(23 votes, average: 4.87 out of 5)
Loading...A brief tangent on Mark’s account of Jesus’ rejection in his hometown (Mark 6:1-6), as summarized in my post. As I indicated there, Jesus’ townspeople are incredulous that he can deliver such an impressive address in the synagogue. They ask: “Where did he get such these things? What what is this wisdom that has been given to him? And how can such miracles be worked through his hands? Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joses, Juda and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?”
In other words: the townsfolk knew of Jesus as an unimpressive member of the community, who worked a day job with his hands (say, a construction worker) – not great miracles (with his hands). And his family was all there.
The comments on the family are interesting and have prompted a lot of discussion over the years.
To begin with, Jesus is here said to be “the son of Mary.” As frequently noted, that’s a bit odd. Normally …
To read the rest of this post you need to be a blog member. If you’re not one, join up! It takes little money and less time, and every penny that comes in goes out to charity. And you’ll get tons for you money! So why not?
So, if Mary did not know who Jesus really was, then she must not have experienced a special, virgin birth because such a birth would have informed her about who Jesus was. Interesting!
Sounds more like Joseph’s name was unknown to Mark rather than the townspeople. Still the identification is odd particularly if we ask why is Mary’s name known and not his father’s.
Because Mary was raped.
Sounds more like Joseph’s name was unknown to Mark rather than the townspeople. Still the identification is odd particularly if we ask why is Mary’s name is mentioned and not his father’s.
Still wouldn’t a fatherless boy take his grandfather’s name?
Not that I know of.
Bart, how on earth can you maintain your very active blog while on a road trip to New England? Here in Maine, winter unofficially begins on Halloween.
Yeah, tell me. It’s my second time to New England in three weeks!
It seems the blog has been even more extraordinary in every way lately and yet you are doing so many other things, too. Please take care of you for us!
Ha! Thanks. I’ve just arrived in Ohio for T-giving with my mom and my brother’s family. Life’s good!
So glad, Dr. Ehrman!
Do you ever get out to the West Coast? You would be popular out here.
I go where I’m invited!
I think I recall you speaking at USC (SC, not CA) some years ago. Is that a false memory? Have you visited Columbia SC in recent years?
Yes, I have spoken there!
OT: Do you have any thoughts about the new Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C.?
Lots. But I’m going to keep mum until I visit it in February.
When in February? I’m contemplating a trip thenabouts and it would be great to have a meal together.
I’m thinking about having a blog dinner there; the seminar is Feb. 10 (all day) and if I do a dinner it would be the night before.
I’ll look for the announcement.
Have the NRSV translators ever given an explanation for why they chose to translate the way they did in the passages you’ve mentioned as mistranslated?
I don’t think there is/was a venue for them to have answered queries. (Most of them are no longer living, in any event)
Interesting ideas, certainly possible! But I sometimes think scholars are too ready to assume things “never” happened in a certain way. That in Jesus’s day, a simple bribe could “never” have enabled someone to claim the body of a crucified man…and a person would “never” be described as the “son of” his mother if she was the widow of a known, deceased father. Might it not depend on such variables as how long his father had been dead, or how he had died?
My view is that historians have to base their claims on evidence, one way or the other.
Just an opinion-type question: If it wasn’t for the gospels, would very many living in the 1st century Mediterranean region have even known that Jesus was from Nazareth, or even a Galilean?
Idk how much Q references Nazareth/Galilee, and other than circulating oral traditions, this info could have been easily been lost if it were not for the gospels (including Acts).
Armed with only Paul’s letters and Josephus, one could conclude that Jesus might have been from Jerusalem (or its surrounding area) since that’s where his brother (and the original church) was and that’s where he was executed.
So again, just an opinion type question.
My sense is that almost no one had every heard of Jesus, and so they didn’t have any idea where he might have been from. In any event, neither Paul nor Josephus says that Jesus lived or died in Jerusalem.
Wasn’t it generally known that Jesus was a Galilean? If no one had even heard of Jesus and thus would obviously not have known where he was born or where he was raised, why do Matthew and Luke feel compelled to come up with contrived scenarios to have him born in Bethlehem but raised in Galilee?
To fulfill prophecy.
I’ve heard a version of the “born out of wedlock” idea, namely, that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier named Pantera or Panthera. Is this idea supported in any way by the evidence?
There were later Jewish legends to this effect, and scholars have long noted that Panthera could be an obscured reference to Parthenon (the Greek word for “virgin”)
I certainly don’t think Jesus was fathered by a Roman soldier. But is it true – as I remember having heard somewhere – that there is an ancient gravesite, presumably in Galilee or Judea, bearing the name Pantera or Panthera? That lent some credence to the legend?
I don’t believe so.
You’re referring to the tomb in Germanyof a Pantera, a likely Semitic Roman soldier who may well have been stationed in Judea around the time of Jesus’ birth:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Julius_Abdes_Pantera?wprov=sfla1
Thanks for explaining that! It seems Bart didn’t know about it either.
Is it possible the rabbis got this notion from Celsus? Origen quotes Celsus as using this patronymic (c. Cels. 1.32 and other places), and Celsus lived in the time when the rabbis’ ideas were beginning to coalesce into the baraithas that would make up the Tosetta (in this case tHul. 2:22).
Another thought:: “Panhera” is Latin for “panther,” so the epithet translates directly as “Jesus, son of a panther.” If in fact the rabbis were making a play on words between the Latin panthera and the Greek parthenos, that would require the rabbis to know about the NT and Christian beliefs than I think they would have had at this early time. I am not aware that they cared about the details of Christianity until later on.
In Celsus the idea is put on the lips of “a Jew” — so it’s possible that it was an early jewish tradition.
If Mark didn’t know about Joseph, what are the odds much later Jewish scribes who hated Christianity (not without reason) knew about ‘Panthera’?
It’s funny how some skeptics will believe any cockamamie story, and then complain about the credulity of believers. 😉
Presumably Jesus’ brothers and sisters (either full or half siblings) have a father who is either known but died, or is still alive. If Mary was married to him at that time, would it not be normal convention in those day to refer to Jesus by his adopted father?
I would assume so.
Bart, I have also heard that hints of the possibility of Jesus’ illegitimacy can be found in Matthew’s hereditary narratives. It is a bit of a stretch but Matthew names 4 women in them and all 4 are somewhat” loose” women, giving the hint that illegitimacy can still produce remarkable people. Any thoughts on this? Are hints of this type ever found elsewhere in ANE stories?
