dog-on

Could you point out where Paul discusses JtB or Jesus's family and disciples, (James the BotL reference aside...)?

Do you think that "Mark" was familiar with Josephus?

JoeWallack

JW:
The Seven/Twelve Split appears to have come at Jesus' death. Here's how I see the chronology:

1) Jesus is a Teacher/Faith Healer.

2) Jesus dies.

3) James/Peter witness a Jesus Teacher/Faith Healer.

4) Paul is not convinced by Historical witness.

5) Paul's self-Revelation gives him the conclusion that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah in Death.

6) Paul starts with his conclusion and than builds his arguments to support the conclusion.

7) Because the Jewish Bible is clear that the Jewish Messiah is a Messiah in Life and not Death and Paul starts with the opposite conclusion, Paul is forced to have Ironic arguments.

8) Paul competes against Historical witness to Jesus so Paul must emphasize the Death Jesus where he is not at a disadvantage.

9) While it is still alive, Historical Jesus witness dominates against Paul.

10) As Historical Jesus witness dies out the Death Jesus movement starts to dominate, as the Life Jesus movement loses it's witness advantage, and the Death Jesus movement is much more attractive to non-Jews.

11) "Mark" takes Paul's basic Ironic arguments and constructs a Gospel fleshing out Paul's basic Themes:

-----1) Historical witness saw Jesus as Teacher/Faith Healer

-----2) Historical witness failed to see that Jesus' life was not what made him Messiah.

-----3) Historical witness failed to understand and therefore witness that Jesus' Passion is what made him Messiah.

-----4) 1)-3) are communicated based on Revelation (the Gospel) as opposed to Historical witness.



Joseph

"Something is terribly wrong with our Religion. People are afraid of the Religion. It's the Religion that should be afraid of The People."

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

Vivisector

You already know Paul has quite a bit to say about Peter and James, mentioning John (presumably not JtB) also as one of the "pillars" (Gal 2:9). 1 Cor 15:5 refers to the "twelve," which might be reference to a tradition of twelve disciples. I also like 1 Cor 9:5 (Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? NIV). I don't find a mention of JtB in Paul, but who I really had in mind earlier (in the context of JtB, disciples and Jesus's family) were the authors of the Gospels - my apologies for the lack of clarity.

As far as "Mark" knowing Josephus, I'm not well enough schooled to have a solid opinion. I do know that the conventional dating of Mark argues against the original author(s) knowing Josephus, and I'm not familiar with a "smoking gun" pointing to the author or redactor knowing and making use of Josephus.

Cheers,

V.

dog-on

Are disciples and apostles the same thing?

Vivisector

From Crosswalk.com, the Greek word for "apostle" (sorry, haven't mastered the Greek characters on here) refers to "a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers of Barnabas of Timothy and Silvanus" whereas the Greek word for "disciple" refers to "a learner, pupil, disciple."

My interpretation has been that a "disciple" of Jesus would have been someone who learned from and/or followed Jesus, whereas an "apostle" of Jesus would be someone Jesus sent on a mission (e.g., the 72) or someone who felt they had been called by Jesus to undertake a mission (e.g., Paul). So as I see it, a disciple can be, but doesn't necessarily have to be, an apostle. Someone could be an apostle without having been a disciple of the living Jesus, but I suspect all apostles would have claimed to have been disciples of Jesus in one way or another (followers of the living Jesus and/or the resurrected Jesus through his recorded words, direct revelation or both).

That's a Boolean nightmare, about as clear as mud, I'm afraid.

Cheers,

V.

Vivisector

Hi, JoeWallack,

A lot I like about your chronology. Just a few questions/thinking aloud.

1) and 4) I often wonder if there wasn't at least some militant component of Jesus's activities (Gospel references to swords, Jesus's method of execution).

11) I also wonder whether "Mark" drew from Paul's writings, Paul's teachings as transmitted orally, or if Paul was simply one of many (though obviously the best remembered) leaders of the Christ Cult.

Doesn't change any of your proposed basics - just interesting points to me.

Cheers,

V.

spamandham

What matters is not the definitions, but what the writers had in mind.

From the perspective of the writers, an apostle would be someone they felt connected with, whereas a disciple would, counter intuitively, be someone more distant. An example of this is Marcion's Lukan gospel as reconstructed by Price. It's clear that the disciples are seen as bumbling oafs who never get it.

