The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse » Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:52 am

Michael BG wrote: while Paul does not have twelve disciples if 1 Cor 15:3-11 is an interpolation but refers to a group in Jerusalem and asks his churches to collect money for this group (pre 60 CE). It seems likely that the tradition of twelve disciples had to be established before 66 CE and it does seem logical that Jerusalem would be the centre of such a belief, especially if Christians believed the end would happen in their life times and all the Jews would be moved by God to Jerusalem for the end event.


.
Exactly.

Paul makes no mention of the Jerusalem house teaching of 12 either.
There is no tradition that there was a core group in Galilee at this time is there?
I don't think there was.


His movement was over with his death for Galilean Jews.

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse » Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:04 am

Michael BG wrote: How do you deal with Paul and his talk of Cephas and James?

.
These are just popular names. Paul community using popular names was typical for most all writing of this period regardless of historicity. It was part of he rhetorical prose used.


They may have been real names of Hellenist in Jerusalem.

How do you deal with Paul’s talk of a collection for Jerusalem (Gal 2:10, 1 Cor 16:1, 3, and Rom 15:25)?


Paul places importance on this house. Many factors could play into this, NOT just Paul having met real followers.
I have seen other posts when you use the term Aramaic followers, do you mean followers whose first language is Aramaic?
Aramaic was the major language not only in Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia, but in parts of Arabia, Asia Minor and Persia until replaced by Arabic after the seventh century CE.
Your missing my point.

There was a steep division between Hellenistic Judaism, and Aramaic Judaism. There was a political Division, and there was theological division, as well as cultural divisions.

Hellenism permeated Judaism, but not everyone accepted and welcomed how this perverted cultural Judaism, NOT ONLY that the Hellenist did not want to be cultural Jews, or fully convert. They were happy to pervert Judaism while worshipping the one god concept.

Hellenistic Jews, were not the oppressed Aramaic Jews, and both defined Judaism differently. While some Israelites embraced Hellenism, these were the rich elite that does not represent Judaism as a whole.


Therefore lots of Diaspora Jews spoke Aramaic and not Greek.
But the Hellenistic Proselytes and early Christians did not. By all our evidence.

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Michael BG » Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:32 pm

Giuseppe wrote:I wonder if a case may be made that 1 Cor 15:3-11 was written yes by Paul, but was total fiction, meaning that Paul invented ex novo the tradition
Any discussion of 1 Cor 15:3-11 has to address the argument that lots of it does not appear to be in the normal style of Paul. The majority view is that this is because at some time Paul was informed about this tradition about Jesus and his resurrection appearances and he is quoting it here. The minority interpolation view states that it is unlikely Paul would have been informed of this tradition when he was first converted and the reason it doesn’t appear to be Paul writing is because it isn’t; it is an interpolation.
outhouse wrote:
Paul makes no mention of the Jerusalem house teaching of 12 either.

His movement was over with his death for Galilean Jews.
I think I have seen you mention “house” with regard to Jerusalem in other posts. I don’t understand what houses have to do with anything.

For the Jesus movement to be over with his death for his Galilean follows there would have to have been no resurrection appearances to his “disciples” however we define them. But the gospels give us this tradition.
outhouse wrote:
Michael BG wrote: How do you deal with Paul and his talk of Cephas and James?
These are just popular names. Paul community using popular names was typical for most all writing of this period regardless of historicity. It was part of he rhetorical prose used.

They may have been real names of Hellenist in Jerusalem.
So you reject the idea that Cephas and James came from Galilee?
Can you present an argument to convince me this is likely?
outhouse wrote:
How do you deal with Paul’s talk of a collection for Jerusalem (Gal 2:10, 1 Cor 16:1, 3, and Rom 15:25)?


Paul places importance on this house. Many factors could play into this, NOT just Paul having met real followers.

Unfortunately I don’t understand what factors you are referring to. What do you mean by “this house”?
outhouse wrote:
I have seen other posts when you use the term Aramaic followers, do you mean followers whose first language is Aramaic?
Aramaic was the major language not only in Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia, but in parts of Arabia, Asia Minor and Persia until replaced by Arabic after the seventh century CE.
Your missing my point.

There was a steep division between Hellenistic Judaism, and Aramaic Judaism. There was a political Division, and there was theological division, as well as cultural divisions.

