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.
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 »

gryan wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 7:41 am
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:
I am glad to provide something new for you to consider.
nightshadetwine wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 12:56 pm
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.
If there are no Palestinian Jewish texts which show Greek ideas in the first century then M. David Litwa case is weakened.

I am not aware of any Hellenistic religious thoughts in the Dead Sea scrolls. Can you provide any examples of this where I can’t argue that it is Persian religious though which is being demonstrated?

The Jews were outraged by the idea of a statue of Gaius Caligula being erected in the Temple. So they rejected the idea of a deified human, which was an eastern idea that spread to Rome. It was normal for dead Roman Emperors to be defied not live ones. It seems unlikely that Domitian called himself a god during his lifetime.
nightshadetwine wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 12:56 pm 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".
I would not classify a belief in Jesus Christ being in heaven as evidence he was worshipped.

Did Marcion preach the worshiping of Jesus Christ? I am not aware that he did.
Which Christian fathers wrote that Jesus Christ is equal with God the father? It is likely that it wasn’t until the late second century that this idea was made clear.
nightshadetwine wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 1:06 pm 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.
In Mark’s gospel Jesus is not reborn as a divine being. Paul sees him as a heavenly being like angels but that is not the same.
nightshadetwine wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 3:53 pm 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.
I am not convinced 1 Cor 15:3-12 was written by Paul. Paul based his belief in the resurrected Jesus Christ on his visions of him. For him Jesus’ resurrection was a sign that the general resurrection would be soon.

Many New Testament scholars used to see a pre-Marcan tradition behind both the burial in a tomb and the empty tomb. I need to study the arguments for and against there being a pre-Markan tradition behind these before making my mind up.
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: Fri Nov 24, 2023 10:24 pm If there are no Palestinian Jewish texts which show Greek ideas in the first century then M. David Litwa case is weakened.
Litwa's book isn't about pre-Christian Jewish texts. He focuses on the NT texts. He just gives a brief overview of the scholarship on Hellenism in Palestine.
Michael BG wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2023 10:24 pm I am not aware of any Hellenistic religious thoughts in the Dead Sea scrolls. Can you provide any examples of this where I can’t argue that it is Persian religious though which is being demonstrated?
Some of the texts are written in Greek. But to get back to my original point, you don't need texts that show Hellenistic influence, there's also archeology and other evidence that shows Hellenism in Palestine. So it's possible that the original followers of Jesus who claimed he was raised to heaven after death were familiar with the imperial cult.
Michael BG wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2023 10:24 pm The Jews were outraged by the idea of a statue of Gaius Caligula being erected in the Temple. So they rejected the idea of a deified human, which was an eastern idea that spread to Rome. It was normal for dead Roman Emperors to be defied not live ones. It seems unlikely that Domitian called himself a god during his lifetime.
This isn't how reality works though. You can be influenced by things without wanting to be. A culture that is ruled over by another culture is usually going to pick up influences from the ruling culture. This is exactly what we find in the NT texts.
Michael BG wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2023 10:24 pm I would not classify a belief in Jesus Christ being in heaven as evidence he was worshipped.

Did Marcion preach the worshiping of Jesus Christ? I am not aware that he did.
Which Christian fathers wrote that Jesus Christ is equal with God the father? It is likely that it wasn’t until the late second century that this idea was made clear.

In Mark’s gospel Jesus is not reborn as a divine being. Paul sees him as a heavenly being like angels but that is not the same.
I guess this depends on what exactly is considered to be "worship" and what is considered to be a "divine being". By "divine being" I mean he is translated into an immortal glorified being.

Paul's letters are all we have so we don't really know what the Christians before Paul believed. Paul claims Jesus was raised by God and highly exalted. Jesus isn't equal to God but he shares in some of God's powers. This exaltation of Jesus is a lot like the exaltation of the Roman emperors in the imperial cult.

See:

"The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult" by Adela Yarbro Collins in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism (Brill, 1999)

Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2014), M. David Litwa

"Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew" by Wendy Cotter in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study: Studies in Memory of William G. Thompson (Eerdmans Publishing, 2001)

Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity (Routledge, 2014), Richard C. Miller
dbz
Posts: 532
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

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

Post by dbz »

nightshadetwine wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2023 11:55 am This exaltation of Jesus is a lot like the exaltation of the Roman emperors in the imperial cult.

See:

"The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult" by Adela Yarbro Collins in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism (Brill, 1999)

Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2014), M. David Litwa

"Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew" by Wendy Cotter in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study: Studies in Memory of William G. Thompson (Eerdmans Publishing, 2001)

Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity (Routledge, 2014), Richard C. Miller
  • N.B. the imperial practice of seating statutes of reigning monarchs in the temples of greater gods, indeed at the right hand of the larger statue of that temple’s god. Esp. when the cult was taken to new levels with Hadrian.
Emperor Cult Taken to New Levels
. . . and they worshipped the beast (Rev 13:4)
.
Hadrian received more divine honors in the Greek East than any of his predecessors. These honors, among them the unprecedented erection of statues, his worship in shrines, and close association with many Greek divinities, strengthened his relationship with the region and placed him in the heart of religion and the Greek pantheon. In honoring him the Greeks identified Hadrian with major divinities of their pantheon. Hadrian became the manifestation of Zeus, Apollo and other gods on earth, and a number of epithets were used to address him as a god. (Kritsotakis 162)
.
Hadrian was hailed by the Greeks in an unprecedented association with Zeus and was viewed by them as the new Olympian who would preside over their councils and lead them. (Kritsotakis 163)

--Godfrey, Neil (28 May 2022). "Hadrian the God". Vridar.
Cf. Kritsotakis, Demetrios. Hadrian and the Greek East: Imperial Policy and Communication. PhD, Ohio State University, 2008.
dbz wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:00 am
D. Clint Burnett of Boston College argued that the terminology of the apocalyptic section of 2 Thessalonians (esp. 2:4) matched known epigraphic and literary evidence of a widespread and well-known royal and imperial practice of seating statutes of reigning monarchs in the temples of greater gods, indeed at the right hand of the larger statue of that temple’s god. He made an excellent case for that; this was clearly the practice the author of 2 Thessalonians was conjuring.
Carrier (10 December 2018). “Adventures at the Society of Biblical Literature Conference, Part 3: Closing Out”. Richard Carrier Blogs.
It is possible to date 2 Thessalonians to the “Emperor Cult" being taken to new levels with Hadrian and the Divine! (Godfrey, Neil (28 May 2022). "Hadrian the God". Vridar. )
So when the author departed from his observation of current affairs and ventured to predict the future, he failed. And this failure, says Turmel, dates the composition of this epistle to the early months of 135 c.e.
Godfrey, Neil (31 May 2011). "Identifying the "Man of Sin" in 2 Thessalonians". Vridar.
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 »

Re: "a pre-Marcan tradition behind both the burial in a tomb and the empty tomb."

