The women watching at the crucifixion of Jesus in Mark 15:40-41

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The women watching at the crucifixion of Jesus in Mark 15:40-41

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2023 11:02 pm Oh men! I should criticize you harshly for squeezing this story into schemes that have little to do with it and thereby overlooking the essential point.

Until this moment, GMark was a story in which the characters following Jesus were men. The role of the unnamed women was limited to the home and a passive role (mother-in-law of Peter). Women sought help from Jesus but were not active disciples. This was particularly noticeable at the feeding of the 5.000 in GMark 6:44, where only men are said to have been present.
Oh woman! I think you understate the role of women up to this moment and throughout Mark. Women, as few as they are, stand out. His mother leads the band that tries to rescue him from the crowded house. Two women who "sought help from Jesus" really stand out: the bleeding woman innovates the healing ministry to increase throughput; the Syrophoenician woman is the one and only character in the entire work who bests Jesus in debate. And how interesting that Peter's mother-in-law returns Jesus's favor in healing her on the Sabbath, to get up and do some work to benefit him. Maybe it's not just the Son of Man who's the Lord of the Sabbath, eh?

I'd at least consider that the feeding of the 5K was a Jewish affair, while the feeding of the 4K seems to have been either Gentile or mixed, based on the baskets used for the left-overs if nothing else. That may have some relevance to the gendering of the one and not the other.
Mark, the master of dispense, plays his final card as the author of this story. With the appearance of these women within the story, new hope arises: OK, the men have completely failed, but perhaps these women can bring the story to some sort of conciliatory end. Our entire hope as readers that this story could have a happy end now rests on these women.
Which is one reason why I believe that 16:9-14 is "authentic" (whether or not "original," as if that hard-to-define quality had any relevance to the authenticity of a performance work, or even of a mute literary one).

I agree with you (maybe you'd agree anyway) that the appearance of the women is a typical Markan device (which I have facetiously called a "Markan hand grenade") which defeats the obvious curtain line of the Centurion announcing Jesus's divinity (as Crossan believes actually was a curtain line at some stage of development of the performance). "Oh, I guess the show is over now," thinks the first-time spectator, "Oh wait, what's this? Women from afar? What women? Where did they come from?" And we're off again until the second false curtain (Joseph securing the tomb), defeated by the women seeing that, too.

(The third and final false curtain IMO - and there would have to be three with Mark - is verse 16:7.)
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The women watching at the crucifixion of Jesus in Mark 15:40-41

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 5:06 am Oh woman! I think you understate the role of women up to this moment and throughout Mark.
Hi Paul, I just wanted to kindly point out that sometimes at least part of the solution lies simply in the story itself that's being discussed, and it's worth thinking about it. I know you always do that.

nightshadetwine wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 12:35 pm Yeah, I'm already familiar with this interpretation, and I don't necessarily disagree that this could be part of the "role" that the women play in the story. But this doesn't contradict the mystery cult context and Mark wanting to tell an empty tomb/missing body story.
I agree with you that the motive of mourning women is important and it's good that you pointed it out. But at the same time I think that the women in GMark 15 & 16 don't really fill that role.

It's like the anointing. Somehow Jesus is a king and a prophet is expected to appear and anoint him in great ceremony. But only a woman comes and pours nard perfume over his head, which he accepts for his later burial. One expects mourning women, but there are only a few women at distance who observe everything and do not wail for the dead. An expectation is created in order to disappoint it. Perhaps John wanted to correct this with his story of Mary at the tomb. :scratch:
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The women watching at the crucifixion of Jesus in Mark 15:40-41

Post by Michael BG »

nightshadetwine wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2023 11:56 pm This view that there was some type of "pure" Judaism that was untouched by Hellenism isn't really accepted anymore by a lot of scholars. Just because you don't want to be influenced by something, doesn't mean you're not going to be influenced by your surroundings. That's just not how reality works. Jews didn't worship humans that became divine - pagans did. Of course, there were Jews that were less Hellenized than others. The Jewish Christians were less Hellenized (but still Hellenized to an extent) than someone like Paul, but that doesn't mean they weren't Hellenized at all.
I asked does M. David Litwa demonstrate these Greek ideas are present in first century Palestinian Jewish texts?

