Vinnie

Just one question before commenting:

Was it standard wear in Elijah's day? and if so was was it mentioned in the OT?

Also, standard wear for "desert-dwellers" doesn't mean its not mentionable for Mark's audience who presumably were not "desert-dwellers".

Mark was probably making connections between the two figures and figured they both wore leather belts and that would boost his claims. Kind of like those after-the fact prophecieis or poor use prophecies (e.g. out of Egytp I called my son). That is probably a bad example though since it more resembles fiction than history.

Vinnie

Julian

I think that it does separate Cephas from the other twelve.

The text says και οτι ωφθη κηφα ειτα τοις δωδεκα which I translate as "and that he appeared to Cephas then to the twelve." The word ειτα could have easily been replaced by και or some similar conjunction that would allow for inclusion. In this case ειτα was used which indicates a sequence as in then or next clearly separating Cephas from the twelve when he could have very easily have been included.

You second suggestion of chronology holds up much better in light of this but the issue is still clouded and we must ask why the author didn't mention it. You suggest that it was already known. But it is precisely because it is known today that we are wondering about this sentence. If it was known back then, then they would have wondered just as we are doing. Why was he separated out? It could be sloppy writing but I don't think so.

Julian

Ben C Smith

The ειτα demonstrates that two different appearances are in view. It neither proves nor disproves that Cephas was in on both appearances, the first time alone and the second time included in the twelve.

I met with Ted Kennedy about the bill, then I met with the Senate. Prior knowledge about the membership or nonmembership of Ted Kennedy in the Senate is required before deciding whether or not Senator Kennedy was present at the second meeting.

Paul does not give us enough to decide either way.

Ben.

Julian

I believe that I concede this, but I still think that the wording is curious and unnecessarily ambiguous
True, however, in the example you give, it would have been clearer English to put the word full before the word Senate, to clarify that Ted is part of the senate and is also participating in the second part. Sure, your example is an apt comparison and is equally unclear. Why not make it clear?

I understand that I don't have much of a case here other than we have no idea, which means that we have no idea either way. Certainly, that particular sentence cannot be used to prove that Cephas was one of the twelve.

Julian

Ben C Smith

Because an author will sometimes leave out the clear connection simply because it is clear to him. A similar thing happens in Matthew 16.17-20. In 16.17-19 Jesus is speaking to Peter. In 16.20 he warns the disciples. Why did Matthew not rather say all the disciples to make clear that Peter was one of the disciples? Probably because this connection was clear to him.

Agreed.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

The twelve apostles were created from an allegorical interpretation of Joshua chapter 4.

Joshua (gk Ieosus=Jesus) chose twelve men, one out of each tribe, to carry each a rock in front of the Ark of the covenant crossing Jordan, miraculously holding back the waters. That day the Lord exalted Jesus in the sight of Israel.

Jake Jones IV

Vinnie

I've never wondered about that. When I always read the gospels I simply assumed it was a chronology of sorts. Wonder is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

The gospels portray individual sightings then a group sighting don't they (collectively) so that is presumably why it is reported as such.

I think the historical evidence favors a 12 and you certainly don't have a 12 without Peter so I take it as common knowledge to Paul's audience.

Thus, I opt for primnacy/chronlogy as a duel, simultaneous explanation.

I think Paul did mention it because of "primacy" and that primacy is rooted in some sort of chronology (I saw Jesus first) as within the gospel of John.

I think his audience recognized this (had this same chronology or their own or knew of it) and Paul was stating it to get his point across.

People probably would want to know who Jesus appeared to first and to where and with different factions and teachers vieing for authority it is only axiomatic that "primacy" issues come into play back then.

In my view the twelve died out early //or were not some major--all-- authoritative cohesive group. This seems to be the case later as they are the passers of the canon when the gospel authors made them out as such (except Mark who slashes them somewhat).

Vinnie

Vinnie

What evidence do you have that this is the case? Twelve is a special number. It would be used by historical figures or possibly added into things. It can go either way. How do you demonstrate is it creation when it occurs in difference sources and forms independently (Paul//Mark), has the embarrassing criterion (x2) in its favor (e.g. Judas and Mark who crashes the twelve), different lists of names (which actually support historicity) and also one or two Markan references commend themselves as "pre-marcan--inherited tradition" but it occurs in Paul so we know this.

Its axiomatic that Jesus had followers and the twelve smells like history. I don't think they were an autorative group however. Just an enactment of the restoration of Israel by Jesus (part of why the numbers and membership was probably a bit fluid).

Vinnie

Chris Weimer

However, the only way we can infer that Cephas was a part of the Twelve is if we already know it, and how else do we know this but through the Gospels? This is one point that I think the gospels are fiction on - the names of the Twelve.

Amaleq13

I think it is relevant and problematic for your position that the same sources which inform us that Peter was part of "the twelve" (ie the Gospels) also tell us that the risen Christ only appeared to 11.