ex-preacher

What, me, misunderstand Paul? How could anyone misunderstand Paul?

<strong> I will grant that this is the weakest of my claims. Still, there are significant discrepancies here between Paul's order of appearances and what the gospels say. Of course, the gospels themselves disagree about who saw Jesus when. Is it odd that Paul doesn't mention the first appearances to the women? I'm sure you have a good rationalization (I sure did when I preached on this).

<strong> Yes, I understand the symbolic importance of twelve. Nevertheless, the synoptics immediately began calling them "the eleven" as soon as Judas exited the stage. It is odd that in a passage purporting to provide evidence for the resurrection, Paul would use a symbolic "twelve" instead of a more literal number. Is it possible the others numbers and even names are also symbolic? Maybe it wasn't 500, just a roomful. You know how preachers tend to exagerate numbers. Maybe even the appearances themselves are symbolic. Or maybe the whole story about Jesus coming to earth was symbolic.

Pick your poison - Paul meant "twelve" literally and was wrong, or Paul meant "twelve" figuratively and may have meant others things in this passage figuratively as well (your imagination being the only hermeneutical limit).

Let's face it. Paul displayed virtually no awareness of anything in the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus. The standard Christian response is that Paul knew all about it, but so did his readers so he didn't bother. This doesn't explain why Paul would quote often from the OT (also known to his readers and available in written form at the local synagogue) but virtually never quoted Jesus (whose "biographies" had not yet been written).

The common sense understanding is that Paul had heard about the "twelve" but didn't know about the supposed death of Judas or the names of any "apostles" besides Peter/Cephas (assuming those are the same person). But who am I to let ol' common sense stand in the way of brilliant apologetics?

I'm fascinated by your choice of E.P. Sanders as a source. Do you agree with Sanders that the number 12 was not meant literally even in the gospels and that the reason the lists don't agree is because the membership fluctuated? Would you agree with some of EP Sanders' other assessments?


<strong> Actually, Paul disntiguishes himself from the others when he states that Christ appeared "to all the apostles, and last of all to me." I'll grant hat Paul considered himself an apostle and used that term quite loosely, but the other writers of the NT seemed to take the term and the number a bit more literally.

<strong> I think you need to go back and read Acts 1. The new apostle chosen was actually Matthias, not James. This is another passage where the list seems to be quite literal. Also, Acts 1 gives specific qualifications for an apostle. These would disqualify Paul and many others that Paul designates as "apostles."

<strong> Hmmmm. Does EP Sanders? Some trace the 500 to the imagination of Paul or a later redactor.

Matthew 28:16-17 reads "Then the eleven [how many? twelve? 500? 512?] disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted."

So, now "eleven" really means "500"? BTW, how many of the eleven [or 500 if you're right] doubted and how many believed?

Quick related question, how many people in the NT became believers without witnessing a miracle first-hand? Clue: It's less than 1. I guess people like Peter, the other eleven (or however many) and Paul just didn't have the kind of faith that today's believers have. But, then, we've got that perfect Bible!

MortalWombat

Another thing to keep in mind is that Paul uses the same verb "ophthe", meaning "appeared", for the appearances of Jesus to Cephas, the 12, the 500, James, then all the apostles, and then to himself. There is no distinction that these other guys saw Jesus in the flesh but Paul saw him in a vision. He uses the same verb, implying that they all saw him in a vision.

Vorkosigan

Hi Peter, I've read this three times now, sorry I couldn't comment sooner.

I don't like the format of questions at the end of the paragraphs. I think they should end with strong statements of confuting evidence or quotes. But that's a matter of taste and style, and no criticism.

Habermas claims (p. 34): "Even more persuasively, there is no known case of a mythical deity in the mystery religions where we have both clear and early evidence that a resurrection was taught prior to the late second century AD, obviously much later than the Christian message. Whether or not the mystery religions borrowed this aspect from Christianity is not the issue. Rather, it would appear fruitless to charge that the earliest believers were inspired by such later teachings." I don't know whether or not this claim has any truth to it. Perhaps one of the readers of this review could tell me?

