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

[GTh] Re: Salome: A Modest Proposal :#61

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , Aug 10 3:47 PM
    • 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 2 of 20 , Aug 10 5:11 PM
      • 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 3 of 20 , Aug 10 11:26 PM
        • 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 4 of 20 , Aug 11 12:05 AM
          • 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 5 of 20 , Aug 11 12:18 AM
            • 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 6 of 20 , Aug 11 3:14 AM
              • 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 7 of 20 , Aug 11 3:54 AM
                • 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 8 of 20 , Aug 11 2:45 PM
                  • 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 9 of 20 , Aug 12 5:52 AM
                    • 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 10 of 20 , Aug 13 4:43 AM
                      • 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 11 of 20 , Aug 13 4:48 PM
                        • 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 12 of 20 , Aug 13 8:45 PM
                          • 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 13 of 20 , Sep 18, 2002
                            • 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 14 of 20 , Sep 18, 2002
                              • 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 15 of 20 , Sep 18, 2002
                                • 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.