Was Jesus a scrounger or is his life evidence of a failed apocalyptic hope.

[Abulafia]

Thankyou Stargazer and Russell.  I am really quite taken aback by your kindness.  

Kevin, on the priest issue.  It's a tricky one because I don't think the earliest core group, which I think was 5 (before any mention  of 12) would have put themselves forward as priests, because priesthood was a lineage thing.  But I guess that's a topic for another thread.  Levine's book on the 1st Century Synagogue offers some great insights into what happened locally in terms of charismatic and institutional roles outside of the priestly class.   

[Stargazer]

Very interesting topic!  

These are my thoughts about this subject.

As everyone knows, Jesus was a carpenter, and his brothers would have likely also followed that trade.  In ancient times this would have been even more physically demanding than it is now, what with only hand tools being available, so Jesus was very likely to have been quite powerfully built, and since much of his work would have involved laboring outside, he was likely to have been rather weathered by age 30.  Abulafia's former avatar, which was an artist's attempt to picture Jesus as he likely looked like in reality, was probably fairly accurate.  He and his brothers were likely to have attracted work from many of the smaller communities around Nazareth, and it would not be surprising if they had been able to amass a bit of wealth through their efforts.  Not enough to be considered rich, but certainly comfortable.  Can you imagine the Son of God to have been a poor businessman, or lazy in his vocation?  I cannot, so I would not expect the family to be anything other than well off. 

From the scriptural evidence alone, Simon Peter and his extended family of fishermen (including Andrew, Zebedee, and Zebedee's sons James and John) were likewise apparently prosperous -- Peter's move from Bethsaida to Capernaum was apparently into a much better house than he had been in before.  It's likely that Peter's fishing business continued under the leadership of Zebedee, and the continued income probably helped a lot in supporting the Lord's company as it moved from place to place.

Other sources of support would have included Lazurus's family, Joseph of Arimathea, and probably others as well.  Joseph of Arimathea apparently knew Pilate well enough to feel free to ask him for Jesus's body after the Crucifixion, and he was certainly not without influence and wealth.  Matthew was a tax collector, and likely was quite wealthy. Actually, he would have been wealthy enough before taking on the role -- it was not a government position, as taxes were generally collected by private businessmen who had purchased the privilege, i.e. paid for the right to be a "tax farmer").  It seems reasonable to assume that he would have donated most or all of his personal fortune to Jesus's cause.  And it is well-understood that Judas Iscariot was the organization's treasurer, and most certainly managed their working funds -- probably including money placed with money-lenders for the purpose of ensuring some continuing income.  Jesus's parable where the man who was given 1 talent to manage, and who was condemned for having buried it, when at least he should have put that talent with the money-lenders, shows exactly what the Lord thought should be done with excess funds until they were needed.

As for the women, there were those who followed Jesus's "entourage", indeed, were part of it, and their roles were certainly not relegated to so-called "women's work".  At least not exclusively.  And they certainly would have been entrusted with the management of whatever funds were necessary for purchase of food and such during the group's wanderings.  

It seems unreasonable to me that some people have considered the Lord's business of going about preaching and teaching to have been a haphazard or disorganized affair.  

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

When Richard Bushman spoke about Joseph Smith biographies at Washington DC in 2005, he made basically the same observation as McDade does about Jesus Research:

So the issue is not whether a person has an ideology,but whether, as Goff has it, whether a person is aware of the implications or their own ideology.  And of course, how a person goes about deciding which approach it "better."  "Not orthodox," or "Not us," is an ideologically dependent, and therefore self-referential way of deciding.  It it possible to decide on other grounds than that.  

I'm inclined to agree with Barker of course.  The high priestly imagery is thoroughly woven through the New Testament and related writings that any attempt to do away with priesthood strikes me as ideological at heart.  Just because a person, Jeremiah, for example says something las scathing as describing the temple as "a den of robbers" (Jer. 7:11), that does not mean that he can't also look forward to "sacrifice of praise into the house of the LORD." (Jer. 33:11).

Nice that you had lunch with Margaret.  My wife and I are planning to visit England and France in September, and hope to spend some time with Margaret.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Most interesting!  I plan to move to England to be with my new wife sometime in August or September!  

[Abulafia]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Very interesting topic!  

These are my thoughts about this subject.

