Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GTh] Salome

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    One of the things I like about Ron s note was his suggestion that Clement lied to his correspondent about the content of the Secret Gospel of Mark , when he
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 10, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      One of the things I like about Ron's note was his suggestion that Clement
      lied to his correspondent about the content of the "Secret Gospel of Mark",
      when he (Clement) said that Jesus had not received Salome et al at Jericho.
      This hadn't occurred to me before, but it does make sense. However, I'm
      still not entirely convinced of the authenticity of Morton Smith's "find".
      Since Jack is (or was) online, perhaps he can comment on the current status
      of that issue. Last I heard, Charlie Hedrick was gonna go to the Mar Saba
      Abbey to see if he could locate the text which thus far only Morton Smith
      (now deceased) claims to have seen (and copied down).

      Mike
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Salome ... Mark , ...
      Message 2 of 20 , Aug 10, 2001
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Michael Grondin" <mgrondin@...>
        To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 12:44 PM
        Subject: Re: [GTh] Salome


        > One of the things I like about Ron's note was his suggestion that Clement
        > lied to his correspondent about the content of the "Secret Gospel of
        Mark",
        > when he (Clement) said that Jesus had not received Salome et al at
        Jericho.
        > This hadn't occurred to me before, but it does make sense. However, I'm
        > still not entirely convinced of the authenticity of Morton Smith's "find".
        > Since Jack is (or was) online, perhaps he can comment on the current
        status
        > of that issue. Last I heard, Charlie Hedrick was gonna go to the Mar Saba
        > Abbey to see if he could locate the text which thus far only Morton Smith
        > (now deceased) claims to have seen (and copied down).

        Not exactly, Mike. Archimandrite Melito took the 1646 Voss edition of
        Ignatius (in which the Clement letter was written on the flyleaves) to the
        Patriarchate Library in Jerusalem in 1977. Kallistos Dourvas removed the
        pages from the book (I think that was a big mistake) in order to photograph
        them,
        which he did. Now, in addition to Smith's photographs, these new
        photographs
        are now viewable at the Westar Institute website:

        http://www.westarinstitute.org/westar/news/secretmk1.html

        The Archimandrite and Dourvas have seen the document and do not dispute
        its existence. The palaeography of the photographs is convincing as is the
        Clementine style. Hedrick is hoping to see the pages this year but I
        believe
        the monks have been stalling because once the leaves were stupidly removed
        from the Voss book (sorry for the harsh opinion), I think they were lost.

        Let's hope they were not accidentally or deliberately destroyed and Hedrick
        gets the opportunity to examine them this year.

        Jack


        -----
        ______________________________________________

        Dakma dabadton l'chad min haleyn achi zoreh li hav abadton

        Jack Kilmon
        San Marcos, Tx
        jkilmon@...

        http://www.historian.net

        sharing a meal for free.
        http://www.thehungersite.com/
      • Jack Kilmon
        ... Clement ... find . ... Saba ... Smith ... photograph ... Ooops! That should be: http://www.westarinstitute.org/Westar/News/SecretMk1/secretmk1.html Why
        Message 3 of 20 , Aug 10, 2001
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Michael Grondin" <mgrondin@...>
          > To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 12:44 PM
          > Subject: Re: [GTh] Salome
          >
          >
          > > One of the things I like about Ron's note was his suggestion that
          Clement
          > > lied to his correspondent about the content of the "Secret Gospel of
          > Mark",
          > > when he (Clement) said that Jesus had not received Salome et al at
          > Jericho.
          > > This hadn't occurred to me before, but it does make sense. However, I'm
          > > still not entirely convinced of the authenticity of Morton Smith's
          "find".
          > > Since Jack is (or was) online, perhaps he can comment on the current
          > status
          > > of that issue. Last I heard, Charlie Hedrick was gonna go to the Mar
          Saba
          > > Abbey to see if he could locate the text which thus far only Morton
          Smith
          > > (now deceased) claims to have seen (and copied down).
          >
          > Not exactly, Mike. Archimandrite Melito took the 1646 Voss edition of
          > Ignatius (in which the Clement letter was written on the flyleaves) to the
          > Patriarchate Library in Jerusalem in 1977. Kallistos Dourvas removed the
          > pages from the book (I think that was a big mistake) in order to
          photograph
          > them,
          > which he did. Now, in addition to Smith's photographs, these new
          > photographs
          > are now viewable at the Westar Institute website:
          >
          > http://www.westarinstitute.org/westar/news/secretmk1.html

          Ooops! That should be:

          http://www.westarinstitute.org/Westar/News/SecretMk1/secretmk1.html

          Why can't I ever type a URL right?

          Jack
        • Peter Kirby
          ... From: Ron McCann To: Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 7:01 AM Subject: [GTh] Fw: [GospelofThomas] Re:
          Message 4 of 20 , Aug 10, 2001
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Ron McCann <ronmccann1@...>
            To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 7:01 AM
            Subject: [GTh] Fw: [GospelofThomas] Re: Salome: A Modest Proposal :#61


            [snip]
            >
            > In Thomas the saying has been softened and neutered. In Luke, the only
            other Gospel in which this saying or it's parallel is found, it has not been
            and can be read "suggestively". Thomas reads:-
            >
            > 61a "Two will recline on a couch, one will die. One will live."
            >
            > In Luke 17: 33-35 it reads "I tell you that in that Night (Judgement Day)
            there shall be two men in one bed, the one shall be taken, and the other
            left..."
            >
            > Coincidence that both can be read suggestively and both are grouped in
            this logion? And if the original read "bed" and Thomas softened it to
            "couch" here, did the original word in the Salome portion read "bed" and was
            it too softened to "couch"? "climb on my bed"?

