0

The men known as Jesus–Part 2, No. 2: Psychology of a dysfunctional family

Dysfunctional Jesus

Jesus, his parents and siblings:

Psychology of a dysfunctional

family

 

Contents

1. Definition of a dysfunctional family

The Anna Karenina Principle

1b. Religion and dysfunctional families

1c. Lines of separation in dysfunctional families

2. Jesus’ dysfunctional family

2a. Lack of contemporary confirming evidence

2b. Jesus’ family members

2c. Jesus’ parents

2d. Invention of Mary’s perpetual virginity

2e. Disciple whom Jesus loved and his mother

2f. Son of a carpenter

3. Jesus dysfunctional revolt against his family

3a. Wedding at Cana

3b. Jesus rejection of Mother and turn toward gender identification

3c. Who are Jesus’ brothers and sisters?

3d. Denial of the family and psychological dysfunctionalism

4. Sex, women, Beloved Disciple and cover-up

5. Bibliography

5a. Ancient and primary studies

5b. Psychological

5c. Theological studies

6. End Notes

 

A dysfunctional Jesus

 

>> top < <

1. Definition of a dysfunctional family

<i>Dysfunctional family: Anna Karina principle</i>

Dysfunctional family: Anna Karenina principle

The Anna Karenina Principle stated that where there is a deficiency in any one of a number of factors in a relationship dooms it to failure. Consequently, a successful endeavor, subject to this principle, is one where every possible deficiency has been avoided. As Aristotle wrote: “Again, it is possible to fail in many ways (for evil belongs to the class of the unlimited, as the Pythagoreans conjectured, and good to that of the limited), while to succeed is possible only in one way (for which reason also one is easy and the other difficult—to miss the mark easy, to hit it difficult); for these reasons also, then, excess and defect are characteristic of vice, and the mean of virtue; for men are good in but one way, but bad in many.”1

>> top < <>

1b. Religion and dysfunctional families

<i>Religion's role in dysfunctional families.</i>

Religion’s role in dysfunctional families.

One place where dysfunctional families have the greatest problems leading to separation of family members is in the area of religion, and religious observances.2 The problem of religion usually depends on intensity of faith, group identification within the faith, and the role of a member of the family in the advance or abandonment of the faith.

Religion has been shown to lead to dysfunctional families: the telling or reading of stories that defy basic rules of science that the children study in school and on their own. These include unnatural or overly burdensome rules an regulations that are forced on the family: dietary laws, sexual rules and norms that come from millennium past, hierarchical heraldry within the religious exercise and status of parents in keeping with ecclesiastical pronouncements on the power of parents and subordination of servants and children, and so forth.

<i>Curing dysfunctionalism</i>

Curing dysfunctionalism

Where one or more people within a family have an intense, nearly evangelistic quest, and another or others within the same family have little or no interest in proselytize or even believing, conflict develops. If there is a neutral member within the same dysfunctional family, both sides can become near-armed camps to persuade or dissuade the neutral family member. Their zeal leads to intense redirection of energies, calling out aspersions while trying to appear enlightened, and ramming through biases that would not be acceptable to most people, who, fortunately for the dysfunctional family, will be heralded and used as ammunition against the neutrality of the ambivalent member within the dysfunctional family.

>> top < <

1c. Lines of separation in dysfunctional families

<i>Discord and separation</i>

Discord and separation

These lines of separation are seen in all places and at all times. They find their greatest expression and exaggeration in areas of religion and literature: areas that are frequently conjoined in an effort to elicit a special sense of sanctity on the two groups. This further polarizes the dysfunctional family. The veracity of this judgment can be clearly seen in the official biographical accounts focused on the life and family of the Jesus of the New Testament.

>> top < <

2. Jesus’ dysfunctional family

The records concerning Jesus’ family are sparse. All the gospels record is that he had a father, Joseph (Hebrew יוֹסֵף, Greek: Ἰωσήφ, Ioseph), and a mother, Mary or Miriam (Greek: Μαριάμ; Hebrew: מרים‎; life dates are conjecture but traditional dating is c. 18 BC – c. 41 CE). There is no historical proof for the existence of a Mary outside of the Bible.

There is no record of Joseph dying or leaving Mary.  Joseph mysteriously disappeared at the time Jesus is in the Temple, when Jesus claimed that he must “be about my father’s business.”3 There is no record that the rabbis (who never recorded the incident) or any one else thought of any one other than a biological father–as to claim a god as father was sacrilege if it was not in the context that all men are sons of god. The fact that Jesus used the common word for father (πατέρας and refers to the parent of a child), and not one in keeping with the spiritual lord, is evidence that there was nothing spiritual about the father except in later redactions where it is Πατρός as a title. In short, in the text the father is not identified or his role spelled out.

The Gospel of Mark, with “Mark” being the officially recognized writer of this gospel (I debate both the authorship and the dating of Mark in another essay), is the source on which the synoptic gospels depend for their source, makes no reference to Joseph. The Pauline epistles, written before any gospel, are silent about any Joseph and any of the genealogy referenced in Matthew and Luke.

Although Christian tradition considers Joseph to be the foster father of Jesus, that has no biblical proof. Leading scholars reject the theory that Jesus was an only child and that Mary had no other children.  These theorists argue that, if Joseph existed, he was the natural father of Jesus. However, the gospels state that Jesus had both brothers and sisters–a long-standing tradition in Jewish households.

>> top < <

2a. Lack of contemporary confirming evidence

No first century record references Joseph. Tacitus and Josephus Flavius were not only silent regarding the existence of a Joseph, they do not codify or identify a Joseph and Mary who had a child named Jesus;  three names that were quite common at that time, yet no record referenced any family in which all three names were present. If there were such a record, it would undoubtedly convince the world of the existence of a messiah from a nondescript place in the Middle East. However, none exists, and John recognizes this immediately: “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother?” But Mark does not nor is there any record to highlight his lost information, and Matthew and Luke even hint at illegitimacy. 4

>> top < <

2b. Jesus’ family members

Jesus was most likely the first child, but the Book of the Acts of the Apostles state that Jesus had siblings—natural, full-blood brothers: James, Joses 5, Simon, and Judas 6 and unnamed sisters.7 The “Church Fathers” argued that the word meant close relatives,8 but that it does not translate as the church would want it to translate. There is neither a word nor even a hint that these siblings were half-brothers or half-sisters, or the off-spring of a father other than that of Joseph, who is only named in the Gospel of John,9 who was married to Mary (actually, in the Greek, Armenian and Hebrew: Miriam).10 The mythology that Mary remained “ever virgin” and “never knew (had sex with) man” is a late invention that has no foundation in fact, but built in fantasy.