When delving into the historical context behind the text, it's crucial to start by understanding the surface-level details presented in the text itself. Surprisingly, scholars, both modern and ancient, consistently fail to consider the possibility that there may be two Marys distinguished by their respective sons: "Mary of Joses" at the burial and "Mary of the James" at the empty tomb. This kind of distinction is precisely what's needed when dealing with two women named Mary, each with sons named James.

My interpretation commences with what I deem apparent, given the rarity of the name "Joses": "Mary of Joses" (the birth mother of Jesus and the mother of "James the Lord's brother" in Galatians) can be equated with "Mary," the mother of "Joses" in Mark 6:3 and 15:40 (Cf. parallels in Matt, erasures in Luke). On the other hand, "Mary of the James" (as seen in Luke 24:10 and referring to James son of Alphaeus, who is the pillar James in Galatians) corresponds to Matthew's ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία (27:61, 28:1), signifying another Mary—adding a third Mary to the list of Magdalene and "the mother of James and Joseph" (the natural mother of Jesus).

Three Marys—Jesus' mother, Mary Magdalene, and another—can also be identified in the Gospel of John. While the prospect of John drawing from a pre-Markan tradition remains speculative, I interpret John as incorporating the synoptic Marys, as previously outlined. The rationale behind John introducing John's third Mary as "Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ" (instead of the synoptic mother of James son of Alphaeus) poses a more complex question.

The book of Galatians is the most significant pre-Markan source available for our examination. Before Jerome's essay on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, commentators such as Victorinus embraced the notion that there were two prominent individuals named James in Jerusalem: "the Lord's brother according to the flesh," whose views were heterodox, and the pillar apostle, James, who exhibited a similar alignment with Paul's gospel as Peter and John did. I find this interpretation to be quite compelling and worthy of consideration.

There's much more to explore on this topic, and I'm working on my upcoming book on proto-canonical Galatians. My approach involves building upon Carlson's critical text, incorporating some additional alternative textual decisions, and tracing its intertextual literary echoes not only in Acts and Hebrews but also in Mark and 1 Peter, among other related texts. Through this exploration, I'm uncovering a Galatians that is different—perhaps strangely different—from the Galatians we are familiar with.
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 »

dbz wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:23 pm
  • N.B. the imperial practice of seating statutes of reigning monarchs in the temples of greater gods, indeed at the right hand of the larger statue of that temple’s god. Esp. when the cult was taken to new levels with Hadrian.
Right! I recently read some stuff by D. Clint Burnett. This idea of the king sitting at the right side of a deity seems to go back to Egyptian theology. Looking at the Egyptian coronation rituals and the theology associated with the king, you can find almost every divine motif associated with Jesus in the NT texts and the emperor in the imperial cult.

* The Egyptian king is said to be preexistent (cf. Jesus in Paul and John)
* The Egyptian king has a divine birth myth where a deity impregnates the king's mother. There are depictions of some of the kings hidden out in the marshes of Egypt in emulation of Horus. Horus had to be hidden when he was a child by Isis because Seth wanted him dead (cf. Herod trying to kill Jesus)
* Every king was said to defeat the forces of darkness and chaos and bring together the divided kingdom of Egypt. At his birth, the king is said to make Egypt like it was during the time of Re (cf. the messiah and Jesus making Israel like it was during the time of David as mentioned in his birth stories)
* At the king's coronation, he is purified with water and performs a death and rebirth ritual in emulation of the sun god and is declared to be the son of a deity. The king is also transfigured during this coronation ritual where he merges with his "ka" which is also the spirit of god (cf. Jesus at his baptism and transfiguration. The spirit of god in the form of a dove enters Jesus at baptism)
* As part of his deification process, the king receives the divine names of different deities (cf. Jesus receives the name above every other name)
* The Egyptian kings were referred to as the "good shepherd" who protects the weak, poor, orphans, and widows
* After death, the king is resurrected and glorified. He is raised to the heavens were he joins his father. (cf. Jesus at his resurrection and ascension)
* Cataclysms such as earthquakes happen at the death and resurrection of the king (cf. earthquakes and darkness happening at the death of Jesus and at the finding of the empty tomb in Matthew)

You also find a lot of these tropes in the Roman imperial cult.

The Egyptian World (Routledge, 2007), Toby A. H. Wilkinson:
Maat’s role in creation is expressed in chapter 80 of the Coffin Texts (c.2000 BC) where Tefnut, the daughter of Atum, is identified with maat, the principle of cosmic order, who, together with Shu, the principle of cosmic ‘life’, fills the universe (Faulkner 1973: 83–7; Junge 2003: 87–8). Maat is, therefore, one of the fundamental principles of the cosmos, present from the beginning, like the personification of Wisdom in the later Biblical tradition (Wisdom of Solomon 7, 22; 7, 25; 8, 4; 9, 9)... Even the ‘monotheist’ Akhenaten, while aiming to abandon all myths in favour of a single divine concept of the Aten, still mobilized some very old mythical constellations in order to enhance his claim to the throne. He declared himself the sole son of his god, and his ka and representative on earth (Silverman 1995: 74–9), while presenting himself – in both text and image – as Shu, the firstborn son of the Heliopolitan creator god Atum... The triad of Atum, Shu and Tefnut is significant; there is reference to the time when Atum ‘became three’ (Coffin Texts II, 39c–e). His ka (‘vital power’) is present in his two children (Pyramid Texts 1652a–1653a). During the reign of Akhenaten, the iconography of the king, his queen Nefertiti and the Aten reflects that of Shu, Tefnut and Atum...

