(24 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading...QUESTION:
Do you think that Paul, without naming him, is referring to Judas in 1 Corinthians 11:23-24? (The verse in the NRSV: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”)
RESPONSE:
Ah, it’s a great question. Paul never explicitly mentions Judas Iscariot or indicates that Jesus was betrayed by one of his own disciples. But couldn’t this verse contain a reference to Judas? It refers to the night on which Jesus was betrayed!
One reason the question matters is that Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird to people, but just read all of his letters. Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone, casting out a demon, doing any other miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other leaders, teaching the multitudes, even speaking a parable, being baptized, being transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being arrested, put on trial, found guilty of blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate on charges of calling himself the King of the Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us about. And it’s a very interesting question: WHY?
There are several explanations that I’ve explored on the blog before, but for now I don’t want to go into the question of why, but the question of what. Specifically, one of the things Paul doesn’t tell us is that Jesus was betrayed by Judas. But does he *allude* to it in this passage? I always thought so – for years and years. And then I looked into it and read what other scholars have said about it. They convinced me. I don’t think this is a reference to Judas’s betrayal.
But why not? The passage comes out and *says* that Jesus had his last supper “on the night that he was betrayed.” So Paul is referring to Judas’s betrayal, right? Well, probably wrong. “Betrayed” is almost certainly the wrong translation of the Greek for the passage.
The term Paul uses here is …
Wanna see how this works? Keep reading. All members can do so. Not a member? Join! Free two-month memberships are available now during the crisis. And if you’d like to be a paying member, even better! Every penny of your membership fee goes to charities helping the hungry and homeless. Either way, why not join??
But you think Judas Iscariot was a real character and actually betrayed Jesus?
I do. I think I”ll post on that.
Rutgers was only added to the Big Ten so that all of the other football teams in the Big 10 could get an additional win on their record each year.
Yeah, tell me….
Are you sure you meant Rom 11:24?
For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Ugh. 1 Cor. 11:24. Sorry.
You point out that many scholars assume that Paul would have learned of Judas’ betrayal when he stayed with Peter. Could Paul’s seeming ignorance of Judas and his role rather be taken as a small piece of evidence that the betrayal was a later invention (or variant in the oral tradition, if you prefer)?
I think there are good reasons for thinking it’s historical. Maybe I’ll post on that later.
Love these kind of posts because I always learn something new from them. May show my ignorance here but could it be that Paul doesn’t know/write about Judas’ betrayal because it never happened? Yes, it is in all 4 gospels but as you’ve pointed out the 4 gospels do not agree on who showed up at the empty tomb, what they saw, and what they did next so…. If they get that wrong could it be that the Judas betrayal is also a fabrication/legend? They also don’t agree on what happened to Judas afterwards. And Paul was writing before the gospel writers, correct? So maybe the betrayal story was not yet developed when he wrote but came along later???
Yup, it’s an option. But I think there are good reasons for thinking it’s historical. Maybe I’ll post on that later.
No one knew better than Peter and Paul that Judas did not betray Jesus, nor was he crucified or resurrected.
What Jesus says in the Last Supper is that the disciple who will take the word of God from the mouth of Jesus, is the betrayer. And he uses both the bread and Judas metaphorically to allude to the claim of Peter in receiving the holy ghost.
I still wonder about the lack of Jesus in Paul’s writings, but plenty of Christ. Do you suppose that the only thing that mattered to Paul was the resurrection, which to Paul proved Jesus to be the messiah? The teachings of Jesus were good ethical teachings, but not unique in the world. Even the miracles were unimportant; there were a lot of supposed miracle workers in the ancient world, so perhaps Paul was skeptical about the miracle stories of Jesus because he had not personally witnessed them. But he believed he had witnessed the resurrected Jesus, proving to Paul that he really was the Messiah. That’s what his theology was based on, so that is what he wanted to teach and all that really mattered. But I wouldn’t rule out that Paul, even after talking with some of the disciples, really knew little of the details of Jesus’ life.
I wouldn’t say it’s the *only* thing that mattered, but the death (also key!)and resurrection were the very intense focus, and everything else was more or less baackground. He surely would have said the background mattered — not just *anyone* could have been executed for the sins of the world and then raised. But he seems to take the rest pretty much for granted. Maybe to the point of not being all that interested himself….
