Clivedurdle

And Mark very likely is a play in the Homeric tradition - this time with a Christ hero.

These Greek Jews in Alexandria when not translating the Septaguint were updating Homer - it was part of their training!

avi

Thank you Jay, well written, as always.
My only concern here, is that this word, 'apostle' is found, not only in the King James version of Mark, as you noted above, but also in Codex Sinaiticus.
In other words, if the word represents a later interpolation, then, the Codex itself is suspect, and cannot then serve as a legitimate foil to the King James Version. Does there exist a more ancient papyrus than Codex Sinaiticus, containing Mark 6:30, which omits the word "apostle", using "disciple" instead?

My understanding, perhaps erroneous, is that 'apostle', loosely missionary, is derived from the Hebrew, so, I am a little confused, because, I had thought that the Jews did not believe in proselytizing.

If this is correct, then, why would there be such a term in use, and why would the Jewish Christians, which I had supposed, perhaps incorrectly, had opposed Paul's supposed attempts to repudiate the Hebreic customs/laws/sacrifices, etc, in order to help spread Christianity throughout the extent of the Greek speaking universe, then employ this word in Mark 6: 30?

Could this one word, 'apostle' represent instead, rather than a later interpolation, a clue about the time of authorship of Mark, and perhaps, even, a hint of the author's intended purpose in writing this 'gospel'? Is there some parallel illustration, in somewhat more contemporary writings, either philosophical, or literary, where a single word is employed by an author, to cryptically convey some erstwhile hidden meaning?

DCHindley

"Apostle" comes from everyday Greek use, a word that meant a representative of some authority, usually wealthy persons, sent on a mission to conduct business in their behalf. The word is most commonly used of someone making a sea voyage in order to do so, but there are plenty of occasions where it refers to those sent on overland trips.

It was, as far as I know, never used in common Greek in the modern sense of "missionary." It was understood by the Christians who wrote the NT books to describe those who were sent by Jesus (the 12 apostles, or Paul, etc) to spread "his" (Jesus') gospel.

Later, after the destruction of the temple, the Romans allowed the Jews to have an ethnarch (a person who represented Jewish interests generally, but without any formal government under him), and this person would send delegates to collect freewill gifts from Diaspora Jews for the benefit of the less fortunate Jews of Judea. We know that these persons were termed "apostles" by Christians (like Epiphanius) who mention them.

We also know from Josephus that people were carrying sums of money from freewill offerings to Jerusalem in a similar manner prior to the destruction, because occasionally local governors tried to confiscate the money (even though Jews had been granted the right to do so), but we do not know for sure they were also called "apostles." No example of a formal term for these pre-destruction representatives has survived, but chances are they also were called "apostles."

In the case of Paul, I do not think it is coincidental that he calls himself an "apostle" and made a point of bringing offerings to Jerusalem from his gentile associates for the sake of the "poor."

DCH

GakuseiDon

Well, no, but do we need to?

"There probably was a John the Baptist".
"There probably was a Gamaliel I".
"There probably was a Honi the Circle Drawer".
"There probably was an "Egyptian" who lead 30,000 people to attack Jerusalem".

All minimally attested to, but I would say that no-one would raise an eyebrow if the assumption was made that those figures probably (at the least!) existed. I'm not sure how we could put a number on any of them, though.

GakuseiDon

I agree that there is very little left we can know about Jesus except the myth, but that doesn't make all speculation bad speculation.

GakuseiDon

But Paul's Christ -- even taking into account his high Christology -- does appear to have been a distinct entity who came, was crucified and rose from death. He doesn't appear to be an abstract idea. Does this not cause problems with your analogy?

graymouser

Yeah, it can be pretty well founded - honestly I'm pretty neutral with regard to whether one is "mythicist" or "historicist." I think both stories can be interesting or self-serving, depending upon the bent of the particular historian doing the retelling - obviously some mythicist accounts are rubbish, but some historicist ones are as well.

I don't think you can do much for a profile of historic Jesus other than a book about the type of people who we do know more about from the period - a sort of "well, this is what we know about apocalyptic prophets, this is what we know about Jewish revolutionaries, this is what we know about hellenistic Jewish wisdom teachers..." I think the whole enterprise of picking out one of these bundles of factoids and marketing it as The Historical Jesus^TM is fundamentally dishonest, as they aren't - they're just profiles that the real deal (if there was one) would have fit into. But it turns out that it's easier to sell books if you call them "a profile of the historical Jesus" instead of "a historical profile of the kind of guy Jesus might have been like, if he was like this kind of guy." I honestly think this has more to do with the HJ industry than any solid historical backing.

show_no_mercy

This is an interesting point you bring up. The authors of Luke and Matthew (and possibly John) probably did think that Mark was historical, but this is actually damaging. If they thought that Mark was historical, they would have left it alone. However, they must have thought that Mark was inaccurate, which is why they wrote their own versions! If Mark is inaccurate history, what does this do to the "historical" Jesus?

aa5874

I think you may be right.

HJers have no clue or credible information how their Jesus was derived and must depend upon the very books in which it is claim Jesus was a God who created the world.


There seems to be a market for people who must believe Jesus existed, whether as only a God, God and man or just human. There are hundreds of millions of Jesus believers.

spamandham

Yes, because there is no basis for the assessment of the probability. If there were, you could assign a number to it, and back up how it was derived.