1997 - john p. meier - the circle of the twelve. did it exist during jesus’ public ministry

8/13/2019 1997 - John P. Meier - The Circle of the Twelve. Did It Exist during Jesus Public Ministry

1/38

J B L 6 4 1997) 635-672

TH E CIRCLE OF TH E TWELVE:D ID IT EXIST DURING

JESUS' PUBLIC MINISTRY?

J O H N P M E I E R

Catholic University, Washington,DC 20064

In present-day deb ates about th e historical Jesus (d ub bed by som e "thethird qu es tn) ,l cholars have argued repeatedly and at length over a small groupof central questions: for example, who Jesus thought h e was, how we shouldclassify him according to religious types, and w hat sort of eschatology h e pro -claim ed. Yet oth er key questions that have a notable impact o n how we dec ideth ese cen tral ones have received only scant attention .

O ne such qu estion is the existence of th e circle of the Twelve during Jesus'pub lic m inistry. If such a circle did exist, it would in dicate a great deal a bou tJesus' view of his mission and of his eschatological hope for the restoration ofIsrael. H en ce , it is not surprising tha t scholars likeE. P. Sanders, who sees Jesusvery much in terms of an eschatological prophet concerned with restorationeschatology, argu e for t he existence of the Twelve.? Correspondingly, scholarswh o think of Jesus in terms of a wand ering Cynic philosopher espou sing a first-cen tury version of egalitarianism and feminism t en d to den y the existence ofth e circle of the Twelve during Jesus' lifetime.3

1 Two helpful reviews of the literature, the first favorable to the Jesus Seminar, the secondunfavorable, can b e fo und in Marcus J. Borg, Je,sus in C ontem pora nj Scholamhip (Valley Forg e,PA: Trinity Press In terna tiona l, 1994 ); and Ben W itherington 111, The Jesus Quest (D ow ne rsGrove, IL: Inte rVa rsiq, 19 95). For a large collection of articles on the subject, see Studying theHistoricnlJesu.s: E cnlttations of the State of Cu rre nt Research (ed . Bruce D . Chilton and Craig A.Evans; N?TS 19; Leid en: Brill, 1994).An updated anno tated bibliography can be f ound in CraigA.Evans, Lfe ofJestts Research (NTTS 24; rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1996) .

W E . Sanders,Jesu.s an d Judai.sm (Ph iladelphia: Fort ress, 1985 ) 61-119, esp. 9&106; idem ,The Historical Figure ofJesus (Lon don: Penguin, 19 93) 169-95.

Fo r Jesus understo od in term s of "Jewish and rural Cynicism," see John Dom inic Crossan,The Historical Jestts: The Lfe of a Mediterranean ]ewi.sh Peasant (San Francisco: H arp er, 19 91)72-90, 338 -41. Fo r Crossan's denial of the existence of the Twelve durin g Jesus' lifetime, see hisWho KilledJesu.~:~San Francisco: Harpe r, 1995) 75. For a critique of the Cln ic interpretation ofJesus, see Paul Rho des E ddy, "Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on th e Cynic Jesus Thesis,"]BL 115( 19 96 ) 4 4 9 4 9 .


2/38

636 Journal of Biblical iterature

What is noteworthy is that most of the scholars who take the latter posi-tion, including tho se associated with th e Jesus Seminar, tend eith er to pass over

th e Twelve in silence or to dismiss summ arily with a few sentenc es th e group'sexistence during Jesus' ministry. In a sense, there is nothing new he re. F romth e beg inn ing o f th e twen t ie th cen tu ry, a num ber o f p rom inen t Germ anexegetes, notably Julius Wellhausen, R udolf B ultm ann , Philipp Vielhauer, Wal-ter Schm ithals, and Gi inte r Klein have taken t he negative position withoutthrashing out the arguments in great detail. Rarely, if ever, are the criteria ofhistoricity applied w ith rigor.

This article seeks to address this lack and to show in the process that themore probable opinion is that the circle of the Twelve did exist during Jesus'ministry. However, before t he case for this position can be argu ed, one m ustfirst clear u p th e confusion often enco unte red even in scholarly literature con-cern ing th ree distinct bu t partially overlapping terms: disciples, apostles, an dthe Twelve.*

I. Th e P roblem of Terminolog>i:Disciples, Apostles, and t he Twelve

1. Of th e t hre e te rm s, the m ost general is "disciple."5 If we sift th e tradi-

tions of the Gospels for material going back to the historical Jesus, it appearsthat a disciple was a person called directly by Jesus to follow him . This call ca m efrom Jesus' initiative alone. In this strict sense , discipleship m ean t followingJesus literally, physically. It therefo re involved leaving ho m e, family, an d w ork,an d exposing oneself to possible hardships a nd op position from othe rs, includ-ing one's own family. Clearly, not every ad he ren t of Jesus co unte d as a disciple.People who supported his movement but w ho apparently stayed in their hom esan d offered hospitality wh en h e visited-such as Mary, M artha, or Zacchaeus-

4 One finds this confusion even in scholars who elsewhere observe the proper &stinctions:e.g. , Crossan says that Mark criticizes the Tweloe Apo.rtles[emphasis mine] (W h o Killed Je,rus?18), although that set phrase-to say nothing of the later concept connected with the phrase-doesnot occur in Mark.

The statements made here about discipleship are commonplaces and need not be bela-bored. For standard treatments , see Martin Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma (BZNIY 34; Berlin:de Gruyter, 1968) The Charismatic Leader and His Fol1ower.r (New York: Crossroad, 1981);Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer (WUNT 2 7; Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1981) 408-98; Michael J.Wilkins, The Concept of Disciple in h fa tth ew ,~ ospelas Reflected in the Cse of the T e n nMathetes(NovTSup 59; Leiden: Brill, 1988); Ben Witherington 111 The Christology ofJesus (Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1990) 118-43; Joachim Gnilka, Jesus con hrazaret: Botschaft r~ ndGeschichte (HTKNTSup 3; Freiburg/BaseWienna: Herder, 1990) 16 693 ; Hans Weder, Disciple, Discipleship, A B D2.207-10; James D . G . Du nn ,]e su s Call to Di.rcipleship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1992); Stephen C. Barton, Discipleship a nd Fanlily Ties in Mark and M atthew (SNTSMS 80; Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Whitney Taylor Shiner, Follow Me Discip1e.s i nMarkan Rhetoric (SBLDS 145; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).


3/38

Meier: The Circle of the Twelrje

may have been devoted adherents of Jesus, but they were not in the strict sensedisciples.

2. Much more narrow in scope is the phrase the Twelve, which indicatesa special group of twelve men who were not only disciples of Jesus but alsoformed an inner circle around him.6 In employing this terminology, I imitatethe usage of Mark and John, who always speak of the Twelve absolutely (e.g.,

For basic orientation and further bibliography, seeJ. B. Lightfoot, The Name and Officeof an Apostle, inEpistle of S t. Paul to the G alatians (1865; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1957) 92-101; Julius Wellhausen ,Einleitung in den drei ersten Evangelien(Berlin: Reimer, 1905)

112; Julius Wagenm ann,Die Stellung des Apo.rteb Paultts neben den Zw ol fi n den ersten zweijahrhttnderten (BZNW 3; Giessen: Topelmann, 1926); Kirsopp Lake, The Twelve and the Apos-tles, in The Beginnings of C hristianity , Part I The Acts of the Apo stles, Volttme V(1933; reprint,Grand R apids: Baker, 1979) 37-59; Nils Alstrup Dahl,Das Volk Gotte,r(1941; reprint, Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963) 158-59; W erner Georg Kiimmel,Kirchenbegriff undGesc hicht~ rbet~ usstseinn der Urgemeinde und bei Jesus(SymBU Zurich: Niehans, 194 3) 3-7,3 0 3 2 ; Hans von Campenhausen, De r urchristliche Apostelbegriff,ST (1947) 96 1 3 0 ; RudolfBultmann,Theology of the New Testament(2 vols.; London: SCM , 1952) 1.37; Innozenz Dau -moser, Berufung und Emahlung bei den Synoptikern(Meisenheim am Clan: H ain, 1954) 74-82;Philipp Vielhauer, Gottesreich und M enschensohn in de r Verkundigung Jesu, inAufsatze zumNeuen Testament (TBii 31; Munich: Kaiser, 1965) 55-91; Gun ther Bornkamm ,Jesus of Nazareth(Ne w York: Ha rper Row, 1960) 150; Gun ter Klein,Die zwolfApostel: Ursprung und Gehalteiner ldee (FRL AN T 77; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1961); BCda Rigaux, Die 'Zwolfin Geschichte und Ke~ ygm a, nDer historische]esus und der keygmatische Christus (ed. HelmutRistow and Karl Matthiae; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962) 468-86; idem , The TwelveApostles, Concilium 34 (1968) 5-15; M. H . Shepherd, Jr ., Twelve, The ,IDB 4.719; Karl Hein-rich Rengstorf, d~jdeka,tc., TDNT 2.321-28; Jurge n Roloff,Apostolat-Verkiindigung-Kirche(Gutersloh: Mohn, 1965);Jean Giblet, Les Douze: Histoire et thiologie. inAux origines del'dglise (Rec hBib 7; Bruges: DesclCe, 1965) 51-64; Gottfried Schille,Die urchristliche Kolle-gialmission (ATAN T 48; Zurich/Stuttgart: Zwingli, 1967); Robert P. Meye,Jesus and the Twelve(Gran d Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968); Sean Freyne,The Tw elve: Disciples and Apostles(LondonISyd-

ney: Sheed Ward, 1968) ;Wa lter Schmithals,The Office of Apostle in the Early Ch urc h(Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 1969) 67-95,231-88; Karl Kertelge, Die Funktion der 'Zwolf imMarkusevangelium. TTZ 78 (1969) 193-206; Rudolf Schnackenb urg, Apostel vor und nebe nPaulus, inSchrifien zu m Neuen Testament(Munich: Kosel, 1971) 338-58; Gun ther Schmahl, DieBerufung der Zwolf im Markusevangelium,TTZ 81 (1972) 203-13; idem,Die Zwolfim Markus-euangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung(Trier Theologische Studien 30; Trier:Paulinus, 19 74); Klemens Stock,Boten aus dem Mit-lh m-S ein: Das Verhaltnis zwischen Jesus undden Zwolfnach Markus (AnBib 70; Rome: Biblical Institute P ress, 19 75);Wolfgang Trilling, ZurEntstehung des Zwolferkreises: Eine geschichtskritische Uberlegung, inDie Kirche des Anfangs(He inz Schurm ann Festsch rift; ed . Rudolf Schnackenburg, Josef Ernst, and Joachim W anke;Leipzig: St. Benno, 1977) 201-22; Ern est Best, Mark's Use of the Twelve ,ZNW 69 (1978) 1 1 3 5 ;Sanders,Jesus andlu daism , 98-106; Jacques Dup on t, Le nom d'Ap8tres: a-t-il CtC donnk auxDouze par JBsus? inEtudes sur les dvangiles synoptiques (ed . Frans Neirynck; 2 vols.; BETL 70;Leuven: Leuven University Pre ssP ee ters , 1985; original, 1956) 2.976-1018; Francis H . Agnew,The Origin of the NT Apostle-Concept:A Review of Research, ]BL 105 (1986) 75-96; W. Horbury,The Twelve and the Phylarchs,NTS 32 (1986) 503-27; Raymond E. Brown, The Twelve and the

Apostolate, N]BC, 1377-81 ($$13557);Raymond F. Collins, Twelve, The,ABD 6.670-71.


