Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

[Ben Masada]

A nice fantasy, but that's not how it happened. We can show that through literary evidence. For 20 years, communities were established outside of Jerusalem. Mark reads far less urban than either Matthew or Luke. Q actually reads very, very rural. Since we posit that Q was probably produced around 40, the community that produced it must have been established earlier than that -- less than 7 years after the crucifixion.

Put together Acts 9 with Galatians 1 and try to tell me again if what I said about Paul was fantasy. But first try to loose off the blinders. Otherwise, you won't be able to see the truth.

 

[sojourner]

Put together Acts 9 with Galatians 1 and try to tell me again if what I said about Paul was fantasy. But first try to loose off the blinders. Otherwise, you won't be able to see the truth.

Doesn't address my post at all.

 

[Francis]

and wife of Jesus

Hold on there! Whoa, little too much Da Vinchi Code? no, Jesus was NOT married to Mary. And i think that they were the same Mary. Because Jesus went to them and already knew them after Lazarus had died. Peace!

 

[Ben Masada]

Hold on there! Whoa, little too much Da Vinchi Code? no, Jesus was NOT married to Mary. And i think that they were the same Mary. Because Jesus went to them and already knew them after Lazarus had died. Peace!

Hey Francis, I agree 101 percent with you that Jesus and Mary used to relate to each other long before Lazarus had died. Now, if you find too hard to conceive that Jesus was married to Mary, harder it will be to find out that he was not a Rabbi, or Teacher or a religious Jew, and perhaps even a Jew at all.

 

[Francis]

I don't know. I'm just stating what I've been told. I really have no reasoning! Peace!

 

[gnostic]

Then why is Mary Magdalene is never mention in connection to Bethany?

And whenever Mary of Bethany is mentioned anywhere in the gospels, she is mentioned with Lazarus or Martha (or with both), but the name "Mary Magdalene" is never mention with these two siblings.

If Magdalene is never mention with the town or siblings, then it is safe to say that are 2 different Marys - one from Galilee and one from Bethany (in Judaea).

 

[Ben Masada]

I don't know. I'm just stating what I've been told. I really have no reasoning! Peace!

Hey Francis, why let go such a negative statement about you? What is this of having no reasoning? Do not underestimate yourself.

The NT and being Jewish give us enough evidences that Jesus was married and with one woman called Mary. Of Bethany when in Bethany or of Magdala when in Magdala.

 

[Ben Masada]

Then why is Mary Magdalene is never mention in connection to Bethany?

And whenever Mary of Bethany is mentioned anywhere in the gospels, she is mentioned with Lazarus or Martha (or with both), but the name "Mary Magdalene" is never mention with these two siblings.

If Magdalene is never mention with the town or siblings, then it is safe to say that are 2 different Marys - one from Galilee and one from Bethany (in Judaea).

Magdalene is the pseudonym which stuck to the same Mary because of Mary's not so kosher business in Magdala. She is not called Magdalene in Bethany for obvious reasons. Family. That's the place of her family and things like that which could remind Mary of her business becomes just natural to be avoided. After all, Mary was the owner of her place in Bethany. That's an added reason for Martha and Lazarus to respect her wishes.

Now, with regards to the possibility of two Mary's who anointed Jesus, should not be food for thought, because it could turn out to be poison strong enough to eliminate the Jewishness of Jesus. Don't forget, Jesus was a religious Jew.

 

[gnostic]

Magdalene is the pseudonym which stuck to the same Mary because of Mary's not so kosher business in Magdala. She is not called Magdalene in Bethany for obvious reasons. Family. That's the place of her family and things like that which could remind Mary of her business becomes just natural to be avoided. After all, Mary was the owner of her place in Bethany. That's an added reason for Martha and Lazarus to respect her wishes.

This is silly.

Why would the gospel authors avoid using "Magdalene" to Mary's name in Bethany?

Neither MM nor MB was the author of any of those gospels. Nor were her siblings authors of the gospels. So it's mere speculation and imagination on your part.

If it (Magdalene) such as bad a reputation, then why is her name "Magdalene" is used when she stood near Mary mother of Jesus at the crucifixion, or at the resurrection, afterward, which is meant to be the holiest sign of Christian theology.

