Ben C Smith

To the contrary, the replacement of Judas by Matthias may be construed as serving at least three very distinct purposes:

1. It fulfills or otherwise reflects Psalm 69.25; 109.8.
2. It is an object lesson in the efficacy of the principle laid out in Proverbs 16.33.
3. It explains more fully why some Christian sources (Paul, Ascension of Isaiah, gospel of Peter) speak of the twelve after the resurrection while other sources (Matthew, Mark 16.9-20, Luke itself) speak of the eleven. IOW, two postresurrectional counts were circulating by the time this episode was published, and this episode serves to explain (harmonize) both.

Any one of these reasons is enough to render censorship an unnecessary hypothesis; the three together are formidable. The author had no reason ever to mention Matthias again (though his currency in gnostic circles may have been reason enough at that) once the above points were satisfied.

This is an illustration, BTW, of the flaw in the argument from ignorance; I cannot imagine X happening without Y, so if X happened then Y must be the case.

Ben.

the_cave

Well, maybe Levy-Strauss is not the end-all and be-all of literary criticism, but he can be useful.

Instead, I think Luke was just trying to mimic the style of his model, Josephus. He did a poor job of it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't trying. (I also think Luke used Hegesippus, but that's another discussion.)

True, though I think the names must have some symbolic meaning for the reader that we might never understand.

Right, but this then uses up the Barnabas contrast.

But--notice that Matthew (and Papias) records Judas' death as well. So Judas' death must have already been in Luke's source.

I am not so sure about this. Who would have made the replacement choice, and why wouldn't it have been a kind of election? Also, Luke could have been drawing on a source that had more information about the candidates. And maybe the reader would have known more about the personalities than we do. In other words, there are other possibilities.

But why assume the original was about an election at all? Maybe in the original, Judas simply died (just like Ananias) as a sign of God's punishment. Note that the information about Judas' land and Barnabas' land is separated by three chapters in Acts--if there was an underlying story, it's been pretty severely tampered with. If the original story was just about Judas and Barnabas and some land, there's no need to assume that there was any election at all. The punishment was death, just like for Ananias--not an election loss.

Barnabas loses the election, but goes on to be an important apostle, whereas Matthias, the winner, is never mentioned again. Barnabas hardly seems to have suffered at all, despite losing the election.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the hypothesis.

25 Let their habitation be desolate; Let none dwell in their tents.

105: 6 Set thou a wicked man over him; And let an adversary stand at his right hand.

7 When he is judged, let him come forth guilty; And let his prayer be turned into sin.

8 Let his days be few; And let another take his office.

It is hard to believe that anybody would have connected these passages with the election in Acts unless they had been told it was a reference to them. We would have to imagine that the author was writing specifically for an elite Jewish audience who knew the scriptures so well that they could pick out a single line with only the most oblique references. The rest of Acts gives us no indication that the author is writing for such an audience.

2. Proverbs. 33 The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah.

This works just as well with my interpretation as with a different one. As I noted casting the lot is the same as saying "Let God do the choosing". It emphasizes the importance of the text continuing with the adventures of the elected apostle.

3. In some manuscript texts the election refers to the election of the 11th apostle, in some to the 12th apostle and in some to just an apostle. So it harmonizes nothing.

When we consider that the election is part of a text that tells us about the adventures of Barnabas and we have another text that tells us that Barnabas was Matthias, and yet we have no further adventures of Matthias, censorship remains the most likely reason for explaining this narrative failure. If I tell you that John McCain was elected president in 2008 and then go on to talk about how Barack Obama took the oath of oath, we may see my substitution of John McCain either as a mistake or a deliberate but failed attempt to change history. Assuming that John McCain was elected President and the narrator was satisfied not to explain how that happened and still Obama took the oath of office seems illogical.

I do not think we should assume that the author had some obscure, mysterious unknown purpose in causing a narrative failure. Especially when assuming censorship is the simplest, most reasonable and clearest explanation. The author wanted to use the Barnabas text, but did not want Barnabas credited as one of the apostles.

Incidentally, I think it is interesting that Tertullian gives Barnabas credit for Hebrews:

but I will even because of the super-
abundance add a testomony from one of the companions of the Apostles,
who can confirm with almost the same authority the discipline of
the first masters.For there is even an epistle to the Hebrews,
written by Barnabas, who has been authorized by God sufficiently,
because St. Paul has mentioned him at his own side in observance of
abstinence, 'for I only and Barnabas, have we not power to
forbear working.' At any rate this epistle of Barnabas is more
accepted by the churches, than that apocryphal "Pastor" of the
adulterers. (de pudicitia. 28)
Still, Tertullian only calls him "a companion to the Apostles"

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay:

Ben C Smith

Quite the opposite; the author specifically quotes the relevant passages; he does not expect his readers to pick them out on their own.