Carrier cited a story from Herodotus
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html#10" target="_blank">here</a>:

• Then there is Herodotus, who was always a popular author and had been for centuries. He told of a Thracian religion that began with the physical resurrection of a man called Zalmoxis, who then started a cult in which it was taught that believers went to heaven when they died. We also know that circulating in the Middle East were very ancient legends regarding the resurrection of the goddess Inanna--also known as Ishtar--who was crucified in the underworld, then rescued and raised back to earth by her divine attendant, a tale recounted in a four thousand year old clay tablet from Sumeria.[38] Finally, Plutarch writes in the latter half of the 1st century how "Romeo-and-Juliet-style" returns from the dead were a popular theme in contemporary theatre, and we know from surviving summaries and fragments that they were also a feature in romance novels of that day. This trend is discussed at some length in G. W. Bowersock's book Fiction as History.[39]

Hope this helps. There are several other examples too.

Vorokosigan (Michael)

Ted Hoffman

sorry about that, wrong post.

And Oh, Peter Kirby, beautiful review. I must confess I found it quite long. But maybe thats because I am just lazy.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Vinnie

"""""What, me, misunderstand Paul? How could anyone misunderstand Paul?"""""

I hope that is a joke We are a long ways from the worldviews of the VARIOUS OT and NT authors. Its hard for us to look at spiritual realites in the same manner as them. Plus there are various views on Paul to the point where it can induce this <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Also,

"""I will grant that this is the weakest of my claims."""

I don't think "weak" is the adequate word to describe the claim that Paul did not think Peter was part of the twelve because of this verse:

"""and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve."""

How the conclusion that Paul viewed Peter as not part of the 12 is gleaned from that I know not.

You went on to talk about other discrepancies between the lists. There very well may be discrepancies. I won't dispute that. I wasn't commenting on them though. If you formulate a specific argument with verses and all I will offer a response if I know one. I don't see what purpose it will accomplish though.

""""Is it odd that Paul doesn't mention the first appearances to the women?"""""

I've heard some say its because of Paul's view (possibly the cultures as well) on women. A few verses earlier Paul is stating, as it is in all the congregations of the saints, women need to remain silent in churches.

"""""I'm sure you have a good rationalization (I sure did when I preached on this).""""""

What was your rationalization (force fitting of the data as you imply) and why is it invalid now?

""""Yes, I understand the symbolic importance of twelve. Nevertheless, the synoptics immediately began calling them "the eleven" as soon as Judas exited the stage.""""""

I think there were twelve but that later Christians didn’t know exactly who they were. It could be because membership fluctuated as well. If you look at Acts: 1:21 they chose someone who was with them the whole time. Jesus had more followers than twelve. He designated a special 12 which was symbolic of the tribes of Israel. So the twelve became the 11 at the end of the Gospels. The Gospels were also penned by non-eyewitnessed who probably hadd that tradition ingrained in them. When Paul refers to the twelve I think its because its meaning is symbolic and as Sanders argues, should not be mechanically applied. Jesus, I don’t think, just decided out of the blue to pick the number 12 for no reason at all or because 12 was his favorite number as blue was his favorite color. You aren't arguing that anyways though.

""""It is odd that in a passage purporting to provide evidence for the resurrection, Paul would use a symbolic "twelve" instead of a more literal number.""""

I don't find it odd that Paul didn't think to himself, "Hey, let me jump out of my culture and write this passage of this letter with the same standards and technical precision as people will come to expect from documents in the year 2002" and then follow up on it. Just a few verses before before Paul lists "the twelve" he uses what I have read is a contemporary Jewish idiom: "that he was raised on the third day." I do not find it odd that Paul did not list time in a more precise manner but expressed himself consistently in light of his cultural milieu. He also mentions in v. 6 that some have "fallen asleep" which the NIV Study notes say is a common expression OF THE TIME that expresses physical death. Paul was not a contemporary writer and should not be held to such standards in this manner.