4/38

Journal of Biblical Literature

Mark 6:7; John 6:67). They never use phrases such as the twelve disciples orthe twelve apostles. '

It is in Matthew that we come across the phrase the twelve disciples(Matt 10:l; 11.1, possibly 20.17). The problem with the twelve disciples isthat it might be interpreted to meal1 that the group called the Twelve was coter-minous with the group called disciples. In fact, Matthew, unlike Mark, mayintend such an identification when he speaks of the twelve disciples 8 Need-less to say, the use of the Twelve as completely equivalent to the disciplesdoes not reflect the earliest strata of Gos~el raditions or the historical situation1of Jesus' ministry. For example, the toll collector Levi is called to be a disciple(Mark 2:13-15) but never appears in the list of the Twelve (Mark 3:16-19).

Likewise, John's model disciple whom Jesus lovedn-who most probably is anidealized presentation of some historical follower of Jesus in or around Jeru-salemg-does not seem to have belonged to the Twelve. Hence, in this suwey

Strictly speaking, this is also tr ue of Luke. who follows hiark in speaking of the Tw elve.''However, as we shall see below, Luke seems to ide nti 6 the Twelve with the apostles, though hedoes not use the twelve apostles as a fixed form ula.

W e y e claims that , in Mark's redactional \ iew, the Twelve and the disciples are cotermi-nous groups (Je . i .1~~ 110-15). Howev er, his thesis fails becau se ( 1) Le \l t he toll col-n thp T ~ e l o e ,lector is explicitly called by Jesus to discipleship (M ark 2:13-15) bu t is not n um ber ed am ong th eTwelve. and (2 )we a re told as early as 2 :l 3 (in the most probable interpretation of the Gr eek) thatth e disciples we re many-at a time when , of the Twelve, only Peter, Andrew , Jam es, and Joh nhave been m entioned: t he Twelve are not selected and nam ed until 3:13-19. Given this largercontext, when Mark says in 3:13 that Jesus himself summ oned whom he wished, and they went tohim, th e natural sense (especially after the sharp distinction b etw een Jesus' disciples and thelarge crowd in 3. 7) is that Jesus chose th e Twelve out of a larger group of disciples. Luke thusinterprets Mark correctly when h e rewrites M ark 3:13 in Luke 6 1 3 : And he [Jesus] called his dis-ciples, and chose from them hvelve. . ( 3 )On e might also note that, while t he rich ma n in Mark10:17-22 refus es Jesus' call to discipleship, M ark has no prob lem presen ting Jes us as earne stlycall ing some one outside th e Twelve to discipleship. Meye's con torted attemp ts (p p. 140-45,

157-39) to explain away the Le \i incid ent, the m any disciples in Mark 2 :15, and t he call of the richman fail to convince.

In contrast to Mark, a number of Matthean redactional traits suggest that Matthew doeseq uat e the Tw elve with the w hole group of disciples. (1 ) This is probably why M atthew th e Evan-gelist changes L e\i 's nam e t o M atthew (M att 9:9; contrast M ark 2:14), hat is, so that everyone whois called by Jesus to discipleship winds up in th e list of the Tw elve ( Ma tthewth e toll collector inMatt 10:3 ). (2 ) Thus, with no Le\ i as in M ark and no disciple whom Jesus lo v ed as in John, noindividual disciple is named or highlighted in Matthew who does not appear in his list of theTwelve. ( 3) By omitting any separate story of the selection of the Twelve (as found in Mark 3:13-19

Luk e 6:12-16), Matthew avoids having to prese nt Jesus calling the Twelve out of a larger gro up,presumably of disciples. Still, Matthew does retain Mark's story of the abo rted call of the rich m an:hence, the picture in Matthew is not absolutely clear. Perhaps one can say that Matthew presentsthe circle oTthe Twelve as de facto coterminous with th e circie of disciples: O n the w hole que stion,see Stock,Boten an.\ den . I f i t - lhin-Sein,199-203.

Fo r a defe nse of the position that so me historical figure stands behi nd John's disciplewhom Jesus loved, see Oscar Cul lma nn,Derjohnnneische Kreis (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1 975 )67-88; Raymond E Brown, The C om n~ un i t y f the Beloced Disc iple(N ew YorkIRamsey, NJ/


5/38

639eier: The Circle of the Twelue

of the data, I regularly avoid Matthew's the twelve disciples as op en to mis-understanding.

3 Even more doI avoid the traditional Christian phra se the twelve apos-tles, which is open to both conceptual and historical confusion.10 Durin g Jesus'pub lic ministry, apostle (Aramaic EEliah; Gree k 6noozoho~) as prob ably notused by him or his disciples as a fixed te rm for a particular group of his follow-ers. At most, an Aramaic word like ~ E l~ ?n ( m es se ng er s,envoys ) may havebee n used in an ad hoc sense when Jesus sent some disciples out on a tempo-rary mission. This is probablv th e sense of the word in its rare o ccurrences inMark a nd Matthew (Mark 6:30; Matt 10 :2). It is only when the Twelve returnfrom th e tem porary mission on which Jesus has se nt them that, for the on e timein his Gospel, Mark uses th e word: And th e apostles rejoined Jesus (6:30).11T h e sense of apostles her e is s imply those sent out on mission and nowreturn ing from that m ission. O nc e the mission is over, th e term disappearsfrom Mark. Similarly, th e only time M atthew uses th e term in his Gospel is atth e beginning of the missionary discourse, as Jesus prepares to sen d the Twelveout on t he ir limited m ission to Israel (10:2).12Thus, in bo th Gospels apostle is

Toro nto: Paulist, 197 9) 31-34; James H . Charlesworth,The Beloved Disciple: Whos e W itness Vali-

dates the Gospel ofl oh n? (Valley Fo rge , PA: Trinity Press International, 19 95) .1 Wh at follows is not intended t o be a complete survey of the use of apostle in the NT ; it

merely serves to explain whyI choose to speak of the Twelve and not of the twelve apostles.Defen ders of the position that, durin g his earthly ministry, Jesus did not give the Twelve th e titleapostles, unde rstood as a fx ed designation pro per to the m, include Dup ont, Le nom , 1017-18;

Roloff, Apostolat, 144 -45 ; Rigauw, Twelve Apostles, 8 Fo r the somewhat ambiguous position ofKarl Heinrich Renes torf. see his article avostelld.etc., TDhJT1.429.

l I n m y view, t h e ~ h r a s ewhom i e also named apostles, which some important manu-scripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Korideth i) read in Mark 3:14 after and he app oin ted twelve, is notoriginal; rather, it represents a harmonization with Luke 6 1 3 , where the dispu ted phrase is foundword for word (apart from 3 1 4 , the verb for n a m ed [ovo pa(o] never occurs in Mark, while Luke

uses it thre e times in his two volum es). This harmon ization, highlighted by the awkward position ofth e ~ h r a s en Mark 3:14, is hardly surprising since the Greek manuscript tradition evinces variousattempts to harmonize Mark's story of the selection of the Twelve with Matt 1 0 : 1 4 and Luk e612-16. Here I agree w ith Vincent Taylor (T he Gospel according to St. M ark [2d ed.; London:Macmillan, 19661 230), M eye(lesus and the Twelve,190 ), Rudolf Pesch (Das ~farkusecangelitcm[2 vols. ; HTKN T 2; Freiburg/BaseW ienna: Herder, 1976, 19771 1.203),and M oma D . Hooker(T he Gospel According to Saint Alark[Black NT Comm entary: Peabody,MA: Hendrickson, 19911110-11) an d disagree ui th Metzger(TCGNT[2d ed.], 69), who thinks tha t th e external evidence istoo strong to warrant t he d isputed phrase's omission. However, even he an d his com mittee adm itth e shaky status of the ph rase by putting it in brackets and assigning it aC rating, which indicatesthat th e committee composing the text of theUBSGNT had difficulty deciding which variant toplace in th e text. Th e position of Robert A. Guelich(Mark 1 4 : 2 6 [WB C 34A: Dallas: W ord , 19891154) is similar to th at of Metzger; definitely in favor of reading the dispute d phrase is Robert H .Gundry (Mark [Gran d Rapids: Eerd man s, 19931 164).

lT ur io us ly , it is in M att 1 0 2 , and not in Luke's Gospel, that we find the extremely rare NTlocution, the twelve apostles. Th e viewpoint of the late-first-century chu rch may be reflectedever so fleetingly here.


6/38


purely an ad hoc term indicating a temporary function that the Twelve dis-charge; they are apostles only when actually out on mission.

It was in the early church that apostle was first used as a set designationfor a specific group-though different authors used the designation in differentways. What is beyond doubt is that in the first Christian decades apostle had arange of meanings that extended far beyond the Twelve. The pre-Pauline creedthat Paul quotes in 1 Cor 15:3-7 creates a list of various persons who experi-enced appearances of the risen Jesus: Cephas, then the Twelve, then morethan five hundred brothers . . then James, then all the apostlesn--all the apos-tles being obviously a wider category than the Twelve.

