As John's gospel is probably the least reliable historically, I would the evidence suggests the woman who massaged Jesus in the synoptics was unnamed, and John added a name (Mary of Bethany) in his Gospel.
In that case John adulterated the NT text. Why should it remain as one of the gospels as a canonic writing? That's definitely not your point. Somehow, I can see your struggle to discard the Jewishness of Jesus. Is this some kind o Raplacement Theology?
This doesn't logically follow. Even if all the gospels were really referring to mary of bethany, nowhere do any of them refer to mary of magdala doing it.
Why would Mary Magdalene want to repeat her anointing by going to the tomb at the end of that Sabbath with perfumes and oils to anoint Jesus' body? (Mark 16:1) Just in case you think about a reply claiming that that woman too was unamed, let me read it for you: "When the Sabbath was over, MARY MAGDALENE,
Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought perfumed oils with which they intended to go and anoint Jesus." Are you looking for a way out of this one, or the woman was finally named? Mind you that the gospel writer identifying the woman is not John, just in case you try his lack of reliability. Mark was the first one.
What constituted a "proper" jew? The Sadducees, who rejected anything not present in the five books of moses? The pharisees, obsessed with ritual purity based on an orally transmitted tradition and sectioned off into small groups which ate and drank together? The essenes, who rejected the temple altogether, sectioned themselves off and also developed standards of purity, adopted a apocalyptic world view, and awaited a coming battle with the son's of darkness? John, who believed that a baptism in the Jordan prepared one for the coming of god's kingdom? Or how about your average Israelite who knew the holy books, sacrificed in the temple, organized religious consciousness around the temple, and likely thought this sufficient?
There is no such a thing as a "proper" Jew. One is either a Jew or he is not a Jew at all. Jesus was a religious Jew period. And a religious Jew in the First Century was much more strict than those of today. The tendency of a religion to evolve is usually from conservative to liberal. As you can see, you won't succeed to sow your anti-Jewish seed of contension
To even use the word "jew"
(יהודי, Ιουδαιος
is something of a problem. Why is this a better term than many of the others used by Jews themselves (Israelite, Hebrew, etc). Jew meant first and foremost a "Judean" and the word comes from the word Judea. In fact, the word "Judaism" (the practice of a religion associated with Judea) itself was first used in Greek, not Hebrew.
As I said above, you won't succeed to discard Judaism as the Faith of Jesus or the religion of the Jews of the whole Land of Israel. Although the whole Land of Israel was divided in provinces, the Jews were known as the Jews of Galilee, the Jews of Judea, the Jews of this or that province.
Right. Because your question shows how little you have studied the matter. I don't believe that ANY of the gospels records completely accurately the life of Jesus. All of the gospels have been redacted. All of them show minor disagreements (of course, the same is true of modern historical works). The point is, the teachings of Jesus, as well as some events in his ministry, have been reliably transmitted.
Twenty percent, I have figured. The other 80 percent are interpolations by either the Hellenist gospel writers or by the Fathers of the Church when they selected which books would enter the Canon of the NT.
No, because unlike you, I have actually studied the matter. I have read their writings. They weren't ashamed. Rather, they thought they were the "righteous jews" just like the pharisees thought they were, and the sadducees thought they were, and so on. They were a large group of jews, that two jewish authors describe as jews, and many practiced celibacy.
Should I produce the post when you said the Essenes were celibates? Now, you have changed to "many practiced celibacy." That's embarrassing!
"Jew" and "orthodox Jew" are two different things. You are saying "if Jesus were a REAL jew, he would have been married." But we can see from the historical record (Philo, Josephus, the NT, the Qumran documents, intercanonical and extracanonical literature, etc) that just who was
really "jewish" was a matter of dispute. And your average adherent to judaism built his life around the temple, the center of Jewish faith. Once it was destroyed, rabbinic judaism replaced the temple with study of the scriptures.
Rabbi Akiva attended the call to the Rabbinate when he was 40 and still single. I wonder why he had married to be integrated as a successful Rabbi. If a man in the Second Century should reach 40 as still a single man, why would he press to get married? We don't have to be a genius to figure that, to be a Rabbi was related to being married. Jesus was addressed by many as a Rabbi, even by learnt Pharisees like Nicodemus. (John 3:1) Therefore, it's more than obvious that Jesus was married. And one does not have to go too far looking for his wife. She was Mary Magdalene, his beloved disciple, whose care he recommended his mother to and vice-versa.