Ah, I’ll post on this!!
Have you considered or discussed on the blog the conjecture by Weatherhead regarding Jesus father?
It coincides with the character of the four women PattyIt mentions . . .
Nope.
Bart, did you ever post on this?
I can’t remember: what was I supposed to post on?
I think it’s the KJV has “beside himself,” and the NRSV gets it right–has “out of his mind.” The KJV also has “friends” lay hold of him, instead of “family.” So there is Christian diddling with the Greek so as not to disturb the faithful, but it dates from 1611, and maybe is among the bad reasons why the KJV retains the popularity it does. (There are good ones, of course.)
.
“Again, the NRSV has a mistranslation.”
Seriously, Dr. Ehrman, I really wish you made your own translation of the NT. I know you don’t want to, but, boy oh boy, would it be helpful to the rest of us.
Got it. But you’re right, I very much don’t want to. 🙂
I see it gets even better–that Bezae and Washingtonianus have the “scribes and pharisees” restraining Jesus. Mark was quite a fella–a source of embarrassment for fifteen hundred years!
Makes me wonder the worn out questions of what and why surrounding Gospel genre. Why go to such great lengths to tell this story, to take the artistic license to create (shoot, to even go so far as to write down) these narratives. My guess is you touch on it in your new book. Looking forward to reading it.
Yes, I touch on it in a number of publications, including for example Jesus Before the Gospels.
Superb analysis here Bart – especially with the insightful translation work. This is why I’m so happy to read your blog.
On the lack of reference to Joseph – perhaps his father divorced Mary early in their marriage, and this is why Jesus took such a radically hard stance against divorce?
This may explain why Jesus related so closely to God as a son does to a father (Mk 14:36 “Abba, father”), why his own father was a persona-non-grata within his family and why he was so against divorce (Mk 10:1-12). Just a theory of mine, but perhaps one to add into the mix?
Consider it added.
Bart, I’m beginning to realize why you’re sticking with the historical jesus story. It allows you to create the most amazing interpretations!
The more interesting question is to how, and where, Mark gets his notion of Jesus “brothers” from. The answer is, of course, Gal 1:19 – the same way you did! That takes care of James. The others he made up. But, not after reading 1Cor 9:5 and mistakenly concluding, just like you, that Jesus had multiple brothers. You are in fine company. Two thousand years of misinterpreting Paul’s letters! This ship sure’s not moving fast…
I think that y
You would have made a great Gospel writer. The Gospel According to BART. You like?
Ah, *that* would be why I think Jesus really existed! 🙂
Could it be that the naming of Mary is a later interpolation, from a time when she was revered and it was a natural for a copyist to insert her name?
Seems unlikely: there isn’t any evidence of it at least. But interesting idea. I assume you mean a scribe who revered Mary as the mother of God.
“It is only Matthew and Luke, writing some 15-20 years later, who add stories about Jesus’ birth.”
Well, this must be a first, but I think you’re being too conservative, Bart! I can’t find any evidence to support the theory that the birth narratives were included in Matthew and Luke within the 1st century.
On Luke – As you’ve pointed out before, Marcion skipped the first two chapters in producing his gospel sometime before 140, probably because they weren’t in Luke. Justin Martyr who knew and approved of Luke, quotes the angelic announcement to Mary in his first apology c156. However, he follows the wording found in the Infancy Gospel of James, rather than Luke – perhaps because his copy of Luke did not include the first two chapters.
On Matthew – we know the Gospel of the Hebrews, which seems to be based on an early version of Matthew started at chapter 3. We also have the pseudo-Eusebius ‘Concerning the Star’ document (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_star.htm) which seems to indicate that the Magi and birth narratives were only included around 119:
“And in the year four hundred and thirty (A.D. 119), in the reign of Hadrianus Caesar, in the consulship of Severus and of Fulgus, in the episcopate of Xystus, bishop of the city of Rome, this concern arose in (the minds of) men acquainted with the Holy Books; and through the pains of the great men in various places this history was sought for and found, and written in the tongue of those who took this care.”
Given that no other document in the NT or other early authors such as Clement of Rome, Papias or Polycarp mentions the virgin birth, wouldn’t this suggest that these chapters in Matthew and Luke were only added in the 2nd-century?
It would be hard to explain the manuscript traditions of Matthew and Luke if that were the case. And Ignatius of Antioch shows clear evidence of knowing Matthew’s story in 110 CE.
Where does Ignatius cite or show familiarity with the account in Matthew? His references to the virgin birth seem vague and without any corresponding detail from Matthew (or Luke). It seems to me that Ignatius is repeating an oral tradition that was hidden and had just been discovered. In his epistle to the Ephesians he writes:
“Now the virginity of Mary and her giving birth was hidden from the ruler of this age, as was also the death of the Lord; three mysteries to be loudly proclaimed, yet which were accomplished in the silence of God.” (ch. 19)
Ignatius is suggesting that Mary’s virgin birth and Jesus’ execution was hidden from the “ruler of this age” (Rome? the Satan?), but Jesus’ public execution where he literally died under a sign that read “King of the Jews” was hardly hidden from anybody – especially any rulers, spiritual or otherwise. It is possible that this text (the earliest manuscript we have is from the 5th century), has been corrupted with reference to his death, and what Ignatius originally wrote was along the lines of:
“Now the virginity of Mary and her giving birth was hidden from the ruler of this age; a mystery to be loudly proclaimed, yet which were accomplished in the silence of God.”
If this is the case, the sense that Ignatius gives is there was an element of concealment and secrecy over the virgin birth that now needs to be “loudly proclaimed”. That is, Ignatius is promoting an oral tradition that has recently been discovered or come down to the Church in Antioch, and he is insistent that it urgently needs to be loudly proclaimed.
The earliest citation from a gospel is in Aristides’ apology in c125, where he does seem to cite Matthew.
Yes, it’s because of the exposition of the “star” in Ign.Eph. 19 — which is normally interpreted to be an exegesis of the star leading the magi to Bethlehem in Matthew’s account.
The star reference in Ign.Eph.19 is intriguing, but it may not be sourced from Matthew. In Matt 2, the star isn’t described much, only that it appeared, moved and stopped, and is only observed by the Magi.