As everyone knows, Jesus was a carpenter, and his brothers would have likely also followed that trade.  In ancient times this would have been even more physically demanding than it is now, what with only hand tools being available, so Jesus was very likely to have been quite powerfully built, and since much of his work would have involved laboring outside, he was likely to have been rather weathered by age 30.  Abulafia's former avatar, which was an artist's attempt to picture Jesus as he likely looked like in reality, was probably fairly accurate.  He and his brothers were likely to have attracted work from many of the smaller communities around Nazareth, and it would not be surprising if they had been able to amass a bit of wealth through their efforts.  Not enough to be considered rich, but certainly comfortable.  Can you imagine the Son of God to have been a poor businessman, or lazy in his vocation?  I cannot, so I would not expect the family to be anything other than well off. 

From the scriptural evidence alone, Simon Peter and his extended family of fishermen (including Andrew, Zebedee, and Zebedee's sons James and John) were likewise apparently prosperous -- Peter's move from Bethsaida to Capernaum was apparently into a much better house than he had been in before.  It's likely that Peter's fishing business continued under the leadership of Zebedee, and the continued income probably helped a lot in supporting the Lord's company as it moved from place to place.

Other sources of support would have included Lazurus's family, Joseph of Arimathea, and probably others as well.  Joseph of Arimathea apparently knew Pilate well enough to feel free to ask him for Jesus's body after the Crucifixion, and he was certainly not without influence and wealth.  Matthew was a tax collector, and likely was quite wealthy. Actually, he would have been wealthy enough before taking on the role -- it was not a government position, as taxes were generally collected by private businessmen who had purchased the privilege, i.e. paid for the right to be a "tax farmer").  It seems reasonable to assume that he would have donated most or all of his personal fortune to Jesus's cause.  And it is well-understood that Judas Iscariot was the organization's treasurer, and most certainly managed their working funds -- probably including money placed with money-lenders for the purpose of ensuring some continuing income.  Jesus's parable where the man who was given 1 talent to manage, and who was condemned for having buried it, when at least he should have put that talent with the money-lenders, shows exactly what the Lord thought should be done with excess funds until they were needed.

As for the women, there were those who followed Jesus's "entourage", indeed, were part of it, and their roles were certainly not relegated to so-called "women's work".  At least not exclusively.  And they certainly would have been entrusted with the management of whatever funds were necessary for purchase of food and such during the group's wanderings.  

It seems unreasonable to me that some people have considered the Lord's business of going about preaching and teaching to have been a haphazard or disorganized affair.  

Very much appreciate your thoughts on this Stargazer.

I think that just as Joseph Smith had a history of wealth and loss in his family (loss from his father's ginseng deals), I think the same was probably the case with the blood family of Jesus.  If the term Nazareth is in any way linked to the 'notzrim' or families with linkage to the line of David, then it may be that Jesus and his extended family believed post Babylonian return that they were from a 'royal' line.

I think, though Paul says little of the historical Jesus, he does know that he was claimed to be from the line of David.  So it fits.

From Romans 1

Quote

1 Paul, a servant^[a] of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, ² which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, ³ the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh ⁴ and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit^[b] of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, ⁵ through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, ⁶ including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

There's some interesting theology to unpack there, but this appears to be some kind of pre-Pauline statement of faith, and so an early account of what some of the very earliest communities believed about Jesus.  Being from the line of David was definitely on the list.

I am not so sure that the family had much personal wealth in their current situation.  Carpenters or general builders would have come pretty low down the social pecking order from an economic point of view.  Fishermen would have been similar.  They lived, they worked hard, but they would have been subject to the vagaries of economic circumstances as much as anyone else.  Life would have been pretty insecure, particularly with Roman rule, taxation burdens and general Galilean annoyance with the Roman leadership and their cronies.

I totally agree with your points on the women.  Mary of Magdala was most likely individually wealthy and the Roman situation at that point would have allowed and permitted women of wealth.  (I need to do more research and/or refresh my memory on that)

 

[Bernard Gui]

On April 30, 2016 at 0:41 AM, Abulafia said:

As I was reading the gospel accounts which present Jesus as an itinerant apocalyptic prophet, it occured to me that in the everyday needs of life he would have had to rely on the good will of others.  He doesn't ask a potential follower to give up all his possessions for nothing..  it was part of how this group operated.

It's different to Qumran because they had a permanent home, with guaranteed food and lodgings.  Jesus didn't.   He still has to live.  Go to the toilet, eat, wash, sleep.

So, either he lived rough, or he relied on friends and followers...and indeed this is what the texts suggest.  People supported him.

Does this make sense if he believed the kingdom was coming soon...a new order to put things right...on earth...within a generation...

