Notsri

Hey, Steven.



No, I don't think so. There are no other NT examples where "the Twelve" is used in connection with an individual alone. In fact, when the NT means to isolate one member of the group, if in connection to and with a view to "the Twelve," I believe it always uses the expression "one of the Twelve" (see Matt. 26:14,47; Jn. 6:71, etc.). Perhaps we might expect the same from Paul, if that's what he meant. On the other hand, Paul's apparent usage of "the Twelve" to officially designate the group itself, is consistent with the verses I mentioned in the last post. In all likelihood he's referring to the appearance to the group as recorded in John 20:19ff., etc., which, according to John, included only ten (Thomas being absent, along with Judas, of course). Incidentally, I realize now that if Mark is referring to the same appearance in Mark 16:14, then he does appear to designate the group as "the Eleven," which would of course confirm what Layman had suggested, despite my earlier criticism. But then, v. 14 occurs in the longer, probably inauthentic ending. So it wouldn't seem to unsettle my argument. In fact, neither would it harm his argument, I think: if Mark 16:14 is from a later hand, then, as Layman argued, we might find a later hand making similar changes in expression to 1 Corinth. 15:5 as well, assuming certain scribes were uncomfortable with Paul's phraseology in that verse (which is actually what occurred, apparently; Vorkosigan's quote from Metzger's Textual Commentary illustrates that well). So then allow me to retract the implied (if not explicit) criticism earlier of Layman's argument. Anyway, coming back to the issue of who Paul was referring to by "the Twelve." Henry Alford says the following in his Alford's Greek New Testament: an Exegetical and Critical Commentary: According to Luke 24:34, Jesus had appeared to Simon Peter evidently prior to his appearance to the others; and his appearance to the others - the Twelve - occurred subsequently, in vv. 36ff. Paul and Luke were apparently working with the same tradition, then.


But Judas was no longer part of the group, a fact John was well aware of (see 17:12). Strictly speaking, then, though the group now consisted of eleven, John retains the standard "the Twelve" in 20:24.


True, but the usage in 6:2 still seems denominative. If not, then we can scratch that verse from the list.


I don't believe so. But, as mentioned above, they were called the Twelve when there were less than 12 disciples in the group.

Regards,
Notsri

Vorkosigan

I'll get back to you later, Nostri!

Layman

I've already shown that it's not an anachronism. If the term the "eleven" were used, THAT would be the anachronism.

But since you don't believe in Judas, how can you say you know that the Christians of Paul's time believed in Judas? If, as you believe, the idea of Judas only rose later, then Paul is not anachronistic at all but quite accurate.

But it is only in later writings that we see anyone referring to the "Eleven." To use the "Eleven" might be anachronistic, but to refer to the 12 cannot be.

What existed at a later time? The belief that Judas did not sell out Jesus and kill himself? Please be specific because you are not making any sense at all. We KNOW later Christians referred to the "Eleven" exactly because of the Judas story. But Paul does not. He refers to the "Twelve." Either he does not know about Judas (which would seem to fit your understanding that Judas was a later development) or he is treating the "Twelve" as an institution rather than twelve individual guys. It is only in the later gospels of Matthew and Luke that the "eleven" are bandied about. Even in the early part of Acts they are the "twelve".

Actually, its not at odds with what you believe is history: the legend of Judas.

And why would a Christian scribe refer to the "Twelve" when he darn well new there were only eleven at the time? That's exactly why your point proves the opposite of what you think. A later Christian scribe -- no doubt aware of Matthew (and perhaps Luke) is much more likely to read back in the "Eleven" than he is the "Twelve."

A contradition is not an anachronism.

I don't buy the simplistic argument that Mark invented what can be compared to the OT (and just where is the OT passage that says the messiah must have twelve disciples?). Among other flaws, it ignores the fact that Jesus as a religious leader would also be thinking and acting in OT terms. The OT is just as likely to have given Jesus a motive to have a circule of 12 disciples at it is to give Mark a reason to make them up when if they were nowhere to be found in earlier tradition.

It's in all the manuscripts as I understand it. Further, the Editorial Committee of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, as represented by Bruce M. Metzger, keeps it in because, "the clause seems to be needed in order to pick up the thread of ver. 14." A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, page 69.

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

I suppose you have examples of how Mark does this kind of repeating in other places?