"""Is it possible the others numbers and even names are also symbolic?""""

Numbers often times in many places are highly symbolic all throughout the whole Bible. Just look at GMatt. What do you mean by names being symbolic? And yes I’d say its “possible.”

"""""Maybe it wasn't 500, just a roomful.""""

Well, I won't dispute that. The text says more than 500 but regardless, I do not think it is impossible for the number "more than 500" to have been exaggerated but you seem to have decelerated into posting vacuous "what if" questions. Paul did add "most of whom are still living" to it.

""""Maybe even the appearances themselves are symbolic. Or maybe the whole story about Jesus coming to earth was symbolic.""""

Maybe. Now if only you could substantiate that. Viewing "the 12" as symbolic of the tribes of Israel is not done without good reason. Can you provide good reasons that suggest the whole story about Jesus coming to earth is symbolic? Can you then show how your view has priority over other views?

"""Pick your poison - Paul meant "twelve" literally and was wrong, or Paul meant "twelve" figuratively and may have meant others things in this passage figuratively as well (your imagination being the only hermeneutical limit)."""

There is good reason to view "the twelve" as symbolic of the tribes of Israel. Paul may have meant things figuratively. There is potential for any passage to be erroneous or figurative without any prior knowledge. That does not mean we throw our hands up and dismiss the whole thing. Ancient writers used a different standard than we do. I honestly don't know what you are trying to say. We can't invoke "the passage is figurative" wherever we feel like it." If the internal or if external evidence bears it out we accept it. Every "what if" can be countered with another "what if." We won’t actually go anwhere though.

"""""Let's face it. Paul displayed virtually no awareness of anything in the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus. The standard Christian response is that Paul knew all about it, but so did his readers so he didn't bother. This doesn't explain why Paul would quote often from the OT (also known to his readers and available in written form at the local synagogue) but virtually never quoted Jesus whose "biographies" had not yet been written).""""""

I am glad you quoted the word “biographies” because the Gospels are certainly not biographies. And I find your use of “life” a little far fetched. You should probably limit this claim to solely the ministry aspect of Jesus’ life. The Gospels themselves do not tell us very many details about Jesus life (outside of aspects of his ministry). So faulting Paul or claiming he knew nothing of a historical Jesus because he did not tell us about Jesus’ childhood, or family or this or that (in letters never intended to do anything close to that to begin with) is ridiculous. The Gospels do not even do that! They are not biographies by any means in the modern sense and the majority of them covers but a brief period of Jesus’ life. How many of those who followed Jesus knew him most of his life? “In his hoetown a phrophet has no honor” or something like that. I do think it is probable that some knowledge of his childhood was passed around here and there by a few but I don’t think a silence concerning it should raise any eyebrows and there are some small details about Jesus’ life outside his ministry in the Gospels. Plus the most important details about Jesus seem to have occurred later in his life.

I think the "standard Christian response" has merit in some regards but doesn't explain it completely. "A few quotes where the "standard Christian response" is in action:

So we have to take into account the idea of background knowledge, the knowledge of the intended audience and that a failure to write does not mean a failure to know.

We should also note that a number of scholars do not recognize II Thess, Col, Eph, and the Pastoral Letters ( I and II Tim and Titus) as Pauline. They term them “dueteroPauline” and think that they were composed after Paul’s death from 70 to 100 (or even later). The amount of actual Pauline literature may be limited some in this regard but I think this is a minor point though even if true.

Paul attributes a saying to Jesus not found in the Gospels IIRC. There could very well be allusions to sayings that we miss because they are not in the Gospels. The audience Paul was writing to may have understood some of these allusions. Yes I am speculating but a negative argument from silence about what Paul did not write is inherently speculative to begin with. Though arguments from science can work and Peter Kirby explains why in one of the links he lists above.

