Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 08-21-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Can someone tell me why the writers of the gospels made the disciples out to be so dumb?
spin

Is this prevalent in the other gospels besides Mark? I thought Mt and Lk toned down and refined Mark's portrayal of the apostles?

The issue in Mark is a problem...

That's all reasonable to me. When we start talking about Mt & Lk toning Mk down though, we are getting further from the early tradition into clear redactional intervention, "toning [Mark] down".

spin

PhilosopherJay · 08-21-2009, 10:44 AM

Hi Steve,

This is an excellent point. We should expect to hear more about New Testament characters in Christian letters, not only from the First century, but the Second century, as well.

Justin Martyr does not mention Thomas.

The work "Against Heresies", which I think should be ascribed to the Third century although, Eusebius places it in the Second century, says this about Thomas in reference to Marcus the Magician and his Marcosian followers:

Quote:

1.18.3:With respect, again, to the Decad, they maintain that it is indicated by those ten nations which God promised to Abraham for a possession.234 The arrangement also made by Sarah when, after ten years, she gave235 her handmaid Hagar to him, that by her he might have a son, showed the same thing. Moreover, the servant of Abraham who was sent to Rebekah, and presented her at the well with ten bracelets of gold, and her brethren who detained her for ten days;236 Jeroboam also, who received the ten sceptres237 (tribes), and the ten courts238 of the tabernacle, and the columns of ten cubits239 [high], and the ten sons of Jacob who were at first sent into Egypt to buy com, and the ten apostles to whom the Lord appeared after His resurrection,-Thomas being absent,-represented, according to them, the invisible Decad.

All we can say is that the Marcosians, who came after the Valentinians (circa 150?), knew that Thomas never saw Jesus after the resurrection.

Irenaeus does not give any contradictory tradition to this one.

Therefore we can say that the evidence from the first two centuries indicates that Thomas did not see the resurrected Jesus. Only in the Third century was the story made up that Thomas saw a resurrected Jesus.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

No Christian of the first century ever names himself as having heard of Judas or Thomas, or as having met anybody he says had heard of Judas or Thomas.

Mark even has disciples who meet Moses,and this never gets mentioned by any Christian letter writers.

Imagine if Muhammad returned from the dead,spoke to a Muslim sect, and not one of the members of this Muslim sect wrote about it in a letter.

Why do historicists even start to think this is history?

show_no_mercy · 08-21-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Steve,

This is an excellent point. We should expect to hear more about New Testament characters in Christian letters, not only from the First century, but the Second century, as well.

Justin Martyr does not mention Thomas.

The work "Against Heresies", which I think should be ascribed to the Third century although, Eusebius places it in the Second century, says this about Thomas in reference to Marcus the Magician and his Marcosian followers:

Quote:

1.18.3:With respect, again, to the Decad, they maintain that it is indicated by those ten nations which God promised to Abraham for a possession.234 The arrangement also made by Sarah when, after ten years, she gave235 her handmaid Hagar to him, that by her he might have a son, showed the same thing. Moreover, the servant of Abraham who was sent to Rebekah, and presented her at the well with ten bracelets of gold, and her brethren who detained her for ten days;236 Jeroboam also, who received the ten sceptres237 (tribes), and the ten courts238 of the tabernacle, and the columns of ten cubits239 [high], and the ten sons of Jacob who were at first sent into Egypt to buy com, and the ten apostles to whom the Lord appeared after His resurrection,-Thomas being absent,-represented, according to them, the invisible Decad.

All we can say is that the Marcosians, who came after the Valentinians (circa 150?), knew that Thomas never saw Jesus after the resurrection.

Irenaeus does not give any contradictory tradition to this one.

Therefore we can say that the evidence from the first two centuries indicates that Thomas did not see the resurrected Jesus. Only in the Third century was the story made up that Thomas saw a resurrected Jesus.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Are you implying that the Doubting Thomas scene in John is 3rd century?

Steven Avery · 08-21-2009, 11:09 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

And the Pharisees knew that there would be members of the general public who would believe totally false stories of people rising from the dead.

Right. They understood that danger, there could be such false stories, and the one refutation of such stories was simple -- present the body. Whew... Simple.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Elijah · 08-21-2009, 11:25 AM

It was written by educated(hellenized) Jews who are naturally going to portray the uneducated Jews as dumb. Like intellectuals do with the masses now.

It also shows that the story is based around faith not gnosis since the earliest apostles don’t understand what is going on. It isn’t till later when more educated Jews get a hold of the story does the ideological ramifications become important because they could now be understood, while before it was just peasants carrying the faith of a man as the messiah, without knowing the purpose.

Deus Ex · 08-21-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

And the Pharisees knew that there would be members of the general public who would believe totally false stories of people rising from the dead.

Right. They understood that danger, there could be such false stories, and the one refutation of such stories was simple -- present the body. Whew... Simple.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Yea, a rotting corpse would surely resolve the issue.

