Easy
link for memory and for sharing: TinyURL.com/BibleStudyTheFamilyOfJesus
Without recourse. All Rights Reserved. Tree of Life©
Statement of belief: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word
is truth.” (John 17:17 KJV)
Created 5927± 05 22 2023 [2007-08-06]
Updated 5925[(*??*)] 09 04 2029
[2012-12-17]
Added 5927[(*??*)] 05 14 2031
[2015-08-29] – A reference
to Papias “describing how Mark accurately recorded the “recollections of Peter”
.“
Revised 5927[(*??*)] 05 14 2031
[2015-08-29] – Clarifying
my language re Mary, the wife of Simon Peter,
being distinct and separate from Mary Magdalene. (Cf. my last prior
version.)
Revised 5937[v2017]
12 21 2034 [Sabbath 2018-03-10 (through 2018-03-12)] – Not
Cleophas & Mary, but Josef & Mary, the parents of Yeshu!
And
more… A comprehensive review and revision of this entire article of mine.
A Joint Two Party
Bible Study:
Two Families Joined by the Marriage in Cana Galilee
-
Joseph’s & Mary’s Family; the Parents of Yeshu, the Messiah
Joined With
Jona’s Family; the Father of Simon Peter Cephas
Introduction:
Less than two weeks ago, I received an important email, quoted in full below, in which email Al Franco presents what I believe being powerful evidence, albeit not proof, from the New Testament that the wedding of Cana in Galilee was that of Peter and Mary, the sister of Yeshu, the Messiah. Additionally, Al is providing suggestive evidence that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary of Bethany are siblings of Yeshu. This web page of mine is therefore now revised (cf. my earlier version here…) to accommodate the results of Al Franco’s discoveries from the New Testament.
Praise the Lord of Hosts, who is guiding and leading His Sons and His Daughters, albeit invisibly to us, as one most powerful People of the Living God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. The Creator of the entire Universe!
Praise Yehovah! The God whose foremost name Yehovah has so very powerful, yet largely forgotten, connections to that “image of God,” Gen 1:26-27, which is so intimately provided to every one among mankind, a family based upon one man and upon one female, and as also given to us in one of the meanings of the very first of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet, the aleph, as easily perceived through Strong’s H505.
Are we missing
valuable lessons re examples of family life extant within the Holy Scriptures?
And within the New Testament in particular?
Based upon NT texts
and in the light of the within chronology discoveries we learn that the apostle
Peter’s wife was named Mary and that they were married already at a time near
the beginning of Yeshu’s ministry.
- Who were the couple being celebrated at the
wedding feast in Cana in Galilee? Yes, Al Franco’s Bible discoveries powerfully
suggest that that wedding was the wedding between Peter, and Mary, the sister
of Yeshu, the Messiah.
We also may
conclude that John, surnamed Mark, was Peter’s and Mary’s son, and that Barnabas
was Mary’s brother and Peter’s brother-in-law. Yes, and, indeed, thanks to Al
Franco’s important Bible discoveries, that Barnabas was also the brother of
Yeshu, the Messiah!
If indeed the
Gospel of Mark was written by this same John Mark, then Mark’s gospel would be
based in part upon his own experiences and observations as a very young child,
and upon such as was provided to him through his very own father, Simon Peter.
Cf. Mark 14:51 KJV and Mark’s words “a certain young man…” Remember the words typically
used by the other Gospel writers in reference to themselves!
And, of
course, John Mark being the son of Peter and Mary, he would have a most
intimate knowledge of his own parents. To top that off John Mark would have
enjoyed a very close relationship with his uncle Yeshu, his uncle Barnabas, and
later, while traveling with them, also with Paul. Not to mention his uncle
Andrew bar Jonah, and the other disciples. Further evidence for John Mark’s
age, at the time of traveling with Paul and Barnabas, is found from a
comparison of Mark 14:51[1] at the time of the crucifixion (19
CE,) and Mark’s still being under the tutorship of Barnabas during his
travels with Paul and Barnabas (cf. Acts 12:21, which relates events
that took place in 29-30 CE,) and which provides for us a fairly good idea
of Mark’s age at the time… His more exact age being now easily determined from
our recognition that the wedding in Cana, Galilee, was likely none other than
that of John Mark’s own parents. Thank’s Al!
However, what
else is really the basis for believing that this Mark is the author of the
Gospel of Mark? I do not find the name Mark mentioned anywhere in the gospels
except in the title to the Gospel of Mark. Is the title “The Gospel of Mark” an
original title?
Added 5927[(*??*)] 05 14 2031
[2015-08-29:]
Wikipedia (in the article
about Justin Martin) notes that
“Papias uses a… term meaning remembered (apomnemoneusen) when describing
how Mark accurately recorded the “recollections of Peter” .“
Seems quite a likely thing for a son to pursue, does it not?! And,
talking about Papias, let’s not forget this quote of his!:
“Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each
translated as he was able. (Papias, 150-170 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist.
3:39)”
And the following, all of whom may be basing their statements upon
Papias’ writings:
Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
(Ireneus, 170 CE, Against Heresies 3:1)
The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax
collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having
published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. (Origen circa 210
CE, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6:25)
The epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in
the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published
among the Greeks. (Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes, referred to by Eusebius
in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2)
He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most
fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more
eloquently turned into Greek. (Jerome, 382 CE, 'Lives of Illustrious Men,' Book
V)
Whatever the conventional
wisdom of modern theology and skepticism may claim re the above quotes, a
much more sound and firm verification of the essential truth behind the above
quotes, is found in a first hand study, comparison, and analysis of the best
available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures themselves. Which is presently my own firsthand
experience and witness.