This was the mode of speaking of the primitive pre-Pauline church, andbasically Paul adopted it as his own.13 Though clearly not one of the Twelve,Paul fiercely vindicated his right to the title apostle (e.g., Gal 1:1, 17; 2:8; 1 Cor9:l-2; 15:9; 2 Cor 1 :l ; 11:5; 12:ll-12; Rom 1:1, 5) . Ironically, it is uncertainwhether Paul considered all the Twelve to be apostles.14 He explicitly attributesapostleship to only one member of the Twelve, Peter (Gal 1:17-19; 2:8),though, in the context of Gal 2:l-10, John (the son of Zebedee) may also beunderstood to be one. Paul may also have considered James the brother ofJesus an apostle, but the key text (Gal 1:19) s ambiguous.lj Two people who are

' here is no nee d to engag e in highly speculative theories about th e Christian ter m apos-tle arising eith er from th e rabbinic institution of theSEliah (a legal agent sent o ut on a mission withth e full authority of the sender)-an institution not docume nted before the time of Jesus--o r fromsupp osed gnostic apostles in Syria (a scholarly construct of Schm ithals that is not w itnessed in th eearly first century C E ) . Th e general O T conce pt of God sending certain messengers (especially th eprophets) to Israel with authority, Jesus' sending of his disciples (especially the Twelve) on a lim-ited mission to Israel during his public ministry, and the experience of appearances of the risenJesus by the disciples (however one evaluates such claims) form a much more intelligible back-grou nd a nd catalyst for the apostolate in the first days o ft h e early churc h. Contrary to th e theory of

Klein. Paul the a ~ o s t l e id not invent the concewt or institution of the awostolate: he found theapostolate p resent in the early churc h and sought to claim the sa me status for himself (se e, e.g., Gal1:17-19: 28;1 Cor 9:1-6: 15:7-9).On ll this, see Brow n, Twelve and the Apostolate, 1380-81.

l Fo r the opinion (contrary o that of Klein or Schmithals) that th e Twelve did cou nt as apos-tles in t he earliest days of the ch urch, see Roloff,Apostolat 57-60; Brown, Twelve and the Apos-tolate, 1381. An initial methodological proble m is hidde n in the word count -~n whose eyes?Ano ther prob lem, more properly exegetical, is that th e key text in1 Cor 15:3-8 is open to mo rethan one interpretation: 1) On th e one hand , all the apostles in v. 7, Paul's self-designation asthe least of th e apostles in v. 9, and his claim that he has labored more than all of them in v. 10

are taken by som e to mean th at Paul unde rstands th e Twelve in v.5 to be apostles.(2 )On the otherhan d, since th e five hu nd red brethren in v. 6 probably d id not all coun t in Paul's eyes as apostles,at least som e persons o r groups in th e list were not automatically regarded as apostles simplybecause thev witnessed a resurrection am ea ran ce . How. then. can we b e sure that th e Twelvecoun ted as apostles simply because they are in the listas witnesses of the res urrection ?

l 5 Gal 1:19 may b e read eithe r as I did not see any other of the apostles except[ ~ ii] Jamesor as I did not see any other of th e apostles, but ~ i (I &d see) James. On this seeMax Zer-wick, Graecitas Biblica (5th ed .: Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1966 ) 158( 470).


7/38

641eier: The Circle of the Twelzje

not members of the Twelve are mentioned by Paul as being eminent apostlesand Christ ians before P aul became one: a man nam ed Andronicus and a

wom an nam ed Junia (Ro m 16:7).16 Paul a lso knows of apost les of thechurches, possibly envoys or missionaries sent out by local churches for partic-ular tasks 2 Cor 8 23 ; Phil 2:25).1'

The close connection, if not total identification, between the Twelve andthe apostles in later Christian thought is due mainly to the theology of Luke. InLuke's version of Jesus' selection of the Twelve (Luke 6:13), Jesus summonedhis disciples [the larger group], andfrom them he chose twelve,whom he alsonamed apostles. While this text does not prove that Luke thought tha t only theTwelve were apostles, the title apostle obviously does not extend indiscrimi-nately to all of Jesus' disciples and is attached in a special way to the Twelve.lRIn the story of the mission of the Twelve, Luke in troduces t he missionary dis-course by stating that Jesus called together the Twelve (9 :l );when these samepeople come back to Jesus to report on their mission, Luke says that the apos-tles returned (9:lO).At the beginning of Acts, Luke stresses the need to fill theposition in the Twelve vacated by the apostate Judas (Acts 1:12-26). M atthias isthen chosen by lot to take up the apostolate (&rcoo.roh.il) bandoned by Judas,and so he is num bered with theeleven apostles. That Matthias was already a

witness of both the public ministry of Jesus and of Jesus' resurrection (Acts

l6 See th e philological discussion by Josep h A. Fitzmy er,Romans (AB 33; New York: Doub le-day, 1992) 737-38. As James D . G. Dun n(Romans[2 vols.; WB C 38 a nd 38A; Dallas: W ord, 198812 .8 9 4 9 5 ) and many othe r recent commentators point out, (1) he G reek 'Iouvtciv in Rom 16:7 is tobe taken as a woman's name and (2 ) the clause oCi. r~v t


8/38

642 Journal of Biblical Literature

1:21-22) and yet did not possess apostleship (dtxoozohfi, v. 25) until he waschosen to be numbered with the eleven apostles (v. 26) argues for the view

that Luke makes the group called the Twelve and the group called the apostlescoterminous. l

Yet the matter is not absolutely clear. Contrary to the striking but excep-tional usage in Matt 1 :2 ( the twelve apostles ) and Rev 21:14 ( the twelveapostles of the Lamb ), Luke-Acts never employs the set phrase the twelveapostles, which was to become a fixed formula in the later church. Moreover,while Luke's Gospel never clearly identifies anyone outside the Twelve as anapostle, Acts does depart from the customary Lukan way of speaking in Acts14:4 14, where Barnabas and Paul are called the apostles. Whether thisdivergence from ordinary Lukan usage is due to a source Luke is using,whether apostles carries here the special sense of Christian missionaries sentout on a temporary mission by the local church of Antioch, or whether Luke'sconcept of apostle is not so completely identified with the Twelve as many crit-ics claim is unclear.20 Suffice it to say that Luke is the NT author who most con-sistently uses the labels the Twelve (o r the Eleven ) and the apostlesinterchangeably or in close association. He is thus the main NT catalyst for thelater Christian custom of speaking of the twelve apostles.

From this quick survey, one can appreciate the varied and sometimes con-fusing uses of Twelve, disciples, and apostles in the KT. To avoid this ter-minological confusion, in the following survey I will follow Mark and John inspeaking simply of the T ~ e l v e . ~ '

' W n t h e p as sa g e, se e G e r h a r d S c h n ei d e r,Die Aposte1ge.rchichte (2 vo ls .; HT KN T 5 ;FreiburglBaseW ienna: He rder , 1980, 1982) 1.212-32; onp. 222, Schneider asserts that, in Luke-Acts, the Tw elve and the apostles coincide; similarly, von Cam penh ausen , De r urchristliche Apos-telhegrif f, 104, 115. This, in fact, is th e major thesis of Klein inDie ;wo lfApostel, 202-16.

Schneider D ie Apostelgerchichte, 2.152, 15 9) thinks that the apostles in 14:14 stood inLuke's source and that Luke hi mse lfhas introduced it in 14:4; so also Ernst H aench en,Die Aportel-geschichte (MeyerK 3; 6th ed.: Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1968) 362 n. 5; Hans Conzel-mann, Acts of the Apo,rtles(H erm enei a; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987; Germ an original, 1963) 108,111; cf. Klein, Die zwolfApo.rte1,211-13. Possibly th e source used the term in th e sense of th eautho rized m essengers of the chur ch at Antioch. Schn eider speculates that Luke was willing to useth e title in Acts 14 in or der to creat e a parallel (w ith regard to preac hing the faith and w orking mir-acles) between Paul and Barnabas on the one hand and the twelve apostles on the ot her. Th eatt em pt to clairn that the apostles in 14 :4, 14 s not the original reading in th e Gree k text of Acts isa solution born o f desperation contra Kle in , pp . 212-13): codex ~ e z a es the only significant wit-ness to omit the apostles in v. 14. In The Apostles According to Luke, chap. 8 of he rHummnAgent.r of Co sn ~i c ower in Hellenirtic]udaism and the Synoptic Tradition(JSNT Sup 41; Sheffield:JSO T Press, 1990) 109-23, MaryE . Mills appare ntly thinks th at, in Acts, Luke pr esents Paul as anapostle parallel to the apostle Pe ter . This identification seems to stem from he r emphasis on L uke'sview of the apostles as disciples who, in Acts, perfo nn wonders in the n ame of, and by the pow er ofthe narne of, Jesus. H er treatme nt does not dstinguish carefully enough among various ten ns likedisciples, apostles, and th e Tw elve.

Th e indepen den t agreement of Mark and John in speaking simply of the Twelve indi-


9/38

Meier: The Circleof the Twelce

11.The Existence of the Twelve during Jesus' Ministry

Th at I should have to argue that there was a special group of twelve follow-ers around Jesus du ring his public ministry may strike some readers as strange.Yet, as I me ntioned above, a num ber of distinguished critics througho ut t hetwentieth century have considered it probable o r certain that the g roup calledthe Twelve actually arose in the early church and was later retro jected into theministry of Je~us .~ en ce, there is a need to apply the criteria of historicity tothe NT data to ascertain w hether the Twelve existed as a group during Jesus'lifetime.

A. In the first place, the existence of the Twelve during Jesus' m inistry issup por ted by the criterion ofmul tiple attestation of sources and forms.23

1. Mark m entions the Twelve ten o r eleven times in his Gospel:3:14 (andpossibly v. 16 ; 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11: l l ; 14:10, 17,20,43. n recent decades,NT exegetes have paid a great deal of attention to Mark's redactional portra it ofthe Twelve-a portra it that some critics judge to be unrelieved ly negative.24

cates, in my view, that this was th e earliest form of expression, going back to Jesus; see Rigaux, Di e'Zwolf, ' 472 . Th at M atth ew at t imes (26:14. 20, 47) and Luke always speak simply of the

Twelveu-Luke never uses the f ~ e designati ons the twelve disciples or the twel\.e apostles -supp orts this view. Matthew's twelve disciples and Luke's identification (o r at the very least closeassociation) of the Twelve with the apostles2' both betray signs of secondary de\.elopments thatcul mi nat e, as far as Christ ian tradition history is con cer ned , in Revelation's the twelve apostles ofthe Lamb and in the title of theDiclache The Lord's Teaching through the Twel1.e Apostles tothe Nations (cf.Barn 8:3).

