Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gdeering · 10-05-2007, 06:50 AM

Like many people I've long been struck by the stupidity of the disciples.

Haunting the forum over the years I've just assumed they were a literary device, in a kind of philosophical Burns and Allen relationship with Jesus - if you will. But I don't see much discussion about this, is the question just too obvious?

It's clear how the rhetorical device works within the narrative(s), but can someone point me in the direction of any reading or discussion about what the models for this might have been, literary, theatrical or philosophical.... and who would have known about them (particularly in the first century?).

I am sure it would not be hard to find greek models for ridiculously bad students. In fact I assume it must be easy, but if it's so easy why wouldn't it have been recognized by the contemporary audience - meaning the contemporary audience for the gospels, whenever they were written.

Thanks,

Gregg

Toto · 10-05-2007, 12:20 PM

MacDonald in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) thought that the disciples were like Odysseus' crew. It's been a while since I read the book - I thought it was convincing for what it argued (which should not be overstated) but it was too far out for most people.

Joe Wallack on this forum thinks that the gospels were a deliberate attempt to trash the reputations of actual people, in particular Simon Peter.

There's just not a lot to say. There is no independent verification of any of the disciples; some of the names are used in Paul's letters, but it's not clear if he is referring to the same people who had a relationship with Jesus. Paul refers to "the twelve" but no one knows if that was a reference to the disciples or some other group known as "the twelve." But there's no obvious literary model, unless you agree with MacDonald.

Keith&Co. · 10-05-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

But there's no obvious literary model,

Try humor. They're the straight men.

Every single time Jesus is about to perform a miracle, they're all 'No way, dude!'
And he comes through.
And they're impressed. They freak that YET AGAIN the alleged messiah has done what no normal man could do, that he did what he said he would.

In real life, after a few miracles, SOMEONE should be saying: Okay, maybe.
Or offering to bet the others that the Messiah will be able to do what the messiah does. Each time, it's as if he's performing to people that haven't see the act before, first nighters.
Did the Greeks have a word for 'shill?'

Clivedurdle · 10-05-2007, 01:41 PM

http://quizlet.com/set/11335/

Lists parables as literary devices!

:devil1:

-Jay- · 10-05-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdeering

Like many people I've long been struck by the stupidity of the disciples.

Haunting the forum over the years I've just assumed they were a literary device, in a kind of philosophical Burns and Allen relationship with Jesus - if you will. But I don't see much discussion about this, is the question just too obvious?

I've recently entertained the thought that Jesus acts as a metaphor for Israel, and the disciples as metaphors for the 12 tribes of Israel. I haven't really done anything with that thought, and it was the product of a late night of reading and probably a little too much single-malt...

I agree that in many (most?) situations, the disciples seem to be little more than one-dimensional straightmen. (No, Jesus, I didn't know you just flew in from Nazareth...)

regards,

NinJay

-Jay- · 10-05-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Did the Greeks have a word for 'shill?'

Way off topic, but in my high school and college days I was a big fan of stage magic. I had the opportunity to see David Copperfield's live show, and at one point during the performance, my brother and I looked at each other and exclaimed "That's the same chick he called on stage on the TV show!"

Magic shows were never the same again...

regards,

NinJay

JoeWallack · 10-06-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdeering

Like many people I've long been struck by the stupidity of the disciples.

Haunting the forum over the years I've just assumed they were a literary device, in a kind of philosophical Burns and Allen relationship with Jesus - if you will. But I don't see much discussion about this, is the question just too obvious?

It's clear how the rhetorical device works within the narrative(s), but can someone point me in the direction of any reading or discussion about what the models for this might have been, literary, theatrical or philosophical.... and who would have known about them (particularly in the first century?).

I am sure it would not be hard to find greek models for ridiculously bad students. In fact I assume it must be easy, but if it's so easy why wouldn't it have been recognized by the contemporary audience - meaning the contemporary audience for the gospels, whenever they were written.

Thanks,

Gregg

JW:
I'm in the process of explaining how "Mark" discredited Peter here:

"The Simontic Problem" - An Inventory Of "Mark's" Negative Casting Of Peter

I'm still in the first stage which is Quantity. All the steps will be as follows:

1) Quantity - an inventory of all negative treatment of Peter by "Mark".

2) Quality - explanation of the significance of 1).

3) Formula - examination of the literary style used to emphasize 2).

4) Contrast - comparison of the presentation of Peter with positive characters in "Mark".

Paul shows no awareness of a Gospel narrative because it didn't exist at the time. "Mark" constructs the original Gospel narrative and because we can be certain that it is not history it is likely that he had a literary model which he used to some extent. His literary model was the classic Greek tragedy, such as Oedipus Rex.

The blind "seer" is the Hebrew bible which predicts all the Irony in "Mark". The Antagonists are the Jews who are looking for their Father's Messiah and miStakenly kill him instead, just as predicted by the Hebrew bible. The Protagonist is Jesus who per the plan is supposed to be accepted by everyone but ends up being rejected by everyone including God. In classic Greek tragedy the Hero can never end up "seeing". Wouldn't be a tragedy then. It must be the Audience that sees (understand Dear Reader?). This is exactly what we see in "Mark".

The modern Irony is that subsequent Gospels did not "see" "Mark" for what it was and neither has modern Christian Bible scholarship.

Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

gdeering · 10-07-2007, 01:37 PM

Thanks for the answers, I guess it's not as obvious as I thought.