Paul certainly didn’t indulge in a slavish repition of traditional sayings attributed to Jesus but I find there to many instances throughout his works where his written words echoe things found in the Gospels. I honestly think that a failure to understand what the Gospel actually meant to Paul is where the problem of “Paul’s Silence” comes from. I think that some modern Christians miss what the Gospel was to Paul. It was not an order of salvation (e.g. saying the sinners prayer or following the four spiritual laws). As N.T. Wright puts it in ‘What St Paul Really said, “the “gospel” itself, strictly speaking, is a narrative proclamation of king Jesus “ p 45.

How exactly do you see Paul? To me, as N.T. Wright put it (ibid, p 46), “It is an obvious truism to say that the cross stands at the heart of Paul’s whole theology.”

Anyways, here is NT Wright’s basic view of Paul and the context from which he wrote: (p. 180-181)

Paul built on a foundation, he was not laying a completely new one. Since Paul felt it was his vocation to announce the climax of Israel’s history in Jesus Christ and that would explain his appeals to the OT (which was not fixed absolutely at the time). Its also why early sermons in Acts probably appeal to the OT. Browse through the first through chapters of Acts using a New International Version and check all the indented lines. They are quotes from the OT. Paul seems to be somewhat consistent with this at least. Jesus was put in the context of Jewish salvation history. Some Christians and skeptics it seems, fail to recognize that.

“””The common sense understanding is that Paul had heard about the "twelve" but didn't know about the supposed death of Judas or the names of any "apostles" besides Peter/Cephas (assuming those are the same person). But who am I to let ol' common sense stand in the way of brilliant apologetics?””””

That is the common sense approach if you assume “Paul displayed virtually no awareness of anything in the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus.” But the explanation of “the twelve” I offered fits just as well with the data if not better. Looking at that passage alone will not tell us who is right. If your understanding of Paul is correct I think it is possible Paul could have just heard of “the twelve.” If you have a view on Paul like that of A.N. Wilson this is reasonable. But if your view lines up more with a view like N.T. Wright’s I think my explanation fits much better. The answer to this question lies in how one sees Paul. An exegesis of that passage alone will not give us a conclusive answer. Do you agree?

“””””I'm fascinated by your choice of E.P. Sanders as a source. Do you agree with Sanders that the number 12 was not meant literally even in the gospels and that the reason the lists don't agree is because the membership fluctuated? Would you agree with some of EP Sanders' other assessments?””””””

I generally agree. His explanation is plausible IMO. I expressed my views on this up above a little. Yes, I agree with some of the stuff in the Sander’s book. What does that matter and why is it fascinating?

“””Actually, Paul disntiguishes himself from the others when he states that Christ appeared "to all the apostles, and last of all to me." I'll grant hat Paul considered himself an apostle and used that term quite loosely, but the other writers of the NT seemed to take the term and the number a bit more literally.”””

Even if that were true, it wouldn’t really matter much IMO. I could search every use of the word apostle in the NT and read what all my Bible dictionaries and a few online say about the word but unless I am convinced there is a good reason to do so I am not going to.

“””I think you need to go back and read Acts 1. The new apostle chosen was actually Matthias, not James. This is another passage where the list seems to be quite literal. Also, Acts 1 gives specific qualifications for an apostle. These would disqualify Paul and many others that Paul designates as "apostles."””””

It would certainly disqualify Paul from being one of the the twelve. Anyways, if you look in Acts 1, Peter threw together two OT quotes to suggest they must replace Judas. The two Psalms were never intended to suggest Judas left a vacancy that needed to be filled. Peter obviously did not work under the same assumptions we do and I doubt the author of Acts did either. We view quotes like this as out of context and in some cases we might go as far as to say they are fabricating evidence or lying. This process was viewed differently back then, however. The Psalm passages do relate to the incident but they didn’t explicity state what Peter apparently suggested they did. So, I think you are still skewing the word “literal” but that is irrelevant here anyways. This was just an aside.

