the synoptic gospels appeared (say, late 1st to early 2nd century CE) was exactly the period in which Christians NEEDED to explain their origins and the nature of their founder/central figure. This would have been in light of the facts that Jesus was a Jew known as "christ" (or anointed king-messiah-ruler), and that the Romans had crucified him (a form of execution mostly associated with rebels).

The Romans had just recently crushed - with great difficulty - a major Jewish rebellion in Coele Syria (roughly equivalent to modern day Israel and Lebanon), which had involved acts of genocide and extremism by both sides (that is NOT an exaggeration - think Bosnia-Herzegovina or Rwanda in the past 20 years). Also, to make it worse, that rebellion had been facilitated to some extent by converts to Judaism (the Adiabene princes).

The picture of Jesus of the synoptic gospels is a far cry from any sort of political rebel or wanna-be king. There he is more of a folksy wisdom teacher and moralizer, in the spirit of - and equally annoying as - Cynic philosophers familiar to Romans and Greeks. The Jewish elite are cast as jealous selfish men who didn't really understand their own God's will. I hear an echo of Josephus' own laments about the leading men among the Jews misunderstanding God's will and being spurred on to war.

Even the founding figures of Christianity (Peter, the disciples, etc) are depicted as not fully understanding it either. This, of course, implies that the authors of the gospels were at least two levels removed from what they depict as the erroneous or unenlightened thinking of the middle 1st century Jews. I would say the Christian community to which these authors belonged were almost all former gentile converts and "God-fearers" with a fairly extensive, but not wholly deep, knowledge of Jewish scriptures and history, but who now considered themselves to be the true representatives of God's will.

In other words, they were written to save face, to explain their origins in a manner that would be non-threatening to the Roman authorities. While the Roman authorities apparently didn't buy it, these gospels came to be immensely popular among the Christian rank & file.

Two: The contradictory and unorthodox manner of relating the key early-Christian figures mentioned (the disciples, etc) suggests the authors did not really know what the true relationships were any longer, and were basically guessing at them. I do not think they dared to make up additional figures, but they definitely felt a need to relate known figures together in some way. This reinforces the notion I mention in the above paragraphs which suggest that the writers of the synoptic gospels were at least two levels removed from Judaism and one from the actual founders of whatever movement served as the prototype for 2nd century Christianity.

DCH

Ben C Smith

Whether the original readership of Mark consisted of fellow believers or of nonbelievers does not logically impact whether or not that readership was supposed to know who James and Joses were, or who Rufus and Alexander were. These figures may have been well known to believing readers, or they may have been well known to nonbelieving readers.

Perhaps you could describe how this might work with Simon the father of Rufus and Alexander and Mary the mother of Joses and James. If Mark is not making up additional figures, then he himself must have received all these names from the tradition, right? Why identify a Mary he received from the tradition with a James and a Joses he received from the tradition unless his readers knew, presumably from the tradition, who James and Joses were? In fact, to suppose that Mark was guessing at the relationship between Mary, James, and Joses seems to imply all the more that his readers knew who James and Joses were; for why not guess along more traditional lines, using parents? Why use sons? Ditto for Simon, Rufus, and Alexander. Indeed, that the readers knew who Rufus and Alexander were is an even stronger inference in this case, since point of origin was an accepted way of identifying a person, and Simon is identified as coming from Cyrene. To further identify him by his sons is superfluous... unless his readers knew who they were.

IOW, this objection does not really answer the question; it merely rephrases it.

Note: They felt a need to relate known figures together. That is my point. Rufus and Alexander and Joses and James were known; that is why they were used as identifiers instead of the more customary parents.

Ben.

aa5874

Your argument is completely flawed and weak.

You are now reading gMark, today, and anyone could have read gMark at anytime.

Writers supply information to readers. A writer writes about events for the express purpose of giving information to readers. A writer cannot predict a reader knows all the information that he has written and he cannot predict who will read his writings.

DCHindley

I am inclined to look at these names as the names of individuals named in accusation against Christians.

The names do not have to come from "the" tradition, but partly from accusations and partly from Christian traditions. Rufus, Alexander, Mary, James, Joses, Simon, etc may come from hearsay, popular accounts of riots, rebels and what-not, some in relatively far away places like Cyrene. They can be accurate, misattributions, even slander. The thing is, the author of the gospel accepted them as reflecting names of real people he believed were possibly involved in those beginnings. Several people with the same or similar names were known is his circles, and they came up with "explanations" that identify them as innocents.

It would be the opposite of what happened in Jewsh circles in later centuries, except that Jewish accounts were trying to cast dispersion on him. But they used all sorts of connections to folks from different ages. Miriam the hairdresser from the 4th century CE, Ben Stada from the 1st century BCE, Ben Pantera from around Jesus' time. All blended together without relation to age or location of the tradition. An intertextual semiotic free for all. Julia Kristeva must be spinning in her grave (if she were dead, that is).

Unfortunately, it must be an argument from silence, as very few specific names contained in anti-Christian charges have survived.

DCH

Ben C Smith

Hi, David.

What you are still not explaining is precisely what you brought up, namely the unorthodoxy (your term) of the identifications, by sons rather than by the father or even by point of origin or nickname.

Imagine that Mark, in your scenario, has all these names floating around (whether they be from the tradition or from real rebels in Cyrene or from his beer buddies around the poker table): Simon, Rufus, Alexander; Mary, James, Joses. Mark guesses (your term again) at their relationships... but does so in an unorthodox way. Why? If he has the names Simon, Rufus, and Alexander, why not write of Simon of Cyrene, son of Rufus, son of Alexander? Or why not make Rufus and Alexander the actors in the passion, and identify them as the sons of Simon? That would be customary, expected, normal.

Instead Mark identifies both Simon and Mary, who are the actors, by their children, who remain offstage. This is exactly the question reader knowledge helps to answer, and the question that your scenario has yet to answer.

Ben.

DCHindley

The problem remains whether we assume the readers knew who these people were or not. I suggest that use of non standard identifiers was necessary, due to loss of (or lack of) knowledge about paternal lineage.

As an alternative, the fathers may also have fallen from favor among the Christians.

Under the violent circumstances described below, which occurred around or shortly before the time most would date the gospels to, how could there NOT have been family rifts, or unpleasant memories among certain contingents of pagans, and especially affecting those gentiles who left their own kind (so to speak) and followed the Jewish messiah Jesus? Placing in Jesus' mouth talk of hating father, mother, sister and brother for his sake may have been a matter making a virtue out of a necessity:

Matthew 10:21-22 21 Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake.

Mark 13:12 12 And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;

