Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,564
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Was Jesus Christ a DIFFERENT "Jesus" than the one who was the son of Mary and brother of James?
continued from:
Was Jesus the son of Mary & Joseph? with 4 brothers, including James?
This is the main source for the tradition that Jesus was the son of Mary & Joseph and had 4 brothers, including the famous James, who was leader of the early Jerusalem church.
This same list of brothers is repeated in Matthew 13:54-58, who calls Jesus "the carpenter's son," while in the Luke version these names are omitted, but the father Joseph is named.
There is some reason to believe the Luke version (4:16-30) might be earlier, or at least contains some additional earlier information. In the Luke version the disciples are not mentioned, and so might not have been with Jesus in the episode, and also Matthew is unclear about the presence of the disciples. What if they were not present?
There is reason to question whether it was really Jesus (Christ) who was the subject of this event. And also whether he was really the son of Mary & Joseph and had 4 brothers.
There was definitely a tradition that Jesus was the brother of James, as early as the Paul epistles, where James is called "the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:19). The other main connection of Jesus to Mary & Joseph is Acts 1:14, which identifies Mary as "the mother of Jesus." Also in Josephus there is a reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." These are the sources connecting Jesus to James and Mary. The connection to James is earlier, with the references in Paul. There's no other connection of Jesus to Mary & Joseph except the later Bethlehem stories.
The problem of "the other Mary"
There's reason to doubt the connection of Jesus to Mary & Joseph:
The Mary mentioned above, in the Nazareth story, appears at the crucifixion scene. All 3 synoptic gospels put her there, and yet none of them identifies her as the mother of Jesus, though they do identify her as the mother of the two brothers James and Joses. How can the accounts omit the fact that she is the mother of Jesus who is being crucified in front of her, a short distance away?
Here are the three accounts of the crucifixion-burial scene with Mary nearby looking on. Mary is mentioned as one of the women from Galilee, who had come with him to Jerusalem:
She's called "the mother of James and Joseph" and in vs. 61 "the other Mary." Why is she not also identified as "the mother of Jesus"? How could they casually identify her as "the other Mary" if she is the mother of Jesus?
Here she's called "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses," and in vs. 47 "Mary the mother of Joses."
In Luke the same women are mentioned as part of the resurrection account, returning from the empty tomb:
Here she's called "Mary the mother of James."
In the John account, mention is made of the mother of Jesus being present at the crucifixion, but her name is not mentioned. The John author appears to not know the name "Mary" as the mother of Jesus, though he does know the "Joseph" name (1:45).
This "Mary" at the crucifixion has to be the same Mary mentioned in the rejection-at-Nazareth story. They're both obviously from Galilee, and both have sons named Joseph (Joses) and James. And the strange spelling "Joses" in Mark (6:3) is repeated in 15:40. It is too coincidental for these to be two different Marys. Also Mark's term "James the younger" leaves little doubt that this must be the same James who was later the Jerusalem church leader.
Of course there's confusion about the identification of the different "James" and "Mary" characters in the gospels and Acts. Different theories mix it up, trying to identify them one way or another. But there is no way to claim that the Mary and James and Joses in Mark 6:3 are not the same Mary and James and Joses of Mark 15 and Matthew 27 and Luke 24. The only reason to deny the connection is that it contradicts the tradition that Mary of Nazareth is the mother of Jesus. So to eliminate this contradiction, the effort is made to separate these two Marys into different characters. But there's no other basis for separating them. They are the same character if the text is taken straightforwardly.
In addition to the incompatible crucifixion scene, with Mary present, there is another indication that Jesus was not the son of Mary and brother of James.
Evidence that Jesus was not the brother of James: The Epistles of James and Jude
Toward the end of the New Testament there are two epistles, James and Jude, which are attributed to the two brothers James and Jude, sons of Mary, and supposedly brothers of Jesus.
And yet, neither of these epistles gives any identification of them as brothers of Jesus.