Sorry, but you are spinning too much webs of intrigues/conspiracies into an already complex Jesus' myth, and the worse of it, is that your claims are baseless and without much substances.

 

[Ben Masada]

This is silly.

Why would the gospel authors avoid using "Magdalene" to Mary's name in Bethany?

Neither MM nor MB was the author of any of those gospels. Nor were her siblings authors of the gospels. So it's mere speculation and imagination on your part.

If it (Magdalene) such as bad a reputation, then why is her name "Magdalene" is used when she stood near Mary mother of Jesus at the crucifixion, or at the resurrection, afterward, which is meant to be the holiest sign of Christian theology.

Sorry, but you are spinning too much webs of intrigues/conspiracies into an already complex Jesus' myth, and the worse of it, is that your claims are baseless and without much substances.

Mary had become too important in the life of Jesus after they got married. She would follow Jesus almost everywhere, as the beloved disciple.

The Church was not spiritually equipped to handle the truth that the second person of the Godhead had been married and possibly had children when he was on earth.

Then, the Church conspiracy developed in the sense of bringing back Mary's business name in the last part of Jesus' life on earth in order to diverge the mind of the readers from the possibility that there was anything between Jesus and Mary.

They thought of almost everything, even to replace Mary with John as Jesus' beloved disciple, when all evidences were against the idea, considering that Jesus was a religious Jew.

Besides, the Romans would never allow a disciple of a crucified even approach the site of the Calvary. Only women if close family.

If you read what Pope Gregory I said about Mary Magdalene's reputation you would not discard my words. I tell you with all the letters and without speculation: If Mary was not married to Jesus, there was no Jesus but a mythological Christ fabricated by Paul.

If it's too hard for you to check about this Pope Gregory I, you can just open your Bible in Luke 7:37. The woman who anointed Jesus was a prostitute. Probably, Simeon the Pharisee didn't know yet that Jesus had already married her.

 

[Oberon]

Hey Francis, I agree 101 percent with you that Jesus and Mary used to relate to each other long before Lazarus had died. Now, if you find too hard to conceive that Jesus was married to Mary, harder it will be to find out that he was not a Rabbi, or Teacher or a religious Jew, and perhaps even a Jew at all.

Didn't we go throught this before?

1. Rabbinic judaism DID NOT EXIST during Jesus' day. The title "rabbi" was more or less equivalent to "sir" but it could also mean "master" or "teacher."

2. Ever heard of the the Qumran documents (or better yet, read them)? There were plenty of celibate Jews.

 

[Ben Masada]

Didn't we go throught this before?

1. Rabbinic judaism DID NOT EXIST during Jesus' day. The title "rabbi" was more or less equivalent to "sir" but it could also mean "master" or "teacher."

2. Ever heard of the the Qumran documents (or better yet, read them)? There were plenty of celibate Jews.

Yes, we must have gone through this before, as we have gone through the issue of Rabbinical Judaism before, but what kind of feedback you guys want if you keep returning to the same questions over and over again?

Who told you that Rabbinical Judaism did not exist at the time of Jesus? Rabbinical Judaism started 200 years before the birth of Jesus. Where do you think the criticism of the Pharisees about the excessive practice of handwashing come from, if not Rabbinical Judaism? Where do you think the nuances about dietary laws at the time of Jesus come from, if not Rabbinical Judaism? Your own NT is crowded with evidences of Rabbinical Judaism at the time of Jesus.

Regarding Jesus being a Rabbi, Master or Teacher, a male man would not be addressed as such if he was not a married man. Nicodemus, a very learnt Pharisee, would address Jesus as a Rabbi. He would know what a Rabbi is to use such a title on someone who was not one. (John 3:1) Jesus' disciples would also address Jesus as a Rabbi, and Mary Magdalene would call Jesus Rabboni, a coloquial term among wives of Rabbis.

Celibacy was and still is a shame in Israel. It was very common at the time of Jesus for a young man to take a wife even before his twenties and walk around proud as a peakoch displaying two, three or more children at 30.

Yes, there was a very small fringe of the society to adopt celibacy. A small faction of Essenes, but they would seclude themselves in monastery-like environment as guardians of sacred writings. But a larger contingent of Essenes would marry.

