The Disciples - Christ's failures

[neilgodfrey]

The twelve being linked to the twelve tribes of Israel -- both re future promise and as symbolic of Jesus establishing the New Israel -- actually counts against their historicity if we are to follow the normal rules of "criteria of authenticity".

That some disciples doubted at the end of Matthew could well be Matthew's answer to Mark's problem with the twelve being reliable witnesses of Jesus. A range of Christian sects had arisen, as we know from Paul's letters, each claiming to be the follower of some prominent name -- including apostolic ones.

The simple fact of rivalry (traced back to Paul's day) indicates that some of these groups had to be seen to be "wrong". As Mathew says, "some doubted".

[outhouse]

I don't know if the publicity to these arguments is indicative of the real state of beliefs among critical scholars.

On this topic, I only see apologist promoting it.

[outhouse]

The Bible in general is full of overblown claims. .

Because all the authors were trained to write in rhetorical prose as a foundation to all text.

[outhouse]

The twelve being linked to the twelve tribes of Israel -- both re future promise and as symbolic of Jesus establishing the New Israel -- actually counts against their historicity if we are to follow the normal rules of "criteria of authenticity".

That some disciples doubted at the end of Matthew could well be Matthew's answer to Mark's problem with the twelve being reliable witnesses of Jesus. A range of Christian sects had arisen, as we know from Paul's letters, each claiming to be the follower of some prominent name -- including apostolic ones.

The simple fact of rivalry (traced back to Paul's day) indicates that some of these groups had to be seen to be "wrong". As Mathew says, "some doubted".

Agreed.

I believe there was a Johannine community, behind John, but had nothing to do with a Galilean John. We don't see the same for the other gospels.

[Charles Wilson]

Acts 6: 1 - 2 (RSV):

[1] Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.
[2] And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.

Hmmm...So the Hellenists are in opposition to those pesky Hebrews again. Why? 'Cause their WIDOWS are being left out of the food rations. Mebbe a little killin' goin' on?
'N then the 12 calls in the BODY of the disciples and tells 'em that they're too good to wait on tables. They were good Christians I'm sure.

I'm certain that there's reasonable explanation - involving Galilee, Hellenists, "the 12" and such - to all of this...

CW

[Blood]

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.

Except that there weren't "twelve tribes of Israel" in Jesus's time (or perhaps any other time). So the passage really doesn't make sense unless you view it as fan fiction derived from the Septuagint, in which everything therein is regarded as fodder for the Christian evangelist's imagination.

[outhouse]

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.

Except that there weren't "twelve tribes of Israel" in Jesus's time (or perhaps any other time). So the passage really doesn't make sense unless you view it as fan fiction derived from the Septuagint, in which everything therein is regarded as fodder for the Christian evangelist's imagination.

So what your saying is, these unknown authors of the NT paid no attention to the teachings and mythology of the Septuagint ???

Hell, they used the Septuagint text as the foundation of their whole religion drawing on much of the mythology and prophecy.

[toejam]

If Jesus, like the Qumran Essenes and others before him, had apocalyptic/restorationist ideology, then it makes little difference whether there actually were twelve tribes of Israel in their time. Many were certainly claiming or believed to be "from the tribe of ...".

[drg55]

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.

You make some very good points Neil, but its still a choice between there were 12, or there was a widespread belief that there were twelve in the early days of the Church.

What I was getting at is that there seems to be no substance to the Apostles in the sense of traditions created by actual works. There are legends about going to India for example - where is any evidence in India of such an event? Perhaps they all stayed in Israel and were destroyed in the Roman war. But in Acts 2: 41 after the speaking in tongues event, three thousand converts are added. Then we go to Acts 6: 1-4 and the "twelve" decide that they don't want to distribute daily food, so seven people are appointed. In simple terms it would take more than seven people to wait on 3000 diners. Then we get the story of Stephen one of the appointed "waiters" who gives an impassioned speech before being stoned. What is going on here is a conflation of events, the appointment of the waiters is simply a literary bridge to give apostolic authority for a martyr story which is inserted.

So rather than arguing the probability of the twelve I am analysing the narrative as a whole. Its really analogous to the King Arthur legend, the knights have a mystical numerical significance. Versions vary but one has 12 knights. Its a parallel historical problem, as there may have been a historical Arthur in some primitive thatched village, but because of the the mystical character of the 12 knights this is more likely embellishment.

So after deciding not to wait on tables the twelve devote themselves to praying and then we here a bit about Peter and John and Phillip, the story about Simon the magician, another insert and propaganda against probable historical person of influence, and that's about it. Then we get to Paul after conversion where Acts says he met the apostles and he says he met Peter and James and didn't bother with the rest. Galations 1:18-19

To give some relief to the faithful, I find the "love God, love your neighbour" message of Jesus as very powerful Gnostic truth. God the Monad, and the pleroma or fullness of creation all aspects of the Monad or ultimate spark of existence. Thus love your neighbour is also love God, which is in the "what you did to the least of these you did to me" story. And the neighbour that might be hard to love, will be sorted on the day of judgement. So we get Jesus giving a gnostic lesson, which Ehrman argues as real by the doctrine of dissimilarity (ie entering the kingdom of heaven through this means rather than faith in Christ's resurection etc). We get Paul using the gnostic terminology of pleroma in Colossians 2:9 and other mentions in the NT as well. The Monad cannot be objectified so is a little different to the "God" concept. I think it was Marcion who said the OT God was a lower level in the Pleroma. And lest anyone get too vain, the Monad is greater than the ego.
http://www.mmnet.com.au/australian_land ... s_God.html

My effort is not to destroy the temple but to uncover the gold under its foundations. Two thousand years of lies, tell a big one and suspend disbelief then its all control. So we don't have to defend the lies, there is something worth finding here.

[outhouse]

. Many were certainly claiming or believed to be "from the tribe of ...".

Many? oh hell yes. It was widespread and well known.

Those in dissent have no "real" knowledge of these topics, and are embarrassing themselves.