Dr Ehrman, I was reading today your post on “Paul’s Incredibly High Christology” since I came across the passage in Romans 9:5. I’m not versed in ancient greek, so I find it difficult to deem one translation or other as correct. I, for the sake of argument, can roll with the idea that Paul is presenting Jesus as a Divine being in this verse. What I’m wondering is why isn’t this something that Paul stresses more often and more prominently throughout the rest of this and other later letters?
I can see of course references to Jesus’ divinity in other verses on other letters that you also mention in that blog entry. However, these seem to be scattered instances of the view that Jesus is a divine being. For a statement of this calibre, I would expect it to be way more prevalent, à la John’s gospel, especially since Paul doesn’t shy away from stating numerous times those things which are central to his theology and his Christology.
Maybe the churches he addressed took for granted Jesus’ divinity? Otherwise I struggle to understand how a central part of the Christianity he was preaching isn’t as ubiquitous as I would expect.
The problem is that it’s not clear how to translate the verse, whether it is saying “Christ who is God over all, blessed forever” or “Christ. May the God who is over all be blessed forever” The Greek can be read both ways, equally well.
Interesting !, thank you.
Is it plausible to assert that since Matthias was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot in Acts 1; 26, ” Then they cast lots and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven”, so that number * 12 * had to remain intact because of it’s symbolic meaning to the 12 tribes of Israel ( 12,000 being sealed from each tribe) and thus Paul’s mention of Jesus appearing to the twelve after his bodily resurrection in 1 Cor. 15; 5, is, in his mind, a given and factual confirmation of the existing Apostles chosen by Jesus? On a side note, Revelation 21; 14 ” The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”. Whose name is widely believed among scholars, yourself particularly, will be there, Judas Iscariot or Matthias ?
Yes, that’s the usual interpretation of Acts 1.
Well, here’s one possibility: Paul was early, the earliest, earlier than Mark. Suppose at this stage of the game, that the accounts of betrayal at the hands of Judas did not even exist yet, because they had not been INVENTED. Yes, I use the term INVENTED quite deliberately. By the time the gospel of Mark was written, or compiled from oral traditions, the stories about Jesus had already become so heavily embroidered they were for all practical purposes fiction. Judas was part of the fiction. Everything Paul fails to mention he fails to mention because those stories had not been invented yet– Paul predated the later revisions and elaborations of the heavily fictionalized life of Jesus that “Mark” and the later gospel writers drew upon. In fact, those gospel writers were themselves inventing incidents out of– thin air. To serve whatever agenda they might have had.
Paul, like all Epistle writers, need not go over what was already known of Jesus.
There’s this industry of biblical de-historizing (liberal makeovers via the sleight of “translations.”) Example: for Mary the word “virgin” (“Alma” – Greek) in “translated” into one of its meanings, ie “young girl.” Mary stated, “How can this be, I do not know a man?” The “translator” then takes the Greek word “man” into “anthropos,” which also can mean “husband.” There’s a human father, but not Joseph. And Mary’s song is reinterpreted, “God has lifted up his humble maidservant;” so the Greek word “humble” is connected to the old Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, used to describe the rape of Dinah in Genesis. Thus Mary’s “humility” is “humiliation” from a sexual assault.
Judas’ new spin is just as sly: The Greek word for “betray” is re-interpreted as “giving over” as in Judas “gave over” Jesus in the time-honored way of presenting someone to officially test their ideas.
But Peter is portrayed as the real traitor for denying and abandoning Jesus.
This is typical of the intellectual effrontery and mockery of the bible.
If God wrote a book, would it be “mockable”?? Or would it be so full of sublime wisdom that we would all fall down and worship it?
One should not seek to establish facts based on the absence of evidences which much apply to this article.
Bart
I have a question about multiple attestation and how it is used. I wonder if this would make a useful topic for a post or a least an answer to the question.
MA is held up as a criteria that can provide confidence that an event in history actually happened. The question here, is that all that is needed? Just 2 independent sources that mention it? I know you used it a lot in Did Jesus Exist but you have also said that the written sources were likely based on oral stories, so how independent are they?
