Layman

And implication I cleared up in my response to you. Which completely eluded Amalek.

Yeah. Those Pharisees were all feminists.

Vorkosigan

The forum is hardly lockstep on any issue. I realize you are frustrated that Infidels still exists and is even growing, but it isn't a good tactic to let that frustration slip out.

The moderators here are all enthusiastic posters who enjoy a good tussle. You always offer one. Consider it a backhanded compliment that they turn out for the threads you start, and stop insulting a forum that is always willing to host your thoughts and ideas.

Vorkosigan

Layman

I do not understand this response. If you believe there was no Judas, how can you say Paul was being anachronistic for not noting his absence from Jesus' inner circle?

But where are your comparative examples?

Later Christian writers used the term "the eleven." (Matth. 24:16; Luke 24:9, 33; Mark 16:14; Acts 1:26). But when they did use the term "the Twelve" they tended to use it in conjunction with "the Apostles" or "the Disciples." Hence the use of "the Twelve Apostles" and "the Twelve Disciples" as I referenced above. Thus, it seems more likely that a later Christian interpolator would use the one of the later terms. The development itself is symptomatic, I think, of a later development of Christians viewing the 12 apostles with 12 specific people rather than as group of 12. Paul not only more plainly refers simply to the 12, but actually distinguishes between the 12 and the apostles.

The only way, therefore, you can argue that Paul's usage is anachronistic is to assume the speculative theory that Mark simply invented the Twelve himself and there was no such group prior to the authorship of his gospel. Thus, contrary to what you seem to indicate below, the anachronism theory rests entirely on a "massive retrojection" of the idea of the Twelve.

But you don't believe Judas killed himself. You don't believe there was a Judas at all. Do you?

No. An anachronism is the retrojection of a later idea into an earlier time. Later, they were well aware that Judas had been killed were already calling them "the eleven." Thus, a later Christian writer would tend to use later Christian terminology. But the irony here is that because you do not believe the story about Judas, you do not believe that Paul was aware of any defection from the twelve and thus your argument that there is an anachronism here is invalid. You are basing your argument on something you do not believe.

You are adopting it or you are not. It appears you are.

This is your case for the Twelve being a Markan invent? Yes there is history underlying Mark but maybe not this reference?

First, yes Mark does refer to "the twelve" within Mark 3:16-19.

Mark 3:16: "And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter)."

Second, the repetitiveness of the reference to twelve indicates that Mark actually is relying on a preexisting tradition here.

Third, Mark 3:16-19 is a list of disciples. Twelve of them.

Fourth, there are other indications of a tradition here.

The traditional character of the list of the Twelve which Mark has adopted at this point is indicated by its awkward introduction ("and he surnamed Simon Peter"), by the presence of unexplained descriptive names ("Peter," "Boanerges"), and by the identification of Judas Iscariot as the betrayer of Jesus. The absence of an explicit reference to Levi is striking because Mark reported his call to discipleship in Ch. 2:14. Lists of the Twelve circulated independently in the churches and dhow slight variations in the manuscript traditions.

William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, page 134.

Fifth, I find it notable -- as E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies point out, that "[t]he synoptics agree that there were twelve, although the significance of the number is never discussed." Studying the Synoptic Gospels, page 30. If Mark has invented this group out of whole clothe because of some special significance he attached to the number twelve, why does he not make any mention of it? Seems more likely that Mark is referring to a group that existed at one time but no longer did or had much influence.

In other words, the reference to the twelve is traditional material that Mark is working into his narrative. The case for him simply inventing them here is unduly speculative and contradicted by many factors.

Vorkosigan

I am sorry this point is not clear to you. It is not relevant whether I believe there was a Judas. What is relevant is that Christians believed that was so, and that it was history. If it was history, than at the time Paul refers to, there were not 12 apostles, but 11. as subsequent widespread correction of both that passage and the similar anachronism in Acts shows. The passage is an anachronism because it imports later understandinsg of history that clearly contradict history of the time, not because it contradicts mine.

