Robert Price suggests: “Perhaps distinguishing “James, son of Zebedee” from “James the Just” was an attempt to create two characters out of one, so as to make all the traditions sound right. John had been split into two characters (“John the Elder” and “John, son of Zebedee”) in order to preserve “John” as author of both the Revelation on the one hand and the “Johannine” gospel and epistles on the other. So maybe Mark thought of the James who belonged to the inner circle of Jesus as being one of the three Pillars. Roman Catholic scholars have usually identified the two. One can add that this same doubling process also appears with Simon who gets split into Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot (Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:4, and Luke 6:15). Luke also splits Judas into Judas, son of James, and Judas Iscariot (Luke 6:16). An editor of John’s Gospel splits Judas into Judas Not Iscariot, and Judas Iscariot (John 14:22).51 Even the character Jesus Christ gets split into a freed prisoner named Barabbas (Son of the father). Simon also gets split into Simon of Cyrene who carries Jesus’ cross, while Simon Peter flees. John the Baptist becomes John, son of Zebedee. One notices that the way the name Jesus absorbs references (Messiah, Savior, Lord, Son of God, Son of Man, etc.) is matched by the way other names get broken up into multiple references (e.g. Mary, James, Simon).” (Deconstructing Jesus, p.53.51)
Robert Eisenman discovers all these doublings and many more in James the Brother of Jesus. We have basically the same names of the apostles also being used as family names for Jesus’ brothers in Mark 6:3 (James, Joses, Judas, Simon) and Matthew 13:55 (James, Joseph, Simon and Judas), one can suggest that the separation of family and apostles is also an artificial device. One can easily suppose that the leadership of the Galilean based JudaicChristian movement revolved around one family. In reconstructing their history, the gospel writers of the second century placed their own apostolic structure into the narrative.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Sorry one more ref:
Helms also observes that 8:34 follows on 8:33, in which Jesus famously calls Simon Peter “Satan.” Donald Senior (1987,p116) points out that the phrase “take up the cross” is the same in both passages. Is Simon of Cyrene a double for Simon Peter? Jesus says that whoever would follow him must first deny himself; Peter instead denies Jesus. Has the writer of Mark piled up irony here, showing a Simon denying himself to take up his cross, even as another Simon denies Jesus? Has he injected a historical figure into the passage? Or did these events occur as written? There’s no way to know. One connection between 8:34 and 15:21 is that the mention of “cross” in 15:21 is the first time in the Gospel since 8:34. Jesus has managed to make 3 Passion predictions without mentioning the term even once.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Helms, Randel. 1997. Who Wrote the Gospels? Altadena: Millenium.
Senior, Donald. 1987. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Wilmington: Michael Glazier
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)