Vinnie

The Jerusalem school would be the basing for the Gospel claim if such were shown. There is no circularity because multiple attestation is not even an issue here.

Corinthians 15. James is also a benefactor in GHebrews. The Gospels also have several initial followers of Jesus having these experiences.

It would be quite difficult, with everyone making these claims about the JS memebers, and even during their lives, for anyone to argue that they would have wholesale dismissed them.

Vinnie

Kosh

Of course, GHebrews is dated to no earlier than 80, so it is unlikely they were still alive at that late date. And the Corinthians component would require that the Jerusalem school were actually aware of the letter, which was written (and presumabely sent) to a congregation far away. This wasn't an email, ya know.

What evidence do you have that the Jerusalem school would have been aware of the letter so they could refute it if not true?

Once again, you're appealing to the Gospels to back your claims, and they were not written till 40 years (earliest) after these events. Not likely to have been during the life of the apostles.

Also, how do you account for vs. 7, which seems to repeat what was just said in vs 5?

Kosh

From Doherty's site :

So... do you have some evidence hitherto unknown that the original 12 would have seen or heard claims about the ressurection?

Vinnie

This is what you did. I mentioned GHebrews. You went to Kirby's site and saw his dating of 80-150. In actuality, the earliest possible date for GHebrews in in the fifites, where John Dominic Crossan dates. The actual dating is irrelevant to me, suffice to say I view it as being written probably in the third stratum (80-100 C.E. but go for non liquet as well.


James is not required to be alive. The point is that if people during his life and some a few decades after made claims about him have Rez experiences. If the same is made for Peter, during and after. If the same is made for the Twelve and so on, who are we to say that the Jerusalem School would have rejected all of this whole cloth. This does not mean all the experiences occured.

Why would these claims have ever cropped up if the disagreed with them? I am not saying that they are all true. Just that the Jerusalem group probably accepted the basic creed in Cor 15 and some of them had visions.

No, when a datum receives multiple independent attestation it shows that the knowledge was more widespread. Paul has it and Mark just a few yearts later and others.

Incorrect. And what evidence do you have all or the vast majority of Jesus' followers were dead by 70 C.E.? None. And what is the relevance of this anyway?

Because as one with even an elementary knowledge of the primary literature here knows, Paul used apostle in a different sense. He could never be an "apostle" if he didn't.

So?

LOL This is so misleading. The only early writings we have are Paul and he can't use "apostle" just as a member of the Twelve because he thought he himself was an "apostle". Nice way to mislead the audience: "Early writings say....."

Never in Paul. Yet the twelve do get separate and special mention by Paul right after Peter. Leader and leadership group anyone?

The Twelve are the twelve disciples called by Jesus representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Peter was a member but he gets stand alone props as well.

Huh? There are all sorts of authority traditions? The power of the Twelve faded though and it did so early. Mark slashed them while Luke and Matthew immortalized them later on.

and Jesus had disciples and apostles and they preached about him. How is that not an "apostolic tradition"?

Of course I don't think Jesus said "you 12 will have the intel on me and I give it to you to pass on". Jesus had many disciples, men and women on his inner circle. Mary magdalene wasn't in the Twelve buyt she was a major player and authority in the early Chrurch.

Vinnie

Vinnie

1 Corinthians 15:5
and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

vs

Doherty: "It is far from clear what "the Twelve" in 1 Corinthians 15:5 refers to, since Paul lists Peter and "the apostles" separately. The term appears nowhere else in the epistles.)"

This claim is repeated by numerous people here.

Aside from what I have often pointed out, Peter cannot be assumed to not be a member of the twelve here. He is listed right before and as I have hinted at, it may designate leader and leadership group.

Notice that Luke presents a standalone appearance to Peter (Simon Peter) and has an appearance to all the Twelve (or actually, the 11). See Luke 24. Verse 34 or 24 IIRC.

This objection against the Twelve fails. So does the Twelve vs Eleven if this is the next route mythicists wish to take up.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

I agree but you also cannot assume that Peter is a member from this passage. He might also have been considered the leader of "the twelve" but, again, there is nothing in this passage that requires that interpretation.