|
|
Matt 8:14;
27:56; 28:1 Mark 1:30-31; 6:3; 13:54-55; 15:40-41; 16:1 Luke 4:38;
24:10 John 19:25 |
|
Jona Matthew 16:17 John 1:42; 21:15-17 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yeshu Messiah Matt
13:54-55 Mark 6:3 |
|
James the less Matt
13:54-55; 27:56; Luke 24:10; Mark 6:3 |
|
Joses Barnabas Matt
13:54-55; 27:56 Mark 6:3 Acts 4:36;
13:1-2; 15:37; Gal 2:9 |
|
Judas Matt
13:54-55 Mark 6:3 |
|
Simon Lazarus Matt
13:54-55; 21:17; 26:6? Mark 6:3;
11:11-12; 14:3? Luke 24:50 John 11:1, 2,
19, 31-32, 39; 12:1, 2 |
Martha Luke
10:38-41; John 11:1, 5, 19-21, 24, 28, 30, 39; 12:2 |
|
Mary Matt 28:1; Luke
10:38-42; John 11:1, 2, 5, 19-21, 28, 31-32; 12:3; 19:25; Acts 12:2, 12 |
1 Cor 9:5 Acts 12:13 |
Simon [3] Peter Cephas Clopas Cleopas Mark 1:29;
13:3; Luke 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 32-33;
22:8; 24:13, 18, 33-34; John 1:40-42;
19:25; 21:15-17; Acts 1:13; 3:1, 3-4, 11; 4:13, 19; 8:14; 1 Cor
15:5; Gal 2:9 |
|
Andrew Mark 13:3;
Luke 6:14; John 1:40-42; Acts 1:13 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
John Mark 1 Peter 5:13 Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37, 39 Col 4:10 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Further
considerations:
In this revision of the
prior version of this article of mine, I wish to begin by quoting Al Franco’s
email, and my subsequent response in full.
I am convinced that in
publishing this dialogue in full, it will better serve to convey to my readers
the tremendous value inherent in a living dialogue between parties re each of
their respective points of view from time to time. There is no valid reason for
fear of openly revealing one’s prior errors and misconceptions. Or isn’t that
what true confession is all about?! And isn’t it true that an honest confession
is an absolute necessity for true forgiveness, and before new and better ways
of thinking can possibly come about?! Thus, I find that, on the contrary, each
our own fears, my own fears, must be in terms of being afraid of openly
confessing, before God, before myself, and before others, my former flaws,
errors, and misconceptions!
[I have taken the
liberty to correct, for clarity and for improved readability, a very few minor
linguistic typos in Al’s email, but in so doing I have properly enclosed them
within brackets. The few other linguistic peculiarities that I found, I have
left untouched, because I find such peculiarities of our respective linguistic
upbringing adding a positive flavor to our dialogue, while not likely contributing
to any confusion re the author’s intent and meaning:]
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at
10:06 PM, AL Franco <…> wrote:
Andy,
how are you?
A
thousand excuses for not having answered you before, please. Well, after
several searches I came to the conclusion that you are almost 100% certain
[=correct?; cf. Al’s PS below!] about
your article: Peter's Family Wife Mary & Son Mark Peter's brother-in-law:
Barnabas.
I
remember looking for something that could connect Cleophas and Cephas,
and the only internet article I found was yours. That was in 2015.
After that I still have not stopped researching. I believe that Mary, the
mother of John Mark and the wife of Peter, is one of the sisters of Jesus. In that
case, Jesus healed his own mother in Peter's house.
If
we were to examine the biblical records well, let us find out that Mary was one
of those who appeared on the scene of the cross as one of the women who SERVED
him as he walked through Galilee. Mark 15:40, 41, say[s]:
“And
there were women also looking on from afar off, among whom were both Mary of
Magdala, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and
Salome; who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him and SERVED
him; and many others who came up with him to Jerusalem”.
Do
not forget that word: SERVED. That was [what Peter’s] mother[-]in[-]law did
right after Jesus healed her.
That
Mary[,] quoted by Mark, [the] mother of James and Joseph[,] is the
mother of Jesus to[o]. She is quoted in John 19:25 as the mother of Jesus and,
in Mark, as the mother of Joseph and James, for the Bible wants to
identify it in Mark. Confirmation comes with the parallel relations of Mark 6:3
and Matthew 13:55, where the Jews rhetorically ask of Jesus:
"Is
not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joseph, of
Judas and Simon? "
It
is noteworthy that James is placed before Joseph as in the [account] of the
crucifixion scene in Matthew 27:56:
"And
there stood many a woman there, looking from afar, who had followed Jesus from
Galilee to minister unto him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. "
The
mother of Jesus could not have been excluded from the narratives of Mark.
When
the record of the cross scene says that she is the mother of Jesus it is
because he was still alive, as the example in John 19:25. After Jesus dies, she
is quoted on the scene as the mother of James and Joseph. And that has an
explanation. The two oldest sons are selected first. As Christ is dead, her
next son, whose name is James, enters the register with his brother Joseph.
Then Mary is identified by the two eldest sons, which was the custom among the Jews:
"The
practice in the Synoptic Gospels and in Acts to refer to women by the names of
their children rather than their husbands or fathers is the same as the current
Arab custom which identifies the woman or man by the name of the son - or
daughter - elder" (Segueve, One Palestine, Complete, 371).
It
was in this way that they found innumerable ossuaries of Jewish women named in
inscriptions at the time of the Second Temple (Catalog of Jewish Ossuaries,
15).
Let
us continue with Peter[’s] mother-in-law and the women who served them in Galilee. Matthew also says that they came from Galilee to serve
him in Jerusalem:
"And
there stood, looking afar off, many women who had followed Jesus from Galilee,
to serve him; Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." [Matt
27:56]
Were
is Jesus[‘] mother? Is right there. She cannot be excluded from Matthews also.
