Message

The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.

The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Postby Michael BG » Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:15 pm

Some years ago I read an article on the internet (which I can’t find anymore) that said that the Twelve Disciples were one of the best attested things about Jesus. The author said they were attested to in Mark, in Q and in Paul’s epistles.

Andries Van Aarde a theology professor of the University of Pretoria has set out a case that the Twelve Disciples do not go back to Jesus but were created by the Jerusalem church (http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/art ... /1634/2926 ). There are lots of things that he states which I disagree with but I am almost convinced that his solution is the most likely.

I am not convinced that 1 Cor 15:3-11 was written by Paul. I am not convinced that the Matthew version of the Q saying was the Q version, I prefer a mixture of both Matthew and Luke.

Aarde states that Matthew and Luke have a list of the twelve disciples from Q.

Matthew (10:1-4)Luke (6:12-16)Mark (3:13-19)
Simon PeterSimon PeterSimon Peter
Andrew br. PSAndrew br. PSJames bar Zebedee Boanerges
James bar ZebedeeJamesJohn br. J Boanerge
John br. JJohnAndrew
PhilipPhilipPhilip
BartholomewBartholomewBartholomew
ThomasMatthewMatthew
MatthewThomasThomas
James of AlphaeusJames of AlphaeusJames of Alphaeus
ThaddacusSimon the ZealotThaddacus
Simon the CananaeanJudas of JamesSimon the Cananaean
Judas IscariotJudas IscariotJudas Iscariot


The list of disciples are often considered in groups of four. It seems that both Matthew and Luke had at least a list of 4. However it might have been a list of apostles as both Matthew and Luke both use the word, but Mark does not (except in a few versions). If Matthew had Judas of James then it might be likely that Q had a list of 12, but without that change the evidence is reduced and Luke might have had his own source.
Michael BG
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Advertisements

by »

 

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Postby toejam » Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:07 am

Matthew has Jesus promise the 12 disciples that they will sit on thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the new world. If there was ever a valid moment to apply the Criterion of Embarrassment, is there any saying more worthy? Seems very unlikely to me that the 12 disciples are a later invention, even if 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is not by Paul, nor the Q saying actually a Q saying, etc. I agree with Meier throughout your article - attempts to render the 12 disciples a later invention appear convoluted.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
User avatar
toejam
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Postby Giuseppe » Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:12 am

toejam wrote:Matthew has Jesus promise the 12 disciples that they will sit on thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the new world. If there was ever a valid moment to apply the Criterion of Embarrassment, is there any saying more worthy? Seems very unlikely to me that the 12 disciples are a later invention, even if 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is not by Paul, nor the Q saying actually a Q saying, etc. I agree with Meier throughout your article - attempts to render the 12 disciples a later invention appear convoluted.

But Matthew has Jesus promise that, not Mark. Matthew's goal is to rehabilitate the 12 against the defamation of them made before by Mark (in this very similar to Mcn). In other terms, the 12 make their first appear in record as negative examples (Mark -- or if you prefer: Mcn)
to seal forever the fact that the Jews are a blind people because even the Jewish disciples of Jesus did not understand anything. Matthew doesn't like this anti-Jewish defamation (why?) therefore is in pain to show the disciples in a better light.
The fact that the 12 didn't appear in Paul (if not in a possible interpolation: 1 Cor 15) and are more vanishing than a hypotetical HJ is evidence, in my eyes, that Matthew, even when he wants to rehabilitate them against Mark (or Mcn), is only a pretended Judeo-Christian Gospel, but in reality a true genuine proto-catholic Gospel.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italia

James, the son of Alpheus

Postby Huon » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:12 am

James, the son of Alpheus, James the Less -- Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13.
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.
Huon
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:21 am

Re: James, the son of Alpheus

Postby Giuseppe » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:37 am

Huon wrote: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 called his James ''the Just'' in reaction to Marcion, who called 'Just' but cruel the Demiurg god of the Jews.

And Hegesippus was a proto-catholic that talked about James the brother of Lord (in a biological sense) without no embarrassment.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italia

Nathanael

Postby Huon » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:39 am

Nathanael is mentioned only in gJohn 1:45.
According to Catholic Encyclopedia (Nathanael),
It is generally held that Nathanael is to be identified with the Apostle Bartholomew of the Synoptic writers. The latter make no mention of Nathanael, but in their lists of the Twelve, one, Bartholomew, is always designated by his family Bar-Tolmai (son of Tolmai), and it is assumed that it is he whom the author of the Fourth Gospel designates by his personal name Nathanael.


... and Bartholomew is not mentioned in gJohn. So, look at Bartholomew.
Huon
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:21 am

Bartholomew

Postby Huon » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:01 am

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

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Postby outhouse » Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:09 am

Michael BG wrote:Some years ago I read an article on the internet (which I can’t find anymore) that said that the Twelve Disciples were one of the best attested things about Jesus. .



I find no reason to think they are not mythology.


I think the inner circle has historicity, but not the 12.


Since all text we use for evidence are far removed from Galilee by distance and time and culture, there is little here beyond guessing to substantiate these claims either way.


But 12 does not have the plausibility of 3-4
outhouse
 
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Postby toejam » Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:53 pm

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.

In other terms, the 12 make their first appear in record as negative examples

So? This is based on the weak assumption that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is not from Paul.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
User avatar
toejam
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

Postby Michael BG » Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:31 pm

toejam wrote:Matthew has Jesus promise the 12 disciples that they will sit on thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the new world. If there was ever a valid moment to apply the Criterion of Embarrassment, is there any saying more worthy? Seems very unlikely to me that the 12 disciples are a later invention, even if 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is not by Paul, nor the Q saying actually a Q saying, etc. I agree with Meier throughout your article - attempts to render the 12 disciples a later invention appear convoluted.

I think it is a Q saying as I said. Most of the surrounding text comes from Mark and this is what is not in Mark:

Mt 19:28b-e

“in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Lk 22:30b

“ … you may … in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

It is possible that the Q version was:

“when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

I suggest that Matthew has seen the twelve tribes and added the twelve to the thrones to get a parallelism. (Also Van Aarde states, “Actually, in the Matthean narrative no individual "disciple" appears who is not named in the list … Matthew did not narrate a story in which Jesus called "the Twelve" out of a larger group of disciples.” Therefore the “you” of Luke (Q) has to equal the twelve disciples and Matthew may have done this by adding the twelve to the thrones.) Of course it could have been Q or an earlier Christian community who added the twelve to the thrones and made this saying apply to the twelve disciples.

Paula Fredriksen in Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews states, within traditional Jewish apocalyptic thought the twelve tribes of Israel would return to Jerusalem. If this saying does not refer to the twelve disciples but refers to all the followers of Jesus or Christians it might have been influenced by Wisdom of Solomon “The righteous man who had died will condemn the ungodly who are living, and youth that is quickly perfected will condemn the prolonged old age of the unrighteous man” (4:16) and “They will come with dread when their sins are reckoned up, and their lawless deeds will convict them to their face” (4:20) which is part of the Wisdom tradition.

Q has a Wisdom tradition – “Yet wisdom is justified by all her children” (Lk 7:35, Mt 11:19d) and “Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, `I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,'” (Lk 11:49, Mt 23:34).

Therefore I don’t see the writer of Q being embarrassed by this saying, which has been created out of the Wisdom tradition in the Q community.
Michael BG
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Advertisement

by »

 

Next

Return to Christian Texts and History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aleph One, Baidu [Spider], Ben C. Smith, Google [Bot], JoeWallack, lsayre, Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 60 guests