<i>James the brother of Jesus.</i>

James the brother of Jesus.

There are numerous historical stones detailing the natural brothers (and some sisters) born to Mary. To ignore or deny them, as Constantine’s established church did invited further dysfunctionality not only to the Jesus of the church but to families within the church where people turned to the unnatural and abnormal sex acts such as chastity and celibacy and their accompanying problems. To deny the plethora of human sexuality is to reject and impede psychological reality and balance in the individual and the community as a whole.

>> top < <>

2c. Jesus’ parents

There is no record that Joseph was ever married earlier. The records are silent. Even Paul does not name a Mary or a Joseph in any epistle. Mary’s appearances are recorded only four times in the gospels.11 Mary is described as a “virgin”, (Greek: παρθένος, parthénos) but only in Matthew.12 but the name of Mary is mentioned twelve times (symbolic of the 12 chosen apostles) in Luke.13 Matthew takes his formation of the elusive figure in the New Testament from the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14, where the word for “virgin” is Almah.14 Almah means a young maiden and is not a sexual reference including possession of an unbroken hymen.15

>> top < <>

2d. Invention of Mary’s perpetual virginity

The argument that Mary experienced perpetual virginity was not accepted in the early church until the Council of Constantinople in 533, and not an article of faith until published in the Smalcald Articles in 1537. The Immaculate Conception did not appear in the Roman Catholic Church until Pope Pius IX issued his encyclical Ineffabilis Deus in 1854. The bodily Assumption of Mary does not appear as an article of faith until Pope Pius XII introduced his encyclical Munificentissimus Deus in 1950.

<i>Claiming that Mary was subhuman casts questions on the issue of marriage.</i>

Claiming that Mary was subhuman casts questions on the issue of marriage.

The writing of Mary being a virgin in the Gospel of Matthew was necessary to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, but it was not well received in the early community of believers and even later in the evolution of church doctrine it was opposed by many. The argument that Mary was Ever-Virgin (ἀειπάρθενος) is a later Greek Orthodox invention. This came with the elevation of celibacy and chastity to near sacramental status and was opposed by many.

<i>Theotokos: the image of Mary based on ancient Egyptian theology of Isis and Horus.</i>

Theotokos: the image of Mary based on ancient Egyptian theology of Isis and Horus.

Most of the attributes given to Mary were taken from ancient Egyptian theology, especially being the Mother (Theotokos or Child-bearer of God).16 Matthew’s gospel mentions Miriam by name five times, four of these17 in the infancy narrative and only once18 outside the infancy narrative, indicating that Miriam was not of great significance to crafting the Jesus narrative in Matthew. Mark’s gospel names her once by name19 and mentions her as Jesus’ mother without naming her20—that distinction coming only later from redactors in the early church hierarchy. John’s gospel refers to her twice but never mentions her by name. Described as Jesus’ mother, Mary makes two appearances in John’s gospel. She is first seen at the wedding at Cana of Galilee21 which is mentioned only in the fourth gospel. No other gospel recites this story, but it is a story that has far older antecedents especially in early African and Egyptian tales.

>> top < <>

2e. Disciple whom Jesus loved and his mother

<i>Three Marys at foot of cross--14th century depiction</i>

Three Marys at foot of cross–14th century depiction

The second reference in John, also exclusively listed this gospel, has the mother of Jesus standing near the cross of her Son together with Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Clopas (or Cleophas). John describes this Mary as her sister, along with the “disciple whom Jesus loved” was either his brother James or possibly Mark relating to the young man who followed Jesus out of the Garden of Gethsemane naked.22 John does not give Mary a significant role in the Gospel named after him nor in the plot for crucifixion and salvation. John does not address Mary by name so there is no concrete proof that his mother was one of the women at the foot of the cross23 but has a conversation with her calling her “Woman”, not “Mother”. The issues of a woman (much less alone three women!) at the foot of the cross where Jesus allegedly “suffered and died” is an invention of the Church. The Gospel of John indicates that both John (the gender of this Beloved Disciple is not masculinized until the late fourth century) who also stuck with Jesus while He was being tried) and Mary the mother of Jesus were there with some other women.24 while a later writing  indicates that a number of other people were nearby such as ‘the people’, presumably curious onlookers such as gather at any crime or emergency scene today.25

Both the rulers of the Jews and the soldiers were at the scene, however, as was required by law. The lead gospel (Mark), on which the synoptic gospels depended, specifies the rulers of the Jews as being the chief priests and the scribes26. The Gospel According to St Mark, is clear in that none of the disciples were at the crucifixion. The issue of women was equally obscure, with most stating that “women” looked from afar off: among them, Mary and Mary Magdalene in keeping with the custom of the day that separated women from men and forbade women attending an execution.

The Gospel According to St Matthew says only that women looked from afar off: among them, Mary and Mary Magdalene.27 The Gospel According to St Luke says that those of his acquaintance stood afar off with the women.28 The Gospel According to St John says that the mother of Jesus, her sister (who was not named but it is assumed was Mary Salome), Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene stood by the cross with the disciple whom he loved,29 but this is a late insertion by scriptorium, and John is not a synoptic gospel. Nowhere is the disciple whom Jesus loved identified after Lazarus walked away from his tomb, but Christian tradition holds him to be John but the name is gender neutral.

