Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B?

[Wick Stick]

This story appears in all four gospels, with some minor differences which would be fairly simple to harmonize, if one wanted.

It appears you are right that Lazarus and Simon the Leper and Simon the Pharisee were all the same person. Nice catch. It follows that the two Mary's are identical, as you say.

However, the logic you use to deduce that Jesus and Mary were romantically related is faulty, because it is built on a premise that we can prove isn't true.

Specifically, your argument hinges on the premise that Jesus would not allow a woman (other than his wife) to anoint him in such a way, as it would be a breach of decorum.

However, the text is specific that what was done WAS a breach of decorum. People were incredulous, and questioned him about it immediately.

In short, you (again) assume that Jesus adhered to standards of Jewish conduct that didn't come into existence until 10's or 100's of years after his death.

Jarrod

 

[RBBI]

In short, you (again) assume that Jesus adhered to standards of Jewish conduct that didn't come into existence until 10's or 100's of years after his death.

Jarrod

That simply isn't true. Why do you think such a big deal was made out of the woman that touched His robe? Why do you think she was embarrassed at being caught? In the decorum of the day it made her look like a prostitute trying to inappropriately touch a holy man. It simply wasn't done. Peace

 

[Wick Stick]

That simply isn't true. Why do you think such a big deal was made out of the woman that touched His robe? Why do you think she was embarrassed at being caught?

Because her "issue of blood" made her ceremonially unclean, and therefore anyone she touched was also unclean and needed to go through purification rituals?

Or something like that.

 

[Ben Masada]

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

1 - This story appears in all four gospels, with some minor differences which would be fairly simple to harmonize, if one wanted.

2 - It appears you are right that Lazarus and Simon the Leper and Simon the Pharisee were all the same person. Nice catch. It follows that the two Mary's are identical, as you say.

3 - However, the logic you use to deduce that Jesus and Mary were romantically related is faulty, because it is built on a premise that we can prove isn't true.

4 - Specifically, your argument hinges on the premise that Jesus would not allow a woman (other than his wife) to anoint him in such a way, as it would be a breach of decorum.

5 - However, the text is specific that what was done WAS a breach of decorum. People were incredulous, and questioned him about it immediately.

6 - In short, you (again) assume that Jesus adhered to standards of Jewish conduct that didn't come into existence until 10's or 100's of years after his death.

Jarrod

1 - Considering that the one to harmonize don't act under his or her Christian preconceived notions.

2 - Glad you agree with me.

3 - Please, would you mention the premise?

4 - Mind you that a strange woman is forbidden to address an Orthodox Jew in the public way-fare; let alone to anoint him with oil.

5 - Indeed! And that explains the behavior of an Orthodox Jew toward any other woman who was not his wife.

6 - For instance...

 

[Neopatriarch]

Mary was a very common name. There are no surnames that I recall in the Bible. The two Mary's came from different places. These phrases were used to create distinctions from the other known girls named Mary. If there had been only one, there would be no need for the distinction.

I have to vote NO, these are two separate women. Not that I get a vote.

 

[RBBI]

1 - Considering that the one to harmonize don't act under his or her Christian preconceived notions.

2 - Glad you agree with me.

3 - Please, would you mention the premise?

4 - Mind you that a strange woman is forbidden to address an Orthodox Jew in the public way-fare; let alone to anoint him with oil.

5 - Indeed! And that explains the behavior of an Orthodox Jew toward any other woman who was not his wife.

6 - For instance...

They just don't get number 4. There's also the fact what she had was so costly, about a year's wages worth, according to some scholar's. So someone had wealth, and Lazarus too, being a Pharisee, would have made a commotion over the impropriety of it going on under his roof, even if Yeshua didn't. Yet Lazarus didn't. All of it points to something unwritten going on. Peace

 

[Neopatriarch]

Subtext is a poor source for theology because it's an open window to Eisegesis.

 

[Greg Jennings]

This is a real evidence that Jesus was a married man. I only wish people would take a break from walking by faith and walked by sight for a change. To walk by faith while leaving the understanding with Paul, one will never be able to walk by sight. (II Cor. 5:7)

I've looked into this myself. There is actually very little evidence that Jesus was married, and even that's circumstantial evidence. Basically the two main points of that theory are that Jesus is said to have trusted MM more closely than most if not all of the disciples according to some non-canonical gospels and that MM may or may not have been traveling with a child to Greece some time after Jesus' death. It's iffy evidence to support a theory, at best

 

[Neopatriarch]

What there is, is a space. Jesus certainly has enough time to marry, have children raise them to adulthood. BUT space or rather time, undocumented time, doesn't impose that narrative on Jesus. Even when it might be true for the average guy, that doesn't compel Jesus in any way.

The other thing that may come up, is some people feel that Paul makes marriage all about avoiding sin. That would be an interesting thread. and of course this would be unnecessary for Jesus.

