Re: [XTalk] The Twelve
- Good points. There seems to be no reason for Paul to have
distinguished "the Twelve" from all the other witnesses of Jesus'
resurrection (including himself, the 500, James, "all the Apostles"
and even Peter) unless they were an established group at the time of
the perceived resurrection appearances.
It also seems reasonable to conclude that "the Twelve" may have
included others mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 (such as Peter or the 500
or "all the Apostles"), yet retained a distinct identity.
I think Meier's conclusion that "the Twelve" was a quasi-institution
of disciples which may have had a changing membership during Jesus'
ministry has merit.
Los Angeles, CA
--- In crosstalk2@y..., Steve Black <sblack@a...> wrote:
> >Bill wrote
> >1. The earliest reference to the twelve, in Paul, presents them as
> >to the resurrection, not disciples of Jesus. Moreover, this
> >exclusive of Peter.
> I find most of your reasons against the historicity of the twelve
> sound. I do have some hesitations with this one point. You are
> that Paul refers to the twelve as witnesses to the resurrection and
> doesn't explicitly mention discipleship, but I am not so sure that
> this can really be used as evidence against the fact that they might
> have been disciples. If they weren't disciples, what would they have
> been? Paul is speaking about resurrection here and so it makes sense
> that he speaks of the twelve as being witnesses. It could be that he
> failed to mention the other roles that the twelve had (other than
> being witnesses that is) because it had nothing to do with what he
> was writing about. He speaks of the twelve here as if he fully
> expected his audience to know who he was speaking about - this
> doesn't exclude your interpretation, but it does work well also with
> a understanding of the twelve that includes some
> leadership/discipleship as well as a role of witness. (This
> leadership might have come about BECAUSE they were witnesses, that
> would work well with your interpretation.) It is difficult in that
> all these interpretations are arguing from silence. I guess I am
> looking for some sort of clincher that would push me towards seeing
> your explanation of 1 Cor 15 as MORE plausible than the
> Steve Black
> Vancouver School of Theology
> Vancouver, BC
> Once in a while you can get shown the light
> in the strangest of places if you look at it right...
> -Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS
- Frank McCoy wrote:
> --- Karel Hanhart <K.Hanhart@...> wrote:Frank,
> Historically, the original group of twelve were formed
> IMHO in the wake of the crucifixion, when various
> Judean factions from within the land and from the
> diaspora joined with Jesus' disciples, thus forming
> the beginnings of christianity. Luke reports on this
> major event in Acts 2 in hagadic fashion. As I
> suspect, out of this larger group of converts (3000,
> Acts 2,41) twelve 'apostles' were chosen to lead the
> movement headed by 'James, Peter and John' called
> 'pillars'. In other words, the 'historical' Jesus did
> not select 12 disciples during his lifetime to
> represent a 'new Israel'. The twelve, chosen soon
> after the crucifixion, were honored as "witnesses" of
> the risen Messiah and as such were called 'apostles'.
> (Comp. Paul's claim to be an apostle not "by men").
> I have tried to reconstruct the assumed original
> pre-Markan list of the twelve without a fictive Judas
> Iscariot and a symbolical Andrew, but including the
> three 'pillars' on pg 445 as follows: James (Jesus'
> brother), Simon (Cephas), John (of Jerusalem, an
> Essene), James Zebedee, John Zebedee, Thomas, Matthew,
> James (Alphaeus), Thaddaeus, Simon (the Cananaean);
> Judas, (brother of James).
> I would very much appreciate your reactions to this
> Dear Karel Hanhart:
> The early Jerusalem Church, with its three pillars and
> twelve apostles, might be based on an Essene model,
> thusly described in 1QS (VIII, 1-4), "In the Council
> of the Community there shall be twelve men and three
> Priests, perfectly versed in all that is revealed of
> the Law, whose works shall be truth, righteousness,
> justice, loving-kindness and humility."
I was and am aware of this structure of the Qumran community.
However, as you also know, the differences of the Jesus' movement
and the Qumran community are considerable. On the other hand,
it seems clear to me that many followers of Jesus could be called
'chassidic' as compared to Pharisees, Zealotrs, Herodians and other
As I see it,( - but who can make bold answers to historical
questions concerning the early post-crucifixion Jesus' movement? -)
various chassidim as well as Judeans from the diaspora joined with the
disciples of Jesus and his Galilean followers soon after the
crucifixion. It seems to me that there may well be some connection
between the structure of the Qumran community and the number
twelve. The twelve may well have been regarded as representing Israel,
but certainly not as replacing the people of Israel..
Simon Peter, however, was not a priest; neither James, Jesus'
brother, as far as we know, James and Peter were naturally regarded
as leaders from the beginning. It seems to me that John (of Jerusalem) may
been a chassidic leader. We may not conclude, therefore,
that the election was modeled precisely after that Qumran structure.
The Jerusalem community could well be called chassidic in a broad sense.
The fact that neither Paul nor the authors of the Gospels refer to the
implies I think that many persons, sympathetic with the community at Qumran,
had joined with the disciples. I dare not go further than assessing the texts
Acts 1, 15 ff (some sort of an election took place!), the text of Acts 2; the
of James and the "pillars" in Acts and the epistles and the obvious
in the lists of the twelve we have.