"and that He appeared to Antonin Scalia, then to the Supreme Court." would be a very strange and unclear way to refer to Scalia as a member of the Court.

Actually, the author merely asserts an appearance to Peter, it is not explicitly described. Jesus first appears, but is not recognized, by the two on the road to Emmaus. Only one is identified (Cleopas) but they finally recognize Jesus when he blesses the bread. They then "found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them". It is here that it is, rather oddly given the previous scene, announced that "The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon." This would seem to imply that Simon was the unidentified person walking with Cleopas (who gets zero credit) but, if we look back at the previous verse, these two found "the eleven" already hanging out together so neither can be considered part of that group.

This story does not agree with the brief statement given by Paul. Christ appeared to Cleopas and, apparently, Simon-Peter not just "Cephas"*. Then he appears to "the eleven", Cleopas, Simon-Peter, and unnamed others not "the twelve".

As an aside, I've always found it peculiar that the Risen Christ is not immediately recognized by those who are depicted as having known him quite well while he lived (e.g. Simon-Peter, Mary).

*To my knowledge, Paul never refers to "Peter" as "Simon" and never indicates this is a nickname.

Vinnie

Agreed on the basis of that passage alone. But if we cross reference it with other sources I think Paul's meaning is clear. It is valid practice to supply a historical backdrop to Paul through the reconstruction of other sources.

Unfortunately if he appeared to Peter alone, and then to al lthe 12 (or eleven) which includes Peter again then Paul's usage is correct. There is an increasing tendency in several texts to portray Peter (a member of the Twelve) as a leader or the leader. There is nothing odd aboutm y interpretation.


I think you need to reread Luke 24. YOu are trying to hard to deny the obvious Its Simon Peter. Verse 12 ends with Peter walking away wondering. Verse 13 starts off with the two unnamed peeps, one of which is mentioned as Cleopas.

THen in 33 these two "got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon."

The Eleven already knew before they got there. Simon is to be identified, naturally as Simon Peter. Luke constantly refers to Peter as Simon throughout the text. Then in verse 35 the two (Cleopas and unnameed (woman?)) tell them what happened. In 36 Jesus appears before the 11 after he had already appeared before Simon. Leader and leadership group. See Crossan.

I have no interest in harmonizing the stories. I am arguing that others believe Jesus appeared to Peter and then the Twelve (or eleven). Paul's usage is simply consistent with this.

Where does Simon-Peter not recognize him? John uses this to undercut Mary Mag's authority in his Gospel if I am not mistaken. There are certaintly numerous problems and inconsistencies here but they have nothing to do with my arguments here.

And are you arguing that Paul believed in a different Ttwelve cause he did not write "eleven"? I alluded to the fact that I dismiss this argument. I'll be happy to point out why I do

I deem this, whether factual or not, absolutely irrelevant to everything at hand. It is proative of nothing. Surely you aren't trying to appeal to this as some sort of silence in the Pauline corpus?

Oh yeah, I'll get back to you on the baptism//death line later after I look into it a pinch more.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Considering the contents of texts written decades after Paul hardly consitutes a valid method of supplying an "historical backdrop" for Paul. It is entirely invalid to use the Gospel stories to understand Paul. In this I am in total agreement with Kirby in his argument against Craig:

"Craig seems to think that the narrative in the canonical gospels should be retrojected onto the mind of Paul. Such a procedure is entirely invalid."

from http://www.infidels.org/library/mod.../rebuttal1.html

No, I was trying to find a description of an appearance to Peter in support of your statement:
If Simon-Peter is not the unidentified walker, then Luke offers no depiction of an appearance by Christ to him. The author only offers the assertion that it happened. In fact, none of the Gospel stories describes a "standalone" appearance to Peter. The assertion in Luke is as close as it gets.

I'm simply observing that there does not appear to be any reason to accept the claim that "the twelve" Paul mentions and Luke's eleven disciples are the same group of people. Paul's use of "the twelve" refers to a group existing after the resurrection. The Gospel use of "the twelve" is exclusively in reference to the disciples before the resurrection. In fact, Acts indicates that "the eleven" didn't become twelve again until after the Ascension.

