Re: [XTalk] Judas Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: Karel Hanhart <k.hanhart@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [XTalk] Judas Thomas
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Anderson <randerson58@...>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 4:05 AM
> Subject: RE: [XTalk] Judas Thomas
> > Karel Hanhart wrote:
> > >> I would like to offer you a solution of the problem of the divergent
> > lists
> > >> of the 'twelve' in the Gospels and Acts. Those who have my book, will
> > find
> > >> the entire argument on pp 422- 455. I have started out from the
> > >> (also defended in X-talk) that (1) Isacariot is a fictive character,
> > and I (RHA) am summarizing the 12 disciples had no special role.
> > As I understand Karel Hanhart, he is saying the 12 disciples had no
> > role. If you believe the 12 disciples had no special role, I suppose the
> > question then becomes why did the gospel writers "invent a special role"
> > the 12. Crispin Fletcher-Louis states that the High Priest "represents
> > embodies the people of God wearing on his breastplate and lapels the
> > of the 12 tribes of Israel (Ex. 28:9-21)." Consequently the 12 disciples
> > have to represent the 12 tribes because the Jewish followers of Jesus
> > believe Jesus as the messiah will replace the High Priest and together
> > the 12 initiates the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6).
> > do play a special role as Luke makes clear. As Fletcher-Louis notes
> > recognizing Jesus as the priest-messiah provides an another way to look
> > the son of man sayings. It provides new meaning to the actions of Jesus
> > during the later period of his ministry. IMHO, It also negates the claim
> > that the special role of the 12 was redacted into the gospels post 70.
> > the post 70 period, the Temple having been destroyed there was no need
> > the NT writers to figure out what to do with the High Priest. His temple
> > destroyed by the Romans. In the pre-70 period, the High Priest was for
> > Jewish people the captain of their salvation.
> Dear Richard,
> Your questions are astute. I have asked them myself. The twelve did have a
> "special role", both in the oldest creed in 1 Cor. 15 "he appeared ....to
> the twelve" and "he made (epoiesen) twelve" in Mark 3,14.
> The problem I wrestled with are as follows. The lists of the twelve
> in their names and their 'nicknames'. Is it credible that the christian
> Judean communities would have forgotten the names of twelve apostles whom
> Jesus himself had appointed to carry out his mission? If not, why do the
> four lists diverge?
> Furthermore, the term "the twelve" appear to be a redactional insertion in
> Mark's Gospel as many have observed (cmp 4,10!). Mark apparently
> the term "the twelve" to give meaning to the miracle of the loaves (6,
> 7.42; 9.19; 9,35) and to the sole act of Iscarioth - the kiss -. For
> role in the plot of the story is emphatically introduced at the start of
> Passover meal (14,17). And Mark just as emphatically, states that Judas'
> performed his deed as "one of the twelve" (14,10.17.20.43).
> As I see it, Mark appears to retell in his gospel, words and deeds of the
> 'historical' Jesus as well as words and deeds by his followers, led by
> risen Lord. See my second thesis, which I contributed last June 28 to
> crosstalk 2, as follows:
> > 2. According to its CONTENT, the gospels' unique genre is not that of a
> > sacred biography, nor of a Greek tragedy, but a Messianic Passover
> > concerning the last phase in history (13,10; cf. Rm. 11,25). Its theme
> > Israel's 'pass-over' into exile led by its Messiah, who is seated at
> > right hand of Power (14,62). The epilogue (15,42 - 16,8) was not written
> > convince the adult readers of a contranatural miracle [ an 'empty tomb'.
> It is a timely
> > post-70 prophecy in narrative form announcing to the educated and the
> > uneducated that the risen Messiah is able to continue his mission to
> > and the nations which he began in Galilee: he will lead his own during
> > coming exile (16,7).
> Thus occurrences in Jesus' lifetime leading up to the crucifixion as well
> occurrences in the following 40 year period leading up to the destruction
> the temple are intertwined in 'story time' in one dramatic composition
> its climax of the last 'Passover' week of the life of the Messiah.
> In the wake of 70 Mark offered his community a post-70 redaction of an
> earlier pre-70 Passover Haggadah, called 'euaggelion'. In that earlier
> Passover Haggadah, Iscarioth, who "handed over the Son of the Man to the
> nations" (10,33) did not play a role; neither did the Greek named Andrew,
> representing the non-Judean converts, who were baptized in the ecclesia .