Adelbert Denaux gives a convenient list of major critics (predom inantly G erm an ) on bot hsides of the question ( Did Jesus Found the Church ?'LS 21 [1996] 2 5 4 5 ) . (In what follows, I adda few m ore scholars to his list.) Those w ho affirm the existence of th e Twelve durin g Jesus' ministry

.

include Julius Wagenmann, Werner Georg Ku~nmel, ucien Cerfaux, Hans von Campenhausen,Jacques D up on t, Birger Gerhardsson, BCda Rigaux, G un the r Bornkamm , Ulrich Wilckens, Jurge nRoloff, Anton Vogtle, Heinz Schiirmann. Rudolf Schnackenburg, Martin Hengel, Helmut Merk-lein, E . P. Sanders, Toachim Gnilka, RaymondE. Brown, and Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Tho se who (w ith\.arying d e g r ee s o f h r o b a b i ~ i t ~ )eny it include Julius ellh h us en (taking p a suggestion fromFriedrich Schleiennacher), Johannes Weiss, Em manuel Hirsch, Philipp Vielhauer, Giinter Klein,Walter Schmithals, Herbert Braun, Gottfried Schille, Siegfried Schulz, Hans Conzelmann, andJohn Dominic Crossan. Extensive bibliography, mostly o n - ~ e r m a n uthors on both sides of theissue, can be found in the notes of Klein'sDie zwolfAposte1 34-37. For a brief summary of theargumen ts that many critics use to support t he existence of the Twelve during Jesus' m ini sty , seeKummel, KirchenbegnfJ; 3 0 3 2 ; the summ ary is echoed by Klein in his rebuttal inDie zwolfA pos-tel 35. It is astonishing that, alth ough Klein's denial of the origin of th e Twelve in Jesus' m inistry is

basic to his larger thesis about the twel\.e apostles, he almost disdains to argue the poin t, givingonly a cursory summary of the arguments of Vielhauer and like-minded scholars (p p. 3 5 3 7 ) .Thr ough out this articleI presu ppo se both th e two-source theory of Synoptic relationships

and th e literary independence of the Fo urth Gospel from t he Synoptics.Exam ples of studies on the Twelve (so me of which d o not always distinguish carefully

betw een disciples and the Twelve ) include The odo re J. LVeeden, Sr.,Mark-Traditions inConflict (Phi lad elphia : For t ress , 1 971) ; Rigaux, Die 'Zwolf ; Meye,Jesus and the Tweloe;


10/38


G ran ted Mark's theological focus on th e Twelve, it is som etim es supp osed th atmost if not all of his referenc es to t he Twelve co m e from his own redactional

activity. 5 T his conc lusion , however, does not necessarily follow. Fo r on e thing,as Er ne st Best points ou t, disciples, not the Twelve, is by far Mark's favoritedes ignation for committed fo llowers of J e ~ u s . ~ W o s tritics would not want toargue th at therefore the disciples a re purely a redactional creation of M ark.

Moreover, the re are positive reasons for thinking tha t at least som e ofMark's referen ces to t he Tw elve come to him from his tradition. B asing himselfon the detailed analyses of Karl Kertelge and Giinther Schmahl, WolfgangTrilling argues that, while many of the Markan references to th e Twelve maywell b e redactional, at least two references seem firmly em be dd ed in the p re-

Markan tradition.2'a. T he first refer ence com es in th e introduction to th e list of the twelve

nam es in Mark 3:16-19, material that m ost critics recognize as pre-M arkan tra-dition. To b e sure, Mark 3:13-19 (t he choice of th e Twelve and t he listing of

Kertelge, "Die Funktion"; Schmahl, Die Zwolf; Klemens Stock, Boten aus dem Mit-lhm-Sein;Augustine Stock, Call to Discipleship (GNS 1; Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1982); Ernest Best, Mark:The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh: Clark, 1983); dem, "Mark's Use of the Twelve"; Vernon K. Rob-bins,]esu.s the Teacher (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Shiner, Follow Me

So Siegfried Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Ecangeksten (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag,1972) 335 n. 92.

6 Best, "Mark's Use of the Twelve," 1 1 3 5 . Vielhauer uses Mark's redaction in a different wayto argue against the existence of the Twelve during Jesus' ministry ("Gottesreich," 69): the historicalexistence of the Twelve is dubious because, from a literary point of view, the Twelve are only looselyconnected with the narrative of Mark's Gospel. I find this as trange argument; the strict logical nexusbetween the historical existence of the Twelve and the way Mark works references to them into theredactional s tructure of his Gospel is difficult to grasp. Mark's literary structure is often loose andepisodic. In fact, the same point could be made in regard to "the disciples" in Mark; yet hardly any-one would want to use this point to argue against the historical existence of Jesus' disciples.

Trilling, "Zur Entstehung," 204-6; cf Kertelge, "Die Funktion," 196-97. For a similarjudgment , see Rigaux, "Die 'Zwolf,"' 470-82. One might ask whether even these authors tooquickly assign most of the references to the Twelve to Mark's redaction. For one thing, the merepresence of the phrase "the Twelve" in sentences that introduce sayings of Jesus does not automat-ically prove that, in such instances, "the Twelve" has been introduced redactionally by Mark. If oneshould take. for exam~le . esch's view of Mark as a consewative redactor of large blocks of tr ad-tional material (especially in the passlon narrative broadly understood), then, even in verses intro-ducing sayings of Jesus, "arious references to the Twelve might belong to pre-Markan t radition.

Guelich sums up the matter well (Mark 1 4 2 6 155): "Llrith few exceptions (e.g. , Kleinand Schmithals . , the common consensus accepts the appointment of the Twelve (3:16-19) as apre-Markan tradition. The Semitism behind 'to appoint' (epoiesen), the names of many who never

appear again in Mark, the use of patronyms and surnames like Peter, Boanerges and Iscariot, andthe presence of similar lists in Matt 10 :24 ; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13 support this consensus. Theextent of Mark's redaction in 3:13-15, however, is more debatable." Guelich goes on to argue thateven 3:13-15 evidences an underlying radition. See also Karl-Georg Reploh, Markus-Lehrer de rGemeinde (SBM 9; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969) 43-50; Pesch, Das hl ar ku se ~a n-gelium, 1.2023.

2


11/38


12/38


that in this material M atthew and/or Luke represents an ind epe nde nt traditionabout t he Twelve. If this be th e case, then the comm only held view that t he list

of the Tw elve in M ark3:13 19

comes from pre-M arkan tradition would be con-firmed by th e inde pen den t parallels inM andforL.A quick overview of the four different lists of the Twelve seems to argue

for more than one form of the early Christian tradition that passed down thenam es of th e Twelve:

Mark Matthew Luke cts

3:16 19 10:2 4 6:14 16 1:13

First G roup of FourSimon Peter Simon Peter Simon Peter PeterJames [son of] Andrew his brother Andrew his bro ther John

ZebedeeJohn brother James [son of] James James

of James ZebedeeAndrew John his brother John Andrew

Second G roup of Four

Philip Philip Philip PhilipBartholomew Bartholomew Bartholomew ThomasMatthew Thomas Matthew BartholomewThomas Matthew the Thomas Matthew

toll collector

Third G rou p of FourJames [son of] James [son of] Janles [of] James [of]

Alphaeus Alphaeus Alphaeus AlphaeusThaddeus? Thaddeus Simon the Simon th e

Zealot ZealotSimon the Simon the Jud e [of] James Jud e [of] James

Cananean CananeanJudas Iscariot Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot

33 Fo r basic exegesis and further bibliography, see t he stan dard comm entaries, includingPesch, Dn.s Mnrkn.set.angelinm 1.202-9; Guelich,Mark 1-926 153-66; Gundry,Mark 163-70;Fitzmyer,Gospel According to Luke 1.613-21; also Stock,Boten nus de m Mit-llzm-Sein7-53.

J+luch is mad e by som e critics of the name Lebbaeus, which is foun d in som e man u-scripts of Mark and Matthe w in place of or along with Thaddeus. All sorts of theories of equiva-lencies or substitutions (eith er merely of the names or of actual historical p ersons) a re suggested;see , e.g., Taylor,Go.spel Accorcling to St. M nrk 233-34; W. D . Davies an d D ale C . Allison,TheGospel According to Saint Matthew ( 3vols.; ICC ; Edin burgh : Clark, 1988, 1991,- 2.156; JoAnnFo rd \$'atson, Tha ddeu s (Person ),A B D 6.435. In my ~ i e w ,Thaddeus (by itself) is the originalre ah n g in both Mark and klatthew . (1) In Mark 3:18, Lebbaeus is found only in Codex Bezae and


13/38

Meier: The Circle of the Twelue

F ar from th e variations in th e lists of the Twelve disproving the group'sexistence durin g Jesus' lifetime, the Synoptists' disagreements within t he basic

agre em ent of their lists argue for a primitive oral tradition that u nde rw ent somechanges before the Gospels werewritten.35 Actually, the variations are hardlymassive. Despite some commentators' sweeping statements about discrepan-cies in th e lists, the re is only on e basic difference in the nam es: for th e Thad-deus men tioned in tenth place in Mark and Matthew, Luke (in both L uke 6:16an d Acts 1:13) has Jud e [or Judas] of James in elev enth place. Ot herw ise, notonly are th e o th er e leven names th e same, but even th e bas ic orde r of thenam es ( th ree major blocks of four names each) is the same .

T h e first block of four names always begins with P ete r an d always con tin-ues (in varylng o rde r) with James an d John (th e sons of Ze bed ee), plus Andrew,th e br oth er of Peter. Th e secon d block of four names always begins with Philipand always contin ues ( in varying or de r) with Bartholomew , Matthew, an dThomas. The third block of four names always begins with James [the son] ofAlphaeus and always continues with Simon the Canan ean the Zealot] andJudas Iscariot (always at th e e nd of the list). Th e on e variation in nam es, Tha d-deus or Jude of James, is found, not surprisingly, in the third block of names.Und erstandably, th e least known an d most easily forgotten individuals were rel-

eg ate d to th e third block-the on e glaring exception being th e notorious Juda s,who is put at the e nd of the e nti re list for obvious reasons. If on e considers thatthis list of twelve men (many of whom w ere oth envise unknown individuals)was han ded down orally during the first and possibly second Christian genera-

a num be r of the O ld Latin ma nuscripts; it is therefore restricted to only a part of the so-calledWestern textual tradition. Quite rightly, theC7BSGNT(4th ed. ) assigns the reading Thatideus an

(cer tain) status. (2) In M att 10:3, the readings are more varied: Thaddeus, Thaddeus who iscalled Lebbaeu s, Lebbaeus who is called Tha ddeu s, etc. I'l'hile the testimony of the textual wit-

nesses is more confused, the U B S G N T (4th ed .) rightly prefers Thaddeus and assigns it a B(almost certain ) rating. In favor of the unadorn ed Thaddeus in Matt 10:3,I think an argument canbe mounted from the conclusions we reached about the sources of the lists of the Twelve: apartfrom th e presen t case, there is no reason to suppose that th e M atthean list of the Tw elve is derivedfrom any source beyond the Markan list. Consequently, once one decides in favor of the simple

Thaddeus in M ark, it is difficult to see what redactional reason would have led M atthew, with noot he r source in front of him, to change Thaddeus to Lebbaeus. W heth er Lebbaeus arisesmerely o ut of scribal confusion in the copying of certain manuscripts or wh ether exegetical difficul-ties in reconciling the various N T lists of the Twelve led some C hristian scribes to change th e nam eon purp ose is hard to say. Fo r the theory that Lebbaeus arose from an effort to introd uce Leviinto the list of th e Twelve ( Lebb aeus being a Latinism for Levi ) , see Barnabas Lind ars,Matthew , Leci, Lebbaeus and the Value of the Western Text, NTS 4 1957-,581 220-22. In any

event , Lebbaeus is not original in the text of either M ark or Matthew; hence it has no relevance toou r treatm ent of the historical existence of the Twelve durin g the ministry of Jesus. T he confusionover Leb baeus arose amon g Christian scribes, not am ong Jews following Jesus or even among t heearliest Palestinian Jewish Ch ristians.

