MacDonald: Mary Magdalene & Judas Iscariot are fictional

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4688
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

MacDonald: Mary Magdalene & Judas Iscariot are fictional

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:57 pm

They both first appear in Christian texts in the Gospel of Mark, and every single reference to them later issues —whether directly or indirectly— from that single work. The existence of both characters thus depends on one’s assessment of what Mark says about them ... both first appear in Mark, who frequently created character with significant names.

Mary Magdalene and Judas Iscariot Never Existed: The Author of the Gospel of Mark Created Them @ adversusapologetica.wordpress.com

Giuseppe
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: MacDonald: Mary Magdalene & Judas Iscariot are fictional

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:38 am

It is wonderful:
Significant too is Mary the Magdalene (Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή). The word Μαγδαληνή comes from the Hebrew word מגדל, “tower,” and the derivative Aramaic epithet מגדלאה or מגדליא, “of Magdala.” Magdala was “Towertown,” and the foundations of the ancient structure are visible today. As we shall see, Mark related Mary to this city to notify his cleverer readers that she was an emulation of Homer’s Andromache.

This assessment finds confirmation by comparing what Mark says about Mary with Homer’s Andromache. According to Il. 22, three women watched Achilles dragging Hector’s body behind his chariot: his mother Hecuba, is sister-in-law Helen, and his wife Andromache. Three women watch Jesus’ death: Mary the mother of James and Joses (significantly, she shares her name with Jesus’ mother, and her sons share names with two of Jesus’ brothers!), Salome, and Mary Magdalene (who also shares her name with Jesus’ mother). As we have seen, Joseph of Arimathea shares his name with the traditional name of Jesus’ father. By means of these names Mark illustrates Jesus’ statement that his true family are those who do his will (see 3:31-35).

It was not Simon Peter who carried Jesus’ cross, as he had sworn (Mark 14:31), but Simon of Cyrene. It was not James and John who died at his right and left, as they had promised in 10:37-39, but two bandits. It will not be Joseph of Nazareth who buries him but Joseph of Arimathea. Mark’s penchant for creating characters to contrast with Jesus’ family and closest disciples applies also to the names of the women at the tomb. One might have expected Jesus’ mother, Mary of Nazareth, to have attended to the body and tomb of her son; instead, it was two other women named Mary and a Salome.
(my bold)

My first reaction, by reading these words of MacDonald about Magdala etc, is the same of pharisees in Luke 22:71:
Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."

Unfortunately, MacDonald makes only partially a point: he would like to explain why the father of Jesus is mentioned in Mark but he cannot explain it entirely, because the name 'Joseph' is not mentioned explicitly in Mark 6:3 :
Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.


Therefore, it is not proved that :
It will not be Joseph of Nazareth who buries him but Joseph of Arimathea.
Since the character ''Joseph of Nazareth'' is absent in Mark.

But in order to make his point, MacDonald requires his presence already assumed in Mark.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: MacDonald: Mary Magdalene & Judas Iscariot are fictional

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:56 am

I resolve the 'problem' (that Joseph of Nazaret is not found explicitly in Mark):
Jesus' father is not named as Joseph until the later Gospels of Matthew and Luke, but MacDonald (2000:155) argues, “Mark surely could have known this tradition.” Another possibility for the name, noted by Carrier (pers. comm.) is a parallel with Joseph the Patriarch who in Gen. 40:4-6 asks Pharaoh for permission to bury Jacob (symbolizing Israel) in a cave tomb.
https://adversusapologetica.files.wordp ... s-tomb.pdf

The problem is not resolved entirely. Joseph the Patriarch did bury his father, while MacDonald requires that Jesus was buried by someone with the same name of his father. Therefore he resorts to chimeric oral tradition as mere expedient: “Mark surely could have known this tradition.”

Therefore a best solution is that Mark is playing with the Jewish tradition of a suffering Messiah Son of Joseph. The Pharisee Joseph of Arimathea believes that Jesus is the suffering Messiah Son of Joseph (while the irony is that just him, so suffering, is named Joseph!) hence destined not to to rise again. But after three days Jesus rises, therefore confirming he is not the Messiah Son of Joseph but is the same victorious Messiah Son of David.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Solo
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: MacDonald: Mary Magdalene & Judas Iscariot are fictional

Post by Solo » Sun May 01, 2016 8:59 am

Giuseppe wrote:It is wonderful:
Significant too is Mary the Magdalene (Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή). The word Μαγδαληνή comes from the Hebrew word מגדל, “tower,” and the derivative Aramaic epithet מגדלאה or מגדליא, “of Magdala.” Magdala was “Towertown,” and the foundations of the ancient structure are visible today. As we shall see, Mark related Mary to this city to notify his cleverer readers that she was an emulation of Homer’s Andromache.