            I don't know Coptic, but I know a little Greek, and the Greek word used in
            Luke here is klinhv, a word which can be translated either as bed or as
            couch.

            The Coptic is a translation from the Greek, so it really doesn't matter what
            the Coptic word's connotations are, so long as the Coptic word is a
            recongizable translation possibility for the Greek word klinh. Nonetheless,
            according to Mike Grondin, the Coptic word can be translated either as couch
            or as bed (see near the bottom).

            http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9068/lex_ce.htm

            Also, you might want to look into the Gospel of the Egyptians, which
            mentions Salome.

            http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/egyptians-english.html

            best,
            Peter Kirby
            http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/
          • mgrondin@tir.com
            ... As Peter Kirby notes, there s no apparent softening or neutering in the Thomas saying. The word in question was usually used to mean bed , and so
            Message 5 of 20 , Aug 10, 2001
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Ron McCann wrote:
              > In Thomas the saying has been softened and neutered. In Luke, the
              > only other Gospel in which this saying or it's parallel is found,
              > it has not been and can be read "suggestively".

              As Peter Kirby notes, there's no apparent "softening" or "neutering"
              in the Thomas saying. The word in question was usually used to mean
              'bed', and so someone who was unfamiliar with the Grecian style of
              dining might conclude (as the Carpocratians did?) that Salome was
              saying that Jesus had both slept and ate with her. But even then,
              it must have seemed extremely odd for a woman who had slept with a
              man to suddenly ask later, "Say, who are you, anyway?" (Well, not
              counting wives, who occasionally imply something of the sort when
              their husbands have acted in typically stupid manly fashion :-)

              If mostly fictionalized, the point of the Salome pericope may have
              been the discordance between J's ordinary human activities and the
              exalted status that either he claimed for himself, or that others
              later claimed on his behalf. This discordance is evident in the
              canonical Nazareth episodes, where townsfolk are made to ask "Isn't
              he the carpenter's son?", or some such. Here, in Th61B, Salome is
              presented as a person who's seen Jesus engaged in normal activities
              in a normal way, and thus is astonished that he can present himself
              as somebody worthy of note - a "big shot", as it were.
              Unfortunately, the resolution of the discordance isn't at all
              convincing, since it's unlikely in the extreme that Salome (or
              anyone else in their right mind) would have keeled right over and
              become J's disciple simply on the basis of something he might say.
              In that respect, the whole story sounds as fishy as the "calling"
              of the sons of Zebedee, who drop everything they're doing when J
              says "Follow me!". The historical core, if there was one, must
              certainly have been quite different.

              M.
              p.s.: I never thought about it before, but what's that stuff in
              Luke about two men sleeping together on a bed? Is that metaphorical
              or what?
            • Ron McCann
              On Aug 17th, Jack wrote- ... off ... Jack, No such equating was intended. Rather I was intending to suggest that the disciple Salome had nothing to do with
              Message 6 of 20 , Aug 10, 2001
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On Aug 17th, Jack wrote-

                > Ron, you seem to be equating the Salome (Shelomzion, the feminine form of
                > Solomon), daughter of Herodias, with Salome, the mother of the brothers
                > Zebediya. Although the prosopography of the relatives and family of Jesus
                > must be extracted from multiple canonical and non-canonical sources, the
                > Salome who was a follower (and supporter) of Jesus..and present at the
                > crucifixion...appears to have been his aunt, Mary's sister. Josephus'
                "off
                > with his head" Salome, and daughter of Herodias (and Herod Philip)...was
                > probably named after Salome Alexandra, the widow of Alexander Jannaeus and
                > last Hasmonean ruler>

                Jack,

                No such equating was intended. Rather I was intending to suggest that the
                disciple Salome had nothing to do with the dancer Salome, (Herodias's
                daughter who danced for Herod); and that only one Salome- the disciple- is
                mentioned in the Gospels.- the other Salome- the dancer- remaining unnamed
                there. Almost anyone will tell you that a woman named Salome was the woman
                who danced for Herod. I was curious as to how that belief had come about.
                Sorry if my words mislead you on that point.

                You know, after I posted that. I got to thinking about Salome being
                mentioned in the very last chapter of Mark, with all three of the women
                fleeing in fear. It abruptly ends, and as many have observed that there has
                to have been more, but the proper ending is missing. Quite clearly, this
                ending was missing in Matthew and Luke's copies, too. Hard to imagine it was
                "lost" such that it could not be recovered, in just 10 years.

                In keeping with my thesis, do you suppose the original ending may have been
                deliberately amputated because it contained the risen Jesus interacting with
                the later-disgraced Salome in some too familiar way, as had presumably been
                done in the case of the Jericho incident? Or did the Secret Mark ending
                perhaps contain "secret resurrection teachings" which had to be excised, as
                the Lazarus Initiation story was, leaving a truncated Normal Mark. Secret
                teachings were clearly not an issue in the Jericho, incident if you buy what
                Clement said was written there. Salome's relationship with Jesus was.
                Perhaps the original ending has the risen Jesus giving Salome "secret
                resurrection teachings". Now wouldn't that "fry your bacon" if you are
                trying to discredit her?

                I guess my point is that the true ending of Mark may have been deliberately
                deleted for either or both of these reasons, rather than "accidentally"
                lost. And such editing would have to have taken place between the writing of
                the Secret Gospel and 80 CE when Matthew first got his hands on the reworked
                copy.