O n this point, see M eye,Jesus nd the Twelce 200-2001,


14/38


15/38

Meier: The Circle of the Twelzje

O r can th e variations in Matthew an d LukeIActs be best explained simply byMatthew's and Luke's redactional changes in Mark's list? T he answer may differ

depen ding on wh ether we look at M atthew or Luke.a. Matthew's two notable divergences from Mark may be explainable

simply from Matthew's editorial activity and theological viewpoint:

i. As his whole Gospel shows, Matthew loves neat patterns; he will oftenreorder Mark and Q to crea te numerically arranged blocks of material. H en ceit is hardly surprising that h e reorders Mark's first block of four names ; he ele-vates Andrew from fourth to second place to create two pairs of two brothers.38Having create d pairs in the first block, Matthew continues the pattern throug h-

out t he list of th e Twelve: for example, Philipand Bartholomew, Thom asandMatthew. Perhaps in this way he com pensates for not taking over Mark's state-ment that Jesus sent out the Twelve two by two (Mark6:7).

ii. Th e variations in the second block of four names ar e likewise du e to theFirs t Evangelist's redactional activity: he changes th e nam e of Levi the toll col-lector in Mark 2 4 to that of M atthew the toll collector in Matt 9:9. He thusassures that every named individual who is directly called to discipleship byJesus winds up in th e list of th e Twelve.29 The First Evangelist hammers h om e

the identification by appending the designation the toll collector 0 t c h h v q ~to the name of Matthew in the list of the Twelve. But why is the name ofMa tthew placed last in the second block? Since no one else in th e second blockof names has a description attached to his name, the evangelist may have feltthat th e list would flow more smoothly if the lengthier phrase Matthew the tollcollector was placed at the en d of the second block.

In sum, it seem s likely that the F irst Evangelist's list of th e Twelve can beexplained simply as his redactional rew orking of Mark's list. Yet one canno t beabsolutely sure of this. Th e list of the Twelve in Acts also puts Matthew at th eend of the second block of names; only these two lists agree on this point.tendto think that this correspondence is pu re coincidence, but it warns us not to b etoo certain in ou r judgments.40

38 Like Luke-Acts, Matthew drops the Markan parenthetical reference to the nicknam e thatJesus gave the sons of Zebedee ( Boanerges, which, Mark 3:17 claims, means sons of thunder ).Matthew and Luke probably dro pped th e reference because (1) it disturbs the flow of the list,andlor (2 ) it may have been as puzzling to the late r evangelistsas it is to modem exegetes.

9 On e problem remains: Why did the First Evangelist choose M atthew in th e list of theTwelve to be the person who is identified with Levi? Various suggestions can be found in RudolfPesch, Levi-Matthaus (Mc 2.14lMt 9.9 , 10.3): Ein Beitrag zur Lijsung eines alten Problems,Z W 59 (196 8) 40-56; Mark Kiley, \Vhy 'Matthew' in Matt 9,9-13? ib 65 (1984)347-51.

Davies and Allison point out further minor agreements between the Matthean and Lukanlists cis-8-vis Mark Gospel According to Matthew,2.144-45). They leave open the possibility thatMatthew and Luke reflect here a tradition, though for the most part they explain Matthew's list


16/38

65 Journal of iblical Literature

b. T h e case of Luke-Acts is different and m ore com plicated. To takeLuke's Gospel first: som e of the divergences from Mark can b e explained, as in

Mat thew 's l i s t, by s ty li s tic improv em ents . F or ins tance , Luk e as wel l asMa tthew probably th ought that putting A ndrew right after Peter to cre ate twopairs of two brothers produced a nea ter pattern.4' Luke tends to avoid H ebre wan d Aramaic words in his Go spel, so it is not surprising that h e givesa transla-tion of Simon the C ananean: Simon th e Zealot.

How ever, ther e is a puzzling variation in L uke that is not paralleled inMatthew. Instead of Thad deus, mentioned by M ark and Matthew in the secondplace of th e third block of nam es, Luke has Jude [i.e., Judas] of James in th ethird place, Simon having bee n m oved up to second place. This same Jude of

Jam es is foun d in th e sam e place in the list of Acts. Stylistic reasons obviouslydo not explain th e chan ge, nor apparen tly do theological agendas. L uke nev erme ntions Ju de of James outside his two lists; Jude of Jam es is neither bett erknown n or m ore theologically significant than Th add eus, whom he rep laces.Th at another Jude/Jud as (in addition to Judas Iscariot) existed among Jesus'most intimate disciples is inde pen den tly supported by a stray tradition in th eFo urt h Gospel's account of th e Last Su ppe r: Jud e [Jud as], not the Iscariot,who is never mentioned elsewhere in the Fou rth Gospel, suddenly appears toask Jesus a question (Joh n 14:22).42 hus, since the replacement of Thad deusby Ju de of Jam es cann ot be a ttri bu ted to Luke's redactional activity, an d since

as his redaction of Mark; cf Gu ndr y, Mattheto, 182-83 (w ho takes the view that L uke usedLlatthew)

4 H er e is a prim e example of a minor agreem ent of Matthew and Luke against Mark aris-ing out of th e coincidental desire of both w riters to improve Mark's text. Similarly, that Luk e, likeMatthew, adds his broth er after Andrew's nam e may be an accidental agree me nt and probablyshould not b e used to argue for aQ list of th e twelve names. Matthew may add his broth er afterAndrew's name to balan& the sam e phrase used after the name of John, the bro ther of James. Per-

haps Luke do es not fully employ this balancing proc edure (i.e ., he does not appe nd his broth erafter John's name ) because James and John are treateddifferently than Andrew in Lu ke's Gospel.James and John have already been introduced as the sons of Zebedee (an d hen ce brothers) back inLuke 5: 10. But An drew is absent from this Lukan version of th e initial call of Pete r, Jam es, andJohn after the miraculous catch of fish (Luk e 5: l-1 1).Therefore, as Luke mentions Andrew for thefirst and only time in his Gospel in the list of the Twelve ( 6:1 4),he supplies the explanation that h enece sarily omitted wh en he d rop ped the Markan version of the call of the firstfour disciples (M ark1:16-20):Andrew was Peter's brother.

.? O n this text and t he various changes made in the ancient versions to clarify the identity ofthis perso n, see Ra)inond E . Brow n, The Gospel A ccording to JoAn( 2 vols.; AB 29, 29A; GardenC i t y NY: Doub leday, 1966, 1970) 2.641. Rudolf Schnackenburg thinks that th e Ju de men tioned inJohn 1 4 2 2 surely belongs, in the m ind of the evangelist, to the Twelve (Dns]ohanneseoangeliuni [4vols.; HTKNT 4 ; F re ib urg /B aseV i~nna :He rder , 1965, 1971, 1975, 19841 3.9 2) .While I do notthink th at this can b e established with certaint)., it is noteworthy th at all the oth er n ame d discipleswho intera ct with Jesus during the Johannine Last S upper ( Pet er, Judas Iscariot , Thomas, andPhilip) appear in the S ynoptic lists of the Tw elve. Hen ceI consider it possible that t he Ju de in John13:22is the Jud e of James mentioned in Luke 6:16 Acts 1:13.


17/38

Meier: The Circ le of the Twelue 65

th e ex i s tence o f ano ther Jude i s independen t ly wi tnessed by th e F our thGospel, the most natural explanation is that Luke found this name in a list he

inherited from his L tradition. In sh ort, Luke rather than M atthew gives ussolid evid enc e for a list of the Tw elve in de pe nd en t of Mark's list.4

c. W he th er the Acts of the Apostles supplies us with still ano ther ind epe n-d en t t radit ion is doubtful . As was th e case with Matthew, I think tha t th enotable differences from Mark can be explained on redactionalgrounds.44 I nActs 1:13 , Lu ke see m s to be meshing his M arkan tradition with his own specialtradition (L); he conflated list seems further modified by Luke's redactionalconc erns in Acts. Howev er, as we shall see, one d ivergence is difficult to explainon any grounds a nd leaves us unsu re.

T he most significant differences in th e list of Acts 1: 13 as comp ared w ithLuke 6:14-16 are as follo\vs:

i . In the first block of names, Luke follows Mark in keeping Andrewfourth.

ii. W ith an eye to what will hap pen in Acts, Luke, for the sole time in anyof the lists, reorders the two sons of Zeb ede e by putting Jo hn before Jam es inActs 1 :13. This ch ange probab ly reflects two aspects of the story of th e Twelve

in the early chap ters of Acts: John is the regular sidekick of Pete r, an d Jamesis th e first of th e Twelve to die a nd so to d rop o ut of th e story of Acts.

iii. T he sec ond block of names in Acts is som ewha t puzzling in that t heorde r is un ique am ong the four li st s: Ph i l ip , Thom as , Bar tho lomew, an dMatthew. There is no discernible reason for this change, since both the list inMark 3:18 and t he list in Luke 6:14-15 read Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, andTh om as. This divergence in or de r is the only serious argum ent in favor of see-ing an ind ep en de nt tradition in Acts 1:13.

iv. T h e final differ ence is in th e third block of nam es: the omission ofJudas Iscariot. This is readily explained bo th by Judas's betraya l of Jesus, whichhas already been recounted in the Gospel (Luke 22: 3-5 ,22 -23 ,474 8), and byJudas's untimely de ath , which is abou t to be narrate d in Acts (1:1 & 26).