So,
they served him in Galilee and came to serve him in Jerusalem. The same word -
to serve - was used for Peter's mother-in-law after being
healed by Jesus:
"And
Jesus, entering into Peter's house, saw the mother-in-law of this bedridden,
and with a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her; and he
arose, and served them." [Matt 8:14-15]
If
we do a thorough study we will find that Jesus and his family went to [live] in
Capernaum. Probably in Peter's house after they left Nazareth. Even just after
the wedding in Cana you see them going to Capernaum (John 2:12) and staying
there for a few days. But later they definitely moved.
I
believe that the one who married in Cana of Galilee was Peter. That is why the
mother of Jesus is mentioned in [such an] outstanding way. But, check that:
early in the ministry of Jesus he is seen in Bethany. He was living in
someone's house, and I believe it was in the house of Simon (Lazarus)[,]
brother of Martha and Mary, all three may be Jesus' brothers [siblings], which
is why he loved them so much. I believed [=believe?] that was the occasion
that Peter saw Mary for the first time.
Follow
me in the reading of John 1 and see that soon after the narrative on the
ministry of John the Baptist, the writer of the Gospel says:
"These
things happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan where John was
baptizing. The next day John saw Jesus coming to him and said,
"Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:
28, 29).
Soon
after Jesus is baptized he meets Andrew and Peter. In Bethany yet:
“On
the next day John was there again, and two of his disciples; and when he
saw Jesus passing by, he said, Behold the Lamb of God. And the two disciples
heard him say this, and followed Jesus. And Jesus turned and saw
that they were following him, and said unto them, What seek ye? And they said,
Rabbi (which, translated, meaning Master), where dost thou dwell? He
said to them, "Come and see." They went, and saw where he dwelt, and
abode with him that day; and it was almost the tenth hour. And
Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two that heard of John, and
followed him. And he found Simon his brother first, and said unto
him, We have found the Messiah (which is the Christ). And he brought
him to Jesus. And Jesus looked at him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of
Jonas: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is Peter)”; John 1:35-40.
That
is, Andrew took Peter to Jesus somewhere in Bethany. Jesus only goes to Galilee
later. See the immediate verse:
"The
next day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and found Philip, and said to him,
Follow me". [John 1:43]
Therefore,
I believe that Jesus was in the house of his brothers [siblings], Simon
(Lazarus)[,] Mary[,] and Martha on that time. Notice the [account] of John 15,
when Jesus is again in the house of Martha and Mary. Martha complains with
Jesus that she is doing the service on her own. The verse say[s] that
she
“…
coming up and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister has left
me to serve alone? Speak to her therefore that she may help me”,
Luke 10:40.
What
do you think? For me it's a typical conversation between siblings. Nobody talks
like that unless they're talking to someone in the family.
John's
chapter two begins as follows:
"And
on the third day there were marriages at Cana in Galilee; and the mother of
Jesus was there". [John 2:1]
It
could very well be Peter's marriage to Jesus' sister. If I am right, then
John 19:25 can be read as follows [cf. below!]:
"And
by the cross of Jesus was his mother, his sister, the wife of Cephas, and Mary
the Magdalene".
In
this case, Jose called Bar[n]abas would be even brother of Mary, [the] wife of
Peter. The two would be the children of Joseph and Mary. However, we must look
closely at where the phrase came about Joseph: who is a native of Cyprus. For
me it was an addition. If not, then is he the cousin of Peter's wife? What is
he? Is he a cousin of John Mark? [Cf. below!] Why stand out if he was
just a cousin? Son of whom? There seems to be something in the text that does
not fit. I think this Joseph is the same Joseph quoted in Matthew 13:55 as the
brother of Jesus.
Another thing. One of the two travellers on the road to Emmaus cannot be Cleophas. I believe Cleophas never existed, but [that] it was a Roman Catholic addition to disappear with the wife of Peter in John 19:25 and somew[h]ere else. In fact, Peter never saw Jesus before his first appearance for the disciples. So neither of the two of Emmaus's way could be Peter, for when they returned to Jerusalem they found the 11 assembled. Attention! It was 11, but Thomas was absent! You got that?
After Jesus disappears from their sight, Luke says that
"at once they rose up and returned to Jerusalem, and gathered together the ELEVEN, and those who were with them," Luke 24:33.
No one among the disciples, or even the two of the Emmaus way, said the words:
"Jesus has appeared to Simon". [Luke 24:34]
Again: Simon did not see Jesus before his first appearance to the disciples.
Luke says that when Peter went to the tomb, after being warned [alerted?] by the women, he only saw the garments of Jesus (Luke 24:12). In verse 24 [Luke 24:24], in the conversation with Jesus after the resurrection, one of Emmaus' disciples makes it clear that Peter did not see Jesus:
"And some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it to be as the women had said; but THEY HAVE NOT SEE[N] HIM".
This happened before the first appearance of the Lord to the disciples, the one without Thomas. And between the first and second manifestation of Jesus to the disciples, Jesus also did not appear to Peter in particular.
And though the disciples on the road to Emmaus suggest that Jesus appeared to Simon, this is not true. They did not speak the word Simon, as it is in the text we know, which says,
"The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon" (Luke 24:34).
If Peter had indeed seen the risen Christ before, and [quarreled] with the disciples, then his response when Christ appeared among them in Luke 24:37 did not reflect this because they were
"terrified and frightened". [Luke 24:37]
[Mark 16:12, 13] reinforces his sense of disbelief, which further discredits an earlier appearance [before] Peter. See:
"And then two other of them were manifested, as they were on the way to the field. And as they went, they told the others, but they still did not believe." [Mark 16:12-13]
The two disciples of Emmaus did not say the word Simon at all, but "we". This is the original text [that is, as based upon the following understanding of the Greek text]:
"The Lord has truly risen, and has appeared to us." [Luke 24:34]
Or it may be,
"He was seen by us." [Luke 24:34]
One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that the name "Simon" used in Luke 24:34 is in fact a modification of the original that was introduced by activist scholars or the clergy, a hierarchy that sought to concentrate power on a papacy based on the lineage of Peter . If Jesus appeared first to the women and then to the two on the way to Emmaus, while Peter was not shown such a special preference, then the clergy needed to take action.
The Greek Simon "Σίμων" (Strong G4613) differs only by the initial letters of "ἡμων" (Strong's G2257) commonly translated as 'we'. Therefore, a translation of Luke 24:34 using this variant ha[s] to be:
"The Lord has truly risen, and has appeared to us," [Luke 24:34]
which fits perfectly with the flow of history.
What's more, I have sources that confirm that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 may have undergone subsequent copyist changes, especially verse 5 [1 Cor 15:5]:
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.
5 and that he was SEEN BY CEFAS, and then by the twelve.
6 And he was seen once more by five hundred brethren, of whom the greater part remain, but some sleep also.
7 Then he was seen by James, and then by all the apostles.
As you can see before[,] he was not seen by Cephas (Peter) before his appearance at 11. In fact there is something very wrong with the chronology in this passage of Corinthians.
A
Franco
Sorry
if my english is confuse in some places. My first language is Portuguese
My
response in full:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Tree of Life (c) Time <treeoflifetime@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Al Franco,
for your most interesting and valuable letter! Most all of what you write - in
the first half or so of your mail - makes a whole [lot] of sense in my way of
thinking. Thanks!
If you don't mind, and if you don't tell me otherwise, I would like to include
your mail to me on a special page on my website among my other articles? Please
let me know about that! And if it's ok with you?, in so doing, I'll be happy to
correct some of the minor language problems [including the brackets above] that
you are mentioning at the end of your recent letter.
Just a few comments regarding the latter half of your mail, the first one is in
reference to this paragraph of yours:
"Another thing. One of the two travellers on the road to Emmaus cannot be Cleophas. I believe Cleophas never existed, but it was a Roman Catholic addition to disappear with the wife of Peter in John 19:25 and somewere else. In fact, Peter never saw Jesus before his first appearance for the disciples. So neither of the two of Emmaus's way could be Peter, for when they returned to Jerusalem they found the 11 assembled. Attention! It was 11, but Thomas was absent! You got that?"
I don't know whether or not you are aware of the fact that all of the gospels, and probably most of the rest of the New Testament epistles as well, were originally written in Hebrew, then translated into Aramaic, and thence from Aramaic to Greek, are you? This fact is very helpful in knowing for purposes of resolving issues such as the above within your quoted article [paragraph]. I have found the interlinear Syriac Peshitta, probably one of the best [available] Aramaic translations from the original Hebrew, and as available to us under the link, a most useful and easily accessible tool for these and other like purposes. Certainly it is not likely that anything present in said Aramaic translation was added or edited by anyone within the Roman Catholic Church. Now, looking up John 19:25 in said Aramaic text, I soon recognize the following five items:
1. The Aramaic text of John 19:25 mentions 1) his mother, 2) and the sister of his mother, 3) and Myriam, the one of Qalyopa, 4) and Maryam of Magdala. Thus, Cleophas [Qalyopa] can hardly be considered an RCC addition [into the Greek translation]. However, I fail to understand your meaning within your words "disappear with the wife of Peter in John 19:25 and somewhere else." Please clarify what you mean with those words of yours!
2. Once Peter showed up in Jerusalem, yes, including Peter "they found the 11 assembled." Please compare also Mark 16:14 with Luke 24:35-36! As you will see from Luke, Yeshu showed up with "the eleven" after the arrival of the two came back from Emmaus.
3. Well, seeing that neither Thomas, nor Judas, were present at that meeting, no more than 10 of the 11 could possibly have been present when Yeshu presented himself to them [to “the eleven”]. Thus, I believe the term "the eleven" was more of a common term used for the eleven disciples generally. That is, whether or not they were all present at any given time and place.
4. Re the word translated in John 19:25 as "sister..." Looking up [using the search engine within Davar3 and searching the Syriac Peshitta NT for the root ‘*חתה*’] and comparing [each hit with the extant translation of each of those text passage hits] all of the New Testament Aramaic words using or including the corresponding Aramaic words, I find that "sister" is not necessarily and in every instance a correct translation of said Aramaic word (חתה) as found in John 19:25. The corresponding Hebrew word (אחתה) for 'sister' is written with an 'א' (aleph) at the beginning of the word. Given that an aleph at the beginning of any Aramaic word constitutes the definite article, it is only natural that said Aramaic word does not begin with an aleph. Yet, per Strong's H2844-2847 the Hebrew word חתה means "fear" or even "terror." Makes me think of the worries or concerns [that] a parent may have re their young teenagers at times. [As also, in ancient times, a mother’s fear of her husband’s disappointment of not getting the desired son and heir he had been hoping for.] Could it be that that's how Mary, the mother of Yeshu and of Maria perceived her daughter Maria? Or else [how] the author of John 19:25 [perceived her]?
The Hebrew word for sister, Strong's H269, cf. H251-255, is likewise based on the concept of "grief or surprise" (Strong's H253), and may not necessarily in every instance be correctly translated in reference to a sister or brother. As defined and used by Yeshu himself per the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Matt 12:50, the Hebrew word אחתה is most enlightening in this regard. Indeed, as also stated per Strong's H269, this Hebrew word is
"used very widely, lit. and fig.,"
and per H251, is
"used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaph. affinity or resemblance."
Accordingly, while taking your considerations within the first half or so of your mail into account, I see it as entirely possible that the Aramaic word חתה, translated into the Greek word "ἀδελφὴ" is here being used as a character reference of Maria, a sister of Yeshu, and the wife of Peter. That is, the words in red font below, could be, in the original Hebrew text, a reference to one lady only, not to two ladies as understood from the Aramaic and the Greek texts available to us. That is, the Greek rendition, apparently referencing two ladies, finds support also in the Aramaic text. And so, without further access to the Hebrew original text of John 19:25, my above suggestion is thus far seeking its ultimate confirmation. There are mistranslations in the Aramaic text, as multiple times perceivable by a comparison with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Εἱστήκεισαν δὲ παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ, καὶ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή. [John 19:25]
But no, I do not see that per the Aramaic text of John 19:25, your rendering is at all possible. Yet, that says nothing about whatever may be written in the original Hebrew text. That is, re your words [which words of yours, per the above said, I accordingly agree may quite possibly be a correct rendering]:
"If I am right, then John 19:25 can be read as follows:
"And by the cross of Jesus was his mother, his sister, the wife of Cephas, and Mary the Magdalene". "
5. Thus, so far you have not laid before me enough to support your claim that Simon Peter, Cephas aka Cleophas was not one of the two on their way to Emmaus.
Your considerations re whether or not Simon Peter Cephas saw Yeshu before the two Emmaus travelers returned to the "eleven" [actually only 9 before the arrival of Peter; that is, absent Judas, Thomas, and Peter, or 12-3=9!] are quite interesting and seemingly, on the surface, logical. That is, [as] based upon presumptions of yours still being, re this particular, built upon traditional and conventional, but flawed, RCC teachings. That is, that the New Testament scriptures were originally written in Greek, and that Aramaic was the prevalent language spoken in Israel in New Testament times. However, scrapping said RCC teachings in favor of the manuscript texts that are closest to the original Hebrew text, that is, in favor of the Aramaic text of e.g. the Syriac Peshitta, [except for Matthew and Hebrews, both of which are available to us, at least in part, in the form of transcripts based upon the original Hebrew language,] I find that the translation "Simon" in Luke 24:34 is indeed a correct translation supported by the, closer to the original, Aramaic text. Thus I fail to find support for validating your otherwise most interesting consideration:
" '"Σίμων" (Strong G4613) differs only by the initial letters of "ἡμων" (Strong's G2257) "
In addition to said link to the Aramaic text, I also find the corresponding Aramaic text available to me in Hebrew letters and font, that are more readable to me. That is, using the free Bible study software Davar 4. Thusly:
Clearly enough, your comparison between two similar appearing Greek words find no corresponding similarities within either the Aramaic or the Hebrew languages. But, of course, so long as you or anyone insist upon a conviction that the New Testament was originally written in the Greek language, you will force yourself also to conclude that the above Aramaic texts cannot be anything but a translation from a closer to the original Greek text. However, for those willing to study these matters closely for themselves, it should be clear that the Greek text is a translation from the Aramaic text, and not the other way around. Or, at the very least, so it is on my part.
Re your words:
"I have sources that confirm that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 may have undergone subsequent copyist changes, especially verse 5... [1 Cor 15:5]"
Although your considerations re 1 Cor 15:5 fail to find support in the closer to the original Aramaic text, I am still interested in learning from you what exact "sources" you are referencing in your above quoted sentence. Please let me know what exact sources you are referencing!
At any rate, thank you very much for referencing 1 Cor 15:5 in this connection! I believe I missed that one reference [to “Cefas”] before.[.. That is, until I reread my entire article and, as so many times before, realize my own forgetfulness. Thanks for reminding me! Further, in rereading and revising this article of mine, I realize that your email to me above is, largely, to be read and understood as your sequential comments of the prior version of this article of mine. Thanks ever so my for thus sharing with me your feedback, and your interest in joining me in the pursuit of discovering ever more Bible pearls. That is, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and of Yeshu, the Messiah.] Which reference is thus further confirmation that the name 'Cephas' is indeed one and the same name as [is] 'Cleopas' and that Simon Peter Cephas aka Cleopas was one of the two upon the road to Emmaus.
.
.
.
.
Lastly, I would like to share with you a little of my most primary research findings. That is, re the strictly chronological dating of some of the events you mention in your mail. Most particularly re the suggested wedding and family of Peter and Mary. Not that there are not errors still to be discovered and corrected in my chronology work thus far, but as you will find in my four(!) gospel synopsis, I have found the following exact dates:
1. Yeshu calling first Andrew then Peter to follow him; John 1:35-42: Sivan 2 Beginning sunset Fri June 7, 15 CE.
2. The wedding in Cana in Galilee on the Third Day: Sivan 5, beginning at sunset Monday June 10, 15 CE.
3. Peter’s mother-in-law healed at Peter’s house on the Sabbath: Elul 29 Beginning sunset Fri Oct 2, 15 CE.
4. Matt 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16 Jesus... said, Suffer little children to come to me...: Between Sivan 8, Fri June 3, 18 CE and Adar, 19 CE.
5. Acts 12:25: Barnabas and John brings John Mark with them while traveling: Abib 21, 30 CE.
As you will notice re the age of John Mark - provided my above dates, and your suggestion that the wedding in Cana was that of Peter and Mary are both correct - John Mark, the author of the Gospel of Mark, was likely conceived in mid June, 15 CE; delivered in the spring of 16 CE; running and playing around Yeshu at the age of 3, and then traveling under the protectorship of his uncle Barnabas at an age of 15. This is certainly a most possible scenario, or don't you agree?