So for example, someone mentioned that Jesus appearing to large crowds after his resurrection, is multiply attested. It appears in Paul (1 Cor 15) and Luke. So should we take that to be evidence that he did? If not, why not?
It’s a criterion that provides additional probability to something that otherwise is a mere possibility, but it can never be decisive. There are thousands of people who claim the Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared to them. Doesn’t mean she really did. Do a search for Multiple attestation on the blog and you’ll see some posts on it.
Of the two words PARADIDOMI and PRODIDOMI how are they used in other accounts of the betrayal story, please?
Don’t the gospel accounts use PARADIDOMI. Does Paul (or any of the gospels) use PRODIDOMI anywhere?
YEs, the Gospels do use PARADIDOMI with respect to Judas, but meaning “to hand over” rather than “betray.” They also use the noun form of PRODIDOMI (PRORDETOS) but not often. My point is that when Paul uses PARADIDOMI it doesn’t mean “betray” and when he uses it with respect to Jesus, it refers to God’s act “handing him over to his fate,” not a human act of betrayal. Paul does use PRODIDOMI once in Rom. 11:5, but in a quotation of the Greek translatino of Job 41:3.
It might be more exact to say that, in three of the Gospels, Judas is identified as the one who handed Jesus over (PARADIDOMI); while only in Luke is he identified as the one who betrayed Jesus (PRODIDOMI) . Which could be presented as an argument against Judas being a fabricated ‘betrayer’, added into the narrative at a later date. Arguably, had Judas been wholly invented, he would have been described as PRORDETOS throughout.
So the word used here for “betrayed” almost certainly means “handed over”? But the Evangelicals love pointing out how Jehovah’s Witnesses changed the English in their Bible from what the Greek almost certainly means. It’s crazy how often as a fundie I’d learn some new “truth” about my faith only to find it easily contradicted by some other “truth”. Starts to mess with your concept of reality after a while. Are things really as black and white as I seem to think they should be?
They tend to be grey most of the time. If someone’s close friend turns them over to the police, it may indeed be thoguht of as a betrayal; even if “turns them over” is not — as a phrase — necessarily a betrayal. You can turn over some eggs too!
How would you characterize the differences between the NRSV and the RSV? Does the NRSV get this right? I’ve got a bunch of copies of the KJV and RSV and huge concordances of those but don’t like wasting my time reading sloppy
translations if accurate are subatantially different. I would call this substantial.
The NRSV is a significant revision of the RSV based on advances in scholarship, changes in the English language, and discoveries of new manuscripts.
Dr Bart,
I like this for several reasons. First, I am actually surprised that you say “Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.” Although I feel like Paul had some influence on Luke (and his Gospel and Acts) and perhaps vice-versa–1 Corinthians certainly pre-dated both of Luke’s works (although I also feel like Luke wrote Hebrews, but I digress).
paradidomai is used in one of my favorite verses, Romans 8:32, and of course refers to God’s actions in “betraying”/”delivering” Christ “for us all.”
Thanks for the post.
Bill
I think everyone agrees Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Well, everyone I know at least!
Excellent post, and what a revelation. In all the years of observing the Lord’s Supper in church, this was the passage that was read. Thanks.
Given that paradidomi and prodidomi are so similar, and that paradidomi occurs so frequently (including in the same verse), would that render a hypothetical prodidomi in the original text vulnerable to accidental textual corruption? In that case, Paul would have originally said betrayed and it got changed to handed over.
I’m not saying I think it is likely that occurred. It does seem though, to a modern reader at least, that saying God handed Jesus over to his fate is an unusual thing to say while saying he was betrayed seems more natural.
Seems unlikely. There aren’t any manuscripts that read differently and there’s nothing about PRODIDOMI that would have raised red flags if it had been there. Given the common interpretation of the passage it would be more likely that a PARADIDOMI would have been changed to PRODIDOMI, buy that appears not to have happened either,
Greetings Bart. In a recent exchange, you confirmed my belief that there is no historical information indicating Paul could speak Aramaic. That being the case, in what language did Peter, James and Paul converse? If by translator or a second language (Greek?), is there a chance that Peter and James did not completely understand what Paul was talking about, especially in the highly nuanced area of the importance of the risen Christ? Thanks.