Vinnie

First off, I don't think the canonical narratives should be retrojected into Paul's mind either. If it was we would first have to ask, "which one"?

Second, reading Paul with the backdrop that Peter was a) a follower of an historical Jesus and b) a member of the twelve is not retrojecting a canonical narrative back onto Paul. The first of these (a) is simply historical practive, the second is harder to substantiate than the first but, IMO ,can nonetheless be done.

Further, you cite Kirby, when in actuality, I believe he would agree with me on this point that Peter was a follower of an HJ and Paul knew. He would probably accept this for the very same reasons I do.

Your statement that "It is entirely invalid to use the Gospel stories to understand Paul" is entirely false. But I would like to say that the Gospel stories only allow us to uinderstand a tiny bit of Paul. This case (Peter being a follower of Jesus authenticated by GMark, GThomas, GJohn and all the traditions within is a gimme).

What do you mean "if". As I demonstrated, the text, at least the interpretation I am using, rules this out conclusively. Luke states (asserts if you will--as does Paul) that Jesus appeared to Peter. That is what I stated and that much is certainly true as one can see by readeing Luke 24.

And you lose all credibility when you make these assertions. The Peter of Mark and John may not be the same either

There is only one candidate. All the traditions lead to the same road. If your theory can't account for this simpyl fact then I suggest you find another one.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Vinnie, Amalek is dead on in finding no support for any overlap of Paul's Twelve and Jesus'. Here is an exchange on Crosstalk between Bill Arnal and Peter Kirby. It addresses, and casts doubt on, each of your points.



From: "Gordon Raynal" <scudi1@charter.net> Save Address
To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 17:44:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Twelve
Reply-To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's good old Bill (the Luddite's) response... and tis a good one by
enlarge
----------
>From: "William Arnal" <warnal@hotmail.com>
>To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Twelve
>Date: 3, Sep 2002, 11:08 AM
>

>
>Steve Black wrote:
>
>>Nineham says in his commentary on Mark that because it seems that it
>>seems that the twelve did not really play a very significant role in
>>the early church, it is unlikely that they are a later invention.
>
>I don't understood the force of this argument -- it makes no sense to me.
>Are we to assume the ancient Christians only made up stuff that WAS
>important? And, for what it's worth, they DO become very important,
>literarily & theologically, in Luke-Acts.


>>This seems to make some sense. I remember this coming up on the list
>>quite a long long time ago. I was wondering if there are any folk on
>>the list now who do *not* believe that the twelve are historical - I
>>would be interested in the reasoning behind this point of view.
>
>I don't. As has already been noted, Jesus presumably DID have followers. But
>I'm pretty convinced "the twelve" -- as disciples of Jesus -- are a fiction.
>Reasons for this:
>
>1. The earliest reference to the twelve, in Paul, presents them as witnesses
>to the resurrection, not disciples of Jesus. Moreover, this reference is
>exclusive of Peter.
>
>2. The lists of the twelve in the various gospels do not agree with each
>other.
>
>3. Other sources, including the Talmud, and GThomas, inter alia, present
>Jesus as having a smaller circle of disciples.
>
>4. The earliest source that presents the twelve as disciples of Jesus is
>Mark. Not great testimony, IMHO.
>
>5. All of our traditions present Jesus as including women among his inner
>circle, but none of the lists of 12 include women.
>
>6. As already noted, the number is too significant -- it seems to imply a
>reconstituted or alternative Israel. Not that it's impossible that Jesus
>himself had such an agenda . . . but the number itself provides us with the
>motivation for fictionalizing.
>
>I've probably missed some stuff. None of this is "proof," of course, but
>these are the reasons I'm more inclined to see this "inner circle" as
>theological fictionalizing. A good book on this is by Heinz Geunther,
>_Walking in the Footsteps of Jesus' Twelve_ or something like that.
>
>Bill
>___________________________
>William Arnal
>Department of Religious Studies
>University of Regina
>Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2
>
>
Reading over this list, I thought of my own comments. Are any of them
novel?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirby" <kirby@earthlink.net>
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Twelve

> The Secret Book of James mentions the 'twelve disciples' as well as James,
> Peter, and John.

My list was drawn up hastily, and I may have made an error here. Here is
the quote from the Apocryphon of James:

The Lord answered and said: "Do you not know that the head of prophecy was
cut off with John?"

This is most obviously a reference to the Baptist (Mark 6:27), although I
suppose it could technically be the son of Zebedee, if both sons of thunder
were executed at the same time as some suggest. According to Acts 12:2,
James the brother of John was beheaded.

> The Gospel of the Ebionites mentions Simon Peter, John and James the sons
of
> Zebedee, Simon, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus,
> Thomas, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the Iscariot.

The name 'Simon' should not appear twice, and the name 'Matthew' must be
added.

Here is the translation of the passage in Epiphanius from M. R. James,
transcribed by me.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ebionites.html

"In the Gospel they have, called according to Matthew, but not wholly
complete, but falsified and mutilated (they call it the Hebrew Gospel), it
is contained that 'There was a certain man named Jesus, and he was about
thirty years old, who chose us. And coming unto Capernaum he entered into
the house of Simon who was surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth and said: As
I passed by the lake of Tiberias, I chose John and James the sons of
Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and <Philip and Bartholomew, James the son of
Alphaeus and Thomas> Thaddaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the Iscariot:
and thee, Matthew, as thou satest as the receipt of custom I called, and
thou followedst me. You therefore I will to be twelve apostles for a
testimony unto (of) Israel."

Here is the quote from Epiphanius in a different translation, which I pulled
off the net somewhere.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...-panarion.html

There appeared a certain man named Jesus of about thirty years of age, who
chose us. And when he came to Capernaum, he entered into the house of Simon
whose surname is Peter, and opened his mouth and said: "As I passed the Lake
of Tiberias, I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and
Andrew and Thaddeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the Iscariot, and you,
Matthew, I called as you sat at the receipt of custom, and you followed me.
You, therefore, I will to be twelve apostles for a testimony unto Israel."
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.2-3)

> Papias mentions Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, and
> Judas.

Here is the quote of Papias from Eusebius as found in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations,
whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders,
and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their
truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke
much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange
commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord
to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had
attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what
Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James,
or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which
things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For
I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as
what came from the living and abiding voice.

> The Epistula Apostolorum mentions John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James,
> Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas as well
as
> Joseph and Mary.

Here is the quote from the Epistula Apostolorum as translated by M. R. James
from the Ethiopic.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ostolorum.html

2 We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew,
Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east
and the west, of the north and the south, the declaring and imparting unto
you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we
have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead:
and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true.

Now let me quote from some lists of leaders or disciples found in the
canonical writings.

Mark 3:16-19. "Simon, whom he named Peter; James, son of Zebedee, and John
the brother of James, whom he named Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder;
Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus;
Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him."

Matt 10:2-3. "The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon
called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his
brother John; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector
[note the name change in Mt 9:9 from Levi, son of Alphaeus, as compared with
Mk 2:14]; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus; Simon the Cananean, and
Judas Iscariot who betrayed him."

Luke 6:14-16. "Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, James,
John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon
who was called a Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who
became a traitor."

Acts 1:13. "When they entered the city they went into the upper room where
they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas,
Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas
son of James."

The author of Luke-Acts also mentions the seventy and the seven.

Luke 10:1-17. "Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others
also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place
where he himself was about to come. . . . And the seventy returned with joy,
saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us through thy name."

Acts 6:3-5. "Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled
with the spirit and wisdom . . ." So they chose Stephen, a man filled with
faith and the holy spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas,
and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism."

Some suggest that John 1:45-51 suggests that Nathanael can take his place
among the college of the apostles. It is often observed that the fourth
gospel has no list of the Twelve, but we do find this list in the Johannine
appendix:

John 21:2. "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and
Nathanael who was of Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two
others of his disciples."

If you count these, there are seven disciples mentioned. If you look up
above, you will find that Papias also mentions seven disciples: Andrew,
Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew. Papias mentions Judas
elsewhere but does not mention him as an apostle here. The Gospel of the
Ebionites mentions eight people; the additional four names inserted by M. R.
James are a conjectural emendation so that the list adds up to twelve, in
accord with the mention of the twelve in Epiphanius' quote, but it is
possible that two different traditions are reflected in this quote. If
Judas may be excluded, as he is in Papias, the Jewish-Christian Gospel
mentioned by Epiphanius names seven disciples: John and James the sons of
Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddaeus and Simon the Zealot and
Matthew.

