Readers Reply

004

Casting Genesis

Getting Behind in His Reading

When I decided to accept a trial subscription offer, I was prepared for some articles containing slightly liberal presuppositions. What I was not prepared for, however, was a photograph of the entire backside of a naked woman (“Casting Genesis: George Segal’s Biblical Sculptures,” BR 16:02). I realize we are all liberated adults, and this photo was not shocking or scandalous—I do not consider it pornographic or anything close. But what if my three-year-old had gotten ahold of this? Could I explain to her that it is all right to view nudity in one context but not another? Its inclusion seemed to me to reflect something more reprehensible than a deliberate attempt to push the envelope: In my mind it simply reflects bad taste.

Thank you for the introduction to BR, but if this is what is in store for me, I think I’d rather not. Please cancel my subscription immediately.

Running Out of Scholarship?

I’m sure the nude female model will spark some controversy, and you’ll take some heat for it. You might be the “butt” of a few jokes, while some “cheeky” readers will recount the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The “bottom” line, though, is that human anatomy is neither lewd nor obscene, and the April 2000 edition of BR will be forever remembered as the ultimate “back” issue.

My real concern is the article itself. I enjoy beautiful issues, but is there such a dearth of biblical scholarship lately that the focus of your articles has to be on the art itself?

On a second matter, the brief article entitled “Islamic Group Issues Death Sentence for Playwright” (Jots & Tittles, BR 16:02) defines a fatwa as a death sentence. This is incorrect. A fatwa is simply a ruling by an expert on the Shari’a (sacred law of Islam) on questions covering a wide range of subjects, from colonialism to personal property to the status of women. A fatwa can amount to a death sentence in rare cases, but the two most definitely are not interchangeable terms. Islam is greatly misunderstood in the West, but a correction on your part would be a small step in the right direction.

Jesus’ Family

Expanding the Family Tree

I love BR and its sister publication Biblical Archaeology Review. They are my favorite sources for information when I am leading Bible studies. I particularly appreciated Richard Bauckham’s “All in the Family: Identifying Jesus’ Relatives,” BR 16:02. In my studies I have found additional relationships to expand Bauckham’s work.

It seems that Mary’s sister was the wife of Zebedee, making the apostles James and John cousins to Jesus. Matthew 27:56 simply mentions the mother of the sons of Zebedee, but Mark 15:40 names her Salome in the list of women at the crucifixion. John 19:25 refers to her as the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus.

In the same passages in Matthew and Mark, Mary the wife of Clopas is referred to as Mary the mother of James and Joseph (or Joses). If, indeed, these two Marys were one and the same, then Mary of Clopas’s son Simeon must have had brothers (James and Joseph) who were also close to Jesus’ group of followers. [In his article, Richard Bauckham points out that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, who wed Mary the mother of Jesus. By virtue of this connection to Joseph, Clopas and his wife, also named Mary, would have been Jesus’ uncle and aunt. Their son Simeon was therefore Jesus’ cousin.—Ed.]

In the Gospel of Thomas, the apostle Thomas is identified as Judas the brother of Jesus. In the New Testament, Thomas is referred to as “the twin” (John 21:2; “Thomas,” of course, is the Greek form of didymus, meaning “twin”). I have even seen Thomas referred to as the “twin 005brother of Jesus.” Obviously Jesus didn’t have a twin brother, but whether Judas was called the twin because he was a twin to one of Jesus’ other siblings or whether it was a nickname, we can’t be sure.

I have been reading BR long enough to realize there are often as many interpretations of scripture as there are scholars interpreting it, so others may not agree with my findings. Thank you for providing your publication so that I may continue my own growth in the interpretation of Scripture.