The Pyramid Texts trace the king’s birth back to the time of the primordial creator god. He is said to have been born from the self-impregnated sun god Ra or Atum; or even from Nun. An inscription in Theban Tomb 49 reads ‘The king was born in Nun before heaven and earth came into being’. The Memphite Theology united the king with Ptah.
Hidden Riches: A Sourcebook for the Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East (Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), Christopher B. Hays:
As an example of the way in which Egyptian creation myths were most commonly expressed, a spell of the pharaoh Pepi I from the Pyramid Texts claims that he was born from Atum “when the sky had not yet come into being, when the earth had not yet come into being, when people had not yet come into being, when the gods had not yet been born, when death had not yet come into being” (Pyramid Texts, 1466). Since the pharaoh expected to be a god in his afterlife, this was no great theological stretch.
The ancient Egyptian books of the afterlife (Cornell University Press, 1999) Erik Hornung:
The violent arrival of the king in the sky is depicted in an especially striking manner in the Cannibal Hymn of spells 273-274. Because the king is repeatedly identified with the creator god Atum, we encounter many allusions to this deity's act of creation... Concepts of creation play a role in a number of spells, for the deceased often appears as primeval god and creator; a series of spells revolves around the constellation of the creator god and his "children," Shu and Tefnut, who carried on the work of creation.
King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008), Adela Yarbro Collins and John J Collins:
Eckart Otto has argued persuasively that Psalm 2 combines Egyptian and Assyrian influences. He finds Assyrian influence in the motif of the rebellion of the subject nations, and in the promise that the king will break the nations with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. These motifs suggest a date for the psalm in the Neo-Assyrian period. The declaration that the king is the son of God, however, has closer Egyptian parallels. The idea that the king was the son of a god is not unusual in the ancient Near East... Only in the Egyptian evidence, however, do we find the distinctive formulae by which the deity addresses the king as "my son". The formula, "you are my son, this day I have begotten you," finds a parallel in an inscription in the mortuary temple of Hatshepsut: "my daughter, from my body, Maat-Ka-Re, my brilliant image, gone forth from me. You are a king, who take possession of the two lands, on the throne of Horus, like Re." Another inscription of Amenophis III has the god declare: "He is my son, on my throne, in accordance with the decree of the gods." At the coronation of Haremhab, Amun declares to him: "You are my son, the heir who came forth from my flesh." Or again, in the blessing of Ptah, from the time of Rameses II: "I am your father, who have begotten you as a god and your members as gods." Such recognition formulae occur frequently in Egyptian inscriptions of the New Kingdom period. Otto suggests that the psalm does not reflect direct Egyptian influence, since the closest Egyptian parallels date from the New Kingdom, before the rise of the Israelite monarchy. Rather, the Hofstil of pre-Israelite (Jebusite) Jerusalem may have been influenced by Egyptian models during the late second millenium, and have been taken over by the Judean monarchy in Jerusalem.

The interpretation of Isaiah 9 in terms of an enthronement ceremony is not certain. The oracle could be celebrating the birth of a royal child. The word is not otherwise used for an adult king. But the accession hypothesis is attractive, nonetheless, in light of Psalm 2. The list of titles is reminiscent in a general way of the titulary of the Egyptian pharaohs. Most importantly, the passage confirms that the king could be addressed as elohim, "god"... The king is still subject to the Most High, but he is an elohim, not just a man. In light of this discussion, it seems very likely that the Jerusalem enthronement ritual was influenced, even if only indirectly, by Egyptian ideas of kingship. At least as a matter of court rhetoric, the king was declared to be the son of God, and could be called an elohim, a god... The invitation to the king to sit at the right hand of the deity, however, has long been recognized as an Egyptian motif, known from the iconography of the New Kingdom. Amenophis III and Haremhab are depicted seated to the right of a deity. The position is not only one of honor, but bespeaks the very close association of the king and the deity. The invitation to the king suggests that at his enthronement he was thought to be seated at the right hand of the deity...

The cultural environment must also be taken into account. in the Hellenistic ruler cults and especially in the imperial cults, men who were once human beings were honored and worshiped as gods. Some were even worshipped as gods during their earthly lifetimes. The messiah of Israel was conceived at first primarily as a king, of his own nation first of all and then of the whole world. The understanding of Jesus that emerged after his resurrection involved his kingship over Israel and over the entire world. Given the practices of the imperial cults, it is not surprising that Jesus was viewed as a god and that worship of him became an alternative to the worship of the emperor.
Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2014), M. David Litwa:
Literarily speaking, Mark makes the transfiguration a kind of fulcrum for his book. Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah (or anointed ruler) (8:29). On the Mount of Transfiguration this kingly status is dazzlingly revealed. The way that Mark describes the metamorphosis, however, indicates that a more-than-human messiahship is portrayed. The metamorphosis of Jesus is an epiphany of a divine being... Mark’s transfiguration account is associated with the coming of God’s kingdom (Mark 9:1), and the declaration “This is my beloved son!” is also an echo of royal traditions (Ps. 2:7). Instead of opposing kingship and godhood, Marcus remained open to the idea that royalty and divinity were linked...

Recently, Michael Peppard has fruitfully compared Mark’s use of “son of god” with its use chiefly among Roman emperors (the cosmocrators of Mark’s day). Peppard emphasizes that Roman imperial sonship occurred through adoption, that is, the election of a grown man by the ruler producing a transfer of power (since the adopted one inherited the rule of his father). With Marcus, Peppard views the formula “You are my beloved son” spoken at Jesus’ baptism—and restated at the transfiguration—as a means of adopting him to divinity. This is not a low christology. “To the contrary,” Peppard observes, “adoption is how the most powerful man in the world gained his power.” This “most powerful man in the world”—the Roman emperor—was also a god. Peppard, in accord with new trends in conceiving of the emperor’s divinity, concludes that “son of god”—when applied to the emperor—does not imply “absolute” divinity or an abstract divine essence. (This notion of divinity, he rightly points out, is restricted to philosophical circles.) Rather, like the emperor, Jesus was divine in terms of his status: as Yahweh’s declared son and heir, Jesus was now able to exercise Yahweh’s power and benefaction...

For Peppard, Jesus’ baptism is “the beginning of his reign as God’s representative.” Virtually the same declaration (“This is my beloved son!”) heard by the disciples at the transfiguration, Peppard observes, confirms Jesus’ adoption as if it took place in a comitia curiata or “representative assembly” (practiced in Roman ceremonies of adoption). In the transfiguration, Jesus’ divine rule is proved to be more than a private vision. It is a revelation to faithful witnesses. Now the disciples know (or should know) that Jesus is Yahweh’s divine son and thus ruler of the world. The rule of God, as Jesus said, has come in power (Mark 9:1)... For Philo as for the Roman emperors, adopted sonship is real sonship... Mark’s understanding of Jesus as “son of God” is—as in emperor worship—less a matter of being than of rank: Jesus is the divine Messiah, empowered by God to inaugurate the kingdom...

The present essay zeroes in on a single divine honor that Jesus receives in his ascent/exaltation: the reception of a divine name. We learn of Jesus’ reception of a divine name—what I will call “theonymy”—in one of the oldest texts of the New Testament, Philippians 2:6-11.1. Much ink has been spilled on the first half of this passage (vv. 6-8) among scholars studying the incarnation. In what follows, I will focus entirely on the latter half of the passage (vv. 9-11). Here the divine name bestowed upon Jesus is called “the name above every name”... By depicting the prostration of all creation to Jesus (v. 10), the author alludes to Isaiah 45:23 (LXX), where Yahweh proclaims, “To me every knee shall bow and every tongue confess.” Since every knee bows to Jesus (Phil. 2:10), the writer grants Jesus the cultic prerogatives specific to Yahweh...

