aa5874

Well, why did the inventor claim Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, and was on the pinnacle of the Temple with the Devil, transfigured , walked on water, resurrected on the THIRD day and ascended?

There is just not enough data available to answer your question except that he chose 12 to become "fishers of men".

Look at Matthew 4

Tommy

Weren't 9 of the 13 tribes permanently lost to the Assyrian captivity (the subsequent "Jews" being composed of the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, Levi and the insignificant tribe of Simeon)? It wouldn't have been possible for each apostle to be a member of a different tribe.

11/12 seems a good number for a clan - there are 11 players in a cricket or football team. But, yeah, the 12 apostles probably hark back to the 12 sons of Jacob.

Nathan Poe

If the disciples were historical, how come the Gospels disagree on their identities?

Compare Mark 3 (the first Gospel to mention them) with Matthew 9 and Luke 5-6. (John never bothers to name all 12) -- there are enough discrepencies to raise an eyebrow or two.

The fact is that we know next to nothing about at least half of the "twelve disciples," and the one we know the most about -- Judas Iscariot -- seems to have had his story lifted (plagiarized?) from throughout the Old Testament. None of the Bible writers seemed to care that much about who the twelve were; all that mattered is that there were twelve of them.

TedM

I figured you would say that. Very subtle of the writer, and I don't buy it.


Yes, that is true. They just don't read as though the author(s) intended them to be fiction. Two of them outright say they aren't. But, maybe that's just me and my 'presuppositions'.

TedM

I recall looking at this a while back and deciding the disagreements are very minor. My guess is there is a thread on this somewhere in the archives..


Yes, one in particular is quite interesting to me--Simon the Zealot. The fact that he is mentioned and that his inclusion as a disciple is never explained does not strike me as fictional.


I'm not familiar with this. Sounds intriguing.

stephan huller

Nathan, good point. It always drives me crazy when people act as if ancient Jews and early Christians 'had to put things' in their narratives because they were true. Like they were restricted by 'the facts.' What do the facts have to do with telling a great story? They almost get in the way. Seriously. The authors were aiming for the Epic of Gilgamesh not the New York Times. While this has almost nothing to do with the variation on the names of the disciples my point is - the 'facts' were not determining why there were twelve rather than 3 and a half disciples.

Doug Shaver

Lemme see . . . The gospels say Jesus chose 12 disciples; therefore, the gospels are probably history.

Looks like quite a reach to me.

TedM

Wow, Doug. I'm not sure how you came up with that re-phrasing for my OP. To make clearer:

Assumption: 12 disciples were chosen to represent each of the 12 tribes
Fact: A fiction writer could have done this without flaw.
Fact: The writer did not do it without flaw, nor did he show an interest in proving the assumption.

Conclusions:
1. The original assumption is wrong
or
2. The fiction writer was dense
or
3. There was no fiction writer...ie the intention was to reflect history, not theological ideals.

aa5874

Your conclusions are all GIGO (garbage in--garbage out).

YOUR ASSUMPTIONS PROVE NOTHING.

Nathan Poe

Or

4. The intent was not "fiction," per se, but mythology, where the literal accuracy of the work is unimportant when weighed against the larger message.

With a touch of

5. There was no single "fiction writer," but a story which got passed through the wringer of Oral Tradition long before it was finally put to paper.