Paul knows of the claimed right to be supported by those offering good will because he makes a point of not using that right and my take is he thinks he is superior for not doing so. Already, the everyday realities are overtaking an ideal.....maybe the eschaton is delayed....

So, who was providing the funds for Jesus perhaps intermittently, the food, the good will, the sleeping quarters?  We know Peter, and others...Susanna, Mary, Joanna...and the texts suggest that the women weren't cooking for them but providing them with means to care for themselves. We know Mary and Martha, and Lazarus.

So, all this suggests that Jesus relied on others.  He couldn't have given up his own material goods without some kind of reciprocal agreement that others would take care of that task for him. The evidence implies that many who took on that role were infact women!   Oh for the re emergence of the importance of those women!

 

Get a copy of Umberto Eco's book, The Name of the Rose.  There is a wonderful debate between medieval Franciscan and Dominican monks over the question of the poverty of Jesus.... "Did Jesus and the Apostles own personal possessions?"

It ends in an all-out brawl with monks ripping each other's beards out.

 Reminds me of some of the debates here.

Pages 340-348 in the 1984 Picador paperback edition.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Abulafia]

Bernard,  I get the futility of some discussions, but this one matters I think.  I do have Umberto Eco's *other* book.

[Stargazer]

On 5/2/2016 at 4:46 AM, Abulafia said:

Very much appreciate your thoughts on this Stargazer.

I think that just as Joseph Smith had a history of wealth and loss in his family (loss from his father's ginseng deals), I think the same was probably the case with the blood family of Jesus.  If the term Nazareth is in any way linked to the 'notzrim' or families with linkage to the line of David, then it may be that Jesus and his extended family believed post Babylonian return that they were from a 'royal' line.

I think, though Paul says little of the historical Jesus, he does know that he was claimed to be from the line of David.  So it fits.

From Romans 1

There's some interesting theology to unpack there, but this appears to be some kind of pre-Pauline statement of faith, and so an early account of what some of the very earliest communities believed about Jesus.  Being from the line of David was definitely on the list.

I am not so sure that the family had much personal wealth in their current situation.  Carpenters or general builders would have come pretty low down the social pecking order from an economic point of view.  Fishermen would have been similar.  They lived, they worked hard, but they would have been subject to the vagaries of economic circumstances as much as anyone else.  Life would have been pretty insecure, particularly with Roman rule, taxation burdens and general Galilean annoyance with the Roman leadership and their cronies.

I totally agree with your points on the women.  Mary of Magdala was most likely individually wealthy and the Roman situation at that point would have allowed and permitted women of wealth.  (I need to do more research and/or refresh my memory on that)

 

I am not sure where you get the idea that carpenters or fishermen would be low on the social pecking order, economically.  If Jesus's parables are to be understood as close to the social milieu (so that his hearers would be able to understand what he was on about), then those in the lower economic strata would be those of little or no skill, the day laborers.  Land owners would be highest, but squarely in the middle class would be those who had skills not everyone possessed, and specialized tools for utilizing those skills.  In the parable of the workers in the vineyard, the owner of the vineyard goes out to find the idle day laborers to hire them to bring in his harvest.  They are not his usual employees, and they are those who are economically challenged, who get by on a day to day basis.  But carpenters?  They are the ones whom the poor, the middle class, and the upper class came to when they needed furniture, or tools, or structures built.  The fishermen might have been subject to weather out on the water, but boats are not cheap, and one had to be successful to be able to afford one.  

I suppose you're correct that Jesus was considered to be of the line of David and thus had a certain cachet in social circles -- but as it is said today, even with that, you'd still have to pay a quid or two at Starbucks to be able to afford a mocha-chino.  Sure carpentry is trade, but good traders were the ones who could become well off.  

[thesometimesaint]

I'll some what agree. However there really was no correspondent middle class of ancient Israel to modern day America. Today skilled tradesman are what is called the working class.

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'll some what agree. However there really was no correspondent middle class of ancient Israel to modern day America. Today skilled tradesman are what is called the working class.

Well, middle class is more modern and didn't exist back then, as you point out, but even then, tradesmen were not those among the economically disadvantaged.

[Guest]

To address the OP...

