"the other Mary" of gMatt and "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" of gJohn

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
gryan
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

"the other Mary" of gMatt and "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" of gJohn

Post by gryan »

Matt 28:1

1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week,a Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία) went to see the tomb.

John 29:1-9

1Early on the first day of the week,a while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple (τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν) the one whom Jesus loved. “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb,” she said, “and we do not know where they have put Him!”

3Then Peter and the other disciple (ὁ ἄλλος μαθητής) set out for the tomb. 4The two were running together, but the other disciple (ὁ ἄλλος μαθητὴς) outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent down and looked in at the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.

6Simon Peter arrived just after him. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7The cloth that had been around Jesus’ head was rolled up, lying separate from the linen cloths. 8Then the other disciple (ὁ ἄλλος μαθητὴς), who had reached the tomb first, also went in. And he saw and believed. 9For they still did not understand from the Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.

-----------------

Re: "the other Mary" of gMatt and "the other disciple" of gJohn

I interpret "the other disciple" of gJohn as a literary echo of "the other Mary" of gMatt.

And since I interpret "the other Mary" of gMatt as a redaction of "Mary of James" of gMark 16:1 (Cf. Lk 12:24).

And since I see "Mary of James" as a reference to a James other than "the lesser James" (Mark 15:40, Cf Mk 6:3 and Gal 1:19), and also a "Mary" other than the mother of James the Lesser who was also named Mary.

And since I identify this other, relatively greater James as James son of Alphaeus.

I therefore, also identify "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" as being James, son of Alphaeus!

Thus also, the Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved correspond to the Cephas and James of 1 Cor. 15:5-11 (Cf, the pillars/James and Cephas, in Gal 2:9, and the advocates of Paul's mission to Gentiles/Peter and James, in Acts 15. Note: The "pillar" James whose names stands by itself in 1 Cor 15 and Acts 15 ought not to be identified with the "James" whose name requires an epithet-- "James the Lord's brother"--"of the apostles... a different one" (ἕτερον)--of Gal 1:19, Cf Matt 8:21).

Mystery of the identity of "the other disciple" solved! Or is it not so?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: "the other Mary" of gMatt and "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" of gJohn

Post by yakovzutolmai »

gryan wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:04 am Matt 28:1

1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week,a Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία) went to see the tomb.
Extant mysticism combined the virgin and whore, an expression of the character of the moon goddess. Per Joseph and Asenath, the "Magdalene" is the virgin.

Mary Magdalene was the Virgin Mary.

Mary was the mother of Jesus and his brothers James (the less) and Simon. The family of Alphaeus

James (the Great) was of Zebedee, brother of John, son of Mary (Salome).

Probably we are getting "James of Mary" as opposed to "James of Salome", but someone at sometime wanted to identify James the great (probably: elder) in the role James the less (probably to create the triad Peter, James and John - there may have been two Cephas characters to reflect two generations of Paul, so James of Salome needed to be identified as James of Mary). Thus, we end up with "Mary Salome" which makes "James of Salome" also "James of Mary". This is incorrect, and the same thing was done to create a non-existent "Herod Philip".

The other Mary is probably Mary of Bethany, who was misremembered as a secret consort of Jesus. The reason for this misremembering was because Mary the Virgin of the tower and Joseph (see: Joseph and Asenath) were the original holy couple. As the role of Christ is transposed onto Jesus, the Magdalene is transposed onto Mary of Bethany. This also removes the tainted aspects from the Holy Mother, leading to rumors of Magdalene being a whore.

Since Mary of Bethany is not a consort of Jesus, but rather a virgin of the Magdalene's household (i.e.: Hesperiades) then any historical basis for a coupling between this person and another would have probably been with John of Zebedee. Who is often identified as the beloved disciple and, interestingly enough, there's speculation of him being a cover for Mary.

If "the other disciple" is a redaction, then it's to downplay the importance of John. John and Peter being the cornerstones of the anti-Marcionite catholicizers in their claims of apostolic succession. "The other Mary" for Mary of Bethany. The redaction likely made during a phase in which Marcionites were disseminating the synoptics to pass them off as Marcionite (and look we have Galatians in there too). John being the definitive anti-Marcionite gospel.

Martha Boethus - a candidate for Martha of Bethany - marries Jesus ben Gamala (no relation to Christ) so that he might rise to the High Priesthood office. Said b. Gamala being allied with Ananus the murderer of James the Just. If the Boethus family, by 65 AD, is anti-James, then Mary of Bethany, also John, could be too. Then perhaps the apostolic father John is our beloved disciple, son of Salome and Zebedee.

The key being that the Marcionites are not pro-James, but rather anti-John. They redact his name and role to downplay his importance to apostolic succession.

(the two generations of Paul being Ananus arguing with Eleazar Boethus about the need for Izates of Adiabene to be circumcised, Eleazar's brother Simon Cantheras a candidate for Simon Cephas #1; the next generation of Paul being Ananus ben Ananus, who murdered James - said James associated with a Simon, and also the presence in that generation of a Simon bar Kokhba thrown from the Tarpaeian Rock in Rome as Simon Cephas #2)
gryan
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "the other Mary" of gMatt and "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" of gJohn

Post by gryan »

@ yakovzutolmai
How would you characterize your method of interpretation? Do you identify with a school of thought?
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: "the other Mary" of gMatt and "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" of gJohn

Post by yakovzutolmai »

gryan wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:45 pm @ yakovzutolmai
How would you characterize your method of interpretation? Do you identify with a school of thought?
Christian scholarship ignores the East, in spite of the obvious and critical role of the Bathyran Jews and Adiabene during the time of Christ. My general process is to try and insert identifications using this context to try and inspire other people to pay more attention to the East.