Right. But the anachronism holds precisely because he refers to 12, not to 11. Had he referred to eleven, that would have been evidence for authenticity. Since he refers to a siutation which cannot by rights exist -- 12, not 11, disciples -- we have a clear anachronism.

No, Layman. I don't think you understand this at all. The reason it is an anachronism is because it refers to a situation which cannot exist at the time Paul was referring to, but existed only at a later time. At the time Paul alleges "the twelve" saw these events, there were only eleven apostles. That fact was understood by the dozens of later scribes, all pious Christians, who altered both 1 Cor and Acts. One does not need to be an agnostic on Jesus to see the problem here. Numerous Christian readers have.

That is not relevant. What's relevant is whether Paul's presentation of history is at odds with what everyone believes is history. Judging from the number of Christian scribes who altered 1 Cor, one would have to say that it is.

I don't believe in Regis Hastur or the Kadarin River. But I do believe that MZB's history of Darkover sometimes contradicts itself. Whether I subscribe to Paul's versions of events or the Church's or some other, it is clear that there is a contradiction.

Not the whole case. Mark invented quite a bit out of the OT. Here is a possible source. Certainly others are possible. After all, the twelve has all sorts of associations.

Hmmm...my translation doesn't have the second iteration of "twelve" there. As I recall there is a manuscript instability in 3:16 and "twelve" is not present in some manuscripts. For example, the NIV accepts 12 but the YLT does not, nor does the RSV or Darby.

Repetiveness is not a sign of anything except a writer's style. Mark has a well-known preference for repetition.

Naturally, since, well, he is inventing twelve. Again, does not mean anything.

Lane sounds like a follower of Gundry. Awkwardness is not a sign of anything except conservative exegete hopefulness. Lane's argument that the 12 are traditional may well be true -- but that doesn't mean they go back to Jesus. Don't confuse "tradition" with "Jesus." I doubt Jesus ever appointed 12 disciples or stood on a mountain to do so. According to Price, who sees OT construction here, the sequence of pericopes here is based on Exodus 18. I do not necessarily accept his insight, but it is notable that it is not difficult to find an OT precedent for Mark to file the serial numbers off and use.

Perhaps, for the 12 disappear. But if Mark is repeating tradition, surely the tradition offered a reason for the existence of 12, for such etiological myths are a staple of tradition. The lack of such a story indicates that the Twelve may well be Markan invention -- it is not really surprising that Sanders and Davies get the logic of "tradition" exactly backward. Note that Schmithals argued the name-list of the 12 was imported from elsewhere, so the "awkwardness" may reflect interpolation. There are many ways to view "awkwardness."

It is speculative, though not unduly so, and none of the "factors" you list bears on the issue.

BTW, I noticed in your Blog a cite of that sick hate organization, the American College of Pediatrics. I have opened a thread on it over in PA & SA.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Layman,


You may think you are being clear but, AFAIC, you have not been sufficiently so. I think I have finally figured out what you have been trying to say. You are claiming that whomever established the "pre-existing tradition" has left out the women and Paul is simply repeating it. Correct? We can't blame Paul for leaving them out, we have to blame the tradition creator(s).

The appearance to the women actually took place and the earliest retelling of the events omits that fact but it somehow crops back up later when a written narrative is finally created? Smells kinda ad hoc to me.

And the reason the earliest retelling of the events omits this fact is because an initial appearance to women would not have been considered credible?

Even though it was followed by presumably credible reports of male witnesses?

How did this allegedly unbelievable, unconvincing, and ignored part of the events survive to be told in the Gospel stories decades later?

The doubts aren't about the resurrection of Christ but about a subsequent general resurrection, aren't they?

Also, I don't think it is necessary to assume Paul "had" to remind them any more than a politician "has" to remind his audience what the 2nd Amendment states when he is giving a speech about gun control. It is a rhetorical device.

