mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:44 pm
Can't have Mary get a special position of course, being the Virgin - just sit there and be pretty, and be meek.
They surely were not only hateful men, but rather ungrateful bastards really
Interesting to see that it was likely (advocated?) that she became a priestess
Yes, I see what you mean here:
" (2) ...he formed himself from a virgin as though from earth — God
come from heaven, the Word who had assumed flesh from a holy Virgin.
But certainly not from a virgin who is worshiped, or to make her God,
or to have us make offerings in her name, or, again, to make women
priestesses after so many generations. (3) It was not God’s pleasure that
this be done with Salome, or with Mary herself. He did not permit her
to administer baptism or bless disciples, or tell her to rule on earth, but
only to be a sacred shrine and be deemed worthy of his kingdom."
It is a lot of hoops. What strikes me is that Epiphanius read many of the same texts that I read, but draws a different conclusion. Why the different conclusion? He was committed to the idea that Mary never had ordinary sex. In my opinion that makes him unable to understand Gal/Mk on "James, the Lord's brother". Jerome likewise was unable to interpret Gal/Mk, and for the same reason.
Meier in his book 1 of A Marginal Jew (which I'm currently consulting) rereads Mk/Gal on the topic of the mother and brothers of Jesus in an effort to understand the historical family of Jesus. His version of historical Jesus does not allow for a literal virgin birth, and he finds that Mary and James and Joses of Mk 6:3 are the "true" mother and brothers of Jesus. I agree with him thus far. However, Meier goes on reject the notion that Mary the mother of James the less of Mk 15:40 refers to the same mother and brother of Jesus as Mk 6:3. I have studied Meier's objections in detail, and none dissuade me from interpreting Mary and Joses of Mk 6:3, 15;40 and 16:1 as the same people; thus also, I interpret "the lesser James" as the natural son of the Mary of whom it was asked, "Is this [Jesus] not the son of Mary?"
Furthermore, inter-textually, I am persuaded that "the lesser James" of Mk was supposed to be understood by Mk's first readers as the natural "brother" of the of the risen/revealed "Lord" of Gal. It seems reasonable to me that the author of Mk was familiar with Gal in its canonical form, and was making an implicit commentary on Gal, including the picture of "James, the Lord's brother" in Gal.
As for the idea of "mother" in the allegory, I note that according to Gal 4:6 Jerusalem "above" (as opposed to Jerusalem below) is called "our mother". Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law." As "brother" of the Lord, James was born of the same "woman" and "under" the same "law". The allegory is addressed to "those who want to be under the law", and its grand climax is harsh: "cast out the slavegirl and her son, for her son will not inherit..." A widespread, and convincing interpretation (I'm currently reading Hays, Echos of Scripture in the Letters of Paul) of this is that the Galatians are being told to reject an alternative "gospel" which would require their men to be circumcised under the law.
My only alteration to the mainstream interpretation of the allegory grows out of my argument that 1) "James" the natural brother
of the risen Lord ought not to be confused with the "James" named among the pillars--James, son of Alphaeus, Cephas and John and 2) the "James" of "some from James" in Gal 2:12 refers to the natural brother of Jesus. This leads logically to the idea when Paul said, "It is the same now
", he was implying that "the son born according to the flesh" (i.e. Jesus' brother in the "flesh and blood" sphere, James/"some from James"/the troublemakers), was in the "now" of the letter persecuting "the son born according to the Spirit" (i.e. Jesus, the Lord/Paul/the pillars/the Galatians, of whom Paul said, "the Jerusalem above is free, she is our mother
" Gal 4:6).
All this might seem like "a lot of hoops" and I suppose it is, but the result is convincing to me since if (and only if!?) the scenario in Gal is interpreted in this way, it finds a literary echo in Hebrews where it is said that 1) Jesus had to become in every way like his "brothers" in the sphere of "blood and flesh" and 2) "...the One who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all out of one (ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες, Cf ἐφ’ ἑνός, Gal 3:16 implying one seed of Abraham, Isaac/Jesus). So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers."