[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Zebedees
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Fri Dec 2 16:57 PST 1994
> Date: 02 Dec 1994 16:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: The Zebedees
> To: nt-Greek@virginia.edu
> X-Envelope-To: nt-Greek@virginia.edu
> X-Vms-To: IN%"nt-Greek@virginia.edu"
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> Content-Type> : > text>
> X-Lines: 22
>
>
> Bart Ehrman raises an interesting question. Paul names the pillars in
> Jerusalem as Cephas, James, and John (ca 50 CE). Mark names the three biggest
> dimwits around Jesus as Peter, James, and John (ca 70 CE). Mark also includes
> a James as one of the brothers of Jesus. Bart claims that Paul's three are not
> the same as Mark's three because James has already died. I wonder. I wonder
> if Mark, while slamming both the family of Jesus and the Jerusalem leadership,
> has mistaken some early apostles, sons of a guy named Zebedee, for the James
> and John of Jerusalem, James being Jesus brother. I have no problem equating
> the Cephas of Paul with the Peter of Mark. But that Mark makes three disciples
> in particular, all with the same names as the pillars (the one difference being
> the Semitic Cephas vs. the Greek Peter) in Jerusalem, to be the heavies in the
> gospel, seems to be a bit too much of a coincidence. I recognize the difficul-
> ties that have been raised on the Ioudaios list/serve regarding the family of
> Jesus in Jerusalem, but I suspect Mark's grasp of sources regarding early
> followers of Jesus might be a little flawed. Or, he has intentionally obfus-
> cated matters.
>
> Steve Johnson
>
> "Biblical Scholars 'Know' Better"
>
Steve,
My response (in spite of flames I'm sure I will see) is that
I haven't yet read what I would consider _cogent_ reasons
to throw away the firm tradition that mar is based on Peter's/
Cephas's recollections. Thus I don't think I'd consider it
flawed. Furthermore, why is it really more than coincidence
that there should have been an immediate follower of Jesus in
Mark's Gospel named James and another James who rose to
prominence in the jerusalem church? Since we are onlygiven
first names in Acts, Paul's letter and so forth, it seema
IMGO, that there could have easily been multiple persons
named James and no one got them confused because everyone knew
who was who. Indeed, at least one gospel lists among the
original "apostles" two persosn named James, James the son
of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus. In my own limited
experience, I've worked in two computer positions with
supervisors named Paul, but my wife, having met both of these
people, is not confunsed when I refer to one of them as soon
as I mention the location. Why should it be any different
for the early Church?
Ken Litwak