Mary, mother of Jesus, was the true architect of Christianity, says new book

Centuries of “theological narrative” have transformed a Jewish woman of flesh and bone and real lineage into an abstract symbol of purity – erasing her central role as a true founder of Christianity, sustains in her new book an ancient teacher of ancient Judaism and primitive Christianity.

A new and controversial book of James Tabor challenges two millennia of Christian tradition, arguing that Mary, the Mother of Jesusit was not merely a passive figure in the history of the origins of Christianity, but the true founder of this religion.

In, Tabor presents a different view of Mary, a woman of doubly real descent whose central role in the advent of the Christian movement systematically erasedstrategically from history.

The scholar of the Bible and ancient teacher of ancient Judaism and primitive Christianity at the University of North Carolina presents several radical statements that they believe can.rewrite their own origins of Christianity ”.

Your thesis focuses on RECOVERY OF HISTORICAL MARIAmoving away from what it designates as centuries of “theological narrative” who transformed a Jewish woman of flesh and bone into an abstract symbol of purity.

Contrary to the traditional narratives that situate the foundation of Christianity with Jesus and its expansion through Peter and Paul, Tabor argues that Mary was the true architect of the Christian movement.

The former teacher maintains that Maria was the matriarch of a religious dynastyconnecting the Three most influential figures Of primitive Christianity: John the Baptist, Jesus and James, who succeeded Jesus as leader of the movement in Jerusalem.

“It was a family subject”Writes Tabor, suggesting that Maria provided the stability, continuity and inspiration that allowed Jesus’ movement to survive after crucifixion.

Tabor interprets the narrative of the Gospel of John, in which Jesus entrusts his mother “to the disciple to whom Jesus loved,” as evidence that this beloved disciple was, in fact, James, brother of Jesusdemonstrating Maria’s central leadership role from the beginning.

Tabor attributes the failure of historians to recognize the importance of Mary to 19th century academic prejudice.

“Women were largely marginalized at the gym, in the church and in society in general, leading scholars to project social structures Contemporary in the first century Galilee and to neglect Mary’s influence, ”he explains.

Maybe the most controversial argument de Tabor concerns the genealogy of Mary. The author proposes that Ascendency of Lucastraditionally considered as the lineage of José, actually documents Maria’s lineage.

The Mother of Jesus would have so “Duly real lineage”By descent of both the King David as de Aaronthe first high priest.

Unlike Matthew’s genealogy, which follows the real line of Solomon, Luke’s genealogy includes names associated with CLASSE Priestly of Israel: Levi, Eliezer and Jannai. This inheritance, argues Tabor, would have conferred the sons of Mary legitimate rights to both the throne and the leadership of the temple.

This argument faces skepticism in the academic media, since the genealogy of Luke never explicitly mentions Maria and draw the lineage through Joseph, note a.

However, Tabor points to Evidence of support in Christian writings primitives. Writers of the second century and III, as Hipólito of Rome and Origen, describe Jesus as “tribally mixed”Combining real and priestly lineages.

Furthermore, James was described to wear priestly robeswhich suggests the recognition of his priestly status – a lineage that “should come from Mary, since Joseph had no claim of priestly status,” argues Tabor.

If Mary’s role was so central, why does the New Testament relegate her so many times to the background? Tabor points to what characterizes as a deletion deliberated by early Christian leaderswho sought to reformulate the message of faith.

No Gospel of Markthe oldest, Jesus is identified as “Son of Mary,” being completely absent – which leaves Mary as a central figure of the family.

However, in the epistles of Paul, Maria practically disappears. Paul never names her, referring only to Jesus as “born of woman”. Subsequently, other evangelicals formally reintroduce Joseph as the Father of Jesus, further reducing Mary’s highlight.

This deletion, Tabor holds, was strategic.

In marginalizing Mary, Paul and later leaders redirected the attention of the Jewish family of Jesus to his cosmic identity like Christ – Changing the focus of a dynasty of flesh and bone rooted in Jewish politics to a message of universal salvation, Tabor concludes.