                Just a stray thought. And I have another one. Another idea worth exploring,
                is the
                alternative possibility that Salome may have had to be discredited because
                she "defected" to the Thomas camp, and became their darling. Ergo- they
                record her "Call" in the Gospel of Thomas.

                Best Wishes,

                Ron
              • Ron McCann
                Peter, Many thanks for your post. I take your point. Thomas didn t soften this saying by electing to use couch instead of bed . I was quite wrong. Our
                Message 7 of 20 , Aug 10, 2001
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Peter,

                  Many thanks for your post.

                  I take your point. Thomas didn't "soften" this saying by electing to use
                  "couch" instead of "bed". I was quite wrong. Our modern translators who used
                  it, did. (grin). As you point out, the two meanings seems to be
                  interchangeable in both the Coptic and in the Greek version-the one likely
                  read by the Carpos. And they probably read it in 61b as "bed", since that
                  suited their agenda more.

                  Of the seven translations I looked at since your post arrived, three use
                  "couch" in both 61a and 61b, two use "bed" in both sayings, and the
                  remaining two use "bed" in the first and "couch" in the second. I tend to go
                  with the "couch" crowd, especially in 61b since a formal diner seems to be
                  indicated.. Thank you for the URL to that Lexicon site. It was most helpful.

                  I also want to express my thanks for drawing my attention to the Gospel of
                  The Egyptians and Salome's presence in most of the fragments from it. I had
                  done a search of all the Nag Hammadi texts for "Salome", and apart from a
                  brief and useless reference in the First Apocalypse of James, and of course,
                  in Thomas, there was nothing. I had completely forgotten about this Gospel
                  and its' Salome content. It's a shame there is not more of it. Still, it
                  indicates SOMEONE ELSE thought Salome was an important lady, that she had a
                  close relationship to Jesus as a disciple, and that Jesus entrusted to her
                  some important teachings, as he is shown to have done in Thomas 61b. Funny
                  she got "deep sixed".

                  Thanks for having that site. It's a jewel.

                  Best Wishes,

                  Ron

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Peter Kirby" <kirby@...>
                  To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 2:08 PM
                  Subject: Re: [GTh] Fw: [GospelofThomas] Re: Salome: A Modest Proposal :#61


                  > I don't know Coptic, but I know a little Greek, and the Greek word used in
                  > Luke here is klinhv, a word which can be translated either as bed or as
                  > couch.
                  >
                  > The Coptic is a translation from the Greek, so it really doesn't matter
                  what
                  > the Coptic word's connotations are, so long as the Coptic word is a
                  > recongizable translation possibility for the Greek word klinh.
                  Nonetheless,
                  > according to Mike Grondin, the Coptic word can be translated either as
                  couch
                  > or as bed (see near the bottom).
                  >
                  > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9068/lex_ce.htm
                  >
                  > Also, you might want to look into the Gospel of the Egyptians, which
                  > mentions Salome.
                  >
                  > http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/egyptians-english.html
                  >
                  > best,
                  > Peter Kirby
                  > http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/
                  >
                  >
                  > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                  > To unsubscribe from this group,
                  > send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Steve Allison
                  ... Paul wanted women to keep silent in church. So there must have been some women who were not. Evidently, then, Salome was one of them. His way eventually
                  Message 8 of 20 , Aug 11, 2001
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 12:26 AM 08/11/2001 -0600, Ron McCann wrote:
                    >Still, it
                    >indicates SOMEONE ELSE thought Salome was an important lady, that she had a
                    >close relationship to Jesus as a disciple, and that Jesus entrusted to her
                    >some important teachings, as he is shown to have done in Thomas 61b. Funny
                    >she got "deep sixed".


                    Paul wanted women to keep silent in church. So there must have been some
                    women who were not. Evidently, then, Salome was one of them. His way
                    eventually won.


                    Steve Allison
                    Knoxville, TN
                  • Ron McCann
                    Mike, You took issue with the following, which I wrote in my post. ... You said:- ... You are absolutely right about Thomas not being responsible for any
                    Message 9 of 20 , Aug 11, 2001
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mike,

                      You took issue with the following, which I wrote in my post.

                      > > In Thomas the saying has been softened and neutered. In Luke, the
                      > > only other Gospel in which this saying or it's parallel is found,
                      > > it has not been and can be read "suggestively".

                      You said:-
                      > As Peter Kirby notes, there's no apparent "softening" or "neutering"
                      > in the Thomas saying. The word in question was usually used to mean
                      > 'bed', and so someone who was unfamiliar with the Grecian style of
                      > dining might conclude (as the Carpocratians did?) that Salome was
                      > saying that Jesus had both slept and ate with her.

                      You are absolutely right about Thomas not being responsible for any
                      "softening" by employing the term "couch" over "bed" in 61. See my post of
                      to-day's date to Peter Kirby. I should have examined all the alternative
                      translations available. Any such 'softening" is a result of a modern
                      translator's choice of "couch" over "bed".

                      But, not, I hope, to split hairs- "neutering" seems clearly to have been
                      done with the elimination of the word "Men", after "Two". No? "Two Men will
                      sleep/ lay down in/on a bed". Remove it, and no homosexual implications can
                      be drawn from it (not that it's that easy to do in the first place.).

