The family of Jesus across the Gospels (origin of Mary as mother?)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The family of Jesus across the Gospels (origin of Mary as mother?)

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 8:15 am seems late (after 300 CE) Its attestation is late (although much earlier than Exodus Rabbah) It is not really compatible with the genuinely early traditions in Josephus and pseudo-Philo and it is not mentioned in Sifre to Numbers at a place where it would be relevant.

Andrew Criddle
I'd love it if you could point to sources for any inspiration of viewpoints expressed. I'm largely relying on my old friend Serendipity and am always coming across sources I wished I had earlier.

Is there further discussion on the reasoning you present re compatibility with X and omitted from a relevant source etc? Those are the same mantras used for and against so many POV in the field of biblical studies and the way the arguments go are so predictable on both sides. More is always needed -- hence anything you can supply that adds further contexts etc would be fantastic.

Added after the above:

The original story that lies behind what we read about Miriam taking it on herself to criticize Moses for neglecting his conjugal duties with his wife since God spoke to him belongs to tannaitic sources and, in fact, quite reasonably interpreted as "possibly the earliest" of the three structurally similar narratives involving men and conjugal responsibilities, -- see page 48 of That doesn't make it so, of course, but it does remind us that well-worn patterns of logical responses back and forth in discussions can sometimes overlook details that can take the discussion into different directions.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The family of Jesus across the Gospels (origin of Mary as mother?)

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:07 am
Still, the introduction of Mary Magdalene at 15:40 seems contrived and like a later revision to bring the ending in line with other narratives.
Not only Mary Magdalene, as we know, but Mary the mother of Jesus' namesake, another Mary with only half the number of children yet with the same names as Jesus' brothers, followed by a Mary who had only one son with a name of Jesus' brother, with her followed by yet another Mary also with one son but who has the name of another of Jesus' brothers. If they are all the same Mary or even the mother of Jesus then they have been entered into the narrative in a most convoluted and curious manner. My own conclusion is that all the mentions of Mary are symbolic, with the different naming of their sons at different points in the narrative being some sort of key or meaning that we can only guess at now.

In partial support, look at where they are first mentioned together: Mark 15:40. They are looking on Jesus on the cross "from afar". Then they go down to take care of his body.

Compare Exodus 2:4 -- Miriam is looking on "from afar" (same Greek word) on the body of Moses that has been "laid" (same word as Jesus being laid in the tomb) in the river to see what would happen to it; then goes to ask Pharaoh's daughter for the body of Moses to take care of it.

The women do what Joseph did when he approached Pharaoh/Pilate to bury the body of Jacob/Jesus. But the women are watching over a babe delivered to death yet who lives to become the saviour of Israel. The women are adding the positive spin to the Joseph narrative: Joseph sees to the needs of death; the women, the Miriams, see to the rescue and the living and exaltation of the one cast out to die.

James/Jacob the Younger: the new Jacob, Israel
Joses/Joseph: the one who was cast into the pit to die but became ruler and saviour
Salome: Peace, also Solomon is the ruler of the ideal kingdom.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The family of Jesus across the Gospels (origin of Mary as mother?)

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 3:21 am Let's step back and take a look at the central elements that deal with the family of Jesus across the canonical Gospels:
Gospel of Thomas logion 99, my literal translation:

99. said the(PL) Disciple to he : your(.PL) brothers with your(F) mother they standing-on-foot they on the part outside said he to they : they-who of these place who/which make-be [dop] the desire of my father these-ones are my(PL) brothers with my(F) mother themselves is who/which will go-inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king of my father

And the Interpretation of that:

99. The Disciples said to him: your brothers with your mother, they are standing on their feet "on the part outside".
He said to them: they who are of these places - who do the desire of my father - these ones are my brothers with my mother; themselves will go inward to the reign-of king of my father

Naturally, "the part outside" is vital here, and the entire point. It is symbolic for the wrong part, that is not fertile, and the core of any answer in Thomas is to look inside, not outside.
Where is the vine planted that will get uprooted? Exactly

Mark 3:
31 Then His mother and His brothers *came, and while standing outside they sent word to Him, calling for Him. 32 And a crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 And looking around at those who were sitting around Him, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, this is My brother, and sister, and mother.”