So we have three lists of seven: John, Papias, and the Ebionite Gospel
quoted by Epiphanius. Let me repeat the list for each.

Gospel of John: Simon Peter, Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael who was of
Cana of Galilee, son of Zebedee, son of Zebedee, one of two other disciples,
one of two other disciples

Papias in Eusebius: Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew

Ebionite Gospel in Epiphanius: John son of Zebedee, James the son of
Zebedee, Simon, Andrew, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Matthew.

There are three persons that appear in all these lists of seven, though
without names in the fourth gospel (for his own literary purposes).

= John - Papias - Ebionite =

Simon Peter - Peter - Simon
'sons of Zebedee' - John - John son of Zebedee
'sons of Zebedee' - James - James son of Zebedee

These are the same names found in the Big Three (Gal 2:9; Mark 5:37, 9:2,
13:3, 14:33 and parallels.).

There are then four persons whose names may vary.

= John - Papias - Ebionite =

Thomas called Didymus - Thomas - Thaddaeus/Simon the Zealot
Nathanael - Matthew - Matthew
'two others of his disciples' - Andrew - Andrew
'two others of his disciples' - Philip - Thaddaeus/Simon the Zealot

Here is how I constructed this table. First, I noted that Andrew and Philip
often appear together in the apostolic lists (Mark 3:18, Acts 1:13). Also,
I noted that Andrew and Philip were mentioned in the first chapter of the
fourth gospel (Jn 1:40, 1:43-44). They were therefore obvious candidates
for the two other disciples, and they both appear in Papias separated only
by Peter (the brother of Andrew). Then, it is obvious that Thomas in Papias
should be paired up with Thomas called Didymus in the fourth gospel. After
that, the only name left unmatched in Papias is Matthew, so I placed it next
to Nathanael by a process of elimination. For the Gospel of the Ebionites,
Andrew and Matthew are mentioned and so appear in the table next to the
names in the list from Papias. I saw no clear way to connect
Thaddaeus/Simon the Zealot with Thomas/Philip, so I left these relationships
undefined.

With the exception of Nathanael, all of these names appear in the synoptic
lists of Twelve, but not in the same order. The lack of a common order with
the synoptic Twelve suggests to me that the Seven is a separate tradition
from the Twelve. I am not sure how the apostolic Seven relates to the
Hellenist Seven in Acts. Is the author of Luke-Acts somehow commenting on
an earlier tradition of seven disciples? If so, what is the comment? I
haven't worked that out.

Now we come to the lists of Twelve. The slight discrepancy between the list
in Mark/Matthew and the list in Luke/Acts is well-known, and the time-worn
harmonization tells us that Judas the son of James is Thaddaeus. But not so
well-known is the non-synoptic list of Twelve to be found in the Epistula
Apostolorum. There we find it written:

"We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew,
Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches . . ."

Count them up, and you will reach the number eleven. Add in Judas Iscariot,
excluded from the Twelve after the resurrection (Mt 28:16; Lk 24:9, 24:33),
and what you see in the Epistula Apostolorum is a different list of the
Twelve apostles.

So let us compare the lists of the Eleven (minus the Iscariot) in these
three sources.

Gospel of Mark: Peter, James son of Zebedee, John the brother of James,
Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus,
Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean

The Work of Luke-Acts: Simon whom he named Peter, his brother Andrew, James,
John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon
who was called a Zealot, Judas the son of James

Epistula Apostolorum: John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip,
Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, Cephas

The first thing that jumps out at you is that Peter is separated from Cephas
in the Epistula Apostolorum. It has been suggested by some that the name of
Peter was interpolated into the Pauline epistles to replace the name of
Cephas in some places. (http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/barnikol.html) This
list of the Eleven in the Epistula Apostolorum could provide independent
attestation of the tradition that Peter and Cephas were not always
identified, regardless of their etymological similarity.