In Ign.Eph.19 the Magi aren’t mentioned, but the star’s appearance, luminosity and effect on people (“there was agitation felt as to whence this new spectacle came”) is described in some detail, much in the same way it’s mentioned in the pseudo-Eusebius ‘Concerning the Star’ document:
“there appeared the Star, both transformed in its aspect, and also conspicuous by its rays, and terrible and grand in the glorious extent of its light. And it overpowered by its aspect all the stars that were in the heavens… when the Persians saw it, they were alarmed and afraid, and there fell upon them agitation and trembling, and fear got the mastery over them.”
Moreover, the reference in ‘Concerning the Star’ to Balaam’s prophecy of the star seems to have caught Christian imagination in Rome. In the Catacombs of Priscilla there is a stunning early depiction (c250) of Mary nursing her child under a star with Balaam pointing to it (http://bit.ly/2hJnCYZ). Balaam wasn’t referenced in Matthew, Luke or Ignatius. Perhaps a timeline of how the virgin birth story appeared would run like this?
<109 – Ignatius hears oral reports of the virgin birth and the star
109/10 – Ignatius informs the Ephesians (and others) of this tradition
110-120 – Church authorities investigate, discover the history and writes it up
c120 – Virgin birth account added to Matthew's gospel
c125 – Aristides refers to a gospel account of the virgin birth in his apology
Since the star is mentioned in the context of Jesus’ birth, and since Ignatius gives other indications that he knows Matthew’s Gospel, the passage is usually taken to refer to Matthew’s birth narrative.
Very interesting. I hadn’t heard of this before, and it is a potential explanation. Though where did all those brothers and sisters come from? Mary must have married someone–how tolerant would such a small reilgious community be of someone who had so many children out of wedlock? Possible Mark just didn’t know the name of Jesus’ father. But in that case, neither do we.
My sense of Jesus’ family is that they were (understandably) wary of his new status as a religious leader in the early days, but given that James became a leader of the early Christian community in Jerusalem, some at least must have been converted to his ideas.
How early do you think the virgin birth stories began? There must have been some notion of this circulating for some time before it appeared in Matthew.
Yes they would have been floating around in the second half of the first century.
Why was it so important for Mark that no one knew who Jesus was?
It’s been a question asked for over a century: how does one explain the “messianic secret” in Mark — first asked, most passionately, by German scholar W. Wrede in his classic study, Das Messiasgeheimnis.
Many modetn Markan exegetes attrbute das Messiasgeheimnis to a creation and motif of the evangelist, Wrede believed it to a creation of the pre-Markan tradition, whereas you historicize it as a hypothetical fact des Lebens Jesu. Hypotheses built upon hypotheses, masquerading as history. Better to respect the text as text.
Are you saying that you think that think it is actually a historical datum from the life of Jesus? That’s not at all what I think! (And I’m not sure what you mean about respecting the text as text!)
“Are you saying that you think that think it is actually a historical datum from the life of Jesus? That’s not at all what I think! (And I’m not sure what you mean about respecting the text as text!)”
You do think that Jesus taught his disciples that he was the Messiah, but that this was a public teaching, hence an esoteric secret teaching, and that it was this teaching that Judas betrayed to the authorities:
“If Jesus never preached in public that he was the future king, but this was the charge that was leveled against him at his trial, how did outsiders come to know of it? The simplest answer is that this is what Judas betrayed. … He told the Jewish authorities what Jesus was actually teaching in private …”
As for what I think, the above is certainly one plausible reconstruction of actual historical events, but the idea of Jesus’ secret Messianic identify as revealed in the text of Mark should first be considered as a Markan literary motif. It may also be an element of the pre-Markan tradition, as Wrede thought, and it may even date back to Jesus’ own esoteric teaching, as you think, but we should first respect the text of Mark as just that, a text, a story, a very well crafted story, in my opinion. The more one respects the artistry of his story, the less confident one should be of endorsing any one (of many) plausible historical reconstructions.
Yes, I do think Jesus gave private instruction to his disciples, and I can see how you might think that this means that I hold to the Messiasgeheimnis. But I don’t think that Mark’s way of presenting it is at all historical (commanding demons not to reveal who he is; telling the disciples after the Transfiguration not to let anyone know until after the resurrection; telling people he has healed not to speak to anyone; etc. etc.)
“Yes, I do think Jesus gave private instruction to his disciples, and I can see how you might think that this means that I hold to the Messiasgeheimnis. But I don’t think that Mark’s way of presenting it is at all historical (commanding demons not to reveal who he is; telling the disciples after the Transfiguration not to let anyone know until after the resurrection; telling people he has healed not to speak to anyone; etc. etc.)”
Of course not. But the mere ‘fact’ of Jesus being the Messiah is indeed the essence of the Messianic Secrecy motif, according to Wrede. He saw it as originating in the pre-Markan tradition and later expanded upon by Mark to explain a nonmessianic reputation of Jesus. And you see it as originating in the esoteric teachings of Jesus himself. I think the best we can hope to do as historians is try to understand how the text of Mark was most likely understood in its historical context, and historico-critical exegetes have wildly divergent views of this. Trying to go back further into pre-Markan traditions and then back to the public and even esoteric teaching of Jesus himself is very interesting enterprise, but when that becomes the focus, it often seems to occur by de-emphasizing the importance of the actual text itself. For example, you claim that Matthew was completely unaware of the fact that his own ‘soteriology’ differed from the teachings of Jesus as Matthew himself extensively portrayed them in his gospel. In order to identify the historical teachings of Jesus, you want to be able to differentiate them from Matthew’s views, but in doing this you have to presume that Matthew himself no longer really understood the teachings of Jesus as he himself presents them, which can only result in a superficial caricature of Matthew’s views. It seems to me much more likely that Matthew understood his own text better than we can and our best hope is to try and understand Matthew’s text in its historical context, not to artificially limit his ability to understand his own text in the hopes of uncovering yet another Leben Jesu reconstruction. I am not opposed to Leben Jesu Forschung, but it should not be done at the expense of trying to understand the texts and contexts that we have before us, and we cannot hope to do this if we presume that the author himself did not really understand his own text.
The NRSV online version renders Mark 3:21 as, “He has gone out of his mind.” In the KJV it reads, “He is beside himself.”
The NIV version appears to agree with you precisely, “When his family[b] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
Sorry — my bad.
“Some people have argued that the townspeople mention only his mother because she had conceived of Jesus as a virgin, and so it made no sense mentioning his father. “
It seems you are ignoring the most obvious reason this explanation makes no sense: if the townspeople believed that Jesus was born of a virgin, then they wouldn’t have been at all surprised that he turned out to be ‘special’ as an adult.