Thomas logion 99... with "sisters" evidently added

Mark 6:
1Jesus went out from there and *came into His hometown; and His disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man learn these things, and what is this wisdom that has been given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? 3 Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are His sisters not here with us?

They must have regretted it so very, very much that this Markan brain fart couldn't get swiped under the carpet anymore

Matthew 12:
46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 Someone said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus replied to the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?” 49 And extending His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold: My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother.”

Thomas logion 99, and the evolution from Mark is evident

Matthew 13:
53 When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. 54 And He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, with the result that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man acquire this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is His mother not called Mary, and His brothers, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us?

His sisters... LOL.
But it would seem that Judas (Dydimos Judas Thomas) originally didn't betray Jesus in Mark 1.0, so to say, if he made it his this far

Luke 4:
22 And all the people were speaking well of Him, and admiring the gracious words which were coming from His lips; and yet they were saying, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” 23 And He said to them, “No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me: ‘Physician, heal yourself! All the miracles that we heard were done in Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’” 24 But He said, “Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown.

Thomas logion 31, emphasis mine - that, on a side note

Luke 8:
19 Now His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was reported to Him, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You.” 21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

Thomas logion 99

John 6:
41 So then the Jews were complaining about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 And they were saying, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop complaining among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Some observations: In Luke 3-23, which is recognized as a separate layer of Luke that was produced prior to canonical Luke, the mother of Jesus is never given the name Mary. In addition, he is called a son of Joseph. The name Mary is never given to the mother of Jesus either in Marcion's Gospel or the Gospel of John. The name Mary is also not used for the mother of Jesus in Luke 3-23.

If we put ideas about Markan priority aside for a moment and forget about trying to figure out the order in which things may or may not have been written, consider this proposition:

Some earliest narrative existed in which a "mother of Jesus" had no name. She was just the "mother of Jesus".
Correct. That's Thomas
But this "mother of Jesus" was actually denied to be his mother, indeed in the earliest narrative the only point of the mention of his family was for him to deny that he had a family.
Wrong, and crooked thinking. It is impossible to deny that someone is someone else's mother if they don't get identified at all
In addition, early narratives existed in which there was a female companion named Mary. Now this Mary was a sort of Gnostic wisdom figure, who became Mary Magdalene.
Correct. That's Thomas
In later narratives, Mary Magdalene was conflated with the "mother of Jesus", thus giving rise to the name of Mary as Jesus' mother.

Now, the details of all this I make no claim to having worked out, and it throws a wrench into my concept of Gospel origins, but it does seem to have something going for it.

Thoughts?
Dear Geoff, I will do a bit of predicting the future.
In 3-5 years from now, perhaps 10, it will have become proven and accepted by most (who matter) that (Coptic) Thomas is the source to all, and that Marcion took him into a narrative. And we will have solved all of it once and for all, and that will simply be the end to it. Of course there will be resistance, and of course it will have giant implications, but that's not the point - it simply is irrefutable, and tons of textual evidence traces point to it

Now, you can stand "on the part outside" and not partake in it, or you can become an insider and enjoy some really early and exciting research.
All that's required is here: Klinghardt's Marcion, the most detailed and complete that there ever will be; my Thomas translation, the most detailed and complete that there ever will be - and I trust you have an NA28 for research on the side if need be

The endgame is here, and Christianity won't live to see the end of this century, likely not even this decade - and all this feeble tinkering, with which e.g. this site is filled to the rim, all these people who are mostly and merely talking to themselves and desiring to be listened to - all those people will have no other choice than to go back to their librarian jobs and forever be silent because not only they were wrong about almost everything, but they also protested vehemently (and devoid of any and all arguments, as usual) against Absolute Thomasine Priority
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The family of Jesus across the Gospels (origin of Mary as mother?)