I am not aware of any non-Christian Jews worshipping a human. I would also argue that early Christians did not worship Christ. Paul could be an exception because he seems very Hellenized. Do you have any quotations from Paul’s seven ‘authentic’ letters where he says he worships Christ or wants his readers to worship Christ? When Christ became a god is an interesting question. After 120 CE seems probable and even after 136 is possible as it is so hard to date early Christian works. The idea of Jesus being in heaven or being a pre-existent being (Logos) is not evidence that he was worshipped.
gryan wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 1:01 am In your reconstruction, are the Mary, James, and Joses mentioned in Mk 6:3 the same persons as those referred to in Mk 15:40?

Are they the natural mother and brothers of Jesus referred to in Mk 3 and Acts 1:14?

Was τοῦ μικροῦ named James in Mark 15:40 the same person as τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου named James in Gal 1:19?

Do you consider the account of Paul's meeting with "James the Lord's brother" in Galatians to be historically accurate?
I am open to the possibility that Mary, James, and Joses mentioned in Mk 15:40 are the mother and brothers of Jesus mentioned in 6.3. However Marian, Jacob and Joseph were common names in 1st century Palestine. (I am not convinced that the John and Joseph who were born in Carlisle are ancestors of my grandfather {John} born in Cumbria as their names are common and the surname is not unique.) I am also open to the possibility that James in Mk 15:40 is the same person as James the brother of the Lord in Gal 1:19. I think Paul wrote “except James”, but it is 50/50 that “the brother of the Lord” is an interpolation.
gryan wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 1:01 am Did the author of Mark possibly read Paul's letter to the Galatians?
I have no view on this, but I am working my way through Richard Carrier’s case for Mark using Paul’s letters as a source and I am a long way from being convinced that Mark even knew 1 Corinthians.
gryan wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 1:01 am What do you interpret τοῦ μικροῦ to mean?
It seems to mean little or small in size, but could mean lesser or younger. If I remember Theissen correctly he would argue for ‘younger’ because when the Palestinian source was written James son of Zebedee was still alive. From Mark’s use of the word, 'little' looks the most likely. ‘Little’ is a surname today. Little John from Robin Hood. I would be interested to know if there are examples in other Greek texts where it is used to mean ‘younger’. Mark uses νεοτητος in 10:20 for youth and νεον for young in 2:22. (1 Tim 5:1 has νεωτερους for younger.) I am open to persuasion.
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 5:06 am I agree with you (maybe you'd agree anyway) that the appearance of the women is a typical Markan device (which I have facetiously called a "Markan hand grenade") which defeats the obvious curtain line of the Centurion announcing Jesus's divinity (as Crossan believes actually was a curtain line at some stage of development of the performance). "Oh, I guess the show is over now," thinks the first-time spectator, "Oh wait, what's this? Women from afar? What women? Where did they come from?" And we're off again until the second false curtain (Joseph securing the tomb), defeated by the women seeing that, too.

(The third and final false curtain IMO - and there would have to be three with Mark - is verse 16:7.)
I enjoyed reading this. Perhaps it is evidence that Crossan is correct, but this does really fit with him saying that 15:40-41 “are pre-Markan tradition”.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

ErevTill Disfunction

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLC9o_unLq4
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 12:12 pm
I agree with you that the motive of mourning women is important and it's good that you pointed it out. But at the same time I think that the women in GMark 15 & 16 don't really fill that role.