“Woman” was an honorable title in the culture of the time similar to “My Lady” in later ages. It may be that this title links Mary to the “Woman” of Genesis30 promised by God to have “enmity” for the serpent, and the “Woman clothed with the sun” in Revelation31, the work of John of Patmos who many confuse with the Apostle.32 Prophecy was condemned by Rome as it was seen as a threat to established law, order and political power,33 while its intellectuals saw it as a remnant from a dark age of superstition.34

<i>Mary in the Upper Room and its ancient Egyptian antecedent</i>

Mary in the Upper Room and its ancient Egyptian antecedent

The only other time that Mary appears in the Book of Acts where she is mentioned as being with the “brothers of Jesus” in the upper room in the Upper Room after the Ascension.35 Some consider Mary as an Apostle and as a pillar of the early community, but much of this was actually originally attributed to Mary Magdalene (Μαρίαἡ Μαγδαληνή) whom St. Augustine of Hippo styled as “Apostle to the Apostles.”36 Rabamis Maurus (c. 780 – 4 February 856). Life of Mary Magdalene. Chapter XXVI is headed: Ubi Magdalenam Christus ad apostolos mittit apostolam (Wherein Christ sends Magdalene as an apostle to the apostles) picked up on Augustine’s comment and gave it more illusionary flesh.37 In the same chapter Rabamis Maurus declares that Mary Magdalene did not delay in exercising the office of apostolate with which he had been honored (apostolatus officio quo honorata fuerat fungi non distulit).38

<i>Isis: woman in heaven clothed with the sun and the moon at her feet.</i>

Isis: woman in heaven clothed with the sun and the moon at her feet.

While some argue that Mary was the “woman clothed with the sun”39 there is not biblical evidence that the woman was Mary. It fits most closely with Isis of Egypt, and Al-Uzza of the pre-Muslim Arabs who saw their Al-Uzza as Venus and one of the three daughters of Allah40 and brought the moon into the religion of Mohammad.

<i>Goddess al Uzza and goddess Manat pre -Islamic Arabia sculpture in Jordan. Al-Uzza Temple Manatu at Petra. </i>

Goddess al Uzza and goddess Manat pre -Islamic Arabia sculpture in Jordan. Al-Uzza Temple Manatu at Petra.

Al-Uzza was among the first goddesses to be seen as “clothed with the sun and the moon at her feet”. She was considered to be equal to the Greek Aphrodite.

No name was given, and it reflects too much on other religions that talked about a Woman in Heaven—notably Isis,41 Inanna and Venus who was associated with Inanna42 Astarte43 whom Jeremiah opposed,44 and Asherah who was forcibly married to Yahweh.45

 

>> top < <>

2f. Son of a carpenter

The “son of a carpenter” is found only twice. The Gospel of Matthew identifies Jesus as the son of a τέκτων (tekton). 46 The Gospel of Mark states that Jesus was a Tektōn himself.47

Over the past two millennium the word. Tekton has been traditionally translated into English as “carpenter”. This is tragic, but understandable, as the writers had little knowledge of the local language of Galilee or Judea. Tekton is a rather general word comes from the same root that generated such words as “technical” and “technology” today.48 That ambiguity covers those who made objects out of various materials, as well as includes various crafts including builders. What is critical is an understanding of the group of people who worked as Tekton: They were illiterate as there was no time for education. Reading and writing were reserved for tax collectors and priests.

The few times that Jesus’ family is even mentioned in the Christian texts it is always confrontational. Jesus is usually the source of the confrontation. Mary, his mother, says nothing but “ponders all things in her heart”

It is assumed that Mary is keeping her emotions in confinement. That leads to various problems psychological problems of repression and transference. We see this dysfunctional situation in all stories. It is introduced when Jesus was a young boy when his parents found him in the Temple after spending some time looking for him. When they did, Jesus was quarrelsome and defensive: “Why did you seek me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”49 Psychological studies and analyses show that each instinctual emotion has a distinct pattern of associations with dream experiences. Dreams play a significant role in Old Testament and early first century CE Jewish culture, tradition, and religion: from Jacob and his ladder, to those of David, and so forth.

Since Mary, allegedly, was visited by an angel who announced she would give birth to a child without sexual intercourse with a mortal man, there applying the concept common in other theologies from Greece to Egypt, these dreams or hallucination can lead to repression of instincts and the acceptance of a time-honored dicta of “pondering all things within the heart. As Yu noted in his research, this is especially seen in the feeling the need to nurture or to be needed is associated with dreams featuring erotomania. At the same time the feeling of sadness is commonly associated with dreaming of crises, especially in prognosticate or prophecies death, execution, and so forth. Following the neuropsychological perspective, the structural equation modeling analyses suggest that dream experiences are supported and even facilitated by both pleasant and unpleasant emotions, frequently being suppressed by superego functions of maternalism or the idea that someone has achieved near beatific stature of being a god or a child of a god. Yu’s conclusions have been addressed by Coifman et al. whose research states that recent evidence suggests that the tendency to direct attention away from negative affective experience (i.e., repressive coping) may promote resilience following extremely aversive events (e.g., the death of a spouse, or a child of a union whose participants are in question). Those who overcame negativity or the threat to individual concepts of self-worth tend to be more resilient, that could be effectuated by companionship rather than social isolation. This could be seen as a product of Mary being bequeathed to the Beloved. 50

>> top < <>

3. Jesus’ dysfunctional revolt against his family

After the silent years, before Jesus was 30, there is nothing recorded in the canonical gospels: those texts approved by Constantine I’s church. When Jesus does emerge again, Mary, his mother, asks Jesus to help the host at a wedding in Cana. Jesus is asked to find a solution to the problem of not enough wine for those attending the wedding at Cana. Jesus goes beyond the entreaty, and changes water into wine.51 It is not only a copy of Moses changing the water of the Nile into Blood,52 it is used as a prophecy of his transubstantiation of the wine into Blood at the Last Supper. This brings Jesus notoriety, common with those in dysfunctional families who seek popular acclaim or star recognition.53

>> top < <>

3a. Wedding at Cana

<i>Jesus changes water into wine at the wedding at Cana.</i>

Jesus changes water into wine at the wedding at Cana.

The actual account left in John further illustrates the unique concept of celebrating a wedding in ancient Galilee. It was dependent on the quantity of wine served. Its purpose was to ensure that all participants were equally “refreshed” so that the marriage could be brought to full sexual consummation while others drank.  The wedding at Cana, more particularly, illustrates the dysfunctionality of the family and the role of Jesus and his mother. Jesus was not satisfied with what marginal recognition he had at the wedding. The only thing stated is that he was with his disciples: the number and names were not given, and what they did is not recorded. Furthermore, whatever ceremony was enacted there is no record of it, nor of what happened before the heaving drinking. All that is known about this possible incident is that the wedding was only in an unknown location in “Cana.” Even the location is in doubt.