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 12:15 am
Gospel of Thomas logion 99, my literal translation:

99. said the(PL) Disciple to he : your(.PL) brothers with your(F) mother they standing-on-foot they on the part outside said he to they : they-who of these place who/which make-be [dop] the desire of my father these-ones are my(PL) brothers with my(F) mother themselves is who/which will go-inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king of my father

And the Interpretation of that:

99. The Disciples said to him: your brothers with your mother, they are standing on their feet "on the part outside".
He said to them: they who are of these places - who do the desire of my father - these ones are my brothers with my mother; themselves will go inward to the reign-of king of my father

Naturally, "the part outside" is vital here, and the entire point. It is symbolic for the wrong part, that is not fertile, and the core of any answer in Thomas is to look inside, not outside.

Where is the vine planted that will get uprooted? Exactly
.
Why do you make mention of 'the vine planted and uprooted' here, Martijn?

mlinssen wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 12:15 am

Luke 4:
22 And all the people were speaking well of Him, and admiring the gracious words which were coming from His lips; and yet they were saying, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” 23 And He said to them, “No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me: ‘Physician, heal yourself! All the miracles that we heard were done in Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’” 24 But He said, “Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown.

Thomas logion 31, emphasis mine - that, on a side note
Interesting ...

mlinssen wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 12:15 am

John 6:
41 So then the Jews were complaining about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 And they were saying, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop complaining among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Some observations: In Luke 3-23, which is recognized as a separate layer of Luke that was produced prior to canonical Luke, the mother of Jesus is never given the name Mary. In addition, he is called a son of Joseph. The name Mary is never given to the mother of Jesus either in Marcion's Gospel or the Gospel of John. The name Mary is also not used for the mother of Jesus in Luke 3-23.

If we put ideas about Markan priority aside for a moment and forget about trying to figure out the order in which things may or may not have been written, consider this proposition:

Some earliest narrative existed in which a "mother of Jesus" had no name. She was just the "mother of Jesus".
.
Correct. That's Thomas
Just logion 99? or also elsewhere in Thomas?

mlinssen wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 12:15 am
In addition, early narratives existed in which there was a female companion named Mary. Now this Mary was a sort of Gnostic wisdom figure, who became Mary Magdalene.
Correct. That's Thomas
Thomas the entity? or, again, just logion 99?

mlinssen wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 12:15 am In 3-5 years from now, perhaps 10, it will have become proven and accepted by most (who matter) that (Coptic) Thomas is the source to all, and that Marcion took him into a narrative.
A bold prediction. If 'Thomas as the source to all' were to be widely accepted, it might take more than ten years ...

This looks interesting
mlinssen wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 5:57 am somewhere in between I'll have to work my way through these 1,500 pages [of Klinghardt's The Oldest Gospel] and parallel [it] with Thomas so that it becomes apparent that Coptic Thomas (sic, yes, indeed) is the very first "gospel" (albeit never intended as one at all whatsoever) which Marcion took into a narrative, after which Mark quickly released a proto-copy of that ... a much longer story1 LOL
  1. certainly an interesting story ...
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The family of Jesus across the Gospels (origin of Mary as mother?)

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:25 am
mlinssen wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 12:15 am In 3-5 years from now, perhaps 10, it will have become proven and accepted by most (who matter) that (Coptic) Thomas is the source to all, and that Marcion took him into a narrative.
A bold prediction. If 'Thomas as the source to all' were to be widely accepted, it might take more than ten years ...
Do you even notice now, after I have pointed you to it, how
1) I explicitly limit my statement in quality, upon which
2) you expand it in quantity - after which
3) you question your own expansion, yet while
4) treating it as if it were part of my original statement?

You can find the answers to the questions you asked in any Thomas translation, by the way. Shouldn't take you more than a minute
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The family of Jesus across the Gospels (origin of Mary as mother?)

Post by andrewcriddle »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 6:10 pm
andrewcriddle wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 8:15 am seems late (after 300 CE) Its attestation is late (although much earlier than Exodus Rabbah) It is not really compatible with the genuinely early traditions in Josephus and pseudo-Philo and it is not mentioned in Sifre to Numbers at a place where it would be relevant.

Andrew Criddle
I'd love it if you could point to sources for any inspiration of viewpoints expressed. I'm largely relying on my old friend Serendipity and am always coming across sources I wished I had earlier.

Is there further discussion on the reasoning you present re compatibility with X and omitted from a relevant source etc? Those are the same mantras used for and against so many POV in the field of biblical studies and the way the arguments go are so predictable on both sides. More is always needed -- hence anything you can supply that adds further contexts etc would be fantastic.