JoeWallack

JW:
Speaking of The Jesus Project let me tell you how I would approach the supposed Historicity of Jesus El All militant activity. In the big picture, since we know that the supposed Past of the Gospel history, the Jewish Bible, never happened, and the supposed Future of the Gospel, every prediction, never happened, and, that all the Impossible claims of the Gospel never happened, the odds are that the Possible claims of the Gospels are Fiction. This should be the Default position. In an Irony that the author of "Mark" would really appreciate, even though their scholarship is God-awful, FaG and AS's asses would be better members of The Jesus Project than say Boughtham, because since they Assume that everything is Fiction they would be right most of the time. To borrow the words of Weimer, after Bauckham's Eyewitnesses disasster, who the fuck would want him anyway.

Specifically, as far as sword references in the Gospels supporting a militant component of the Historical Jesus, the closest we can get to HJ is Q, written by the real historical witness, Peter/James, and what was referred to by Papias, and this evidences a Pacifist. No help there. We than have to move to the earliest Indirect witnesses, Paul and "Mark", who are both Reactions to Historical witness, such as Q. All subsequent Gospels are primarily Reactions to "Mark" (as opposed to historical witness) and therefore an order of magnitude worse evidence.

Paul's emphasis is on Jesus as a willing sacrifice so there's no help there either. When we look at "Mark" it's probably not what you think it's going to be. The only sword reference in "Mark" is 14:47:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14:47

"But a certain one of them that stood by drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear. (ASV)"

The offending word for the striker is:

"παρεστηκότων (6) παρίστημι (70) Verb to make to stand, to place beside, to present"

"Mark" is saying this was a Bystander as opposed to a Disciple. Just another example of "Mark" having the Disciples shown up by an unknown. They are not willing to make any effort to protect Jesus in Contrast to some stranger who just happened to be there when it was going down. Predictably, the subsequent Gospels gradually Transfigure the resistance to the Disciples. At the height of this comedic effort "John" hands the sword to Peter who is apparently willing to take on the entire Roman army to protect Jesus but than in the next chapter is afraid to tell a female servant that he even knows Jesus.

Also note the high Figurative elements from "Mark":

1) Servant

2) High Priest

3) Smote

4) Ear

This is a long way from the historicity of a militant element of Jesus' campaign to be President.

Also, in "Mark's" big picture he has the Disciples groovin on Jesus' Teaching/Healing Ministry (again, think of Q) and than bummed out by the Passion. There is nothing there about a theme of militant disciples. (I do think "Simon the Zealot" is a nod to the historical militant Simon of Galilee).

Bonus material - Also look at the following verse:

47 "But a certain one of them that stood by drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear.

48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves to seize me?"

A pretty stupid question for Jesus to ask considering what happened in 47. This isn't history. It is useful though for "Mark's" major Theme of the Ironic Contrast between the Historical Israel choosing Rebellion over Peace as Figuratively shown by "Mark" with the climactic choosing of Bar Abbas Rebellion over Bar Abbas Peace.



Joseph

"It ain't no Mystries,
Whether it's Politics, Religion or Histries.
The thing you gotta know iz,
Everything is Show Biz.
Hail Myself,
Watch, for my Show.
I'm the Roman El-thel Merman,
Doncha know.
We are Crossing Borders,
The New World Order
Iz here.
Everyone Sigma Hail.
Give a great big wail.
For meee,
Wonderfull meee."

- Poster on the wall of The Coliseum for Rome's new smash hit, The Soul Producers.

Clivedurdle

http://www.nazarenus.com/0-6-chorusarrives.htm

Vivisector

Hi again, JoeWallack,

You're obviously right about Q providing no support for a militant Jesus, and Mark providing only the barest support. The parallel accounts of swordplay in Matthew and Luke are obviously derivative of Mark.

I'm curious about your thoughts on Luke 22:36 and 22:38, though. Luke is far from contemporaneous, so it's tough for me to believe that Luke alone has somehow preserved a historical nugget like this. On the other hand, what could have been the situation in Luke's time that would have caused him to put words like these in Jesus's mouth?

Also, since John includes a version of the garden swordfight (putting the sword in Simon Peter's hand), I'm curious as to whether you think this particular episode is totally derivative of the Synoptics.

Again, just more wondering aloud - not trying to build a case for Jesus as Warlord.

Cheers,

V.