Even though Isaiah 45:23 clearly stands in the background of Phil. 2:9-11, early Jewish sources, I will argue, provide no analogous tradition of a human being receiving the name of Yahweh. Rather, the meaning of theonymy in Phil. 2:9-11 is informed chiefly by contemporary Roman imperial practice. As with so many imperial traditions, however, Roman emperors adapted theonymy from the royal customs of the eastern Mediterranean world. The first part of this chapter, then, also discusses traditions of royal theonymy in ancient Egypt and Greece...

From the beginning of the first dynasty, Egyptian Pharaohs assumed the names of their gods . In earliest times, pharaohs were invoked solely with the Horus name, a name “which designated the Pharaoh as the manifestation of the old sky god Horus.” By bearing this name, Pharaoh became “Horus in the palace,” or Horus present on earth. Beginning with the fourth dynasty, however, pharaohs received a fivename royal titulary... A representative example of the fivefold titulary is that of Pharaoh Thutmoses III (1479–1425 bce), who recounts how he received his titles on the walls of the temple of Amon-Re (the Egyptian high God and Creator) at Karnak. Before the names are given, Thutmoses III describes his ascent to heaven (cf. Jesus’ exaltation in Phil 2:9): “He [Re] opened for me the portals of heaven; he spread open for me the portals of its horizon. I flew up to the sky as a divine falcon, that I might see his mysterious form which is in heaven.” In the celestial world, Thutmoses is endowed with the crowns of Re and outfitted with the ultimate symbol of power, the uraeus-serpent. He receives all of Re’s “states of glory,” along with the wisdom of the gods, and “the dignities of the God.” Finally Amon-Re draws up Thutmoses’s titulary. The names are apparently received in heaven and announced at his coronation. Thutmoses reports, ..."he made my kingship to endure like Re in heaven... he gave me his power and his strength... I am his son, who came forth out of him, perfect of birth"

Immediately after he lists his names, Thutmoses tells how Amon-Re made all peoples submit to his authority... Theonymy, as we see, leads to dominion and the prostration of enemies. Such a sequence recalls the events narrated in Phil. 2:9-11, where every knee bows to Christ the cosmocrator. Thutmoses inspires fear when he bears the names of his God(s); he has become Amon-Re’s vice-regent on earth, wielding the God’s power and authority. By bearing his divine names—the most primitive symbols of divine power—Thutmoses can boast that his Father, Amon-Re, “made me divine.” The reception of the five throne names in Egypt had not passed into oblivion by the Hellenistic and early Roman periods... Ptolemaic kings were deified while still alive. Their reception of the fivefold titulary was a way to depict their divine status. As later pharaohs of Egypt, Roman emperors continued to use the fivefold titulary, though in an abbreviated form...

Apart from obvious differences between Christ and the Caesars, however, there remains a common meaning underlying the two traditions of theonymy. In the first century ce, hellenized peoples around the Mediterranean employed theonymy as a way to deify their emperor—that is, to integrate the emperor into the larger cult of Greco-Roman Gods (with Zeus generally acknowledged as the high God). I believe that a similar function underlies the use of theonymy in Phil. 2:9-11. In a culture featuring other deities and deified men, the author of this text did not need to invent out of whole cloth a new vocabulary to express Jesus’ divinity and promotion to become God’s vice-regent. The writer could employ the widespread encomiastic practice of theonymy, whose implications were widely understood... The author of Phil. 2:6-11 knew, presumably, that those who bear a particular god’s name also bear that god’s status. Just as the emperors exercised world sovereignty as plenipotentiaries of Zeus, so the exalted Jesus obtained Yahweh’s name as Yahweh’s cosmic vice-regent. Such vice-regency implies a divine status, and depicting Jesus in a divine status amounts to a deification... If Paul (who transmits Phil. 2:6-11) opposed imperial ideology, he also re-inscribed it in an attempt to exalt Jesus over the imperial gods of his day. Again, we see the same pattern emerge that we saw in other chapters: Christians compete with perceived cultural rivals, but in the very thick of that competition they assimilate and appropriate cultural ideas to promote the unique deity of their lord.
Temples of Ancient Egypt (I.B. Tauris, 1997), Byron E Shafer:
The royal ka was the immortal creative spirit of divine kingship, a form of the Creator's collective ka. The ka of a particular king was but a specific instance, or fragment, of the royal ka... Possessing the royal ka and being possessed by it were potential at a person's birth, but they were actualized only at his coronation, when his legitimancy upon the Horus Throne of the Living was confirmed and publicly claimed. Only at a person's coronation did he take on a divine aspect and cease to be solely human. Only in retrospect could he be portrayed as predestined by the Creator to rule Egypt as truly perfect from the beginning, as divine seed, son of the Creator, the very flesh of god, one with the Father, god's incarnation on earth, his sacred image.
Becoming Divine: An Introduction to Deification in Western Culture (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2013), M. David Litwa:
The ka was the divine spirit of the king, a spirit he shared with all pharaohs who came before him and all who would come after. Although the king's ka was shaped and molded as the "twin" of the king at his birth, it was officially inherited at his coronation. For the Pharaoh, the ka was the divine principle in his person: the "immortal creative spirit of the divine kingship". It was the spirit of the creator and king of gods Amun-Re himself. Apart from his ka, Amenhotep III was a normal human being, subject to all human foibles and frailties. Endowed with the divine force of ka, however, Amenhotep III was son of the living God and god himself...

