Persons named in the Gospels

[steve_bank]

As in the old crime drams there should be a disclaimer in the goggles.

'The stories you are about to read are true, the names have been changed to protect the innocent'

 

[Lion IRC]

My sole objective is to try to guess the motives of the Bible's writers

.. and to try to guess

...it seems that

It's OK to guess and speculate.

..in the Gospel of Mark the only mention by names of Jesus' family -- with an important exception -- is this well-known passage:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

That's it!!

You're forgetting Mark 1:1 where Jesus' Father is named.

The minimal mention of family names throughout Mark can be plausibly explained by a presumption that readers only needed to be told once, and/or that by the time of writing this was already sufficiently common knowledge. (Other Gospels. Oral transmission.)

Father Joseph is mentioned ZERO times in the entire Gospel. Brother James -- who became a top pillar of the Church before the Gospels were written -- is mentioned ONLY here in all the Gospels. (Matthew and Luke offer the same list of brothers; Matthew replaces "the carpenter" with "the carpenter's son," still not naming Jesus' father except in the Nativity...

Who is the central figure in the Gospel?
Not Joseph. Not James.
Who were the people who accompanied Jesus during His ministry? The people who were there.
Mark 9:2 Mark 10:35 Mark 3:16
There's names all over the place in Mark.

I wrote that there is an important exception; a place where Mark does repeat his mention of Mary and two of Jesus' brothers.

[15:40] There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome. These women had followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him ...
. . .
[15:47] Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses [Joseph] saw where Jesus' body was laid.
. . .
[16:1] And when the Sabbath passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him.

The "other Mary" is the mother of James and Joses, and therefore also the mother of their older brother Jesus! But does it seem odd not to just call her "Jesus' mother"?

No. Why is that odd? Whose mother would she otherwise be if not Jesus' mother.
John 19:25 names her as Jesus' mother.
Why this criteria of "oddness" that a writer would take for granted that readers knew Jesus mother Mary would be at Golgotha?

For some reason the author of Mark is reluctant to say this out loud! Why?

I think it's a stretch to suggest reluctance.
You ask why would he be reluctant.
And I say there's no reason why, therefore we are allowed to rule out reluctance.

(Matthew and Luke have the same reticence, with the former changing two instances of that Mary to just "the other Mary." John refers to Jesus' mother, e.g. in his famous last words, but mentions her by name . . . ZERO times.

Mary the mother of Jesus is the one Mary whose name doesn't need disambiguation. It's the other Marys whose names need clarification.

This reluctance to identify Mary as Jesus' mother strikes me as peculiar -- and should seem peculiar whether you treat the Gospels as fact or fiction.

Argumentum ad peculiarum?
Speculation is fine. But arguing from incredulity won't persuade folks who think yours is the odd exegesis of the text.

Does the reluctance to name Mary, Joseph and Jesus' brother James seem peculiar?)

Not to me.

This James is called "the First Bishop of Jerusalem", and was assassinated in the 60's AD, BEFORE the alleged writings of the Gospels.

Again. Not one of the disciples travelling with Jesus throughout the Gospel of Mark.

By your own reasoning it would be "peculiar" if someone who came later was conspicuously elevated into prominence in an account of events which took place before he was bishop of Jerusalem

There are other oddnesses in Gospel names which I'll mention in a follow-up post.

 

[steve_bank]

Given the problems we have with so called factual reporting today and the histories we know of that a
at least p[partially fabricated I don't get how anyone can take the gospels as factual reproving

My favorite is the myth of King Arthur. It turns out the story was fabricated by a mink who wrote a history of Britain. Based on folk tales.

Depending on the media platform today there are selective quotes and reporting of facts to support a narrative.

Someone posted a gospel passage where Jesus apparently reinforced his Jewish faith and biblical law.

Yet Chris ans believe Jesus started a new religion which today they inherited without change.

