Those stupid disciples!

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Martin Klatt
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:10 am

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by Martin Klatt » Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:40 am

...
Last edited by Martin Klatt on Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
What I have written, I have written........., but it ain't necessarily so.

Stuart
Posts: 483
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by Stuart » Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:46 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:49 am

Zabdi is just an alternate form of Zebediah/Zabadiah, which is the form obviously intended in the gospel of Mark:
I would say Mark's source. Mark had no idea what the name meant. This is clear from 3:17.

This opinion of Mark's work could be a model difference, as I do not think Mark invented any stories - he at places even breaks the clearer meaning of his source, showing he didn't get what it was saying. What he did do was build a minimal gospel from the prototype forms he knew, and did not bloat it with sectarian material, unlike Matthew and Luke (both canonical and the form circulated by the Marcionites). But the reason it "looks" like it's from Mark is because he added so little to any of his stories besides some backdrop painting. His first 20 verses have hardly a word not in Matthew (well 1:1 I think is simply versification of the title he found on his source). The distinction between Mark and source is more evident in other parts of the gospel, but not this section.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:02 am

Stuart wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:46 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:49 am

Zabdi is just an alternate form of Zebediah/Zabadiah, which is the form obviously intended in the gospel of Mark:
I would say Mark's source. Mark had no idea what the name meant. This is clear from 3:17.
I worded it the way I did ("in the gospel of Mark") precisely in order not to have to address the issue of sources here. I just meant that the linguistic form that we find in Mark 1.20, regardless of its exact sourcing, is meant to reflect the Hebrew name Zebediah.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 6498
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:14 am

Stuart wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:46 am
Mark had no idea what the name meant. This is clear from 3:17.
A good sight, thanks.
Stuart wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:46 am
and did not bloat it with sectarian material, unlike Matthew and Luke
Mmm... I am not so sure, Stuart: can you expand on it?

What is so typical in Mark is the Wrede's Messianic Secret, i.e. secrecy about the real identity of Jesus by Jesus himself. Note that usually also in Marcion Jesus's identity is secret, but the goal of Jesus in Marcion is, even so, to reveal himself, see for example the Parable of Lamp, so marcionite in the his essence. Hence where "Mark" bloats the Gospel trama (derived from previous sources) with sectarian material, I think, is precisely where the secret remains secret, against any possibility of divulgation of the secret, not even after the resurrection.


As usual, Stuart, I am interested about your views regarding this topic. Thanks in advance.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Stuart
Posts: 483
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by Stuart » Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:06 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:02 am
Stuart wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:46 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:49 am

Zabdi is just an alternate form of Zebediah/Zabadiah, which is the form obviously intended in the gospel of Mark:
I would say Mark's source. Mark had no idea what the name meant. This is clear from 3:17.
I worded it the way I did ("in the gospel of Mark") precisely in order not to have to address the issue of sources here. I just meant that the linguistic form that we find in Mark 1.20, regardless of its exact sourcing, is meant to reflect the Hebrew name Zebediah.
You know what I think you are right. Mark changed so little here from his source that we should consider the original meaning of Zebedee and not what Mark thought it meant in 3:17. So we do need to consider it as a deliberate character name, "their father, one bestowed of Yahweh" and not what Mark must have read it as, even in my model.

Good back and forth, made me see it a bit more clearly.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by outhouse » Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:02 am

You have to think, why they were portrayed as cowards who betrayed him, denied him, and never understood him. Even his family is portrayed as not understanding him.

There had to be negative Aramaic traditions that went against the whole NT traditions. The NT text would have been a perversion of what Jesus actually taught after being baptized by John and continuing Johns teachings. Hellenistic Judaism of the NT was a perversion of pious Aramaic Judaism.

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by outhouse » Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:13 am

Martin Klatt wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:37 am
Conclusion: Jesus selected these guys because they were stupid.

