Layman

That's fine, but you've raised this point before and I still don't see any merit to it. In fact, I don't even understand the logic of the argument. Why does a reference to "the Twelve" indicate a later author? I just don't see it. As Kirby asked before, doesn't this indicate that it was written early? Before the gospels became the main source of information about Judas and the apostles?

Vorkosigan

Because there were only 11 at the alleged time of the vision. That is why it is an anachronism. Anyone writing at the time would have said "the eleven." The interpolator, with the usual breeziness of interpolators, simply penciled in the Twelve there without thinking that he was creating a contradiction -- such errors are common among interpolators. That is the only instance of the Twelve in the Pauline epistles, which only increases its suspiciousness. The whole idea of "the Twelve" is a later construction retrojected into the Paulines. Didn't Schmithals argue that the Twelve had been retrojected into Mark? -- they only show up in Mark in verses that are considered Markan redaction.

You could argue back that the Twelve was just a name for a fixed group regardless of actual membership, much as the Big Ten really has eleven football teams. <shrug> It's the usual thing where there's just no way to know for certain. Nevertheless, the presence of hapaxes, a seam, an anachronism, and possibly discordant history may indicate an interpolation. Or truth. Or Paul simply lying.

Vorkosigan
PS. I didn't want you to think I was posting and running, but on the other hand, I didn't want you to feel ganged up on; I know that's a problem here. So since you've asked, I replied.

Layman

First, I doubt you believe there ever was a Judas, much less one that betrayed Jesus and then committed suicide. If you do not accept the existence of Judas, how can you say there were only 11 at this point in time?

Second, it seems much more likely that a later Christian writer would base his account on the only stories available to him--the Gospels. And from them he would know about Judas' death. But more than that, by Matthew and Luke the references have shifted to "the eleven" (Matth. 24:16; Luke 24:9, 33; and, Acts 1:26), as well as the later added material of Mark 16:14. Thus, I see no reason to believe this is a typical error for an interpolator to make. If you have some comparative examples to offer then please do. Otherwise, it all looks very ad hoc.

Third, "the twelve" is not an anacrhonistic term. It is the most primitive of expressions. Later Christian writers used "the eleven," "the twelve disciples" or "the twelve apostles."

Because -- if original -- this is an inherited tradition, arguments about usage elsewhere are not particularly helpful. Would you say that because he refers to Peter, James, and the apostles elsewhere, does that mean those verses are true?

Actually, the Twelve were probably an inner circle of Jesus' disciples that may have had a semi-fluid membership. It survived as an institution for a little time after Jesus' death. And the suspect passage here clearly distinguishes between "the Twelve" and "the apostles." This is in tension with later Christian tradition which tended to refer to "the twelve apostles" or "the twelve disciples" (starting perhaps with Luke 6:13 and/or Matth. 10:2. See also Rev. 21:14). Elsewhere in Matthew they are "the twelve disciples" (Matth. 10:1; 11:1; 20:17; 26:20). The trajectory starts with Paul and Mark as "the twelve" and finds additional clarification or modification in Luke, Matthew, and Revelation. There is also the fact that "the eleven" start making appearances not in Mark but in Matthew and Luke. Somewhat later we have the Didache--The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles as well as the Epistle of Barnabas (8:3). Eventually, grand but mostly baseless traditions of the "Twelve Apostles" and writings like "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles." Any "retrojection" back into Mark succeeded in using only the most primitive language? I thought you said interpolators were noted for their sloppiness.

Also, your point about "the twelve" only appearing in Marcan redactional material is unpersuasive. The redacting of material is not the invention of it (and don't you think that the entire narrative is invented anyway?). Besides, there are references to "the twelve" in Mark's preexisting material in Mark 3:16-19 and in the pre-Marcan passion narrative (Mark 14:43). Additionally, "the twelve" references are preserved in places other than Mark and his preexisting material. It is also attested independently by the L source (Luke 6:14-16), the Gospel of John, and Q (Matth. 19:28/Luke22:30).

What J.P. Meier calls the "general flow of the tradition" also counts against the notion that the Twelve are a retrojection:

If the group of the Twelve had arisn in the early days of the church and, for whatever reason, reached such prominence that its presence, unlike that of other church leaders (e.g., the Seven Hellenists, Barnabas, the prophets and teachers at Antioch), was massively retrojected into the Gospel traditions, one would have expected that the history of the first Christian generation would be repelete with examples of the Twelve's powerful presence and activity in the church.

The exact opposite is the case. As we have seen, the Twelve are mentioned in the four Gospels, in the pre-Pauline formula in 1 Cor. 15:5, and in the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles (the group called the Twelve is never mentioned after Acts 6:2...). This exhausts all purportedly historical reports of the Twelve in the NT....

The only reasonable conclusion one can draw to explain the cresting and ebbing of references to the Twelve in the NT is the commonsense one: the Twelve are prominent in the story of Jesus becauset that is where they actually played a significant role. On the basis of their close relationship which they claimed had been restored and confirmed by a resurrection appearance, the role of the Twelve continued into the earliest days of the church; but it declined and disappeared with surprising rapidity.