                      And as you say, one really has to reach to see any lacivious meaning in 61b.
                      Your point about the Carpos having to ignore parts of the saying to do so,
                      is well taken. You had written:-

                      <But even then,
                      > it must have seemed extremely odd for a woman who had slept with a
                      > man to suddenly ask later, "Say, who are you, anyway?" (Well, not
                      > counting wives, who occasionally imply something of the sort when
                      > their husbands have acted in typically stupid manly fashion :-)

                      On the other hand, doesn't this scenario re-enact itself tens of thousands
                      of times a night when the bars close? :-)

                      Might I also be permitted a comment on something else you wrote? You state:-
                      >
                      > > Unfortunately, the resolution of the discordance isn't at all
                      > convincing, since it's unlikely in the extreme that Salome (or
                      > anyone else in their right mind) would have keeled right over and
                      > become J's disciple simply on the basis of something he might say.
                      > In that respect, the whole story sounds as fishy as the "calling"
                      > of the sons of Zebedee, who drop everything they're doing when J
                      > says "Follow me!". The historical core, if there was one, must
                      > certainly have been quite different.

                      Fair enough, but the fact that Salome "keels over" in the exact same
                      fashion, and with exactly the same swiftness as the Zebedees, or the Tax
                      Collector Levi or some of the others, on encountering Jesus for the first
                      time, may either be an literary device- just the way they wrote of those
                      kinds of experiences in those days- or it may be a response to the sheer
                      impact the man- reputely of enormous personal charisma- had on the people he
                      met. Either way, identifying this saying as the Calling of Salome, is
                      reinforced.

                      I might also cite to you, in addition, a proven human emotional response
                      reaction called "love at first sight". Some similar mechanism may be
                      involved here. In that vein, might I direct you to the raising of Lazarus
                      incident in Secret Mark, where immediately after raising Lazarus, Lazarus
                      instantly falls "in love" with Jesus.

                      Not all that "fishy", really. :-)

                      Ron
                    • Jack Kilmon
                      ... From: Ron McCann To: Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 2:18 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Salome: A Modest
                      Message 10 of 20 , Aug 11, 2001
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Ron McCann" <ronmccann1@...>
                        To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 2:18 AM
                        Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Salome: A Modest Proposal :#61


                        >
                        > Fair enough, but the fact that Salome "keels over" in the exact same
                        > fashion, and with exactly the same swiftness as the Zebedees, or the Tax
                        > Collector Levi or some of the others, on encountering Jesus for the first
                        > time, may either be an literary device- just the way they wrote of those
                        > kinds of experiences in those days- or it may be a response to the sheer
                        > impact the man- reputely of enormous personal charisma- had on the people
                        he
                        > met. Either way, identifying this saying as the Calling of Salome, is
                        > reinforced.

                        Were they really encountering Jesus for the first time, Ron, or is that the
                        literary device? Salome is Jesus' aunt, therefore the Zebediya boys,
                        Yohanon (John) and Ya'akov (James, the "greater") are Jesus' cousins.
                        Jesus' uncle Zebediya is in a partnership with Yona in a fishing business
                        and Yona's two sons, Simon and Andreas are close to and work with
                        Jesus' cousins. Jesus' uncle Clopas/Cleophas/Alphaeus is his father
                        Yosef's brother, married to "the other Mary" and have two sons,
                        Mattaya (Matthew) and Ya'akov (James, the "lesser") who are also
                        cousins. Thaddeus was a cousin. Was Yehudah "Toma" the same
                        person as brother "Jude?"
                        It appears very much to me that Jesus' knew all these
                        people he called to "follow me" all his life. Did brother Ya'akov
                        (James, the Righteous) just "pop up" after the crucifixion or was he an
                        element in this enterprise all along? It seems that the "Son of Man and
                        Kingdom Coming, Incorporated" was a family enterprise.
                        Perhaps Logion 12 is a relic of the GoT origins in the earliest (family)
                        tradition.

                        Jack


                        -----
                        ______________________________________________

                        Dakma dabadton l'chad min haleyn achi zoreh li hav abadton

                        Jack Kilmon
                        San Marcos, Tx
                        jkilmon@...

                        http://www.historian.net

                        sharing a meal for free.
                        http://www.thehungersite.com/
                      • Jack Kilmon
                        ... From: Ron McCann To: Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Fw: [GospelofThomas] Re:
                        Message 11 of 20 , Aug 11, 2001
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Ron McCann" <ronmccann1@...>
                          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 7:11 PM
                          Subject: Re: [GTh] Fw: [GospelofThomas] Re: Salome: A Modest Proposal :#61


                          > On Aug 17th, Jack wrote-
                          >
                          > > Ron, you seem to be equating the Salome (Shelomzion, the feminine form
                          of
                          > > Solomon), daughter of Herodias, with Salome, the mother of the brothers
                          > > Zebediya. Although the prosopography of the relatives and family of
                          Jesus
                          > > must be extracted from multiple canonical and non-canonical sources, the
                          > > Salome who was a follower (and supporter) of Jesus..and present at the
                          > > crucifixion...appears to have been his aunt, Mary's sister. Josephus'
                          > "off
                          > > with his head" Salome, and daughter of Herodias (and Herod Philip)...was
                          > > probably named after Salome Alexandra, the widow of Alexander Jannaeus
                          and
                          > > last Hasmonean ruler>
                          >
                          > Jack,
                          >
                          > No such equating was intended. Rather I was intending to suggest that the
                          > disciple Salome had nothing to do with the dancer Salome, (Herodias's
                          > daughter who danced for Herod); and that only one Salome- the disciple-
                          is
                          > mentioned in the Gospels.- the other Salome- the dancer- remaining unnamed
                          > there. Almost anyone will tell you that a woman named Salome was the woman
                          > who danced for Herod. I was curious as to how that belief had come about.
                          > Sorry if my words mislead you on that point.