Other striking points in the Epistula Apostolorum include the priority of
John, paralleled only in the Ebionite Gospel, and the high position given to
Thomas as second, while Thomas usually appears much later. Andrew is
mentioned along with Peter, which is not unusual, but three names now place
a wedge between John and James: did the author of the Epistula Apostolorum
think of them as brothers?

Philip, Bartholomew, and Matthew appear together in the proper order in the
Epistula Apostolorum. So far, all of these names are found in the synoptic
list. But then we see the name of Nathanael: the list that places John
first provides an additional testimony to the apostolate of Nathanael.

Then we come to the apostle that I would dub "Jude the obscure," named here
Judas Zelotes, who could be identified with Simon who was called the Zealot
in Luke-Acts (Simon the Cananean in Matthew/Mark), or who could be
identified with Judas the son of James in Luke-Acts (sometimes identified
with Thaddeus in Matthew/Mark). Is it too much to suggest that a name was
made up on occasion to round out the number of apostles?

From the list in the Epistula Apostolorum, it is apparent that, if Jesus
chose twelve disciples, their names were not committed to memory by the
early church, perhaps analogous to the way they are not committed to memory
in the church today. All the lists remember Peter and the sons of thunder,
and then Andrew or Matthew or Thomas come to mind, but after that the memory
gets fuzzy.

We have examined the traditions of the Seven and of the Twelve. Brief
mention can be made of the other traditions of disciples.

The Two appear in the Apocryphon of James, "a secret book which was revealed
to me and Peter by the Lord," in which Jesus says, "Let me have James and
Peter, in order that I may fill them." Then there is that dynamic duo,
Peter and Paul, mentioned in First Clement together as follows: "Let us set
before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of
unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus
having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason
of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient
endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into
exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the
noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness
unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and
when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the
world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of
patient endurance."

The triumvirate of James, Peter, and John appear in Paul (Gal 2:9) and the
synoptics (Mark 5:37, 9:2, 13:3, 14:33, parallels). I write in my summary
of Eisenman: "Ancient tradition has it that the first Jewish revolt was
sparked by the unjust execution of James the Just. In order to disassociate
James the Just from his brother Jesus, the Gospels split him into two: on
the one hand, the family of Jesus including James think Jesus is mad; on the
other hand, James the son of Zebedee is one of the trio of James, Peter, and
John as found in the Gospels. Yet the fiction is exposed when we look at the
earlier letters of Paul, in which the trio is James the brother of the Lord,
Peter, and John - what an odd coincidence, which so many scholars take at
face value, that one James the son of Zebedee should have died only to be
conveniently replaced by another by the name of James, the brother of
Jesus!" A lesser-mentioned threesome is found in the Gospel of Thomas in
the form of Simon Peter, Matthew, and Thomas (saying 13).

For the Five, here is the quote from the Talmud. It is from TB Sanhedrin
43a, as given by F. F. Bruce in _Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New
Testament_, p. 62. It comes right after the story of hanging Jesus on the
Passover Eve for sorcery and leading Israel astray into apostasy, which
gives reasonable assurance that Jesus of Nazareth is intended. There
follows a list of offenses supposedly committed by these people, with quotes
from the Hebrew scriptures that pun on their names; giving names that would
create puns may have been the principle behind the selection of names.
Nevertheless it is interesting as providing a testimony to a tradition of a
group of five. "The rabbis taught: Jesus had five disciples: Mathai, Naqai,
Nezer, Buni, and Todah."

Finally, for a group of seventy which would be a separate group from the
apostles in any account, see Luke 10:1-17, which is worth noting for the
sake of completeness. (The references in Paul to himself, Apollos, James
the Lord's brother, the Twelve after the resurrection, "all the apostles" in
addition, and those "prominent among the apostles" could be mentioned here
as well.)

So it seems that we are narrowing our focus prematurely when asking, "Are
the Twelve historical?" We should really be asking, "Are the Two or the
Three or the Five or the Seven or the Twelve or the Seventy historical?" At
the least, I think that the tradition of the Seven deserves consideration
along with the tradition of the Twelve.

best,
Peter Kirby

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/