The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:53 am

toejam wrote:
Giuseppe wrote:Matthew's goal is to rehabilitate the 12 against the defamation of them made before by Mark (in this very similar to Mcn) ... Matthew doesn't like this anti-Jewish defamation (why?) therefore is in pain to show the disciples in a better light.
Well, if that's the case, then I don't think Matthew does a good job of it. The disciples in Matthew are still a bumbling lot, still lacking in understanding, and many scholars have put forward theses describing Matthew's further smearing of Peter (as is being discussed in the other thread, Robert Gundry even goes as far as to argue that one of Matthew's goals is to portray Peter as a false disciple, worthy of damnation!). It's hardly a rehabilitation of the twelve - especially given that Mathew has Jesus promise them that they will sit on thrones in the new world. Say what? Most of them vanish into obscurity! And Matthew also has some of the twelve doubting Jesus' resurrection appearace. If one wants to rehabilitate them, this hardly seems a sound way to do so - i.e. have Jesus promise them something that everyone knows didn't happen, and have some of them doubt Jesus' resurrection.
Some differentiation is required, I think.

Matthew had to play inevitably according to the game rules introduced before by Mark (or Mcn if you prefer) and these game rules confirmed the 12 as negative figures once for all. In Matthew there is a partial rehabilitation, if not of them, at least of the hopes that Jesus put in them: being the True Israel that will sit on 12 thrones, etc. So a 'good disciple' (meaning of 'Matthew') had to be faithful to the mission given by Jesus on these 12, even if these 12 had made mistakes at last.

In Mark it's the same idea of putting hope in disciples of Jesus that is condemned. Who saw Jesus on terra firma didn't see really the true Jesus: he was condemned by definition to not-knowledge in virtue of the only fact that ''saw'' a physical Jesus on Terra firma.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Huon
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Huon » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:15 am

In AGAINST HERESIES, Book 2, Ch, 20, and following, Irenaeus is arguing quite strongly against the Synoptic gospels' chronology which was the troublesome aspect of the Synoptics, as he saw it. John's gospel, on the other hand, has ca. 3 1/2 years ministry which seemed far superior to him.

Irenaeus discusses the chronology of the life of Jesus as found in the Synoptics, and casts some doubt on the idea that the duration of the earthly ministry of Jesus was only one year. In contrast, Irenaeus prefers to this chronology that of John (3 1/2 years ministry), which
he believes to be more reliable historically and theologically.

What is the problem with a one-year chronology, one may ask? For Irenaeus this was clearly a problem. And it was so because, according to him, some misguided heretics -- with a strong Gnostic flavour! -- were using this chronology for their own purposes. One may assume that they were connecting the worship of Jesus with the Zodiac, Astrology, with the changing seasons of Nature, and perhaps even with the seasonal rituals of the pagans. Uncomfortable parallels with the annual sacrifice of the Sacred King Osiris/Dionysus/Attis/Adonis? This was what probably troubled Irenaeus the most...

And, further, there was this strange gnosticizing link between the 12 Apostles and the 12 months of the year, Judas being the last, the fateful month. Irenaeus certainly showed a lot of fervour in combatting that particular "heretical teaching". All this was apparently happening in the Markan community especially.

"They endeavour, for instance, to demonstrate that passion which, they say, happened in the case of the twelfth Aeon, from this fact, that the passion of the Saviour was brought about by the twelfth apostle, and happened in the twelfth month. ... how is it possible that Judas can be
compared [with this Aeon]? ... Judas, then, the twelfth in order of the disciples, was not a type of the suffering Aeon." (Book 2, 20ff)

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse » Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:08 am

I'm still curious how anyone can source this 12 to the Jerusalem church when it has little to no historicity in what , who or when. There may have been a house, beyond that I give nothing.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:26 am

There is a subtle but clear difference between to show 12 failed disciples without no hope on their success (Mark or Mcn), and to show 12 failed disciples with at least an hope on their success (Matthew). To sit on 12 thrones as Judges of True Israel is a positive hope in Matthew, even if given on a bumbling lot individuals. But in Mark you don't see even that.

