11366Re: [XTalk] Jesus, James et al and Their Observant Parents
- Nov 1, 2002Ted Weeden wrote:
>I. Jesus' Family: Basic FactsTed,
>(1) Jesus had a mother ...
O.K. so far. ;-)
> whose name was Mary (Mk. 6:3; ...But we only have Mark's word for this. In first century Judaism the
usual identification of a person was in the form "x son of y". So I
doubt whether Mark would have known the name of Jesus' mother, in which
case he could easily have invented a name. You may think it *probable*
that her name was Mary, but I don't see how you can label it as a "basic
>(5) Jesus, at one point, severed ties with his family or at leastMost of the Jesus Seminar folk appear to be under the impression that
>disassociated himself from his family (Mk. 3:31-35; GTh 99; voted pink by
>Jesus Seminar [FJS, _Acts_, 73]; ...
GTh was independent of Mark, and no doubt their pink vote reflects the
consequent belief that the disassociation is multiply attested. I have
challenged GTh's independence on this list (3 Aug 2001). If GTh is
discounted, we only have Mark's word for the disassociation. Also there
is a clear motive: Mark was a supporter of Paul, and Paul had been at
loggerheads with James, Jesus' brother.
>(6) Jesus' family, at one point, thought that he, because of his conduct inYes, Mark conducted a polemic against Jesus' family. What baffles me
>his public ministry, was out of his mind, i.e. demon-possessed (Mk. 3: 21;
>voted pink by the Jesus Seminar [FJS, _ Acts_, 73]; and see Werner Kelber,
>_The Kingdom in Mark_, 25f., and Steve Davies' XTalk post, "Mk 3:21"
>[Crosstalk2, April 19, 2002]), and moved to intervene against him. Mahlon
>Smith ("Israel's Prodigal Son,"453, n. 63) cites the fellows of the Jesus
>Seminar voting pink on the issue of "Jesus' brothers . . . not [being] in
>sympathy with him." That particular dimension of the family's view of
>Jesus, however, may perhaps be a Markan motif created by Mark as part of
>Mark's polemic against the family .....
is why, having seen this possibility, you seem happy to take material
which plausibly belongs to this polemic (see the paragraph below), class
it as a "basic fact", and build an intricate argument on top of it.
> ..... It does appear that Jesus' family,The other synoptic writers were strongly influenced by Mark. They toned
>for whatever reason, chose not to be associated with Jesus or have anything
>to do with his public ministry, at least there is no indication in the
>Synoptic Gospels that the family aligned itself with Jesus' vision or
down Mark's polemic, e.g. by omitting: "When his family heard it they
went out to restrain him" (Mk 3:21), but they stopped short of writing
Jesus' family back into active involvement in his ministry. This would
have introduced a fundamental and blatant contradiction of Mark which
would have undermined the reliability of the synoptics in the eyes of
their first century readers. Instead Matthew and Luke rehabilitated
Jesus' family in more subtle ways such as presenting birth stories in
which Mary and Joseph are heroes.
> and the evangelist John, if his comment is historicallyI don't believe this comment is historically accurate. The
>accurate, states explicitly that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him
'Evangelist' John (though not the author of John 21) was, in Goulder's
terminology, an "ultra-Pauline". He followed Mark in painting a negative
picture of the original disciples.
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
- Next post in topic >>