There is more evidence out there, for instance large amounts of unexamined Assyrian records, Hatrene artifacts. Etc. It's not incorporated into Judeo-Christian (or even Islamic) studies. In lieu of this evidence, we can use what we already have (Josephus, Moses of Chorene, Syriac texts). There's enough there to see where shadows are cast.

I don't have proof that Mary, Martha and Elionaeus Cantheras Boethus are the family of Lazarus of Bethany. However, Christian scholars have made even more speculative identifications, yet for some reason this rather obvious identification is not deeply examined.

This is a new school of thought, I'm not exclusive to it. I think it finds its first expression in Robert Eisenmann. I believe James Valliant is open to it.
gryan
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "the other Mary" of gMatt and "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" of gJohn

Post by gryan »

Thanks for the intro!

I admit to ignorance of Bathyran Jews and Adiabene and of many other names you have referenced. At times I've Googled names you have used and am often surprised so much is written about them.

Years ago, via Youtube, I audited a whole semester Intro to NT class taught by Robert Eisenmann. I found his lectures very interesting. I have taken a look at his book titled "James the Lord's brother." He is a strong writer.

I'm currently reading James and Paul
The Politics of Identity at the Turn of the Ages
By V. George Shillington · 2015

I find that in terms of method, Shillington and I are pretty much identical. Basically we are reading the NT primary documents, starting with the ones written first, in search of authorial intent. Shellington was a student of EP Sanders. He interacts with the writings of Eisenmann. Eisenmann's book on James seems to have become very widely read.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2966
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: "the other Mary" of gMatt and "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" of gJohn

Post by DCHindley »

I think Eisenman has several books out about James the Just:

Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran: a new hypothesis of Qumran origins / by Robert Eisenman. Leiden: Brill, 1983

James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher / by Robert H. Eisenman. Leiden : E. J. Brill, 1986

A facsimile edition of the Dead Sea scrolls / prepared with an introduction and index by Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991. This is the publication that blew the doors open for publication of the texts. He basically realized that transcripts of every word and phrase that could initially be read on the scrolls was in the possession of a private individual, who agreed to allow publication. From that moment on, no one who had charge of publication of the various scrolls could just let it languish (and hopefully just go away). They finally started to offer their own transcripts and translations.

The Dead Sea scrolls uncovered: the first complete translation and interpretation of 50 key documents withheld for over 35 years / Robert H. Eisenman and Michael Wise. Shaftesburg, Dorset [England] ; Rockport, MA : Element, 1992. I bought this because in it he translates texts also previously translated by others. His translations were quite different than the highly stylized translations that had already come out. This was also the first translation of the document called "MMT."

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the first Christians: essays and translations / Robert Eisenman. Shaftesbury [England]; Rockport, Mass.: Element, 1996. This was a period when his critics were many and making crazy statements in an attempt to discredit him. They accused him of trying to "making money" rather than offer serious scholarship. He had proposed a different developmental timeline for the aurthors of some of the scrolls (about a half century later than the other critics, right up to 70 CE). This was when Greg Doudna was making himself an expert on Carbon-14 dating issues to test, and challenge, the dates of the mss. themselves.

James, the brother of Jesus: the key to unlocking the secrets of early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls / Robert Eisenman. New York : Viking, 1997. This is a formal statement of his theory that the Qumran community membership overlapped with early Christian membership, particularly those associated with James the Just.

The New Testament code: the cup of the Lord, the Damascus covenant, and the blood of Christ / Robert Eisenman. London : Watkins Pub. ; New York : Distributed in the USA by Sterling Pub. Co., 2006. I haven't bought this one, but only because I refuse to buy any book with the word "Code" in it.

DCH
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: "the other Mary" of gMatt and "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" of gJohn

Post by yakovzutolmai »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 11:59 am The New Testament code: the cup of the Lord, the Damascus covenant, and the blood of Christ / Robert Eisenman. London : Watkins Pub. ; New York : Distributed in the USA by Sterling Pub. Co., 2006. I haven't bought this one, but only because I refuse to buy any book with the word "Code" in it.
I think Eisenmann is aware of evidence that no other scholars have incorporated into any consensus, and this forces him to create a hypothesis himself. I don't think any consensus narrative which is ever generated by one single person stands up for long in its complete and original form. Eisenmann's general bias isn't hard to identify. However, since other scholars have failed to incorporate the evidence he has discovered and presented, that makes Eisenmann's thesis more correct than theirs.

The "code" is his narrative preference, but the evidence is probably still interesting.

This is interesting:
A crucial new point that emerges in The New Testament Code is the identification of the document known as the MMT as a Letter from James to someone early Church Fathers call the “Great King of the Peoples beyond the Euphrates.”
Since the lands around Damascus of the Damascus covenant are settled by "the Peoples beyond the Euphrates".

I think one thing we're missing is evidence from ancient Arab sources. Arabic history is notoriously missing. I think if we had knowledge of their history and beliefs we would also see the clear continuities from Assyrian/Bablyonian/Canaanite/Egyptian mythology through Harran/Palmyra/Emesa/Hatra/Arbela into Neoplatonism/Christianity/Islam. The Jewish element, juxtaposed against this, would probably then explain everything else.

Author intent for New Testment works is very difficult, because a lot of people are lying. The historical and factional context for a work has to be considered before being able to evaluate author's intent. I won't propose a methodology in particular, but this context "beyond the Euphrates" is totally missing from biblical scholarship with the exception of Eisenmann's work.
Post Reply