Cana has been associated with Kefr Kenna near Nazareth (a town that did not exist in the first century CE) on the road to Tiberius. There is no mention of it in any synoptic gospel using Mark as its base.

John does mention Cana again later.54 This second inclusion has problems. Why does Jesus go back to Cana if the first visit was just for a wedding and Jesus showed no connection of the town or the wedding to himself? Some scholars, such as James Tabor, see it as a “safe house” or even a “place of operations” that Jesus needed when he retreated to Galilee “much like Capernaum.”55 much in the same way as Josephus, commander of Jewish forces in Galilee, did during the Jewish Wars against Rome.56

The first verse of John shows that it was Mary who was invited to the wedding. Jesus was not a sought-out guest. Jesus was at best an after thought as in the society of Galilee in the first century of the current era, the male still predominated and took presence over any female. All that can be surmised is that Jesus through her or because of her was included. The text reads: “Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.” Jesus was an afterthought—a courtesy invitation, and not directly or particularly selected to attend the celebration. While some have suggested that it was Jesus wedding, that has little basis in the story, even though as Tabor points out that it may be likely that Jesus married at some time.57

The wedding at Cana was more likely for the marriage of one of Jesus’ biological brothers (most likely James “the Just” who presided over the early community of followers of Jesus) given Mary’s involvement. The text offers a similar clue as the “master of the banquet tasted the water … then called the bridegroom aside and said … you have saved the best until now…”58 The bridegroom would have been with the Master, not called in from the room where the transubstantiation of water to wine took place that the writers of John noted: “What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory.”59

Mary takes the commanding role, and tells Jesus that “They have no more wine.”60 It could rightfully be suspected and assumed that Jesus would have hastened to end the problem that his mother presented. Jesus did not, as with ignoring the pleas of Mary and Martha to hurry to the side of Jesus sick and dying Beloved: Lazarus.

>> top < <>

3b. Jesus rejection of Mother and turn toward gender identification

Jesus’ scorn (or at least his irritation) is clearly seen in his abrupt question “Woman, why do you involve me?” a popular translation (NIV), or my own translation that I argue reflects the tenor of the words in content: “Woman, what have I to do with you?61 This retort is not respectful, despite the arguments that follow about the use of the word woman (γυναίκα).

Jesus does not address Mary as “mother” but as “woman”(γυναι: here it is in the plural: women, as if referencing the gender in general not the person in particular)—an offensive reference in a society that placed a premium on filial piety and solicitation, but in the Greek, the word “woman” does not denote any disrespect—but an aloofness that is fleshed out with Jesus’ comment “My hour has not yet come”. In the Hebrew (אישה or האישה) it is a statement of gender that is limiting. In this content, the rebuff was even more pregnant after Mary urges him to help out with the problem of “no more wine.”

Instead of accepting his mother’s encouragement to help out, Jesus’ reaction was that of a suppressed family member feeling that he had to assert himself. This assertion was achieved by angrily blasting his mother as if she were ignorant of his mission that allegedly she was told by the visiting angel62 of the annunciation. There is no record of either of the parents of Jesus being active in his ministry or even involved in his life. Joseph disappears after the initial life, while Mary has no real role before the descent of the Pentecost in the Upper Room.

Psychologically, Jesus could have rejected his parents, or at least his mother, because of her lack of involvement in his ministry. That rejection would explain why Jesus questioned “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” as they did not play a significant role in the life of Jesus. There is no change in involvement, based on the scriptures, of Mary in any mission of Jesus before the Pentecost. In conservative, Temple-oriented societies, Jesus would have been considered at best disrespectful, but more commonly: a delinquent, given his actions at Cana.63 Jesus’ first rebellion against his dysfunctional family occurred at Cana.

It is recorded that Jesus said after being told “They have no wine,” causing Jesus to reply as if he was not a part of her and that she was ignorant: “O Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come.” There is no hint in the text that he was remonstrating patiently and gently. The words speak for themselves.

Jesus’ retort at Cana was one of the four times that Mary is mentioned in the telling of any inter-family context. His mother, reacted more circumspect as if she was more accustomed to accepting the patriarchy permeating the culture of her time, and as a. long suffering minor player in the epoch, subordinating herself to a brittle and dogmatic son told the servants, “Do whatever he tells you”64

What happened after Mary gave instructions to “do whatever he tells you” exposes the Jesus as he was seen in public life by Pharisees and Publicans,65 that is found in two synoptic gospels but not the basic first gospel written: Mark, nor in Q. The issue of gluttony was clear in what Jesus did, using six stone water jars, each containing between 75 and 115 liters of water,66 and changing the water into wine.

The issue of the wedding at Cana is found only in John. Since the famous wedding does not follow Mark, it is suspect as to its authenticity since it has no other support within the gospels and no external commentary or other evidence of it being a fact.

>> top < <>

3c. Who are Jesus’ brothers and sisters?

The wedding at Cana was not the only time that Jesus did not address Mary as mother, but rather used “woman” dismissively. It was repeated when the mother of Jesus sought him out, and he asked “who is my mother? Who are my brothers?”67 This was, according to Luke, a rhetorical question so that it could be used to encompass all women as his mother, and, also, brothers as a reference to all people “who followed” him: “And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.”68 Compare: “While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” 69 This theme is even found in the apocryphal literature, as in the Gospel of Thomas: “99 The disciples said to him, “Your brothers and your mother are standing outside.” He said to them, “Those here who do what my Father wants are my brothers and my mother. They are the ones who will enter my Father’s kingdom.” 100 They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, “The Roman emperor’s people demand taxes from us.” He said to them, “Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine.”70 101 “Whoever does not hate (father) and mother as I do cannot be my (disciple), and whoever does (not) love (father and) mother as I do cannot be my (disciple). For my mother (…), but my true mother) gave me life.”71

>> top < <>

3d. Denial of the family and psychological dysfunctionalism

The denial of family members, however, shows a strong rejection of the family and the rise of the ego antithetically to the superego. Neither marriage nor the absences of marriage offers a cushion from family denial, as such a dysfunction is common in both, usually being generated by oppositional behaviors and words, as well as stress within the marriage as comes to fruition when patriarchy or matriarch settles in to the dissolution of equality or any trait that berates the understanding of the value of the person, especially within the parental unit. This is avoided when there is marital satisfaction that effects depressive symptoms, neuroticism, and partners’ income and employment or use/enjoyment of the prosperity of the family.72

Those who are rejected and those who reject family members generally suffer borderline personality disorder (BPD) and/or Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Those who do share numerous features consistent with both: dysphoric affect, irritability, suicidality, and a heightened sensitivity to perceived interpersonal rejection.