Richard Bauckham responds:

I have discussed these possibilities in the first chapter of my book Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (T & T Clark, 1990). The identifications of the various women at the cross suggested by Beverly Warner have often been proposed. But Matthew, Mark and Luke all make clear that there were many more women at the cross than those that each names. There is no reason why they should all name the same women. Mary was an extremely common name: Almost 25 percent of Jewish women in Palestine were called Mary. This is why the Gospels have to identify any particular Mary by some additional epithet (“Magdalene” or “wife of Clopas” or “mother of James and Joses,” etc.). It is also unlikely that Salome in Mark is the same person as the mother of the sons of Zebedee in Matthew. If that were the case, one would expect the mother of the sons of Zebedee to be one of the women who visit the tomb in Matthew’s account (Matthew 28:1), just as Salome is in Mark’s account (Mark 16:1), but she is not.

The Gospel of Thomas calls the apostle “Didymus Judas Thomas” (Didymus is the Greek for “twin,” Thomas is the Aramaic for “twin”), but it does not call him brother of Jesus. The Acts of Thomas (third century) does regard Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus, but it seems to mean this in the sense of spiritual affinity, not biological relationship. Thomas was probably not the apostle’s real name, but a nickname used because, if his real name was Judas, this was much too common a name to identify him sufficiently. (Even among the 12 apostles, there were two others named Judas.) Presumably he earned the nickname because he really was someone’s twin, but his twin could be someone we know nothing about.

Mary Had No Sons to Look After Her

I enjoyed Richard J. Bauckham’s “All in the Family: Identifying Jesus’ Relatives,” BR 16:02. While we know that there were brothers and sisters, we do not know their precise relationship to Jesus. I would offer Professor Bauckham the following observation: On the cross, according to John 19:26, Jesus, in his extremity, says to his mother Mary, referring to the beloved disciple, “Woman, behold thy son!” To the beloved disciple, in verse 27, Jesus says, “Behold thy mother!” This is the language of a firstborn son. Jesus was carrying out his responsibility to provide support and care for his mother.

In biblical times, women had a right to be supported. A father was obligated to support his daughter until her marriage. Upon marriage, the husband had this legal duty. Upon the death of the husband, a woman’s firstborn son had the obligation to support her. If the firstborn son was not available, subsequent sons would have the responsibility. If she had no children, she returned to her father’s home, as Naomi suggested to Ruth and Orpah (Ruth 1:8–14).

Jesus is clearly the firstborn son of Mary. He passes his firstborn obligation on to a non-family member, although the order of the day was to pass such responsibilities on to younger brothers. This suggests, though it does not prove, that Mary had no further sons (though she may have had daughters). Those named as brothers were worthy men. If they had been Jesus’ younger brothers, Jesus would have likely followed custom and said to his mother and John that they were to tell James (or some other) to accept the obligation to look after Mary.

The Majority Opinion

Richard J. Bauckham gave us one opinion of who Jesus’ “brothers” were. Mind if I give you the majority opinion (the billion-plus members of the Catholic Church form the majority of the world’s Christians)?

One of the women standing at the foot of the cross is variously described as “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Matthew 27:56), “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses” (Mark 15:40) and “his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas” (John 19:25). So it seems logical to conclude that Jesus’ “brothers” James and Joseph, mentioned in Matthew 13:55, are the sons of Mary’s “sister” Mary, the wife of Clopas.

Bauckham cites Acts 1:14 as a reference to Jesus’ brothers. But the next two verses also refer to them, even if most Protestant translations render adelphoi (brothers) two or even three 006different ways in these three verses (for example, as “disciples” or “assembled brotherhood”). Translate the word consistently, though, and you learn that the apostles “devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers [adelphoi]. During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers [adelphoi] (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, ‘My brothers [adelphoi]…’”

(Acts 1:14–16).

Apparently those 120 brothers of the Lord were the early Church. And when Jesus told Mary Magdalene, “Go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’” (John 20:17), he was referring to more than just his immediate family. The instances in which members of the early Christian community refer to each other as “brother” in the New Testament are too numerous to cite.

BR TV

“All in the Family: Identifying Jesus’ Relatives,” BR 16:02, really caught my eye. I had no idea that BR used such profound literary tactics. Such editing genius is usually found only in truly great magazines, such as Cosmopolitan and Soap Opera Digest. In the spirit of appealing to the masses, I humbly submit a list of titles you may wish to consider in the future.

Jesus Knows Best, Leave It to Jesus, I Dream of Jesus, Love, Jesus Style, The Facts of Jesus, The Dukes of Jesus, The J-Files, J*E*S*U*S, Jesuswatch, Grace Under Jesus, Mad About Jesus, The Price Is Jesus, Who Wants to Be a Jesus, Jesus Tonight, Jesus the Vampire Slayer, Judging Jesus, Two Guys, Jesus and a Pizza Place, Jesus in the City, Everybody Loves Jesus, WWJD Smackdown.

Saving St. Andrews

As a former student at St. Mary’s College, Scotland, I was stunned to read in your brief biography of Richard Bauckham that he teaches at St. Mary’s College, the University of St. Andrews, in Edinburgh, Scotland. Even if the borders of the city of Edinburgh have been expanded to the North Sea, I doubt seriously if the ancient cathedral city of St. Andrews would ever have been allowed to disappear within them! Please correct this for your Stateside readers so that they will not continue to equate Edinburgh with all of Scotland.

Potpourri

El Greco’s Sinai

As a veteran of the climb to the top of the traditional site of Mt. Sinai (disregarding the evidence pointing to northwest Saudi Arabia as the location of the actual Mt. Sinai), I can safely say that the view from the mountaintop—especially as the morning sun rises—is truly awe inspiring! Next 007to a sheer drop-off, a small, reconstructed Christian chapel hugs the craggy mountaintop, and just a stone’s throw away is a cube-like Islamic mosque.

El Greco’s interpretation of Mt. Sinai (Gallery, BR 16:02) is indeed intriguing. His depiction of St. Catherine’s Monastery shows fairly accurately the sixth-century basilican church and the Russian bell tower within the walls. The distant mountain (to the right) can be no other than Mt. St. Catherine, higher even than Mt. Sinai. Here, too, is a chapel. However, the angels depicted in this anachronistic scene are actually depositing the body of St. Catherine (it is not the body of Moses, as described in the caption), who, according to legend and reinforced by medieval representations, was carried to this spot following her beheading in Alexandria. When her remains were brought down from the peak and deposited in the monastery, the building was rededicated to her. It seems very unlikely that El Greco (Domenikos Theotokopoulos) ever visited Mt. Sinai, but he must have seen depictions of St. Catherine’s Monastery by artists who had been there, since his rendering is reasonably accurate. The shapes of the two major peaks, on the other hand, are greatly distorted, partially due perhaps to the restriction of the tall vertical panel on which he painted, and to the fact that El Greco had never seen the mountains. In any case, his interpretation of this austere locale emanates an intriguing and mystical atmosphere.

Moses’ Black Wife

I found Peter Machinist’s “The Man Moses,” BR 16:02, both revealing and confusing. Why does he say that Aaron and Miriam apply the label “Cushite” to Zipporah when, according to Josephus (Antiquities 2.10), Moses had a Cushite wife, Princess Tharbis, daughter of the King of Ethiopia? At least we know that prejudice against blacks is nothing new.

On this point, see “Moses: The Private Man Behind the Public Leader” in this issue.—Ed.

Was Jesus a Woman?

What a wonderful concept: Jesus portrayed as a black woman (“Jesus at 2000,” Jots & Tittles, BR 16:02)! That really imparts a message of universality that the specifically historical biblical figure could not. But what about Socrates? Isn’t his Greek specificity too narrowing? He ought to be portrayed as Sister Wendy Beckett, the Brit who selected the painting Jesus of the People as the winner of the Jesus for the new millennium art contest. Ms. Jesus at 2000! And Buddha? I see him as Janet McKenzie, the artist who painted Jesus of the People, unless she is Chinese. As for Pontius Pilate, why not paint my dog Grover, who represents the fierce and furry world? Henceforth, let no Jew be portrayed as a Jew, no Roman as a Roman! Christianity is a thing of the past. History is for losers. Political correctness is the religion for the next one thousand years! Hail to thee and glory be!