It's like the anointing. Somehow Jesus is a king and a prophet is expected to appear and anoint him in great ceremony. But only a woman comes and pours nard perfume over his head, which he accepts for his later burial. One expects mourning women, but there are only a few women at distance who observe everything and do not wail for the dead. An expectation is created in order to disappoint it. Perhaps John wanted to correct this with his story of Mary at the tomb. :scratch:
JW:
When betting on women's tennis I always bet against the heterosexual and when interpreting GMark I almost always agree with KK. GMark has a primary theme of discrediting supposed historical witness to Jesus and a primary style of reversed expectation (irony). Women weeping for the dead is a common literary presentation and I've previously indicated how "Mark" inverts (irony) it:

"The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter”

Verse Physical Death Spiritual Death
5
35 While he yet spake, they come from the ruler of the synagogue`s [house] saying, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Teacher any further?
36 But Jesus, not heeding the word spoken, saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Fear not, only believe.
37 And he suffered no man to follow with him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James.
38 And they come to the house of the ruler of the synagogue; and he beholdeth a tumult, and [many] weeping and wailing greatly.
39 And when he was entered in, he saith unto them, Why make ye a tumult, and weep? the child is not dead, but sleepeth.
40 And they laughed him to scorn. But he, having put them all forth, taketh the father of the child and her mother and them that were with him, and goeth in where the child was.
41 And taking the child by the hand, he saith unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise.
42 And straightway the damsel rose up, and walked; for she was twelve years old. And they were amazed straightway with a great amazement.
43 And he charged them much that no man should know this: and he commanded that [something] should be given her to eat.
Yes No
14
37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour?
38 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
39 And again he went away, and prayed, saying the same words.
40 And again he came, and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they knew not what to answer him.
41 And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough; the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
42 Arise, let us be going: behold, he that betrayeth me is at hand.
43 And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
...
66 And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest;
67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, [even] Jesus.
68 But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is [one] of them.
70 But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, of a truth thou art [one] of them; for thou art a Galilaean.
71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
No Yes

These are the only uses of "weeping" by the author. The offending word is a popular word in a religious context and used far more by all other Gospellers. This suggests that the restricted use here is contrived and intended to connect the stories:

Peter follows Jesus and comes before a Jewish leader and a crowd of witnesses. The issue is arising from sleeping verses death and physical verses spiritual.

For those who need points sharply explained, at the (his) end Peter understands that his lack of faith in Jesus' words ("anyone who denies me") will save his physical life but end his spiritual life (the Satan could only have come out of him through prayer at Gethsemane). Simon will now ironically follow Jesus' command in the connected story not to tell any man about Jesus' power over death. Thus 16:8 as ending fits the general theme of GMark and is therefore the best evidence for 16:8.

Sure, if you are(were) a believing Christian it's depressing to find out that the original Gospel narrative was clear that Peter did not believe Jesus was resurrected but, just like Coptics have the best dope, Jewish counter-missionaries have the best apologies. Jesus says not to tell any man. But women were told. So you just need to have faith to believe it (rather than supposed named historical witness). Just like the original Christian author, Paul, intended.
Regarding the forged LE having "weeping" at 16:10 this is of course evidence against the LE based on the above. Regarding "John" editing to have (some) Mary weeping at the end see my award winning Thread:

Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark


Joseph

In The Last Gazan Election Hamas Won All 5 Positions For North Gaza

https://thenewporphyry.blogspot.com/
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The women watching at the crucifixion of Jesus in Mark 15:40-41

Post by gryan »

Michael BG wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 6:54 pm
gryan wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 1:01 am What do you interpret τοῦ μικροῦ to mean?
I would be interested to know if there are examples in other Greek texts where it is used to mean ‘younger’. Mark uses νεοτητος in 10:20 for youth and νεον for young in 2:22. (1 Tim 5:1 has νεωτερους for younger.)
Re: The meaning of τοῦ μικροῦ

I had never considered these usages before:

Mk 10:20
“Teacher,” he replied, “I have kept all these from my youth (ἐκ νεότητός μου).”

Mk 2:20
And no one pours new (νέον) wine into old wineskins.

1 Tim 5:1
Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men (νεωτέρους) as brothers...

In my opinion, it does not mean younger.