As to there being, per the above dates, no more than three days between Peter's first meeting with Mary, and their subsequent wedding... Well, that may seem just a little bit short of a time span. Yet not impossible, especially upon considering Peter's several times in the NT demonstrated impulsiveness. Indeed, consider, re this particular, also item #4, further above, re the word 'sister' being a reference to the daughter of Mary, [mother of] the wedded wife of Peter. On the other hand, if the events recorded in John 1 are not in perfect chronological order, then the event recorded in John 1:35-42 could potentially be dated to an earlier [or later] date, not exactly specified? If indeed there were only those three days between Peter's first meeting with Mary and between their wedding, well, if so, that would certainly not [as based only upon my own first reflections] allow for your suggestion at the end of these words of yours:
"But, check that: early in the ministry of Jesus he is seen in Bethany. He was living in someone's house, and I believe it was in the house of Simon (Lazarus) brother of Martha and Mary, all three may be Jesus' brothers [siblings], which is why he loved them so much. I believed that was the occasion that Peter saw Mary for the first time."
[Upon further reflection of these words of yours, I consider also the possibility that all of them, Yeshu, his disciples, including Peter, Mary, and perhaps also Martha and Lazarus, were traveling together along the way back to Galilee. In so doing they would have had ample time and opportunity for laying and implementing their plans for said wedding in Cana of Galilee immediately upon their arrival there. Wedding preparations such as are common in our day and age are certainly not a requirement to be superimposed upon a wedding in that day and age!]
As to the timing of the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, which as I see it, could well be more appropriately called the Gospel of Peter, as dictated by Peter to his son John Mark. Indeed, this Gospel could very well be the result of Peter and Mary home schooling their son John Mark. As such, and knowing of the works of Glenn Doman and al in Philadelphia, John Mark could well have been learning to write even as early as at the age of only 36 months, that is as a 3 year old. That is, the Gospel of Mark could have been authored by John Mark, the son of Peter and Mary, even as early as [Please press the links under Glenn Doman above and study the top line of seven within The Institutes' Developmental Profile!] shortly after the crucifixion and resurrection of Yeshu, which events took place within the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the spring of 19 CE, i.e. [the seven days] between [sunset] Tue May 9 and [sunset] Tue May 16, 19 CE, at which time John Mark would have had his third birthday. Well, that's certainly within the realm of possibility, yet, said authorship could naturally have taken place at any later point in time.
.
.
.
.
Finally, re Barnabas' relationship to Mary:
"In this case, Jose called Bar[n]abas would be even brother of Mary, wife of Peter. The two would be the children of Joseph and Mary. However, we must look closely at where the phrase came about Joseph: who is a native of Cyprus. For me it was an addition. If not, then is he the cousin of Peter's wife? What is he? Is he a cousin of John Mark? Why stand out if he was just a cousin? Son of whom? There seems to be something in the text that does not fit. I think this Joseph is the same Joseph quoted in Matthew 13:55 as the brother of Jesus."
First, re Barnabas being from the region of Cyprus. I see nothing strange in Barnabas having moved to, and lived on Cyprus for any period of time. Acts 4:36, per the Aramaic text, says nothing re where he originally came from. Indeed, per Acts 13:1 he was later stationed in Antioch. That is, Barnabas was a man on the move and willing to travel. I don't know from where you get the idea that he could be a cousin of Mary? [2018-03-12; two weeks later, and after reviewing and revising this article of mine: I am truly sorry about my own forgetfulness! Sorry! Cf. below!] All I have is Paul's statement per Colossians 4:10, which per the KJV and other translations I have [available] provides "Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas," all of which are likely based upon the Greek words:
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς Ἀρίσταρχος ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου, καὶ Μάρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβᾳ, περὶ οὗ ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς― ἐὰν ἔλθῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, δέξασθε αὐτόν·
More fundamental is of course the Aramaic text of the Syriac Peshitta:
That is, the words 'בר דדה' meaning 'son of דה'. Again, no access to the original Hebrew text behind Colossians 4:10. And I find no possible fit in Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary that helps me define the meaning of the Aramaic דה. Could it be that the Greek translator saw a similarity between דדה and חתה, meaning sister, while forgetting that the initial letter -ד provides the genitive form, as in the English word 'of?' Entering 'דדה' into the translating box under this link, I get "מקור, לדדות" which words per my Google Hebrew translator means "Source, to hobbies." Again, no real answer to this dilemma. I really haven't found a useful Aramaic Dictionary. Perhaps, you will? I trust that God will provide us with the answer in due time! Until such time, I do not have a good answer to this question of mine... Patience! As per Revelation 14:13! In the mean time, the best we have is the translation we are given per KJV: "Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas." Which translation seems to agree with everything we have found and suggested above. So there is really no problem, except for the fact that we would like to understand the Aramaic word דדה that's behind said KJV translation.
I think I covered most all of the point[s] in your letter that I wished to comment on. If I forgot some, perhaps I'll remember and send you a PS later...
If you find reasons for countering my above considerations or otherwise commenting or communing with me, please do so! I, for one, am most interested in having any and all of my own flawed thoughts and ideas pointed out to me such that I may correct any error of mine as soon as possible! So please never hesitate to point out any of the errors that certainly still exist within my writings! Just the same as you attempted to do in this last mail to me. Thanks! Please know that I accept and value all of what you wrote, that is, while yet countering a few of your considerations. Hoping you find value in all of those? As I do in yours!
Thank you!
Blessings to you and yours,
Andy(c)
What families can be identified in the New Testament?
1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as
well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 9:6 Or I only and
Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
As I stumbled upon Barnabas being mentioned by Paul in
the above passage, wondering why Paul would mention Barnabas in this context
[long after they parted ways per Acts 15:39] and wondering whether Barnabas was
actually back together with Paul in Philippi when this epistle was being
written [I found no further evidence for that,] while pursuing the answer to my
question I came upon the following texts:
The origins of Barnabas:
Acts 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed
Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and
of the country of Cyprus,
The beginnings of Saul’s
relationship with Barnabas:
Acts 9:27 But Barnabas
took him [Saul,] and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had
seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had
preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
Acts 11:22 Then tidings
of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and
they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
Acts 11:25 Then departed
Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
John Mark’s mother was Mary – Why
would it be natural for Peter to head to Mary’s home in the middle of the
night?:
Acts 12:12 And when he
had considered the
thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many
were gathered together praying.