Anyways, you said “new apostle chosen was actually Matthias, not James.” I probably misunderstood your first objection to begin with but I honestly don’t see how that relates to what I said. What exactly was your initial argument here:

“"""They are some other discrepancies (such as Jesus appearing to James and appearing to 500), they do not necessarily contradict the gospels. """

I was pointing out that James is most likely Jesus’ brother here. I am not sure why I need to reread Acts 1 or what argument we are even discussing here.

“”””Hmmmm. Does EP Sanders? Some trace the 500 to the imagination of Paul or a later redactor.”””””””

EP mentions the account. He didn’t seem to argue against it (as if it wasn’t genuine) but he didn’t really jump into so I don’t want to put words in his mouth. He never mentioned where this account goes back to or comes from. Just that it was tradition I think according to Paul. He only referenced it in passing. And the only reason I can see why this might be attributed to a later author is an argument from silence based upon the Gospels lack of mentioning this incident. Am I correct or is the “500” not found in Codex Vaticanus or something like that?

“”””””So, now "eleven" really means "500"? BTW, how many of the eleven [or 500 if you're right] doubted and how many believed?”””””

I did not say the 11 is 500. Matth 28:10 says: Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

Then the verse you brought up mentions the 11 going. It is not conclusive that only the 11 went. Its clear to me that Jesus had many more followers. As you referenced Acts one, you know that there were others there with them since the beginning. They are not part of the twelve. The Gospels are not exhaustive and nor do they exactly report things.

I said it was not conclusive by the way, but that some trace the apparence back to this account. It is because of Matt 28:10 I believe that some think this. And given the nature of the Gospels I don't think its nearly as ridiculous as you seem to imply.

“””Quick related question, how many people in the NT became believers without witnessing a miracle first-hand? Clue: It's less than 1. I guess people like Peter, the other eleven (or however many) and Paul just didn't have the kind of faith that today's believers have. But, then, we've got that perfect Bible!””””

Are you suggesting that you actually believe Jesus walked on water, fed 5,000 literally with a few fish and the like? E.P. Sanders views Jesus as a miracle worker and as an exorcist. But Sanders limits miracles to usually faith induced stuff like healings. Things that modern day medical science would accept as plausible.
The Bible is not perfect and I doubt “the twelve” were as dumb as Mark portrays them. They don’t fare much better in the other two Synoptics either though. There was some truth behind it but Mark exaggerated. Also, Jesus proably had a lot more followers than just the specific names mentioned in the NT. I just read Sander’s chapter on miracles. It was interesting. Miracles were viewed in a totally different light back then and any discussion of them needs to take this into account. Miracles were common-place. Miracles did not necessarily prove in and of themselves who Jesus was. To those who knew him it demonstrated he was accredited by God or something like that but to those who doubted him, they attributed his miracles to Satan. Some also would have called him a magic worker and there are a few things Mark (which are dropped by Luke and Matthew who copied his work) that are close to what would be used of a magic worker then but its not conclusive (according to Sanders anyways if I remember correctly).

Goodness, this reply certainly got long.

Anyways, I’m following this up with a new post that quotes from F.F. bruce on Paul and his evidence concerning Jesus. Its actually a chpeter of the work (Don’t worry, its relatively small). I just don’t see the need to reiterate all the same points in other words. It is concise enough and if I am able to I will defend the evidence Bruce lists from critiques.

Vinnie

I edited this:

An exegesis of that passage alone will give us a conclusive answer.

to this:

An exegesis of that passage alone will not give us a conclusive answer.