Hellenism permeated Judaism, but not everyone accepted and welcomed how this perverted cultural Judaism, NOT ONLY that the Hellenist did not want to be cultural Jews, or fully convert. They were happy to pervert Judaism while worshipping the one god concept.

Hellenistic Jews, were not the oppressed Aramaic Jews, and both defined Judaism differently. While some Israelites embraced Hellenism, these were the rich elite that does not represent Judaism as a whole.
Therefore lots of Diaspora Jews spoke Aramaic and not Greek.
But the Hellenistic Proselytes and early Christians did not. By all our evidence.
It is possible that I am missing your point.
It is possible that most of the priesthood and Pharisees were influenced by their 300 years of Greek imperialism, while for the rural Jews this influence was less. It seems likely that Hellenist views and thinking was influential within the non-Palestinian Christian movement. It is generally accepted that early Christians read the Old Testament texts in Greek and it is normally from the Septuagint that the Old Testament is quoted in Christian texts.

The term Hellenists could refer to the gentile God fearers who were interested in the religion of the Jews or Jews whose first language was Greek. I am not aware of Judaism being divided along cultural lines – Hellenists or Aramaic. I am only familiar with Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots.

It is generally accepted that Christians attended synagogues before and after 70 CE and that Christianity had deep roots within the Jewish tradition.

It is sometimes said that the Sadducees were the most favourable group to Hellenization, but it is Pharisaic beliefs that influenced Christianity more than those of the Sadducees.

After 70 CE it is possible that the majority of Christians had Greek as their first language, but our evidence for this is not good. Paul talks of Christians in Damascus and Arabia. We know it travelled to Egypt and Rome, but we have no idea if the growth in Aramaic speaking areas was slower than in Greek speaking areas.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5529
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:20 am

Michael BG wrote: ... Paul talks of Christians in Damascus and Arabia. We know it travelled to Egypt and Rome, but we have no idea if the growth in Aramaic speaking areas was slower than in Greek speaking areas.
It's possible Paul was not referring to Jesus-following Christians, but preliminary sects of a more nebulous Christ following Christians (along the lines of the Christs, Chrestus, and Chrestians or Christians that Pliny-the-Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus may also have been referring to).

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse » Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:12 am

Michael BG wrote: I think I have seen you mention “house” with regard to Jerusalem in other posts. I don’t understand what houses have to do with anything.

.
Because there were no churches in this time, they still met in houses.

And knowing early on they were hunted down possibly being seen as a threat to the temple, they kept their practice on the down low.

For the Jesus movement to be over with his death for his Galilean follows there would have to have been no resurrection appearances to his “disciples” however we define them. But the gospels give us this tradition.


The earliest gospel ignores this resurrection almost completely, this is a later tradition.

None of the movement can be tracked back to any Galilean or real follower.

The gospels are ONLY Hellenistic literature from the Diaspora.

So you reject the idea that Cephas and James came from Galilee?


yes.
Can you present an argument to convince me this is likely?
There is no evidence any Aramaic Galilean Jew had anything to do with the movement in the Diaspora.

Pauls community makes mention, but the gospels portray them as cowards who fled at arrest. I see his inner circle going back to Galilee after arrest, and never being a part of the Hellenist divorce of Judaism.

These people, the inner circle would have opposed Hellenistic Judaism due to Antipas oppression nd the Hellenistic corruption in the temple their leader was fighting.

. I am not aware of Judaism being divided along cultural lines – Hellenists or Aramaic.



Then you have quite the study ahead of you.

Sepphoris was a Koine city.

Nazareth would have been an Aramaic city.

While Hellenism had permeated Israel, not everyone was on board, and not everyone accepted the Koine OT text as "theirs"


The Aramaic population was being oppressed by Koine speaking overlords in Galilee, and in Jerusalem Koine speaking Romans.

I am only familiar with Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots.



No one is familiar with these groups. We only have a small fraction of knowledge on each of these groups. We really know about them due to how much they were hated by those who wrote against them.


But you didn't understand the Pharisees were divided on Hellenism, and some favoring Zealots either.

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse » Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:17 am

Michael BG wrote: It is generally accepted that Christians attended synagogues before and after 70 CE and that Christianity had deep roots within the Jewish tradition.

.
Yes but lets define what that means in context.