Regarding the Qumran documents, I have tried to read some, especially Isaiah, and I saw no difference from what we already have in the Massorectic text. And about celibacy, I saw nothing. Josephus makes reference to it, as practiced by some stereotype small groups who would choose to dedicate themselves to sacred writings.

 

[Oberon]

Who told you that Rabbinical Judaism did not exist at the time of Jesus? Rabbinical Judaism started 200 years before the birth of Jesus. Where do you think the criticism of the Pharisees about the excessive practice of handwashing come from, if not Rabbinical Judaism? Where do you think the nuances about dietary laws at the time of Jesus come from, if not Rabbinical Judaism?

From Pharisiac Judaism, an ancestor of rabbinic Judaism, and from the other similiar groups (like some of those described as "scribes"). But all these groups still honored the temple (with the exception of the Essene sect, who also had similar practices). They are not called rabbis, any more than anyone else was. They are called "pharisees." We have no indication that they were not just as involved in temple activity as other Jews, nor that they did not consider the temple as the center of their faith, as with other Jews. It is likely (though uncertain) that after the destruction of the temple their attention to a "wall around the torah" via an "oral torah" eventually became full-blown rabbinic judaism. However, prior to this time, the only Jewish group we know of that forsook the temple as the center of Jewish life was the Essene sect.

Regarding Jesus being a Rabbi, Master or Teacher, a male man would not be addressed as such if he was not a married man. Nicodemus, a very learnt Pharisee, would address Jesus as a Rabbi.

Here is the problem with your point. It comes from John's gospel. Yet John specifically tells us what "rabbi" means: οι δε εἶπον αυτω· ραββί· ὃ λέγεται μεθερμηνευόμενον διδάσκαλε/"and they said to him, 'rabbi' which, being translated, means "teacher."

The same gospel also records that John the Baptist was called "rabbi" (Jn 3:26) and he was also unmarried.

Matthew (23:7-8) also indicates that "rabbi" was used simply as a form of honorific address, not the specific position it refers to in later rabbinic judaism: καὶ τοὺς ἀσπασμοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς καὶ καλεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ῥαββί ῥαββί ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ κληθῆτε ῥαββί· εἶς γάρ ὑμῶν ἐστιν ὁ διδάσκαλος, ὁ Χριστός· πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε/and greetings in the agora/town center and to be called by men 'rabbi, rabbi.' But you (pl.) should not be called "rabbi." For one of you is the teacher, the christ, and all of you are brothers.

Mary Magdalene would call Jesus Rabboni, a coloquial term among wives of Rabbis.

This is so indicative of your complete ignorance of 2nd-temple judaism. The term "rabbouni" is a transliteration of the aramaic form of "rabbi." There is zero evidence that it was a "term among wives of rabbis."

To read back the practices and standards of later rabbinic judaism into the NT period is considered the hallmark of bad scholarship and error in both the field of NT studies and the study of Judaism of this period. I guess you didn't get the memo.

Celibacy was and still is a shame in Israel.

This is just about the only part you have right here. Most Jews were not celibate, and to get married was important. However, many Jews chose a different route. Jesus, like John the baptist, like some of the essenes, and presumably like some others, chose such a route.

And his actions WERE considered shameful. He was rejected by his hometown, his family thought he was insane, and so on. So the fact that he was considered shameful sort of negates your entire point here.

 

[gnostic]

I don't know about the history of the rabbi.

Who was the 1st rabbi? When did they exist?

Would prophets be considered rabbis?

 

[Oberon]

I don't know about the history of the rabbi.

Who was the 1st rabbi? When did they exist?

Would prophets be considered rabbis?

Rabbinic Judaism developed after the destruction of the temple. There was no "first rabbi." The rabbis used traditions that had developed prior to the destruction of the temple, but after the destruction synagogues began to grow in importance and mulitply and rabbinic schools began. Around 200CE, the tradition/laws of the rabbis were written down in the Mishnah. Some of the material in the mishnah is probably very early, but it is next to impossible to sort out early from late.

Basically, rabbinic judaism didn't "appear" with a "first rabbi." The framework had been building ever since the first destruction of the temple. It was furthered by the hasmonean dynasty and the resulting factions and disputes, and the growing important of an "oral torah" and teachers (like Hillel, Shammai, and Jesus) who would collect disciples, offer interpretations of scripture, etc.