                          Aaah, I see. I misunderstood. Perhaps when Antipas was exiled to the west,
                          and Herodias went with him, step-daughter Salome tagged along. It may be
                          that
                          the hagiographers, writing some 30 years after Herod's exile just didn't
                          know
                          her name. After all, none of them appear to be from Palestine. Josephus
                          was, hence
                          he remembered her name.

                          >
                          > You know, after I posted that. I got to thinking about Salome being
                          > mentioned in the very last chapter of Mark, with all three of the women
                          > fleeing in fear. It abruptly ends, and as many have observed that there
                          has
                          > to have been more, but the proper ending is missing. Quite clearly, this
                          > ending was missing in Matthew and Luke's copies, too. Hard to imagine it
                          was
                          > "lost" such that it could not be recovered, in just 10 years.
                          >
                          > In keeping with my thesis, do you suppose the original ending may have
                          been
                          > deliberately amputated because it contained the risen Jesus interacting
                          with
                          > the later-disgraced Salome in some too familiar way, as had presumably
                          been
                          > done in the case of the Jericho incident? Or did the Secret Mark ending
                          > perhaps contain "secret resurrection teachings" which had to be excised,
                          as
                          > the Lazarus Initiation story was, leaving a truncated Normal Mark. Secret
                          > teachings were clearly not an issue in the Jericho, incident if you buy
                          what
                          > Clement said was written there. Salome's relationship with Jesus was.
                          > Perhaps the original ending has the risen Jesus giving Salome "secret
                          > resurrection teachings". Now wouldn't that "fry your bacon" if you are
                          > trying to discredit her?

                          First, I do not think aunt Salome was "later-disgraced." I believe, as the
                          wife
                          of the half owner of a lucrative fishing business, she, along with Joanna
                          and
                          Susanna helped support the small band "from her means." "Lying on my couch"
                          is an Aramaic idiom for coming to dinner..which is the only time you laid on
                          a couch in those days.

                          >
                          > I guess my point is that the true ending of Mark may have been
                          deliberately
                          > deleted for either or both of these reasons, rather than "accidentally"
                          > lost. And such editing would have to have taken place between the writing
                          of
                          > the Secret Gospel and 80 CE when Matthew first got his hands on the
                          reworked
                          > copy.

                          Actually, I think the ending of Mark is preserved in Matthew who copied
                          and redacted Mark nearly in its entirety. Although the Gospel of Mark
                          that Matthew and Luke used was probably not the currect version, the
                          ending can be extracted from Matthew and put back in Markan style
                          like:

                          Mark 16:9 And Jesus met them and said, Good Morning! (Mt 28:9)
                          10 And they went up to him and clasped his feet, and bowed to the ground
                          before him (Mt. 28:9) 11 Jesus said to them, you need not be afraid. (Mt
                          28:10)
                          12 Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee and they will see me there (Mt
                          28:10)
                          13 And they went with great joy and ran to tell his disciples (Mt 28:8)
                          14 And the elevel disciples went to Galilee to the mountain to which Jesus
                          had
                          directed them (Mt 28:16) 15 And Jesus came up to them and said, Go
                          and preach the good news to all the heathen. I will always be with you,
                          to the end. (Mt 28:19)

                          Since Mark fell into a period of disuse in favor of Matthew and Matthew
                          covered Mark's bases, it was not considered worthwhile to preserve or
                          replace the missing page of the Markan codex....after all, Matthew said it.

                          That's one theory. Another worth considering is that sometime during the
                          Pauline/Petrine polemics, the final portion of Mark was "lifted" and
                          inserted
                          at the end of John as Chapter 21 in order to neutralize the anti-petrine
                          John with a pro-Petrine ending of Mark. The three times "do ya love me?"
                          in John 21 brackets the three times "I don't know the guy" at Mark 14....
                          and Mark was a bracketer, wasn't he?

                          >
                          > Just a stray thought. And I have another one. Another idea worth
                          exploring,
                          > is the
                          > alternative possibility that Salome may have had to be discredited because
                          > she "defected" to the Thomas camp, and became their darling. Ergo- they
                          > record her "Call" in the Gospel of Thomas.

                          Not if the "Thomas camp" was the original "family camp."

                          Jack


                          -----
                          ______________________________________________

                          Dakma dabadton l'chad min haleyn achi zoreh li hav abadton

                          Jack Kilmon
                          San Marcos, Tx
                          jkilmon@...

                          http://www.historian.net

                          sharing a meal for free.
                          http://www.thehungersite.com/
                        • Ron McCann
                          Jack wrote:- ... From: Jack Kilmon To: Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 4:14 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re:
                          Message 12 of 20 , Aug 11, 2001
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Jack wrote:-
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
                            To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 4:14 AM
                            Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Salome: A Modest Proposal :#61


                            > Were they really encountering Jesus for the first time, Ron, or is that
                            the
                            > literary device? Salome is Jesus' aunt, therefore the Zebediya boys,
                            > Yohanon (John) and Ya'akov (James, the "greater") are Jesus' cousins.
                            > Jesus' uncle Zebediya is in a partnership with Yona in a fishing business
                            > and Yona's two sons, Simon and Andreas are close to and work with
                            > Jesus' cousins. Jesus' uncle Clopas/Cleophas/Alphaeus is his father
                            > Yosef's brother, married to "the other Mary" and have two sons,
                            > Mattaya (Matthew) and Ya'akov (James, the "lesser") who are also
                            > cousins. Thaddeus was a cousin. Was Yehudah "Toma" the same
                            > person as brother "Jude?"
                            > It appears very much to me that Jesus' knew all these
                            > people he called to "follow me" all his life. Did brother Ya'akov
                            > (James, the Righteous) just "pop up" after the crucifixion or was he an
                            > element in this enterprise all along? It seems that the "Son of Man and
                            > Kingdom Coming, Incorporated" was a family enterprise.
                            > Perhaps Logion 12 is a relic of the GoT origins in the earliest (family)
                            > tradition.
                            >
                            Jack,
                            I am very much aware of your "Family"-cabal thesis, and frankly think it has
                            a great deal of merit. I am greatly inclined to accept it.