Lastly, if Jesus did marry and did have children, they would have had rockstar status among early believers. We just do not see that outside of fiction novels.

 

[Neopatriarch]

By the way, this is a great thread. I would like to thank the participants for the respect and level tenor shown here.

 

[RBBI]

I have to say for the most part, that is the norm here. I'm a newbie too and except for a few forgettable examples, all have been reasonably calm and respectful of other's sharing. Peace

 

[False Prophet]

:chew:

 

[Wick Stick]

Lazarus too, being a Pharisee, would have made a commotion over the impropriety of it going on under his roof, even if Yeshua didn't. Yet Lazarus didn't. All of it points to something unwritten going on. Peace

Read all 4 versions. Jesus answered Lazarus objections before he could even voice them. But, he was going to voice them.

Jarrod

 

[Wick Stick]

3 - However, the logic you use to deduce that Jesus and Mary were romantically related is faulty, because it is built on a premise that we can prove isn't true.

4 - Specifically, your argument hinges on the premise that Jesus would not allow a woman (other than his wife) to anoint him in such a way, as it would be a breach of decorum.

5 - However, the text is specific that what was done WAS a breach of decorum. People were incredulous, and questioned him about it immediately.

3 - Please, would you mention the premise?

#4 above is the premise.

4 - Mind you that a strange woman is forbidden to address an Orthodox Jew in the public way-fare; let alone to anoint him with oil.

5 - Indeed! And that explains the behavior of an Orthodox Jew toward any other woman who was not his wife.

Right. The only point of contention is that you say that Jesus wouldn't allow it, unless she were His wife.

It seems clear to me from the combined texts that He *did* allow it, and that everyone was shocked and surprised by it.

Why were they shocked? You say because they didn't know about a marriage. But the primary person to express shock turns out to be the woman's brother! Surely if such a marriage existed, he would have known.

Jarrod

 

[Zeke]

Gal 4:28, Oh can we enter into Sarah's womb and be born again physically like Isaac is thought to be? seems like a odd statement that believers are like Isaac if this means a physical birth!! oh well tradition trumps reason and the allegorical method that scripture is meant to be interpreted by.

 

[Wick Stick]

Gal 4:28, Oh can we enter into Sarah's womb and be born again physically like Isaac is thought to be? seems like a odd statement that believers are like Isaac if this means a physical birth!! oh well tradition trumps reason and the allegorical method that scripture is meant to be interpreted by.

I think the similarity has to do with the fact that Abraham was promised both. Not how they were born.

"I will make of you a father of goyim," says the Bible. Goyim is the Hebrew word for Gentiles.

 

[Ben Masada]

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Mary was a very common name. There are no surnames that I recall in the Bible. The two Mary's came from different places. These phrases were used to create distinctions from the other known girls named Mary. If there had been only one, there would be no need for the distinction.

I have to vote NO, these are two separate women. Not that I get a vote.

In that case, you have brought the credibility of Jesus down to zero for being a religious Jew - Casa Nova. How could he be anointed by several different women, and in public for heaven's sake! He could have never been able even to officiate as a Rabbi. Mary Magdalene indeed came from two different places; professionally as a courtesan from Magdala where she had her business and as a private woman from Bethany where she had her family home with Lazarus and Martha.

BTW, you vote for two separate women. Why not for four? Each gospel mentions the same anointing: Mat. 26:6; Mark 14:7; Luke 7:32; and John 12:3. At least, you have proved that Jesus was indeed a Casa Nova. Wasn't he some thing?

 

[RBBI]

Like I said, they just don't get number 4. Peace

 

[Neopatriarch]

In that case, you have brought the credibility of Jesus down to zero for being a religious Jew - Casa Nova.

I am afraid you did that. These are your assessments and conclusions.

Matthew 12:34b
For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Stop adding to the text. You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.

 

[Ben Masada]

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

#4 above is the premise.

Right. The only point of contention is that you say that Jesus wouldn't allow it, unless she were His wife.

It seems clear to me from the combined texts that He *did* allow it, and that everyone was shocked and surprised by it.

Why were they shocked? You say because they didn't know about a marriage. But the primary person to express shock turns out to be the woman's brother! Surely if such a marriage existed, he would have known.

Jarrod

Very good WS! You have left me with only one way out. That the Simon the leper who was a Pharisee was not Lazarus since at that time lepers in Israel was a very common sight and, the shock at the anointing was about the value of the perfume that could be sold and the money used to help the poor. (John 12:3-11) True that Judas alone spoke but the shock was in the faces of all who were ready with a difference reason in cased asked.

Then, there is something else: To delete the case to have happened as a fact but of a later pious forgery interpolated to degrade the role of the Pharisees in Israel. That was very common among the Fathers of the Church when the Canon of the NT was organized.