What is important is that rabbinic schools, and the rabbinic laws that Ben Masada is referring to are from a much later date, after study of the torah had replaced the temple and a formal rabbinic judaism had been formed. It was a that point that being a "rabbi" meant something very specific.

During Jesus' day, it was simply an honorific address.

 

[gnostic]

And how are the Pharisees different from the Rabbis?

 

[Oberon]

And how are the Pharisees different from the Rabbis?

1. The central difference would be the temple. The center of Jewish life, and of Israel, was the temple. Even for Jesus, this was an incredibly important symbol. Rabbinic Judaism became a replacement after the destruction of the temple. Rabbinic schools (which did not exist in pharisaic judaism) and synagogues became the places of worship, and study of the torah the new priesthood.

2. The pharisees were not the only Jews who used oral traditions in a way similar to how the rabbis would. At the very least, we know that Jesus and the Essenes also used particular understandings of the torah, and of laws (purity laws and the like) going beyond what was written in scriptures. We also know that many other Jews were described as zealots.

3. Pharisaic Judaism was nowhere near as well formed and set as rabbinic Judaism. You could think of it as a proto-rabbinic judaism, but like I said in (2) they were not the only ones with traditions similar to what would become rabbinic Judaism. To use just one example, Ben Masada is claiming that no "rabbi" would have been unmarried. This is because in full-fledged rabbinic judaism there were many such practices and customs which had become more or less set. Pharisiac judaism did not have that same level of complexity.

 

[gnostic]

Thanks for both posts and answering my questions.

It make a lot of sense.

Here some frubals.

ps I could only give frubals for one post.

 

[Oberon]

Thanks for both posts and answering my questions.

My pleasure. Glad I could help.

 

[Ben Masada]

Here is the problem with your point. It comes from John's gospel. Yet John specifically tells us what "rabbi" means: οι δε εἶπον αυτω· ραββί· ὃ λέγεται μεθερμηνευόμενον διδάσκαλε/"and they said to him, 'rabbi' which, being translated, means "teacher."

Master, Teacher or Rabbi, it doesn't matter. A Jewish man could not have any of those titles as a single man. He would lose his credibility and respect.

The same gospel also records that John the Baptist was called "rabbi" (Jn 3:26) and he was also unmarried.

How do you know? Prove to me that he was unmarried. You remind me of a guy in another forum, who would challenge me to prove that Jeremiah was married. When I proved to him that he was married with children, he disappeared from the forum. Perhaps embarrassed for his unreasonable stiff necked attitude.


This is so indicative of your complete ignorance of 2nd-temple judaism. The term "rabbouni" is a transliteration of the aramaic form of "rabbi." There is zero evidence that it was a "term among wives of rabbis."

I live here in Israel and all my life in a Jewish environment. All you have to argue against me is your ignorance of what you are talking about. But I understand you. I guess you have a lot to lose if you ever have to believe that Jesus was a married man.

To read back the practices and standards of later rabbinic judaism into the NT period is considered the hallmark of bad scholarship and error in both the field of NT studies and the study of Judaism of this period. I guess you didn't get the memo.

I have many years of study about Jewish life in the First Century. Your ignorant argument is completely destitute of scholarship because you can't prove anything you say.


This is just about the only part you have right here. Most Jews were not celibate, and to get married was important. However, many Jews chose a different route. Jesus, like John the baptist, like some of the essenes, and presumably like some others, chose such a route.


Do you want a sample of your ignorance on this issue of Jesus' marriage? Open your NT and prove to me that Jesus was not married. Your mind is not equipped for the reality that Jesus was married. All your assertions are based on empty assumptions.

And his actions WERE considered shameful. He was rejected by his hometown, his family thought he was insane, and so on. So the fact that he was considered shameful sort of negates your entire point here.


It seems to me that you prefer that Jesus was rather a homosexual than a lady's man. Imagine a Jewish male in the First Century rooming around with 12 unemployed men and calling one of them his beloved. What picture do you make of him? Is that the Jesus you prefer that he was? Perhaps you are talking about a Greek Jesus and not the Jewish one I am talking about.