Posted on 03/21/2005 6:30:05 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
There may have been better words to use than "abandoned" by the reviewer, but bickering about that distracts from the author's point regarding inconsistency in the gospel accounts. It's the ol' "swatting at gnats" MO. ;-)
Pointing out that three of the gospels do not record her presence at Jesus's crucifixion is an "attack"?
And if you only want validation of your existing beliefs, then stick with apologetics literature.
Perhaps saying that Mary was "absent" might be less offensive (to some). IMO, you're swattin' at gnats and trying to make a mountain out of molehill...just to avoid the inconsistencies in the gospel accounts. The article posted is a reviewers opinion of Geza Vermes book. You're stuck on the reviewers one word to avoid Vermes findings and analysis. I think you'd have a difficult time finding "lies" in what Geza Vermes writes.
To deny inconsistency in the gospel accounts is to fool yourself.
You're still swattin' at gnats.
The jury is out regarding Mary's whereabouts. Even the Pope doesn't seem as convinced as you:
"Sacred Scripture does not record Our Lord's Resurrection in detail, merely the fact that St Mary Magdalene found the tomb empty and He then appeared to her. But what of His Mother, who would have mourned His death more than the others? Why do we not see her there with the women? Why does St Mary Magdalene not also run to her to tell her the wonderful news? The Holy Father has recently taught in one of his Wednesday General Audiences that it is wholly reasonable to believe that Our Lord appeared first to the Blessed Virgin, even though Scripture does not record this intimate moment between the Redeemer and His Beloved Mother. This is the official Vatican news release on the Holy Father's catechesis:
VATICAN CITY, MAY 21, 1997 (VIS) - The Holy Father focused the catechesis of today's general audience in St. Peter's Square on "Mary and the Resurrection of Christ," and recalled that "the Gospels narrate different apparitions of the Risen One, but not the meeting between Jesus and his Mother."
"From this silence," he continued, "one must not deduce that Christ, after his Resurrection, did not appear to Mary." This omission might be attributed to the fact that "what is necessary for our saving knowledge is entrusted to the word of those 'who were chosen by God as witnesses,' that is, the Apostles," he said, citing the Acts of the Apostles.
John Paul II asked how the Blessed Virgin, who was "present in the first community of the disciples, could have been excluded from the number of those who encountered her divine Son risen from among the dead. On the contrary, it is legitimate to think that the Mother may really have been the first person to whom the risen Jesus appeared. Could not the absence of Mary from the group of women who approached the tomb at dawn constitute an indication that she had already met Jesus?"
"The unique and special nature of the presence of the Virgin at Calvary," added the Pope, "and her perfect union with the Son in his suffering on the Cross, seem to postulate a very particular participation on her part in the mystery of the Resurrection."
The Blessed Virgin, who was present at Calvary and at the Cenacle, "was probably also a privileged witness to the Resurrection of Christ, in this way completing her participation in all the essential moments of the paschal mystery. Embracing the risen Jesus, Mary is, in addition, a sign and anticipation of humanity, which hopes to reach its fulfillment in the resurrection of the dead."
SOURCE:
http://www.catholic-pages.com/bvm/resurrection.asp
Even if you were 100% correct regarding Mary's whereabouts, there are, as Vermes writes, still numerous other inconsistencies in the Passion story. To deny it is to fool yourself.
"you first accept that they are hearsay accounts, written between 20 and 60 years after Christ’s death by individuals who were not among his close associates."
Two were deciples of Christ (Matthew and John). One wrote because Peter asked him too and he approved the biography(Mark). One was a companion of Paul who was not one of the twelve. (Luke) He also wrote ACTS which is a bridge between the Gospels and Paul. All were Jews except maybe Luke.
Their biographies of Christ are different because each had a different style of writing and mention diferent actions that took place.
If each had written an identical biography the nay-sayers would be saying that these itenerant fishermen put their heads together and came up with a tale that would take over the civilized world.
What do you think would happen to me if I was to post an opinion article implying the George Bush did not serve in the National Guard honorably, that there was conflicting documentation, and then I supported the views expressed in the article? I'll tell you, I'd be zotted the second after I hit the post button.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
OK...back to the cross. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all "fail to mention her" in their account. She is "absent" from their passion accounts. Going back to what the book reviewer, Peter Stanford, wrote, "The Virgin Mary’s presence at the foot of the Cross, for instance, is only detailed by John. The others have Jesus abandoned by her — hardly the stuff on which to build the cult that now surrounds her in Catholicism."
Again, he could have chosen a better way to word this. His point is that she is only mentioned in John, and her character is curiously "absent", omitted, or forgotten in Matthew, Mark, and Luke....which qualifies his comment that this is " hardly the stuff on which to build the cult that now surrounds her in Catholicism."
The author is not accusing the gospel writers of lying. He is, however, pointing out that there is scant and/or inconsistent information regarding Mary to justify the "cult which surrounds her".
Here are the 4 accounts:
JOHN 19:25-26
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
MATHHEW 27:55-56
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
MARK 15:40-41
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
LUKE 23:49
And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.
And not to beat a dead horse...but getting stuck on Stanford's word "abandoned" causes you to (intentionally?) miss the point.
Direct eywitness accounts are suspect. This from USCatholic.org website.
Only Matthew's gospel has an author's name attached to it from the beginning. Because it relies so heavily on Mark's text, it seems unlikely that Matthew the Apostle was its author. Would an eyewitness need to borrow to tell his story? The composer of Matthew was probably a Jewish Christian who aimed his story at a Jewish audience considering the claims of Christianity.
John's gospel was written around the end of the first century. The apostle John would have been very old by then, but a community of his followers may have written it. John's story is written like a reflection pool mirroring the current persecution of the community back into the story of Jesus and his times
So as you can see, the jury is still out on whether or not gospel accounts are written by eyewitnesses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.