Women at the cross: Why the inconsistencies?

[TedM]

Who, writing fiction, would give a damn who the women were?

.

If it was fiction they would copy word for word, instead we have separate communities telling you what was important to them

Exactly. But I'm saying they were more likely important for preserving history than for preserving a newly created history from the hands of Genius Mark. Now if the gospels were actually written say 50 years after these stories were already being circulated - with such detail that they had the names of various women standing by at the cross - then yes there was time for various characters of importance to have been created. But the fact that none of these gospels writers TOUT the importance of these people suggests that isn't the case. It suggests that all these changes weren't in order to LIFT UP special people in their communities, but was more for the purpose of preserving their own version of what happened.

[TedM]

Well, ok that is a better example but from your example I can speculate that the reason had to do with the desire to introduce racial diversity - a clear trend in media and society as a whole in the last 20 years. In the cases I've mentioned there is so little information provided about a couple of them - Mary the mother of James and Joses and Joanna that there seems to be no purpose if the account is fictional. In the case of the mother of John and James we do know who she is so we can at least conjure up a possible motive as I have done with your examples. But the other two - it just seems arbitrary - if the account if fictional.

Your second example - everybody knows Superman and Supergirl aren't real. But they are important. Again, completely different from the case here where the characters that changed have no real importance to the story, but they do have importance to those who would want to perpetuate a brand new history.

A better example then is the main detective(s) who is/are charged with taking Batman down for being a vigilante or who has/have a personal agenda to do so. Detective Bullock (Italian male) in Batman the Animated Series from the 90s, and Detectives Bennet (black male) and Yin (Asian female) in The Batman in the early 2000s. Why change from one detective with a personal agenda to two detectives, one of whom is gungho (the female) and the other is reluctant by by the book?

[Edward M.]

It's interesting that the Gospel of Peter does not mention women at the cross if it was written after the other gospels.

[davidbrainerd]

Well, ok that is a better example but from your example I can speculate that the reason had to do with the desire to introduce racial diversity - a clear trend in media and society as a whole in the last 20 years. In the cases I've mentioned there is so little information provided about a couple of them - Mary the mother of James and Joses and Joanna that there seems to be no purpose if the account is fictional. In the case of the mother of John and James we do know who she is so we can at least conjure up a possible motive as I have done with your examples. But the other two - it just seems arbitrary - if the account if fictional.

The purpose is obvious. Mary, Mary, Mary. Mary Magdalene, if alone, could be assumed to be Jesus' girlfriend. We can't have that.

But how do we put other women there when there was only Mary before? Make em all named Mary.

As a side bonus, Mary the mother of Jesus who is asserted to have had other children can also now be split in two, and those who were Jesus' siblings before can be his cousins by his mother Mary's sister Mary, Josephus who had those children by mother Mary can now be Cleopas who had them by aunt Mary.

Violla, two birds with one stone. One singular witness Mary, has become 3 witnesses Mary, Mary, Mary, and now, and now the mother of James, Joses, Salome is not mother Mary but aunt Mary. Hell, we can even put Salome at the scene now if we want, since it can be assumed she'd tag along with at least one of her two Mary mothers that have been added.

[spin]

Ok, I don't exactly have a well-formed hypothesis, but I find the inconsistencies intuitively to be less likely with fabricated accounts

This is in no way a serious attempt to deal with your own topic. It is crass to talk about "fabricated accounts", muddying the water and showing an inability to perceive diverse approaches to a subject you seem to have fixed ideas about.

[Peter Kirby]

Who, writing fiction, would give a damn who the women were?

If it was fiction they would copy word for word

Exactly.

This is a lame understanding of what "fiction" is, or can be.

It is a strawman.

In gravity, this is the mirror opposite of the people saying that, if it is history, it should be in 50 historical accounts dated to the first century.

[outhouse]

All 3 of those implications do not seem to me to be something one would expect from a fictional account,

It does not fly that way.

It could only be they believed it was true, that does not show historicity, only a possible belief held at best. This was simply something the community found important and valuable.

Often times context is lost because many paragraphs and stories were written in response to negative traditions so these communities could defend a particular belief in question

All of these text are a reflection of the authors, more so then of any possible event.

[TedM]

Well, ok that is a better example but from your example I can speculate that the reason had to do with the desire to introduce racial diversity - a clear trend in media and society as a whole in the last 20 years. In the cases I've mentioned there is so little information provided about a couple of them - Mary the mother of James and Joses and Joanna that there seems to be no purpose if the account is fictional. In the case of the mother of John and James we do know who she is so we can at least conjure up a possible motive as I have done with your examples. But the other two - it just seems arbitrary - if the account if fictional.

The purpose is obvious. Mary, Mary, Mary. Mary Magdalene, if alone, could be assumed to be Jesus' girlfriend. We can't have that.

But how do we put other women there when there was only Mary before? Make em all named Mary.

? Who says there was only Mary before? Nobody.

[TedM]

Ok, I don't exactly have a well-formed hypothesis, but I find the inconsistencies intuitively to be less likely with fabricated accounts

This is in no way a serious attempt to deal with your own topic. It is crass to talk about "fabricated accounts", muddying the water and showing an inability to perceive diverse approaches to a subject you seem to have fixed ideas about.

Who says I think the only possibilties are 100% history vs 100% fabrication? I don't, but it certainly is easier to deal with and IMO is relevant because we both know that many mythicists absolutely believe the 100% fabrication option.

[TedM]

Who, writing fiction, would give a damn who the women were?

If it was fiction they would copy word for word

This is a lame understanding of what "fiction" is, or can be.

It is a strawman.

In gravity, this is the mirror opposite of the people saying that, if it is history, it should be in 50 historical accounts dated to the first century.

Perhaps you are using history in a different sense. We both know that someone can write about an event nobody else every references, and that one writing is 'history', so I don't know really what you are trying to say here. Fiction in the sense that I was addressing it is what most people normally consider to be fiction - ie made up stuff that the author knows is made up. No need to complicate this. The inconsistencies are - for me - hard to explain if the reality is that GMark was a genius who took a religion about a celestial being derived from scripture and turned him into a walking, talking, healing human being who lived in a specific place and at in a specific recent time period. The various inconsistencies in the accounts seem difficult to explain if that was how Jesus became 'historical'.