                            But nothing in your Thesis stands or falls on whether or not the disciple of
                            Jesus called Salome is the same person as the Mother of the Zebedees-James
                            and John, or is even a relative.

                            I don't think she is, and it doesn't matter to your thesis anyway. The
                            mother could have been called Hagitha, or Fred for all I know, but "Salome"?
                            I think not. Expelling the Mother of James and John from the "camp" is
                            almost unthinkable (although she does seem a tad pushy when she presses
                            Jesus to give her boys 'first place" in the Kingdom.).

                            I do not know what pillars you rest your conclusion on, that this disciple
                            Salome is really Jesus's Aunt Zebedee. I hope one is not Matthew 27:55. I
                            must still insist that a deletion of the name "Salome" took place here, and
                            that Matthew merely substituted:-

                            "and the mother of the sons of Zebedee"

                            in it's place. Note that the full passage reads:-

                            "Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph,
                            and the mother of the sons of Zebedee"

                            In Mark this reads:-

                            "among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger
                            and of Joses, and Salome,"

                            Knee-jerk logic- "Oh, why then Salome=Mother of the sons of Zebedee!" Hello
                            Auntie Salome!

                            But think. If the formula is to name the mother and name her children if a
                            woman is married with family, why does not Matthew write "and SALOME, the
                            mother of the sons of Zebedee." Just as he and Mark have done for Mary? He
                            had the name right there, before him.

                            No Jack, this is a complete substitution. Another more congenial candidate
                            has been dropped in the empty slot. At least Luke didn't go so far as to
                            "mother" it. He substitutes another single woman, Joanna.

                            This Salome is single, by formula, and she is not "Auntie Salome", Jimmy and
                            Johnnie's mummy.

                            But wait ( K-Tel commercial music), there's MORE!

                            Off we go, this time to the fragmentary remains of the Gospel of the
                            Egyptians (With thanks to Peter Kirby) by way of our cheerful,
                            sometimes-liar Clement. Here, we find the ONLY OTHER references to Salome,
                            apart from Thomas and the brief references in Mark. (There is a brief
                            reference as well in the highly gnostic First Apocalyse of James, where she
                            seems to be a chum of Lazarus's sisters, Mary and Martha.). Here, Clement,
                            arguing against incontinence (abstention from sexual acvtivity) quotes from
                            that Gospel.

                            "... Salome saith: "Until when shall men continue to die?" ... the Lord
                            makes answer: "So long as women bear children."
                            And why do they not ... go on to quote the rest of that which was said
                            to Salome? For when she had said, "I have done well, then in not bearing
                            children? ... the Lord answers and says: "Every plant eat thou, but that
                            which has bitterness, eat not." "

                            The point here is that Salome here declares herself as childless.

                            Now, Jack?
                            Can I take the trick, Now? :-)

                            Ron
                          • digitalis_pu@yahoo.no
                            ... he literary device? Salome is Jesus aunt, therefore the Zebediya boys, Yohanon (John) and Ya akov (James, the greater ) are Jesus cousins.The
                            Message 13 of 20 , Aug 12, 2001
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From:  "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@h...>
                              Date:  Sat Aug 11, 2001  10:14 am
                              Subject:  Re: [GTh] Re: Salome: A Modest Proposal :#61


                              If I may be allowed to participate in this scholarly discussion, I
                              would like to vent some viewpoints that may be relevant to the
                              discussion in connection with #61.

                              >Were they really encountering Jesus for the first time, Ron, or is >that t=
                              he
                              >literary device? Salome is Jesus' aunt, therefore the Zebediya boys,
                              >Yohanon (John) and Ya'akov (James, the "greater") are Jesus' cousins.

                              The "family business" picture may provide one reason why Jesus'
                              background has been downplayed in the scriptures, but there are more:
                              For one, in Matt 11,23-24, he condemns Capernaum, his very "home
                              base". But I think saying #61 can also be considered in another
                              perspective: Joseph Schreiber's (1956) hypothesis that Jesus was son
                              of Antipater, Herod the Great's oldest son. If we assume this
                              hypothesis, Mattaya's presentation (Matt 1-2) may be essentially
                              correct, with "EK PNEUMATOS AGIOU" (end 1,18) and "GENNETHEN EK
                              PNEUMATOS" (1,20) as later additions. Jesus' physical heritage may not
                              have been commonly known at the time, but aunt Salome would probably
                              know. When Jesus declares his "spiritual" heritage to her, he at the
                              same time implicitly denounces the political Messian expectations
                              running so high in many groups at that time. As Ron points out, "Salome" ma=
                              y have been someone else, but this interpretation would point to the Zebediy=
                              a's wife.