No, and you cannot substantiate such a imaginative claim. Jesus would have came from the same low social class as these types of people who lived life, below that of the average peasant. Academically and historically speaking

Also the 12 is more than likely fictional, and only his inner circle, historical.

By all rights, these were probably the head followers of John who now followed Jesus after Johns murder, and of course the bible authors had to hide the truth of Jesus being Johns student, so they have Jesus just willy nilly picking these guys off the shore of Galilee to become fishers of men. And just leaving him as baptized by John.

Most people confuse who was actually popular here. John was the popular one, Jesus wanting to keep the movement alive, takes the message to small villages instead of drawing large crowds, so that he would not meat the same fate as John.

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by outhouse » Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:18 am

Stuart wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:50 pm
Gospel language after all is full of double meaning words, with a surface level and either an ironic or deep second meaning.
While true in some aspects, your trying to open the door here, for your imaginative claims you cannot in any way substantiate.

You are turning the volume up from 1 to 11 on this, and its just not he case, you over reach in every aspect. These text were written for the average peasant population and they were using these text to proselytize with as well. While some of the context is lost, much is not, and much is not full of double meaning.

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by outhouse » Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:28 am

Martin Klatt wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:40 am
I am no longer considering Mark as one of the Christian gospels
Why not? 70CE ish there was no orthodoxy of any kind since Judaism was wide and diverse, so was this aspect. With multiple Christologies abound, ask yourself why they created this text.

Judaism and its Hellenistic proselytes who found value in the martyrdom of jesus after the crucifixion, had been traveling to Passover by the hundreds of thousands, some yearly to attend this drunken BBQ with god. This is where they shared what they learned and then returned home with new theology building upon what they valued in independent communities. The training of the scribe is one thing you may see in his writing style, but there is still a foundational narrative he was sticking too.

When the temple fell, it changed the way all early proto Christians proselytized their faith, and there was now an instant need for written traditions to proselytize as there were no more large gatherings of like minded people. AND there was a direct need to preserve their values and collections of traditions, not just to preserve them, but to combat perceived heretical traditions.

Stuart
Posts: 483
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Those stupid disciples!

Post by Stuart » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:23 pm

outhouse wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:18 am
Stuart wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:50 pm
Gospel language after all is full of double meaning words, with a surface level and either an ironic or deep second meaning.
While true in some aspects, your trying to open the door here, for your imaginative claims you cannot in any way substantiate.

You are turning the volume up from 1 to 11 on this, and its just not he case, you over reach in every aspect. These text were written for the average peasant population and they were using these text to proselytize with as well. While some of the context is lost, much is not, and much is not full of double meaning.
You are overreaching when you claim to know who the text was written for. The consensus opinion is Christian texts shot for the middle, not the top or bottom.

As for double meanings, they are what all religion are about. You tell one story, but have a parabolic meaning a teacher gives you after. Some are in the text with Jesus explaining. Today you go to church and the preacher tells what something means and symbolizes. Same is true in Buddhism and Islam, probably every other religion.

The language and choice of words are always for a purpose. What one can do is look at the usage and compare the context. In the fisherman scene (and also the feedings) we have the Ichtys symbolism. We also have in the Zebedee moniker a reference to a father, and the distinction between sons and hirelings. Contextually there are lots of reference points there.

But I think most relevant, is the creed for those who want to be the most dedicated Christians (IMO a reference to monks and nuns) you have to leave behind your family and past beliefs and never look back. That is a theme repeated in the gospels, and put in sayings come from Jesus' mouth for authority.

"Provable" is not a valid standard. Nothing you or I or anyone else says is provable with scientific and mathematical certainty. And by that standard you made an unprovable assertion (no evidence or context provided) above about Christian literature, one not shared by most scholarship for that matter. A more realistic criteria is that a position can be shown plausible from relevant evidence in context to the position.

BTW, what do you mean when you say for meant the peasant population? Do you mean it had to be Dr. Seuss depth level? You seem a bit presumptive, and have a lot of unspoken baggage with that assertion you need to unpack and test.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Post Reply