neilgodfrey

Are we talking past each other here? I don't understand how your question relates to what I have said.

Toto

This happens with mountainman. Pete is trying to prove that Constantine invented Christianity. He hasn't made much progress, but as a subsidiary thesis, he thinks that the various apocryphal Acts of the apostles are parodies of the apostles. Even if they are, I am not sure how these later stories relate to the original views of the 12 in the gospels.

mountainman

Umm thanks Toto. Neil, your post seems to imply that you
think the role of the twelve apostles as a commodity which
is both used and rejected by some writers. I am not sure
if the focus of the post is about Mark, or about the twelve.

If it is about Mark, then I have probably "talked past you".
However, if it is about the nature of "the twelve apostles"
in general -- (ie: examining many writers and authors who
use and allude and reject the 12 apostles) then I
am pointing out that at least 6 of these non canonical "Acts"
seem to be a consistent anti-christian polemic which is
directed at these "12 Apostles".

I notice that BC&H discussions seem to concentrate on the
canonical texts, and there is very little mention, reference
or discussion of the non canonical christian literature. I am
not sure of the sense in this, seeing that somehow the entire
set of literature (canon + non canon) obviously need to be
explained in a coherent whole.

If you are waxing and waning over nuances in the gMark alone,
many profuse apologies for generalising into the outer scrub.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

neilgodfrey

Pete,

I've been thinking about the origin and early evolution of the twelve. I've written elsewhere at a little length about possible relationships and trajectories between the canonicals and the Gospel of Peter, and compared a number of noncanonical gospels with what Justin knew, and have got a lot from Majella Franzmann's dissection of the Nag Hammadi texts and their concepts of aspects of the Jesus figure.

Have decided to play at this moment with the option that Mark was the first gospel narrative, that his treatment of the twelve was transformed by one side of "the church" and embraced by another, and trying at the same time to see where if anywhere any of this sits with the other early-mid second century christian writings (including noncanonical). Sounds a tediously boring conservative approach I admit, but that's the one I'm interested in working through at the moment.

Cheers,
N

Malachi151

My view, which you will have noted by now if you read the link I provided, is that "the twelve" was purely an invention of the author of Mark. This invention by the author of Mark was rooted in literary allusion or simply Jewish literary tradition.

All use of "the twelve" in Christian tradition flows from this singular source, including the interpolation in 1 Corinthians.

Why did this get so widely adopted in the tradition? Well, for the same reason that so many things from Mark got so widely adopted in the tradition. For example, the casting of dice is part of the crucifixion scene in all canonical Gospels, the walking on water is in all the canonical Gospels, the disruption at the temple is in all the canonical Gospels, Jesus' mother being Mary was obviously widely adopted, etc.

All of these things and more, I believe, were literary inventions of the author of Mark.

JoeWallack

JW:
I once again highly recommend for the Unfaithful here an Exxxcellent book outlining "Mark's" portrayal of Peter and the Disciples as Total Failures and the related Cookies:



Mark's Story of Jesus by Werner Kelber

I don't think there's much question that a significant objective of "Mark" was to Discredit the Historical witness of Peter specifically and "The 12" in General as I Demonstrate in "The Simontic Problem" The related question I have is what was the Primary objective of "Mark"? Was it to Discredit Peter and the Disciples or to promote belief in "Mark's" Jesus? Right now I Am inclined to choose the Discrediting and the related Conclusion that "Mark" intended to show the Original Jesus movement as a total Failure and therefore "Mark" is primarily Literature and secondarily Theology. The main support for this is that what is most important to "Mark" is the Ironic Style, which even the Hero Jesus is subject to and was a popular Literary convention of the time. This is also supported by the The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original 2nd Cent Gospel Thread which is indicating it Likely that orthodox Christianity had no interest in Original "Mark".

I'm in the process of writing a detailed Review of Kelber's book, who is at Rice with DeConnick (I also have it on good Authority that this area is also a mecca for top-notch Amateur Bible scholarship). Kelber's book excels at Clearly showing How "Mark" Structures his story to make his points. Kelber deals with one issue at a time to eliminate Distraction with other points.

In the overall Structure the 1st half of "Mark" (Act 1 -Action!) is the Teaching & Healing Ministry. Jesus generally receives a Positive Reaction as he meets Expectations and this is the Author presenting what his sources think is History. Half Way through the story is dramatically Transitioned by the Transfiguration (Act 2 - No Action!). The Teaching & Healing Ministry is Transformed into the Passion. Now Jesus generally receives a Negative Reaction as he Fails to meet Expectations and this is the Author presenting what his sources did not claim as History. "Mark" creates well-defined and contrasted Borders for his Transformation as at the Beginning "Everyone" is looking for the Kingdom of God and at the End "No one" is looking for the Kingdom of God.



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

wordy

neil took up that is my newbie view too. Jesus is the new convenant between God and Israel. The disciples are the twelve tribes and none of the persons are supposed to be real people or if they are they still have a role in the symbols. The anonymous woman in John 4 being a symbol for the Samarian people.

All these text are a midrash on the old testament making a new interpretation of it.

That is why they ask Jesus if he is Eliah or Moses and other such questions. And why he answer that only God is good. Christ only exist as a concept on how to relate to all there is.

neilgodfrey

I've read Kelber's "Oral and Written Gospel" and "Mark's story" and a few other bits and pieces of his (my kelber biblio) -- and agree with you that Mark's Story is essential reading.

I don't question the theme of discrediting the Twelve and Peter.

What I'm questioning is that Mark is a polemic against an existing school that views the Twelve as its foundation or originators. (I think Kelber understood the Twelve to be the reps of the oral gospel.)

In other words, I'm suggesting Mark is making up the Twelve himself from scratch and that it was only subsequent to Mark that the Twelve were taken over by the orthodox as their pillars.

The reason he made them up was to write a story for the "new Israel" or new people of God of his day, and he did this by following the conventions of the Jewish scriptures. Throughout these the repeated trope is the early success followed by the dismal failure of each new generation of Israel.

Mark would then be a morality tale in the tradition of the tales of the Jewish scriptures.

I'd question whether the ironic technique of Mark is unique to him or necessarily an attack on the Christian movement per se. (-- though not sure if that is that what you were suggesting? ) Gospel of Thomas is one of several other examples of a similar technique.

mountainman

Cool. One must approach the study in bits and pieces,
according to your own agendas and timetabling
otherwise everything becomes overwealming. My only
advice then is to be very wary about making decisions
and selections, etc, based on the conservative chronology.

For example, the other early-mid second century christian
writings (including noncanonical) is really only defined by the
framework and chronology supplied by Eusebius, since there
is no other independent mechanism (unless you get a warm
and fuzzy feeling about paleography, handwriting analysis
of fragmentary papryi) by which to double-check the dates.

The conservative dating of many non canonical texts seems
to be also based on a loose association to Eusebius, and the
assumed chronology for the canonical texts. Warning warning
will robinson.

Best wishes with the research,


Pete Brown

neilgodfrey

As for the relative and absolute datings the noncanonicals I always look for a mix of internal evidence, how specific thoughts, interests and themes relate to other writings, and external attestation. That generally leaves a pretty wide span of possibilities for most of them.