Question about Mark's view of Mary

[po18guy]

This is the “internal” approach that has NO evidence to back it up. There is evidence that Matthew was written quite early, which blows this whole elaborate theory out of the water. It doesn’t matter how many “scholars” hold to a theory with no outside evidence to support it, it’s still unsupported by any real evidence, and is actually damaging to Church teaching if taken too far. Indeed, the History Channel relies on it whenever it has a program on that challenges Church teaching (traditional interpretation, as they insist on calling it) for this very reason. It’s bad theorizing, makes for bad theology, and is unsupported by hard evidence.

As to Mary not understanding Jesus’ mission, once again, we have no clear evidence for this idea. Certainly, she wouldn’t necessarily have known every move he was to make, but she surely understood who he was and that whatever he did/said he had good reason for doing/saying it.

What I am immediately suspicious of is “modern scholarship”. This subject runs the gamut from teaching that the Gospels writers had to confer to get their stories straight, clear to the asinine and blasphemous conclusions of the “Jesus seminar”. It seems that modern man (certain scholars included), increasingly rejects or redefines God, and perceives himself somehow superior to those crude, unrefined ancients. Yet, show me a work of “modern scholars” which exhibits the sheer beauty and poetic revelation of God’s truth as the Gospels do.

Since Matthew apparently did not travel nearly as far as the others, it is quite possible that his Gospel was the first. It was written in Aramaic, but translated early on into Greek. No Aramaic text has been found. The connection of Mark to Rome places his Gospel rather later in the story, in my mind.

 

[NotWorthy]

Since Matthew apparently did not travel nearly as far as the others, it is quite possible that his Gospel was the first. It was written in Aramaic, but translated early on into Greek. No Aramaic text has been found. The connection of Mark to Rome places his Gospel rather later in the story, in my mind.

Although no Aramaic text has been found, didn’t St. Jerome claim to have a copy in Hebrew or Aramaic?

 

[Mintaka]

Re: “beside himself”

I think we should remember that the House of David was full of people who did wacky stuff under stress. Starting with David. So the cousins might just have been afraid that Jesus was going to run around in His underwear dancing, like David.

And I do seem to recall a certain incident of overturned tables and a handmade flail, and another mysterious one where a fig tree was cursed. So the Jesus acorn really didn’t fall far from the Jesse Tree. His family knew that.

 

[po18guy]

Although no Aramaic text has been found, didn’t St. Jerome claim to have a copy in Hebrew or Aramaic?

Possibly a Syriac text, but as I understand it, no original exists, only the Greek translation. The Syriac might be a re-translation into the ancient language - but this may have been post-Jerome.

 

[NotWorthy]

Possibly a Syriac text, but as I understand it, no original exists, only the Greek translation. The Syriac might be a re-translation into the ancient language - but this may have been post-Jerome.

But you see, just because none exists today, doesn’t mean that none existed in the 4th century. St. Jerome said he had the original language when he interpreted into Latin.

 

[Della]

Re: “beside himself”

I think we should remember that the House of David was full of people who did wacky stuff under stress. Starting with David. So the cousins might just have been afraid that Jesus was going to run around in His underwear dancing, like David.

And I do seem to recall a certain incident of overturned tables and a handmade flail, and another mysterious one where a fig tree was cursed. So the Jesus acorn really didn’t fall far from the Jesse Tree. His family knew that.

Many of the Hebrew prophets did so-called “crazy” things at God’s ordering. I won’t say Jesus’ was a bit crazy because of his family heritage–he was the Son of God not a neurotic nutcase, after all. Rather, he did things that he thought right to do, things that “respectable” people might find crazy or offensive. But God’s ways are not our ways, and He isn’t afflicted with a sin-damaged ego like we humans, who have to preserve our “dignity” above all else.

 

[Cristian_B]

…f she new already who he was considering his birth?

She didn’t knew how He was supposed to do His mission and neither who He was … she didn’t understand His words at the temple, when He was telling them that He was the Son of God, when He called the Temple ‘the House of my Father’. So it’s not like they knew at first.

 

[Nita]

But you see, just because none exists today, doesn’t mean that none existed in the 4th century. St. Jerome said he had the original language when he interpreted into Latin.

There is some historical support for an original Hebrew text for Matthew’s gospel.

Eusebius’ (265 AD - 340 AD) “Church History” - Book III, Chapter 39, paragraph 16:
newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

The “he”, bolded, underlined, & enlarged, refers to Papias. Papias was a companion of Polycarp, one of St. John’s disciples. It is thought St. Papias died in the early 100’s.
16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

 

[Nita]

Why would Mark in his Gospel state that the family of Jesus including his mother thought he was beside himself if she new already who he was considering his birth?

I guess it depends on which translation you read. The Greek doesn’t make it clear as to who (his family, some of the crowd, or others) was saying that he was “beside himself”.

The RSV translation of the Mark passage:
Mk 3:19b-22 Then he went home; 20. and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. 21. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself." 22. And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Be-el-zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons."The ones saying Jesus was “beside Himself” most likely refers to the scribes (eg vs 22) and Pharisees, and those in the crowds who accepted their words. His family was no doubt concerned for his welfare.

 

[po18guy]

But you see, just because none exists today, doesn’t mean that none existed in the 4th century. St. Jerome said he had the original language when he interpreted into Latin.

I am being educated as I go in this regard. Saint Jerome is certainly reliable, since he had disagreement with the Church on the canon, but denied himself and remained obedient.