Last, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. If this passage is an interpolation, Paul offered no summary of Christian beliefs in his attempt to convince the Corinthians of a general resurrection.

Given that his audience was preaching Christ and did believe he was raised from the dead, the recitation of the tradition wasn't actually necessary. Removing the recitation as a suspected interpolation doesn't really harm Paul's argument.

I would think it is rather obvious. That the more credible explanation than your omitted/included initial appearance to women is that it is a fabrication created by the Gospel authors. Mark depicted the disciples as fleeing but he had to have somebody witness the location of the tomb in order to find it empty. Matthew didn't like the fearful women and felt compelled to have Jesus appear to tell them not to be afraid. The "tradition" of the initial appearance dates no earlier than the Gospels and that is why it is not included in the summary of beliefs in Paul's letter.

Notsri

Vorkosigan, it seems to me that Paul is using "the Twelve" as the group's official designation, not with a view to the number of it's members - a possibility I know you've already alluded to (but apparently dismissed). As I'm sure you know, this is the angle that has long been adopted by conservative scholarship; and for good reason, I think. That the appellative "the Twelve" was used in the early church is evidenced by all four Gospels as well as Acts (something which I think Layman has overlooked). Note Matt. 26:14,47; Mark 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:10,17,20,43; Luke 8:1; 9:1,12; 18:31; 22:3,47; Jn. 6:67,70,71; Acts 6:2; also Jn. 20:24, which is perhaps the most significant: at the time 20:24 reportedly took place, Judas had defected from the group, yet they're still called "the Twelve." In any event, there seems little reason to deny Paul from using the term in that same sense. And taken in that light, then, the passage is not anachronistic.

John Calvin had this interesting insight on the issue: Incidentally, the Centumviri actually comprised 105 members, three men from each of Rome's 35 so-called tribes. And to add to Calvin's Centumviri parallel, I would mention Genesis 42:13: "But they [Joseph's brothers] said [to Joseph], 'Your servants are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan; and behold, the youngest is with our father today, and one is no longer alive'." Cf. v. 32 there: "'We are twelve brothers, sons of our father; one is no longer alive, and the youngest is with our father today in the land of Canaan'." So, strictly speaking, the referents of "your servants" in v. 13 and the "we" of v. 32 were 10 in number, yet they called themselves 12. Also, to obviate any possible objection about the Twelve not having been retained as the name (contra Calvin), rather that they were dubbed "the Eleven" (so Layman, apparently), I would note that in each of the six NT verses where "the eleven" is found, it's used with a view to the specific number of disciples present at a given occasion, not as the group's denomination (e.g., Matt. 28:16: "Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them"; contrast this with, e.g., Matt. 26:14: "Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests.").

Regards,

Notsri

Peter Kirby

Random pop culture:

"She cut her way through 88 bodyguards."
"Nah, there wasn't really 88 of 'em. They just call themselves the Crazy 88."
"How come?"
"I don't know. I guess they thought it sounded cool."

best,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

I'm pretty sure this is the only Quentin Tarantino reference in the history of BC&H. :thumbs:

Steven Carr

So when Paul says Jesus appeared to 'The Twelve', he might only have been seen by one person?

Of course, in John, there is no report of Judas dying, so he is still alive in John 20:24, so there were still 12 disciples alive - an no appearance to the twelve (small t) of them.

In Acts 6, there are 12 disciples as one was voted. Were the Twelve ever called the Twelve in the NT, when less than 12 disicples lived?

Steven Carr

And also about what resurrected bodies are like. Astonishing that Christians who have been recently converted by convincing tales of disicples touching Jesus, seeing him eat, having Jesus declare that he had a body of flesh and bones, are ignorant as to what a resurrected body might possibly be.

I wonder how it had been proved to the Corinthians ,that after his death, Jesus became a life-giving spirit, and yet they were ignorant of the fact that resurrected bodies were made of flesh and bones.