We don’t know for sure, but it *almost* surely was by a translator. maybe that’s why Paul didn’t spend much time with them.
But PARADIDOMI is the same word the synoptics use for Judas handing over Jesus to the chief priests.
I think when paul says God “handed Jesus over” he means either sent him into the world or allowed him to be killed. Not handed him over to the chief priests.
The verse is about the *night* he was handed over – which can only mean handed over to the chief priests; and its not God doing the handing over.
No one else was in a position to hand him over so the only way it makes sense is as a betrayal – the same sense as is used in the synoptics.
By the time paul was writing the twelve might have included Matthias.
Yes it is. My point is that it’s not the way Paul uses the word.
But the way the word is used is always context dependent.
If Paul is talking here about Judas’s “handing over” of Jesus to the chief priest the only sense in the context is as a betrayal.
If there’s no other candidate for who is handing over Jesus Paul must be talking about Judas’s betrayal.
The only other candidate is God, but there’s no reason to think God handed over Jesus on a specific night.
Does Paul himself use “prodidomi” anywhere?
Only in Rom. 11:35 in quoting the Greek Translation of a verse from Job.
Fascinating! Of course, if Acts 1: 26 is to be believed, there were, by the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, 12 apostles once again. I don’t think for a second that this is what Paul had in mind. But if Paul *didn’t* know about Judas, would that suggest that the betrayal narrative was a later development?
He may have thought that. But the action in Acts 1:26 is taking place *after* Jesus’ resurrection appearances, at the time of which, even for Acts, there were only 11 disciples.
Dr. Ehrman,
The betrayal of Jesus by Judas is probably a historicall event based on the criteria historians use to determine what probably happened in the past. My question is why? Based on your research and review of scholarly literature on the subject, what is the most probable reason Judas would betray his teacher? Do you think Jesus finally went too far in his private teaching?
Thanks, Jay
I may repost on all that — they are great questions.
“And then I looked into it and read what other scholars have said about it. They convinced me.”
Dr. Ehrman,
You’ve mentioned, on occasions, how your view over the years has changed on certain subjects. I respect that. I was wondering if there were any quotes from past books that you would like to redact but don’t consider important enough to call for a new edition. Are there any minor changes you’d like to make to any of your past books? Any worth mentioning? I hope this isn’t a ludicrous question.
My understanding of Gnosticism has changed sigificantly. I’m no longer comfortable calling Thomas a “Gnostic” Gospel. I no longer think REvelation teaches sinners will be tormented for ever. Or that Jesus did. And maybe the biggest one is that I now think the Synoptic Gospels DO understand Jesus as divine in some sense.
I admire your honesty/respect in the changes of your convictions. Galah brings in an interesting question that many may pass by, but I couldn’t. When I change my mind it may affect a few if any. But in your case a lot. To your credit, you have always asserted that you are open to new understandings. The last two changes, in particular, forever torment to sinners and Synoptic Gospels see Jesus as divine in some sense, strike me as heavyweight changes, because they have been stronghold points for you in the past, both in debates and writings, especially the latter view. What prompts new *understandings* ? Is it other scholar’s work or your own re-reading of Scripture and getting a new feel for it’s meaning? I almost sense a reverting in your life. Many, I believe, would love that.????
Oh no, I’m not reverting back to become a Christian believer! At least I don’t sense any trend at all that way — quite the opposite. I’m just asking the qeustion of the historian: e.g., did Mark understand Jesus in some sense to be divine. My answer: yes he did. BUT not in the way most Christians today think. And the fact that Mark thought that has zero bearing on what I myself think. Mind almost always changes by digging deeper, examining the texts in greater detail in the original language, seeing what others have said, weighing their arguments and logic, and being open to changing my mind. I wish that was how more people would do it, but alas….
When did paradidomi in that 1 Corinthians passage first get translated as meaning “betrayed?” Was it, for example in early Latin translations?
Also, how does “handed over” happen without a preceding betrayal?