In sum , th e results of ou r survey are mixed. In my opinion, M atthew's listis purely a prod uct of his redaction of Mark's list; no i nd ep en de nt tradition isvisible. Th e case of the list in Acts is m ore difficult, thou gh I te nd to thin k that it

4 Schiirmann argues strongly for a non-Markan source a t L uke's disposalD m Lukmeoan-gelium, 1.318-19); h e w g e s t s , however, that this list of names had already been joined to thematerial beh ind Luke 6:12-13a inQ. Also in favor ofQ is Schneider,Die Apostelgeschichte, 1.206.

Schneider rightly claims that Luke reaches back to the material in his GospelDi e Apos-telgeschichte, 1.199);see also Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 120; Conzelmann,Acts of theApostles, 9.


18/38


can be explained simply as a conflation of the lists found in Mark's and Luke'sGospels, with furth er modifications due to Luke's program in Acts. Admittedly,

th e change of orde r in the second block of names is difficult to explain; onemight perhaps appea l to a desire for variety on purely stylistic grounds . In con-trast to Matthew's Gospel, though, the list Luke presents in his Gospel (6:14-16 ) does not seem explicable simply as a redaction of Mark for stylistic or theo-logical reasons. Th e replacement of Thaddeus by Jude of James finds no expla-nation in the theological program or stylistic preferences of Luke. Hence, Ithink it most likely that L uke 6:14-16 represen ts a tradition of the names of theTwelve that is independ ent of that in Mark 3:16-19. Therefore , the L traditionas well as the Markan tradition witnesses both to the existence of the Twelveduring the life of Jesus and to th e names of the individuals who made up theTwelve.

3. Besides tradition in Mark, and probably in L, the Johannine traditiongives indepe ndent attestation of the Twelve during Jesus' ministry. Th e fact thatthe Twelve are mentioned in John is all the more weighty because John has nospecial interest in the group called the Twelve. Th e Johannine tradition namesimportant disciples or supporters of Jesus (e.g ., Nathanael and Lazarus) who a renot listed in the Synoptic catalogues of the Twelve; and th e anonymous disciple

whom Jesus loved, the model of all discipleship, does not apparently belong tothe Twelve. Th e few references to the Twelve that occur in John thus have theair of being relics or fossils em bedded in primitive Johannine tradit ion.

In John's account of the public ministry, references to the Twelve are clus-tered-and, indeed , isolated-at the en d of the Bread of Life discourse in John6. Faced with desertion by many of his disciples, Jesus asks the Twelve whe therthey will leave him as well (6:67). Peter, acting as spokesm an, proclaims hisfaith in Jesus as the Holy One of God w 68-69). Almost in a tone o f sad mus-ing, Jesus replies with a rhetorical question (v.70 : Have I not chosen you, theTwelve, and [ye t] one of you is a devil? In a characteristic aside, the evangelistexplains Jesus' terse prophecy to the reade r (v. 71 ): He spoke of Judas, [th eson] of Simon Iscariot; for he was going to hand him over, [although] he wasone of the Twelve. 4%emarkably, this exhausts the direct references to theTwelve in John's account of the public ministry. Perhaps it is not accidental thatthese references are clustered at the end of John 6, the only chapter of John'sGospel that parallels the account of the Galilean ministry in the Synoptics,

7 On the exegetical problems involved here, see Brown,The G ospel According to John 1.298; on pp. 301-2 he lists the parallels between John 6:67-71 and t he various versions of the Synop-tic scene of Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi. Th e mention of Judas' father, Simon, and theattribution of Iscariot to Simon rather than to Judas (this is the reading of the best manuscripts inJohn 6:71) are unparalleled anywhere in the Synoptic tradition-another sign that John representsan independent tradition here


19/38

65eier: The Circle o the Twelve

especially the bread cycle in Mark6 8 which culminates in Peter's confes-sion of faith at Caesa rea Philippi.

There is one other reference to the Twelve, but it is only indirectly con-nec ted w ith the public ministry. In John 11:16, as Jesus prepa res to go toBethany to raise Lazarus from the dead , Thomas, who is called Didymus [theTwin], glumly remarks to his fellow disciples : Let us also go that we may diewith him. In 14:5, Thomas reappears briefly at the Last Supper, asking que ru-lously: Lo rd, we do not know where you are going. How can we know theway? It is, however, only in one of the resurrection appearances that Thom as isintroduced with the specific identification, Thomas, one of the Twelve, calledDidymus . . (20:24).

Thus , directly or indirectly, the Fourth Gospel, which has no formal list ofthe Twelve, identifies Peter, Thomas, and Judas as members of the group.Though Andrew and Philip are never so identified, their prominence through-out t he p ublic ministry as ap ir of disciples close to Jesus (1:35-46; 6:5-8;12:21-22; cf. 14:8-9) may perhaps be taken as a hint that they were also knownin the Johannine tradition as mem bers of the Twelve. What is telling, though, isthat we m ust piece this information to geth er from fragments of a traditionabout th e Twelve that may have had som e importance in th e early Johanninecomm unity but apparently holds no great interest for the Fourth Evangelist.We a re dealing with a tradition very different from the one we find in th e Syn-optics, with its precise enumeration of the names of the Twelve and its empha-sis on the Twelve in the early part of passion tradition.

4. Besides Mark, John, and probablyL, there may be an indirect refer-ence to th e Twelve4 n theQ tradition, though this judgment depends on howwe reconstruct the tradition underlying Matt 19:28 Luke 22:30. ThisQ logionhas been placed by the two evangelists in strikingly different contexts; neithercontext can claim to be the original setting of th e saying.47 Matthew inserts the

46 I purposely use the phrase an in drec t reference to the Twelve in theQ tracltion becauseMatt 19:28 par. does not directly name the Twelve with the fmed formula (oi 6 h 6 ~ ~ a )ound else-where in the Gospels; we have here instead a reference to th e Twelve by way of the image oftwelve thrones (presum ing for the mom ent the Matthean wordmg to be original). Nevertheless,

Jesus speaks to certain close followers and promises them that a t the last judgment they shall sit ontwelve thrones judging (or ruling) thetcelue tribes of Israel. Granted th e knowledge of a leadershipgroup called the Twelve in the early church , not only the M atthean and Lukan texts in their redac-tional contexts but also the traditional logion circulating in the early church cou ld hardly refer toany group of persons except the Tw elve.

4 On this point, and on the logion in general, see Jacques Dupon t, Le logion des douzetrBnes (M t 19.28; LC 22,28-30), inEtudes su r 1e s duangiles synoptiques (ed. Frans Neirynck; 2vols.; BE TL 70; Leuven: Leuven U niversity Press/P eeters, 1985; original, 1964) 706-43; IngoBroer, Das Ringen de r Gemeinde um Israel: Exegetischer Versuch iiber Mt 19,28, inJe sus undde r Menschensohn (Anton Vogtle Festschrift; ed. Rudolf Pesch, Rudolf Schnackenburg, and OdiloKaiser; Freibu rg/Ba seW ienna : Herd er, 1975) 148-65; Walter Grundmann,Dns Evnngelium nnch


20/38


logion into Jesus' teaching on the dangers of wealth an d on t he reward awaitingdisciples who leave family and home for his sake (Matt19:23-30; cf. Mark

10:23-31 ; th e larger context is Jesus' journey up to Jerusalem for the Passoveran d his passion. Luke instead places theQ logion in the mini-discourse Jesusdelivers at the Last Supper. The need to adapt th e saying to each context mayhelp explain why the first part of th e saying is so diffe rent in M atthew and Lukeand reflects th e redactional concerns of the respective evangelist. However,th e final words of the saying are basically the sam e in both Gospels, as Jesusmakes an eschatological promise to certain disciples:49

Mntthiius ( T H K N T 1; 3d ed.; Berlin: Theologische Verlagsanstalt, 197 2) 435; F itzmyer,Gospel

According to Luk e,2.1411-19. Th at th e final part of the saying, which is unde r discussion her e,comes f rom Q i s admit ted by most scholars (e .g . , S iegr ied Schulz , Paul H offm ann, Di e te rLuhrmann, Athanasius Polag, Ivan Havener, John S. Kloppenhorg, M. Eugene Boring, and DavidCatchpole). Some critics, however, prefer to see hvo independen t traditions that have been pre-served in and L; so T . W. Manson, The Sayings oflesus (1937; reprint, London: SCM, 1949)216-17. Migaku Sa to rem ains dubious abo ut the existence of th e saying inQ ( Q tirid Prophetie[U'UN T 2/29; Tiibi ngen : Mohr-S iebeck, 19881 2 ,2 3 ) Fo r a survey of views, see John S. Kloppen-borg, Q ParalleL (Son om a, CA: Polebridge. 198 8) 202. For a somew hat different approach, main-taining that Luke 2 2 3 0 is part of a pre-Lukan (and non-Markan) tradition of the Last Supp er,possibly even part of a special Lukan passion narrative, see Heinz Sc hii rm ann ,Je .~ubschiehredeLk 22,2138 ,111. Teil, Einerqz~ellenkritischenUnte rsuc hun gdes lukanischen AbenrlmnhlsberichterLk 22 ,738 (1957; NTAbh 20i5; 2d ed.; Munster: Aschendorff, 1977) 36-63, 1 3 9 4 2 ; Schurm annfeels less certain about some of his ciews in his Af terw ord to the second editionpp. 168-70).Dan iel M arguerat goes too far wh en he claims that Rev 320 -21 is anoth er version of this logion( L e

jugenlent dans l icangile de Mntthie t~ Le Mo nde d e la Bible 6; 2d ed.; Geneva: Labor e t Fides,19951 462) . Rath er, it displays some of the sam e apocalyptic motifs, but it does not use the m in thesame way or say the sam e thing

On the one hand, tt thew must try to insert the material into his larger teaching on thedemands and rewards of discipleship in Matthew 19: the introduction of the theme of the Son ofMan at the final judgmen t, a favorite them e of M atthew's, may be redactional in 19:28. O n theother hand, Luke is obviously stitching together various &sparate logia. Indeed, Luke 22:29-30a,

with th e them es of kingdom, covenant, and eating and drinking at Jesus' table fit awkwardly (withrespec t to both conte nt and syntax) with v. 30b (sitting on thrones and judging t he hvelve tribes ofIsrael). T he composite nature of Luke 2228-30 is examined by Broer ( Das Ringen, 149-50).Along with a nu m be r of other critics, Schulz thinks that L uke 22:30a is probably redactional (Q :DieSpruchqt~ elle er E cangelisten, 33 2) . Fo r the larger theological context of the L ukan form of th esaying within Luke-A cts, see Jaco b Jervell, The Twelve on Israel's Thro nes, inLuke and thePeople of Cod (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972) 75-112. Fo r various critics who champion Matthew'sor Luke's form of th e saying as more original, see Broer, Das Ringen, 148 n. 2 (continu ed onp. 149).

