spin

Can someone tell me why the writers of the gospels made the disciples out to be so dumb? I mean our resident apologists want us to believe that the contents of the gospels came mainly from memories of the disciples. These dullards just don't get the messages that Jesus tries to tell them, yet we, the readers, can see just how dumb they are. How many times does Jesus have to tell some people stuff before it sinks in? Do you get the idea that these simpletons were the source of the gospel traditions? How would you imagine the data was collected to get a gospel outcome? What relationship can you see between the writers and the disciples?


spin

yalla

Who is on first[?].
Bud is JC.
Lou is the disciples.

You need someone to ask the question so you can give the answer.
Trouble is that makes him/them seem dumb, which is OK in comedy but somewhat unfortunate for the image of the 12.

show_no_mercy

One interpretation of Mark was that it was written to discredit the "Pillars" found in Paul's letters. Thus the veteran apostles are turned into idiot disciples.

Steven Carr

No Christian of the first century ever names himself as having heard of Judas or Thomas, or as having met anybody he says had heard of Judas or Thomas.

Mark even has disciples who meet Moses,and this never gets mentioned by any Christian letter writers.

Imagine if Muhammad returned from the dead,spoke to a Muslim sect, and not one of the members of this Muslim sect wrote about it in a letter.

Why do historicists even start to think this is history?

Deus Ex

I find it funny that the Pharisees were supposedly smart enough to have guards posted at Jesus tomb because they overheard Jesus say that he would rise in three days, yet his disciples--who spent one to three years with him--were too ignorant to figure out that he was coming back.

Steven Carr

And the Pharisees knew that there would be members of the general public who would believe totally false stories of people rising from the dead.

Petergdi

My experience is that the people who tell me that the disciples are dumb, don't get it either, but unlike the disciples they aren't even aware that they don't get it.

There was a nice example of this in a recent thread on the temple tax where one poster thinks that Peter and the discples are "not very clever", but that poster seems to think that Jesus means himself specifically when he says that "the sons are exempt."

The main purpose of the disciples not understanding, apart from the possible telling of history, is to point out to the reader the possibility that the reader is not getting it.

I do not find the idea that this was some sort of "put down" to the disciples tenable. For one thing no one seems to have understood it this way until modern times, and for another Mark has Jesus say to the twelve - "to you is given the secret of the Kingdom of God, but to those outside all is done in parables." If he were against the Twelve, he would hardly have had Jesus say that to them.

Peter.

spin

Generic sleights are not very useful.

Red herring.

That's reasonable.

That's not my interest.


spin

Vinnie

Is this prevalent in the other gospels besides Mark? I thought Mt and Lk toned down and refined Mark's portrayal of the apostles?

The issue in Mark is a problem...

jakejonesiv

Yes, it is a problem that originates in the gospel of Mark. I think this indicates that GMark originated in heretical circles, and the intent was to undercut the authority of the Twelve apostles (particularly Peter) and the family. It is an attack on the proxy heads of the sects (proto-orthodox and Ebionite?) that are in competition with the author's sect.