When I went through the bible I laid out the geology in Genesis. It became obvious to me the writer was making up lifespans and time between events from oral history or scraps of writings. Filling in the blanks.

Were Mary and Joseph real names? Who knows. There is no last or surname.The lineage of Jesus is claimed to go back to David but claiming lineage to a past king or a god to add aytetcity was a common practice.

 

[Swammerdami]

..in the Gospel of Mark the only mention by names of Jesus' family -- with an important exception -- is this well-known passage:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

That's it!!

You're forgetting Mark 1:1 where Jesus' Father is named.

"Son of God." I wasn't forgetting this. I should have specified "human family"!

The minimal mention of family names throughout Mark can be plausibly explained by a presumption that readers only needed to be told once, and/or that by the time of writing this was already sufficiently common knowledge. (Other Gospels. Oral transmission.)

What other Gospels? John doesn't name Jesus' human family. Matthew and Luke borrow details of the adult Jesus from Mark.
Brother James goes on to become "the First Bishop of Jerusalem" but is NEVER mentioned in ANY of the four Gospels except in the "prophet without honor" verse or as kin of the "other Mary."

Father Joseph is mentioned ZERO times in the entire Gospel. Brother James -- who became a top pillar of the Church before the Gospels were written -- is mentioned ONLY here in all the Gospels. (Matthew and Luke offer the same list of brothers; Matthew replaces "the carpenter" with "the carpenter's son," still not naming Jesus' father except in the Nativity...

Who is the central figure in the Gospel?
Not Joseph. Not James.
Who were the people who accompanied Jesus during His ministry? The people who were there.
Mark 9:2

Jesus, Peter, James and John. The same four -- the ONLY four -- emphasized in Mark, Matthew or Luke. As I explained.

Mark 10:35

James and John -- two of the ONLY four, as just mentioned.

Mark 3:16

Peter, James and John -- three of the ONLY four, as just mentioned.

There's names all over the place in Mark.

Yeah. The names Jesus, Peter, James and John. (And John the Baptizer.)

The "other Mary" is the mother of James and Joses, and therefore also the mother of their older brother Jesus! But does it seem odd not to just call her "Jesus' mother"?

No. Why is that odd? Whose mother would she otherwise be if not Jesus' mother.

The Gospels are about JESUS. He had a MOTHER named Mary. Does it really not seem odd to mention Mary while disguising that she was Jesus' mother? Does not "the other Mary" seem like a peculiar way to refer to Jesus' mother?

John 19:25 names her as Jesus' mother.

No it does NOT.

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

It is unclear to me whether this verse lists 3 women (Mary wife of Clopas being "his mother's sister") or 4 women -- I think "authorities" agree it is only 3. But in either case Jesus' mother is unnamed. Two Mary's are mentioned (wife of Clopas and Magdalene) -- NEITHER is Jesus' mother.


ETA: I'm not motivated to look for the original Greek just now, but some authorities think Mary was daughter of Clopas, not his wife. And/or that that Mary was the mother's sister-in-law, i.e. Joseph's sister.

 

[steve_bank]

Something came to mind which our theists may be able to address.

If <ary was impregnated by god, does that make his siblings half brothers and sisters?

 

[Person19960]

Mary Magdalene.

Performance art that ran for her entire lifespan
Then again that Mary Mary was a wild card

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Was Jesus even really from Nazareth?

. . . in the Gospel of Mark the only mention by names of Jesus' family -- with an important exception -- is this well-known passage:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

That's it!! Father Joseph is mentioned ZERO times in the entire Gospel. Brother James -- who became a top pillar of the Church before the Gospels were written -- is mentioned ONLY here in all the Gospels. (Matthew and Luke offer the same list of brothers; Matthew replaces "the carpenter" with "the carpenter's son," still not naming Jesus' father except in the Nativity myth of chapters 1-2.)

I wrote that there is an important exception; a place where Mark does repeat his mention of Mary and two of Jesus' brothers.