In the birth room, the king fully merged with his newborn ka in a secret ritual... After his rebirth, the king entered a long hall oriented east-west with twelve pillars. The twelve columns may have represented the twelve hours of the Sun God's journey through the netherworld. By processing through the colonnade, the king imitated the voyage of the Sun God in his journey by night in the netherworld. Now seething with divine energy, the king finally reappeared as if from a divine womb into the sunny court. The assembled throng had been anxiously awaiting to see if the rites had proved efficacious. When the Pharaoh emerged from the shadows, he reflected the bright Sun with his robe of shining gold and silver. The people roared at the sight of the regenerated divine king, splendidly crowned and glorious in triumph. By now, the humanness of the king had almost been fully submerged. The king was glittering with divinity. As the living manifestation of the Sun God, the people adored their transformed king as the source of their own life.
A Companion to Ancient Egypt (John Wiley & Sons, 2010), Alan B. Lloyd:
During this central ceremony of Kingship, a more or less ordinary mortal, whom many of the elite had known on a personal level, was transfigured into a living god... During the coronation, the king became possessed and transfigured.
"Water Rites in Ancient Egypt" by Jan Assmann and Andrea Kucharek in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (Walter de Gruyter, 2011):
What is the function of the "Baptism of Pharaoh" - the purification of the king - within the sequence of rites outlined at the beginning? Its mediating position can be seen from the situation within the sequence: the purification stands between leaving the palace and the coronation by the gods and is thus before entering the actual temple to settle: the purification, as the formulas 'Your purity is mine purity' and 'Your purity is the purity of Horus' etc., offset the king into a god-like state of purity, which first enables him to face the gods in action and to be recognized by them as one of their kind... In the three-part scheme of a "rite de passage" the purification would thus occupy the mediating phase of the transformation. The first phase, the detachment, is marked by leaving the palace, the third phase is reintegration through coronation, initiation and crowning confirmation. This ritually repeated coronation was evidently presented as a rejuvenation or even rebirth of the ruler... A purification as a prerequisite for initiation to the deity was also required when entering the afterlife... This was precisely the function of the cleansing also when the king enters the temple.
The Late Egyptian Underworld Sarcophagi and Related Texts from the Nectanebid Period (Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007), Colleen Manassa Darnell:
In Pyramid Text Spell 222. the arms of atum embrace the deceased king, just as they do in the "Amduat Cosmogony": 'Rest within the arms of your father, within the arms of Atum. O Atum, lift up this NN to you, surround him with your arms! He is your bodily son forever." As in the Pyramid Texts Spell 222, the recipient of the embracing action Atum-Tatenen in the sarcophagi is the Osirian deceased.
Death and Burial in Ancient Egypt (Longman, 2003), Salima Ikram:
Pyramid Texts are carved in vertical columns in sunk relief. They are frequently painted green or blue-green, alluding to the Osirian colour of rebirth, as well as to the sky to which the king ascends when he enters the eternal divine realm and becomes identified with Osiris. The spells are to aid the king in his ascent to the sky and to his reception into the kingdom of the gods.
The Search for God in Ancient Egypt (Cornell University Press, 2001), Jan Assmann:
"The Earth is made waste, the sun does not rise, the moon does not appear, it no longer exists, The ocean sinks, the land spins round, the river is no longer navigable. The entire world moans and cries, gods and goddesses, humans, transfigured ones, and dead, small and large cattle cry out loud..."

This ritual text is concerned with the death of Osiris, which brings the life of the cosmos to a standstill. But just as the sorrow of the gods makes the world desolate and life dry up, their joy inspires radiance and abundance. "Heaven laughs! the earth rejoices" sings the opening chorus of an Easter cantata by J.S. Bach on the theme of the resurrection of Christ, thus still displaying some consciousness of a dramatic interrelationship that connects God and humankind, cosmos and creature. Quite similarly, at a very early date, Egyptian texts began to celebrate the resurrection of the king, who has emerged from his tomb and ascended to the sky as a theophany. Here though, sky and earth participate in this event with mixed emotions, for the appearance of a new god upsets the balance of the world:

"The sky speaks, the earth trembles, the earth god quakes, the two divine domains cry out loud. The sky is cloudy, the stars are covered (?), the bow-lands quake. The bones of the spirits of the earth tremble. The face of the sky is washed, the Nine Bows are radiant."...

Texts also describe the death of the king and ascent to the sky (as in the Pyramid Texts cited earlier), or even his ascension to the throne, as in this text of Ramesses II: "The sky trembled, the earth quaked, when he took possession of the kingship of Re." All of these were events that were inserted, or could be included, in the dramatic context of the process of reality, events that were reflected in nature and had an effect on the cosmos.
The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs (Harvard University Press, 2003), Jan Assmann:
In terms of cult practice, specifically animal cults, the Ptolemies also referred to earlier traditions and extended them. Up to the threshold of the Ptolemaic era, animal cults had been a secondary phenomenon rather than the vital nerve center of Egyptian religion. Secondary phenomena can be indispensable, of course, and as early as the New Kingdom animal cults were already an integral feature of Egyptian religion. But the Ptolemies placed the animal cult at the very inmost heart of Egyptian religion. Every cult now had a triangular base:

cosmic/solar manifestation = (Re form) e.g., Apis-Osiris
living incarnation = (animal form) e.g., Apis bull
transfigured immortalization = (mummy as Osiris figure) e.g., Osiris-Apis.

Because the kings also saw themselves as living incarnations of the supreme deity, they occupied the same theological category as the sacred animals. Perhaps this explains their consuming interest in the animal cult. In any case, the connections between animal cult and royal cult were now very close... The first four Ptolemaic kings had themselves specifically lauded for hunting down and bringing back the divine images removed by the Persians; they thus cast themselves as the inheritors of the late Egyptian role of the savior-king... the Ptolemies made vigorous efforts to bring about a religious, cultural, and political synthesis between Egyptian and Greek traditions. In this regard, their most important move was the creation of a new god, Sarapis, who united within himself not only the Egyptian gods Osiris, Apis (Ptah), Amun, and Re, but was also identical with the supreme figures of other religions, notably Zeus. The cult policies of the first two Ptolemies established Sarapis and Isis as deities of such stature that their cults spread throughout the Mediterranean region... The Ptolemies spared no effort to rule the country in accordance with Egyptian ideas and practices. They instituted the annual priestly synod to discuss and adopt important political decisions. They also issued the "philanthropa" decrees, in which they presented themselves as law-abiding kings in the ancient Near-Eastern sense, as protectors of the weak and saviors of the poor.
Death and afterlife in Ancient Egypt (British Museum Press, 2001), John H Taylor:
Apis was believed to be incarnate in a bull, born to a virgin cow which was supposed to have been impregnated by Ptah through the agency of fire from heaven.
The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt(Thames & Hudson, 2003), Richard H. Wilkinson:
Mythologically, it was said that the Apis bull was born to a virgin cow that had been impregnated by the god Ptah.
"Conversion, Piety and Loyalism in Ancient Egypt", Jan Assmann, in Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions (Brill, 1999):
The pharaohs of the 12th dynasty adopted this ideology and rhetoric because they were still operating in a space where there were alternatives to the monocratic system. At the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C.E., the historical situation was still a situation of decision. Pharaoh had to present himself to his people as the most powerful patron of all, as "the good shepherd" to use the favorite metaphor of royal ideology. The role of the patron is unfolded in a great variety of metaphors. Beside the good shepherd we find images such as the pilot, the steering oar, the father of the orphan, the husband of the widow, all of which will reappear, along with some new ones, in the discourse of personal piety. There is a very obvious line of tradition, leading from the patrons of the FIP to royal ideology and from there to the theology of Personal Piety... The new Egyptian concept of God as formed within the context of Personal Piety inherits the traditional roles and images of the patron. Like the patrons of the FIP and the pharaohs of the MK, God is called pilot and steering oar, father of the fatherless, husband of the widow, judge of the poor.
The Mind of Egypt History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs, (Harvard University Press, 2002) Jan Assmann:
This, then, is the new development: god succeeds to the role played by the king in the Middle Kingdom and by the patron in the First Intermediate Period... From the New Kingdom, the deity was father and mother to all: father of orphans, husband of widows, refuge for the persecuted, protector of the poor, good shepherd, judge of the poor.
Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt (Oxford University Press,2002), Geraldine Pinch:
Like the creator deity Atum, she [Isis] is able to produce life without an active partner. She stimulates the “inertness” of Osiris and takes his seed into her body to conceive a son. An earlier version of this event in Coffin Texts spell 148 has Horus conceived by a flash of divine fire. Isis knows at once that she is carrying a son who will overcome Seth. She hides Horus in the marshes of Chemmis and brings him up to avenge his father... The place of Horus’s birth is said to be in the Delta, usually in the region of Chemmis. To evade his enemies, the divine child was hidden inside a papyrus thicket or on a floating island. This “nest of Horus” is one of the few mythical places that is commonly shown in Egyptian art. Temple wall scenes depict kings in the role of the Horus child in the marshes being washed or suckled by a cow...