They were surprised precisely because they knew nothing about him to be unusual.
It seems to me you’re ignoring most of what Bart has written over the past several decades.
He’s merely remarking that’s what some people have said to try and get around this problem and substantiate their religious viewpoint. That he would not personally agree with, but it’s a fact that they have said it. Does he really have to spell it out every single time he writes about this that he doesn’t believe in the virgin birth?
Let’s consider the possibility that Mary was a person of some stature in her community, in spite of traditional Jewish attitudes towards women. (Remember that Galileans were often remarked upon by other Jews of that era as being people who did not keep proper order). Maybe Mary had some kind of informal leadership role in a very small village, hamlet really, and if there was no living father, they might have referred to Jesus as her son out of respect, even while not acknowledging him as any kind of great teacher, since they had no basis for knowing this about him, as he’d been gone a long time.
A remarkable son often comes from a remarkable mother. And Jesus was remarkable, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Honestly, how much proof do you need? Here you are, thousands of years later, talking about him.
Yes, and I’m merely remarking that the simplest reason that the townsfolk didn’t recognize him as special is because he wasn’t – as a kid. Obviously, he was ‘special’ as an adult (although hardly unique). More to the point, if they’d known that he was ‘born of a virgin’, then they’d have expected similarly supernatural abilities from him in adulthood. Instead, they had no idea why he should act as he did. There is no other rational explanation for their reaction. Unless, of course, it was entirely made up – which is also possible.
Yes, Jesus was certainly remarkable, but his mother was around 15-16 years old when she bore him. It’s difficult to believe a girl this age was a “leader,” and if she was, why is there so little about her in the Gospels?
Dear Bart,
Could you please explain to me which manuscripts do the NRSV translators used and their reason for choosing these manuscripts for the translation?
The base of their translation is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.
In the NRSV there is a footnote in Mark 6:3 for the term “son of Mary”. The footnote says this:
“Footnotes: Mark 6:3 Other ancient authorities read ‘son of the carpenter and of Mary’ ”
What does “ancient authorities” mean? I find that odd. If it is a textual variant, why not say, “other early manuscripts/copies of Mark say…”
“Other authorities” can indeed include Greek manuscripts, but also early versions (such as Latin, Coptic, and Syriac) and citations in the writings of the church fathers.
In the oldest copies of Mark, which term is present?
…son of Mary
or
…son of the carpenter and Mary
How do most scholars explain the two variants? Do you believe that the “son of the carpenter and Mary” variant is a later Church interpolation?
Ah, it’s a tricky business. I’ll add the question to my Mailbag.
When it comes to Einstein, Tesla, Hawkins, Kant, Da Vinci, Gandhi, Buddha, etc, etc, their heritage is only ‘interesting’ information…it is their theories, research, discoveries, philosophies, and teachings that I am most interested in and what matters the most to me, regardless of how their family/friends/or other ‘special interest people’ wish to record their origins, personalities, or personal feats, or faults. Even though from a historical perspective it is necessary to compare the written words of gospels to determine reliability of the ‘written story’, and that is interesting (especially when many read Gospels as gospel…i.e., infallible truth), it still remains that it is the teachings and philosophy of Jesus in the Gospels and other texts of the time, regardless of the personal story, that interests me the most. Effort doesn’t mean much, it is results that count…in like manner, when it comes to religions, the background story doesn’t mean much, it is the philosophical teachings that are the common core running through all main stream established religions that interests me. Don’t misread my comments, I truly enjoy the education I get from your scholarly research and insights…otherwise, I wouldn’t be on your Blog…I just wish more people outside of your ‘Blog readers’ and people of the academic world better understood what you present and conclude from your research. I hope that I don’t offend anyone, but I grew up around ‘thumpers’ in the Bible Belt and they just never made much sense to me, and could never, with any satisfaction, answer my analytic logical and curious questions regarding the Bible (OT and NT)…you are a ‘breath of fresh air’…thanks for all your years of research, lectures, debates, and publications…I know it is how you make your living, but it is still a lot of dedicated hard work that I doubt was always driven by monetary gain…especially to do it right and complete. For the average run-of-the-mill person like me, you provide a wealth of information and insight that I could hardly obtain, or afford to obtain, on my own…thanks. (Sorry for the long-winded post…just wanted to provide feedback)
Doesn’t this last explanation also have some difficulties? It may well be the case that Jesus’ father was unknown but presumably Mary, at some point, had a legitimate relationship i.e. a husband with whom she had all the rest of her children. Doesn’t one still have to explain why ‘Joseph’ (the head of the household) is not mentioned in this passage, along with the rest of the family, who were embarrassed enough to try to take Jesus away from those who saw him growing up?
Yup, that’s my point. It’s very strange.
I honestly had not heard this before. It’s a very plausible solution if one no longer sees the supernatural explanations making sense.
What is known about single mothers in first century Palestine, or the most comparable context if nothing is known? I imagine that it happened less often than in modern times and it was a lot harder to not know who the father was in a very small community. But surely sexual assault, incest, and pregnancy before marriage happened. If the father wasn’t known, how would they deal with that? Did the mother’s family assume responsibility? Would they investigate? Did the father have the option of not acknowledging the child or would that have been unacceptable in the community?
For small towns like Nazareth, I’m not sure we know.
Have you read Rabbi Jesus by Bruce Chilton? It’s the first book I ever read from a non devotional standpoint. In the book, he argues that Jesus was born to Mary and Joseph but conceived before marriage, which he thinks had an impact on his development. This includes his belief that the story about Jesus to the Temple as a 12 year old boy was an instance of running away when, for the first time in his life, he felt like he belonged in his religion compared to the shunning he received in his community. He suggests that he met John the Baptist as a runaway and that the story of the prodigal son was inspired by him being the prodigal himself. It’s perhaps a bit of a stretch, but an interesting narrative based upon the premise that Jesus was a “mamzer.”
Yup, I read it. It has some novelistic touches, for sure.
Have you talked much about the Eucharist/Last Supper on the blog? Chilton also has interesting ideas about that. He argued that Jesus regularly participated in celebratory meals, which he thought was an indication that people were already in God’s favor, otherwise they wouldn’t be blessed with the ability to have these meals. That almost sounds like prosperity theology. Chilton also suggested that Jesus’ frequently engaging in these meals is why he was called a glutton and a drunkard, and that “this is my body” and “this is my blood” referred to his belief that these meals replaced the inadequate system of sacrifice (i.e. meat and wine over flesh and blood). Bringing up this topic makes me realize, I haven’t read you saying much about the last supper, so am wondering if you have or plan to. I think it’s a safe bet that you don’t believe in transubstantiation. But do you think Jesus really said “this is my blood” and “this is my body”? If so, what do you make of that?