No, your interpretation required that the men either selected or deselected in this process be given attributes that would make the selection or deselection meaningful. If the main point is the selection itself (as in Proverbs 16.33), then such attributes are no longer necessary to make sense of the incident. It the process of selection (the lot) that makes the incident click, not the attributes of each man.

I do not know what you mean here. Matthew and Mark have 11 apostles after the resurrection; other sources have 12. Acts has 11 being augmented up to 12, rendering both kinds of sources correct. That is harmonization.

Barnabas having an adventure or two does not equate taking an oath of office.

Nor do I. I gave several nonobscure, nonmysterious purposes.

It simply is not. Demonstrating censorship requires more than a narrative jolt.

Then the author must have been incompetent; he explicitly calls Barnabas and Paul apostles later in the text.

Ben.

IamJoseph

Paul never met Jesus, and arrived in jerusalem decades after his death. Paul was imprisoned in Ceasarea in 68 CE, then sent to Rome for his trial and was crucified with a spear along with a bunch of other bad Jews.

Churches never existed at this time, nor Synagogues - till well past 70 CE.

Isn't everything Jewish always the bad guy - otherwise the entire NT story goes belly up!? If Judas was a bad guy, it surely cannot be because he flaunted his beliefs and nation, as the Gospels wants to propose. Here, one looses either way and cannot win either way either.

There's no original texts! 400 years thereafter, in a Latin writ, with no historical evidence and no Hebrew, is not so original - if its speaking about the Hebrews. Looks like the Europeans were not stiff necked - no proof was demanded.

There was no trial by the Romans of Jesus - and you have no proof outside of the Gospels there was one. No Roman or Hebrew archives of it either. Alarm bells must go up here. In fact, there is only one pivotal issue here: how would Jesus have survived the hovering Roman decree of Heresy - when 1.2 million other Jews did not? Fact is, Rome never cared who was a Messiah - but that a Messiah was even mentioned. Fact is, but hardly touched by the Gospels, if Jesus refused to worship a divine Roman Emperors' statue 3 times a day - he would not have survived anyways - making the notion of a sacrfice somewhat superfluous when the true, historical premise is confronted. The fundamental things apply? :constern02:

Christianity or the term Christ emerged only after 174 CE - and the Nasserites were a Jewish group at this time: so what did Paul convert from and to? Paul was already a non-believing 3rd generation secularised Greek. He was expelled from the then small Nasserite group who, unlike Paul, did know Jesus first hand - and vehemently rejected the Pauline views. Europe embraced the Pauline doctrines, which were already prevalent for centuries in Europe via the Greeks - Europeans never once demanded proof of anything put to them. But I believe the pre-christian Europeans never had a choice here: the emergent Roman Catholicism took more than the prefix of a Roman name - the Heresy factor continued more fastediously into an art form, mass murdering innocent souls a 1000 fold more than Rome could muster. Rome lost - Israel won the fight for the freedom of belief. Don't be so shy of the truth.

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE - IF ITS EVER ACKNOWLEDGED. :wave:

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

The codez Bezae has 12 apostles in 1:26, while other manuscripts say 11 apostles, and as I recall some simply leave out the number of apostles altogether.

I am not sure where the author quotes the relevant passages. Can you point them out?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

the_cave

Bezae does not say the election was for the 11th apostle; it says that the winner was included with the Twelve. Canonical Acts says he was included with the Eleven:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1Jm...ezae#PPA109,M1

Note the odd difference in terminology:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1Jm...ezae#PPA115,M1

I think that to be "reckoned with the Twelve" could simply mean that the winner was included in the group of "The Twelve"--it's the name of a group, even if they're missing a member. It doesn't mean he was the 13th disciple. And, after Matthias (or Barnabas) was elected, they numbered twelve again. Unclear whether canonical Acts is an attempted clarification of this, or the other way around.

As for the Recognitions, maybe the author is just confused by the phrasing of Ac 1:23

os epeklhqh ioustos kai maqqian

Misreading it to say "called 'Barnabas' and 'Matthias'"? Thinking that the other candidate was left unnamed? Just a hunch, it's hard to tell.

Ben C Smith

Ah, I see. Thanks.

Acts 1.20 quotes the relevant psalms. The writer did not leave it to the reader to have to figure out where to find the scriptural referents.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

I'm not aware of manuscripts that leave out the number of apostles altogether in 1:26. (There are (non-Greek) manuscripts that try and have it both ways reading he was counted among the eleven apostles as the twelth but this is rather different)

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

Thank you. Yes, I believe Bezae is the only manuscript that has the number 12.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay