judge

Again, you may just be projecting your own 21st century take on things.
But this book was never addressed to you, so you can't rely on your assumptions.

The book may have been addressed to a community or communities who knew or knew of james or joses etc.
As the se communities may not have known a human Jesus, but may have know a human James, it might make sense to use James as a reference.

Sitting here in 2011 we might assume that jesus should be always mentioned as a reference. But if I knew you (or knew of you) and didnt know your long dead brother. Then it might make sense to use you as a refererence.

So yes its more understandable to us, but this doesn't mean it should always be understandable to someone living closer to that time and those people.


But that may not be right. But even if you are right that jesus should be mentioned you still are dodging. :devil1:

Specifically you are dodging this.

Why did the Matthean author omit this if he had Mark 6;3 in front of him?

spin

This is not a response to the linguistic issue.

And discourse analysis stops because you want it to.

More than Jesus, you'd have to argue.

So you're arguing that these communities knew that Jesus didn't have brothers?

So the younger brother is famous as son of Mary rather than the elder one to your imagined reader!? You imply that Mk 6:3 is a later addition.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. I've already indicated that the Matthean writer didn't connect the Mary of Mk 6:3 with that of Mk 16:1.

spin

Last time you tried to drag in John, I said

When was John written? Your answer: "I don't know." You don't know where and how John fits into the developing christian tradition. You don't know how it relates to the synoptics. In fact, you don't know what sort of composition it is. You could be doing the equivalent of citing Exodus as a meaningful picture of Egypt in the mid 2nd millennium BCE.

And while we're here, where does John indicate the name of Jesus's mother?

Further, your reading suggests only three women in Jn 19:25, while it looks to me like four: the mother of Jesus and her sister, Mary of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene, in two pairs. Otherwise, you'd have the first Mary defined twice.

The reason in sticking to the synoptics is because we have a means to relate them chronologically in the tradition. But the issue does not revolve around the number of Marys. It is much more specific than that: it's Marys with a son with a rare variant name "Joses" (already pointed out twice in this thread), as well as a son called James.

Mary is a relatively common name, but you are shooting at something in isolation that doesn't represent the argument you are trying to deal with.

You seem not to get the drift of the problem, arguing about the wrong thing.

judge

You're still dodging. Which is fine by me. I dont care if you dodge.

spin

Note: no response by judge to most of the previous post.

First, you won't explain yourself and, second, you're the pot looking for a kettle, when you try to talk about dodging. I've tried to pin you down from one end of this thread to the other on something definite, on tangible responses.

You need to explain just what you are claiming to be a dodge, rather than to ignore what you are replying to. Then I can respond to you.

sschlichter

it is what exists. my other option is to follow you over the cliff of speculation.

John does not indicate the name of jesus' mother.

that's funny. I read that as 1) the mother of Jesus, 2) her sister, Mary of Cleopas, and 3) Mary Magdalene. is that wrong?

wouldn't what you are suggesting look like this?

kai h adelfh thj mhtroj autou kai maria h tou klwpa kai maria h magdalhnh

the red is not in the text.

I understand that it is secondary in your mind. However, I do not understand why it is superseded by whatever you pull out of your... well, you know what I mean.

yes, of course. Once you convince me that north is south, we can then look at how all the maps do not make sense.

~steve

judge

See post #161. You dodged it.
But Im not that concerned it you wish to dodge it. So im not going to keep repeating it.

spin

The only person here speculating is you. You do so by wilfully reading one text into another without any controls whatsoever.

And that doesn't make you think about what you're doing?

It's obvious how you read it.

Look at the list of apostles in Mt 10. You'll find them all in pairs, eg Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the publican; etc. There need not be an "and". I read it in pairs, as two unnamed relatives of Jesus and two Marys:

the mother of Jesus and her sister, Mary of Cleopas and Mary Magdalene.

Have you got anything to suggest otherwise?

This of course is an issue you needed to respond to. In doing the analysis we're engaged in we need to have a coherent epistemology, how you know what you claim to know. All I've seen from you is some form of arbitrary literalism.

Well, at least now we know where you tend to pull your ideas from.

One needs controls for the data one uses otherwise one emulates you and comes out with fluent bull... "well, you know what I mean."

Said with the certainty of Peter Peachfuzz.

You will never be able to explain the relationship of John's traditions to those of the synoptics, yet you are blindly prepared to use the data as though it were historical. You may as well cite from the Mel Gibson film about the passion, which may in your uncontrolled approach be accurate. You just don't care. You know what your conclusions are. There is nothing suspect with Mk 6:3 when compared to the defining children of the Mary in 15:40 and 16:1.

spin

Why don't you acknowledge the tables I made for you in order for you to understand the simplicity of the development?

While I have means of pointing to two distinct interventions on the text of Mark, you have concocted a theory with no basis whatsoever. Look at it implied in this question:

if it is so important to mention that Mary and jesus were related (as you claim) then why didnt the Matthean writer include this in all references?

It includes a claim falsely attributed to me by you. Let's remove it:

if it is so important to mention that Mary and jesus were related .. then why didnt the Matthean writer include this in all references?

Now the implications of this are just wrong.

The argument you are responding to goes:

1) "Mary, mother of James and Joses" (Mk 15:40), doesn't seem to be mother of Jesus, given that Jesus is the famous son and the tradition is to define people by someone they would be most sure to recognize.

2) The tradition develops that this Mary is also mother of Jesus, hence 6:3.

3) This is the textual information that the Matthean writer inherits.

4) The writer reproduces Mk 6:3 with all its content, but not having made the connection between Mk 6:3 and Mk 15:40 reduces the Mary mentioned in Mk 16:1 to "the other Mary".

These developments make sense if the Marcan writer connects Mk 15:40, 47 & Mk 16:1 to the mother of Jesus, but the Matthean writer doesn't connect Mk 6:3 to Mk 15:40.

You are talking about importance, but if there is importance it is with the Marcan writer. You then arbitrarily shift that onto the Matthean writer. This is why you don't understand what's going on.

There are a number of ironies here. I answer your questions. You refuse to answer mine. You didn't repeat yourself, so there is no content in the word "keep". You accuse me of dodging things, when the only thing you've done in this thread is ducking and weaving... you know, dodging. Enjoy your hypocrisy.

sschlichter

I have already explained my use of John. No point in re-clarifying. actually, the conversation is starting to have a redundancy to it with the exception of the use of 'and'.

I think you have made it clear you you have translated mark 15:40

Among them were Mary Magdalene
, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses
, and Salome.

you were correct because you did not interpret it as:

Among them were Mary Magdalene
, and Mary
, the mother of James the younger and of Joses
, and Salome.

or

Among them were Mary Magdalene
, and Mary
, the mother of James the younger
, and [the implied mother of] of Joses
, and Salome.



I do not like it when people skip over points that they do not like to address - at the same time I do not like getting into a pissing contest over whether I have addressed it. If I have missed something, please point it out. If I have already addressed it, but not to your satisfaction, let's move on.

~Steve