As in small-minded, in my exegesis of the Jameses of Mark/Galatians τοῦ μικροῦ means the opposite of great (μέγας) leadership (as exemplified by a "slave of all", James son of Alphaeus, son of Mary, Mark 16:1, the pillar James, Gal 2:9).

Mark 10:43
...whoever wants to become great (μέγας) among you must be your servant...
and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11300
nightshadetwine
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: The women watching at the crucifixion of Jesus in Mark 15:40-41

Post by nightshadetwine »

Michael BG wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 6:54 pm I asked does M. David Litwa demonstrate these Greek ideas are present in first century Palestinian Jewish texts?
Which Palestinian Jewish texts do you have in mind? The Dead Sea Scrolls show signs of Hellenism. The imperial cult was already in Palestine by the first century so Palestinian Jews would have already been familiar with the concept of a deified human.
Michael BG wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 6:54 pm I am not aware of any non-Christian Jews worshipping a human. I would also argue that early Christians did not worship Christ. Paul could be an exception because he seems very Hellenized. Do you have any quotations from Paul’s seven ‘authentic’ letters where he says he worships Christ or wants his readers to worship Christ? When Christ became a god is an interesting question. After 120 CE seems probable and even after 136 is possible as it is so hard to date early Christian works. The idea of Jesus being in heaven or being a pre-existent being (Logos) is not evidence that he was worshipped.
It's hard to know what exactly the earliest Christians (pre-Paul) thought about Jesus - all we have is what Paul says. According to Paul, they believed that Jesus was raised from death and exalted to heaven by God. Paul seems to believe that Jesus is a savior - through Jesus followers can gain eternal life or salvation from death. I don't know exactly what would qualify as "worship".
nightshadetwine
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: The women watching at the crucifixion of Jesus in Mark 15:40-41

Post by nightshadetwine »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 12:12 pm I agree with you that the motive of mourning women is important and it's good that you pointed it out. But at the same time I think that the women in GMark 15 & 16 don't really fill that role.

It's like the anointing. Somehow Jesus is a king and a prophet is expected to appear and anoint him in great ceremony. But only a woman comes and pours nard perfume over his head, which he accepts for his later burial. One expects mourning women, but there are only a few women at distance who observe everything and do not wail for the dead. An expectation is created in order to disappoint it. Perhaps John wanted to correct this with his story of Mary at the tomb. :scratch:
In Mark 15 the women are said to be the women who "ministered to him". This is the exact role that women play in mystery cults. They often have a protective and nursemaid type role in the life of the dying and resurrecting savior. Mark doesn't have to state that they were mourning because they obviously would be.

In Mark 16 the women are there to find the empty tomb. Jesus is reborn as a divine being out of a tomb or womb. The women are there as the nursemaids or wet nurses to take care of the newly born. It's part of the reason why it's women who find the tomb empty. That's not the only reason of course. The women have more than one role in the story.
davidmartin
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The women watching at the crucifixion of Jesus in Mark 15:40-41

Post by davidmartin »

nightshade the curious idea the tomb is a type of birth seems kind of logical especially going from the epistles
interesting take!

over in the odes they have no idea of that though cause there's not really a resurrection. instead here the cross sort of gets compared to the bond of marriage as found in the OT. i suspect they were applying the previous idea onto the cross here. a simple reading of the odes just has the messiah 'not being touched by death' and continuing to exist in heaven and on earth through the body of the church. i suppose if they were to have had a gospel it would have had the cross then no tomb but the first visionary encounter directly after. Could the tomb be something that developed a bit later?
nightshadetwine
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: The women watching at the crucifixion of Jesus in Mark 15:40-41

