The Disciples - Christ's failures

[drg55]

I'm currently reading "Did Jesus Exist" by Bart Ehrman, wherein he states: (pp318-9)

"It is striking that all three synoptic Gospels speak of the twelve and list their names, but the names differ from one list to the next (Mark 3:14-19; Matthew 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16)..."

Ehrman goes on to say that its twelve because each will rule one of the twelve tribes of Israel in the apocalypse.

It does pay to check references, I looked them up and listed them off and only found a second Judas in Luke, whereas in John there is a Nathaniel and the famous disciple Jesus Loved - he was either gay as suggested in the "Secret Gospel of Mark" which I take to be a hoax, or more likely it was Mary Magdalene. Much though I admire Ehrman and many of his arguments are clearly right, he tends to be a bit sloppy, making errors in Bible references, and when you look them up sometimes you find the arguments a bit thin here or there.

But in general I'm thinking that there is little to show for these disciples, Peter has been given a good rap but left little or nothing to show. There's really more about various martyrs in the early Church. Really it seems a bit of a cameo like the wise men, an appealing story that does not follow through with any consequences, there is no substance to them. So it may be that there were 3 or 4 disciples, the ones Paul mentions meeting, plus the ex prostitutes and tax collectors that Jesus attracted to his movement. But because of the apocalyptic quote about the twelve ruling the tribes of Israel, it had to be true and they were invented. What did any of these guys really do?

[ficino]

Interesting that Mark does not state that Andrew was Simon Peter's brother, as Matthew and Luke do. Andrew's name appears fourth in Mark but second, after Peter, in Matthew and Luke. Should we care about this elevation of Andrew's position?

I also wonder whether we should care that the minor Simon is stated to have been a Zealot.

An inerrantist may claim that Thaddeus of Mark and Matthew and Judas son of James in Luke are the same man, merely known by different names. They do the same maneuver to equate Bartholomew of the synoptics with Nathaniel of John:

http://christianity.about.com/od/newtes ... olomew.htm

As for what the disciples did, there are traditions that most of them went on missionary journeys and, except for John, were martyred. I have heard that Thomas is supposed to have brought Christianity to India. The above website says that church tradition has Nathaniel take gMatt to India and end up crucified upside down in Albania - the dude racked up a lot of miles. It also says that Thaddeus founded a church in Edessa and was crucified there as a martyr.

[Charles Wilson]

drg55-

You have very good point.

One solution is to see that "Disciples" are rewrites of some small group of people in another Story.
I believe that, in many cases, these who are called disciples are actually children who will, as "Peter" believes, have a role in a coming Conflagration that will end the Roman Occupation.

Luke 9: 51 - 55 (RSV):

[51] When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.
[52] And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him;
[53] but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem.
[54] And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?"
[55] But he turned and rebuked them.

"Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?"

These are the comments of children. They have been taught the Stories of the Prophets and Miracles. To them, it is simple.
Why children? This Priest - or Peter - was a child when he went out into an Atrocity and saved this Priest. He is now a Priest himself. He is obsessed with what he sees.

Matthew 14: 23 - 30 (RSV):

[23] And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone,
[24] but the boat by this time was many furlongs distant from the land, beaten by the waves; for the wind was against them.
[25] And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea.
[26] But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, "It is a ghost!" And they cried out for fear.
[27] But immediately he spoke to them, saying, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear."
[28] And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."
[29] He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;
[30] but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."

This is Peter the child, the young man.

Mark 13: 24 - 27 (RSV):

[24] "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
[25] and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
[26] And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
[27] And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

Here is evidence on several fronts. The "Tribulation" has already occurred - It is a reference to Alexander Jannaeus. Jannaeus retreated into the "mountains" for 6 years after suffering a defeat at the hands of the Greek Demetrius Eucerus, who committed the "Appalling Abomination" at Gerizim. As Peter sees it, at the End, as Prefigured in the First Atrocity, there will be a Conflagration, only this time, instead of Peter the Child coming out to save the Priest, it will be the children - The "Angels" - who come out to save the Elect.

By the time of Acts, "Peter", "Angels" and the like have been Transvalued almost beyond recognition. Here, however, is referenced the Original written Story. It is the Story of the House of Eleazar and the Mishmarot Group "Immer".

CW

[outhouse]

So it may be that there were 3 or 4 disciples,

Agreed.

I have been saying this for years.

Im sure he bases this on the gospels really only dealing with the inner circle in any detail, and the rest having theological motive.

Not only that 12 dudes running around Galilee together could be perceived as a threat. But in my opinion would starve teaching and healing for dinner scraps at peoples tables.

the ones Paul mentions meeting,

I disagree here.

I look at these as Hellenist who may have seen or known about a real follower from the time of the event, that gave them more perceived authority to be rhetorically blown out of proportion. I still believe the inner circle ran back to Galilee tails tucked.

[steve43]

Jesus ran a very sophisticated outfit in his latter years. Thousands would some to see and hear him. It took a lot of people to organize things and handle logistics, security, food, etc.- think of a traveling evangelist mission. Twelve would have been a minimum, I would think.

[outhouse]

Jesus ran a very sophisticated outfit in his latter years. Thousands would some to see and hear him. .

That is well know rhetoric to compete with the Emperors divinity.

[Charles Wilson]

I look at these as Hellenist who may have seen or known about a real follower from the time of the event, that gave them more perceived authority to be rhetorically blown out of proportion. I still believe the inner circle ran back to Galilee tails tucked.

Who? What Hellenists? What "...real follower from the time of the event?" What event?
Until you can answer these questions, you're trying to beat something with nothing.

I've at least provided the answers to:
"Who?" The members of Mishmarot Groups.
"Where (Why Galilee?)?" Because there is an actual SETTLEMENT in Upper Galilee named "Jabnit" which was home to the Group "Immer" which believed the Hasmoneans came from them.
"What event?" The Passover Slaughter which found thousands murdered and PASSOVER CANCELLED.

If you can supply some actual evidence that there were people who actually lived in Galilee - Settlements, coins, Piyyutim, etc., please feel free to list those tangible objects.
I have. Can you?

CW

[drg55]

All the numbers seem to be exaggerated if you examine them in the light of later events. The Bible in general is full of overblown claims. If we look at the description of activities after Jesus death in Acts, it was only ever a small movement.

[neilgodfrey]

The most scholarly argument for the historicity of the twelve of which I am aware was published in 1997 in the Journal of Biblical Literature. I have addressed his arguments in a 2009 post.

Some years back I recall their historicity being raised on then very active Crosstalk discussion group and recall a significant number of scholars doubting their historicity. I have since been surprised to see so much attention being given to arguments for their historicity. I don't know if the publicity to these arguments is indicative of the real state of beliefs among critical scholars.

[toejam]

I lean towards 'the twelve' being a historical group. Paul mentions them. Plus if there wasn't a group of twelve, it makes very little sense for the existence of Matthew 19, where Jesus promises them that they would rule the twelve tribes of Israel. WTF? If there was ever a candidate for passing the criterion of dissimilarity, this is it. Matthew 28 says that some of the disciples "doubted" when they got back to Galilee. I think this little verse is often overlooked as a potential historical nugget.