Synagogues were houses for the most part, not some church like building. We find almost no synagogues from this period. Sepphoris none were found, yet we think they were Hellenistic Jews base on the lack of pig boned found there.


And no one denies Hellenistic Judaism that had perverted Judaism finally divorced culturally oppressed Israelite and Judean Judaism.

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse » Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:24 am

Michael BG wrote:
It is sometimes said that the Sadducees were the most favourable group to Hellenization, but it is Pharisaic beliefs that influenced Christianity more than those of the Sadducees.


.

No one discounts how bad the Sadducees perverted Judaism. We know that.


We also know the Pharisees used Roman muscle to extort tithes and worked hand in hand with Romans and Sadducees. We also know the gospel authors knew about their less then favorable view.

As I have told you before, the Pharisees were also divided and some mirroring Zealots pious position to cultural laws and practice. Others favoring Hellenism worked hand in hand with Romans to retain wealth by raping the Jews.


The temple was on shaky ground its whole time, the only reason the Romans left it standing was because it was their cash cow. If the money flow stopped or was short the Romans would have mowed it over without rebellion.

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse » Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:44 am

Michael BG wrote:After 70 CE it is possible that the majority of Christians had Greek as their first language, but our evidence for this is not good.


.
First. During tis period they were known as Jewish Christians, Christians did not exist the first century really.

Second. You state the evidence is not good, when in reality there is no evidence at all. NONE.


We have very few transliterations, and the very few that we do we expect to be there due to the Hellenistic divorce of Judaism that existed in Aramaic communities.



Had we actually had early Aramaic followers with a house that was in Jerusalem we could call primacy, we would expect literature would have generated from this important house. Early Hellenistic writers. ALL attributed ALL text to important people regardless of historicity of these people. had there actually been a house with real followers, we would expect importance to be placed there, and we have no importance being placed on any aspect.

What we see with Pauls community is that they describe a house of people who argued for a more true form of Judaism but came around to accepting the perversion of Judaism. We expect this from Hellenist in this geographic location. Being in Israel Hellenist were always following Judaism more closely.

Had these been early Aramaic followers who started all the way back in Johns movement, we would not expect open arms to the perversion of Judaism. Nor should we expect Jerusalem residency when their home was Galilee. Not only that these should have been hunted men in fear for their lives not wanting to be crucified themselves.


Basically I see more rhetorical fiction then you might, with a 100% absence of Aramaic evidence.


Think about it.

You followed Johns teachings based on Aramaic oppression in your Galilean home. You were leaders of this pious movement square in Judaism with Jesus as your new leader. Then after Jesus death you see or hear OF this movement growing IN THE Diaspora you had nothing to do with that was perverting your version, this new version KNEW nothing about.

The would be Christian movement was not based on the quality of Johns and Jesus teachings. It was based on the Hellenistic Martyrdom in the Diaspora by people far removed from Johns teachings, DUE to the newly generated mythology and theology by people that had been perverting Judaism for hundreds of years. NOT pious Galilean Jews.

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse » Sat Oct 17, 2015 9:04 am

Lets try another way here.


Can we agree the 12 is mythical ?


And if not why would his real followers create mythology when they knew the truth?

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Michael BG » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:56 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Michael BG wrote: ... Paul talks of Christians in Damascus and Arabia. We know it travelled to Egypt and Rome, but we have no idea if the growth in Aramaic speaking areas was slower than in Greek speaking areas.
It's possible Paul was not referring to Jesus-following Christians, but preliminary sects of a more nebulous Christ following Christians (along the lines of the Christs, Chrestus, and Chrestians or Christians that Pliny-the-Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus may also have been referring to).
Paul has a clear idea what his fellow believers have to believe in and it is the resurrection of Jesus and that the end with the final resurrection is coming soon. Paul also has other beliefs but these seem to be more flexible and are modified in his different letters.
outhouse wrote: And knowing early on they were hunted down possibly being seen as a threat to the temple, they kept their practice on the down low.
And what evidence do you have for this and is it reliable?
outhouse wrote: The earliest gospel ignores this resurrection almost completely, this is a later tradition.