You are missing the point. You said that the only evidence of the Twelve comes from redacted material. Mark 3:16 is preexisting material. That he lists twelve disciples by name is evidence that there was a group of twelve disciples prominent in Christianity prior to the composition of Mark’s gospel.

Doubtful. He wrote that commentary twenty years before Gundry’s commentary on Mark’s Apology for the Cross.

It certainly can be. Especially when combined with repetitiveness.

But here you are not dealing with the argument, just a generalized strawman. Why introduce the list by referring to “and he surnamed Simon Peter� unless you are trying to fit a preexisting tradition into your narrative? Why use descriptive names without any explanation to the audience as to their meaning? They are downright cryptic in the context.

I don’t have to prove it came from Jesus to refute your notion that it’s a free creation of Mark.

The “reason for the existence of the 12" is historical. This is why Acts has the “Twelve� active early in Acts, even having them pick a new member by lottery to bring them back up to “Twelve.� Later? They’ve faded away, though not all their members did. The trajectory is clear. The Twelve were important in the early years of Christianity as an institution. But that institution faded in significance and later Christians began to focus on the “Twelve� as individuals rather than an institution. 1 Cor. 15:3-11 is entirely consistent with that trajectory. It does not fit as well with a later Christian scribe who knew his resurrection from the accounts in Matthew and Luke and would have referred to the “Eleven� rather than the “Twelve.� Now that would have been anachronistic.

Vorkosigan

Hey....since we last danced, my position has moved closer to yours. So hold off your snappy reply until you've absorbed my whole position.

LOL. Do you know how many passages associate "12" with a leader? The problem is not finding possible origins -- there are a zillion. The problem is pinning down which one.

In any case that is, as I have pointed out, absurd on its face, because it requires the cooperation of others in acting out these dramas. Do you think that he got the Roman soldiers to gamble for his clothing on the cross? Why is it that everyone begs Jesus to help him in a stereotyped, formulaic way -- just by coincidence, right out of the OT? Why do they never demand, threaten, bargain, offer cash or sex, or anything else we observe among humans addressing miracle workers today? Etc.

Quite true. Unfortunately, Occam tells us that the more likely explanation is that Mark made them up.

Layman, F. Neirynck has written an entire book, Duality, on this topic. Doubling is one of Mark's most characteristic features. Everyone who has ever written on the Gospel mentions it.

Prove it. In reality, the nickname "Rock" is part of the writer's larger program of denigrating the disciples, Layman. Are you familiar with Mary Ann Tolbert's analysis of the typology of characters in Mark? In there, the Parable of the Sower functions as a synopsis that tells us how the characters in the Gospel are to be treated. The rocky ground -- note the "rock" there -- is the disciples. In the end, the disciple named "Rock" collapses.....

In any case, Mark 3:16 is certainly Markan redaction, for it contains no words of Jesus, and is narrative description typical of the writer.

Quite true. In fact, when I went over Mark and realized that Mark knows Paul's letters, especially 1 Cor 15 really, really well, I began to doubt that
the passage under dispute is an interpolation. So the real irony of this argument is that I made you read all the way to here just to find out that I am doubting my former position.... Sorry!

....the reason is that the simplest and most reasonable explanation for the Twelve is that Mark got it from 1 Cor 15, which he obviously knows very well. Thus I am compelled to think my position on the interpolation is wrong.

They are, because you read the Gospel literally. But Mark is an example of what was common in antiquity, using narrative to teach. See the reference to Tolbert earlier in the post. There's nothing cryptic about them once you understand why Simon is Peter.

The problem is that you haven't demonstrated Mark created it. It's in what is clearly Markan redaction. But I agree, however, that "12" pre-exists Mark

Maybe. But I doubt it. Mark got it from Paul, but how Paul got it, I am agnostic.

Perhaps they faded because they never existed. The writer of Acts had no idea how to treat the institution that supposedly existed in the fabled days of early Christianity, but of which there was no inkling in his own time.

I guess I have to go with all the scribes who changed it, because they, like me, knew it wasn't right.

But that's all by the board. I think Mark's copy of 1 Cor had this passage in it, or something very like it, and that's where he got the twelve from. How Paul got it, I am agnostic.

If you want to understand one powerful reason why I think the writer of Mark knew Paul extremely well, see

Mark knew Paul: Here's the DNA. I can write that up more formally for your blog if you find it interesting.

Vorkosigan