I forgot the "not"

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]</p>

Vinnie

F. F. Bruce, 'The New Testament Documents. Are They Reliable?

All of Chapter 6 [actually I cut a little of the beginning out as it was not totally relevant]

The Importance of Paul's Evidence


Here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the information we can derive from his Epistles. These were not written to record the facts of the life and ministry of Jesus; they were addressed to Christians, who already knew the Gospel story. Yet in them we can find sufficient material to construct an outline of the early apostolic preaching about Jesus. While Paul insists on the divine pre-existence of Jesus (E.G., Col..1:15 ff.), yet he knows that He was none the less a real human being (Gal. 4:4), a descendent of Abraham ( Rom 9:5) and David (Rom. 1:3); who lived under the Jewish law (Gal 4:4); who was betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine (1 Cor. 11:23 ff.); who endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion (Phil. 2:8; 1 Cor 1:23), although the responsibility for His death is laid at the door of the representatives of the Jewish nation (Gal 3:12; 6:14 etc); who was buried, rose the third day, and was thereafter seen alive by many eyewitnesses on various occasions, including one occasion on which He was so seen by over five hundred at once, of whom the majority were alive nearly twenty-five years alter (1 Cor 15:4 ff.). In this summary of the evidence for the reality of Christ's resurrection, Paul shows a sound instinct for the necessity of marshalling personal testimony in support of what might well appear an incredible assertion.

Paul knows of the Lord's apostles (Gal 1:17 ff.), of whom Peter and John are mentioned by name as 'pillars' of the Jerusalem community (Gal 2:9), and of His brothers, of whom James is similarly mentioned (Gal. 1:19, 2:9). he knows that the Lord's brothers and apostles, including Peter, were married (1 Cor. 9:5)--an incindental agreement with the Gospel story of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law (Mark 1:30). He quotes sayings of Jesus on occasion--e.g., His teaching on marriage and divorce (1 Cor 7:10 f.), and on the right of the Gospel preachers to have their material needs supplied (1 Cor. 9:14; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Lk 10:7); and the words He used at the institution of the Lors's Supper.

Even when he does not quote the actual sayings of Jesus of Jesus, he shows throughout his works how well acquanted he was with them. In particular, we ought to compare the ethical section of the Epistle to the Romans (12:1 - 15:7), where Paul summarizes the practivcal implicationa of the gospel for the lives of believers, with the Sermon on the Mouint, to see how thouroughly imbued the Apostle was with the teaching of his Master. Besides, there and elsewhere Paul's chief argument in his ethical instruction is the example of Christ
Himself. And the character of Christ as understood by Paul is in perfect agreement with His character as portrayed in the Gospels. When Paul speaks of 'the meekness and gentleness of Christ' (2 Cor. 10:1), we remember our Lord's own words, "I am meek and lowly in heart' (Matt. 11:29). The self-denying Christ of the gospels is the one of whom Paul says, 'Even Christ pleased not himself' (Rom. 15:3); and just as the Christ of the Gospels called on His followers to deny themselves (Mark 8:34), so the apostle insists that, after the example of Christ Himself, it is our Christian duty 'to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves' (Rom 15:1). He who said : 'I am among you as the servant' (Luke 22:27), and performed the menial task of washing His disciples' feet (John 13:4 ff.), is He who, according to Paul, 'took the form of a slave' (Phil. 2:7). In a word, when Paul wishes to commend his readers all those moral graces which adorn the Christ of the Gospels he does so in language like this : 'Put on the Lord Jesus Christ' (Rom 13:14).

In short, the outline of the gospel story as we can trace it in the writings of Paul agrees with the outline which we find elsewhere in the New Testament, and in the four Gospels in particular. Paul himself is at pains to point out that the gospel which he preached was one and the same gospel as that preached by the other apsotles (1 Cor. 15:11)--a striking claim, considering that Paul was neither a companion of Christ in the days of His flesh nor of the original apostles, and that he vigorously asserts his complete independence of these.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

