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

Fwd: Re: [Synoptic-L] James and Peter and John (was: The Aramaic-Greek transition)

Expand Messages
  • LARRY SWAIN
    Pasted below is my latest response to Ron. ... I suppose it depends on what you mean by independent evidence. John 21 mentions the sons of Zebedee (HOI TOU
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 15, 2003
      Pasted below is my latest response to Ron.

      --- Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
      > Larry Swain wrote:
      >
      > >It seems to me that you are confusing or
      > deliberately
      > >conflating James the son of Zebedee or the other
      > James
      > >with James, the brother of Jesus. Even if we do
      > not
      > >take Mark's portrayal literally (or whichever of
      > the
      > >other Synoptics one postis coming first) it is
      > >difficult to posit James Jesus' brother as the
      > >ORIGINAL leader of the disciples.
      >
      > It's not at all difficult if James the son of
      > Zebedee was Mark's
      > invention. There is no independent evidence for the
      > existence of Zebedee
      > or of James and John as brothers.

      I suppose it depends on what you mean by independent
      evidence. John 21 mentions the "sons of Zebedee" (HOI
      TOU ZEBEDAIOU); and I suppose Luke could be following
      Marcan tradition in Acts 12 with the death of James,
      the brother of John, but frankly I don't quite see
      Luke making up the story out of whole cloth. There is
      also the matter of John 7:5, which I think independent
      of Mk 3, that says that Jesus' brothers did not
      believe in him. One would also expect that if the
      James in the gospels of Peter, James, and John, is
      really James, the brother of Jesus one would a) expect
      a multiplicity of traditions BESIDES Mark's to have
      survived somewhere. We don't find that and b) one
      would hardly have needed to designate him as Paul does
      as "brother of the Lord" since he would have been THE
      James known to all from the beginning. There's really
      no evidence that Mark is making the Zebedee family up,
      though one could argue that he stressed Peter above
      James Z.


      > Leonard Maluf wrote:
      >
      > >Are you saying that Mark (or whoever) was unable to
      > remove the name James
      > >entirely from the Jesus tradition, even though he
      > would like to have, so he
      > >made up the idea of a Zebedee family which -- lo
      > and behold -- had a James
      > >in it too?
      >
      > Yes. Exactly that.
      > It's interesting that in the list of the twelve in
      > Lk 6:14 RSV we
      > find: ",and James and John,". There is no mention
      > here of Zebedee. Nor
      > of the Markan relationship as brothers in spite of
      > mentioning that Peter
      > and Andrew were brothers. Note that the RSV amongst
      > other translations
      > is inaccurate here in using commas to bracket James
      > and John together.
      > This grouping is not implicit in the Greek itself,
      > nor in the NA27 or
      > UBS3 editions of the Greek text. I suspect Luke knew
      > the truth and was
      > here correcting Mark's account. In other words he
      > knew that James the
      > brother of Jesus had been one of the twelve and that
      > John was not his
      > brother (in spite of acknowledging the relationship
      > elsewhere in
      > deference to the Markan text).


      I don't find this particularly convincing. Why should
      Luke have "deference" to the Markan text? And then be
      inconsistent and not maintain that respect here? And
      what do we do with Acts 12:2? Luke is inconsistent
      here, admittedly, but I don't see any reason to
      believe by James he means James, the brother of
      Jesus...the same argument you are using could be
      turned around and used against the position: why
      wouldn't Luke mention James' relationship with John in
      this list? On the other hand, if he knew the "truth"
      as you say, why wouldn't he mention James'
      relationship with Jesus at this point, AND ON TOP OF
      THAT, perpetuate a lie he knew to be a lie in
      deference to the Marcan text, the one text of the
      gospels that wasn't exactly widely received with open
      arms or even used as much as the others. Doesn't add
      up.

      Regards,

      Larry Swain
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.