Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 01-10-2003, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg2003
Why can't people just admit that the twelve represent the same significance as the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve signs of the Zodiac. It is just a sacred number with some sort of relationship to the divine.

Who said the twelve didn't have symbolic significance? The fact of this symbolism of the 12 trivbes of Israel does not an argument against its historicity make. The evidence is there. You can choose to reject it but its widespread and early attestation in numerous forms isprobably the reason the majority of scholars do not.

Quote:

There may have been pillars of the church in Jerusalem at the same time as Paul was doing his apostolic work. But these people (and I'm sure there were either more or less than 12 of them) were later folded into a HJ story to give it credibility. So the questions of who James and Peter and Judas were are certainly interesting and they may correspond to historical figures in the early church. But they were not members of a divinely significant 12.

Later folded into the HJ story? Well, as I said the tradition is widespread and early. You are simply ignoring the facts in favor of baseless speculation.

There are some scholars (Crossan et al) whose reconstructions of Jesus leave no room for a symbolic twelve which probably indicates that that Jesus thought Isarael would be fully restored in the coming kingdom. You should try to read the work on this
done by one of these actual scholars so that you may at least attempt to make a substantive response rather than merely expressing disdain and shock at why all these [presumably incompetent] NT and HJ scholars accept this as axiomatic.

E.P. Sanders also has some interesting things to say on the twelve and their numbers and how literal we should accept the "Twelve". The Historical Figure of Jesus pp.120-122

Quote:

The traditions about the number and identity of Jesus' closest followers are both important and interestingm and si we shall look at them in greater detail. We note, first, that although all four gospels, Acts and Paul agree that there were twel;ve special disciples (often referred collectivey as 'the Twelve') they do not agree precisely on their names. Thee most probable explanation is that Jesus himself useed the term symbolically, and that it was remembered as a ssymbolic number, even though the precise number of close disciples may have varied. The symbolic meaning of the number would have been obvious to everyone: it represented the twelve tribes of Israel. In calling disciples, and in speaking of them as 'the Twelve', Jesus intended to show that he had in view the full restoration of the people of Israel. The symbolic valueof the number is especially clear in Mattew 19:28: the twelve disciples will will judge the twelve tribes tribes of israel. Ten of the tribes had dissappeared centuries before, when Assyria conquered the northern kingdom. many Jews continued to hope, however, that God would someday restore the lost ten tribes: 'twelve' therefore points to the expectation of an eschatological miracle, a decisive act by God to redeem his people.

Paul's letters were written earlier than the gospels, and so his reference to the Twelve is the earliest evidence. it comes in a passage that he repeats as 'tradition', and is thus to be traced back to the earliest days of the movement. In I Corinthians 15 he gives the list of rresurrection appearances that had been handed down to him: Jesus appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the Twelve, then to 500, then to James, then to 'all the apostles', then to Paul himself (I Cor. 15:5-8). We note that in Paul's list the symbolic number twelve is still used, even though Judas was by then dead.

. . . it is clear that we have more than twelve names . . . these discrepancies traditionally have been solved by assuming that some disciples had two names. Thus Thaddaeus (matthew and Mark) is often thought to be the same person as Judas the son of James (Luke and Acts) and as Judas (not iscariot) (John). Similarly it is offten thought that levi was simply an alternative name for matthew. These equations are based on the desire to make the names add up to precisely twelve, as if the number were not only symbolic but also literally precise and should be mechanically applied. It is far more likely that the number twelve possesses a different kind of historicity: Jesus' own use of the number as symbolic. It is not the case that Jesus had just twelve disciples. It appears that he had somewhat more, but he spoke of the Twelve in order to indicate that his mission was to all Israel as well as his expectation that Israel would be fully restored in the coming kingdom.

In reality Jesus had a group of followers at any one time numbering more or less twelve. Some of the minor followers fell away, so that later the early Christians did not agree precisely on who counted as among the Twelve. He himself, however, used the number as a symbol of his mission and his hope. The gospels set the story of Jesus in the context of Jewish salvation history: Gos called the people of Israel and would ultimately redeem them. jesus saw his own work in the same context. His message was, in part, that in the coming kingdom the twelve tribes would have a place.