The James author identifies himself as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (1:1), but not as brother of Jesus.
And the Jude author identifies himself as "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James" (1:1), but not brother of Jesus.
Why? If Jude scores extra points by identifying with James as his brother, why not also with Jesus? This makes no sense if the two were brothers of Jesus. There's a good chance that both epistles are authentically from the two brothers James and Jude, sons of Mary. But if not, and they are pseudonymous, they still should identify the authors as brothers of Jesus, if it's true that the two were brothers of Jesus. If it's appropriate for Jude to be identified as brother of James, surely also both of them should be appropriately identified as brothers of Jesus, if they were his brothers. So probably they were not.
So there is good reason to disbelieve the tradition that Jesus was the brother of James and son of Mary. This tradition could easily have arisen during the 30s or 40s, during the development of the Jerusalem church, before the Paul epistles. Jesus attracted several Galilean women to him, during his activity in that region, and Mary from Nazareth was obviously one of these Galilean women who accompanied him on the trip to Jerusalem. Maybe she "adopted" him in some sense, or the idea emerged that he was one of her sons.
There is no way to reconcile the crucifixion scene, where she is present and yet is identified only as the mother of James and Joses, with the idea that she was the mother of Jesus. Or to reconcile the idea that James and Jude (Judas) were his brothers with the absence of any mention of it in the two epistles of James and Jude.
So, why isn't it a good possibility that what we have was a different "Jesus" appearing in Mark 6:1-6, the rejection-at-Nazareth episode? and in Luke 4:16-30? who could perform no miracle there and made excuses why he didn't have to? and was rebuked with the insult "Physician, heal thyself!"? who was the real son of Mary & Joseph and had the 4 brothers James and Simon and Joses (Joseph) and Judas (Jude)? a different "Jesus" than the one who did miracles in Capernaum and other places and traveled to Jerusalem where he was arrested and crucified?
(This Wall of Text to be continued)
continued from:
Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth
Was Jesus the son of Mary & Joseph? with 4 brothers, including James?
Mark 6:1-6
He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. 2 On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offence at him. 4 Then Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.’ 5 And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. 6 And he was amazed at their unbelief.
This is the main source for the tradition that Jesus was the son of Mary & Joseph and had 4 brothers, including the famous James, who was leader of the early Jerusalem church.
This same list of brothers is repeated in Matthew 13:54-58, who calls Jesus "the carpenter's son," while in the Luke version these names are omitted, but the father Joseph is named.
There is some reason to believe the Luke version (4:16-30) might be earlier, or at least contains some additional earlier information. In the Luke version the disciples are not mentioned, and so might not have been with Jesus in the episode, and also Matthew is unclear about the presence of the disciples. What if they were not present?
There is reason to question whether it was really Jesus (Christ) who was the subject of this event. And also whether he was really the son of Mary & Joseph and had 4 brothers.
There was definitely a tradition that Jesus was the brother of James, as early as the Paul epistles, where James is called "the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:19). The other main connection of Jesus to Mary & Joseph is Acts 1:14, which identifies Mary as "the mother of Jesus." Also in Josephus there is a reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." These are the sources connecting Jesus to James and Mary. The connection to James is earlier, with the references in Paul. There's no other connection of Jesus to Mary & Joseph except the later Bethlehem stories.
The problem of "the other Mary"
There's reason to doubt the connection of Jesus to Mary & Joseph:
The Mary mentioned above, in the Nazareth story, appears at the crucifixion scene. All 3 synoptic gospels put her there, and yet none of them identifies her as the mother of Jesus, though they do identify her as the mother of the two brothers James and Joses. How can the accounts omit the fact that she is the mother of Jesus who is being crucified in front of her, a short distance away?
Here are the three accounts of the crucifixion-burial scene with Mary nearby looking on. Mary is mentioned as one of the women from Galilee, who had come with him to Jerusalem:
Matthew 27:55-61
55 Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59 So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.
