Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Judas Thomas

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    ... From: Karel Hanhart To: Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Judas Thomas
    Message 1 of 20 , Sep 28, 2003
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Karel Hanhart <k.hanhart@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 2:02 PM
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] Judas Thomas

      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Richard Anderson <randerson58@...>
      > To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.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
      > special
      > > 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"
      > for
      > > 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
      > with
      > > the 12 initiates the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6).
      > 12
      > > 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
      > was
      > > 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,
      > 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
      > Haggadah
      > > 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
      > to
      > > 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
      > Israel
      > > 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
      > beginnings.
      > cordially,
      > Karel
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.