Individuals who suffer MDD are more likely to respond by withdrawing from the general associations of society and religious groups and go into patterns of isolation. Those with BPD tend to respond with increased approachable behavior as well as greater hostility—as with Jesus’ sharp retorts to his mother, rejection of his brother, calling upon women of Jerusalem to pray that the mountain falls down upon them and their children, etc.73

The real indicator in such dysfunctional families is in relational patterns (commonly seen as attachment styles) in adolescence, especially with adjustment problems in social situations. This, too, can be related to Jesus who not only abandoned his parents in the Temple, but retorted when his parents sought Jesus to come home with the vocal ejaculation of “Do you not know that I must be about my father’s business.”74

The same distance-separation that Jesus invoked when his mother and brothers sought him out while he was preaching appears also in the account of Jesus’ apparent indifference while hanging from the cross/stake. Again Jesus (or at least his biographers) refused to address Mary as his mother, but called her “woman”.75 The word Mother is not used until Jesus bequeathed Mary to John, his “Beloved Disciple”.76

The psychology of rejecting a parent enables the child (at any age) to assuage personal conscience and elevate the ego to the status of superego, thereby degrading the parent for the self. The parents’ personality traits affect parent–child interaction and can lead to denial of existing ties (biological, affectional, religious, and so forth), which, in turn, increases the propensity for developmental problems among offspring. It also frequently has adverse affects and effects on the psychological maturation of the child doing the rejection who finds nothing current or of value in the existing situation since parent(s) and child(ren) were not interrelating. The results indicated a pattern of intergenerational transmission of depressed mood through parental rejection of offspring. Multiple reporters and multiple indicators strengthen previous intergenerational findings by reducing some of the method variance biases that have been problematic in prior studies has always been common, especially in the area of transcribing a biography or an apologia for an act or statement that is questions; it is the foundation for the proclamation and proselytization of any message felt valuable by the rejecting child: a message that takes on special, near-godlike authority.77

>> top < <>

4. Sex, women, Beloved Disciple and cover-up

The idea that the Beloved Disciple was John, a man, does not appear before the fourth century. Then it was addressed by the Arian bishop Eusebius. 78 The Gospel of Philip states that the favored disciple was Mary Magdalene.79 Works declared heretical by the emerging imperial Christian Church established by the Emperor in the East, Constantine I, had little hesitation in affirming that the Beloved Disciple was not a man.80

Modern scholarship also points to Mary Magdalene not only as the “Beloved Disciple” but even the author of the Gospel of John.81 Such an inheritance or gifting was neither common nor recognized in the first century of the current era.

That John was not Jesus’ natural brother is clear in his words of bequest and the continuation of the story: “and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.”82 This shows that Mary and John not only did not live in the same house, but that they were, also, not familiars. It is not as many Christian apologists argue a statement for the world (John) to embrace Mary (the church) and become one with it. What can be learned by this is Jesus did not trust “his [other] brothers” (with the exception of James, as they were considered by the writers of John to be “unbelievers.”83 The question remains, why John? If John was a male, it would have been considered obscene for a single woman to go home with a single man, but acceptable if the older woman went home with another woman. By sending his disciple to take care of his mother, a portrait of submission, reconciliation, and rigorous attention to social norms and customs appears clearly. It was a means of amending a past dysfunctional life by restoring the known concept of filial piety and the honoring of a parent. This is finalized in the unattested (outside of the gospels) resurrection of Jesus, where three women went to the tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Salome who, according to tradition, was known as Mary Salome (there is concern about Salome, שלומית, as there are arguments about the third person was also a Mary: Mary of Bethany who was the sister of Martha and Lazarus—the only other man Jesus love).84 What this shows is that all the characters that make up the extended family of the Jesus of the gospels experienced similar dysfunction in the life and labors of Jesus, but to a less pronounced degree.

>> top < <>

5. Bibliography

>> top < <>

5a. Ancient and Primary references

Aristotle (350 BCE). Nicomachean Ethics.

Eusebius, Historia ecclesia.

Herodotus. Histories. Histories 2.156.

Lucius Apuleius, The Golden Ass. Book 11, Chapter 47

Mary Magdalene. Gospel of Mary [Magdalene].

NHC (Nag Hammadi Codices) edited by Robinson, James (1977). Claremont, CA, USA: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity.

Philip (Apostle). Gospel of Philip.

Pius IX (1854). Ineffabilis Deus.

Pius XII (1950). Munificentissimus Deus.

Pliny Natural History.

Rabamis Maurus (c. 780 – 4 February 856). Life of Mary Magdalene. Chapter XXVI is headed: Ubi Magdalenam Christus ad apostolos mittit apostolam in Migne, J.-P., General Editor. Patrologia Latina (hereafter cited as PL), Vol. 112, col. 1474B

Tacitus. Annals.

Thomas (Apostle). Gospel of Thomas.

>> top < <>

5b. Psychological studies

Allen, Donald M. (2010). How Dysfunctional Families Spur Mental Disorders: a balanced approach to resolve problems and reconcile relationships. Santa Barbara, CA, USA: Praeger.

Beeney, Joseph E.; Levy, Kenneth N.; Gatzke-Kopp, Lisa M.; Hallquist, Michael N. (2014, April). “EEG asymmetry in borderline personality disorder and depression following rejection”. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Vol. 5(2): 178-185.

Coifman, Karin G.; Bonanno, George A.; Ray, Rebecca D. & Gross, James J. (2007, April) “Does repressive coping promote resilience? Affective-autonomic response discrepancy during bereavement.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92(4): 745-758.