                              So when Salome declares herself disciple after this "clarification" by
                              Jesus, it fits well with "secret" Mark's mention of her in connection
                              with the initiation ceremony. She, "Lazarus" and Thomas seem to have
                              belonged to one group of "initiation-oriented" followers of
                              Jesus. Thomas when they are told about Lazarus: "Let's also go, that
                              we may die with him." (John 11,16). As those adepts seem to be the
                              people whom Jesus "love" "ON EGAPA O IESOUS" (e.g. John 21,20), Thomas
                              is probably the best candidate for this disciple. Salome acts as an
                              advocate for her sons (Matt 20,20-23), but nothing is granted, and
                              John is corrected by Jesus (Mark 9,38-40), or even rebuked (Luk
                              9,54-55). Like Peter, John seems to be no "early bloomer" in his
                              understanding of the Christ.

                              That would also give perfect meaning to the otherwise seemingly
                              meaningless John 24 (If John is the beloved, he testifies about
                              himself), with Mattaya and Yehudah "Toma" the two scribes among the
                              twelve, possibly founding two different, and to some extent
                              independent, written traditions.

                              Who is the disciple who knows the high priest and enters the court
                              with Jesus, thereafter getting Peter in? (John 18,15) I would guess
                              Thomas: "The beloved" and Peter are together on other occasions, at
                              the grave (John 20,2-4) and at the "Sea of Tiberias" (John 21,20). His
                              connections with the inner circles of jewish religous power may also
                              explain why he is made very anonymous in Matt, the Aramaic precursor
                              of which seems to have been a contemporary document. (Talmudic story
                              of rabbi Gamaliel II, grandson of biblical Gamaliel, bribing a
                              "christian-oriented" judge, and referring to the Aramaic version of
                              Matt 5,17 AD 70-72.) - Connections they agreed not to talk about.

                              Trond
                            • Mark Goodacre
                              A couple of comments on an interesting thread: (1) There was a discussion on this list back in 1999 on the translation of 6LO6 in Thom. 61 and KLINH in Luke,
                              Message 14 of 20 , Aug 13, 2001
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                A couple of comments on an interesting thread:

                                (1) There was a discussion on this list back in 1999 on the
                                translation of 6LO6 in Thom. 61 and KLINH in Luke, Mike, me,
                                Sytze, Paterson Brown and Steve Patterson. I've looked in the
                                archives and see that there is some useful material; you might
                                begin here:

                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/messagesearch/2178?query=klinh

                                (2) Luke 17.34 does not specify two "men" in a bed but DUO EPI
                                KLINHS MIAS, two upon one bed.

                                (3) On the identification of Salome with the mother of the sons of
                                Zebedee (Jack), one argument against might be the Dura-Europos
                                Gospel Harmony Fragment from the late 2nd Century, which
                                begins [ZEBED]AIOU KAI SALWMH ([of Zebed]ee and Salome). It
                                looks like this earliest extent gospel harmony fragment thus did not
                                identify or harmonize the characters Mother of the sons of Zebedee
                                from Matthew and Salome from Mark.

                                Mark


                                --------------------------------------
                                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                                Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                                http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                Homepage
                                http://www.ntgateway.com
                                The New Testament Gateway
                              • Ron McCann
                                On August 13th, Mark wrote:- ... Thank you Mark for pointing this out. Once again I have been hoist on a translator s petard (although I used it on myself). Of
                                Message 15 of 20 , Aug 13, 2001
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On August 13th, Mark wrote:-

                                  > A couple of comments on an interesting thread:
                                  > (2) Luke 17.34 does not specify two "men" in a bed but DUO EPI
                                  > KLINHS MIAS, two upon one bed.

                                  Thank you Mark for pointing this out. Once again I have been hoist on a
                                  translator's petard (although I used it on myself). Of 11 translations I
                                  have just looked at, 4 insert "Men", 2 go only with "Two" and the remaining
                                  5 inserted the word " People". Only Darby's translation square brackets
                                  "men". Who was to know? Angels fear to tread, and all that.

                                  This leaves me no choice but to completely rescind my earlier suggestion
                                  that Thomas "neutered" the 61a saying by deleting "men" and just leaving
                                  "Two." Game, set and match, Mike. The two sayings are probably only grouped
                                  because of the "catchword" "couch" or "bed".

                                  You also wrote:->

                                  > (3) On the identification of Salome with the mother of the sons of
                                  > Zebedee (Jack), one argument against might be the Dura-Europos
                                  > Gospel Harmony Fragment from the late 2nd Century, which
                                  > begins [ZEBED]AIOU KAI SALWMH ([of Zebed]ee and Salome). It
                                  > looks like this earliest extent gospel harmony fragment thus did not
                                  > identify or harmonize the characters Mother of the sons of Zebedee
                                  > from Matthew and Salome from Mark.

                                  Thanks for this. I think it adds some weight in the argument.

                                  Ron
                                • Michael Grondin
                                  ... Ron shouldn t feel too bad about being misled. The generally-accepted standards of translation are just too low, IMO. I notice also that at 17:35 most
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Aug 13, 2001
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Mark Goodacre wrote:
                                    > Luke 17.34 does not specify two "men" in a bed but DUO EPI
                                    > KLINHS MIAS, two upon one bed.