Added after the above:

The original story that lies behind what we read about Miriam taking it on herself to criticize Moses for neglecting his conjugal duties with his wife since God spoke to him belongs to tannaitic sources and, in fact, quite reasonably interpreted as "possibly the earliest" of the three structurally similar narratives involving men and conjugal responsibilities, -- see page 48 of That doesn't make it so, of course, but it does remind us that well-worn patterns of logical responses back and forth in discussions can sometimes overlook details that can take the discussion into different directions.
Josephus in Antiquities says
2. While the affairs of the Hebrews were in this condition, there was this occasion offered itself to the Egyptians, which made them more solicitous for the extinction of our nation. One of those sacred scribes, (18) who are very sagacious in foretelling future events truly, told the king, that about this time there would a child be born to the Israelites, who, if he were reared, would bring the Egyptian dominion low, and would raise the Israelites; that he would excel all men in virtue, and obtain a glory that would be remembered through all ages. Which thing was so feared by the king, that, according to this man's opinion, he commanded that they should cast every male child, which was born to the Israelites, into the river, and destroy it; that besides this, the Egyptian midwives (19) should watch the labors of the Hebrew women, and observe what is born, for those were the women who were enjoined to do the office of midwives to them; and by reason of their relation to the king, would not transgress his commands. He enjoined also, that if any parents should disobey him, and venture to save their male children alive, (20) they and their families should be destroyed. This was a severe affliction indeed to those that suffered it, not only as they were deprived of their sons, and while they were the parents themselves, they were obliged to be subservient to the destruction of their own children, but as it was to be supposed to tend to the extirpation of their nation, while upon the destruction of their children, and their own gradual dissolution, the calamity would become very hard and inconsolable to them. And this was the ill state they were in. But no one can be too hard for the purpose of God, though he contrive ten thousand subtle devices for that end; for this child, whom the sacred scribe foretold, was brought up and concealed from the observers appointed by the king; and he that foretold him did not mistake in the consequences of his preservation, which were brought to pass after the manner following: -

3. A man whose name was Amram, one of the nobler sort of the Hebrews, was afraid for his whole nation, lest it should fail, by the want of young men to be brought up hereafter, and was very uneasy at it, his wife being then with child, and he knew not what to do. Hereupon he betook himself to prayer to God; and entreated him to have compassion on those men who had nowise transgressed the laws of his worship, and to afford them deliverance from the miseries they at that time endured, and to render abortive their enemies' hopes of the destruction of their nation...
i.e. Amran only begins seriously worrying about the implications of Pharaoh's decree after Moses has already been conceived.

Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities 9 has Amran from the beginning opposing the elders who recommend stopping having children.

In Exodus Rabbah the claim that Miriam persuaded Amran to beget Moses is attributed to Hanina b. Isaac (spelling of name varies) a rabbi c 300 CE The claim involves an exegesis of the names Shiphrah_and_Puah The earlier Sifre on Numbers also interprets Puah but not in this way,

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The family of Jesus across the Gospels (origin of Mary as mother?)

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:09 am. . .

Josephus in Antiquities says . . . .

Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities 9 has Amran from the beginning opposing the elders who recommend stopping having children.

In Exodus Rabbah the claim that Miriam persuaded Amran to beget Moses is attributed to Hanina b. Isaac (spelling of name varies) a rabbi c 300 CE The claim involves an exegesis of the names Shiphrah_and_Puah The earlier Sifre on Numbers also interprets Puah but not in this way,

Andrew Criddle
There is no question that multiple stories were extant but I don't think anyone suggests that Josephus's accounts document the uniform interpretations of the day.

At the same time, when we find in late rabbinic literature what must surely be an independent explanation that resonates with a narrative two centuries earlier from the same cultural roots as the rabbinic source, and given unlikelihood that the rabbinic source was seeking to emulate the stories of the Christians, we do have a prima facie case to consider, yes? or no?

Do understand, though, that I am not proposing any of these ideas dogmatically, but as data points that do deserve serious consideration for the reasons just stated. Again, we invite the Rev. Bayes.