She's called "the mother of James and Joseph" and in vs. 61 "the other Mary." Why is she not also identified as "the mother of Jesus"? How could they casually identify her as "the other Mary" if she is the mother of Jesus?
Mark 15:40-47
40 There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41 These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem.
42 When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. 45 When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid.
Here she's called "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses," and in vs. 47 "Mary the mother of Joses."
In Luke the same women are mentioned as part of the resurrection account, returning from the empty tomb:
Luke 24:9-10
9 and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles.
Here she's called "Mary the mother of James."
In the John account, mention is made of the mother of Jesus being present at the crucifixion, but her name is not mentioned. The John author appears to not know the name "Mary" as the mother of Jesus, though he does know the "Joseph" name (1:45).
This "Mary" at the crucifixion has to be the same Mary mentioned in the rejection-at-Nazareth story. They're both obviously from Galilee, and both have sons named Joseph (Joses) and James. And the strange spelling "Joses" in Mark (6:3) is repeated in 15:40. It is too coincidental for these to be two different Marys. Also Mark's term "James the younger" leaves little doubt that this must be the same James who was later the Jerusalem church leader.
Of course there's confusion about the identification of the different "James" and "Mary" characters in the gospels and Acts. Different theories mix it up, trying to identify them one way or another. But there is no way to claim that the Mary and James and Joses in Mark 6:3 are not the same Mary and James and Joses of Mark 15 and Matthew 27 and Luke 24. The only reason to deny the connection is that it contradicts the tradition that Mary of Nazareth is the mother of Jesus. So to eliminate this contradiction, the effort is made to separate these two Marys into different characters. But there's no other basis for separating them. They are the same character if the text is taken straightforwardly.
In addition to the incompatible crucifixion scene, with Mary present, there is another indication that Jesus was not the son of Mary and brother of James.
Evidence that Jesus was not the brother of James: The Epistles of James and Jude
Toward the end of the New Testament there are two epistles, James and Jude, which are attributed to the two brothers James and Jude, sons of Mary, and supposedly brothers of Jesus.
And yet, neither of these epistles gives any identification of them as brothers of Jesus.
The James author identifies himself as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (1:1), but not as brother of Jesus.
And the Jude author identifies himself as "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James" (1:1), but not brother of Jesus.
Why? If Jude scores extra points by identifying with James as his brother, why not also with Jesus? This makes no sense if the two were brothers of Jesus. There's a good chance that both epistles are authentically from the two brothers James and Jude, sons of Mary. But if not, and they are pseudonymous, they still should identify the authors as brothers of Jesus, if it's true that the two were brothers of Jesus. If it's appropriate for Jude to be identified as brother of James, surely also both of them should be appropriately identified as brothers of Jesus, if they were his brothers. So probably they were not.
So there is good reason to disbelieve the tradition that Jesus was the brother of James and son of Mary. This tradition could easily have arisen during the 30s or 40s, during the development of the Jerusalem church, before the Paul epistles. Jesus attracted several Galilean women to him, during his activity in that region, and Mary from Nazareth was obviously one of these Galilean women who accompanied him on the trip to Jerusalem. Maybe she "adopted" him in some sense, or the idea emerged that he was one of her sons.
There is no way to reconcile the crucifixion scene, where she is present and yet is identified only as the mother of James and Joses, with the idea that she was the mother of Jesus. Or to reconcile the idea that James and Jude (Judas) were his brothers with the absence of any mention of it in the two epistles of James and Jude.
So, why isn't it a good possibility that what we have was a different "Jesus" appearing in Mark 6:1-6, the rejection-at-Nazareth episode? and in Luke 4:16-30? who could perform no miracle there and made excuses why he didn't have to? and was rebuked with the insult "Physician, heal thyself!"? who was the real son of Mary & Joseph and had the 4 brothers James and Simon and Joses (Joseph) and Judas (Jude)? a different "Jesus" than the one who did miracles in Capernaum and other places and traveled to Jerusalem where he was arrested and crucified?
(This Wall of Text to be continued)