... From: Richard Fellows To: Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:35 PM Subject: [XTalk] Protective silence
Message 1 of 2
, Jun 17, 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Fellows" <rfellows@...>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:35 PM
Subject: [XTalk] Protective silence concerning Jesus' family in Mark
> Jack Kilmon wrote:
> <<This being the case, we cannot be sure that brother Yaqub was not
> all along as well as some of the other brothers. Mark has an obvious
> antipathy toward Jesus' family (3:21; 3:31-35) and excludes them from the
> mission as does the interpolation at John 7:5. The only reason I can think
> of for this anti-family bias was to prevent proselytes from joining the
> Jacobian group in Jerusalem from which the desposynoi arose. It is for
> reason I consider the GoT Logion 12 authentically Yeshuine. Later in the
> century there is a specific focus by persecutors on Jesus' family
> Jack, what about the possibility that the church protected Jesus's family
> members from persecution by keeping quite about their involvement in the
> movement? Could this explain why Mark's gospel is silent about the part
> played by Mary and Jesus' brothers in the Jesus movement?
> Theissen and Bauckham have argued that Mark's gospel affords anonymity to
> the following people for their protection:
> 1. The man who cut off the ear of the high priest's slave (Mark 14:47)
> 2. The naked youth (Mark 14:51-52)
> 3. The woman who poured the alabaster jar (Mark 14:3-9)
> We might also add the case of Levi, who took the alias "Matthew", perhaps
> to hide his identity as a former tax collector. Mark's text fails to
> reveal Matthew's identity. These cases, in combination, suggest that Mark,
> or the original tellers of the stories that he used, were concerned to
> protect believers from persecution.
> Is it therefore possible that Mark's gospel protects Jesus' family with a
> veil of silence? It is consistent that John's gospel names the man who cut
> off the ear and the woman with the alabaster jar, and also reveals the
> participation of Jesus' family in the movement.
> It is interesting that Mark mentions Jesus' mother at 15:40, but calls her
> "Mary of James the less and of Joses" (compare John 19:25). Is Mark or his
> source protecting Jesus' mother here by keeping quiet about her
> relationship to Jesus? If so, this would be a case of protective
> heteronymity, similar to the case of Levi-Matthew, I suggest.
> Richard Fellows
That should certainly be considered, Richard. Mark 15:40 is a puzzle
because it conflates Mary the mother of James, the Less...who was the "other
Mary" wife of Clopas with Mary the mother of Joses who was Jesus' mother.
Yosef/s could have been a family name and both Yosef (Jesus' father) and
Clopas (Jesus' uncle) had children mutually named. After all, James the
Less would have been named after the same grandfather as James the Just.
That an early GMark was protecting certain relatives and close associates of
Jesus, it may have been construed as antipathy. I want to take some time to
study the possibility.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.