Zeichman

Please tell me some credible scholars who doubt their historicity.
You just said that my assessment of James as historical was not "uncontested", but whatever. Anyways, I was referring, if I was unclear, to the Josephus passage re: James. And I'm still waiting for a number of scholars who doubt the passages' authenticity.

And regarding the word apostle, it IS acceptable. Paul calls Peter an apostle, and a proper translation of the greek would mean "one sent with a commission" which all of them believed themselves to have been (thus, the post-mortem appearances). Even Earl Doherty agrees that calling them apostles is appropriate.

Knife

I appreciate the responses from everyone.

Well I think the argument posted in my OP has little to no support.

To start: Do we even know the names of the 12?

Zeichman

No. There is a lack of consistency among the gospels themselves, though is often harmonized by apologists. It seems more than likely that Peter was one, and it's probable that John was one. There is also the beloved disciple, who may be one of these individuals, or may be a fictional character.

Julian

I agree that apostle is a proper term for the Jerusalem group leaders but bear in mind that the term apostle has no bearing on the discussion on whether or not they had any connection with a historical Jesus. Paul calls himself an apostle and he makes no claims to having met a historical Jesus. Apostle simply means someone who talks about the christian movement, possibly with some authority, which would mean that there were probably quite a large number of apostles. I also do not see that being an apostle means that the commission would have to originate in some vision of god or Jesus.

Julian

Zeichman

I certainly agree. Do you have other possibilities in terms of when they could have been commissioned, though? That is, aside from the possibility of it happening during Jesus' own life?

Julian

We have no way of knowing how or when they were commissioned. Any ideas here would be pure speculation. We do not even know the type of christianity they espoused.

This post grew awfully long but I decided to delete most of it as it all came down to simple speculation. It just didn't seem overly useful.

One could argue that Paul commissioned himself based on a supposed vision, but it might as well have been Paul just deciding that he liked the christian movement and that he wanted a leadership position. I suspect that the word commission should not be used in this context at all. If you commission yourself, does it count?

Julian

Zeichman

Without really being able to argue it, aside from taking him at his word, I have a hard time accepting that Paul "decided" to be a Christian. I think the "emotionally-induced ecstatic experience" is probably the most plausable explanation, along with the Jerusalem Pillars (or perhaps a post-passion reinterpretation of the Q1 style sending-sayings [assuming authenticity] for those who knew and earthly Jesus).

But you're definitely right in that so much of Biblical studies is speculation.