Luke 14:26 26 "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Wars of the Jews 2:457-468 457 Now the people of Caesarea had slain the Jews that were among them on the very same day and hour [when the soldiers were slain], which one would think must have come to pass by the direction of Providence; insomuch that in one hour's time more than twenty thousand Jews were killed, and all Caesarea was emptied of its Jewish inhabitants; for Florus caught such as ran away, and sent them in bonds to the galleys. 458 Upon which stroke that the Jews received at Caesarea, the whole nation was greatly enraged; so they divided themselves into several parties, and laid waste the villages of the Syrians, and their neighbouring cities, Philadelphia, and Sebonitis, and Gerasa, and Pella, and Scythopolis, 459 and after them Gadara, and Hippos; and falling upon Gaulonitis, some cities they destroyed there, and some they set on fire, and then went to Kedasa, belonging to the Tyrians, and to Ptolemais, and to Gaba, and to Caesarea; 460 nor was either Sebaste (Samaria) or Askelon able to oppose the violence with which they were attacked; and when they had burnt these to the ground; they entirely demolished Anthedon and Gaza; many also of the villages that were around everyone of those cities were plundered, and an immense slaughter was made of the men who were caught in them. 461 However, the Syrians were even with the Jews in the multitude of the men whom they slew; for they killed those whom they caught in their cities, and that not only out of the hatred they bare them, as formerly, but to prevent the danger under which they were from them; 462 so that the disorders in all Syria were terrible, and every city was divided into two armies encamped one against another, and the preservation of the one party was in the destruction of the other; 463 so the daytime was spent in shedding of blood, and the night in fear--which was of the two the more terrible; for when the Syrians thought they had ruined the Jews, they had the Judaizers in suspicion also; and as each side did not care to slay those whom they only suspected on the other, so did they greatly fear them when they were mingled with the other, as if they were certainly foreigners. 464 Moreover, greediness of gain was a provocation to kill the opposite party, even to such as had of old appeared very mild and gentle toward them; for they without fear plundered the effects of the slain, and carried off the spoils of those whom they slew to their own houses, as if they had been gained in a set battle; and he was esteemed a man of honour who got the greatest share, as having prevailed over the greatest number of his enemies. 465 It was then common to see cities filled with dead bodies, still lying unburied, and those of old men, mixed with infants, all dead, and scattered about together; women also lay among them, without any covering for their nakedness: you might then see the whole province full of inexpressible calamities, while the dread of still more barbarous practices which were threatened, was everywhere greater than what had been already perpetrated. 466 And thus far the conflict had been between Jews and foreigners; but when they made excursions to Scythopolis, they found Jew that acted as enemies; for as they stood in battle array with those of Scythopolis, and preferred their own safety before their relation to us, they fought against their own countrymen; 467 nay, their alacrity was so very great, that those of Scythopolis suspected them. These were afraid, therefore, lest they should make an assault upon the city in the night time, and to their great misfortune, should thereby make an apology for themselves to their own people for their revolt from them. So they commanded them, that in case they would confirm their agreement, and demonstrate their fidelity to them, who were of a different nation, they should go out of the city, with their families, to a neighbouring grove: 468 and when they had done as they were commanded, without suspecting anything, the people of Scythopolis lay still for the interval of two days, to tempt them to be secure; but on the third night they watched for their opportunity, and cut all their throats, some as they lay unguarded, and some as they lay asleep. The number that was slain was more than thirteen thousand, and then they plundered them of all that they had.

Wars of the Jews 2:469-476 469 It will deserve our history to relate what befell Simon; he was the son of one Saul, a man of reputation among the Jews. This man was distinguished from the rest by the strength of his body and the boldness of his conduct, although he abused them both to the mischievousness of his countrymen; 470 for he came every day and slew a great many of the Jews of Scythopolis, and he frequently put them to flight, and became himself alone the cause of his army's conquering. 471 But a just punishment overtook him for the murders he had committed upon those of the same nation with him; for when the people of Scythopolis threw their javelins at them [the Jews] in the grove, he drew his sword, but did not attack any of the enemy; for he saw that he could do nothing against such a multitude; but he cried out, after a very moving manner, and said-- 472 ``O you people of Scythopolis, I deservedly suffer for what I have done with relation to you, when I gave you such security of my fidelity to you, by slaying so many of those who were related to me. Therefore we very justly experience the perfidiousness of foreigners, while we acted after a most wicked manner against our own nation. I will therefore die, polluted wretch as I am, by mine own hands; for it is not fit I should die by the hand of our enemies; 473 and let the same action be to me both a punishment for my great crimes, and a testimony of my courage to my commendation, that so no one of our enemies may have it to boast of, that he it was that slew me; and no one may glory over me as I fall.'' 474 Now when he had said this, he looked around him upon his family with eyes of pity and of rage; (that family consisted of a wife and children, and his aged parents); 475 so, in the first place, he caught his father by his grey hairs, and ran his sword through him; and after him he did the same to his mother, who willingly received it; and after them he did the like to his wife and children, everyone almost offering themselves to his sword, as desirous to prevent being slain by their enemies; 476 so when he had gone over all his family, he stood upon their bodies to be seen by all, and stretching out his right hand, that his action might be observed by all, he sheathed his entire sword into his own bowels. This young man was to be pitied, on account of the strength of his body and the courage of his soul; but since he had assured foreigners of his fidelity [against his own countrymen], he suffered deservedly.