Acts 12:13 And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate,
a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda.
On what basis was John Mark brought
by Barnabas on their journeys?
Acts 12:25 And Barnabas and
Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and
took with them John,
whose surname was Mark.
Acts 15:37 And Barnabas
determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
Why was it natural for Barnabas to bring
along Mark? How old was Mark at this time?
Acts 15:39 And the
contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the
other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
What is the relationship between
Mark and Barnabas? Why has Paul’s attitude to Mark changed with time?
Colossians 4:10 Aristarchus
my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Mark, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come
unto you, receive him;)
2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is
with me. Take Mark,
and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
Philemon 1:24 Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my
fellow laborers.
What is the relationship between Peter and Mark?
1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon,
elected together with you,
saluteth you; and so
doth
Mark my son.
So, who was Cephas’
wife?
Who was Peter’s wife? Well, from Peter’s own words above (1 Peter 5:13)
it appears as though Mark is Peter’s son, does it not? But clearly, Mark’s
mother was Mary, correct (Acts 12:12?) So for all I can tell Peter’s wife was
Mary, and their son was Mark. So, is it any wonder then that Peter went to
Mary’s place as soon has he was released from the prison in the middle of the
night (Acts 12:11-13?)
Consider also the following text. Who is Clophas? Is this a
transliteration error for Cephas? After all, the original language is likely to
have been Hebrew, which was then likely first translated to Aramaic before
being further translated into Greek and later English:
John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's
sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Confirmation for Cleophas being the same one as Cephas, i.e. Simon
Peter, is found upon a close comparison of Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13, 18 & 34, thus ascertaining that the wife of Cephas’, i.e.
of Simon Peter, was indeed Mary.
Furthermore, is John 19:25 referencing four, or only
three, women? If three, what does this text tell us about Jesus’ relationship
to Peter’s family? Uncle [Peter, as an Uncle-in-law], aunt [Mary, sister to
Mary, the mother of Yeshu while also the wife of Peter], and first cousin [John
Mark]? Or better yet, recognizing the value of Al Franco’s bible discoveries,
Brother-in-law [Peter,] sister [Mary, the wife of Peter and the daughter of
Mary, the mother of Yeshu,] and nephew [John Mark.]
What may the above
relationships teach us re the close relationship between Paul and Barnabas?
Considering how important Barnabas had been for Saul in making Saul
accepted by the church which he had before severely persecuted, is it any
wonder that the two of them remained close to one another even after their
dissention over Mark, who was the nephew of Barnabas? Is there any wonder that
given time (cf. 2 Tim. 4:11 and Philemon 1:24 above, both written in 45
CE) Paul was able to overcome the hard feelings he had had for Mark at the
time of the events in Acts 15:39 (39
or 40 CE?)
Considering Paul’s and Barnabas’ close relationship, is it strange that
Barnabas should tend to side with Peter, his own brother-in-law, when there was
a dissention between Peter and Paul? What relationships tend to be stronger in
the long run? Blood relationships or mere friendship?
Galatians
2:11 But when Peter was
come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Galatians
2:12 For before that
certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come,
he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Galatians 2:13 And the
other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Was John Mark the author of the Gospel of Mark?
So, what does this tell us
about Mark, the author of the Gospel of Mark? Was John Mark the author of the
Gospel with the same name? If Mark’s father was Peter and his mother was Mary,
how close a relationship may he have had to Yeshua from his early childhood?
How old was Mark at the time of the crucifixion? If Mark was old enough to
travel with his uncle Barnabas and Paul, first from
What do these Scripture passages indicate re the age
of John Mark?
Notice how that Mark is
treated as a child under the custody first of his mother Mary and then under
his uncle Barnabas:
Acts 12:12
And when he had considered the thing, he came
to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose
surname was Mark; where
many were gathered together praying.
Acts 12:25
And Barnabas and Saul
returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their
ministry, and took with them John, whose
surname was Mark.
Acts 15:37
And Barnabas determined to take
with them John, whose
surname was Mark.
Notice the absence of any
mentioning of Mark in the following context during which it does indeed appear as
though Mark was present (cf. Acts 15:38.) Being such a youngster in the company
of his uncle, Mark is not being specifically mentioned:
Acts 13:1
Now there were in the church that
was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with
Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted,
the Holy Ghost said, Separate me
Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Acts
13:3 And when they had
fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Thus, it is clear that
Mark, or John Mark, was still being a youngster at the time of these events
recorded in Acts, events which apparently took place in the revised year
29-30 CE. Yet, ten years prior to that, in
19 CE, at the time of the crucifixion of Yeshua, per Mark 14:51, it
appears as though this same John Mark was at least old enough to be present as
a young lad together with Yeshua and his disciples, when, in the midst of the
night, Yeshua was taken captive and bound…:
Mark 14:51 KJV
And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast
about his naked body; and the
young men laid hold on him…
Mark 14:52 KJV
And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
Or isn’t it true that the typical practice at the time, as
exemplified also by the other Gospel authors, that the author of any given NT
text is generally referencing himself anonymously and in the 3rd
person, that is, as in this passage, “a certain young man?” Cf. Re John: John
18:15, 16; 19:26; 21:2, 7, 20; Re Luke: Luke 24:12, 13, 18.
Two men
named Joses?:
As we may see from the following texts, one of Yeshua’s
brothers was also named Joses. Perhaps, in order to distinguish between the
two, the second Joses came to be named Barnabas by the apostles. Had these two
Joses both been a reference to one and the same man, then Mary, Peter’s wife,
and Barnabas’ sister, would have most likely been also Yeshua’s sister and that
doesn’t seem to find any support by the text, especially considering that
Barnabas is further identified as being a Levite of the country of Cyprus. Or
so it seemed to me until receiving Al Franco’s email, above quoted!:
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and
his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Acts 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed
Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the
country of Cyprus,
Matthew 27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.
Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer
and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with
his brethren.
From the following
relationships one might consider whether Peter’s wife wasn’t Mary Magdalene and
that the beginning of their relationship as man and wife wasn’t the experiences
and sorrows they shared so intimately at the time of the crucifixion and
resurrection of Yeshua, that is per my former considerations. Currently, after
receiving Al Franco’s bible discoveries, I find more powerful reasons for
Peter’s wife being Mary, one of Yeshu’s sisters. Additionally, I am currently
considering whether Mary Magdalene wasn’t Yeshu’s beloved:
John 20:1 The first day of the
week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when
it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the
sepulcher.
John 20:2
Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple,
whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the
sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him.
John 20:11 But Mary stood without at the sepulcher
weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into
the sepulcher,
John 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned
herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
John 20:18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples
that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these
things unto her.
On the other hand, do we have another contender for the honor
of being Peter’s wife? Is it really possible that what appears in John
19:25 (KJV) as two women named Mary are in an original Hebrew manuscript only
one, i.e. “Mary, the wife of Cephas: Mary Magdalene?” per my former
considerations, or, per my currently preferred perception, “Mary, the wife of
Cephas: the daughter of Mary, the mother of Yeshu.” Luke
is making it clear to us (Luke 24:13, 18 & 34; cf. Mark 16:12; 1 Cor.
15:5) that Cephas and Cleophas are indeed names of one and the same man, i.e.
Simon Peter, “the son of Jona,” is he not? Could it still be possible that Mary
Magdalene was the wife of Peter? The consistent use of the Greek word ‘kai’
between “the wife of Cleophas” and “Mary Magdalene,” in John 19:25, seems to
deny such a possibility. And so does the Syriac Peshitta New Testament! Thus,
as best I can tell, there is no sustainable basis for those two women of John
19:25 as one woman only! As now also sustained by the revelations through Al
Franco. More below…
John 19:25 KJV
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's
sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and
Mary Magdalene.
John 19:25 TLT
Now there stood by the cross of Yeshu, his mother, and his mother's
daughter: Mary the wife of Cleophas, and
Mary Magdalene.
Luke 24:13
And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus,
which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
Luke 24:18
And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him,
Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are
come to pass there in these days?
Luke 24:33
And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the
eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
Luke 24:34
Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
1 Cor 15:5
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
Perhaps something of interest may be found in the
following word study?
G2786: Κηφᾶς,
Kēphas, kay-fas',
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas
(that is, Kepha), surname of Peter
G2810: Κλεόπας,
Kleopas, kleh-op'-as, Probably contracted from Κλεόπατρος Kleopatros
(compounded from G2811 and G3962)
G2811: κλέος,
kleos, kleh'-os, From a shorter form of G2564; renown
(as if being called)
G2564: καλέω,
kaleō, kal-eh'-o, Akin to
the base of G2753; to “call” (properly aloud, but used in a variety of
applications, directly or otherwise)
G2832: Κλωπᾶς,
Klōpas, klo-pas', Of
Chaldee origin (corresponding to G256); Clopas, an Israelite.
G256: Ἀλφαῖος,
Alphaios, al-fah'-yos, Of Hebrew origin (compare
[H2501]);
H2501: חלף, cheleph, kheh'-lef,
The same as H2500; change; Cheleph, a place in
H2500: חלף, chêleph,
khay'-lef, From H2498; properly exchange;
hence (as preposition) instead of.
H2498: חלף, châlaph,
khaw-laf', A primitive root; properly to slide
by, that is, (by implication) to hasten away, pass on, spring
up, pierce or change.
Compare also the following very
similar Hebrew word:
H504: אלף, 'eleph, eh'-lef, From H502; a family; also
(from the sense of yoking or taming) an ox or cow: - family,
kine, oxen.
Makes me wonder whose wedding Yeshua attended in Cana in
Lastly, there are these familiar passages to
consider:
Matthew 8:14
And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother
laid, and sick of a fever.
Mark 1:30
But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of
her.
Mark 1:31
And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately
the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.
Luke 4:38
And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And
Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for
her.
Considering the context of these passages, especially those
of Mark and Luke, it is clear that this event occurred in the beginning of
Yeshua’s ministry. In fact, this event happens to be exactly dated to Elul 29 Began sunset
Fri Oct 2, 15 CE.]
It
follows that Peter was married already at this time, and accordingly it is
quite possible that his and Mary’s son John Mark was born also at this time. If
that is true it is even possible that John Mark was himself an eyewitness,
albeit as quite a young child, to the events surrounding Yeshua and his
disciples, one of which was his very own father, Peter, another one being one
of the Marys. Seeing that John Mark was old enough (cf. Acts 15:38) to depart
from the company of Barnabas and Paul in
29 CE at the time of the events recorded in Acts 12:25, I find this being
confirmatory evidence of said facts; and of John Mark’s mother being distinct
and separate from the woman named Mary Magdalene. That is, as now also
confirmed through Al Franco. Thanks, Al Franco!
Praise the Lord of Hosts!
Comments and
donations freely accepted at:
Tree of Life©
c/o General Delivery
Nora [near SE-713 01]
eMail: TreeOfLifeTime@gmail.com
An
invitation to learn more about the fundamentals of New Testament time and
dates:
If you wish, you are most welcome to join me
in learning more about the firm anchors of time upon which the New Testament
time references are being identified. Just follow this
link and sign up for my free eCourse and you’ll receive one brief email per
week for you to consider and grow with.
The GateWays into
Tree of Life Chronology Studies©
The GateWays into Tree of
Life Chronology Forums©
Without recourse. All
Rights Reserved. Tree of Life©