Joe, I have read your thread, as it grew. I admire you reasoning, but I'm just wondering as fiction, the Disciples obtuseness, border on the absurd, I simply can't imagine that a sophisticated audience would have found it convincing. A closer lom atthe text is beyond my keen.

Humor in the ancient world was surely different, but as sophisticated, as our own (Seinfeld of Athens maybe not?). Surely there must have been someone who thought - what if Socrates was conversing with someone really dense - that's funny!

Anyway, I've got too many hobbies now, I can't add Biblical studies, that's why I'm a tourist here.

Gregg

Toto · 10-07-2007, 01:43 PM

The gospels were probably aimed at a middle brow audience. Christians were not known for their urbane sophistication back in the Roman Empire.

matthewthomas · 10-07-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdeering

Like many people I've long been struck by the stupidity of the disciples.

Haunting the forum over the years I've just assumed they were a literary device, in a kind of philosophical Burns and Allen relationship with Jesus - if you will. But I don't see much discussion about this, is the question just too obvious?

It's clear how the rhetorical device works within the narrative(s), but can someone point me in the direction of any reading or discussion about what the models for this might have been, literary, theatrical or philosophical.... and who would have known about them (particularly in the first century?).

I am sure it would not be hard to find greek models for ridiculously bad students. In fact I assume it must be easy, but if it's so easy why wouldn't it have been recognized by the contemporary audience - meaning the contemporary audience for the gospels, whenever they were written.

Thanks,

Gregg

Robert Price, in The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Chpt. 7), discusses some ideas about how literary considerations may have obscured any historical information about the disciples, including:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Price

The disciples of Jesus figure, first, in a set of stories apparently intended to function, despite or even because of their brevity, as recruitment paradigms. They are all rewrites of the story of Elijah and Elisha to become his disciple and sucessor (p191)

Quote:

Peter is, it goes without saying, the most important of the Twelve, as a literary charactor if not also a historical one. It quickly becomes apparent as one reads the Gospels that Peter is really the single name and face of the Twelve collectively. Peter simply is the Twelve. We catch up with the logical implications of this tendency in those medieval legends of Jesus and Peter, where it is finally just the two of them wandering the dusty roads together. (p197)

Even in most of the stories that feature Peter in their earliest known versions, Peter seems to function in the same way. He is either the collective voice of the disciples … or he is the straight man for Jesus, a foil whose questions or misunderstandings give Jesus the opportunity to explain himself at greater length for the reader’ benefit. Was the historical Peter (if there was one) really such a dullard? We have no real data to tell us so. This impression is simply the by-product of his being shown, for didactic reasons, as baffled and corrected time and again (though as we have seen, Mark had his own reasons for fostering such an image of Peter). (p198)

It could be a similar situation to Watson in the Sherlock Holmes stories, or the succession of random women who tag along with Doctor Who. I doubt I knew much about literary plot devices when I first read Sherlock Holmes (aged 10)...

Best wishes,
Matthew

10-05-2007, 06:50 AM	#1
gdeering Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 237	Are the Disciples just a literary device? Like many people I've long been struck by the stupidity of the disciples. Haunting the forum over the years I've just assumed they were a literary device, in a kind of philosophical Burns and Allen relationship with Jesus - if you will. But I don't see much discussion about this, is the question just too obvious? It's clear how the rhetorical device works within the narrative(s), but can someone point me in the direction of any reading or discussion about what the models for this might have been, literary, theatrical or philosophical.... and who would have known about them (particularly in the first century?). I am sure it would not be hard to find greek models for ridiculously bad students. In fact I assume it must be easy, but if it's so easy why wouldn't it have been recognized by the contemporary audience - meaning the contemporary audience for the gospels, whenever they were written. Thanks, Gregg

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-05-2007, 12:20 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	MacDonald in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) thought that the disciples were like Odysseus' crew. It's been a while since I read the book - I thought it was convincing for what it argued (which should not be overstated) but it was too far out for most people. Joe Wallack on this forum thinks that the gospels were a deliberate attempt to trash the reputations of actual people, in particular Simon Peter. There's just not a lot to say. There is no independent verification of any of the disciples; some of the names are used in Paul's letters, but it's not clear if he is referring to the same people who had a relationship with Jesus. Paul refers to "the twelve" but no one knows if that was a reference to the disciples or some other group known as "the twelve." But there's no obvious literary model, unless you agree with MacDonald.

10-05-2007, 01:41 PM	#4
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	http://quizlet.com/set/11335/ Lists parables as literary devices! :devil1:

10-07-2007, 01:37 PM	#8
gdeering Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 237	Thanks for the answers, I guess it's not as obvious as I thought. Joe, I have read your thread, as it grew. I admire you reasoning, but I'm just wondering as fiction, the Disciples obtuseness, border on the absurd, I simply can't imagine that a sophisticated audience would have found it convincing. A closer lom atthe text is beyond my keen. Humor in the ancient world was surely different, but as sophisticated, as our own (Seinfeld of Athens maybe not?). Surely there must have been someone who thought - what if Socrates was conversing with someone really dense - that's funny! Anyway, I've got too many hobbies now, I can't add Biblical studies, that's why I'm a tourist here. Gregg

10-07-2007, 01:43 PM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The gospels were probably aimed at a middle brow audience. Christians were not known for their urbane sophistication back in the Roman Empire.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.