No, I haven’t written much about the Last Supper. I think it’s hard to know what actually happened at the meal; we have four accounts, and they agree in broad terms, and one of them (Paul’s) is independent of the other three (which are not independent of one another). I fluctuate back and forth — but if Jesus really *did* predict his death, then he almost certainly was not proclaiming a doctrine of transubstantiation — the bread represented his body and the cup his blood, to be consumed as a way to remember him. I *tend* to think that hte words do not go back to him though.
When you say “tend”, does that mean you’ve seriously considered that Jesus actually said those words? If so, at those times, what did you think he might have meant? I don’t believe he was expecting to be the crucified messiah either. But what alternative do you suggested to a believer if you think Jesus said those words?
Yes indeed. I used to think that Jesus absolutely did say the words. Now I don’t think so, but I’m not dogmatic about it. If he did say them, it simply means that he read the writing on the wall and knew his days were numbered.
On a side note, one striking feature of Luke’s Last Supper narrative is his omission of Jesus’ prediction that he would go ahead of his disciples to Galilee after his resurrection, and that Galilee is where they would see him. Luke also omits the angels’ instructions to the women at the tomb to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to see the risen Lord. In other words, Luke appears to be outright disputing Mark and Matthew by directing his readers away from Galilee in describing the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. In your view, why has he done this? And wouldn’t the fact that the Synoptic evangelists disagree about where and to whom Jesus appeared have undermined the credibility of the “appearance” claims all together?
Not necessarily. If someone states a historical factum correctly, and three other people change what she said in various ways, that would not make all *four* of them inaccurate.
When your students learn NT Greek are they expected to be able to write it (compose sentences) or is the ability to read it sufficient?
Just read! And understand the grammar, etc.
I would like to point out something that might affect our understanding of Jesus as raised in Nazareth.
The first time we hear about Joshua (Jesus) in the Bible, is in Exodus chapter 17, where Joshua is fighting the Amalekites. Afterwards Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Yahweh Nissi. Then, in Exodus 18, the family of Moses visited the Israelis.
Now, Yahweh had done many wonders in Egypt and at the passage of the Red Sea, but here(at the end of chapter 17)he did not. May be he died here, to be resurrected on the third day in Exodus 19?
It can be shown that Joseph is a type of Aaron and Mary a type of Miriam, and his (Jesus) brothers a type of the twelve sons of Jacob.
And at last. When Moses fled from Egypt(twice) he ended up with his father in law(Jethro) and his wife(Zipporah), and here he built an altar named Yahweh Nissi. From where Joshua/Jesus first appears, he then should be called a Nissirean/ Nazarene… a man from «Nazareth».
Far fetched? May be, but this is not the only thing that fits in to this story.
Perhaps you’ve answered this in some form in one of your writings; but what English translation do you feel is most conducive to a scholarly/critical study of the Bible? Which is the best translation from Greek?
There are many good ones. My preferred translation is the New Revised Standard Version, which I especially like in an annotated edition such as the HarperCollins Study Bible.
I would like to purchase the HarperCollins bible. The last edition was in 2007. Is there a more current one extant or in the works? Should I wait?
I think that’s the most recent one; I haven’t heard about revision plans — but I don’t really know
On the RSV/NRSV comparison: The RSV translates haeresis in Gal. 5:20 as “party spirit.” I found this strange (to say the least) and looked up the NRSV (Harper Collins edition, yes!) and indeed it says “faction.” I recall your recommendation to use the NRSV, and this bears it out. I have been using the RSV from the start, but I am thinking I may have to retrofit a lot of quotes to the NRSV (though I do sometimes like the RSV’s language!).
Yes, I don’t think “party spirit” was meant to refer to what happens at college frats on Friday nights! But it sure would be read that way today.
You say that you’re not buying the explanation that Jesus was born out of wedlock and there was no Joseph. What explanation do you lean toward?
I don’t have a clear answer!
How about “Mark didn’t know Joseph’s name, but he wanted to write about Jesus’ family in a way that supported his overall narrative theme for his gospel”?
There’s nothing here that can’t be explained away pretty easily, which doesn’t mean any of the explanations are true.
We have no examples in literature from that period of Jewish men being referred to as sons of their mothers?
Isn’t Jewish descent in the modern tradition through the female line? If your father is Jewish and your mother isn’t, you have to formally undergo conversion to be considered a Jew.
Yes, it’s just weird he would know the names of the mother and the four brothers, but not the father.
True. But there were also sisters, and he didn’t mention them.
Mark could have some reason for wanting to specially acknowledge Mary that we don’t know about.
And of course, as always, his point is that these people who are talking about him don’t know who Jesus is.
In Mark’s mind, even though he doesn’t believe in the virgin birth, God is Jesus’ father–by adoption. Correct?
But no one in the narrative but Jesus knows this. Mary doesn’t know it. His brothers don’t know it.
Mark may have preferred to focus on the mother, and ignore the earthly father, because his point is that Jesus is the adopted son of God, the Messiah.
Maybe an unclear answer? 😉
Sorry about returning to an old post but do you lean toward thinking there was a Joseph and him and Mary are the parents of Jesus?
Yup.
The illegitimate birth hypothesis is certainly interesting, as it would discredit not only the virgin birth claims, but also the stories about Jesus going to Jerusalem to participate in the various feasts as he is reported to have done in the Gospels (Luke 2:41, John 7 – Feast of Tabernacles, John 10 – Feast of the Dedication). For according to Jewish law (Deuteronomy 23:2) those born out of wedlock were prohibited from entering the “assembly of the Lord”. Am I thinking about this right?
Hadn’t thought about that….
Would that touch on his feelings toward the Temple?
I suppose so. But notice, he does go into the Temple, which creates problems for the theory.
Well, that would be a motive to array oneself against the Pharisees!
Jesus didn’t oppose the Pharisees — he may well have been one himself. His enemies–if any–would have been the Sadducees, in particular Caiaphas, but by the time the Gospels were written, the priests were out of power and the Temple destroyed. The Gospel writers needed an enemy so they chose their current nemesis, the rabbis.
What are the odds anyone in Jerusalem would have known the specific circumstances of Jesus’ birth?