Cyranowski, Jill M.; Zill, Nicholas; Bode, Rita; Butt, Zeeshan; Kelly, Morgen A. R.; Pilkonis, Paul A.; Salsman, John M. & Cella, David (2013, March). “Assessing social support, companionship, and distress: National Institute of Health (NIH) Toolbox Adult Social Relationship Scales”. Health Psychology. Vol. 32(3): 293-301.

Fung, Joey & Lau, Anna S. “Tough love or hostile domination? Psychological control and relational induction in cultural context”. Journal of Family Psychology. Vol. 26(6): 966-975.

L’Abate, Luciano (1998). Family Psychopathology: the Relational Roots of Dysfunctional Behavior. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press.

Mains, David R. (1992). Healing the Dysfunctional Church family. Wheaton, IL, USA: Victor Books.

Meltzer, Andrea L.; McNulty, James K. & Karney, Benjamin R.(2012, October). “Social support and weight maintenance in marriage: The interactive effects of support seeking, support provision, and gender”. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 26(5): 678-687.

Scharf, Miri; Oshri, Assaf; Eshkol, Varda & Pilowsky, Tammy (March 2014). “Adolescents’ ADHD symptoms and adjustment: The role of attachment and rejection sensitivity.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol. 84(2): 209-2017.

Schoebi, Dominik; Perrez, Meinrad & Bradbury, Thomas N. (2012, October). “Expectancy effects on marital interaction: Rejection sensitivity as a critical moderator. Journal of Family Psychology. Vol. 26(5): 709-718.

Whitbeck, Les B.; Hoyt, Dan R.; Simons, Ronald L.; Conger, Rand D.; Elder Jr., Glen H.; Lorenz, Frederick O. & Huck, Shirley (1992, December). “Intergenerational continuity of parental rejection and depressed affect”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63(6): 1036-1045.

Whiteman Kaslow, Florence (1996). Handbook of Relational Diagnosis and Dysfunctional Family Patterns. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.

Yen, Jeffrey (2010). “Authorizing happiness: Rhetorical demarcation of science and society in historical narratives of positive psychology.” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, Vol. 30(2): 67-78.

Yu, Calvin Kai-Ching (2013, June). “The structural relations between the superego, instinctual affect, and dreams.” Dreaming. Vol. 23(2):145-155.

>> top < <>

 5c. Theological studies

Adela Collins (1985). “Patmos.” Harper’s Bible Dictionary. Paul J. Achtemeier, General Editor. San Francisco, CA, USA: Harper & Row, p. 755.

Arndt, William; Gingrich, F Wilbur; Danker, Frederick W & Bauer, Walter (1979). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature:a translation and adaptation of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (Second Edition), Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Barton, John (2010). The Bible: The Basics. London, UK: Routledge.

Beirne, Margaret M. (2003). Women and men in the fourth Gospel: a genuine discipleship of equals.  London, UK & New York, NY, USA: T & T Clark International.

Bernheim, Pierre-Antoine (1997, ©1996). James, Brother of Jesus. London : SCM Press.

Brown, Raymond Edward (1979). The community of the Beloved Disciple. New York, NY, USA: Paulist Press.

Brown, Raymond Edward (1990). Canonicity in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, et al. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.

Bütz, Jeffrey J. (2005). The brother of Jesus and the lost teachings of Christianity. Rochester, VT, USA: Inner Traditions.

Day, John (2002). Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan. Sheffie, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Dickson, John. (2008) Jesus: A Short Life, Oxford, UK: Lion.

Doyle, Ken (2011 September 11). “Apostle to the apostles: The story of Mary Magdalene”. Catholictimes.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

Ehrman , Bart D. (2006). Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

Freedman, D. N.; Noel, David, Myers; Allen & Beck, Astrid B. (2000). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Griffith-Jones, Robin (2008). Beloved disciple: the misunderstood legacy of Mary Magdalene, the woman closest to Jesus. New York, NY, USA: HarperOne.

Hereza, Rafael (1981).  El desvelamiento de la revelacion: la identidad del discipulo amado y de Maria Magdalena. Madrid, España: La Rama Dorada.

Ide, Arthur Frederick (1991). Yahweh’s wife: sex in the evolution of monotheism: a study of Yahweh, Asherah, ritual sodomy and Temple prostitution.Las Colinas, TX, USA : Monument Press.

Jacobsen, Thorkild (1976). The Treasures of Darkness: a History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven, CT, USA & London, UK: Yale University Press.

Leloup, Jean-Yves &  Rowe, Joseph (2004). The Gospel of Philip: Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the gnosis of sacred union. Rochester, VT, USA: Inner Traditions. Meyers, Eric M.; Scham, Sandra; Rollston, Christopher A.; Pfann, Stephen J. & Tabor, James (2006).  “Forum: The Talpiot “Jesus” Family Tomb.” Near Eastern Archaeology. Vol. 69, No. 3: 116.

Patey, Hillary (2009). Mary Magdalene and the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Honors Dissertation (B.A.)–Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Richardson, Peter (2002). What Has Cana to Do with Capernaum?” (New Testament Studies 2002:48: 314-331.

Sanders, E. P. (1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London, UK: Penguin.

Smith, Mark S (2002), The early history of God : Yahweh and the other deities in ancient Israel (2nd ed.), Grand Rapids, MI, USA: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

Tabor, James & Jacobovici, Simcha (2012). The Jesus Discovery: the new archaeological find that reveals the birth of Christianity. New York, NY, USA: Simon & Schuster.

Tabor, James D. (2006). The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family and the Birth of Christianity. New York, NY,USA: Simon& Schuster.

Vermes, Geza (1981). Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. Philadelphia, PA, USA: First Fortress.

