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

[Giuseppe]

My point was that there is a difference between a narrative and the raw material (not ideologically neutral, though!) that was incorporated into those narratives -- and narratives can take different shape ideologically, for and against certain doctrines and teachings and persons, as we see in the mix of different narratives in the early Acts and Gospels.

I can concede willingly the idea that there was already, before our Gospels, a "worksite in good order", to quote Alfaric quoted by Guy Fau (Puzzle des evangiles):

One could evidently imagine that the evangelists, knowing the Bible well, went to draw from it, each directly, the texts they invoke. But it would be very unlikely that they would have used the same texts in this way. On the contrary, if they had in their hands a collection of prophecies already extracted from the Bible, they possessed, as Alfaric has said, a "worksite in good order," an authentic life of the Messiah which they had only to actualize, - although Mark and Luke, unlike Matthew, more often forget to cite their biblical sources.

Evidence that they [the Gospel writers] used such a collection can be gleaned from the texts themselves. For example, Mark attributes the following prophecy to Isaiah alone: "Behold, I send my messenger before you; he will prepare your way. Voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths." But if the second phrase is indeed from Isaiah, the first figures in Malachi. We may therefore think that these two texts were brought together, and that the author of Mark took them for a single quotation. Again Matthew and Luke did not make the same mistake this time; but here are groupings common to the Synoptics.

(my bold)

I can concede that such pre-Gospel "worksite in good order" was neutral, i.e. not interested to attack rival sectarians.

What I can't concede is that the earliest gospels themselves were equally neutral. The example of Jesus being beaten up by (1) Romans (in Mark) or by (2) sinedrites (in Marcion) doesn't concede much free choice (beyond 1 and 2) about other different midrashical meaning behind the episode.

[neilgodfrey]

I can concede that such pre-Gospel "worksite in good order" was neutral, i.e. not interested to attack rival sectarians.

What I can't concede is that the earliest gospels themselves were equally neutral. The example of Jesus being beaten up by (1) Romans (in Mark) or by (2) sinedrites (in Marcion) doesn't concede much free choice (beyond 1 and 2) about other different midrashical meaning behind the episode.

I envision the possibility of a wide -- long -- gap between the creation of midrashic units and the gospel narratives. Religious groups function in religious environments and I think they always have enemies or opponents of some sort in mind. Stories are not necessary for this sort of thinking. Units can be selected with a consciousness of rival or opposition forces around them. That's why I don't think it necessary to imagine the initial midrashic activity to be ideologically neutral.

Texts can take on different meanings and interpretations in different contexts, too, and even sometimes be slightly (or heavily) redacted to make a better fit -- but that's not always necessary.

Example, Mark's parable of the rocky soil could well be interpreted as a warning against the "peters", or the disciples, stumbling spiritually and this could well be a continuation of a lesson that is repeated over and over in different ways for Israelites ever since the story of Israel in the wilderness. Blindess is a warning to all.

Then along comes, let's say, a Marcionite-proto-orthodox schism, and then that same Mark, even the same parable, can be interpreted as an attack on the proto-orthodox apostles led by Peter. Blindness is an dark account of the church rivals.

I am not saying that's what did happen -- only pointing out the possibility of how interpretations of texts can change with different circumstances.

[Giuseppe]

That's why I don't think it necessary to imagine the initial midrashic activity to be ideologically neutral.

you think and say so, but in the entire Charbonnel's book I have not found not even an echo of a polemical/ideological intention behind the creation of a "midrashical unit". The midrash, as by her meant, is never polemical, only used for didactic goals. One would think, reading Charbonnel (and Dubourg and Mergui), that their author(authors) was absolutely disinterested about the world there out and was without sectarian rivals at all.

[neilgodfrey]

That's why I don't think it necessary to imagine the initial midrashic activity to be ideologically neutral.

you think and say so, but in the entire Charbonnel's book I have not found not even an echo of a polemical/ideological intention behind the creation of a "midrashical unit". The midrash, as by her meant, is never polemical, only used for didactic goals. One would think, reading Charbonnel (and Dubourg and Mergui), that their author(authors) was absolutely disinterested about the world there out and was without sectarian rivals at all.

I am speaking here of my own views, not Charbonnel's.

But I have no problem with the approach of Charbonnel insofar as it is seeking to establish certain textual facts or relationships. Ditto Mergui. That is the first step, to see IF there is a certain kind of midrash there. Ideological disputes are a question for a subsequent inquiry. It is important to get the basics established and sort out exactly what is certain from what is inference etc etc at the beginning of any investigation, of course.

[neilgodfrey]

An interesting article by Moshe Reiss in the Jewish Bible Quarterly gives some interesting details of early Jewish beliefs (Pseudo Philo and Exodus Rabbah) about Miriam, Moses' and Aaron's sister, that give us a lot of room to suspect that Mary was chosen as the name for the mother of Jesus for "midrashic" reasons.

• Miriam was a prophetess, one through whom God spoke to the people
• Miriam was an ancestor of David through her husband Caleb
• Miriam was the mother of Hur (who with Aaron held up Moses' hands to defeat the Amalekites) who was murdered by the worshipers of the Golden Calf
• Miriam was the grandmother of Bezalel in whom was the "fullness of the spirit" (that detail is pointed out by another article, not Reiss's) and who fashioned the tabernacle with his craftsmanship
• Miriam was the one for whom the water-supplying rock followed Israel in the wilderness, with its water drying up at her death.