Poor, I’d say.
What are the odds Jesus, whether he was legitimate or not, would have felt bound to obey such a stupid and bigoted law?
Zero, I’d say.
I hope you’ll forgive me, but this sort of seems like arguing that Mark didn’t think that Peter believed in the resurrection. Mark doesn’t mention any appearance to Peter, and the last Mark shows of Peter is him denying Jesus. I think we’d both agree though that the author of Mark knew about Peter’s fuller story. So I see the logic being used, and I think it’s an interesting point, but I don’t think it’s a particularly strong point (although I’d agree there’s not much indication Mark believed in the virgin birth, I just think you’re overstating this point that he didn’t believe in it).
Related to this question though, I’m curious what you think of the possibility of translating these style passages as cousins instead of siblings. I’ve heard Roman Catholics argue it’s just as valid to translate it as such, are they right? Is that a possible translation?
No, I’m not arguing that. I’m saying that Mark leaves open that possibility.
There have been multiple films made from the gospels, usually a mish-mash of stories from all or some of them, though Pasolini’s film was specifically based on Matthew.
Offhand I don’t know of any films based entirely on Mark, but let’s imagine somebody made one, and stuck to the oldest version we have, which ends with everyone in confusion and despair, and we never see Jesus risen, and nobody he knew really understood his true nature while he was alive.
First of all, I have to say, that could be an incredibly powerful film.
Secondly, we’d all know what happened afterward. No spoiler alert would be needed. And the ending would be made more powerful by that understanding, not less.
Mark is writing for an audience of Christians. Of course they all know Peter and the others saw the risen Christ, and what followed that. Just like every Greek who went to see Oedipus Rex would know the story didn’t end there. Oedipus found a form of redemption later, before he died. The tragic ending does not preclude a later hopeful one. Mark just never wrote that (that we know of). Mark knew Greek; good bet he knew some Greek drama.
(Sidebar: I was fortunate enough to see the original production of The Gospel at Colonus performed live, with Morgan Freeman as the messenger, and the Five Blind Boys of Alabama, and etc, and it was amazing.)
@Franz Liszt: It seems you are following the tradition that Mark was Peter’s amenuensis. I don’t think most scholars find any evidence for that, so we wouldn’t know where Mark got his information.
@Sidharta1953: That’s not the impression I was trying to give. I doubt that Mark was written by anyone who personally knew Peter, but I think that it’s pretty unquestionable that whoever authored Mark knew that Peter continued to be a major figure in the early Church and that his story didn’t end at with his three denials.
I don’t believe the disciples ran away; that is just an attempt to vilify the Petrine branch of the “church” — still Jewish. I also believe that while Peter may have denied his affiliation with Jesus, he did it so he wouldn’t have been driven aay from Caiphas’s house and/or the Sanhedrin. He was trying to stay close to Jesus, not abandon him.
The “beside himself” translation is interesting. Could it be describing an “out of body” experience, wherein a person is looking at him/herself from without? This is a symptom seen in psychosis. The terms “crazy’ and “insane” are not psychiatric terms, but are usually utilized by laity referring to anyone who is chronically or temporarily psychotic. I think “out of his mind” would also qualify. I’m not saying Jesus was thought to be having such “out of body” episodes, but that term was possibly used by the gospel writer to refer to psychosis.
I’m not sure — it’s the word we get “ecstasy” from.
Perhaps referring to a secular father was just something Mark wanted to avoid, being that he starts his gospel with Jesus’ adoption by the Father. Maybe in Mark’s eye, once adopted by the Father, you have left your father behind?
Remember, we don’t know what the good citizens of Nazareth said (if anything), we only know what Mark has them say.
Why mention Mary’s name? Maybe there were already traditions swirling about that this was her name (more exalted traditions than that of Mark) so Mark uses the name but avoids any mythologizing about her.
Interesting idea.
Do you believe that Zoroastrianism influenced the whole “messiah/virgin birth” storyline? Or do you think the influence was the Caesars were “virgin born” so the Christians had to make their king “virgin born” as well?
I don’t think so, no. And no, Caesars were not born of virgins — quite the contrary.
Are these Jesus’ biological brothers and sisters in Mark 6:1-6? If yes, doesn’t that hurt Carrier’s case quite a bit?
Yes indeed and yes indeed. If Jesus didn’t exist, you would think his siblings would know about it…. (the apostle Paul actually knew, personally, Jesus’ brother James)
Bart: even if Jesus’ father was not know, surely the father of his brothers and sisters must have been? And in that case: why would anyone assume that this was not also Jesus’ father?
And isn’t the later invention of Jesus having a divine dad simply a technique to make him more powerful and able to rival the Greek gods who also usually had divine fathers and who were (demi-)gods?
I have no idea. And yes, that is part of the point of the virgin birth.
In the Torah, (and lets not forget that Mark was jewish so knew the Torah) when someone is Identified through his mother, not his father it is because it is a special lecture key, not because there is something or someone missing (like a father) …the most obvious at this point could be that people where jews trough their mothers, so it’s pointing to a jewish familly… but then again, when things are too obvious it’s sometimes time to dig deeper!
I don’t think Mark could have been Jewish. His comment about “all Jews” washing their hands in 7:1-3 is not correct, and a Jew would have known that. About a person being identified by his mother in the Torah — I’m not sure what passage you have in mind.
Was Mark 7:1-3 actually written by him? Was it actually written like that?… The first deciples where jewish so I can’t imagine the first writter of the gospel not being jewish, it doesn’t add up, but then again it would not be the first thing or time that it would be so!
Examples of namings of the mother in the Torah could be 2king 21 “Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah.”
or 2King22 “Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years. His mother’s name was Jedidah daughter of Adaiah; she was from Bozkath.”
But one of the most stunning underlying teachings in the jewish tradition through the mother could be Goliath son of Orpah (sister in law of Ruth).
There are many passages who have those underlying teachings throught the naming of the mother, but at this point I could not go much deeper as I am the student not the teacher. I have studied hundreds of hours from a Rav in Jerusalem and one of the most stuning teachings was going throught the book of Prophets (Josue, Judge, Samuel, David, Salomon). Just on King David alone it’s about 100 hours teachings. And even just one hour teaching from a good Rav cannot be compared to anything since as they say “even the white between each letter has a meaning”. I plan on going through the whole “Yehoshoua-Shoftim-Shmouel-Melahim” again this year as a second studing so then maybe i’ll be able to say more and be more precice.