Jesus could and did provide for himself and others as evidenced in the scriptures. But he allowed others to provided for him so that they could reap the rewards of service. Indeed very large part of those who cared for Christ were women of great stature. As mentioned two of these women were Mary and Martha. His relationship extended farther with Many than any other, more than once when he approached their city, Mary would be called out to meet him. Many can speculate about their relationship, and anytime people do, other Christian groups blood begins to boil. Be it just friendship, or any other definition, his relationship with her was a great or greater than that of his Apostles. She often sat at his feet being taught, neglecting preparing meals and caring for guests, to a  point that Martha became upset. But the writers of scripture made it a point to tell of this encounter, or secret meetings and of Christ, telling Martha that (to paraphrase) she (Mary) was attending to more important things. This makes clear, at least to me that Jesus was as much concerned with women being taught and taking part in the Gospel more than the norms of that day allowed. In the Gospels it would seem that Jesus was much more liberal toward women and their role in Family and Church, where Paul was towing the conservative line of women remaining silent in the Church. 

But, by Christ allowing others to do are care for Him and his Apostles, he was teaching and blessing them greatly. The account of him washing the feet of his Apostles was also a lesson (as his entire life and actions were all sermons) to others of how we should act toward others and conduct ourselves in worship. Remember how Peter resisted having his feet washed, and quickly repented and said to Christ "then my whole body too". 

[thesometimesaint]

38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, middle class is more modern and didn't exist back then, as you point out, but even then, tradesmen were not those among the economically disadvantaged.

Agreed.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 4/30/2016 at 6:48 AM, Abulafia said:

Oh absolutely.  I am not saying Jesus was lazy or didn't know how to work.  But his public ministry seems to be about giving up all material benefits and relying wholly on others.  In modern day terms he would be considered a scrounger.  That tension is indicated in Paul's unwillingness to make use of that right to rely on others. He continued tent making. 

 

 

Or Jesus had a mental disorder (epilepsy likely) went constantly in & out of trances; how else he could chase demons from somebody, or raise dead.  Apostle Paul was in the same affliction. Paul was no Jesus, as Brigham was no Joseph, however they both displayed the skills of organization/administration, neither Jesus or Joseph had.  

I did enjoy reading your post though. Very insightful.

[thesometimesaint]

Epilepsy doesn't work like that.

[Abulafia]

Quote

 

 

 

O

 

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I am not sure where you get tha that caritenters or fishermen would the social pecking order, economically.  If Jesus's parables are to be understood as close to the social milieu (so that his hearers would be able to understand what he was on about), then those in the lower economic strata would be those of little or no skill, the day laborers.  Land owners would be highest, but squarely in the middle class would be those who had skills not everyone possessed, and specialized tools for utilizing those skills.  In the parable of the workers in the vineyard, the owner of the vineyard goes out to find the idle day laborers to hire them to bring in his harvest.  They are not his usual employees, and they are those who are economically challenged, who get by on a day to day basis.  But carpenters?  They are the ones whom the poor, the middle class, and the upper class came to when they needed furniture, or tools, or structures built.  The fishermen might have been subject to weather out on the water, but boats are not cheap, and one had to be successful to be able to afford one.  

I suppose you're correct that Jesus was considered to be of the line of David and thus had a certain cachet in social circles -- but as it is said today, even with that, you'd still have to pay a quid or two at Starbucks to be able to afford a mocha-chino.  Sure carpentry is trade, but good traders were the ones who could become well off.  

A few thoughts.  The power brokers of the time would have been the Roman classes and their hangers on. Probably centred around the cities.  If Jesus or Peter or any of the 12 could write, It Is strange that none of them left any first hand writings unlike Paul. 

Whatever Jesus' social circumstances he appears to have eschewed wealth and possessions.  He also appeard to be turning power structures upside down! The greatest will be the servant.

[Abulafia]

Mark 10:17-31New Living Translation (NLT)

 

The Rich Man

 

17 As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. “Only God is truly good.19 But to answer your question, you know the commandments: ‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.’[a]”20 “Teacher,” the man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.”21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”22 At this the man’s face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God!” 24 This amazed them. But Jesus said again, “Dear children, it is very hard to enter the Kingdom of God. 25 In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!”26 The disciples were astounded. “Then who in the world can be saved?” they asked.27 Jesus looked at them intently and said, “Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But not with God. Everything is possible with God.”28 Then Peter began to speak up. “We’ve given up everything to follow you,” he said.29 “Yes,” Jesus replied, “and I assure you that everyone who has given up house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or property, for my sake and for the Good News, 30 will receive now in return a hundred times as many houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and property—along with persecution. And in the world to come that person will have eternal life. 31 But many who are the greatest now will be least important then, and those who seem least important now will be the greatest then.[c]”

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, Abulafia said:

A few thoughts.  The power brokers of the time would have been the Roman classes and their hangers on. Probably centred around the cities.  If Jesus or Peter or any of the 12 could write, It Is strange that none of them left any first hand writings unlike Paul. 

Whatever Jesus' social circumstances he appears to have eschewed wealth and possessions.  He also appeard to be turning power structures upside down! The greatest will be the servant.

If think overall Jesus and his Apostles were fairly well educated, and could read and write. Whether they left any first hand writings or not is an impossible question to answer. What we have is what we have; Redacted, changed, improperly interpreted dozens if not hundreds of times. 

He wasn't wealthy by any measure, but I don't believe he eschewed wealth and possessions. But his focus was on how they influenced us.

[Abulafia]

Quote

There is still one thing you haven't done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me

 

This section from Mark should be explained..

If authentic, why would Jesus ask this man to give up possessions If he hadnt done so himself?  That would make him a hypocrite.

 

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

 

This section from Mark should be explained..

If authentic, why would Jesus ask this man to give up possessions If he hadnt done so himself?  That would make him a hypocrite.

 

I believe Jesus was calling him to be an Apostle, but the young man's riches came first.

[Abulafia]

Yeah, it does seem he was calling him into his inner circle. It also provides good evidence of Jesus (among other things as Kevin points out) having given up all material possessions in order to become an itinerant preacher/teacher.  Which brings us back to my opening post.

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Bernard,  I get the futility of some discussions, but this one matters I think.  I do have Umberto Eco's *other* book.

Which one?

My namesake Bernardo Gui watches that debate with detached amusement, taking mental note on who to charge with heresy. Brilliant writing.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Abulafia]

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foucaults-Pendulum-Umberto-Eco/dp/0099287153

I found it very heavy going!

[Bernard Gui]

From the Didache.... Regarding prophets and apostles and remuneration:

Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets. Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others' sake who are in need, let no one judge him. 

Chapter 12. Reception of Christians. But receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, and prove and know him afterward; for you shall have understanding right and left. If he who comes is a wayfarer, assist him as far as you are able; but he shall not remain with you more than two or three days, if need be. But if he wants to stay with you, and is an artisan, let him work and eat. But if he has no trade, according to your understanding, see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle. But if he wills not to do, he is a Christ-monger. Watch that you keep away from such. 

Chapter 13. Support of Prophets. But every true prophet who wants to live among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment.

[notHagoth7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekt%C5%8Dn

I would suggest instead that the Master was productive on a number of levels...the Gospels merely provide one facet of the several things he did/built (certainly the most important facet). 

Being a gifted tekton, he could teach constructively and masterfully of stones used in building things, like in Matthew 21 & 24... 

Does that mean he had stopped temporal work completely during that aspect of his ministry? We simply aren't told.

That said, the example of Paul, and the likes of Nephite servant-kings who provided their own upkeep, suggests a principle other than what your OP is arguing for...

Whether Jesus of Nazareth, after his initial career as a tekton, became an exception to that principle is unknown.

However, having a ministry, giving away all that one has, and working/serving at least some hours each week to support oneself (and/or others) are not mutually exclusive endeavors. One can arguably do all three.

To round things out, if there is interest in exploring a further perspective on his ministry and nature, I would also suggest a glimpse of The Saxon Savior in the Heliand - the story of the Gospels translated over a millennium ago to another people/language/culture (my forefathers). 

Edited May 4, 2016 by notHagoth7

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Yeah, it does seem he was calling him into his inner circle. It also provides good evidence of Jesus (among other things as Kevin points out) having given up all material possessions in order to become an itinerant preacher/teacher.  Which brings us back to my opening post.

I don't believe Christ was calling everyone to be an Apostle.

SEE Ephesians 4:11 And it was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,

[Abulafia]

Quote

Mark 8

He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; 9 but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics. 10 He said to them, “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. 11 If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” 12 So they went out and proclaimed that all should repent. 13 They cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them.

 

Bernard, I love that section from the Didache.  It is interesting that the author/s use the terms *apostle* and  *prophet* interchangeably.   He treats them as synonymous.   Did the author have a wider view of apostleship (like Paul), as bigger than the *twelve*.  I guess that's a subject for another thread.

 

The Didache appears to be written, at least in part, at a time when there were itinerant charismatics and witnesses of either Jesus public ministry or his resurrection (see diferent approaches by Luke Acts *apostle has to be with Jesus from beginning* and Paul *vision of resurrected Jesus*).  That makes it early.  

 

The advice on how to protect against *hospitality* abuse points to a situation where abuses were occurring.  What it does indicate is that the admonition of Jesus to the early followers was taken seriously.  Go out without purse or scrip. (See Mark 8 above)