The queen gives birth to the future ruler surrounded by deities who will nurse and protect the child and its spirit-double, the ka. This royal birth scene may be based on mythical prototypes, but it predates all the known depictions of the birth of infant gods. Greek myth has equivalent stories of Zeus’s disguising himself to seduce mortal women, but their focus is on very human emotions of lust and jealousy. The seductions by Zeus are set in a mythical age of heroes, and the god’s behavior may be criticized. In Egypt, such stories were a solemn part of the myth of divine kingship and were told about living people... Each Egyptian king was the “son” of the supreme creator god Amun-Ra but also Horus, the avenger of his father, Osiris...

Many kings claimed that they, like Horus, had been chosen to rule "while still in the egg"... The accession of individual kings might be validated by giving them a divine parent. One such royal birth myth is found in the inauguration inscriptions of King Horemheb [c. 1319-1307 BCE]. Horemheb was a soldier who served under Akhenaton and Tutankhamun, but the inscription presents his career in mythological terms. He is called the son of Horus...Horemheb claims that his exceptional qualities were evident as soon as he was born and that Horus of Hnes always intended that he should be king... Horemheb is then able to restore the country and it's institutions to the way things were "in the time of Ra"....

This inscription can be interpreted as a factual account of Horemheb’s inauguration at Thebes during the Opet Festival in the presence of statues of the gods, but it elevates these events to the divine realm. A historical event of the fourteenth century BCE becomes part of the repeating cycle of the acceptance of the rightful heir by the Divine Tribunal and his restoration of harmony to Egypt. In the Egyptian worldview, each reign was supposed to be a successful battle by the leader of the forces of order (the king or a prince representing him) against the forces of chaos (rebels, foreigners, and dangerous creatures or natural forces). Such victories were routinely attributed to the reigning king whether or not they had actually taken place, so that much Egyptian history is mythical in the modern sense of not being factually true.
Chronicle of a Pharaoh: The Intimate Life of Amenhotep III(Oxford University Press, 2000), Joann Fletcher:
At Luxor we can follow the great king from his divine conception right through his life, and beyond. The story begins with Amun diplomatically taking the form of Tuthmosis to visit Mutemwia, who is asleep in the inner rooms of her palace... "Words spoken by Amun-Ra: 'Amenhotep, ruler of Thebes, is the name of this child I have placed in your body ... He shall exercise the beneficent kingship in this whole land, he shall rule the Two Lands like Ra forever.'"
Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, Fully Revised and Expanded Third Edition (Paulist Press, 2006), Victor Harold Matthews, Don C. Benjamin:
Hatshepsut, like many rulers in the world of the Bible, was celebrated as the child of a human mother and a divine father... The annunciation to the wife of Manoah (judg 13:1-23), the annunciation to Hannah (1 Sam 1:9-18), and the annunciation to Mary (Luke 1:26-38) parallel the description of the birth of Hatshepsut:

"I, Amun-Re, promise Ahmose,
The divine patron of Thebes says to the queen:
'I have given you a child,
You will name her Hatshepsut.... (Judg 13:1-23; 1 Sam 1:9-18)
She will reign over the land of Egypt....'" (Luke 1:26-38)
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: Mon Nov 27, 2023 11:55 am So it's possible that the original followers of Jesus who claimed he was raised to heaven after death were familiar with the imperial cult.
It is more likely that the original followers of Jesus believed that Jesus was resurrected and was the first of a universal resurrection that would end time.
nightshadetwine wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2023 11:55 am
Michael BG wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2023 10:24 pm I would not classify a belief in Jesus Christ being in heaven as evidence he was worshipped.
By "divine being" I mean he is translated into an immortal glorified being.
I think it is more likely that the original followers of Jesus believed a resurrected person would be like an angel (see Mk 12:24).
nightshadetwine wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2023 11:55 am Paul's letters are all we have so we don't really know what the Christians before Paul believed. Paul claims Jesus was raised by God and highly exalted. Jesus isn't equal to God but he shares in some of God's powers. This exaltation of Jesus is a lot like the exaltation of the Roman emperors in the imperial cult.
Paul writes that Jesus was exalted into heaven and of him having a spiritual body like angels.

Jesus seems to have referred to the Son of Man as a heavenly being separate from himself. In the gospels often this title is used for Jesus. I think the earliest title for Jesus was Son of Man who is in heaven with God and he will come to earth at the end of time. (By the time Paul writes to the Galatians (post 57 CE) Jesus is being referred to as Son of God and messiah. This has nothing to do with the exaltation of Julius Caesar (42 BCE) and Augustus (14 CE). Tiberius however was not made a god straight after his death in 37 CE.
gryan wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 7:51 am Re: "a pre-Marcan tradition behind both the burial in a tomb and the empty tomb."

When delving into the historical context behind the text, it's crucial to start by understanding the surface-level details presented in the text itself. Surprisingly, scholars, both modern and ancient, consistently fail to consider the possibility that there may be two Marys distinguished by their respective sons: "Mary of Joses" at the burial and "Mary of the James" at the empty tomb. This kind of distinction is precisely what's needed when dealing with two women named Mary, each with sons named James.
You have decided that there is a pre-Marcan tradition behind the burial in a tomb and the empty tomb, but I am not convinced there is any. Nightshadetwine has suggested that the tomb burial and being empty ideas come from other religions of the time. It has been suggested that it is unlikely that Jews would have created a story where the witnesses are women, but it is possible someone with a Roman or Greek background would.
gryan wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 7:51 am My interpretation commences with what I deem apparent, given the rarity of the name "Joses": "Mary of Joses" (the birth mother of Jesus and the mother of "James the Lord's brother" in Galatians) can be equated with "Mary," the mother of "Joses" in Mark 6:3 and 15:40 (Cf. parallels in Matt, erasures in Luke). On the other hand, "Mary of the James" (as seen in Luke 24:10 and referring to James son of Alphaeus, who is the pillar James in Galatians) corresponds to Matthew's ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία (27:61, 28:1), signifying another Mary—adding a third Mary to the list of Magdalene and "the mother of James and Joseph" (the natural mother of Jesus).
Joses is a shorted Joseph. To say the name Joses is rare is like saying the name Joe is rare. Joses and Jesus were both common Jewish names.