Thank you for your time and your answer.
P.S: By the way what you brought up about Mary’s reaction with the brothers is very interesting. Something to think about!
Yes, there are no manuscripts that omit the verses or suggest they were not original to Mark. The very earliest disciples were indeed Jewish. But Mark is writing outside of Palestine (which is why it is in Greek rather than Aramaic) probably around 70 CE — that is, about 40 years later.
That is such a story in itself… The Torah when studied in hebrew is so precise, one letter changes the hole meaning of the verse, a person named through the mother is bringing in a hole new meaning, and you can dig so deep it’s like entering a new universe just with one verse (and even the abnormalities are lecture keys such as a letter written bigger). How can it be that the books talking about the jewish messiah (as written at the top of the cross: king of the yehoudim) be written in anything less precice, less deep…ok it’s paraboles, you can go to a second degree but it doesn’t compare… and by people who did not have the same mental structure as the ‘People of God’? … And worst, In some places it’s even contradicting itself!
What is the explanation for these less precice written books, for ‘the king’ himself?
(Sorry this line of questionning is of topic, but it came up in it)
Interesting. What are you thinking of as an example of the precision of the Torah? My sense is that a great portion of the Hebrew Bible is difficult to nail down in terms of what precisely it means, and that the narratives of the Torah, like most narratives, are rather loose rather than precise.
Ruth and Orpah were not Jews. They were Moabites. (Ruth 1:4) Besides, there would have been other women named Orpah.
Ruth converted (I understand the validity of the conversion is a millenary battle, as even King David had to suffer the comments and attacks of him not really being King of the Jews because for some his mother’s conversion was invalid (remember people are jewish through the mother)… and Orpah who did not follow her sister in law went her own way, she ended up as they say on a downward spirall, and gave birth to Goliath, the Philistine, enemy of Israël… as you could say, what goes around comes around as Orpah and Ruth parted, and then Goliath faced David.
Mr. Erhman I am thinking of many examples right away, at the top of my head, but I would not do it justice If i wrote them down this way… I would need to translate the Rav’s teaching to do it justice (he speaks french and hebrew) … I think it would be worth it to do it at leat a little bit for starters, as mixed with the bagage you already have it could be unlocking something interesting. … I’ll work on it and i’ll get back to you, it may take a bit of time, but I’ll get back to you!
“I don’t think Mark could have been Jewish. His comment about “all Jews” washing their hands in 7:1-3 is not correct, and a Jew would have known that.”
But the comment is also perfectly understandable as typical (Galilean or Hellenistic Jewish) polemical exaggeration against traditions of Judean (authorities).
Interesting idea. What makes this typical of Galilean or Diaspora Jewish opposition to Judeans? (I.e., where else do you see this kind of “exaggeration” in Galilean or Diaspora Jewish sources?P
What is primarily represented in our surviving sources are Judean polemics against Galilee of the Gentiles and other surrounding areas in need of (pre-Pauline!) Judaizing. See already Macc 5,15, Josephus’ accounts of the Judaizing of the Idumeans and Itureans, and extending later even into the Talmud, eg, where Johanan ben Zakai (exaggeratedly considered a contemporary of Jesus), complained of the hatred of the Torah in Galilee (TJ Shab 16,7; 15d).
The impetus for trying to read “Jews” in Mark 7 in a non-anachronistic ‘Judean’ sense comes from the very context where among the opponents of Jesus are “some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem.” So it is indeed possible that what is being described here is not an uninformed anti-Semitic characterization of the behavior of all Jews everywhere, but a (rather humorous) exaggeration of the practice of some Pharisees in league with these Judean authorities.
Ah. When you said that it was typical Galilean polemic, I thought you meant that we have record of it happening in other instances.
Matthew’s nativity seems to draw on the Joseph cycle in Genesis. Could that be the origin of the tradition that Mary’s husband was named Joseph? Would there be any particular reason to reject that hypothesis?
some have suggested that, but I’m not sure how to evaluate it one way or the other. Joseph was a very common name in Palestine at the time.
You can add the curious fact that Joshua (Moses student) (aka Yéhoshoua/aka Jesus) was from Ephraim’s tribe… and Ephraim’s tribe is Joseph’s tribe.. and the people from Ephraim’s tribe could be called “son of jospeh’ … so then Joshua aka
Yéhoshoua aka Jesus could be called son of Joseph.
You shall not steal…
Mr. Ehrman, I’m looking into the respect of copyrights regarding the translations of the Rav’s teachings I mentioned earlier and as an author I would appreciate it if you could clarify it a bit for me… I am aware of the fare use 107 clause and I wish to respect copyrights so how much of an audio teaching can I translate verbatim?
I feel the teachings need to be translated verbatim because the precision of the Torah is in it’s meanings (as they say the Torah is not a history book but a teaching book) and so much can be lost if you are not a Torah master… for example, when I mentioned David’s mother Ruth earlier it is not meant biologically, the same as Yehoshoua son of Joseph, or the same as the son of men is not meant biologically, and I am not at a level to explain this as much or as well as a jewish Rav… Adding to that is the fact that so much can be lost in translation, for example, son of man.. ok, but that phrase is from the Torah, and in the Torah the meaning of man can be very different if it is written, adam, or Ish or zachar… even zachar, most often translated as male really doesn’t do justice to the exact meaning of the teaching when explained by a Torah master (so imagine the word adam!).
So moving forward I would really appreciate some guidance on the respect of copyrights for verbatim translation.
I”m afraid I don’t really know the answer. Sorry! You would need to ask someone who knows about copyright law. (And I don’t!)
Ok then, I’ll look into it. Maybe at some point in time I’ll be able to have the Rav’s authorisation to do so. I’ll wait until then to move forward. Otherwise it would be like breaking the law to explain how to do something legal!!!
(and maybe you will meet a good english speaking Rav during your trip in Jerusalem! 😉 )
Prof. Ehrman, I wish I wrote the Masters dissertation I did on the subject in English. It’s title can be roughly translated as “Jesus and his natural/ biological family: An investigation to possible strained relations in the light of the Gospel of Mark and other early sources.” (Jesus en sy biologiese familie: ‘n Ondersoek na moontlike troebel verhoudings in die lig van die Markus-evangelie en ander vroeë bronne).