This assessment finds confirmation by comparing what Mark says about Mary with Homer’s Andromache. According to Il. 22, three women watched Achilles dragging Hector’s body behind his chariot: his mother Hecuba, is sister-in-law Helen, and his wife Andromache. Three women watch Jesus’ death: Mary the mother of James and Joses (significantly, she shares her name with Jesus’ mother, and her sons share names with two of Jesus’ brothers!), Salome, and Mary Magdalene (who also shares her name with Jesus’ mother). As we have seen, Joseph of Arimathea shares his name with the traditional name of Jesus’ father. By means of these names Mark illustrates Jesus’ statement that his true family are those who do his will (see 3:31-35).

It was not Simon Peter who carried Jesus’ cross, as he had sworn (Mark 14:31), but Simon of Cyrene. It was not James and John who died at his right and left, as they had promised in 10:37-39, but two bandits. It will not be Joseph of Nazareth who buries him but Joseph of Arimathea. Mark’s penchant for creating characters to contrast with Jesus’ family and closest disciples applies also to the names of the women at the tomb. One might have expected Jesus’ mother, Mary of Nazareth, to have attended to the body and tomb of her son; instead, it was two other women named Mary and a Salome.
(my bold)

My first reaction, by reading these words of MacDonald about Magdala etc, is the same of pharisees in Luke 22:71:
Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."

Unfortunately, MacDonald makes only partially a point: he would like to explain why the father of Jesus is mentioned in Mark but he cannot explain it entirely, because the name 'Joseph' is not mentioned explicitly in Mark 6:3 :
Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.


Therefore, it is not proved that :
It will not be Joseph of Nazareth who buries him but Joseph of Arimathea.
Since the character ''Joseph of Nazareth'' is absent in Mark.

But in order to make his point, MacDonald requires his presence already assumed in Mark.
I think "Joseph" has a special significance in Mark, and one that directly ties him to "Judas". Both relate to the symbolic "house of Israel" in the earliest gospel , the Twelve. In the original Mark, the disciples and the Twelve were separate entities, (I will be arguing shortly). The Twelve were conceived as a haggadic midrash, to stand for the tribes of Israel named after the sons of Jacob. Among them it is Joseph, who is betrayed. The brother who betrays Joseph is called Ioudas in the Septuagint. He asks "What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood?" (Gen 37:26). I think Matthew created Joseph as the adoptive father of Jesus to show he understood the paschal plot. ( Hence Pilate washing his hands of the deed that divides the house.) Since for the Markans, "tekton" was transparently an allusion to the spiritual father of the movement, i.e. Paul (1 Cor 3:10), the Judaising Matthew gave the hidden title to Joseph.

Actually, Matthew's theft of the carpenter's mantle affords us a rare proof that Luke knew Matthew and on some occasions would not give in to the novelties the latter authored. People in Matthew's Nazareth ask (13:55): "Isn't this the carpenter's son ?" In Luke (4:22) it is "isn't this Joseph's son ?". Problem is, the incredulity of the people of Nazareth on account to the modest paternal links of Jesus this is part neither of Mark nor part of Q. So whence this curious instance of agreement and disagreement with Matthew?

Best,
Jiri

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4688
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: MacDonald: Mary Magdalene & Judas Iscariot are fictional

Post by MrMacSon » Sun May 01, 2016 11:43 am

Solo wrote: I think "Joseph" has a special significance in Mark, and one that directly ties him to "Judas". Both relate to the symbolic "house of Israel" in the earliest gospel , the Twelve ... The Twelve were conceived as a haggadic midrash, to stand for the tribes of Israel named after the sons of Jacob. Among them it is Joseph, who is betrayed. The brother who betrays Joseph is called Ioudas in the Septuagint. He asks "What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood?" (Gen 37:26). I think Matthew created Joseph as the adoptive father of Jesus to show he understood the paschal plot.
Joe Wallack just posted this - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 243#p52243

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Charles Wilson, Jax, JoeWallack, lsayre, Michael BG, Yahoo [Bot] and 60 guests