                                    Ron shouldn't feel too bad about being misled. The generally-accepted
                                    standards of translation are just too low, IMO. I notice also that at 17:35
                                    most translations have 'two women' (grinding together, or some such), but
                                    again only the neutral word 'DUO' appears in the Greek. I never thought of
                                    it before, but translators of the canon are apparently traditionally much
                                    less careful than Robinson's group of NHLe translators, who were supposed
                                    to have adhered to a system of special symbols, among which was the use of
                                    parentheses to indicate "material supplied by the editor or translator".
                                    Even so, however, Lambdin's version of Th62 in NHLe, for example, has 'left
                                    hand' and 'right hand', instead of 'left (hand)' and 'right (hand)' (or,
                                    better yet, simply 'left' and 'right'). I guess translators feel free to do
                                    a little creative extrapolation of their own! Sure, one should always
                                    consult the original language, but if standards of translation weren't so
                                    loose, there'd be less chance of being misled by the English.
                                    Discouragingly (from my point of view), Bob Funk argues _against_ stricter
                                    standards in "Honest to Jesus"; one can see the results of such a policy in
                                    "The Scholars Version" of Thomas and the canonicals, which could be safely
                                    ignored were it not for the fact that that translation is used in some
                                    pretty important texts from the Jesus Seminar (viz., "The Five Gospels" and
                                    "The Acts of Jesus".)

                                    Mike
                                  • fmmccoy
                                    ... From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 4:12 AM Subject: [GTh] Salome ... Klaus Schilling: Nothing
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Sep 18, 2002
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: <pessy@...>
                                      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                                      Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 4:12 AM
                                      Subject: [GTh] Salome


                                      > Anything excluding Thomas' Salome from being one of the Maccabian
                                      > princesses?


                                      Klaus Schilling:

                                      Nothing excludes this possibility.

                                      However, my own suspicion is that neither the Herodians (who replaced the
                                      Maccabeans (Hasmoneans) as the royal dynasty in Palestine) nor the Romans
                                      (who liked the pro-Roman Herodians) would have permitted the Maccabean
                                      (Hasmonean) line to survive.until c. 30 CE--with the possible exception of
                                      those who inter-married with the Herodians.

                                      In any event, since the Maccabees (Hasmoneans) had been replaced by the
                                      Herodians, any Maccabean (Hasmonean) princesses living c. 30 CE were out of
                                      the limelight and, so (at least as far as I am aware), are not mentioned by
                                      Josephus. So, even if any such princesses were living c. 30 CE, we haven't
                                      a clue as to their names.

                                      So, while it is possible that Salome was one of the Maccabean (Hasmonean)
                                      princesses, I think it unlikely.

                                      Salome was a popular name among the Herodians. Herod the Great had a sister
                                      named Salome (both are offspring of Antipas and Cypros), a daughter named
                                      Salome (whose mother was Elpis), and a grand-daughter named Salome (whose
                                      parents were Herod (Philip) and Herodias). The grand-daughter is mentioned,
                                      but not named, in the New Testament: she being the daughter of Herodias and
                                      step-daughter of Herod Antipas whose dance allegedly led to the beheading of
                                      John the Baptist.

                                      I am not aware of any evidence linking any of these Herodian Salomes to the
                                      Salome in GTh 61.

                                      Still, the popularity of the name among the Herodians is an indication that
                                      Salome was a favorite name among the upper crust: which increases the
                                      probability that the Salome of GTh 61 belonged to the upper class.

                                      Frank McCoy
                                      1809 N. English Apt. 17
                                      Maplewood, MN USA 55109
                                    • Grondin
                                      ... Yes - the internal logic of the saying. ... Alexander ... be ... The successful candidate for the Salome of #61 will have to have more than a remote
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Sep 18, 2002
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        [Klaus Schilling]:
                                        > Anything excluding Thomas' Salome from being one of the Maccabian
                                        > princesses?<<

                                        Yes - the internal logic of the saying.

                                        [Dave Hindley]:
                                        > Ahhh, yes! I too was thinking of queen Shalom Zion (ca. 78-69 BCE).
                                        > There is a connection, at least in Jewish tradition, between Jesus and
                                        > Shalome Zion (in the Toledoth Jeschu literature) and her husband,
                                        Alexander
                                        > Janneus (ca. 104-78, the connection being that Jesus' teacher is said to
                                        be
                                        > a figure who was also said to have been critical of Janneus but escaped
                                        > judgement because he was related to the queen).

                                        The successful candidate for the Salome of #61 will have to have more than a
                                        remote relationship to Jesus. She will also have to satisfy the internal
                                        logic of the saying. That is, this must be a literal or metaphorical woman
                                        in whose mouth the words "You have mounted my couch and eaten from my table"
                                        make sense. It must also make sense for her to proclaim herself to be a
                                        disciple of Jesus. In the absence of detailed argumentation relevant to the
                                        internal logic of 61, neither Salome Alexandra nor Salome of the Herodians
                                        appears to fit that bill.

                                        Regards,
                                        Mike Grondin
                                      • Grondin
                                        ... Sorry, Klaus, I obviously misunderstood the question - most probably because I ve read nothing at all about the continued existence of the
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Sep 18, 2002
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          [Klaus Schilling]:
                                          > Anything excluding Thomas' Salome from being one of the Maccabian
                                          > princesses?

                                          Sorry, Klaus, I obviously misunderstood the question - most probably because
                                          I've read nothing at all about the continued existence of the
                                          Maccabees/Hasmonians after Herod came to power (ca 37-40 BCE) and sometime
                                          later had his Hasmonean wife (Mariamne I), her sons, and other prominent
                                          members of the family executed. It seems unlikely, as Frank observes, that
                                          there would have been any "princesses" left, though I suppose distant
                                          relatives might still have considered themselves successors to the throne
                                          for some period of time. What can you tell us about this subject?

                                          Regards,
                                          Mike Grondin
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.