In short, I am of the opinion that Mark has a theological motive for calling Jesus the “son of Mary.” I have considered the following passages in some detail in the study: 1 Corinthian 9:5, 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, Galatians 1:15-2:14, Mark 3:20-35, Mark 6:1-6, Mark 10:17-31, Q 9:57-60, Q 12:51 and 53, Q 14:26, Matthew 23:8-12, Luke 2:41-52; Luke 11:27-28, Acts 1:14, John 2:12, John 7:1-9, John 19:25-27, Josephus’ Antiquitated iudaicae 20:199-203, Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica I, 7:13-14, 23:4-18, III 20:1-6; III, 32:6; IV, 22:4-6. I have also considered all passages I deemed of importance in the Gospel of Mark.
1. I don’t know if Mark knew a “Joseph” – Prof. Andries van Aarde is of the opinion that “Joseph” is read back into the story of Mary and her sons. (So by the way, he would agree with the idea that Jesus was illegitimate and build his whole argument on it (“Fatherless in Galilee”). I personally think he overstretches the sources with his approach.)
2. It is clear that Mark has a vested interest in depicting Jesus to be the son of God. This is also the case in Mark 10:29-30a when it comes to all followers of Jesus. Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you there is no one who has left house or brother or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life…” Note that the one “relation” that will not be given in abundance to Jesus-followers, is “fathers.” The reason being, God is their father in the same was as he is Jesus’ father.
3. Mark is a second generation Christian (maybe third)… I think his theological biases is writing his story in Mark 3:20-35 as well as in Mark 10.
4. Though he has the same under-current as Q in terms of division within traditional families (which I suspect may be a reason for him to reflect more on his own day and age than on Jesus’ historical situation), Mark is not busy with history in Mark 3:20-35 either. This includes Mark 3:20-21 which can even be read against Mark 8:1-10. (To eat with someone is a very very important action of allegiance (this is especially clear in Africa and the Middle East even today). If I don’t eat with you, you are not my friend.) Mark goes further than Q in embedding Jesus in God’s family. (Does that happen in an adoptianistic way? I suspect so.)
5. If Mark is doing name dropping in Mark 6:1-6 and if Mark 3:20-35 is probably also not historical… I am not talking of the Beelzebul fragments shared with Q), then Mark knows as little about Jesus’ natural family as John who like Hegesippus later, uses Jesus’ family (more specifically his mother) to cement claims of orthodoxy/ legitimacy to his group of Jesus-followers.
6. We can therefore not even try to conjecture that Jesus was born out of wedlock or that Joseph died… I think that history is obstructed by theology. Mark’s story overrides historical facts.
Thanks. Very interesting.
Professor Ehrman, I don’t recall you saying much about James, either on the blog or in your books. What is the best explanation for how James, an illiterate laborer from Galilee, ended up being a priest in Jerusalem? Do we have any sources on James, other than the book/epistle of James in the NT? We seem to know so little about the original (Jewish) Christians that lived In Jerusalem between roughly 30Ad and 70AD other than what we are told in Acts. How significant do you think the conflict was between Paul and the original apostles (and James)? If James really was the brother of Jesus and he took over leadership of the Jerusalem Christian movement, it would seem that we would have many more questions about pretty much everything written in the gospels. Sorry for asking so many questions at once but one naturally leads to the next….
James did not become a priest — he couldn’t, because he was not from the right tribe (priests had to be descended from Levi — it was a bloodline thing, not a career option thing). Our main sources for Jesus’ brother James are the scant references in the Gospels; narratives of Acts; a brief couple of references in Paul (Gal. 1); and later legendary sources. The book of James was probably not written by *that* James.
Professor Ehrman I have a question with respect to the accurate translation of Mark 3:21. I found that the NRSV cites Mark 3:21 as, When his family heard it.” The KJV states in part, “And when his friends heard of it.” The NASB describes, “And when His own people (side note “kingsman” for people) heard of this.” The MEV describes the verse in part, “When His family heard of it.” And lastly the NIV says, “When his family.” So my question, which translation is closest to the original Greek with regard to family vs. friends? The aforementioned English translations are consistent with Mark 3:31 which describe that his mother and brothers arrived later, which would lead one to believe that they arrived after the fact of what was happening in verse 21 and therefore were not a witness to his senseless behavior. I hope you understand what I’m trying to decipher. Thank you. (Note: I have been researching the birth narrative on the blog and came across this post.)
Yeah, it’s a tough nugget: The Greek is οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, literally, “those who were from him.” In the Greek of the period the phrase is used to mean “those were were from his family.” It seems pretty clearly to mean that here, given the context; Jesus is never described as having friends accompany him on his travels, and the disciples are persumably with him already, and would not have come from outside to seize him (they never do anywhwere else). The mutual dificulty of Jesus and his mother and brothers is brought out again just ten verses later.
Tough nugget indeed. I will just chalk it up to what was once said to you. Perhaps Mark made a mistake.
With the birth of Jesus having been such a big to do in Mathew and Luke you’d think some level of notoriety would have remained during his childhood. His mother would have some bragging rights about who her son is.
1. I don’t think it’s a mistake — it’s just a circumlocution that sometimes gets used. 2. Yup, probably right about Matthew and Luke. But it’s not an issue in Mark, obviously, which is where this passage is found.
Re: GMark’s “Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Ἰωσῆτος …”
How does this relate to the woman in GMark (at a distance from the cross) named as “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Ἰωσῆτος” (Cf Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆτος ἐθεώρουν ποῦ 15:47)?
If it was the same Mary–mother of Jesus–it seems a little odd that she is not called “mother of Jesus.” I’m wondering if Mark’s Jesus–with his “Who are My mother and My brothers?” discourse–had in effect disowned his birth mother as “mother,” relegating her to the estranged status of “mother of James the younger and of Ἰωσῆτος”?
Thoughts?
There are debates about 19:47. For one thing, thre aren’t anyu manuscripts that say she was teh “mother of James the younger.” “The younger” has apparently been added by whoever produced your translation. The best mss just say “Mary the mother of Joses.” (some do say “James and Joses” or “James” *instead* of Joses). It’s not clear if Mary the mother of Jesus is meant here, and if so, not only why Jesus is not mentioned but why just Joses. (See 6:3)
1. What about Jesus healing people, casting out demons, and gathering crowds around himself caused his mother and brothers to think that Jesus had gone crazy?
2. Is this a historic event?
1. They appear not to have believed such things happened and htat their relative was acting very strangely in public. But you’re right, it’s hard to make a secure connection. 2. I don’t think the incident itself is historical, but I do think it suggests that during his ministry his family did not think that he was a prophet of God or the messiah.