> I would think that 19:26 embeds an older literary formula, since it
> identifies Mary Magdalene as Jesus' mother, an identification which is not
> explicit elsewhere in the gospel.
Can you explain why Mary (as mom) would sometimes be qualified as M.
Magdalene and other times no Magdalene but a 'Mary, mother of James, Joses'
etc. (GMark ch 15 and 16, 4xs total)
> >By the way, if Jn 19.26 refers to 4 women, then a least 3 of them are
> >Mary. That's strange.
> That is one of the reasons the two-women solution seems more likely.
Doesn't this create the problem of sisters having the same name? Seems
> Of course this Mary is often merged with Mary Magdalene, but these are
> speculations without any basis in the gospel narratives. I have found that
> much of the opposition to the idea of Mary Magdalene having been Jesus'
> mother in whatever literary antecedent the gospels may have had stems from
> precisely this stereotype of Christian mythology.
These are 2 different problems though. I agree with you that the text
doesn't clarify that Mary of Bethany = MMagdalene. (I happen to think they
are the same, but that's another tale.)
Second problem: I think the opposition to Magdalene = BVM surely has more to
do with there being no hint of such an equation in scripture, rather, just
the opposite. But, I'm listening to you. I agree that 19.26 could be a
chiasmus / intercalation. I just don't see why the author would use a poetic
device to present a prosaic datum. What's the purpose?
> My own explanation involves the
> dramatic performance that I and my co-author suggest was at the basis of
> gospel passion narratives, where a chorus leader, named Mary Magdalene,
> followed by a crowd of anonymous women. The chorus of women was addressed
> other characters in the play collectively as "Mary".
I've read your intriguing Web site, but have a hard time visualizing how an
audience-member's recollection of a stage performance could wind up becoming
the Gospel of Mark. As I've written to you months ago on Old Crosstalk, the
GMark language shows subtle significance way, way beyond what viewing of
stage events would suggest.
> Christians, who did not
> understand the conventions of Roman stage performances, understood that
> of the women were named Mary.
This is conceivable, I suppose, yet still seems unlikely because it assumes
an almost childlike inability of the "Markan" viewer to grasp that one woman
was being addressed as Mary, rather than all. Even though this drama
technique may have been over the heads of a Roman-Christian "hick" audience,
yet the experience of having a group (chorus) listen while one person is
addressed by name, is commonplace.
Christian speculations then tried to give
> these "Marys" various identities,
But, according to your thesis, wouldn't the misperception of the chorus as
being many "Marys" have been one person's error alone -- the author of
GMark? How then does collective Christian dogma or imaginative
filling-in-details come into play ?
since these women were important for
> Christian dogma as witnesses at the crucifixion and, even more
> at the resurrection. Therefore precise identification was attempted.
Now, Steve's point:
Gospel of Philip:
There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary,
his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one
who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and
his companion were each a Mary.
Here I'm confused as hell (where Christ Thomas sent me today). First there's
reference to "and *her* sister" as 1 of 3 companions, but then in the second
part of this couplet, she becomes *his* sister. What's goin' on? I don' get
Also, this GPhilip passage actually contradicts Jan's thesis rather than
supporting it... Jan wants 2 Marys, not 3, and this one says Magdalene is
definitely not = to BVM, right?
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2
- Simplifying group communications