Robert said
Nobody knows what really happened. At best we can try and understand what point ‘Mark’ is trying to make with his use of various stories that may have been available to him from prior tradition.There are reasons to join in the earlier tradition the Beelzebub story and the Nazareth story as more closely aligned. I won’t go into the details of that idea (cf Julius Welhausen), but suffice it to say that the disciples are called to be with him (ὦσιν μετ’ αὐτοῦ) and to cast out demons and right after the Nazareth scene these same disciples are sent to cast out demons, after Jesus was not well accepted in his hometown. I think it is quit possible that Mark contrasted those called to be with him with those who were previously with him (οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ), ie, his family. Indeed Jesus is now saying this is my real family, rather than his previous family. Welhausen’s view of the earlier tradition is highly speculative, and I don’t necessarily endorse it, but it is less speculative than supposing that we are dealing with an accurate retelling of actual events that occurred some 40 years prior to Mark writing his gospel.
But aside from speculating about pre-Markan tradition, the identification of the people in Mk 3,21 as members of Jesus’ family with his family in 3,31 (as opposed to his true family in 3,33-35) is easily recognized as the typical Markan stylistic device of intercalation, also known as a Markan sandwich.
I cannot decide whether “those near him” (οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ) were from the newly chosen 12 apostles, or from his family of origin, his “mother and brothers and sisters.” And I am beginning to think that is ok. I suspect that the logic of the narrative works best if it is an open question, just like Jesus’ question in Mark 3:33 “Who are My mother and My brothers?” remains an open question even after Jesus says, “…whoever does the will of God is My brother and sister and mother.”
I doubt that the language of Mark 3:21 is decisive for discerning whether “those near him” (οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ) were doing “the will of God” when they came in and κρατῆσαι αὐτόν (perhaps “took charge of him”) and when they were saying ἐξέστη (perhaps “he is beside himself.”) In 2 Cor 5:13, Paul wrote: “For if we are beside ourselves (ἐξέστημεν), it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.” Maybe when Jesus was “beside himself” it was for God, and it was such a state where he was of no use to those around him, and so he needed someone “near him” to do God’s will by “taking charge” of him.
Actually, I think the language, thus interpreted tilts toward affirming that “those near him” (οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ) were doing the will of God. But I still doubt that the language or context can or should determine if “those near him” were biological kin or chosen apostles.
Your comments are much appreciated.
Robert said
I would not spend too much time and energy trying to identify incidental characters named indirectly in the gospels. Perhaps Mark’s first readers still knew of a Mary, the wife, mother, sister, daughter of a specific James. Perhaps not. But Luke rewriting this story up to 90 years after events that may or may not have happened is not likely going to profvide accurate additional detail.
Re: “additional detail” on the women of Luke 24:10 “Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James…”
Luke 8:1-3 had already provided two of them a backstory–additional detail not found in GMark:
** you do not have permission to see this link ** out of their own means.
But as for “Mary the mother of James” there is no backstory unique to GLuke. The only backstory is the one already provided by GMark–the choosing of the 12 apostles, two of whom were named James. And so, when the narrative logic GLuke implies that this “James” must have been one of the 12 apostles, this is not “additional detail.” It is simply a redactor/writer repeating what had been written previously in GMark.
Such a way of reading the “Marys” and “Jameses” of GMark can be seen clearly 2000 years later oddly, it seems, only by me (for reasons having to do with a method of reading the Synoptic Jameses in relation of an argument for two Jameses in NT Galatians). But I hope I’m not be alone for long. What I am offering is a way solving the puzzle of the ambiguous NT “Marys” and “Jameses” that anyone can see. It is not, in principle, a private interpretation.
Now, as for additional detail, there is a tidbit to be found beyond the synoptic tradition in GJohn. When the “Mary, mother of James” of Mark 16:1 is interpreted as the mother of a “greater” James, vis-a-vis “Mary the mother of James the Less [the same-womb brother of Jesus]” (Mark 15:40) then of course there are two “Marys”–the mother of Jesus and possibly, the wife of Alphaeus–Two Marys, just like in John 19:25 when it is understood that etymologically, Alphaeus=Clopas
“…but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”
That is additional detail–detail that may or may not have a historical basis (in terms of a modern idea of history), but that does nevertheless provide highly specific evidence in support of my reading GMark’s version of sacred history.
Your comments are very much appreciated.
Robert said
GREGORY HARTZLER-MILLER said
… additional detail–detail that may or may not have a historical basis (in terms of a modern idea of history) …
That is my point (my bolding). Luke’s added narrative details, ie, his reading and rewriting of Mark up to 50 years after, up to 90 years after the actual events, may not be accurate. Perhaps he is rewriting the story in a way that he thinks is more plausible or more dramatic or in a way that better fits his theological perspective. He may be papering over a major dispute between James, the brother of the Lord, apostle, and leader of the Jerusalem community and Paul, the hero of his second volume.
Re: Historical method.
Galatians is the primary “historical” document.
It is Paul’s first person account of seeing “James, Lord’s brother” and in so doing, “consulting” with “flesh and blood” in regard to his personal revelation of the Lord. The account of the first consult with flesh and blood is a prelude to another visit to Jerusalem many years later, where Paul received “the right hand of fellowship” from the “reputed pillars” who happened to include one pillar by the name of “James.” The question I am raising is whether these two mentions of “James” refer to the same person. My hypothesis is that the exegesis of Gal 1-2 is better if there are two Jameses–1) an “esteemed pillar” who is in the inner circle Paul intended to meet with privately, and 2) a flesh-and-blood “brother” of the Lord who Paul intended to exclude from that would-be private meeting with the pillars.
The “false brothers” had initially tried to disguise the fact that they were “from James, the flesh-and-blood brother” but he had been behind the intrusion. They were the “ones from James” (ie the flesh and blood brother of the Lord), they were “the circumcision party” not to be confused with James “the esteemed pillar” who, along with “Cephas and John” specifically refused to compel Titus to be circumcised.
Is this exegesis not dealing with the data of the primary text–Galatians– and coming up with a coherent rereading?
GREGORY HARTZLER-MILLER said
It is Paul’s first person account of seeing “James, Lord’s brother” and in so doing, “consulting” with “flesh and blood” in regard to his personal revelation of the Lord.
Re: the visit with “James, the Lord’s brother” as a “consult with flesh and blood”
The Text: Gal 1:15-19 (Tr. my own)
** you do not have permission to see this link **to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles,
I did not immediately with flesh and blood,
** you do not have permission to see this link **nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia and returned again to Damascus.
** you do not have permission to see this link **But other than the apostles, I saw none,
except if you call James, the Lord’s brother an apostle.
Interpretation
For Paul,the phrase “flesh and blood” implies the sphere of “parisability,” as opposed to “imparishability.”
Thus 1 Cor 15:50,
“I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.”
Paul did not do so immediately, but just as he did go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles before him, so also, he did consult with in the sphere of “flesh and blood” when he met Lord’s “brother,”–i.e. “brother” in the perishable sense, a same-womb brother.
The flow of thought is a chaism in the pattern, AB…BA: I did not immediately A, nor did I immediately B… After 3 years, I did B, I did A.
Comments appreciated.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)