> In his July 03 post, Ernie Pennells quoted the following paragraph of
> > [Joseph Codsi]
> > >In short, instead of concentrating our attention on Jesus, we should
> > concentrate on his disciples and reconstruct their need to alter the
> > they had of the historical Jesus, once they had become witnesses of the
> > resurrection and were entrusted with the Easter revelation ... ... I
> > propose, therefore, to make a fresh start. Let's study what the
> > tell us about themselves.<
> Then he added the following comment:
> > The material is rather sparse, but carries a potent message. As Luke
> > describes events around the ascension of the risen Christ, the question
> > the lips of the eleven relates to restoring Israel's sovereignty. On
> > Easter Day, Cleopas acknowledges that Jesus' followers had expected him
> > liberate Israel. Luke is joined by others in recalling Peter's bold
> > confession just prior to the transfiguration, and in recording James' &
> > John's bid for exalted seats in the ruling structure. The gospels are
> > certainly not shy about conceding a serious mismatch between the
> > of Jesus and his immediate followers. The fundamental characteristic of
> > twelve would appear to have been wrong-headedness.
> > As for the next generation of followers, one of the basic axioms of NT
> > studies has been the role of church praxis in shaping tradition.
> > Have I missed your point, Joseph?
> Dear Ernie,
> Thank you for your interest in my proposition. It consists in saying that
> instead of concentrating our attention on Jesus, we should concentrate on
> what the disciples made of him once they had become witnesses of the
> resurrection. This statement implies that the disciples have
> altered the memory they had of the historical Jesus so as to render it
> compatible with the Easter revelation.
> This is what my feel for the birth of Christianity leads me to say. Now
> is just an intuitive feeling. I must put it to the test through a new way
> reading the gospel, most particularly the Markan account.
> You are correct when you point out that "The gospels are certainly not shy
> about conceding a serious mismatch between the objectives of Jesus and his
> immediate followers." But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Under the
> surface lies what is hidden. I am speaking here of what the disciples are
> not conscious of, and what they could not accept, because it was
> incompatible with the Easter faith.
The problem I have with this methodology is that it does not consider the
motivations and agendas of the authors nor does it consider the audience of
the authors. We cannot assume a "mismatch" between Jesus and his talmuddaya
by the testimony of a gaggle of writers who never knew them nor belonged to
the same culture. We see a difference in audience between Matthew and Luke
for the same parables and aphorisms, one addressing the disciples and the
other, the people. We see Mark as anti-family and John as anti-Jewish. How
much is historical Jesus research actually historical Matthean, Markan,
Lukan and Johannine research with a dollop of historical Paul..NONE of whom
ever got a glimpse of the historical Jesus...no less the historical Thomas,
Bartholomew, Simon, Judas, Thaddeus, Matthew, Andrew, Peter..well, you
know...none of whom, I believe, make it through the foggy eyeglasses of the
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.