I wonder that Michael agrees with me in denying historicity to the 12 (not on the inner circle, obvioulsy) when that is usually an argument against Markan priority and in support of Mcn priority (because it would prove that Mcn, being more radical in the criticism of 12, is more old than Mark).

In Mark the 12 are failed men and without hope. But they still work as moral warnings for the readers: if you readers aren't good disciples, then you will end as the 12. A via for redemption for Peter is still theoretically possible: to follow Jesus in Galilee.

In Mcn the 12 are failed men and without hope, without hope even of an abstract redemption (acting as moral education for the readers), since they don't work even as moral warnings to the readers: no via to Galilee in Mcn, not even a forgivable ignorance as in Mark (to think of seeing a phantasma and not the Spirit of Risen is still a moral sin, a more great sin than to see an angel and fear him as in Mark).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Michael BG » Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:19 pm

Huon wrote: According to Catholic Encyclopedia (James the Less),
There is, at any rate, very good ground (Galatians 1:19, 2:9, 2:12) for believing that the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus is the same person as James, the brother of the Lord, the well-known Bishop of Jerusalem of the Acts.
If James is the son of Alpheus, he is the brother in religion of the Lord...
The universal testimony of Christian antiquity is entirely in accordance with the information derived from the canonical books as to the fact that James was Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, who lived about the middle of the second century, and known to us almost exclusively from Eusebius (260-341), relates (and his narrative is highly probable) that James was called the "Just", that he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor ate animal food, that no razor touched his head, that he did not anoint himself or make use of the bath, and lastly that he was put to death by the Jews. The account of his death given by Josephus is somewhat different.
Note that Hegesippus wrote Memoirs (hypomnemata) against the new heresies of the Gnostics and of Marcion.
Hegesippus (c. 110 — c. 180), was a Christian chronicler of the early Church. His works are lost, save eight passages concerning Church history quoted by Eusebius.
I don’t consider the Catholic Encyclopaedia as a great authority when discussing saints. Years ago I sometimes quoted the Encyclopaedia Britannica in my essays and to do so I had to look up who was the author of the article I was quoting. Is this possible with the Catholic Encyclopaedia?
The person that the Catholic Encyclopaedia calls James, the son of Alpheus is not described as the son of anyone, but as “of Alpheus”. There is no reason to believe this James is the same James which Paul calls “the brother of the Lord”, but Catholics have been saying it is so for hundreds of years.
I don’t consider Eusebius a reliable witness and I don’t believe Hegesippus had a better source about James than Paul’s epistles. There are no records regarding bishops until Ignatius of Antioch died c 117, but I am not convinced his letters are genuine.
toejam wrote: So? This is based on the weak assumption that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is not from Paul.
I know this idea is only a minority opinion, but the case for 1 Cor 15:3-11 I find to be very good, not weak at all. It starts by using the same evidence that the majority of scholars use to state that Paul is quoting an older tradition. Some scholars have seen this older tradition as having layers and its own development history. Other passages are seen to be interpolations in Paul’s letters when they disagree with what he normally states and the language of verses 8-9 can be viewed in this light. If these verses were not there verse 2 runs into verse 12 well and Paul’s argument does not need verses 3-11. When put together I think a strong case is being made for this to be interpolation.
outhouse wrote:I'm still curious how anyone can source this 12 to the Jerusalem church when it has little to no historicity in what , who or when. There may have been a house, beyond that I give nothing.
Van Aarde sees multiple traditions for the Twelve behind what we find in the New Testament. He then states that the traditions behind Mark (including the Passion narrative e.g.14:43), Q and 1 Cor 15:3-11 have the twelve disciples. From there he sees it created out of the kerygma and “apocalyptic mind-set” of Jesus’ Jewish followers based in Jerusalem.

