The Epistle of Barnabas knew a Gospel where the 12 are not only idiots but sinners also

[Giuseppe]

And when He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel, who that He might show that He came not to call the righteous but sinners were sinners above every sin, then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html

This is, a least for me, evidence that the Earliest Gospel was strongly anti-Judaizers, since the 12 apostles were icons par excellence of the Judaizers. Our Mark could only represent a more mitigated form of this Earliest Gospel, insofar Mark describes the 12 as idiots, but not as evil ''sinners above every sin'' (something that even Paul was not, even conceding as genuine his past of persecutor).

[Giuseppe]

This may explain why Jesus calls surprisingly Peter ''Satan'' in Mark. In order to remember his past of sinner, against his riotous freedom as presumed disciple of Jesus.

[Ben C. Smith]

And when He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel, who that He might show that He came not to call the righteous but sinners were sinners above every sin, then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html

Compare Celsus:

Origen, [1]Against Celsus[/1] 1.62: 62 Μετὰ ταῦτα δ' ἐπεὶ μηδὲ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐπιστάμενος δέκα εἶπεν ἢ ἕνδεκά τινας ἐξαρτησάμενον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἑαυτῷ ἐπιρρήτους ἀνθρώπους, τελώνας καὶ ναύτας τοὺς πονηροτάτους, μετὰ τούτων τῇδε κἀκεῖσε αὐτὸν ἀποδεδρακέναι, αἰσχρῶς καὶ γλίσχρως τροφὰς συνάγοντα, φέρε καὶ περὶ τούτων κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν διαλάβωμεν. Φανερὸν δέ ἐστι τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν εὐαγγελικοῖς λόγοις, οὓς ⌊οὐδ' ἀνεγνωκέναι ὁ Κέλσος φαίνεται, ὅτι δώδεκα ἀποστόλους ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐπελέξατο, τελώνην μὲν τὸν Ματθαῖον, οὓς δ' εἶπε συγκεχυμένως ναύτας τάχα τὸν Ἰάκωβον καὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην φησίν, ἐπεὶ καταλιπόντες τὸ πλοῖον καὶ «τὸν πατέρα αὐτῶν Ζεβεδαῖον» ἠκολούθησαν τῷ Ἰησοῦ. Τὸν γὰρ Πέτρον καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ Ἀνδρέαν, ἀμφιβλήστρῳ χρωμένους διὰ τὰς ἀναγκαίας τροφάς, οὐκ ἐν ναύταις ἀλλ' ὡς ἀνέγραψεν ἡ γραφή, ἐν ἁλιεῦσιν ἀριθμητέον. Ἔστω δὲ καὶ ὁ Λευὴς τελώνης ἀκολουθήσας τῷ Ἰησοῦ· ἀλλ' οὔτι γε τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ ἦν εἰ μὴ κατά τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου. Τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν οὐ μεμαθήκαμεν τὰ ἔργα, ὅθεν πρὸ τῆς μαθητείας τοῦ Ἰησοῦ περιεποίουν ἑαυτοῖς τὰς τροφάς. / 62 And after such statements, showing his ignorance even of the number of the apostles, he proceeds thus: "Jesus having gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious character, the very wickedest of publicans and sailors, fled in company with them from place to place, and obtained his living in a shameful and importunate manner." Let us to the best of our power see what truth there is in such a statement. It is manifest to us all who possess the Gospel narratives, which Celsus does not appear even to have read, that Jesus selected twelve apostles, and that of these Matthew alone was a publican; that when he calls them indiscriminately sailors, he probably means James and John, because they left their ship and their father Zebedee, and followed Jesus; for Peter and his brother Andrew, who employed a net to gain their necessary subsistence, must be classed not as sailors, but as the Scripture describes them, as fishermen. And Leves also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a publican; but he was not of the number of the apostles, except according to a statement in one of the copies of Mark's Gospel. And we have not ascertained the employments of the remaining disciples, by which they earned their livelihood before becoming disciples of Jesus.

And of course:

Matthew 9.13: 13 "But go and learn what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners [οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς]."

Mark 2.17: 17 And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners [οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς]."

Luke 5.32: 32 "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance [οὐκ ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν]."

2 Clement 2.4: 4 And also another Scripture says, "I did not come to call the upright, but sinners [οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς]."

Yet he called the disciples....

[Giuseppe]

Be sure that this is well in evidence:

Yet he called the disciples....

Jesus having gathered around him ten or eleven persons

Curiously, 10/11 is not 12, so Judas could be a positive figure, in the Gospel read by Celsus. Otherwise, why 10/11 and not 12?

[Ben C. Smith]

Be sure that this is well in evidence:

Yet he called the disciples....

Jesus having gathered around him ten or eleven persons

Curiously, 10/11 is not 12, so Judas could be a positive figure, in the Gospel read by Celsus. Otherwise, why 10/11 and not 12?

I suspect that Judas was artificiality added to the number of the Twelve at some point, in order to bump up the degree of his betrayal. I have wondered about Celsus' "ten or eleven" before:

Origen upbraids Celsus for saying that Jesus gathered "ten or eleven" persons to himself, instead of specifying twelve. What I wonder, I suppose, is whether the apostolic lists and mentions of the Twelve might not be among the last parts of the gospel narratives to have been added. What if Celsus used gospel proto-texts which did not have Twelve official disciples? Collecting just speaking or acting parts from our four canonical gospels, one can conjure a list of around 10 or 11, more or less: Levi, Matthew, James, John, Andrew, Peter, Judas, Philip, Thomas, Nathanael, and Nicodemus? Of course, this list comes from our extant canonical gospels; if proto-gospels existed, it would not be easy to be sure which disciples were named as having roles in the narrative. In a post which is going to indulge in more than its fair share of conjecture already, this particular notion is even further afield than the rest will be. But I do wonder why Celsus would not specify 12, assuming he is being cited fairly.

But I have no firm answers to this question yet.

[Giuseppe]

12 has more symbolical value than 10 or 11 as the number of disciples.

So if Celsus says that 11 are sinners, he concedes that at least one was not a sinner.

If we concede that Celsus's Jew was using also the tradition coalesced later in Toledoth Jeschu, then Judas is there clearly a hero. And obviously, in the Gospel of Judas he is alone the best disciple of Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

So the Gospel of Judas:

When Jesus appeared on earth, he performed miracles and great wonders for the salvation of humanity. And since some [walked] in the way of righteousness while others walked in their transgressions, the twelve disciples were called

Now, Celsus accuses:

"What credible witness beheld this appearance? or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God?

What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?"

So DCH:

So, he seems to be asking Jesus ("you" from the 2nd singular part) to produce a corroborating witness, perhaps from those who were punished with him

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3007&start=40#p67065


According to Gospel of Judas, who heard the voice from heaven about the true identity of Jesus was just Judas:

Judas [said] to him, “I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you.”

And Judas had to suffer:

"Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great
deal. [36] For someone else will replace you, in order that the twelve [disciples] may again come to completion with their god."

So it is possible that Celsus was reading the Gospel of Judas.