Giuseppe on MacDonald & Ferguson on the Josephs

[Giuseppe]

My true problem is the absence of Joseph of Nazaret in Mark 6:3.

[Charles Wilson]

My true problem is the absence of Joseph of Nazaret in Mark 6:3.

Perhaps a Symbolic Review is in order. What would you see as the reason for the wording of this passage? Consider:

"What mighty works are wrought by his hands!"
"A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." (What HOUSE would that be?)
"And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them."
Note how this is radically different from the end of Chapter 6:

Mark 6: 54 - 56 (RSV):

[54] And when they got out of the boat, immediately the people recognized him,
[55] and ran about the whole neighborhood and began to bring sick people on their pallets to any place where they heard he was.
[56] And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or country, they laid the sick in the market places, and besought him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched it were made well.

[Ben C. Smith]

Why add "the Less" in 15.40 but not in 6.3? Alternatively, why not distinguish between the two sons named Joses?

Because to distinguish the two sons named Joses it's sufficient to mention the name of their (different) mother, not only via midrash from Homer but because we know already (at that point of the fiction) that the mother from Nazaret was repudiated by Jesus.
It is necessary the addition of ''The Less'' for James in 15.40 (absent in 6.3) because the James of 6.3 is named first in the list of brothers, therefore he is by his own right the firstborn after Jesus, i.e., the 'Major' as opposite to 'the Less'' among the brothers of Jesus).

I am not sure how this explains why one son named James has to be distinguished from another son named James when they are of completely different mothers, but one son named Joses does not have to be so distinguished in the same situation.

Why call Jesus the "son of Mary" in 6.3 instead of the more usual "son of" his father?

This is surely THE point of major difficulty, for me. I hate to use the stopgap-hypothesis of ''oral tradition'' as prof MacDonald does about a presumed Mark's knowledge of the name 'Joseph'. A point that I suspect, despite my will, of betraying marcionite influence.

And yet you use that stopgap here:

if this is what Mark intended, why not name the first Salome? Why keep her name unwritten?

Because the name 'Salome' was typical of herodian princesses. And it is a name that remembers Salomon, the king corrupted by women of OT.

So Mark assumed his readers would know the name. How? From the surrounding culture, the equivalent of oral tradition.

Why have two Maries at the cross and burial?

to emphasize the contrast with the 'old' Mary from Nazaret, I think.

How do two women emphasize such a contrast? I am not certain what you mean here.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Why, then, make this surrogate (spiritual) family's last recorded act in the gospel one of disobedience in 16.7?

To warn the reader that the danger is always to return to be part of the old Israel, against the will of Jesus. The new Israel was a process in construction, for 'Mark'.

That is a lot of subtext to read into a pair of women and their sons. If that is the level of subtext the reader is supposed to be importing into the gospel of Mark, then I suggest that the key to understanding the gospel has been lost to us by now, and we now have to resort to just making things up.

[Giuseppe]

I am not sure how this explains why one son named James has to be distinguished from another son named James when they are of completely different mothers, but one son named Joses does not have to be so distinguished in the same situation.

James in 6.3 is the first in the list of brothers, therefore impliciter the 'Major'.
James ''the Less'' would be his natural antithesis along the line 'new family versus old family'.
I would be OK about this point, if I had resolved the problem about an absent ''Joseph of Nazaret'' compared to a present ''Joseph of Arimathea''.

So Mark assumed his readers would know the name.

According to Adamczewski, Mark knew about Salome from Josephus. According to Eisenman, the herodian princesses were considered all prostitutes by the people.

How do two women emphasize such a contrast? I am not certain what you mean here.

I am alluding to the not-so-implicit contrast between the old family of Jesus (Mary + 4 brothers = 5) and the new family (2 Mary + 2 sons + Salome =5).

Believe me, Ben: my unique problem is the absence of Joseph of Nazaret in 6.3!

[Ben C. Smith]

I am not sure how this explains why one son named James has to be distinguished from another son named James when they are of completely different mothers, but one son named Joses does not have to be so distinguished in the same situation.

James in 6.3 is the first in the list of brothers, therefore impliciter the 'Major'.
James ''the Less'' would be his natural antithesis along the line 'new family versus old family'.

Well, have at it, but sorry, it in no way works for me as a solution.

So Mark assumed his readers would know the name.

According to Adamczewski, Mark knew about Salome from Josephus. According to Eisenman, the herodian princesses were considered all prostitutes by the people.

In both cases (Salome and Joseph) Mark would be assuming his readers knew something very specific that is not mentioned in the gospel.