J.P. Meier, The Marginal Jew, Vol. III, pages 146-48.

Finally, if the argument is that "the Twelve" were invented to fulfill some sort of apocalyptic expectation then it is strange that they are so often depicted as failing to live up to expectations.

You can't establish it as an anachronism if you accept the possibility that it was a fixed group that Paul is referring to. Or that Judas is a later invention for that matter.

I appreciate you responding to the question. I know now where you are coming from but still think its an implausible explanation resting on too many speculative, unsupported assumptions. Considering that Paul avoided all the anachronisms that cropped up later ("the eleven" or "the twelve apostles" or "the twelve disciples"), there is no reason to count "the twelve" as favoring interpolation. It actually counts against it.

spin

Could someone tell me if there are datable sources prior to Irenaeus which attest to the term, "the twelve", to refer to the disciples of Jesus? (I'm being lazy.)


spin

Toto

Is this a trick question? Are any sources prior to Irenaeus actually datable in any sense?

The Didache would qualify under most datings.

spin

As I said, I was being lazy. I grabbed the 1st volume of ECF and searched for "twelve", eliminating the inappropriate ones and came to Irenaeus. BUT, The Didache, the "teaching", doesn't use "twelve" in the body of the text. Is the long title original?


spin

Toto

Good question.

From Wace Intro

Vorkosigan

The issue is not what I believe, but Church history as it is conventionally presented. The suspect passage clashes with traditional history. That is why the issue of anachronism is raised.

I didn't say it was a typical error to confuse 11 and 12. I said it was typical for interpolators in antiquity not to care much about chronology when they interpolated. I think I wasn't clear. My apologies.

Its primitivity is relative. It does not occur in Paul except here.

I have no objection whatsoever to the existence of Peter, James, and other apostles.

Layman, you can't make the contradiction go away by throwing cites at it. The point is clear. At the time Paul says these events occurred, there were only eleven apostles, according to conventional church history, Judas having killed himself. Therefore we have an anachronism. I have no idea when this interpolation was made -- all the manuscripts have it, so obviously it appeared early, if indeed it is interpolated. "Twelve" could have been interpolated anytime, by anyone.

That is not my point but Schmithals'. It is true that Markan redaction could well contain historical material; in places it almost certain does (Mark 6:17a, for example). But we run into the problem of proving it without outside vectors. Yes, I believe the entire narrative is fiction, but that says nothing about underlying history either way.

Mark 3:16-19 is redactional from the hand of Mark; it is a list of names (Schimthals' argument was that the name list of the apostles was retrojected from elsewhere). In any case "the Twelve" do not appear in Mark 3:16-19, but in Mark 3:14, which is certainly redactional.

3: 14: And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach (RSV)

Mark 14:43 is clearly redactional from the hand of Mark:

43: And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

14:20 is the only time Jesus mentions the Twelve, but that is his supernatural prophecy of betrayal, so that too is from the hand of Mark (or perhaps his source).

All of these are later than Mark. In any case, this has nothing to with the interpolation in Paul.

It is not my claim that the Twelve were "massively retrojected" nor does anyone else I know make that claim. Meier, is, as usual, arguing against a position that does not exist. I do not know if the Twelve were massively retrojected and could care less. Rather, I am only suspecting this one interpolation in Paul, the only mention of the 12 in his epistles, even the forged ones.

I agree with this. The issue is when they played that role, however.

Not if you read Mark as parody, as often makes sense to me. See Weeden Mark-Traditions in Conflict.

That's right. If you accept a fixed group with fluid membership the problem disappears. However, things like the election of the new apostle to take Judas' place in Acts indicate that the membership really was seen as 12, no more and no less.

Whether or not Judas existed is not relevant to the observation that the passage as it now stands conflicts with Church history as it now stands. Logically speaking, at least one or the other must be fiction.

<shrug> It all depends on what you think "the Twelve" really means. There are strong reasons to suspect interpolation here, but there is nothing totally conclusive. Nevertheless, I think the balance of evidence -- the unPauline language, a seam, the conflicts with history as presented elsewhere, the fairytale motifs, and the absurd claim of 500 -- favors interpolation. On the other hand, you could as well argue that the various problems and absurdities go against interpolation, since it is hard to imagine anyone interpolating false history, if they were an orthodox Christian (text criticism -- the difficult reading is the more correct one). Why not interpolate something that knows the gospel stories? It all depends on what criteria you adopt and what you think the Twelve means, along with who you think interpolated this.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

What about the possibility that this is pre-Pauline with Paul adding the line about himself?

Also, in addition to my (so far) unanswered question to Layman about any credible reasons for the Gospel authors to "leave out" a description of an appearance to James, why wouldn't they have created a fictional account of such a pivotal event?

Steven Carr

Weren't Paul's fellow evangelists meant to be the main source of information about Judas and the apostles?