Originally Posted by Malachi151

. . .the most likely thing is that these cross references were simply written in because by the time the gospels were written, in current form, the story of his death was known.

Originally Posted by mickw

Everyone knows how Jesus admonished his apostles to take up their ". . .cross and follow me. . .".

He said this, though, before he was crucified, so what sense would it have made to them? I guess we understand the phrase now as meaning to accept your burden, your lot in life, etc.; i.e., a metaphor.

But can it have been a metaphor back then, before Jesus was crucified?

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Martin Hengel has argued that it was a recruiting slogan used by the Zealots (see his Jesus and the Revolutionaries and his The Zealots). And even before Jesus' crucifixion, the idea of taking up a cross (i.e., being willing risk/to pay the price of one's life for refusing to conform to "the ways of the [Roman] world" would hardly have been incomprehensible to Jews, especially in the light of what happened after Herod's death and when Archelaus was deposed and the poll tax was instituted

Jeffrey Gibson

Originally Posted by mickw

I guess that's what prompted my question. I am still confused, though, as to whether this shows that it is anachronistic and added many years later or, as Jeffrey Gibson says above, that it would make sense to the apostles before the crucifixion.

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The whole thing is a myth. There were no apostles, there was no Jesus, its a story. Its wrtten like any other story. Trying to determine if it would make sense to "the aspotles" makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Well, given that the gospels were written well after the Jesus story had already been around for quite some time, and since we don't have any copies of the gospels before the 3rd or 4th century, the most likely thing is that these cross references were simply written in because by the time the gospels were written, in current form, the story of his death was known.

This "statement by Jesus" would only be remarkable if it were actually a life recording from prior to "his" "crucifixion". However, since the whole story was made up by fiction writers, its really of no consequence. It's simple forshadowing, like when anyone from Homer to Hemengway does it.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I've tended to accept Crossan's reading of this passage:


The complex 44 Carrying One's Cross[1/3] could be dismissed almost immediately as a retrojection of Jesus' death back onto his own prophetic lips. That would be especially persuasive if it were found only in Mark 8:34, but it is found in both Gospel of Thomas 55:2b and the Sayings Gospel Q at Luke 14:27 = Matthew 10:38, neither of which show any great interest in the historical crucifixion of Jesus. On the other hand, there is the following text:

If you want to be crucified, just wait. The cross will come. If it seems reasonable to comply, and the circumstances are right, then it's to be carried through, and your integrity maintained. (Epictetus, Discourses 2.2.20; Oldfather 1.228-231)
There is, therefore, no need to take Jesus' saying as either retrojected or projected prophecy. Jesus, "was discussing," as Leif Vaage put it about Epictetus, "the (possible) consequences of following a certain philosophy...The cost of adopting a particular way of life is...graphically imagined...The fate portrayed...certainly seems a conceivable outcome of the kind of social challenge and outrageous behavior" (1989:173) seen so often throughout this chapter.

The Historical Jesus, p353