2007-01-26

Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Chapter 3/WIFTA

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

8 pm 27th Jan 07

Forgot to add another theological (not eyewitness verification) reason for the naming of Mary mother of James and Joses at the end of Mark’s gospel. Early in the gospel the author has Jesus ask who is his true mother. He employs a scene of his physical mother not being able to reach her son for the crowd (again– as in similar stories in this gospel — foreshadowing the time Jesus will be unreachable behind the door of the tomb) to draw the distinction between his spiritual family and his physical family. At the end of the gospel the author pointedly refers to Jesus’ mother as the mother of James and Joses, — Jesus is omitted (unlike earlier and 6.3). Following Weeden, Tolbert, et al, …. The author is telling the reader that his earthly mother, like the twelve, have no part in him. (Other gospel authors would later correct Mark.) His readers, rather, are his true spiritual family. So his mother is looking in the wrong place for him. (The Christ is not here — as was already alluded to in Mark 13. But there is so much more to this that it is really another topic.) The point is, this is enough to suggest that the mention of the Mary mother of James and Joses here is for theological reasons first and last.

10 pm. 26th Jan 07

Forgot to add that Schmidt does not himself single out the country origin of the bearer of the weapon of execution in the Roman triumphal procession.

That bit is added by just lil ol me — it comes from 3rd chapter of Heliodorus’s An Ethiopian Story — describes a triumphal procession and pays special attention to the country origin and dress of those bearing the weapons to be used in sacrificing the bull. Okay, Heliodorus might be a bit later than the first century but the description matches what we see in the relief sculptures of triumphs anyway. But it is Schmidt of course discusses the rest of the crucifixion details vis a vis the triumphal procession.

The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

  • 2007-01-27 00:48:35 GMT+0000 - 00:48 | Permalink

    Hello there. You have my blog’s old template. =)

    I am also studying the Philosophy of Religion. Like you I am not a Christian, although I have studied (basic) systematic theology and theodicy. I am interested in the history of Christianity, I’ve always hoped that one day someone will discover who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Probably will never happen.

  • 2007-01-27 03:19:49 GMT+0000 - 03:19 | Permalink

    Hi there too. What’s theodicy? (I looked it up once but have forgotten.) I liked my template when it was new but now I am wanting something else more like what everyone else has — but am scared if I try to change it I will lose my stuff. I suppose I should look at the instructions again. (I discovered a bit too late that they really whizz bang things can be done with wordpress only if I place it on a server. One day….)

    As for the authorship of John I have just finished reading Loisy (1936 — the oldest wine is so often the best) and he presents a pretty interesting case to me about who was responsible for at least that gospel. Have just written up my notes as my latest blog entry.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.