[15:40] There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome. These women had followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him ...
. . .
[15:47] Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses [Joseph] saw where Jesus' body was laid.
. . .
[16:1] And when the Sabbath passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him.

The "other Mary" is the mother of James and Joses, and therefore also the mother of their older brother Jesus! But does it seem odd not to just call her "Jesus' mother"? For some reason the author of Mark is reluctant to say this out loud! Why? (Matthew and Luke have the same reticence, with the former changing two instances of that Mary to just "the other Mary." John refers to Jesus' mother, e.g. in his famous last words, but mentions her by name . . . ZERO times.

This reluctance to identify Mary as Jesus' mother strikes me as peculiar -- and should seem peculiar whether you treat the Gospels as fact or fiction.

Does the reluctance to name Mary, Joseph and Jesus' brother James seem peculiar?) This James is called "the First Bishop of Jerusalem", and was assassinated in the 60's AD, BEFORE the alleged writings of the Gospels.

The right conclusion to draw is that Mary and Joseph were not really the parents of Jesus. We don't know where he came from or who his parents were.

Likely Mary was attracted to Jesus along with the other Galilean women:

1 Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him,
2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Mag'dalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,
3 and Joan'na, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.

So Mary the wife of Joseph was likely one of these "many others." And these Galilean women may have been in a higher economic class, having extra "means" to contribute for supporting Jesus (who was likely more involved in healing the sick than in preaching sermons, which better explains their attraction to him and desire to donate).

The tradition that James and Jesus were brothers is early, because it's mentioned by Paul. But this still is not until 20 years later, during which time there could have developed the notion that Jesus was another son of Mary and so also a brother of James. James likely profited later from Jesus being identified as his brother.

Another indication that they were not brothers is the opening words of two NT epistles, James and Jude. These very likely were intended to be understood as written by the brothers James and Jude/Judas, sons of Mary (and brothers of Jesus) named in Mark 6:3. The James epistle begins:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion: Greeting.

And the Jude epistle:

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

Isn't it peculiar that neither of these names Jesus as their brother, if he was their brother? Whether these books were really written by the famous James and his brother or not, they were intended to be taken as written by them. And whoever wrote them should have identified them as brothers of Jesus. Because this would give higher standing to them as authoritative. Jude (or the writer) starts out by boasting that he is the brother of James, to give him extra authority. So then why not identify them as brothers of Jesus, instead of only as a "servant" of Jesus Christ? These two epistles of James and Jude seem to be unaware that James and Jesus were brothers.

 

[Swammerdami]

... the Jude epistle:

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

Isn't it peculiar that neither of these names Jesus as their brother, if he was their brother? Whether these books were really written by the famous James and his brother or not, they were intended to be taken as written by them. And whoever wrote them should have identified them as brothers of Jesus. Because this would give higher standing to them as authoritative. Jude (or the writer) starts out by boasting that he is the brother of James, to give him extra authority. So then why not identify them as brothers of Jesus, instead of only as a "servant" of Jesus Christ? These two epistles of James and Jude seem to be unaware that James and Jesus were brothers.

Yes, it IS weird. But it isn't just his brothers that are almost unacknowledged; his parents are also almost unacknowledged. Mark doesn't name Jesus' father even once. Matthew barely acknowledges Mother Mary (except in the early chapters), calling her "Mary the mother of James and Joses" and twice "the other Mary." John refers to "Jesus' mother" but NEVER by name. It isn't just Jesus' relatives whose names are suppressed: John never mentions either of the sons of Zebedee by name. (John tells more anecdotes about the 7 miscellaneous disciples than the other three Gospels put together, but refuses to name Zebedee's sons, one of whom is the "disciple Jesus loved.")

This all seems weird and suspicious. Could there have been some taboo? Was the Divinity of Jesus so accepted that to pretend he had human relatives was sacrilegious? In all my browsing I can't recall ever chancing on a scholarly explanation for these weirdnesses.