The word gets used for all sorts of things. For example you can hand over evidence; you can hand over your apples; when you’re running a race you can hand over a baton; when you and a friends are helping an elderly person over a puddle you can hand her over to the others. I don’t know when “betray” became the standard understanding. The Latin vulgate translates the term with “tradebatur” “handed over,” same word used earlier in the verse “traditi vobis” (the tradition that I receivped from the Lord that I “handed over” to you). Like the Latin (and English) the Latin can have a neutral sense (to deliver something to someone/ hand over) or a more nefarious one (“betray). Context is all! And pattern of usage. But I’m not sure what the history of interpretation of 1 Cor 11:24 is from the earilest of times.
FWIW, I checked to see how the passage is translated in Spanish Bibles, and it seems as if older ones have “entregado”, while the newer ones use “traicionado”. Entregado just means “delivered”, as in the pizza we had delivered to the house last week. Traicionado means “betrayed”.
Maybe he meant The Twelve (ie, the original 11 plus Matthias)?
Yes, some have suggested that The problem is that they only reference we have to Matthias as the one added to the band to make it twelve clearly indicates this happened *later*, only after Jesus had finished with all his resurrection appearances. That is, during the appearances, there were only eleven of them (even in the one text that mentions Matthias)
Good evening, Bart. This is not the first time that you have pointed out the difference between the original Greek writing (or any original language for that matter) and later translations of the Bible. Some of these translations have had serious consequences for history. You have mentioned that you have taken trips to the eastern Mediterranean. Have you ever read any old Bibles when you were there? Have you ever had discussions with Greek Orthodox preachers about these garbled translations? Is this one reason why the Greek church seems so unusual? I can’t help but get the impression that Greek Orthodoxy and the rest of the Christian world will never get on the same page until they all agree what the original manuscripts say.
My comments are never about the Bibles used in modern day Greek-orthodox churches, but about ancient biblical mansucripts produced many centuries before there even was a Greek Orthodox church. And yes, one of the highlights of my travels overseas was being shown some of the prviously lost portions of Codex Sinaiticus, one of the most important biblical manuscripts from St. Catherine’s monastery on the Sinai.
I am fascinated and envious that you visited St. Catharine’s Monastery. I think about going there myself. Hard to believe it was built in the sixth century. Was it hard to get there considering it’s location? Also, I always believed that Mt. Sinai was in Israel and not Egypt. Is Mt. Sinai and Mt .Horeb considered the same place ? I think you should talk about some of your trips regarding your studies. It would be a fascinating post to read! Thanks.
You should read the book Sisters of Sinai. Fantastic. But it’s not hard to get there now. They have thousands of visitors all the time. Sinai is on the southern tip of the peninsula. who “owns” it depends on which century and decade you’re living in! And yes, Mt. Sinai is the same as Mt. Horeb.
Thanks for the reference, I ordered the book, by Janet Soskice. Sorry for being stuck here on this issue, but it fascinates me this place. I wanted to ask you specifically. The Monastery claims it is where Moses spoke to God but others claim a place today called Jebel Al Lawz in Saudi Arabia claims to be the actual Biblical MT.Horeb.. Historically the latter seems to be more accurate as to evidence, would you agree with that in your view? I hope you can further post on your experiences while there and how you felt. I think they would be great reads. Promise no more on this subject! ????
Historically I don’t think there was a Moses who spoke to God; these are almost certainly legends that had been in circulation for hundreds of years, not historically accurate recollections.
Off topic:
Do you think Jesus knew enough Greek or was there enough Greek spoken around him for him to have ever heard the word “Jesus” rather than Yeshua?
I doubt it, but I’m not sure why it would matter. (When I travel in Israel, France, or Egypt today, people call me “Bart” rather than some local equivalent)
It makes sense to me that, next to the significance of the resurrection, details of exactly how Jesus came to be arrested, like the miracles, or his birth, baptism, etc., were small potatos to Paul and not worth distracting from the main point he was trying to make.
Good questions at the end which I hope you will address in subsequent posts.
