ten to the eleventh

Well, I definitely agree with the first kind of disciple, even though I don't think that they had literally to "wander." But I don't think that Jesus intended his disciples to be anything other than ascetic (by my reading of his words, like the "Sermon on the Mount") and I don't see see how they could be anything close to "ordinary" considering the heavenly injunctions found in his words. What is Price's argument for the second type?

Vorkosigan

Good post, piernef. We need more stuff that references scholarly material.

Vorkosigan

pierneef

I think the problem may be with the word "disciple". It seems clear that Jesus had many followers..there are many references to crowds that gathered and appeared to move after him, at least in part. So his association was not restricted to 12 disciples. I would want to study this more before making this as a definitive statement (so challenge if you wish): I dont think the role of disciple had any special divine characteristic...the twelve were the core workers, and they in turn found others who worked under their supervision. So the Jesus movement was probably pretty substantial. And it included people who played many different roles. Jesus did a whole lot of things that were outside the ascetic tradition: attending weddings, carousing with sinners, talking to Roman soldiers, going fishing etc..and I cannot recall that he did any of these in a purely solitary capacity.

I see Jesus life as far more earthy and "of the flesh" than the early church chose to present it. The Jesus one receives from the Church today is far more like Paul than the Jesus of the Gospels.

So I think "disciples" has been painted over with a preciousness that was probably quite foreign to the original Jesus tradition.

However, having just been praised for referencing scholarship, I am aware that what I have written is NOT referenced, and if my conclusions are seriously challenged with contrary evidence, I will gladly go into the texts

pierneef

In response to an earlier, I find somewhat obscure proposition and question.

In fact, according to Matthew, its all much more prosaic. The Gospel opens with an account that establishes Jesus' royal lineage bach to King David, through his father Joseph. No mention of divinity, no mention of virgin births in these words. They are so counter to the Christian overlay that it makes this passage very likely to be part of the authentic tradition that was overlooked and not redacted for some reason we cannot now easily recover. He was born to inherit the Kingship of the Jews and died crucified by the Romans as "King of the Jews"....the rest, as we may say, is all Paul and Christianity Inc.

Chili

No, in Matthew it was throught his mother Mary: "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary. It was of her that Jesus who is called the messiah was born."

If you read it for what it says Mary was the mother of Jesus and he was called the messiah. It does not say that he was the messiah nor that Jesus was the son of Joseph to be in the linage of David . . . which he certainly was not if Joseph did not father him.

In fact, Jesus was not even a Jew if Mary, who was sinless and therefore not Jewish, was his mother. Moreover, Mary could not be Jewish for that would defile the God nature that was imputed through Mary to Jesus -- which must be true if Joseph had nothing to do with it.

Now the question becomes "who was Mary?"

pierneef

Matthew clearly lists a lineage back to Abraham and David, through Joseph, husband of Mary. Why would they list this lineage if it were irrelevent (ie Joseph was not Jesus's father). Matthew says "This is the family tree of Jesus the Annointed who was a descendent of David and Abraham." He doesnt say, "this is the family tree of Joseph, the husband of Jesus, who was not Jesus' father, (see verse 18 below!!)" Verse 18 is an interpolation which contradicts the very purpose of the first seventeen verses.

Show me how it could possibly be read any other way, and why it would even be necessary to read it any other way as its meaning is self evident ?

pierneef

"the husband of Jesus"....whooops, sorry, = "the husband of Mary" !!

Chili

It is not self evident from the text because verse 16 tells us that Jesus was the son of Mary and he was called the messiah. Simple and true, but if you want Jesus to be the son of God and Joseph to be his father you are welcome to call it an interpolation.

In my view Mary was the Alpha of Joseph that had been taken from Joseph to be the womb of Joseph and only she could reproduce the image of God nature of Lord Joseph who therefore was indeed the father of Jesus now called the son of man and messiah in becoming.

CX

It could be an interpolation or it could just be a rather inelegant hedge. AMt's main purpose as you note is to tie Jesus' ancestry to the house of David which necessarily means going through Joseph. Even so by the time GMt is written there is already, apparently, a tradition of Jesus not being the biological son of Joseph which also needs an explanation.

Chili

All that is required is for us to help understand difficult texts is that only a certain degree of "realization" is required for us to become God, or omniscient, or noetic, or gnostic, or Christ, or Buddha and so on. From here we can eliminate much of the unexplainables and post them towards later insights that are sure to come our way unless we remove the whole concept from our minds as impossibles.