The evidence mythicists like to site in favor of the non-existence of Jesus actually turns out to be solid evidence in favor of his existence! Hooray for irony!

However one might choose to explain the details and interpret things like the betrayal by Judas in the Gospels and the nature of the twelve it is clear that there is widespread and early attestation in various forms that the twelve goes back to the ministry of an actual Jesus of Nazareth.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 01-10-2003, 09:55 AM

Quote:

(as Vinnie so kindly pointed out to me

I love subtle humor

My low tolerance for nonsense was the basis of my kindness towards you. I don't expect to have to point out that Paul was writing to Christians in a discussion like this. If a person does not know that then I don't know what business that person actually has arguing mythicism to begin with!

Vinnie

Gregg · 01-10-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
I love subtle humor

My low tolerance for nonsense was the basis of my kindness towards you. I don't expect to have to point out that Paul was writing to Christians in a discussion like this. If a person does not know that then I don't know what business that person actually has arguing mythicism to begin with!

Vinnie

Vinnie, I was perfectly aware that Paul was writing for Christians. Whether they were all Christians who so familiar with everything the historical Jesus said and did that Paul never saw any reason to mention any of these things in his letters--even when they would have helped him make a point or back up an argument--is what I was questioning. How could any Christian who knew everything that Jesus said and did be swayed by someone who told him that he had to follow the Jewish dietary laws, when Jesus had clearly explained that it's not what goes in the mouth but what comes out that defiles? I mean, what part of that teaching is so hard to understand?

And hey, why don't you lighten up a little, ol' boy.

Gregg

Gregg · 01-10-2003, 10:20 AM

Sorry, accidentally posted twice.

Gregg

Vinnie · 01-10-2003, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gregg
Vinnie, I was perfectly aware that Paul was writing for Christians. Whether they were all Christians who so familiar with everything the historical Jesus said and did that Paul never saw any reason to mention any of these things in his letters--even when they would have helped him make a point or back up an argument--is what I was questioning.

Well then. let me remind you of your actual words which were in the context of silence concerning historical details in the Pauline corpus:

Quote:

Even if Paul wasn't interested in these things, his readers and listeners surely would have been. Yet he never writes anything like "and why do you keep asking me things about Jesus, like what his parents' names were, or what he looked like, or things he said and did, or details about his trials, his crucifixion, his resurrection? Haven't I told you that these things are of no importance? All that matters is, he died, and he was resurrected, and because of this you are saved. Isn't that enough?"

Well, ask yourself, Vinnie; would that be enough for YOU? Some dusty apostle walks up and tells you that some fellow in a land far away died and rose from the dead, and if you believe in him you're saved, and you're just going to say, "Baptize me now!" ? You're not going to say, "Well, tell me a little more about this fellow and why I should think he's the son of God. Surely when he lived among people he must have said very wise things, worked miracles? Surely his birth and death must have been accompanied by omens and portents and unnatural events?"

Your words seem pretty clear to me.

Quote:

How could any Christian who knew everything that Jesus said and did be swayed by someone who told him that he had to follow the Jewish dietary laws, when Jesus had clearly explained that it's not what goes in the mouth but what comes out that defiles? I mean, what part of that teaching is so hard to understand?

I have already explained a mainline view on this in one of my earlier posts to which neither you or anyone else has responded to. Maybe addressing my points rather than reasserting your own question which I already answered would fill this thread with a little more substance? Otherwise, round and round we go.

Quote:

And hey, why don't you lighten up a little, ol' boy.

If you address my actual points, if you do not continue to change the subject, if you do not continue to argue absurd things, and if you refrain from going back on your words I will.