None of the movement can be tracked back to any Galilean or real follower.
In the topic “The Simontic problem Marks Negative Casting of Peter” (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=262&start=40) page 5 onwards I debate with Bernard Muller and provide some evidence that Mark expected his readers to understand that the disciples saw the resurrected Jesus.
Cephas as I understand the word is Aramaic for Peter and so from Paul’s letters it seems he is known by an Aramaic nickname.
outhouse wrote: There is no evidence any Aramaic Galilean Jew had anything to do with the movement in the Diaspora.

Pauls community makes mention, but the gospels portray them as cowards who fled at arrest. I see his inner circle going back to Galilee after arrest, and never being a part of the Hellenist divorce of Judaism.

These people, the inner circle would have opposed Hellenistic Judaism due to Antipas oppression nd the Hellenistic corruption in the temple their leader was fighting.

There is no case to be made from silence. There is evidence that Cephas went to Antioch (Gal 2:11) and it is assumed that he and the James party took control of Antioch because Paul doesn’t say he won the argument. (Antioch was a very Greek city because it was founded by Seleucus Nicator and was the capital of the Seleucid Empire until 64 BCE. It is believed that it had a large Jewish population.) There is evidence that Cephas went to Corinth and maybe baptised people there (1 Cor 1:12ff).

The gospels do portray the disciples as leaving Jesus to his fate, but they also portray them as seeing the resurrected Jesus and in at least two of them as having a major role after this.

Paul clearly has Cephas and James having influence within some of the Christian groups outside Palestine.

Your last point is an assumption based on the cleansing of the Temple being historical, but this tradition is likely to go back to his disciples. Also we don’t know how much dispute there was between Sadducees and Pharisees and between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians or between Hellenised Jews and more traditional Jews. Our main source is Acts where Luke is not interesting in recording disputes but in showing how united the early church was.

All I am asking for is a case to be made from the evidence or by making the evidence be likely to be unreliable that makes your position more likely than mine.
outhouse wrote: Sepphoris was a Koine city.

Nazareth would have been an Aramaic city.
I don’t accept that Nazareth existed during Jesus’ lifetime.
Tiberias the capital of Galilee is likely to have been very Hellenistic.
Capernaum doesn’t seem to have revolted in 66 CE and so might be seen as Hellenistic.
It should be noted that the Maccabee revolt started in 167 BCE but Galilee only became part of the Hasmonean Kingdom c 103 BCE.
Therefore Galilee was within the Seleucid Empire longer than Judea.
outhouse wrote: The Aramaic population was being oppressed by Koine speaking overlords in Galilee, and in Jerusalem Koine speaking Romans.
Do you have any evidence about land ownership in Galilee and Judea in the first century CE?
outhouse wrote:
I am only familiar with Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots.

No one is familiar with these groups. We only have a small fraction of knowledge on each of these groups. We really know about them due to how much they were hated by those who wrote against them.

But you didn't understand the Pharisees were divided on Hellenism, and some favoring Zealots either.
How can you state this second point after stating your first point?
outhouse wrote:
And no one denies Hellenistic Judaism that had perverted Judaism finally divorced culturally oppressed Israelite and Judean Judaism.
I am not sure the term “perverted” should be used, modified or changed would be better. In the same way that Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Iranian culture modified and changed the religion of the Jews.
The religions of Judah and Israel are difficult to recover and might not be the same one, when the Babylonian exiles returned from Mesopotamia the religion of the Jews had a major reform. In fact the whole history of the religion of the Jews until about 300 CE is about reformation and it didn’t stop there which is why there are different varieties today.
outhouse wrote: No one discounts how bad the Sadducees perverted Judaism. We know that.

We also know the Pharisees used Roman muscle to extort tithes and worked hand in hand with Romans and Sadducees. We also know the gospel authors knew about their less then favorable view.

As I have told you before, the Pharisees were also divided and some mirroring Zealots pious position to cultural laws and practice. Others favoring Hellenism worked hand in hand with Romans to retain wealth by raping the Jews.

The temple was on shaky ground its whole time, the only reason the Romans left it standing was because it was their cash cow. If the money flow stopped or was short the Romans would have mowed it over without rebellion.
How do you know any of this? What is your evidence? Are the gospel writers reliable witnesses to Jewish practices before 70 CE?
outhouse wrote:First. During tis period they were known as Jewish Christians, Christians did not exist the first century really.
During the first century there were Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. (I was going to add that before 100 CE Christians no longer met in synagogues, but after reading an article by Ruth Langer of Boston College I am not so sure about this split between Christians and Jews.)
outhouse wrote:Second. You state the evidence is not good, when in reality there is no evidence at all. NONE.