Wars of the Jews 2:477-480 477 Besides this murder at Scythopolis, the other cities rose up against the Jews that were among them: those of Askelon slew two thousand five hundred, and those of Ptolemais, two thousand, and put not a few into bonds; 478 those of Tyre also put a great number to death, but kept a greater number in prison; moreover, those of Hippos and those of Gadara, did the like, while they put to death the boldest of the Jews, but kept those of whom they were afraid in custody; as did the rest of the cities of Syria, according as everyone either hated them or were afraid of them; 479 only the Antiochians, the Sidonians, and Apamians spared those who dwelt with them, and would not endure either to kill any of the Jews or to put them in bonds. And perhaps they spared them, because their own number was so great that they despised their attempts. But I think the greatest part of this favour was owing to their pity of those whom they saw to make no seditions. 480 As for the Gerasens, they did no harm to those who abode with them; and for those who had a mind to go away, they conducted them as far as their borders reached.

Hard feelings between converts and god-fearers and their parents or other kin would, I would think, rule the day, and could explain why these men were NOT identifed by paternal relationship, assuming the fathers had acted against the children, or disowned them, even though it occurred years after the events being related by the author of Mark, or Matthew or Luke. They may also have had a hand in the calamities of the rebellion of 66-73 CE, even having taken part in massacres against gentiles, which would simply give an opponent an opportunity to turn the reference against the author.

Regarding the practice of purposefully omitting a person's name, there is also an interesting suggestion by David Trobisch (Paul's Letter Collection, Fortress, 1994, pp 61-62), who thinks that an ancient editor (he leaves it open as to whether it as Paul editing his own letters or someone else) removed the name of at least one person originally mentioned favorably in a Pauline letter (2 Cor 8:16-19), presumably on account of the fellow having falling from Paul's (or the editor's) grace.

"The practice of deleting names because of the positive or negative connotation was not thought to be acceptable to the reader is referred to as damnatio memoriae." (ibid, page 58). There are times when an author may not want the true relationship of persons mentioned in a narrative to be known, especially if you felt compelled to mention them to answer a charge against you or your people.

DCH

Ben C Smith

That the readers were expected to know solves our main problem.

Are you suggesting (A) that the tradents were more willing to invent connections as sons than connections as fathers? Or are you suggesting (B) that the readers did not know who the fathers were but did know who the sons were?

Option A does not make much sense to me. Option B is pretty much my preferred option (but without directly positing that the readers did not know the fathers).

This would seem to posit at least as much knowledge about the fathers as my option posits about the sons.

I am familiar with that hypothesis about the brother in 2 Corinthians 8, and think it is viable.

Ours is the opposite problem. We have specific names recorded in Mark, not erased.

I did not see the direct relevance of the Josephus quotes you offered. I am willing to stipulate that there was a lot of strife at the time.

Ben.

spamandham

Just thinking out loud here, but could the emphasis on sons rather than fathers be due to the apocalyptic Essene belief that the Sons of Light would triumph over the forces of darkness (Rome)?

Were these men perhaps portrayed as the 'Sons of Light' in some tradition the readers would be expected to be aware of?

Ben C Smith

You are correct. The later Mary (in 15.40, 47; 16.1) is not identified as the mother of Jesus.

As for why one would even ask the question, well, obviously I am asking the question because the names of her sons are the same as the names of two of the sons of the mother of Jesus (in 6.3). Also, certain scholars have in the past argued for the identity of these two women.

Bauckham is, unless you can show otherwise, not one of those scholars who concludes that these are the same Mary.

Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women (or via: amazon.co.uk), page 253 (emphasis added):

An identification of Mary the mother of James and Joses (Mark 15:40) with the mother of Jesus would have seemed plausible on the basis of Mark 6:3, and was made by others in the patristic period.*

* [Note 106] Blinzler, Bruder 73-74 n. 2. Modern advocates of this identification are S. W. Trompf... and J. J. Gunther; but against them, see Oberlinner...; Bauckham, Jude 13-15.

Following the footnote, we turn to Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (or via: amazon.co.uk), page 13 (emphasis added):

Such a case depends on identifying her sons James the little and Joses with the two elder 'brothers' of Jesus James and Joses. We may first of all rule out the possibility that she is the mother of Jesus, since it is incredible that Mark, Matthew or pre-Markan tradition should choose this way of referring to the mother of Jesus.

You are, unless you can show that Bauckham has changed his mind, simply mistaken.

I absolutely do think his conclusion is a serious one. It is just not the conclusion you were attributing to him. I for one do not tend to think that these were the same Mary.

Whose credibility is impeached?

Ben.