Re: [XTalk] The identity of Mary (Mark 16:40), and protective silences
- Richard Fellows wrote
> The family of Jesus might have been given a particularly low profileRemember also of course the death of Jacob/James reported in
> in the public documents of the church, so that they would not become
> a target for persecution.
Josephus in a passage less problematic than the one mentioning
Jesus. On Josephus and the death of Jesus' brother see
McLaren, James S., 2001. 'Ananus, James, and earliest
Christianity: Josephus' account of the death of James',
_Journal of Theological Studies_ (52:1-25).
This is a careful historical study of how Josephus reports
the political intrigues in Jerusalem in the sixties of the
1st century CE.
There is also the report of Domitian investigating
the family later but this is Eusebius using Hegesippus.
All the same Luke 15.10 is using Mk.61.1 and Fitzmyer
Luke p.1546f is wisely cautious about the identity
of 'this "Mary"'.
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
- William Campbell has a very interesting piece in JBL, in which he
analyzes the styles of self-designation by Josephus, Polybius and
Thucydides. I have reviewed his article here:
I use Campbell's data to argue that the author of Acts was present
with Paul before the "We passages" as well as during them. Campbell
himself seems to have overlooked this possibility and comes to a very
Let me know what you think.
Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I hadn't been following this discussion so I'm sorry to be posting[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> "late." I'd agree with Richard's assessment generally. I need to
> read Robbins' essay but I'm familiar with MacDonald (I was at an SBL
> session on Acts where Alexander, MacDonald, and Penner all presented
> and found MacDonald's thesis far from demonstrated--and open to the
> same criticisms as raised by Karl Olav Sandnes in his 2005 JBL
> article on MacDonald's method),
> It seems to me that "we passages" do not indicate historigraphy
> or fiction on their own, but I'm not convinced that they affirm
> nothing about the narrator's participation but could mean either
> presence or absence.