Not a bad mix: Mother (by a distance admittedly) of David; God speaks to and through her, her son was righteous and murdered; her grandson was full of the spirit and responsible for the fine craftsmanship in the Tabernacle; she was responsible for Israel's miraculous water-supply.

Of course she had her down time as when she had to be excluded from the camp for a time for her leprosy after criticizing Moses. But in that context we might recall that Mary likewise was not perfect and at one time tried to have her son Jesus taken away because she believed him to be mad.

Speaking of criticism and just for the sake of taking these parallels over the top -- Miriam is on "record" as having criticized her father for denying Israelite women their conjugal rights when he ordered them all to divorce their wives to prevent Pharaoh from murdering their newborn sons. (Mary's father listened to Mary and that's what led to the birth of Moses. Another midrashic commentary I recall from somewhere says that Moses' mother was a virgin in that she had been restored to youthful virginity when her husband took her back prior to conceiving Moses.) Miriam was also said to have spoken up for Zipporah's conjugal rights when she learned Moses abstained after God spoke to him. So for the "over the top" bit and more for fun than anything serious, we have the virgin Mary being based on (for all the other reasons above) Miriam the advocate for the woman's conjugal rights in marriage.

How could any evangelist avoid coming up with the name of Mary for Jesus' mother!


-- Reiss, Moshe. “Miriam Rediscovered.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 38, no. 3 (2010): 183–90. https://fliphtml5.com/tcva/ovqw

[Giuseppe]

But I have no problem with the approach of Charbonnel insofar as it is seeking to establish certain textual facts or relationships. Ditto Mergui. That is the first step, to see IF there is a certain kind of midrash there. Ideological disputes are a question for a subsequent inquiry.

this is not a disinterested move, however. If for example Charbonnel establishes the "fact" of a disinterested midrash per midrash, the "interested" implication is that you have the early author as an orthodox Jew adorer of YHWH as supreme god. By this only move, you have already eclipsed a lot of scholars who thought otherwise.

This explains en passant why the Mergui's books are sold by a religious Jewish publishing house.

As to Mary, if the midrash from Miriam is a fact, it doesn't say us that the first reason was exclusively midrashical, since the first reason for the introduction of Mary could be still anti-marcionite polemic, with all the midrashical embellishments only as a mere effect built on it.

[neilgodfrey]

Are you proposing that the gospels did not begin as Jewish writings?

I'd rather keep Charbonnel's name out of this discussion because my argument is my own, not hers. I can't speak for her. (I don't think I said that anything is without an ideological context, by the way.)

[neilgodfrey]

Or are you suggesting that the origin of the gospels was with a Jewish "gnostic" type group that downplayed the place of YHWH and acknowledged a higher Alien God?

[neilgodfrey]

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". 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. 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. 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?

I know I'm coming at this question from a quite different perspective but fwiw, ......

To add to the comment above where I see a strong likelihood that Miriam, sister of Aaron and Moses was, the inspiration for the name of Jesus' mother. . . .

Mariam in early Jewish tradition was equated with the sister Wisdom of Proverbs.

An ancient argument for this equation is found in the rabbinic midrash on Exodus, -- see 1:22-23 where as the sister she is equated with the sister-wisdom of Proverbs 7:4

There are other equations but the above appears to be the earliest I am aware of.

If we accept that the evangelists or their sources took an interest in gematria, then Miriam and Wisdom in the Hebrew are equated by a very unusual double gematria (both words equalling 37 and 73 by the two different methods of gematria).

So if Miriam/Mary is equated with Wisdom through early Jewish midrash and/or gematria we have before us a good reason for the appearance of at least two Marys in the gospels: one the mother of Jesus and the other the ("platonic") lover of Jesus.

That's speculative, of course, but I leave it here for what it's worth.

Now for a bit of ad hoc rationalization of the difficulties....

Mary as mother is not a good saint during Jesus' ministry, but I mentioned in the previous comment that we have Miriam also blotting her copybook.
Ditto for the Mary disciple of Jesus. If her reputation as a former sinner comes to mind we might also recall the two sisters in the midrash, and the false and true wisdom, one being converted to the other.

Okay, I said it was ad hoc.

So the two Marys could thus be "explained" by the two associations of wisdom in Jewish midrash: one with Wisdom and the other with Miriam (who was also equated with Wisdom -- thus having a double role which becomes two characters in the gospels.)

By the way, it doesn't hurt the Miriam-Mary connection to note that the same Midrash on Exodus extols Miriam as the prophetess who foretold that her mother, who was "re-virgined", would give birth to a son who would save Israel.

P.S. -- a bit more ad hoc....

The Gospel of Mark speaks of Jesus' mother in a scene before he brings her into another setting where she is named: Compare Exodus where Miriam is unnamed when we first meet her in Exodus where she tends to Moses but she is named quite some chapters later after crossing the Red Sea.

One can understand a Marcionite gospel not mentioning the Jewish-associated mother's name. One can also imagine a later redactor of Marcion's gospel sticking it to Marcion by adding lots of mentions of Mary by name in additional chapters.

As for the Gospel of John, the Mary association with Wisdom would not sit comfortably with the christology we find there where Jesus is the Logos and therefore Wisdom himself.

[Giuseppe]

Or are you suggesting that the origin of the gospels was with a Jewish "gnostic" type group that downplayed the place of YHWH and acknowledged a higher Alien God?

that is the view I am going to learn by reading (very gradually) this book.