Nathan Poe

Indeed it is. Consider the following:

Jesus of Nazareth, his original followers, and the Gospel writers were Jews. This is a lot more important than people realize -- Christianity was not originally a schism, but seen as a Jewish sect up until decades after Jesus' death.

In order to portray Jesus as a Messiah, he was compared to the existing heroes of the Old Testament -- favorably, of course.

This explains why there is so little in Jesus' story that's original -- except for his teachings. Pretty much everything about his life and his works is lifted from somewhere in the OT. Even his miracles are nothing more than enhanced versions of miracles performed by Old Testament prophets. The goal was to put Jesus not only in the company of Jewish heroes such as Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, etc... but to surpass them; anything they could do, he could do better.

What's true of the main character of this narrative is also true of the supporting cast -- Including Judas Iscariot. His most significant actions, perhaps even his name, is a remix of Old Testament villains.

When Jacob's sons (12 sons, by the way -- coincidence?) wanted to kill Joseph, it was Judah who came up with the more profitable idea of selling him into slavery and making a buck -- or to be more precise, 20 pieces of silver. (Gen. 37-26-27)

Judah = Judas -- coincidence? And the money might not be spot on, but it's close. We'll come back to that.

When Ahithophel betrayed David (2 Samuel 15:12-17), it was mentioned in Psalm 41:9 -- "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."

Hmmm... betrayal of a King by someone who "did eat of [his] bread," -- last Supper, anyone?

By the way, when Ahithophel realized that his betrayal had been discovered, he hanged himself (2 Samuel 17:23) -- sound familiar?

Betrayed with a kiss? been there, done that, says Amasa as Joab kissed him while gutting him with a dagger (2 Samuel 20:9-10)

So we see that a lot of the key details of Judas' story are lifted not just out of the Old Testament, but from a specific part of it -- 2 Samuel.

Now, back to those pieces of silver -- we saw twenty pieces given to Judah; do I hear thirty for a betrayal? Sold! to Zechariah 11:12.

And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

What's that? Don't want the money anymore? Not a problem; Zechariah 11:13 has the money being tossed back into the temple -- just like Judas did.

I don't know about Christians, but I don't believe in this many coincidences -- and I certainly don't believe in a God who mucks about in human affairs for no reason than to create the appearance of coincidence.

Do you?

Doug Shaver

I don't think the assumption is well founded. I'll be glad to stipulate that the number 12 was not chosen arbitrarily, but I see no basis for supposing that it was picked for the specific purpose of a one-to-one correspondence between the disciples and the tribes of Israel.

Writers of fiction who include symbolism in their narratives rarely spell out what the symbols are supposed to stand for, and for good reason. Usually it's pretty patronizing to the readers. Sometimes the interpretation is obvious to anyone familiar with the author's socio-cultural environment. Sometimes it is not, and then you get interminable debates about what point the author was trying to make.

Nathan Poe

And there's the rub -- many modern Christians not only aren't familiar with the socio-cultural environment of the Bible, but are arrogant enough to attempt to define it to suit their own wants, and not the Jews'.

TedM

Here's the basis for my assumption which you are questioning (I bolded below).

I'm very familiar with the Old Testament, and this is why for me at least the interpretation of the twelve is almost certainly to coincide with the twelve tribes. Here's a list of all references to twelve in the bible, if you are interested: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...searchtype=any

In the Bible, the 'twelve' of something is frequently chosen to represent the twelve tribes. And Luke has Jesus himself-the one who did the choosing-appear to confirm exactly what I have put forth in the assumption above:

TedM

Excellent Nathan.

1. It was by chance.
2. A person/people made it up to show fulfillment of OT 'foreshadowing'
3. God made it happen to show fulfillment of OT 'foreshadowing'
4. Judas and Jesus consciously or subconsciously made it happen.

I, like you, reject #1. At present I favor #2.

But why 'Judas' and not 'Judah'?

If it was a story made up, at least in part, then perhaps it can be said that the 1 Cor 15 resurrection appearance to the 'twelve', and not the 'eleven' reflected a tradition that preceded the Judas betrayal, since (as far as I know) the gospels and other writings refer to appearances to the 'eleven'--ie twelve minus Judas.

aa5874

How can you be CERTAIN when you admit you are ASSUMING? Speculation and ASSUMPTIONS are related to UNCERTAINTY.

Once you admit you are speculating and that there is really no such thing as history then what you say is IRRELEVANT.

What is the purpose of your assumptions and aimless speculations?

If there is no such thing as History then what you assume cannot ever be shown to be of any historical value.

In the Jesus story, Jesus himself SELECTED THREE BROTHERS which have DESTROYED your ASSUMPTIONS the selection of the 12 disciples were "CERTAINLY" to coincide with the twelve tribes.

Examine gMark 3

Examine gMatthew 10

Examine gLuke 6

In the NT, there is NO indication that Jesus selected 12 apostles to coincide with the 12 tribes when he selected at least three BROTHERS which would mean that the 12 disciples could represent no more than 10 tribes.

TedM

You can't be certain. It is speculation based on logic and reason. Nothing is ever certain. Your rules for corroboration are arbitrary too.

Exactly my OP point. If the very reasonable assumption is correct, it is an argument against a theologically careful fiction writer intending to create an allegory.

aa5874

What logical fallacy. What irrationality!!!!

Once you ADMIT that NOTHING is ever certain You CAN'T be certain that NOTHING is certain.

What irrationailty!!!! You will NOT ever be certain your assumption is correct or reasonably certain since you ADMIT NOTHING is ever certain.

There is NO such thing as a reasonable ASSUMPTION based on imagination.

USING the NT, Jesus selected at least TWO brothers with the SAME FATHER therefore your claim has been UTTERLY AND CERTAINLY destroyed.

This is CERTAINLY in gMatthew 10.

Nathan Poe

How are you making this flying leap into "there is no such thing as History"?


I took the liberty of highlighting the fatal flaw in your refutation.


In history -- not to mention the rest of the Bible, there is NO indication that Jesus only had twelve followers -- indeed, in several places, "the apostles," "the disciples," and "the twelve" seem to be separate entities. For example, Jesus had female followers, and yet "the twelve" are a sausagefest -- not surprising for a patriarchal society.

So it seems that "the twelve" are more a literary creation than a historical fact, which brings us back to the question: why is it so important that there are twelve?

Well, as long as we're consulting the Jesus story, let's look at Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:29-30:

MT 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

LK 22:29-30 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Clearly someone had the idea of twelve disciples representing 12 tribes...

jules?

12 is most significant in the last supper or Passover feast and it appears to be a direct inheritance of Essene practise. The Manual of Discipline [Dead Sea Scroll document] sets out ritual and daily life for the Qumran community as well as the larger membership in the country at large. It features arrangements regarding one of the most important events to happen, which was the Messianic Banquet. God would send the two messiahs when the world was purged and the leaders of the tribes of Israel and the congregation, the name of the general select, would all sit down, in the appropriate order and share a meal and new wine.

“the Messiah will stretch forth his hand upon the bread and then all the Congregation of the community will give blessings” [The Manual of Discipline]

It seems apocalyptic Greek Jews adopted apocalyptic Jewish symbolism and practise, is it just me or is history so much more than the blindingly obvious ?