I am alluding to the not-so-implicit contrast between the old family of Jesus (Mary + 4 brothers = 5) and the new family (2 Mary + 2 sons + Salome =5).

If the number 5 is important here for some reason, why is Salome absent (and only one son named) in 15.47? And why are you not counting the "carpenter" in 6.3, who as Jesus' father is definitely family?

Believe me, Ben: my unique problem is the absence of Joseph of Nazaret in 6.3!

Well, that and all the extra questions the suggested parallelism raises (at least so far).

[Giuseppe]

And why are you not counting the "carpenter" in 6.3, who as Jesus' father is definitely family?

the problem is that there is no father of Jesus at all in 6.3, not even a father carpenter:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they were offended at Him.

I have 3 different explanations for Jesus being 'carpenter' in Mark respectively from Septuaginta (docet Brodie), from Paul ((docet Dykstra) and from gnosis ((docet Vinzent) and all share the fact that the blind people of Nazaret see a false Jesus, but not the real Jesus.
Has this some implications on the ''son of Mary'' ? Maybe to allude the imperfect knowledge of the real father of Jesus?

[Ben C. Smith]

And why are you not counting the "carpenter" in 6.3, who as Jesus' father is definitely family?

the problem is that there is no father of Jesus at all in 6.3, not even a father carpenter:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they were offended at Him.

Yes, you are right. I was misremembering without looking it up. Matthew has the father as carpenter.

That leaves only the missing Salome and son in 15.47 and the missing son in 16.1. Putting the biological family together with this surrogate family based on there being 5 members is a subtle move, and no reader who has seen the overlapping names and counted the people involved, coming up with 5, can fail to notice when some of those 5 are absent the next two times the group is mentioned. If making the number come to 5 in 15.40 means something, what does not making the number come to 5 in 15.47 and 16.1 mean?

[Giuseppe]

If making the number come to 5 in 15.40 means something, what does not making the number come to 5 in 15.47 and 16.1 mean?

Before the cross, Joses and James ''the Less'' are not found physically. They are only mentioned as son of a Mary. Therefore Mark thinks it's sufficient to mention them the first time to making always, by simple logical inference, the number 5 (in antithesis against the old family of 5 mentioned people - there too not found physically in Nazaret but only mentioned) in 15.47 and 16.1 too (even if < 5).

Maybe the point of the failed mention in 15.47 is the progressive dispersion of the nascent new family of 5: the obstacles are still there to prevent them, but a hope is still open for them, in theory. Precisely to go to Galilee of Gentiles.



In conclusion, I think that MacDonald's analysis is very suggestive, especially the amazing contrast raised between Joseph of Nazareth and Joseph of Arimathea (the real reason for which I started the discussion).

The principal problem is that I cannot explain the name 'Joseph' in 'Joseph of Arimathea' because I am without a father 'Joseph of Nazaret' in Mark 6.3 , therefore Joseph the Patriarch who buried his father Israel remains a best candidate (even if I would like to have a previous 'Joseph' who buried his son, not his father!).

But maybe the solution of Carrier hides an antithesis in subtle support of Mark's point:

1) Joseph the Patriarch buried his father, the old Israel.

2) Joseph of Arimathea buried his 'son', the new Israel.

[Ben C. Smith]

If making the number come to 5 in 15.40 means something, what does not making the number come to 5 in 15.47 and 16.1 mean?

Before the cross, Joses and James ''the Less'' are not found physically. They are only mentioned as son of a Mary. Therefore Mark thinks it's sufficient to mention them the first time to making always, by simple logical inference, the number 5 (in antithesis against the old family of 5 mentioned people - there too not found physically in Nazaret but only mentioned).

So the reader is supposed to notice the number in 15.40 but ignore its dissolution in 15.47 and 16.1? That is why I find this sort of thing unpersuasive.

Maybe the point of the failed mention in 15.47 is the progressive dispersion of the nascent new family of 5: the obstacles are still there to prevent them, but a hope is still open for them, in theory. Precisely to go to Galilee of Gentiles.

And here, if the reader is supposed to notice the dissolution of the number 5, the point of that dissolution (especially against 16.8) seems so gossamer that, if the author was really trying to make such a point, that point is in all likelihood lost to us.

In conclusion, I think that MacDonald's analysis is very suggestive, especially the amazing contrast raised between Joseph of Nazareth and Joseph of Arimathea (the real reason for which I started the discussion).

At least Price's hypothesis about 6.3 answers a question or two without raising a dozen more.

Ben.