I think arguing that a later writer have better information is not a good argument. There is no evidence that this James is the son of Alphaeus.
gryan wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 7:51 am Three Marys—Jesus' mother, Mary Magdalene, and another—can also be identified in the Gospel of John. While the prospect of John drawing from a pre-Markan tradition remains speculative, I interpret John as incorporating the synoptic Marys, as previously outlined. The rationale behind John introducing John's third Mary as "Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ" (instead of the synoptic mother of James son of Alphaeus) poses a more complex question.
There is evidence that John knew Mark’s gospel and so is not an independent witness.
gryan wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 7:51 am The book of Galatians is the most significant pre-Markan source available for our examination. Before Jerome's essay on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, commentators such as Victorinus embraced the notion that there were two prominent individuals named James in Jerusalem: "the Lord's brother according to the flesh," whose views were heterodox, and the pillar apostle, James, who exhibited a similar alignment with Paul's gospel as Peter and John did. I find this interpretation to be quite compelling and worthy of consideration.
It is possible there are two James referred to in Galatians but unlikely. It is not even definite that ‘the brother of the Lord’ in Gal 1:19 was in the original form of the letter.
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 Dec 16, 2023 5:18 pm It is more likely that the original followers of Jesus believed that Jesus was resurrected and was the first of a universal resurrection that would end time.
Yes, that is part of it. They were interacting with both Jewish and Greco-Roman concepts. Jews weren't expecting an individual to be the first of a universal resurrection. From the Greco-Roman context they are getting the concept of an individual dying and then being raised and exalted to heaven. They then combine this concept with the Jewish concept of an eschatological group resurrection. So Jesus becomes the first individual being raised and exalted before the eschatological group resurrection where everyone will be raised.
Michael BG wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2023 10:24 pm I think it is more likely that the original followers of Jesus believed a resurrected person would be like an angel (see Mk 12:24).
Well, we don't have anything written by the original followers so all we can do is speculate. Paul describes Jesus as being raised to heaven, exalted, and receiving power and rulership from God. Whether that fits the definition of an "angel" I don't really know.
Michael BG wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2023 5:18 pm Paul writes that Jesus was exalted into heaven and of him having a spiritual body like angels.
Angels didn't live and die as humans though. Jesus is raised to heaven and exalted like the emperors and heroes who lived as human beings, died, and then were raised to heaven and exalted.
Michael BG wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2023 5:18 pm Jesus seems to have referred to the Son of Man as a heavenly being separate from himself. In the gospels often this title is used for Jesus. I think the earliest title for Jesus was Son of Man who is in heaven with God and he will come to earth at the end of time. (By the time Paul writes to the Galatians (post 57 CE) Jesus is being referred to as Son of God and messiah. This has nothing to do with the exaltation of Julius Caesar (42 BCE) and Augustus (14 CE). Tiberius however was not made a god straight after his death in 37 CE.
Yes, Jesus becomes identified with the heavenly Son of Man. The Son of Man doesn't become a human, suffer, die, and then is raised back to heaven though.

Claiming Jesus is the son of God and Messiah has a lot to do with the imperial cult. Paul is a Hellenized Jew so when he says that Jesus is son of God and Messiah, he doesn't only have the Davidic king in mind, he's also comparing Jesus to the Roman emperors. He's competing with the imperial cult.

So it seems like where we differ in opinion is that you seem to be coming from a "Jewish only" perspective while I take more of a "Jewish AND Greco-Roman" perspective.

Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2014), M. David Litwa:
Specifically, the type of transformation imagined in Daniel 12 seems to be solely eschatological (i.e., occurring at the end of time) and collective (i.e., featuring groups of people, not an individual)—two features that accord well with the national and apocalyptic consciousness of Daniel’s author. This form of resurrection thus differs from the resurrection of Jesus, which is conceived of as individual and occurring before the general resurrection on the last day. To find a true analogue to the resurrection of Jesus, then, we would expect at least three elements: (1) resurrection as transformation into immortal life that (2) occurs to an individual, (3) before a mass resurrection at the end of the world. Where do we find this analogue? Christian theologians (ancient and modern) have declared that it is not in Judaism. Jesus’ individual, historical resurrection, they urge, is a complete novum in Jewish thought—a surprising and unheard-of act of God. As a result, such a resurrection legitimates the uniqueness of Christian revelation and truth. From an etic perspective, however, although individual corporeal immortalization may have been novel in Judaism, it was not distinctive in Hellenistic culture...

The present essay zeroes in on a single divine honor that Jesus receives in his ascent/exaltation: the reception of a divine name. We learn of Jesus’ reception of a divine name—what I will call “theonymy”—in one of the oldest texts of the New Testament, Philippians 2:6-11.1. Much ink has been spilled on the first half of this passage (vv. 6-8) among scholars studying the incarnation. In what follows, I will focus entirely on the latter half of the passage (vv. 9-11). Here the divine name bestowed upon Jesus is called “the name above every name”... By depicting the prostration of all creation to Jesus (v. 10), the author alludes to Isaiah 45:23 (LXX), where Yahweh proclaims, “To me every knee shall bow and every tongue confess.” Since every knee bows to Jesus (Phil. 2:10), the writer grants Jesus the cultic prerogatives specific to Yahweh... Even though Isaiah 45:23 clearly stands in the background of Phil. 2:9-11, early Jewish sources, I will argue, provide no analogous tradition of a human being receiving the name of Yahweh. Rather, the meaning of theonymy in Phil. 2:9-11 is informed chiefly by contemporary Roman imperial practice. As with so many imperial traditions, however, Roman emperors adapted theonymy from the royal customs of the eastern Mediterranean world. The first part of this chapter, then, also discusses traditions of royal theonymy in ancient Egypt and Greece...