Have a great weekend

Vinnie

luvluv · 01-10-2003, 01:00 PM

Quote:

If you think I'm stretching things here, luvluv, then you need to familiarize yourself with midrashic interpretation. Taking random Scriptural passages out of context, reinterpreting them, twisting and bending them into new shapes, and applying them to new contexts (often with inventive use of wordplay) was all the rage back then (and it still is). Look what Matthew did later--taking the Hebrew word "netzer" (branch or sprout) from Isaiah 11:1 and saying this passage was fulfilled because Jesus supposedly grew up in a town named Nazareth. And you honestly think it's more of a stretch for Paul to paint a vivid picture of Christ's heavenly sacrifice by calling it a crucifixion--a familiar sight throughout the Empire--instead of sticking to "hanging on a tree" like 1 Peter does? Actually, it would seem quite natural for Paul himself to envision the "hanging on a tree" as a crucifixion.

This is ridiculous. The notion of hanging on a tree had no messianic concept at all, and is a reference to an old Levitical law so obscure that no one but a full-fledged Pharisee or a priest would have gotten the connection. There is no reference to hanging on a tree in any major (or minor) messianic passage in the entire Old Testament. No one would have associated hanging by a tree with the messiah. But what we DO know is that the Romans quite often resorted to using trees as makeshift crucifixes. As I understand it, this practice is pretty well documented. So it could have easily been the case that Jesus was crucified on a similar makeshift cross. This makes much, MUCH more sens than your explanation, since the two passages you desperately refer to have NO Messianic conotation whatsoever.

Greg2003 · 01-10-2003, 02:18 PM

Luvluv,

The whole idea of Christ as the universal redeemer of all mankind has absolutely no messianic referent in judaism either. Yet, everyone accepts that Christianity emerged out of Judaism. So how did it? I think the idea of syncretism with hellenistic and indo-iranian ideas through the jewish practice of midrash is a perfectly acceptable explanation.

Otherwise, you're left with a guy who preached for three years in an illeterate society with horseback and sailboat communication suddenly spreading a message all over the Mediterranian world in a matter of a couple of years after his death. Either the story in the bible is made up to pin the beliefs on some historical figures for dubious believers, or he's really god and did and said everything in the bible, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

If we accept that the construction of the gospels is complex and involved redaction and reworking of earlier versions and adaptation of certain core messages that appear in Paul, such as the communal meal and the washing of feet, etc., then it should follow that we should entertain the idea that Christ himself, as a historical figure, is a reworking of earlier beliefs and teachings. This is not a ridiculous position to take, I think.

Layman · 01-10-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg2003
Luvluv,

This is not a ridiculous position to take, I think.

It is ridiculous to the extent that it relies on extreme and forced distortions of the documents available to us. Such as the idea that the Epistle to the Hebrews does not discuss a historical Jesus.

Greg2003 · 01-10-2003, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
It is ridiculous to the extent that it relies on extreme and forced distortions of the documents available to us. Such as the idea that the Epistle to the Hebrews does not discuss a historical Jesus.

Provide me with a reference in Hebrews to the historical jesus that you think I have to forcfully distort to get a non-historical jesus.

Layman · 01-10-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg2003
Provide me with a reference in Hebrews to the historical jesus that you think I have to forcfully distort to get a non-historical jesus.

We were just discussing Hebrews in this very thread. Then you stopped. Have you said all you intend to say in response to my posts?

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

01-10-2003, 10:20 AM	#124
Gregg Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,877	Sorry, accidentally posted twice. Gregg

01-10-2003, 02:18 PM	#127
Greg2003 Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 167	Luvluv, The whole idea of Christ as the universal redeemer of all mankind has absolutely no messianic referent in judaism either. Yet, everyone accepts that Christianity emerged out of Judaism. So how did it? I think the idea of syncretism with hellenistic and indo-iranian ideas through the jewish practice of midrash is a perfectly acceptable explanation. Otherwise, you're left with a guy who preached for three years in an illeterate society with horseback and sailboat communication suddenly spreading a message all over the Mediterranian world in a matter of a couple of years after his death. Either the story in the bible is made up to pin the beliefs on some historical figures for dubious believers, or he's really god and did and said everything in the bible, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff. If we accept that the construction of the gospels is complex and involved redaction and reworking of earlier versions and adaptation of certain core messages that appear in Paul, such as the communal meal and the washing of feet, etc., then it should follow that we should entertain the idea that Christ himself, as a historical figure, is a reworking of earlier beliefs and teachings. This is not a ridiculous position to take, I think.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.