Post by nightshadetwine »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 1:55 pm over in the odes they have no idea of that though cause there's not really a resurrection. instead here the cross sort of gets compared to the bond of marriage as found in the OT. i suspect they were applying the previous idea onto the cross here. a simple reading of the odes just has the messiah 'not being touched by death' and continuing to exist in heaven and on earth through the body of the church. i suppose if they were to have had a gospel it would have had the cross then no tomb but the first visionary encounter directly after. Could the tomb be something that developed a bit later?
Do you mean Jesus being buried in a tomb or the finding of his tomb empty? Maybe the idea of Jesus being buried in a tomb predates Mark. I'm not sure that Paul specifies what kind of burial Jesus had. I think the story of people finding his tomb empty is likely created/made-up by the author of Mark.
davidmartin wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 1:55 pm nightshade the curious idea the tomb is a type of birth seems kind of logical especially going from the epistles
interesting take!
There seems to be some evidence of viewing the tomb as a return to a mother's womb in ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman culture. Paul describes Jesus as the "first-born among many brothers and sisters" and in John Jesus talks about a second birth "from above" or through "spirit".

“My Beloved Son, Come and Rest in Me”: Job’s Return to His Mother’s Womb (Job 1:21a) in Light of Egyptian Mythology, Christopher B. Hays in Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 607-621:
“And he said, ‘Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return there.’”

Job’s return to his mother’s womb has consistently attracted special attention from interpreters of the book; it has been seen as a “bump” in the text requiring smoothing. Fifty years ago, Giuseppe Ricciotti argued with elegant brevity that the archaeological remains of ancient Near Eastern burials could shed light on this problem; the fetal positioning of many such burials could explain the image of “returning naked to [the mother’s womb].” “If this womb was not materially identical to that of the mother,” Ricciotti wrote, “it was so symbolically.”

A number of significant commentaries have followed Ricciotti in treating the imagery as a poetic reference to burial, but as far as I can see, no one has pointed out that there are very clear Egyptian precedents for such imagery, in which the sarcophagus and/or tomb are described as the womb of the goddess in which the deceased undergoes a rebirth into the blessed afterlife. The fact that Job is already acknowledged as demonstrating awareness of Egyptian beliefs about the afterlife such as the judgment of the dead supports the idea of Egyptian influence in 1:21. The recognition of the source of this imagery not only clarifies Job’s rhetoric and its roots, it also sheds light on a longstanding debate over unusually shaped headrests in certain Jerusalem tombs from First Temple period...

In Egyptian funerary texts, there is “an astonishing consistency” to the imagery of death as a return to a goddess’ womb, from the Old Kingdom through the Hellenistic period. The image of the goddess Nut as the one who gives birth to the deceased king as her son—causing him to “revive and live”— is pervasive in the Old Kingdom Pyramid Texts. A few examples will suffice. Nut calls the king her son in Teti’s Spell 5a: “Teti is my son, whom I caused to be born and who parted my belly; he is the one I have desired and with whom I have become content.” The connection between this image of birth and the restoration of the body via the resurrection to the afterlife is well expressed by Pepi I’s Spell 337, which commands: “Nut, give your arm toward Pepi with life and authority, join together his bones, assemble his limbs, join his bones to his [head] and join his head to his bones, and he will not decay, he will not rot, he will not be ended, he will have no outflow, and no scent of his will come out.”...

The idea of preservation also includes protection; this is expressed in a different way in Pepi’s I spell 41a: “Osiris Pepi, your mother Nut has spread herself over you that she may conceal you from everything bad. Nut has joined you away from everything bad: you are the eldest of her children.” The comforting aspect of these texts is quite clear in such examples; and again, the entrance into the sarcophagus (and perhaps also into the tomb itself) is viewed as an entrance into the mother goddess, who then births the deceased into the afterlife.

In the outer sarcophagus of Merneptah from the New Kingdom (13th century), one can perceive even more clearly “the constellation of coffin and corpse as the union of mother and child,”... Assmann calls this an “entirely typical” image, “that of a mother goddess who embodies the coffin and welcomes the deceased, as he enters her, as her son.” A text from nearly a thousand years later echoes some of the same images: "My beloved son, Osiris PN, come and rest in me! I am your mother who protects you daily. I protect your body from all evil, I guard your body from all evil." Thus, the endurance of the imagery through the entire period of the Hebrew Bible’s composition is well established.

In some cases, as in Louvre Papyrus 3148, the human mother who bore and the divine mother who received were differentiated, even in comparison... It would be remiss to omit mention of archaeological and iconographic data the interpretation of which may be affected by this study. Certain elite Judean bench tombs from First Temple period have stone-carved headrests... These headrests, in Cave Complex 2 on the grounds of St. Étienne’s monastery in Jerusalem, have been given two interpretations, which have been thought to be in competition with each other: Archaeologist Gabriel Barkay has interpreted them as representing the “Hathor headdress,” named for the Egyptian goddess usually associated with it (Fig. 2);37 while Othmar Keel interpreted them as symbols of the womb, since very similar shapes can be understood as womb symbols elsewhere in Levantine iconography...

In light of what has been laid out above, the interpretations of the headrests as Hathor and as a womb can be seen to be complementary rather than contradictory. Indeed, within Egyptian mythology, they are completely compatible: Hathor was associated with the night sky, and she was another of the mother goddesses. Indeed, Hathor’s name in Egyptian (Ḥwt Ḥr) meant “Temple of Horus,” but Ḥwt came to be understood metaphorically as “womb,” so that Hathor was the “womb/mother of Horus” and later Re: "It was believed that Hathor, as the night sky, received Re each night on the western horizon and protected him within her body so that he could be safely reborn each morning. Based on this divine paradigm, Hathor was seen as a source for rebirth and regeneration of all the deceased, royal and nonroyal, and they all hoped for similar protection form her."...

In short, Hathor was very closely associated in Egypt with the womb and with hopes for rebirth, so the only surprise in finding the same association in First Temple Judah is for some biblical scholars and archaeologists who are accustomed to thinking that ancient Judeans had less awareness of Egyptian(izing) mythology than they probably did. Egyptian influence on First Temple tomb architecture is well established.
Maternal Grief in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford University Press, 2017), Ekaterina E. Kozlova:
The intersection of motherhood, grief, death, and afterlife is elevated to a whole new level in the cosmology of the ancient Egyptians. The tendency to encrypt death- and grief-related matters in maternal terms, already seen in other cultures, permeates Egypt’s mytho-religious consciousness in an unprecedented way... The aforementioned phenomenon of imbuing grief with maternal aspects, where normally it is not expected, can also be observed in the funerary cult of Osiris. The prominent figures of the cult are the two great wailing women, Isis and Nephthys, who offer lamentations not only for Osiris himself but for all of the dead as well.

Describing the deities involved in the cult, Assmann observes that Horus, Osiris’s son, does not participate in the mourning for his father... He states that ‘grief, and specifically female grief, was an unconditional form of handling death by bestowing life’ in the Netherworld.166 In light of such emphatic ‘gendered’ discussion of Isis and Nephthys’ mourning and their outcome—that is, Osiris’ regeneration—it is of interest that the sisters’ actions in the cult are also endowed with a maternal aspect. This can be inferred ‘from the name given them as early as the Pyramid Texts, viz. ẖnm.t.tj, the two female attendants, a term with the specific meaning of divine nurses. The deceased Osiris is in need of attendance as it is given to a baby.’ Such switch from the purely sisterly and wifely aspects in the ritual actions of the Isis–Nephthys pair to that of motherly care may echo the trend already observed in West and East Semitic mythologies and liturgies. But since the nursing and thus motherly features in the interaction of the deceased with other goddesses is a repeated motif in Egyptian coffin inscriptions, the sisters’ care for the dead Osiris cast in maternal terms may not be entirely unusual.

However, a more obvious maternal assistance to the dead in the Egyptian death cosmology was offered by the goddesses Neith and Nut, who greeted the deceased in the Netherworld. Their lengthy speeches are inscribed on a great number of Egyptian sarcophagi, which, by means of these monologues, become ‘vocal’ as well. In these inscriptions the coffin is represented as the body of the goddess that houses an entire divine realm and is prepared to welcome the dead. Assmann hypothesises that in the intimate, womb-like interior of a coffin one mother-goddess, Neith, represented ‘the outer boxshaped sarcophagus’, while another mother-goddess, Nut, ‘embodied the inner, mummiform sarcophagus’. For him, ‘the constellation of coffin and corpse [functioned] as the union of mother and child’. Nut, who is by far the most frequently featured goddess in coffin speeches, sometimes compares her Netherwordly functions to those of the biological mother offering the deceased rebirth and everlasting security in her cosmic womb...

According to the Egyptian worldview the maternal principle permeated the entirety of death geography. For the deceased the Great Mother takes on a plurality of forms. ‘She is the tomb, the necropolis, the West, and the realm of the dead; all the spaces that receive him [the dead], from the smallest to the largest, are manifestations of the womb into which the transfigured deceased enters.’ Based on the tomb scenes where divine and biological mothers coalesce, Assmann postulates that ‘the deceased’s own mother is also a manifestation of this ever maternal entity that is to receive the deceased in the form of the coffin, the tomb, and the West’. He further explains that: "Death as return to the womb was a central concept, one that extended into every area of Egyptian culture, every bit as much as that of the Judgment of the Dead, which belonged to the other image of death, that of death as enemy"...

The primal parental impulse to nurture, protect, and ensure flourishing is at the core of Egypt’s Netherworldly ontology engendered by Nut, Neith, Hathor, the goddess of the West, and other mother-goddesses. Echoing comparable ANE traditions the great wailing of the Isis–Nephthys dyad in Egypt’s principal death cult is likewise ascribed a maternal dimension.

166 Cf. Assmann’s comparison of the role of Isis in the Osiris cult with that of Mary, the mother of Jesus: ‘The scene of the Pietà, in which Mary holds the corpse of the crucified Jesus on her lap and mourns, is a comparable depiction of the body-centred intensity of female grief, in which Mary is assisted by Mary Magdalene, just as Isis is assisted by Nephthys.’ Ibid., 116. For the similarity in the iconographies of the two women, see also S. Higgins, ‘Divine Mothers: The Influence of Isis on the Virgin Mary in Lactans-Iconography’, JCSCS 3–4 (2012), 71–90. Apparently, in his treatise ‘Concerning Isis and Osiris’ Plutarch notes that ‘the all-powerful Isis allowed herself to be portrayed as a woman of sorrows to console suffering humanity’. Pinch, Handbook of Egyptian Mythology, 151. For the role of women in Egyptian mourning rites see, for example, D. Sweeney, ‘Walking Alone Forever, Following You: Gender and Mourners’ Laments from Ancient Egypt’, NIN: JGSA 2 (2002), 27–48; C. Graves-Brown, Dancing for Hathor: Women in Ancient Egypt (London: Continuum, 2010), 65–71; Wickett, For the Living, 159–163.
davidmartin
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The women watching at the crucifixion of Jesus in Mark 15:40-41

Post by davidmartin »

Do you mean Jesus being buried in a tomb or the finding of his tomb empty? Maybe the idea of Jesus being buried in a tomb predates Mark. I'm not sure that Paul specifies what kind of burial Jesus had. I think the story of people finding his tomb empty is likely created/made-up by the author of Mark
The gospels seem to say no-one expected the tomb to be empty and got a surprise! Tempting to see the unexpected bits being what got added by the author to an earlier thing where there wasn't the confusion and these changes support certain beliefs like resurrection of the body. I tend to see the women running around saying they saw him to be a visionary stage lasting decades where he gets seen in visions by his followers. The confusion in the gospels of the disciples is a way to explain why the older accounts don't say quite the same stuff - the disciples were confused but here's the real story

If those earlier followers saw the flesh as kind of irrelevant like Paul they might just of not had much concern for the burial they'd be all about the subsequent visions. The content of those visions wouldn't be the message they'd seen Jesus alive again from the tomb, they'd be they saw him continuing to live on as the leader, there'd be no surprise to them cause the whole point was life after death continuing on. I think they're using the tradition of a visionary phase to later tell the story their way, so the women's reports they have to keep, the most certain part of the gospel accounts
Post Reply