TedM

It is reasonable to assume that Jesus chose 12 disciples as a way of representing the 12 tribes. However, if the gospels were allegories, why didn't the writer play that up? Why didn't any of them tell us that each person was from a different tribe? Why in fact would he have had brothers for disciples (James and John, Peter and Andrew), which we can assume were from the SAME tribe--which guaranteed that not all 12 tribes were really represented?

Is this an argument tipped in favor of history over allegory/fiction?

stephan huller

Celsus says there were 10 disciples originally. I think he was right.

ph2ter

12 tribes originated from 12 brothers, sons of Jacob. They were brothers, so it is nothing unusual when the gospel writer chose brothers for 12 disciples. They were meant to be witnesses to the tribes, not necessarily that each be from one of the 12 tribes.
In the epistle of Barnabas it is said:
"Understand how he speaks to you simply. The calf is Jesus; the sinful men who make the offering are those who offered him up for slaughter. Then they are no longer men and the glory of sinners is no more. The children who sprinkle are those who proclaimed to us the forgiveness of sins and the purification of our hearts. To them he has given the authority to preach the gospel.
There are twelve of them as a witness to the tribes, for there were twelves tribes in Israel."

Toto

Nope.

Whether Jesus chose twelve actual men, or the NT writers imagined twelve disciples, 12 is a magic number. (Not all of the information at that link may be accurate, but the essential idea is correct, I believe.)

The twelve tribes if Israel and the 12 sons of Jacob, the 12 signs of the Zodiac, and various other 12's may be related in some way; if any of them are historical, it would be a coincidence.

mountainman

Is it reasonable to assume that Bilbo Baggins chose the members of "The Fellowship of the Ring"? Or that Harry Potter chose the principal and staff of Hogwarts?


Because they were from one brand new tribe, one which was the youngest and the oldest nation on the planet at the time - the "tribe" or the "nation" of Christians.


Surely you must be joking Ted. We do not know when the new testament was authored. We do not know the century in which the books of the new testament canon were authored. Some people suspect the late 2nd century, but there is really no guarantee --- its just a guess.

However if the books of the canonical new testament were authored after the later 3rd century, then the unscrupulous authors may have made use of the fact that one of the most reputable of wise and holy men, sponsored by the Roman Emperor in the later 3rd century, had twelve disciples. See The Twelve Apostles of Plotinus

judge

Maybe not. It might be reasonable to consider that 12 was a number that had some "meaning" or connotation to it. Before there were 12 tribes there were twelve months, as an example (in some calendars anyway) :devil1:.

archibald

Personally, I have tended to think of the number as being the one settled on by the orthodox church rather than being historically accurate. It seems a bit 'tidy'. :]

More interesting is to compare what numbers were used when. And I admit, I get confused when thinking about this, because there doesn't seem to be a shortage of scenarios to explain any permutation. I tend to think of it (comparing numbers in various texts and versions) as a possible indicator, but not a strong one on its own.

Maybe there is a point that if the gospels were total allegory, the writer might have (if he had the 12 tribes in mind, which I'm not sure isn't a later suggestion rather than something said in the text?) picked someone from each tribe, He might have, but again, I'm not sure if the fact that he didn't would give a strong suggestion of anything.

I'm speculating.

steve_bnk

According to my Oxford Bible Commentary, the 12 disciples would certainly have been seen to represent the 12 tribes.

If it happned in reality, JC parading into Jerudsalem with 12 disciples in tow would have been clear, and a nit blashemous.

Solo

Mark created the Twelve as a gnostic cipher, a corporate witness of Christ's rule in Israel. They were not apostles or disciples but shadowy beings representing the twelve tribes 'sent out' to testify about Jesus. In the gospel design, only Judas Iscariot was incarnated to 'deliver up' Jesus as foretold, thus dividing the house of Israel. Peter and the Zebedees were not part of the Twelve.

The Twelve were 'appointed' (3:14), meaning, they knew the Christ' nature of Jesus and executed divine will. They did not have to be on the Mountain where he transfigured as the risen Lord. Like the demons, but unlike the disciples, the Twelve and the mystical, third, unnamed plurality I call 'Corpus Christi' ('those around Jesus with the Twelve when he was alone' 4:10) 'knew' Jesus as Messiah.

Matthew rewrote Mark and created the twelve disciples to deny extra-temporal access to Christ. In his redaction (the) Twelve became the 'twelve disciples' with exclusive access to Jesus as his apostles. Mark's text was subsequently assimilated to Matthew.

Best,
Jiri

archibald

'I' was wondering, if 'putting' 'things' in 'inverted commas' could be 'used' as 'evidence' that the 'writer' was 'only' 'doing' 'gnostic ciphers'.

'Those' who 'used' the text 'not long after', did not 'seem' to 'think' he was.