Y It is surprising that Klein(Di e zwolfAposte1,36 ) thinks that he can msiniss the question ofth e Q logion simply by noting that the word regeneration (rrah~yyeveoia)n M att 1 92 8 makesthe saying suspect. This ignores the key point that likelyQ material can be foun d only in the finalwords of Matt 1 9:28 Luke 22 30 : you shall sit on (twelve) thron es, judging the twelve tribes ofIsrael. Qu ite properly, this is the part of the text that is pu t in bold print an d unde rlined by Klop-penborg ( Q Pnmllel.~,202; cf. Rigaux, Die 'Zwolf, ' 476) .Q research, by definition, focuses on thematerial M atthew an d L uke have in comm on, while o mitting the m aterial that is likely to comefrom M atthea n o r Lukan redaction-which is probably the case with Matthew'srrahtyyeveoia.


21/38

Meier The Circleof the Tu;elzje

Matt 19:28 Luke 22:3

you50 shall sit you shall sit

on t t c e l ~ ehrones on thronesju dg ng the twelve tribes judging the twelve tribesof Israel of Israel

Even if we had only the Lukan form of the sayng, Luke's context of Jesusaddressing his closest disciples at the Last Supper with the promise that theywould judge = rule? obtain justice for? pass judicial sentence on?)51 hetwelue tribes of Israel might imply that the addressees are the Twelve. How-ever, only the Matthean form of the saying makes this explicit. We must there-

fore face the problem of whether Luke has dropped the adjective twelvebefore thrones or whether Matthew has added it. Arguments can be mountedfor either position, but I think it more likely that Luke has dropped the adjec-tive twelve before thrones.

First, Luke has made it clear from the larger context that he is thinking ofthe Twelve, whom Jesus named apostles (Luke 6:13). Luke alone states at thebeginning of the Last Supper that the apostles reclined at table with Jesus(22:14; Luke's source, Mark 14:17, speaks of the Twelve ). The addressees ofthe Q logion in v. 30 are described by Jesus in v. 28 as you who have

O Fo r all the d ifferences in the introductions to this loeion in Matthew ( vou who have fol-lowed me ) and Luke ( you are the ones who have persevered with me in my trials ), there is anunderlying similarity: Jesus is speaking not to the crowds in general bu t to followers who are e spe-cially close to h im. Contra Broer ( D as Ringen, 163 ), here is no reason to doubt that the secondper son plural ( you shall sit ) is original in th e saying.

5 For the different meanings of rpiv w that are possible here, see Dup ont , Le logion,721-32. The two basic possibilities are 1) to judge, namely, at the last judgm ent, with (a) eithe rthe positive nuan ce of obtain justice for, see justice don e for, ( b ) or the negative nua nce of

condemn (a likely sense in Matthew's redactional theology); or (2 ) govern, rule, exercisesovereignty over (n ot the usual sense in theNT, but a sense witnessed in the O T and pseud e-pigrapha, and a possible sense in Luke's redactional context and theology). Needless to say, onemeaning does not necessarily exclude th e oth er; moreover, in light of the saying's strong O T andJewish eschatological flavor, on e must allow for a Semitism in the use of the verb. ( ~ r o e r ' strangeinterp retatio n of rp i v o [ Das Ringen, 162-631 in terms of th e followers of Jesus engaging in ajudg men t that annihilates Israel on th e last day finds no basis in theQ saying taken by itself, apartfrom its redactional context in M atthew .) In any event, the refe rence to th e twelve tribes of Israel,which & d n ot exist as an em pirical reality in Jesus' day but which we re expected by at least som eJews to be re gathered o r reconst itu ted in the end- t im e (see JohnP. Meier, Marginal JewRethinking th e Historical Jesus [ vols.; Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Double day,1991, 1994, 1 2 . 2 3 7 4 8 ) ,points fonvard to some eschatological event ( th e final judgm ent) or situ-ation (t he kingdom of God fully com e). Du pon t suggests that the curious mention of thrones inth e plural in the scene ofjudg me nt in Dan 7:9 (while the Ancient of Days has a throne in the sin-gular) may l ie behind Jesus ' promise to the Twelve ( Le logion, 73 23 7) . W i l e the plural did pro-voke later rabbinic speculation and thoughts about th e great ones o r princes of Israel sharing inGod's judgm ent, we cann ot be sur e that such speculation circulated in Jesus' day.


22/38


remained with me in my trials, a good description. in Luke's mlnd, of thosewho belonged to the Twelve (cf. Acts 1:21-22). Thus, unlike Matthew's context

in Matthew 19, which speaks only of disciples, Luke's context already makes itfairly clear that the audience addressed is the Twelve-an inference that thenreceives reinforcement from the mention of the ttcelce tribes in the saying.Indeed, granted Luke's characteristic care for style and his desire to avoidneedless repetition, it is quite understandable why he would want to avoid therepetition of the word twelve within the space of three words.52

Second, Luke's chosen context-namely, the Last Supper-may haveprompted him to drop the explicit reference to the tzcelce thrones at the finaljudgment. In Luke's ordering of the Last Supper material, Jesus has just pre-dicted his betrayal by Judas, one of the Twelve (cf. Luke 22:3,47) Obviously,then, Judas, though one of the Twelve at the time of the Last Supper, will notpersevere to be one of those seated on the thrones on judgment day, Matthiaswill take his place (Acts 1:15-26). Understandably, Luke wishes to soften anapparent clash between a prophecy of doom and a prophecy of reward for thesame person (Judas). Or, to put the point more bluntly, he wishes to circumventthe embarrassment of having Jesus issue a prophecy about the Twelve that isnot verified of one of their number. Accordingly, he drops the reference to the

twelce thrones.53In contrast, since Matthew inserts the Q saying into an instruction ondiscipleship during the journey to Jerusalem, and since Judas is not mentionedor even thought of in the larger Matthean context, Matthew naturally does notfeel Luke's problem of clash or embarrassment. Indeed, since the precedingcontext in Matthew speaks only of disciples following Jesus (e .g ., 19:10, 13,23, 25 , not the Twelve or the twelve disciples, the retention of twelvebefore thrones in the saying is necessary if the persons to whom the promiserefers are to be made absolutely clear. On the whole, therefore, it seems more

likely that the reference to twel2je thrones and therefore to the circle of theTwelve is original in the Q saying.54

5 Du po nt notes that in this same verse Luk e apparently makes anothe r change for the sakeof style: Matthew's more natural ~p iv o v re


23/38

657eier The Circle of the Tweloe

This prom ise to t he Twelve makes perfect sense within the larger contextof Jewish eschatological hopes in general and Jesus eschatological proclama-

tion in particular.55 In o the r words, th e core prom ise in Matt19:28par. meetsthe criterion of cohe renc e. Even in OT and pseudepigraphic literature that isnot itself apocalyptic (e.g .,Tobit 13; Sir 36:l -17 ), the hope for the regatheringor reconstituting of the tribes of Israel in the end-time is expressed.56 Suchahope fit perfectly into Jesus proclamation of the coming of God s kingly rule,for Jesus add ressed his proclamation not to th e world indiscriminately but toIsrael in its promised land. Reflecting his mission to all Israel in the end-time,Jesus created the group called the Twelve, whose very number symbolized,promised, and (granted the dynamic power thought to be present in the sym-bolic actions of pro phe ts) began th e regathering of the twelve tribes. Accord-ingly, within his larger prophetic vision of God coming to rule Israel as king inth e end -tim e, Jesus promised in Matt 19:28 par. that his inner circle of th eTwelve, th e prop hetic sign and beginning of the regatherin g of th e twelvetribes, would share in the governance ( or judgmen t?) of the reconsti tuted

Ruprecht, 19701 170-71). It is interesting to note that Vielhauer, who rejects both the authenticityof Matt 19:28 par. and the existence of the Twelve during the ministry of Jesus, nevertheless states

that, although the original form of the logion cannot be determined, the saying does refer to apromise Jesus makes to the Twelve about ruling the twelve tribes of Israel ( Gottesreich, 67). Itmight also be noted that, i f one were to suppose that the original Q saying did not refer to theTwelve, the mere presence of the twelve tribes in the logion would not have given rise automati-cally or naturally to the numeral twelve before thrones in a secondary stage of the tradition. Inthe OT, the intertestamental literature, and the NT, we find many passages that speak of or depictthe regathering or the judging of all Israel (sometimes the point of all the tribes is stressed), yetnone of these depictions generates the idea of twelve thrones corresponding to the twelve tribesbeing judged or ruled. The twelve thrones in Matt 19:28 is most naturally explained as a correlativeof the Twelve who are addressed.

For a defense of the position that Jesus' proclamation was eschatological in both a future

and a realized sense, see Meier, MarginalJew, 2.237306.6 That the idea of the regathering of the twelve tribes of Israel in the end-time (or in the days

of the Messiah) was a licing hope in the time of Jesus is shown by many Jewish works, both OT andpseudepigrapha, which either were composed or continued to be read around the time of Jesus:e.g., Tobit (fragments ofwhich have been found at Qumran; see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaicarid Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from Qumran Cave 4, CBQ 57 [I9951 655-75); Baruch 4 5 ; Sir36:1@13; 48:lO; Macc 1:27-29; 2:17-18; Pss. Sol. 11; 17:26-32,4046; 1QM 2 : 1 3 , 7-8; 3:13-14;5:l-2; llQTemple 18:14-16. On these texts and their relation to the eschatological hopes con-nected with the idea of the Twelve, see Sanders,]e.sus and]udaism, 95-106. More specifically, thatthe symbolism of the twelve patriarchs of Israel, instructing the twelve tribes and foreshadowingtheir. history, was alive at t he time of Jesus is shown by the basic form of the Testaments of thTweloe Patriarchs. While the Testaments in their present state display Christian redaction (the pre-cise extent of which is still debated among critics), their roots reach back to the pre-Christian~ e r i o dn Palestine-witness the fragments of Testaments of some of the patriarchs at Qumran. Onthis point, see Howard Clark Kee, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, OTP 1.77540-thoughKee minimizes Christian influence and pushes the date of the Testaments back farther (secondcentury CE than would.


24/38

658 Journal ofBiblical Literature

Israel. Matt 9: 8 par. thus gives us much more than a bare indication of thehistorical existence of th e Twelve. It gives us an im portan t sta tem en t of Jesus'

eschatological vision a nd his inte ntion in creating th e Twelve as part of thatvision.In de ed , it is a vision that makes m uch mo re sen se in the context of Jesus'

ministry than in the con text of the first generation of the early chu rch , w he reth e Twelve as an eschatological gro up (especially in relation to th e id ea ofrecon stituting th e twelve tribes of Israel) disappear with surprising rapidity. Inlight of th e qu ick de mise of the Twelve as a visible an d influential grou p in t h eearly chu rch (as distinct from so me promine nt individual m em bers , such asPe te r), one might mo unt a type of argum ent from dissimilarity or discontinuity.In th e OT, intertestamental literature, and th e NT, there is much talk about an dmany verbal pictures of th e judg me nt of Israel, including scenes of cou rts an dthron es, w ith various individuals on th e thro nes. Yet now here else in Jewish lit-eratu re before or during the time of Jesus do we find the picture of twelve mensitting on twelve thro nes sharing in God's prerogative of passing judg me nt on(o r ruling?) eschatological Israel. In th e NT, the Twelve are assigned variousroles a nd are portra yed in various ways, both positive an d negative. But n o-wh ere else in the NT do we find the Twelve sitting on thrones an d judging or

ruling Israel in the end -time .T hu s, com pare d with pre-Christian Judaism and with t he rest of the NT,th e p icture Jesus paints an d th e function h e ascribes to th e Twelve in M att

9: 8 par. are uniq ue to this logion. Being discontinuous on this point withboth Judaism an d early Christianity, th e saying is best ascribed to th e historicalJesus. Ind ee d, if on e wants to claim that the saying was instead c reated by t heearly chu rch, o ne must face a difficult question: W hy would the early churchhave c reated a saying (attribu ted to the earthly Jesus during his public m inistry)that in effect promised a heavenly th rone a nd power at the last judgm ent to the

traitor Judas IscariotF8 In th e e nd , the criteria of coherence, discontinuity, andem barrassm ent all argue for the saying's origin in the pub lic ministry.jg

O n e m i n o r o b j e c t io n t o m y w h o l e a rg u m e n t , h o w e v er, n e e d s t o b eaddressed. Even if we grant a reference to the Twelve in Matt 9: 8 par., theTwelve appea r only this on e time inQ. Som e critics, such as Vielhauer, use thisas an arg um en t against th e existence of the Twelve durin g th e life of Jesus. Yet

: So Trilling, Zur Entstehung , 216. Th e partial parallels brought fonvardby Dupont and

others com e from the later rabbinic literature.This point is ma deby Manson, Sayings of] es u. ~,17; similarly, It'itherington, Chtistology

of ]esus, 141.j v o r a l is t of crit ics maintaining or denying the saying's authentici ty, see Schulz,Q: ie

Spnichqztelle der Eoangelisten, n . S O'ielhauer, Gottesreich, 9 In ac urious variation on this argum ent, Sato uses the abse nce


25/38

659eier: The Circle of the Twelzje

this is a very curious argument, since the word "disciple" ycr0qnj5) is almost asrare in Q as is the reference to the Twelve. There are only two absolutely clear

cases of "disciple" in Q (Matt 10 24 // Luke 6:40; Matt 11:2 // Luke 7:18); alloth er suggested cases occur in eithe r Matthew or Luke but not in bothGospel~.~l

Even more surprising is the fact that neither Q passage speaks directly ofJesus disciples. In Matt 1024 par., Jesus utters what seems to have been a gen-eral truth or proverb: "No disciple is above [his] teacher." The present contextscreated by Matthew and Luke make clear that the reference is to the disciplesof Jesus (see, e.g., Matt 10:25), but such an explicit reference does not exist inthe saying taken by itself. In Matt 11:2 par., the word "disciples" is used of the

disciples of John the Baptist, not those of Jesus.Hence, strictly speaking, no Q text, taken by itself, speaks directly and

unequivocally of the disciples of Jesus. Yet this does not cause NT critics todeny the existence of the historical disciples of the historical Jesus. The situa-tion with the Twelve is somewhat similar. There is only one reference in Q ; and,as is the case with "disciples," the reference to the Twelve is indirect rather thandirect. Certain followers addressed by Jesus in Matt 19:28 will sit on twelvethrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel-a promise that makes no senseunless it is addressed to the Twelve.

In short, since the scarcity--or even absence -of references to the disci-ples of Jesus in Q leads no one to deny the existence of such a group, the sameshould hold true of the one reference to the Twelve. All this simply reminds usof the fragmentary and random nature of the material preserved in Q. Moreparticularly, it reminds us that Q is made up mostly of sayings, many of whichwould have been directed to Jesus' disciples or more specifically to the Twelve.There was no reason for Jesus to be constantly mentioning the identity of hisaudience in the sayings he was patently addressing to them.

5. The final independent source to be investigated is, from the viewpointof both literary composition and tradition history, the earliest: Paul's passingmention of the Twelve in 1 Cor 15:5. However, the special problems this textinvolves lead me to consider it last.

What is especially noteworthy in 1 Cor 15:5 is that the mention of theTwelve comes, in a sense, not from Paul's own mouth or mind. The reference tothe Twelve is rather embedded in an early pre-Pauline formula of faith (1 Cor15:3-5), of which Paul is now reminding the Corinthians." He says that it is a

of the concept of the Twelve elsewhere in Q to deny that Matt 19:28 par. is a Q saying Q undProphetie 23). As I point out in the main text, the almost cornplete absence of p e ~ r i ~referring toa disciple of Jesus) in Q shows, by way of analogy, how fragile such an argument is.

6 For a list of all the passages, see Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 224.6 A prkcis of the various reasons that lead to this judgment-a commonplace among NT


26/38


formula that he taught them when he converted them to Christianity; in fact, itis a formula that he himself learned when he became a Christian. This is the

point of his somewhat convoluted introduction to the creedal formula:I

makeknown to you [i.e., I remind you], brothers, of the gospel that I announced toyou, the gospel that you received [napshkp~~e]. . . For I handed on [nap&-6 0 ~ a ]o you, first of all, what I myself received [nap&hapovIn w . 1 3). Thevocabulary of handing on and receiving was used in the ancient world by philo-sophical schools, Gnostic literature, and rabbinic circles (e.g.,m. Abot 1: l todesignate important traditions that were carefully passed down from teacher tostudent.63 Paul uses the same terminology to introduce his narrative of theinstitution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper 1 Cor 11:23-25).

Since Paul is writing to the Corinthians ca. 55 5 6 CE, since he convertedthem ca. 50-51, and since he himself became a Christian and learned this prim-itive creed from other believers in Jesus somewhere around 31-34, we havehere one of the earliest creedal statements of the church, a creed that was for-mulated only a few years after the events narrated (ca. 30).64 The creedal for-mula probably underwent expansion over the years, with further recipients ofresurrection appearances being added. But an early, if not the earliest, versionhad a basic four-part structure 1 Cor 15:3-5):

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,and was buried,and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

and appeared to Cephas [i.e., Peter] and then to the Twelve

Now, practically no one has ever denied that Cephas (i.e., Peter) was a dis-ciple of Jesus during the public ministry, and most critics would admit that healready had the name Cephasmeter ( Rock ) during that time.65 Accordingly, I

exegetes-is given by Rigaux, Die 'Zwolf, ' 469. Gordon D . Fee sums up the reasons quite well:(1) the fact that Paul says that this summary of the gospel is something he both received andpassed along to the Corinthians: 2 the stylized form of the four statements in 1 Cor 153-5 in

two balanced sets; 3) the repeated o n ( that ) before each clause, which implies a kind of quota-tion, and 4 the appearance of several non-Pauline words in such a short compass (T he First Epis-t le to the Corinthians [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19871 718). On this, see JoachimJeremias, The Eucharistic Wo rds 0fJesu.s(London: SCM, 1966) 10 13 . On specific questions con-cerning 1 Cor 153-5, see John Kloppenborg, An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula in 1 Cor15:3b-5 in Light of Some Recent Literature, CBQ 40 (1978) 351-67; Jerome Murphy-O'Connor,Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 153-7, CBQ 43 (1981) 582-89.

6 For relevant texts, see Hans Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (MeyerK 5;Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1969) 230.

For these and other questions of Pauline chronology, see Robert Jewett, A Chrono logy ofPaulP,s qe (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 29-38; Jerome Murphy-O'Connor. S t Paul ,s Corin th(Wilmington, D E : Glazier, 1983) 12952; Gerd Luedemann, Paul Apostle to the gentile^ Studies inChronology(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 26263 ; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Paul, N]BC, 133032 ($9) .

6 W e have multiple attestation of sources for the claim that Jesus himself gave Simon the


27/38

661eier: The Circle of the Twelve

think that it goes against the natural thrust of the text to argue, as Vielhauerdoes, that the Twelve did not exist as such during the pb l i c ministry but were

rather called into existence in the postresurrection period, indeed precisely bya resurrection appearance. To support this view, Vielhauer lays great stress onthe contradiction he sees between 1 th e mention of the Twelve (notEleven ) who are said to receive a resurrection appearance in 1 Cor 15:5 and2 the tradition in all four Gospels that Judas betrayed Jesus-thus leaving only

a circle of eleven men to receive a resurrection a p p e a r a n ~ e . ~ ~I think Vielhauer sets up a false dichotomy between two different literary

forms (creedal formula and Gospel narrative), which come from different set-tings in life Sitze im Leben)in the early church, and which moreover function

differently in their respective contexts.67 The presence of the Twelve in theearly and terse creedal formula of 1 Cor 15:5 simply underlines the essentialsymbolic significance of the Twelve, which would have been especially impor-tant to the earliest Christian Jews of Palestine: the Twelve represented thetwelve tribes of Israel, which many Jews expected to be restored in the lastdays. This interpretation of the Twelve is supported by the Q logion (Matt 19:28par.) that we have already examined. The symbolism of the number twelve wasthus all-important. Not surprisingly, the number quickly became the very nameof the group, a set designation or stereotyped formula that could be used of thiseschatological group even when membership changed or when-for a rela-tively brief time after Judas's defection-it lacked one member.68 In a way, this

name Cephas = Pe ter ) during the public ministry: Mark 3:16; John 1:42; and probably the L list ofthe Twelve in Luke 6:12-16 (v. 14 ). (Some might want to add the specialM tradition in Matt16:18.)There is no rival NT tradition that asserts that Simon's second name was conferred afterEaster. Moreover, if one wanted to argue that Simon received the name Ce phas Ret er only in theearly days of the churc h, one would have to explain why and how a na me given Simon (by whom?)so relatively late became the standard way of referrin

1997 - john p. meier - the circle of the twelve. did it exist during jesus’ public ministry

Documents