 

>> top < <>

6. End Notes

  1. Aristotle (350 BCE). Nicomachean Ethics (Book 2.4: 1106b.29-34): Ἔτι τὸ μὲν ἁμαρτάνειν πολλαχῶς ἔστιν  (τὸ γὰρ κακὸν τοῦ ἀπείρου, ὡς οἱ (30) Πυθαγόρειοιεἴκαζον, τὸ δ᾽ ἀγαθὸν τοῦ πεπερασμένου), τὸ δὲ κατορθοῦν μοναχῶς  (διὸ καὶ τὸ μὲν ῥᾴδιον τὸ δὲ χαλεπόν, ῥᾴδιον μὲν τὸ ἀποτυχεῖν τοῦ σκοποῦ,  χαλεπὸν δὲ τὸ ἐπιτυχεῖν) ·καὶ διὰ ταῦτ᾽ οὖν τῆς μὲν κακίας ἡ ὑπερβολὴ καὶ ἡ ἔλλειψις, τῆς δ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἡ μεσότης·. At this juncture, Aristotle cited an anonymous comment: “For men are good in but one way, but made in many.”ἐσθλοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἁπλῶς,  παντοδαπῶς δὲ κακοί.
  2. Mains, David R. (1992). Healing the Dysfunctional Church family. Wheaton, IL, USA: Victor Books.
  3. Luke 2:49.
  4. John 6:42 that raises substantial questions that are not found elsewhere: ἔλεγον  Οὐχ  οὗτός  ἐστιν  Ἰησοῦς  ὁ  υἱὸς  Ἰωσήφ,  οὗ  ἡμεῖς  οἴδαμεν  τὸν  πατέρα  καὶ τὴν  μητέρα;  πῶς  νῦν  λέγει  ὅτι  Ἐκ  τοῦ  οὐρανοῦ  καταβέβηκα. Sanders, E. P. (1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London, UK: Penguin. p. 333. Vermes, Geza (1981). Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. Philadelphia, PA, USA: First Fortress. p. 283. Cp. Tabor, James D. (2006). The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family and the Birth of Christianity. New York, NY,USA: Simon& Schuster, pp. 62-64f. Meyers, Eric M.; Scham, Sandra; Rollston, Christopher A.; Pfann, Stephen J. & Tabor, James (2006).  “Forum: The Talpiot “Jesus” Family Tomb.” Near Eastern Archaeology. Vol. 69, No. 3: 116.
  5. Joses is a diminutive of Joseph.
  6. Matthew 13:53-58. Cf. Luke 3:23.
  7. Matthew 1:24-25. 12:46, 13:54-56, 27:56; Mark 3:31, 6:3, 15:40, 16:1; John 2:12, 7:3-5; Galatians 1:19; and Acts 1:14.
  8. Barton, John (2010). The Bible: The Basics. London, UK: Routledge, page 7. Cf. Freedman, D. N.; Noel, David, Myers; Allen & Beck, Astrid B. (2000). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, p. 202.
  9. John 6:41-51.
  10. Greek: Μαριάμ; Hebrew: מרים‎.
  11. Matthew 1:16, 18-25, and Luke 1:26-56 and 2:1-7.
  12. Matthew 1:23.
  13. Matthew 1:27, 30, 34, 38, 39, 41, 46, 56; 2:5, 16,19, 34.
  14. The Virgin birth of Jesus is not introduced into the early church until the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and then it was pushed for acceptance by the Emperor Constantine I.
  15. Arndt, William; Gingrich, F Wilbur; Danker, Frederick W & Bauer, Walter (1979). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: a translation and adaptation of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (Second Edition), Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press, 1979, for an article on parthénos, p. 627.
  16. This is not brought into the church or becomes an article of faith until the First Council of Ephesus in 431 CE.
  17. Matthew 1:16, 18, 20; 2:11.
  18. Matthew 13:55.
  19. Mark 6:3.
  20. Mark 3:31.
  21. John 2:1-12.
  22. John 19:25-26.
  23. John 2:1-12.
  24. John 19:25.
  25. Luke 23:35-37.
  26. Mark15:31.
  27. Matthew 23:59.
  28. Luke 23:49, 18:39.
  29. John 19:25. This has no other contemporary support but has been used by apologists and proselytizing groups to confound faiths and increase conversions, as with http://www.piercedhearts.org/mother_adela/mary_john_foot_cross.htm. The distortion of scripture is especially keenly saw at William Anthony (“Bill”) Donahue’s Catholic League that spends most of his time attacking “dissidents” and minorities in the name of “Christian love” and “charity” since his god is unable to defend the godhead without human intervention.
  30. Genesis 3:15.
  31. Revelation 12:1.
  32. Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press. p. 468.
  33. Adela Collins (1985). “Patmos.” Harper’s Bible Dictionary. Paul J. Achtemeier, General Editor. San Francisco, CA, USA: Harper & Row, p. 755.
  34. Pliny Natural History 4.69-70; Tacitus Annals 4.30.
  35. Acts 1:14.
  36. Doyle, Ken (2011 September 11). “Apostle to the apostles: The story of Mary Magdalene”. Catholictimes.
  37. Migne, J.-P., General Editor. Patrologia Latina (hereafter cited as PL), Vol. 112, col. 1474B.
  38. PL 112, 1475A.
  39. Revelation 12:1, 5-6.
  40. Qur’an 53:19/20 where Al-Uzza (العزى‎), considered to be the angel Metatron, was an intercessor for mortals before the throne of Allah.
  41. Herodotus. Histories. Histories 2.156. Cf. Lucius Apuleius, The Golden Ass. Book 11, Chapter 47.
  42. Jacobsen, Thorkild (1976). The Treasures of Darkness: a History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven, CT, USA & London, UK: Yale University Press.
  43. Smith, Mark S (2002), The early history of God : Yahweh and the other deities in ancient Israel (2nd ed.), Grand Rapids, MI, USA: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.
  44. Jeremiah 7:17–18 and 44:17.
  45. Day, John (2002). Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan. Sheffie, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group. Ide, Arthur Frederick (1991). Yahweh’s wife: sex in the evolution of monotheism: a study of Yahweh, Asherah, ritual sodomy, and Temple prostitution.  Las Colinas, TX, USA : Monument Press.
  46. Matthew 13:55.
  47. Mark 6:3.
  48. Dickson, John. (2008) Jesus: A Short Life, Oxford, UK: Lion, p. 47.
  49. Luke 2:49.
  50. Yu, Calvin Kai-Ching (2013, June). “The structural relations between the superego, instinctual affect, and dreams.” Dreaming. Vol. 23(2):145-155.  Coifman, Karin G.; Bonanno, George A.; Ray, Rebecca D. & Gross, James J. (2007, April) “Does repressive coping promote resilience? Affective-autonomic response discrepancy during bereavement.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92(4): 745-758.
  51. John 2:1-11.
  52. Exodus 7:17–18.