We have very few transliterations, and the very few that we do we expect to be there due to the Hellenistic divorce of Judaism that existed in Aramaic communities.

Had we actually had early Aramaic followers with a house that was in Jerusalem we could call primacy, we would expect literature would have generated from this important house. Early Hellenistic writers. ALL attributed ALL text to important people regardless of historicity of these people. had there actually been a house with real followers, we would expect importance to be placed there, and we have no importance being placed on any aspect.

When considering a Jerusalem group of Christians what we expect from it depends on how we see it. If it is a group of Galileans who are not highly literate, when we should not expect any literature. If they were literate then we should expect to see letters like those of Paul. Paul talks about people coming from James and does not say they had a letter from him, therefore it is possible that the Jerusalem church did not write to other churches but sent people.

However behind some of the wording in the gospels are Aramaic words, and some people believe that there might have been some limited Aramaic texts. (I suppose we should think of them as odd notes and not whole scrolls, a bit like the way the sayings of Muhammad are said to have been recorded.)
outhouse wrote: What we see with Pauls community is that they describe a house of people who argued for a more true form of Judaism but came around to accepting the perversion of Judaism.
Please can you name where we find this in the New Testament so I am clear to what you are referring?
outhouse wrote: Had these been early Aramaic followers who started all the way back in Johns movement, we would not expect open arms to the perversion of Judaism. Nor should we expect Jerusalem residency when their home was Galilee. Not only that these should have been hunted men in fear for their lives not wanting to be crucified themselves.
I think that the idea of a group of Jews who had already left their homes and families to follow Jesus would then move to Jerusalem to wait the short time before the end and the return of all Jews across the world to Jerusalem is quite possible.
I don’t see any evidence that early Christians generally were in fear for their lives. I see that as a Christian myth. A few times some action is taken against some of the most outspoken Christians such as Stephen and maybe James son of Zebedee.
outhouse wrote: You followed Johns teachings based on Aramaic oppression in your Galilean home. You were leaders of this pious movement square in Judaism with Jesus as your new leader. Then after Jesus death you see or hear OF this movement growing IN THE Diaspora you had nothing to do with that was perverting your version, this new version KNEW nothing about.

The would be Christian movement was not based on the quality of Johns and Jesus teachings. It was based on the Hellenistic Martyrdom in the Diaspora by people far removed from Johns teachings, DUE to the newly generated mythology and theology by people that had been perverting Judaism for hundreds of years. NOT pious Galilean Jews.
While I like the idea that some of John’s followers followed Jesus I am not convinced there is any good reliable evidence for this.
What makes you think the people in Galilee under their non-Roman ruler are oppressed any more than most people living then?
Again you assume that these followers of Jesus didn’t have a resurrection appearance experience.
Again you assume that there is one unified message and I think that Paul’s letters when he quotes different traditions about Jesus clearly show that even in the 50’s and 60’s there was no uniformity within Christianity. How do you feel about the idea that there was no uniformity in Christianity until the First Council of Nicaea in 325?
outhouse wrote:Lets try another way here.
Can we agree the 12 is mythical ?
And if not why would his real followers create mythology when they knew the truth?
We can agree that the twelve disciples didn’t exist during the lifetime of Jesus.
Can we agree that Mark and Q were aware of traditions that included twelve disciples and they are likely to have been known by at least 70 CE?
Hopefully we can agree that the names of the twelve disciples do not go back to one list of names?
Therefore sometime before 70 CE the early Christians created the idea that there were 12 disciples. The Q saying appears to be quite early and from within a Jewish context – 12 tribes of Israel. We can assume that Peter and James were in Jerusalem either 14 or 17 years after Paul was converted. The latest date could be 57 CE and I suppose the earliest would be 50 CE.
If the twelve disciples tradition was created in 60 CE I suppose it could have been known to the Q community and the Mark community by 70 CE. Would Christians converted by non-disciples such as Paul, Barnabas or Apollos create such a tradition? It is likely that those Christians converted by people who these Christians thought of as disciples would create such a tradition. And it is possible that these people lived in Jerusalem or Palestine.

Post Reply