Toto

"Take up your cross" refers to gospel passages (one reason some see this as derivative of the gospels) and was uttered (in the story) before Jesus died. It reflects a common theme in Greco-Roman culture, and Cynic philosophy in particular, that one must be prepared to die for a good cause.

Mark 8:34, as well as the hypothetical Q document also contain the reference to taking up one's cross.

JESUS' DEATH IN Q

Michael Turton has notes here on Mark 8:34. The Jesus Seminar rejected this as one of the authentic sayings of Jesus, because it "shows a later Christian understanding of the cross." But this assumes that it refers to Jesus' death on the cross.

spamandham

Thanks for the linky! It's very well written. I had often wondered if the Jesus referred to in the James reference was the Jesus mentioned a few sentences later, and I find here that this is the argument Carrier puts forth. It had never occurred to me though that the referenced James was not the same James of Paul.

GakuseiDon

That's interesting. Paul is writing to the Galatians, presumably gentile converts(?) He writes:

Gal 6:
11 See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand!
12 As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.
14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.

I've given the surrounding text, though not sure if it is relevant. But it is interesting what Paul is suggesting in the highlighted text. I assume he is talking about the Judaizers. Why would THEY be persecuted for "the cross of Christ" if Galatian gentiles converted to "Christian Judaism" without being circumcised? And who would do it?

It sounds like Paul implies that Christians were accepted as part of Judaism -- even with "the cross of Christ" -- as long as they accepted circumcision, etc. But if Galatians take up Christian Judaism without undergoing circumcision, etc, then (presumably) the Christians back in Jerusalem would be persecuted.

Solo

Yeah, I got caught here, I fess up. I switched some time ago to a belief that the original saying is actually Mark's mint (whether or not something along the lines existed in folk wisdom around the Med), as the Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8:31-38) speech in which it occurs is simply too blatant advertizing of Jesus' prescience of his destiny, to have originated in Q even if the latter existed (By the rules of the game Q knows nothing about the passion). Taking up (or carrying) one's cross might have been a common saying, but taking up one's cross "after Jesus" certainly was not. That saying relates strongly to directly to Pauline imitatio that Mark allegorizes: the baptismal experience of Jesus death.

So, yes, I think DNAReplicator is right in that if Thomas picked up a saying from Mark's "passion play", he knew of the manner Jesus died. In Thomas, however this saying looks clearly derived, and in the teachings most closely relates to saying 69 "Blessed are they who have been persecuted within themsleves. It is they who have truly come to know the Father....."

Best,
Jiri

dog-on

As most NT Scholars seem to be fundy Evangelical Flakes, it might simply be unavoidable.

Toto

Not really. There is a fair amount of secular NT scholarship, which "fundy evangelicals" call borderline atheism.

aa5874

But you must agree that there may be a fair amount of scholars who argue that the "historical Jesus" was truly RAISED from the dead.

By the way, when did the resurrected "historical Jesus" actually die?

A fair amount of scholars MUST know the answer.