jakejonesiv

Yes Julian. And here is another point to ponder.

No where else in the Pauline material is Jesus said to have appeared to anybody. Not before and not after the resurrection. Not to Paul, not to any other person or apostle. None.

Think about that one for a while.

Jake Jones IV

Vorkosigan

Vinnie, how can this be multiple attestation if Luke knows Mark? The fact that the names are different is an argument that either there was no Twelve or else that its composition was unknown to later authors. Why do you think Luke changed the names?

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer

What's the motive here? Paul compares himself to a miscarriage - you seriously think that was interpolated?

Ben C Smith

1 Corinthians 15.5, 8:

...and that he was seen [ωφθη, aorist passive of ο�?αω] by Cephas.... And last of all, as if to one untimely born, he was seen [ωφθη, aorist passive of ο�?αω] also by me.

1 Corinthians 9.1:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen [εο�?ακα, perfect active of ο�?αω] Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

Same verb. Same effect. And in connection with his apostleship.

Ben.

Vinnie

The changes to Lukes two lists (one in Luke one in acts) cannot be seen as editorial or redactional work.


Obviously for Luke to have a second attestation we must view the name change as not Luke himself redactionally altering Mark but in using another list. The name Thaddeus change to Jude of James in Luke suggests another surce for this (L) according to Meier (v.3 pp132-133). The name comes from nowhere and goes nowhere is is not found prominently in any other early literature IIRC. I think GJohn does attest "another Jude" however

The latter is quite possible as scholars like Meier suggest (ibid p.131), Most of the names of the twelve are that, names on a list and nothing more.

I think he had a different list in his L tradition and used that for whatever reason.

1) Sanders argued membership of twleve originally did not need to have a rigid mathematical interpretation but could vary---always centering around roughly twelve which was symbolic of the restoration of Israel.

2) Jesus may have called people to leave everything (including family and possession) thus some might have given up on him after a whle (if his ministry lasted several years!).

3) Some might have died.

4) Dismissal by Jesus.

5) Illness

or whatever.


Why are we stuck with the conservative twelve model?

Jesus called 12 people exactly and they followed him to the end and then passed on eyewitness facts about him and were the garauntors (sp?) of traditon....blah blah blah. Thats too one dimensional.

We see James as a Pillar Apostle, we see Paul quick to call himself an apostle, we see different lists of the twelve, we see that many of the names are names and nothng more....

Early on the twelve's importance was not as great as it became later it seems. We have to be cautious of anachronsm.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Paul chastized Peter over food laws, big deal. That was a controversial topic in the EC. Look at the bold:


6As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,[a] just as Peter had been to the Jews.[b] 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[c] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Paul compares Peter's work to the Jews to his own to the Gentiles.

Chris Weimer

Actually, Vinnie, it's Peter in the Byzantine manuscripts but Cephas in UBS, so I suspect that's a later conflation as well. It just so happens that the English versions use the Byzantine and not modern textual critical approaches.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie, the problem with these arguments is that they are irrefutable. If the two lists in Mark and Luke were identical, you would say "case closed! Identical lists" And never raise the issue of illness or replacement. If they are different -- well, it is illness or replacement. Or maybe Luke used a second list. If the twelve aren't really twelve, it's OK, it's flexible. How can anyone respond to that? There's no argument there, just a series of ad hoc claims that are justified by and support the axiom that there is history down there. Give up that axiom and it all comes back to invention. The simplest explanation.

Can't you see the pattern? Assume Luke doesn't know Matt and you get Q. Assume that the sources for Matt and Luke are tradition and you get L and M. And all of those have one thing in common. They have never been found, and are not known from any other text.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

Holding loves to claim the Bible was written for a 'high-context' society, where people knew all sorts of background details , not actually mentioned in the text.

This enables him to supply all sorts of missing context, not actually mentioned in the text, which lets him harmonise away by adding to God's word.

However, he now claims that wearing leather belts was so common, that it really goes without saying.

Another example of Holding arguing whatever suits him at any given moment.

Apparently, all these 'high-context' readers now need to be told that people wore belts and that these belts were made out of leather.


Mark was certainly making connections, and making a *literay* connection boosted the connecting power of his tale.

Julian

Holding's leather belt argument is totally goofy. Imagine this conversation:

Julian: Oh, by the way, I met Holding today.
Steven: Oh, really? What was he like?
Julian: He wore a leather belt.

I mean, why the hell why you write that about someone? If it was so common, and it probably was, then the only reason one would have for pointing it out was that it was important in some fashion.

Julian