ilgwamh
later christians? how do you know what later christians did not know? how did you get this information?
Wild speculation. We are only told of the death of Judas.
Its evident that as much as Matthias had been with them all the time, he was not considered an apostle and had to be chosen. This obviously does not mean the number 12 was symbolic. It was a number for the 12 representatives of the "house of Israel". Representatives are not symbolic. If indeed the number was symbolic, then there would have been no need to choose someone to replace another: the number would have remained 12 irrespective of the physical number of the disciples.
Even today, when leaders move around, among their entourage, there are always hangers-on. Their presence can not be used to diminish the status of the "official" members of the entourage.
I believe that was the case with Jesus: he chose 12 disciples, but more than 12 followed them around.
My main contention here is that "representative" does not translate to "symbolic".

Unless, you find the whole story symbolic. Which is another issue altogether.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Vinnie

""later christians? how do you know what later christians did not know? how did you get this information?"""

Because the number of apostles listed in all the accounts doesn't add up. Traditionally, apologists posit that some of the aposltes went under two names. Is this "possible"? Yes. Do I subscribe to this view? Not really but I find it to be a minor point anyways.

"""Wild speculation. We are only told of the death of Judas.""""

Not really. Its based upon the idea of differing lists. Its not conclusive I admit that. But it is possible. Why is it no more possible than some or all of the twelve had various names?

When I use words like "it could be" or "I think" one should not construe my words as this certainly happened. The sense should be "this is a possible reconstruction based upon the accounts." And yes, its based upon the idea that the lists differ slightly. I think they add up to 14 names, not 12. Its an explanation of why the lists do not add up. It was not woven from whole cloth without any reason to do so.

E.P. Sanders says: The most probable explanation is that Jesus himself used the term symbolically., and that it was remembered as a symbolic number, even though the precise number of close disciples may have varied.

I have no problem with that depsite the 11 mentioned in the Gospels and the calling of a new apostle in Acts 1. But I think I actually would modify Sander's view a pinch or pose a similar alternative.

He posits that at one time there were more or less 12. If one wants to go the literal route there could have been strictly 12 and the number was symbolic as well. We lose one with Judas they add one in Acts. Later Paul references the twelve at a time when there were only 11. It could be because the tradition of "the twelve" had been ingrained by then. I would agree with Sander's here that Paul's use of the number need not mechanically applied. Why couldn't the Gospels refer to them as the 11 when Judas was not their and Paul not refer to them as "the twelve" when this meaning we would known by almost everyone back then? To suggest that an exegesis of this passage suggests Paul knew nothing of Judas' betrayal misses the mark. I posit, as I said early, that it is a possible view based upon this passage alone but there are other views as well (which I am highlighting). Personally, I think it can go the way Sanders has it or the way I modified it. Sander's view definately needs to address Acts 1.

Someone could say Paul's use was not technically correct till they are blue in the face but the point I find important here is "did Paul know anything about Judas (or a historical Jesus for that matter)". This passage does not consclusively say, "No", as ex-p suggested. I think its answer depends on how one views Paul.

"I believe that was the case with Jesus: he chose 12 disciples, but more than 12 followed them around. My main contention here is that "representative" does not translate to "symbolic"."

I have trouble seeing how Jesus would explicitly limit himself to just twelve special followers and say to the others, even though you are here with us everyday doing the same stuff, you are not special like these guys (who are portrayed basically as half-wits in Mark and they do not fare too much better in luke and Matthew." How would you respond to that?

That is why more of a symbolic use of the twelve appeals to me though I think Jesus had more or less 12 close followers. I think one could go wuith a strict 12 view and just not mechanically apply Paul's words as they came later after the idea could have been ingrained and the number is symbolic to begin with.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Ilgwamh,
You may eliminate the need to speculate excessively if you started quoting specific verses, not scholars who are also speculating.

ex-preacher

Dear ilgwamh (I love g----- with all my heart?),

I took you for an inerrantist evangelical and defender of Habermas. Obviously I was mistaken. My apologies. I'm still a bit confused. Do you believe that a resurrection did take place?