A representative example of the fivefold titulary is that of Pharaoh Thutmoses III (1479–1425 bce), who recounts how he received his titles on the walls of the temple of Amon-Re (the Egyptian high God and Creator) at Karnak. Before the names are given, Thutmoses III describes his ascent to heaven (cf. Jesus’ exaltation in Phil 2:9)... Immediately after he lists his names, Thutmoses tells how Amon-Re made all peoples submit to his authority... Theonymy, as we see, leads to dominion and the prostration of enemies. Such a sequence recalls the events narrated in Phil. 2:9-11, where every knee bows to Christ the cosmocrator. Thutmoses inspires fear when he bears the names of his God(s); he has become Amon-Re’s vice-regent on earth, wielding the God’s power and authority. By bearing his divine names—the most primitive symbols of divine power—Thutmoses can boast that his Father, Amon-Re, “made me divine.” The reception of the five throne names in Egypt had not passed into oblivion by the Hellenistic and early Roman periods... Ptolemaic kings were deified while still alive. Their reception of the fivefold titulary was a way to depict their divine status. As later pharaohs of Egypt, Roman emperors continued to use the fivefold titulary, though in an abbreviated form... In conclusion, the idea that Joseph, Daniel, David—or any other Israelite royal figure—would be called by the name of “Yahweh” seems to be absent in Jewish tradition.
"The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult", Adela Yarbro Collins in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism (Brill, 1999):
The plot or Gestalt of the hymn (or poem) in Philippians 2, taken as a whole, on the one hand, expresses a strikingly novel perspective in the context of the history of religions. On the other hand, certain features of both Jewish and non-Jewish tradition illuminate the meaning of this innovative composition in its cultural context. Scholars have debated whether it involves a "three-stage" or a "two-stage Christology". The plot and logic of the text clearly imply three stages of being. At first he is "in the form of God", then he "emptied himself, taking the form of a slave", and finally "God highly exalted him". Being "in the form of God" implies existence as a heavenly being who shares in the divine glory. The precise mode of existence or activity is left unspecified. In the cultural context of the first century C.E., this gap could be filled by imagining a principal angel; a hypostasis of God, such as the Logos or Wisdom... The second stage, emptying himself and taking the form of a slave, implies the voluntary giving up of the divine glory, a change in being as well as in status. A heavenly being becomes human, a "Lord" becomes a "slave". This phase involves humbling himself and obedience unto death. The high exaltation of the third and final stage means a restoration of the mode of existence as a heavenly being. It is now explicit that this mode of being involves also the status of "Lord" over all creation (verses 9 and 10) as the chief agent of God...

The transition from the first to the second mode of being implies that a heavenly being is transformed into a human being. It is not a matter of the partial manifestation of a heavenly entity in a human being. The latter idea occurs in the Wisdom of Solomon in the statement that "in every generation [Wisdom] passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God and prophets". Enoch may be identified with the heavenly Son of Man in 1 Enoch 71, but the idea that the heavenly Son of Man became human as Enoch and then returned to heaven is not expressed. On the other hand, the motif according to which a god takes on human form is common in Greek literature... An analogy to the shift from the second to the third stage form of existence in the hymn may be found in Jewish tradition in Gen 5:24, which hints that Enoch was exalted from earth to heaven. This idea seems to be presupposed in the passage mentioned earlier, 1 Enoch 71, in which the patriarch is apparently identified with the heavenly Son of Man. Another analogy is the ascension of Elijah in a heavenly chariot by a whirlwind in 2 Kings 3:11. These traditions are similar to Philippians 2 in that a human being is exalted from the earth to heaven, but are different with respect to the fact that Enoch and Elijah did not die... Such a motif is found, however, in Greek religion...

Thus the motif of the worship of Christ in the poem of Philippians 2 has literary parallels in Jewish literature of the second Temple period, but there is very little evidence that there was actual, communal worship of a Son of Man figure based on Daniel 7 or the Similitudes of Enoch. The strongest parallels to the worship of an exalted human being after death are found once again in Greek and Roman religion... Finally, and most importantly, the Roman emperor was worshiped as a divine being after his death. The worship of the emperor continued the ideas and practices of the Hellenistic ruler cults. The successors of Alexander the Great established a posthumous cult for him... One of the most striking similarities between the worship of Jesus and the cult of the emperor is the way in which each, as a divine human being, is closely associated with a full deity... It is likely that the poem in Philippians already advocated in an implicit manner the worship of Christ as an alternative to the worship of the emperor.
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 »

gryan wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 7:51 am Re: "a pre-Marcan tradition behind both the burial in a tomb and the empty tomb."

When delving into the historical context behind the text, it's crucial to start by understanding the surface-level details presented in the text itself. Surprisingly, scholars, both modern and ancient, consistently fail to consider the possibility that there may be two Marys distinguished by their respective sons: "Mary of Joses" at the burial and "Mary of the James" at the empty tomb. This kind of distinction is precisely what's needed when dealing with two women named Mary, each with sons named James.

My interpretation commences with what I deem apparent, given the rarity of the name "Joses": "Mary of Joses" (the birth mother of Jesus and the mother of "James the Lord's brother" in Galatians) can be equated with "Mary," the mother of "Joses" in Mark 6:3 and 15:40 (Cf. parallels in Matt, erasures in Luke). On the other hand, "Mary of the James" (as seen in Luke 24:10 and referring to James son of Alphaeus, who is the pillar James in Galatians) corresponds to Matthew's ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία (27:61, 28:1), signifying another Mary—adding a third Mary to the list of Magdalene and "the mother of James and Joseph" (the natural mother of Jesus).

Three Marys—Jesus' mother, Mary Magdalene, and another—can also be identified in the Gospel of John. While the prospect of John drawing from a pre-Markan tradition remains speculative, I interpret John as incorporating the synoptic Marys, as previously outlined. The rationale behind John introducing John's third Mary as "Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ" (instead of the synoptic mother of James son of Alphaeus) poses a more complex question.

The book of Galatians is the most significant pre-Markan source available for our examination. Before Jerome's essay on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, commentators such as Victorinus embraced the notion that there were two prominent individuals named James in Jerusalem: "the Lord's brother according to the flesh," whose views were heterodox, and the pillar apostle, James, who exhibited a similar alignment with Paul's gospel as Peter and John did. I find this interpretation to be quite compelling and worthy of consideration.

There's much more to explore on this topic, and I'm working on my upcoming book on proto-canonical Galatians. My approach involves building upon Carlson's critical text, incorporating some additional alternative textual decisions, and tracing its intertextual literary echoes not only in Acts and Hebrews but also in Mark and 1 Peter, among other related texts. Through this exploration, I'm uncovering a Galatians that is different—perhaps strangely different—from the Galatians we are familiar with.
To tell the story involving "the three Marys" at the cross
(the mother of Jesus, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdaline),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Marys
did GJohn need any written or oral sources
other than Galatians, Mark, Luke-Acts and Matthew
(written in that order, with each building on the other)?
All I'm saying is
(except for the novelty of the name Clopas)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Clopas
maybe not.
Post Reply