I assume you are not questioning that there was group of people in Jerusalem including James that Paul met and collected money for?
Giuseppe wrote: I wonder that Michael agrees with me in denying historicity to the 12 (not on the inner circle, obvioulsy) when that is usually an argument against Markan priority and in support of Mcn priority (because it would prove that Mcn, being more radical in the criticism of 12, is more old than Mark).
I don’t consider the inclusion or omission of certain features in Marcion as conclusive proof for his gospel being earlier. The test has to be textual and there are huge problems with discovering the text of Marcion which allows huge scope for people to have a Marcion of their own creation. If we had a copy of Marcion then a better assessment could be made, but on the textual evidence I have looked at I don’t consider him to be earlier than Mark.

Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Adam » Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:57 pm

The old Catholic Encyclopedia list the authors of the articles.

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Michael BG » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:12 pm

When considering the list of twelve disciples in Mark I am not convinced that behind that list are twelve names.

Mk 3:14-19

[14] And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach
[15] and have authority to cast out demons:
[16] Simon whom he surnamed Peter;
[17] James the of Zeb'edee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-aner'ges, that is, sons of thunder;
[18] Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean,
[19] and Judas Iscariot, who delivers him.

Simon, James and John I think are likely to be historical as they go back to Jewish names – Shimon, Jacob and Jonah. Andrew is more problematic as far as I can tell it is a Greek name for “manly” and might therefore be Greek for a Jewish name meaning man such as Gibbar, but it only appearances once in the Old Testament (Ezra 2:20) or Gideon. Apart from the disciple lists Andrew appears in the call of Peter (Mk 1:16), the healing of the mother-in-law of Simon Peter (Mk 1:29), and the introduction to Mark’s Apocalype (13:3).

Philip is another Greek name, which means “horse-loving” or “noble”. He may have been named after Philip the Tetrarch (4 BCE to 34 CE), son of Herod the Great.
Huon wrote:Bartholomew is mentioned in Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, and in Acts 1:13.
According to Catholic Encyclopedia (Bartholomew),
The name (Bartholomaios) means "son of Talmai" (or Tholmai) which was an ancient Hebrew name. It shows, at least, that Bartholomew was of Hebrew descent; it may have been his genuine proper name or simply added to distinguish him as the son of Talmai.
Pantænus Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria about 180. The probable date of his death would be about 200.
Origen (185 - c. 254)
No mention of St. Bartholomew occurs in ecclesiastical literature before Eusebius, who mentions that Pantaenus, the master of Origen, while evangelizing India, was told that the Apostle Bartholomew had preached there before him and had given to his converts the Gospel of St. Matthew written in Hebrew, which was still treasured by the Church. "India" was a name covering a very wide area, including even Arabia Felix. Other traditions represent St. Bartholomew as preaching in Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, Armenia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, and on the shores of the Black Sea.

The manner of his death, said to have occurred at Albanopolis in Armenia, is equally uncertain; according to some, he was beheaded, according to others, flayed alive and crucified, head downward, by order of Astyages, for having converted his brother, Polymius, King of Armenia.
As nothing is really know about someone call Bartholomew it should be discounted as a name and seen as “son of Talmai", and this applies to Philip.

Matthew is Greek for Matityahu (also the name of leader of the Maccabee revolt c 167 BCE), but Thomas is Greek for twin, so Matthew could have been called "the twin".

James of Alphaeus can be seen as Jacob the successor from Alphaeus or Alphoeus a Hebrew name meaning successor, which of course leads us back to the Catholic belief that this James is the same one as Paul calls "the brother of the Lord”

Thaddaeus which is said to come from the Aramaic name Taddai meaning “courageous heart”. Simon the Canannaean can be seen as Shimon the Zealot. Judas Iscariot is likely to have been a name created by the early Church. It has been suggested that the earliest traditions about Jesus’ death have him delivered by God and according to God’s plan (Acts 2:23) and later a human was created to deliver Jesus up. Judas comes from Judah the southern Jewish kingdom and the area which includes Jerusalem. Many different possibilities have have advanced for where Iscariot came from – a Hebrew word meaning “liar or false one”, an Aramaic word meaning “to deliver”, a word creation meaning “the congested” or “choked”.

