Didymus

Bart Ehrman, listing Paul's references to Jesus' ministry, quoted by Dina Noun:

Paul said that the risen Christ appeared to the Twelve on the third day after he died, was buried, and rose again. He did not say there or anywhere else who "the Twelve" were.

In his little chronology of events, Paul makes no mention of having heard testimony regarding these sightings from any witnesses, even though hundreds would have been in the Jerusalem area during the early 50's, the standard dating of 1 Cor, and as members of the community of Christian "saints" would have been easy for Paul to find.

Paul does say that Peter saw the risen Christ on that occasion, but nowhere does he name James or John as members of "the Twelve" who also saw the Risen Christ. (It's a mystery why Peter wasn't included in "the Twelve.")

So, if by "disciples" we mean companions of Jesus during his incarnation as a man on earth, the usually impeccable Ehrman is incorrect in saying that Paul said Jesus had twelve disciples. In fact, he never said anything about Jesus having ANY disciples during his earthly sojourn, with the single and much disputed exception of James, whose discipleship Paul implied by calling him "the brother of the Lord," in the unlikely event he meant that to be taken literally.

Of course, we know of no other group of "Twelve" that were of concern to early Christians. But in the absence of any other authentically Pauline references to the Twelve Apostles, that's a pretty weak basis to conclude that Paul was referring to the same group.

I don't recall, but did the gospels have Jesus making a post-resurrection appearance to ALL eleven remaining apostles? I don't think so, but memory may fail.

Didymus

fromdownunder

Most of the sites dealing with the census are Christian Apologetic sites, which assume that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I did find this, however:

and

and

http://72.41.36.99/RRs/RR004/04census.htm

Short answer is "I haven't got a clue"

Norm

Amaleq13

Thanks to Peter Kirby, you certainly do:

Early Jewish Writings

The census as described is, to be very kind, implausible. The notion that the Romans would require everyone who could claim David as their ancestor to travel to Bethlehem to be counted is ridiculous to the point of idiocy. Apologists like to trot out an Egyptian census conducted under Roman rule as though it pertained but it required folks who were gone to return to their own homes. Entirely sensible and entirely unlike the requirement in Luke.

The actual census was conducted because Rome took direct control over the region. This adds another layer of implausibility to the Gospel story since it claims that people who didn't live in that region had to leave a region that wasn't directly controlled to enter a region that was and be counted as part of that region.

The idea that the Romans would want to screw up their accounting in such a monumental fashion is absurd.

It would be like requiring you to travel to the U.S. to be counted in a taxation census of the state of Florida because you had a several-generations-removed ancestor who once lived there.

Ben C Smith

I agree. The Lucan account of the census looks like a clumsy Lucan stunt designed to get Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to fulfill messianic prophecy.

I agree. For convenience, here is such a decree, based on the text and translation by K. C. Hanson:

Γαιος Ουιβιος Μαξιμος επαρχος Αιγυπτου λεγει·

Gaius Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt, says:

Της κατ οικιαν απογραφης ενεστωσης αναγκαιον εστιν πασιν τοις καθ ηντινα δηποτε αιτιαν αποδημουσιν απο των νομων προσαγγελλεσθαι επανελθειν εις τα εαυτων εφεστια ινα και την συνηθη οικονομιαν της απογραφης πληρωσωσιν και τη προσηκουση αυτοις γεωργιαι προσκαρτερησωσιν. ειδως μεντοι οτι ενιων των απο της χωρας η πολις ημων εχει χρειαν, βουλομαι παντας τους ευλογον δοκουντας εχειν του ενθαδε επιμενιν αιτιαν απογραφεσθαι παρα Βουλ....

The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes* be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however, that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before....

* Egyptian administrative units.

Φηστω επαρχωι ειλης, ον επι τουτω εταξα, ου και τας υπογραφας οι αποδειξαντες αναγκαιαν αυτων την παρουσιαν λημψονται κατα τουτο το παραγγελμα εντος της τριακαδος του ενεστωτος μηνος Ε....

Festus, the cavalry prefect, whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in accordance with this edict up to the thirtieth of the present month E....

Ben.

fromdownunder

Amaleq13

My reading of Dina Noun's post to which I responded was that the idea of the census per se was implausable, and I was questioning the claim that the census in 6CE did not occur and why that particular census, which is pretty much accepted by everybody (except, apparently Dina Noun) was implausable.

I was not talking about the author of Luke's version of the event, or apologist's attempts to harmonise it with other incompatable statements in Luke.

Norm

k_smith123

Most Christians would probably refer to 1 Timothy 6:13 where there is a clear reference that places Jesus and Pilate together, however, since most secular scholars doubt that Paul actually authored this epistle, it seems safe to dismiss this reference.

Paul refers to a "John" in 1 Gal. 2:9 but from the literal context it is clear that this could not be the John executed by Herod. Paul does not make a single reference to Herod.

I do not know of any other references that might date Paul's version of Christ except perhaps 2 Tim. 4:13-14 where Paul (if we pretend that 2 Timothy is not spurious) refers to "Troas" (or Troy) and an "Alexander" (a.k.a. Paris?), but since this reference is not literally linked to Christ (nor to the Trojan war), I know that most people will dismiss it as irrelevent. [But if Christ was represented at the fall of Troy, it seems logical to associate him with the character named "Phoenix" who was identified as one of Achilles' men, and who oddly enough is thought by some to also be a spurius addition to Homer's Iliad. Also, one numeric representation of the Phoenix metaphor is "five hundred", as evidenced by various ancient accounts of the Phoenix bird, and this is what Paul was alluding to in 1 Cor. 15:6 when he listed those to whom the resurrected Christ had appeared. The Phoenix bird itself seems to be an allegoric varient of the Old Testament story in which the Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers (Genesis 37:17-36). Yet another varient of this metaphoric idea is presented in Matthew 2:11-15 where Christ first receives his gold, frankincense, and myrrh and then travels to Egypt.]

In my opinion, the Gospels are allegory that combine Paul's and Philo's ideas with history (much of it provided by Josephus) to serve as a cover for secrets hidden underneath. In other words, the seemingly historic characters that anchor Christ's existance to the 1st Century are merely metaphors ("grafting of vines") and thus, I believe, it is correct to question the apparent time frame of Christ's supposed earthly existance.

{BTW "wealth" is a metaphor for "knowledge" so the "census" is a metaphor for "censorship", while "Herod" is metaphorically linked to Herodotus and hence to "history".}

Amaleq13

Yeah, but did you appreciate the link to Josephus?

You are correct that the actual census Josephus describes is plausible. It is entirely consistent with Roman practice to conduct a census of a region when it is taken under direct control.

Amaleq13

Kinda boring, isn't it?

Dina Noun

My claim was that the census associated with Luke's story was implausible.

Benni72

See Matthew 28:16-17, Mark 16:14 (but note that it is "the long ending"), and Luke 24:33-36 and further. In John 20:19-29 the number of disciples during both apparitions is not specified, but it is still possible that all eleven apostles were present at the second one, though Thomas is said to be absent at the first.