  53. John 2:11. The repetitive nature of miracles and sermons indicates the possibility that the Jesus narrative was written to substantiate a goal of redactors, more than it states a fact. This is a time-worn tradition, and its purpose is a deliberate mind manipulation to achieve a goal: to get people to believe in that which cannot be scientifically proven and there are no eyewitnesses to attest to the veracity of the account. It is a form of brain-washing. These narratives exploit alternating and contradictory images of scientists, and legitimate scientific activity. Yen, Jeffrey (2010). “Authorizing happiness: Rhetorical demarcation of science and society in historical narratives of positive psychology.” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, Vol. 30(2): 67-78.
  54. John4:46.
  55. http://jamestabor.com/2012/07/28/mark-and-john-a-wedding-at-cana-whose-and-where/. Cp. Richardson, Peter (2002). What Has Cana to Do with Capernaum?” (New Testament Studies 2002:48: 314-331, that is also cited by Tabor.
  56. Life 86.
  57. James Tabor & Jacobovici, Simcha (2012). The Jesus Discovery: the new archaeological find that reveals the birth of Christianity. New York, NY, USA: Simon & Schuster.
  58. John 2:9-10.
  59. John 2:11.
  60. John 2:3.
  61. John 2:4.
  62. The god (archangel) is recorded as Gabri-El. El is translated as Lord, Husband, God, etc. noting authority.
  63. Medinnus, Gene R. (1965, December) “Delinquents’ perceptions of their parents.” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 29(6): 592-593.
  64. John 2:5.
  65. Matthew 11:19. Luke 7:34.
  66. John 2:6.
  67. Matthew 12:46-50, especially verse 48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21; Mark 3:31-35.
  68. Mark 3:31-35.
  69. Matthew 12:46-50.
  70. This is similar to Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20.22-26.
  71. This is similar to Matthew 10:37 and Luke 14:26-33.
  72. Meltzer, Andrea L.; McNulty, James K. & Karney, Benjamin R.(2012, October). “Social support and weight maintenance in marriage: The interactive effects of support seeking, support provision, and gender”. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 26(5): 678-687
  73. Beeney, Joseph E.; Levy, Kenneth N.; Gatzke-Kopp, Lisa M.; Hallquist, Michael N. (2014, April). “EEG asymmetry in borderline personality disorder and depression following rejection”. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Vol. 5(2): 178-185.
  74. Scharf, Miri; Oshri, Assaf; Eshkol, Varda & Pilowsky, Tammy (March 2014). “Adolescents’ ADHD symptoms and adjustment: The role of attachment and rejection sensitivity.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol. 84(2): 209-2017. Cf. Cyranowski, Jill M.; Zill, Nicholas; Bode, Rita; Butt, Zeeshan; Kelly, Morgen A. R.; Pilkonis, Paul A.; Salsman, John M. & Cella, David (2013, March). “Assessing social support, companionship, and distress: National Institute of Health (NIH) Toolbox Adult Social Relationship Scales”. Health Psychology. Vol. 32(3): 293-301. Fung, Joey & Lau, Anna S. “Tough love or hostile domination? Psychological control and relational induction in cultural context”. Journal of Family Psychology. Vol. 26(6): 966-975. Cp. Schoebi, Dominik; Perrez, Meinrad & Bradbury, Thomas N. (2012, October). “Expectancy effects on marital interaction: Rejection sensitivity as a critical moderator. Journal of Family Psychology. Vol. 26(5): 709-718.
  75. John 19:26.
  76. John 19:27: μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, John 20:2 uses μαθητὴς ὃν ἐφίλει ὁἸησοῦς. The term appears five times in John: John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20, but it is not found in any other gospel and in no epistle.
  77. Whitbeck, Les B.; Hoyt, Dan R.; Simons, Ronald L.; Conger, Rand D.; Elder Jr., Glen H.; Lorenz, Frederick O. & Huck, Shirley (1992, December). “Intergenerational continuity of parental rejection and depressed affect”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63(6): 1036-1045.
  78. Eusebius, Historia ecclesia.3. xxiii.
  79. NHC (Nag Hammadi Codices) II.3.59.6-11 edited by Robinson, James (1977). Claremont, CA, USA: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity.
  80. Griffith-Jones, Robin (2008). Beloved disciple: the misunderstood legacy of Mary Magdalene, the woman closest to Jesus. New York, NY, USA: HarperOne. Hereza, Rafael (1981).  El desvelamiento de la revelacion: la identidad del discipulo amado y de Maria Magdalena. Madrid, España: La Rama Dorada.  Jean-Yves Leloup & Joseph Rowe (2004). The Gospel of Philip: Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the gnosis of sacred union. Rochester, VT, USA: Inner Traditions. Cf. Beirne, Margaret M. (2003). Women and men in the fourth Gospel: a genuine discipleship of equals.  London, UK & New York, NY, USA: T & T Clark International. Patey, Hillary (2009). Mary Magdalene and the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Honors Dissertation (B.A.)–Memorial University of Newfoundland.
  81. Brown, Raymond Edward (1979). The community of the Beloved Disciple. New York, NY, USA: Paulist Press. Brown, Raymond Edward (1990). Canonicity in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, et al. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall. pp. 1051-1052, as Mary Magdalene was the founder of the Johannine Community: Brown, Raymond Edward (1979). Op. cit.. p. 31, 183.
  82. John 19:27. Cp. Bütz, Jeffrey J. (2005). The brother of Jesus and the lost teachings of Christianity. Rochester, VT, USA: Inner Traditions.  Bernheim, Pierre-Antoine (1997, ©1996). James, Brother of Jesus. London : SCM Press.
  83. John 7:1-5.
  84. John 19:25. Mark 16:1. On the “other Mary” consult Matthew 28:1. The three Mary’s was the early community’s first approach to the concept of a trinity. The problem of John 20:1, is that the writer only mentions Mary Magdalene by name, but he has her using the plural: “We do not know where they have laid him” John 20:2. Luke 24:10 offers more than three women at the tomb. Matthew 28:1 has only two women at the tomb: Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary”. Mary was a very common name at that time and today: Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, p. 188. Some argue that Mary Salome was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus: Mark 15:40.

Leave a reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>