PhilosopherJay · 08-21-2009, 12:00 PM

Hi Show_no_mercy,

Yes, the current form of the Thomas story in the Gospel does seem to be a Third century invention. Origen supplies further further evidence for this. Origen (circa 250) in "Against Celsus, describes Celsus (writing circa 180) on the question this way (Book 2:LIX):

Quote:

Speaking next of the statements in the Gospels, that after His resurrection He showed the marks of His punishment, and how His hands had been pierced, he asks, "Who beheld this?" And discrediting the narrative of Mary Magdalene, who is related to have seen Him, he replies, "A half-frantic woman, as ye state." And because she is not the only one who is recorded to have seen the Saviour after His resurrection, but others also are mentioned, this Jew of Celsus calumniates these statements also in adding, "And some one else of those engaged in the same system of deception!"

It seems likely that Celsus only knew of Jesus appearance to Mary and perhaps one other woman or disciple. It seems possible that the short ending of Mark was all that he knew, or some variation of it.

Justin Martyr doesn't mention Thomas at all. In his Treatise On the Resurrectinon (9), we get:

Quote:

Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, "Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I;" and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He did eat honey-comb and fish. And when He had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as He had said that our dwelling-place is in heaven), "He was taken up into heaven while they beheld," as He was in the flesh.

Again, the Thomas story is entirely missing, although we see the proto story here., where all the disciples see Jesus's nail prints, and handle him.

We may easily see the logical pathway to the Thomas story by combining the Marcosian story presented in "Against Heresies" and this story.

1. All apostles doubt Jesus and handle him
2. Thomas was not among the Apostles who saw Jesus because he had rejected the faith.

From these stories a follower could easily think:
1. If the apostles who knew Jesus best doubted, why should not everybody doubt until we touch the nail prints and handle him.
2. If Thomas left and he was a devout follower of Jesus and never got to see Jesus resurrected and never believed it, then maybe we should follow Thomas' example, and doubt everything and just leave.

The solution was to combine the two stories and reverse them. Instead of the apostles doubting upon seeing Jesus, the Apostles accept that it is Jesus. Instead of leaving the apostles and never seeing the resurrected Jesus, and forever being Doubting Thomas, Thomas becomes the one to handle Jesus and become convinced. Instead of a doubter, he becomes a believer.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Steve,

This is an excellent point. We should expect to hear more about New Testament characters in Christian letters, not only from the First century, but the Second century, as well.

Justin Martyr does not mention Thomas.

The work "Against Heresies", which I think should be ascribed to the Third century although, Eusebius places it in the Second century, says this about Thomas in reference to Marcus the Magician and his Marcosian followers:

All we can say is that the Marcosians, who came after the Valentinians (circa 150?), knew that Thomas never saw Jesus after the resurrection.

Irenaeus does not give any contradictory tradition to this one.

Therefore we can say that the evidence from the first two centuries indicates that Thomas did not see the resurrected Jesus. Only in the Third century was the story made up that Thomas saw a resurrected Jesus.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Are you implying that the Doubting Thomas scene in John is 3rd century?

No Robots · 08-21-2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

It was written by educated(hellenized) Jews who are naturally going to portray the uneducated Jews as dumb.

Isn't it rather that the Gospels as we have them are generally just transcriptions, with some editorializing, particularly in John, of the original material coming from the uneducated disciples?

Elijah · 08-21-2009, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

It was written by educated(hellenized) Jews who are naturally going to portray the uneducated Jews as dumb.

Isn't it rather that the Gospels as we have them are generally just transcriptions, with some editorializing, particularly in John, of the original material coming from the uneducated disciples?

From the HJ perspective the only material I could see coming from the uneducated initial witnesses is orally repeating what happened and what he said. By the time the story actually gets written down it has spread past the initial group to include more intellectual types like Paul who see Jesus as one of their own trying to establish a religion based on faith among the uneducated/lower-class who didn’t understand but still had faith in him. John comes from a different perspective for a different audience, the faith aspect is more downplayed and it’s not Peter’s faith that is the rock of his church but looks more like the women’s.

No Robots · 08-21-2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

From the HJ perspective the only material I could see coming from the uneducated initial witnesses is orally repeating what happened and what he said.

It seems to me that the mythologizing started early on.

Quote:

By the time the story actually gets written down it has spread past the initial group to include more intellectual types like Paul who see Jesus as one of their own trying to establish a religion based on faith among the uneducated/lower-class who didn’t understand but still had faith in him.

But I don't see any of Paul's influence in the Gospels, or of anyone else anywhere near as intellectual as him.

Quote:

John comes from a different perspective for a different audience, the faith aspect is more downplayed and it’s not Peter’s faith that is the rock of his church but looks more like the women’s.

Yeah, John engages in speculative Christology. Check Brunner on this.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-21-2009, 11:25 AM	#15
Elijah Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: MidWest Posts: 1,894	It was written by educated(hellenized) Jews who are naturally going to portray the uneducated Jews as dumb. Like intellectuals do with the masses now. It also shows that the story is based around faith not gnosis since the earliest apostles don’t understand what is going on. It isn’t till later when more educated Jews get a hold of the story does the ideological ramifications become important because they could now be understood, while before it was just peasants carrying the faith of a man as the messiah, without knowing the purpose.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.