> For Iscariot nor Andrew couldnot have played a role in that now lost
> haggadah; they were indispensible, however, for the Passover plot of the
> story. This "being handed over to the nations" of the Son of Man took
> in real time in 30 CE AND 70 CE when the new exile of Israel began. The
> 'huios tou anthropou', who was 'handed over', is a collective term
> indicating the Messiah himself as well as his people, the "saints of the
> Most High" of Daniel 7,27.
> So I have asked the same question as you re. the "special role" of the
> twelve. As soon as I realized that Iscarioth was a fictive person,
> representing "highpriests" who belonged to the "House of Annas". For
> they had persecuted the adherents to the 'Jesus' movement' in pre-70
> Jerusalem. For not only Caiaphas had decided that Jesus had to die, but
> relatives in the high priestly 'house of Annas' had likewise persecuted
> Christian Judeans in the city. Several highpriests from the 'house of
> succeeded Caiaphas from time to time; for instance Matthias, serving under
> the persecuting king Herod Agrippa (Acts 12). The conclusion seemed to me
> inevitable that the "twelve" whom Paul had in mind in the 1 Cor 15 creedal
> formula re. Jesus' resurrection were (a) not quite the same group as the
> listed in Mark and Matthew. On the other hand (b) the original "twelve" to
> whom Jesus "appeared" alive in 1 Cor 15, didnot know of an 'open tomb', as
> told in post-70 Mark. The twelve of 1 Cor 15 were nevertheless convinced
> that Jesus was 'raised' by God to his "right hand" as founded on a
> revelatory experience called an "appearance" of the risen Christ.
> There are, as I concluded, two aspects of the resurrection of Jesus which
> are both described by Paul. (a) God "highly exalted him and gave him a
> above every name". In the mind of Peter, the twelve, James etc. this being
> "highly exalted" or "taken by God" must have taken place on Good Friday.
> One may think of the Lucan word on the cross 'today you will be with me in
> paradise'. This 'rapure' theory was proposed among others by Klaus Berger.
> However, (b) the second aspect of the resurrection, expressed by "raised
> the third day" (1 Cor 15) referred to a different historical event,
> in the Pentecostal protestation of faith in Jesus Messiah, Gods son, by
> Peter and the other disciples on the Temple square. As I see it, this
> did not take place on Good Friday but on the Sunday thereafter. Acts 2
> appears to be the Lucan version of that historical event. According to
> a great number of people, deeply impressed by the crucifixion, heard
> Peter's sermon, joined the Jesus' movement and were baptized. The
> Pentecostal 'birth' of the ecclesia was referred to as a 'Jesus'
> resurrection on the third day..the first fruits of those who have fallen
> asleep' - it took place on earth on a Sunday, the first of the fifty days
> the Messianic harvest.
> Among those baptized on that day, there were Judeans from foreign
> countries and probably also followers of the Baptist and people
> to the Essenes among them 'zealots', all together a growing and important
> segment of Judean society in the pre-70 period. The influx was already
> numerous at the start. An election was held to form a leadership council
> twelve ; among those Jesus disciples, two of Jesus' brothers and some
> representatives of the new members. (Luke hints at an election in Acts
> 1,15ff., but in his post-Markan books he tries to weave historical events
> into the known Gospels of Mark and Matthew.
> It appears that James, Jesus' brother, was quite naturally chosen to be
> of three "pillars" of this original and historical council of twelve.
> Naturally, the name Iscariot, a fictive disciple, later introduced by
> to represent the role of the highpriests belonging to the House of Annas,
> could not have appeared in this original list, now lost to us. Also the
> Greek named Andrew, I think, was added in Mark's Gospel as the 'spiritual'
> brother of Simon. The role of Andrew, this fourth 'intimus' of Jesus, in
> story time as to represent all non-Judeans whom ('the risen') Jesus would
> call on an equal footing with Simon Peter, to "fish for people" (among the
> nations) .
> An exegete must try to explain all the inconsistencies in the text.
> the above conclusions I've tried to offer an explanation of the problem
> 'the twelve', who apparently were chosen in an historical election soon
> after the crucifixion. James. Jesus' brother and Judas his brother, were
> certainly listed as belonging to the original grouop of twelve.
> No doubt, this particular problem concerning the true relation of history
> and theology, is a delicate but also a relevant one today. For we are
> dealing here with the relation of Israel and the ecclesia in early