Therefore if we accept that Judas Iscariot is a creation of the early church, instead of twelve disciples there are only nine –
Shimon the Rock
Jacob the thunderous
Jonah the thunderous
Gibbar or Gideon
Philip son of Talmai
Matityahu the twin
Jacob the successor
Taddai
Shimon the Zealot.

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by outhouse » Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:16 pm

Michael BG wrote:Van Aarde sees multiple traditions for the Twelve behind what we find in the New Testament. He then states that the traditions behind Mark (including the Passion narrative e.g.14:43), Q and 1 Cor 15:3-11 have the twelve disciples. From there he sees it created out of the kerygma and “apocalyptic mind-set” of Jesus’ Jewish followers based in Jerusalem.

.
My point Is these traditions are more likely to come from the Passover celebrations where the followers in the Diaspora met every year and shared information.

I assume you are not questioning that there was group of people in Jerusalem including James that Paul met and collected money for?
I think there was a house. I and I think the Hellenist there may have had traditions that went back to something like a Christ sighting or heard him speak at Passover so the people of this house were looked up to.

But I do not think any Aramaic real follower named James lived there. Hell maybe James visited this house once, we don't have a clue, but I doubt that as well.

I hold very little historicity to this Jerusalem sect other then then they were Hellenist like those of the Diaspora

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Michael BG » Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:40 pm

outhouse wrote: My point Is these traditions are more likely to come from the Passover celebrations where the followers in the Diaspora met every year and shared information.
While I am not sure about the link between the Jerusalem church and its creation of the twelve disciples as presented by Van Aarde, at least it is plausible that a group of Jews from Galilee wanted to enhance their authority and saw themselves as the sons of Jacob waiting for the Jews to return to Jerusalem for the end of time. The timing of this might be problematic. Mark has twelve disciples pre 70 CE and Q might have twelve disciples and could be dated to pre 70 CE, while Paul does not have twelve disciples if 1 Cor 15:3-11 is an interpolation but refers to a group in Jerusalem and asks his churches to collect money for this group (pre 60 CE). It seems likely that the tradition of twelve disciples had to be established before 66 CE and it does seem logical that Jerusalem would be the centre of such a belief, especially if Christians believed the end would happen in their life times and all the Jews would be moved by God to Jerusalem for the end event.

There is no tradition that there was a core group in Galilee at this time is there?
outhouse wrote:
I assume you are not questioning that there was group of people in Jerusalem including James that Paul met and collected money for?
I think there was a house. I and I think the Hellenist there may have had traditions that went back to something like a Christ sighting or heard him speak at Passover so the people of this house were looked up to.

But I do not think any Aramaic real follower named James lived there. Hell maybe James visited this house once, we don't have a clue, but I doubt that as well.

I hold very little historicity to this Jerusalem sect other then then they were Hellenist like those of the Diaspora
How do you deal with Paul and his talk of Cephas and James?
How do you deal with Paul’s talk of a collection for Jerusalem (Gal 2:10, 1 Cor 16:1, 3, and Rom 15:25)?

I have seen other posts when you use the term Aramaic followers, do you mean followers whose first language is Aramaic?
Aramaic was the major language not only in Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia, but in parts of Arabia, Asia Minor and Persia until replaced by Arabic after the seventh century CE.
Therefore lots of Diaspora Jews spoke Aramaic and not Greek.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:15 am

I wonder if a case may be made that 1 Cor 15:3-11 was written yes by Paul, but was total fiction, meaning that Paul invented ex novo the tradition of '500' brothers, James, Cephas, the '12' 'seeing' Jesus, in virtue of his being on the same frequency of the hellenistic invention of fictional witnesses of their Risen heroes & demigods.

I would like read the Miller's recent book on resurrection where I hope he does this case.

Because if true, then it would prove indirectly that Paul was not an invention, because to invent ''Paul'' as 'real' true witness of the Risen wouldn't be a so high priority for the heretic Christians (because under that case people could easily recognize him as pure fiction).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply