Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-05-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The avoiding of favoritism idea is not a good idea.

It is if James and Joses are the only siblings that the Marcan readership actually knew.

Ben.

Are you assuming that the Marcan readership only knew James and Joses were the sons of Mary and not Jesus?

The author of gMark wrote what all his readers knew?

A real awful idea.

Ben C Smith · 08-05-2008, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you assuming that the Marcan readership only knew James and Joses were the sons of Mary and not Jesus?

No, not remotely.

Ben.

spamandham · 08-05-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Mark 6.3:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us?

Mark 15.40:

There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the lesser and Joses, and Salome.

Mark 15.47:

Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses were looking on to see where he was laid.

Mark 16.1 (see Luke 24.10):

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might come and anoint him.

Why does it waffle around on whether or not James is Jesus' brother and Mary Jesus' mother? My guess is it's a conflict between the desire to portray James as a blood relative of Jesus with the desire to have Jesus exist as an eternal god unborn - a conflict resolved later on by having Jesus be 'both fully human and fully God'.

This is evidence to me either that Mark was written later than usually assumed during the catholic movement, or that it had multiple editors with conflicting agendas. I'm discounting the idea that the author couldn't remember what roles his characters played.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Jude [1.]1:

Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those who are the called, beloved in God the father, and kept for Jesus Christ.

To me, this James does appear to be the same as the Gospel James, the epistles' James, and Jospehus' James. (and probably the same Jude as well, though it's obvious the author of Jude was not 'the Jude').

Ben C Smith · 08-05-2008, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Why does it waffle around on whether or not James is Jesus' brother and Mary Jesus' mother? My guess is it's a conflict between the desire to portray James as a blood relative of Jesus with the desire to have Jesus exist as an eternal god unborn - a conflict resolved later on by having Jesus be 'both fully human and fully God'.

I think that Petergdi is onto something here. Mark does not tell us that he is reluctant to let Jesus have a mother and brothers (to the contrary, that he does have family comes out loud and clear, both in 6.3 and in chapter 3), but he does tell us that he thinks the old family ties have little or no meaning.

Ben.

aa5874 · 08-05-2008, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you assuming that the Marcan readership only knew James and Joses were the sons of Mary and not Jesus?

No, not remotely.

Ben.

The avoiding of favoritism idea is not a good idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

It is if James and Joses are the only siblings that the Marcan readership actually knew.

When did the author of Mark write, who was his readership and what did they all know about James, Joses, Jesus and Mary?

You have no idea!

Amaleq13 · 08-05-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

But why keep changing the designation? Avoiding the appearance of favoritism?

I suggested a simple pattern (James and Joses, Joses alone, James alone). But the avoidance of favoritism may have something to do with it; if the readers knew both kids, then maybe Mark was just playing fair between them.

But, if all that fails to float your boat, then I say, with Crossan, I have no idea.

Ben.

So, it isn't something one finds in other examples of ancient writing?

spamandham · 08-05-2008, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I think that Petergdi is onto something here. Mark does not tell us that he is reluctant to let Jesus have a mother and brothers (to the contrary, that he does have family comes out loud and clear, both in 6.3 and in chapter 3), but he does tell us that he thinks the old family ties have little or no meaning.

Ben.

If that were true, then why does it not apply (at least as much) to others?

I don't deny that Mark has Jesus downplaying blood relations (as does the Gospel of Thomas), but since such downplay is unique to Jesus, it smacks to me as "and that's the reason for all the conflict in regards to Jesus' relatives".

(as an interesting loosely related tangent, note this from Gospel of Thomas Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.")

thentian · 08-06-2008, 01:35 AM

I keep thinking about "Just" and "Righteous". That's a very jewish concept, isn't it? One "Righteous Man" preserves the world... Maybe James was considered by some to be more than simply a very just person?

Doug Shaver · 08-06-2008, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Do you rule out as not "extra biblical evidence" the traditions recorded bt Church Fathers?

I consider the traditions to be evidence of what the church fathers believed. I don't consider them to be evidence that the church fathers had good reason to believe it.

Lugubert · 08-06-2008, 06:46 AM

It's interesting that, as far as I can tell, there has been no mentioning in the thread of "the other Mary"of Matthew 27:61.

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

08-06-2008, 01:35 AM	#38
thentian Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 694	I keep thinking about "Just" and "Righteous". That's a very jewish concept, isn't it? One "Righteous Man" preserves the world... Maybe James was considered by some to be more than simply a very just person?

08-06-2008, 06:46 AM	#40
Lugubert Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Western Sweden Posts: 3,684	It's interesting that, as far as I can tell, there has been no mentioning in the thread of "the other Mary"of Matthew 27:61.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.