The discussion by D. Steinmetz is certainly worth serious consideration, too. No-one in biblical studies, for example, would ever suggest that because a narrative contains evidence of late influences that the core of the narrative was therefore itself just as late -- especially when there are several variants of that narrative. Nor would anyone in biblical studies assume that because, say, So-and-So said X that therefore the saying necessarily originated with So-and-So.

What source(s) do you advise to see quickly when this and that rabbi in the rabbinic literature was said to have lived?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The family of Jesus across the Gospels (origin of Mary as mother?)

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:09 am Josephus in Antiquities says . . . .

Pseudo-Philo . . . .

In Exodus Rabbah . . . .

Andrew Criddle

You quote these sources, without explicit argument, presumably because the argument should be obvious. Presumably the suggestion is that we should read our sources naively rather than critically, and draw generalized conclusions about the wider culture and heritage based on that naive reading.

Or, ...

If you are thinking here of that detail about Miriam criticizing her father and brother over neglect of their conjugal duties I bow out of further discussion. Such a detail is too remote to take seriously in connection with the gospels -- as I tried to point out in another recent comment.

But as for other discussion of method more generally, if an influential Jewish scholar can argue that a little critical thought applied to our sources leads one to conclude that the first-century Christian idea of a suffering messiah was derived from Jewish exegesis on the basis of the evidence found in late rabbinic writings, then we may feel justified in applying the same critical method, the same rationales, to suggest that other narrative details in the gospels are similarly derived from Jewish exegesis.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The family of Jesus across the Gospels (origin of Mary as mother?)

Post by andrewcriddle »

I'm just going to clarify where the idea of Jochebed and Amran separating and then remarrying comes from. This may be peripheral to our discussion but I'm worried that we have left the impression that Midrash is grossly arbitrary and fanciful and I'd like to clarify.

After Shifrah and Puah are identified with Jochebed and Miriam then Miriam appears to be around helping mum deliver babies before her father and mother marry. This is eventually explained by having Jochebed and Amran separate after Pharaoh''s decree but then being reunited by Miriam the young prophetess.

The identification of Shifrah and Puah with Jochebed and Miriam is the basis for Miriam being the ancestor of David.
And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.
is understood as the midwives becoming founders of distinguished lineages.

However this identification is probably not early, (there is no trace in Philo who discusses the midwives and their names) the full development of the implications will be later still.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The family of Jesus across the Gospels (origin of Mary as mother?)

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:50 pm I'm just going to clarify where the idea of Jochebed and Amran separating and then remarrying comes from. This may be peripheral to our discussion but I'm worried that we have left the impression that Midrash is grossly arbitrary and fanciful and I'd like to clarify.

After Shifrah and Puah are identified with Jochebed and Miriam then Miriam appears to be around helping mum deliver babies before her father and mother marry. This is eventually explained by having Jochebed and Amran separate after Pharaoh''s decree but then being reunited by Miriam the young prophetess.

The identification of Shifrah and Puah with Jochebed and Miriam is the basis for Miriam being the ancestor of David.
And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.
is understood as the midwives becoming founders of distinguished lineages.

However this identification is probably not early, (there is no trace in Philo who discusses the midwives and their names) the full development of the implications will be later still.

Andrew Criddle
If we go back to my initial comment, it was suggesting possibilities for the origins of the gospel Marys. I spread the net far and wide. Anyone who knows my other work on midrash knows it is very far indeed from anything arbitrary. The ad hoc references were to my application of certain ideas to gospel persons and situations -- because they were raising nothing more than possibilities. If you don't think the ideas were even possible then that's perfectly fine.

No-one knows how far back the interpretation goes. But if we are looking at the gospels as midrashic creations then we are quite entitled to raise the possibility that Mary was chosen to be the mother of Jesus in part because there was an idea "in the air" that the OT counterpart of that namesake was thought to be an ancestress of David. It has never been presented as anything more than that. Of course, if we are looking at the gospels from other perspectives then that approach is beside the point. I think if that's the case then it would be more profitable to debate the core reason for the different approach.

But to bring in Philo as a counter to that possibility .... Did he even read Hebrew? Did any rabbinic midrashists even know of Philo?
Post Reply