Dr. Bart,
This might seem slightly off topic but I always have this question about Paul’s conversion. In your books and debates you explain that close followers of Jesus must have had visions of him coming alive. I understand even if only 50% of the portrayal of Jesus is true in the Gospels, with the way Jesus confidently and forcefully proclaiming the coming kingdom, his followers would’ve wanted him back desperately after his death. But if Paul’s writings are the first to have written, what persuaded him to write about Jesus? I mean, he never met Jesus while Jesus was doing his ministry. So, Paul need not have any lost/missing feelings towards Jesus? Can you kindly touch on the reasons for Paul’s abrupt, rather mysterious conversion, just briefly? Often Christians bring Paul up as if his conversion is the bonafide certificate to support the idea that anyone seeking Jesus will definitely have a mysterious conversion.
Well, just wanted to mention, your latest book about afterlife is unbelievably gripping and hits the target precisely. Great work! I bought it as an ebook from eBay. I’m doing my second reading now, taking an in-depth look. Thank you so much for the gem
I think one big point is that Paul actually does not write about Jesus. He says almost nothing about Jesus’ *life*. He does talk at length about Jesus’ death and resurrection, and he does so because he thinks Jesus’ death is what puts a person in a right standing before God, which for him is the ultimate goal of all human existence.
Glad you liked the book!
Hello Dr Ehrman,
Recently I was researching Genesis and was fascinated to learn about the original understanding of it, which among else, implies that the sky is blue due to the ocean extending all around the earth, that the sun and stars are very close to earth and below the invisible dome, and the whole model seems to pressupose a flat earth.
I was surprised to learn that, despite the globe model being supported by a scholar consensus by the 3rd century BCE (at least in the greek world), there was a highly educated sect of Christians several centuries latter that believed the earth was flat. As my background used to be Eastern Orthodox, I can attest that if people in that community knew that figures like Athanasius the Great or Chrysostom were flat earthers (and Chrysostom seems to insist despite knowledge of objections), a lot would be quite upset. Probably the same goes for other aspects of cosmology which I would presume were more widely held views, like the Hexaemeron of Basil where he takes as granted that there is an ocean in the sky and that the sun doesn’t create but only governs light.
How would you comment on the matter?
Yes, I”ve sometimes wondered about that and am not quite sure what to make of educated people in antiquity not having the same views — I suppose it’s because they lacked empirical means of verification. But starting already with Paul, lots of Christian authors appear to continue to believe in a kind of three-storied universe, with God in the realm above, us here, and the dead in realm below, all these being places you could actually *travel* to if you had the means. I suppose the later Christian authors simply assumed the inspired authors knew what they were talking about and preferred their views to the Greek scientists….
It seems so. I still can’t figure out though how the vast majority of scholars considered Adam and Eve’s or Noah’s story historical through the Middle Ages, even though they had come to accept that the cosmological model of the first chapter of the book couldn’t be valid. Did they think that the first chapter was allegorical despite its directness, but it just switched to history without notice?
Same with lots of believers today. Conservative readers of the Bible accept the literal truth of Genesis 1-2 but still realize that we live in a *universe*….
I hope you don’t mind an off-topic question. Maybe you could do another “reader’s mailbag” on it. I’m curious about something. If you could travel back in time to anywhere from 100 BCE to 200 CE in order to solve some historical mystery, whether in the life of Jesus, the early church, Rome, Judea, or whatever, when and where would you go, and what mystery would you try to get to the bottom of?
Wow. There are hundreds, probably thousands! But I’ll add it to my list!
Dr. Ehrman: Who are some of your favorite Pauline scholars? Have you ever met James D. G. Dunn? What is your view of him?
Most influential on me was J. Christiaan Beker and E. P. Sanders, very very different from one another both personally and in terms of their scholarly interests, but both brilliant and insightful. James Dunn died just recently. I did meet him but did not know him well. He was a solid, careful scholar who was best at synthesizing views and making them coherent (rather than coming up with bold new insights), imo. I think Wayne Meeks completely changed how we look at Pauline studies in an extremely helpful way; Dale Martin’s book on the Corinthian Body picked up on that paradigm and was unusually insightful in exploiting it.
id find it hard to imagine that Paul knew there where 12 apostles but missed the fact one of them betrayed Jesus, possible maybe but kinda odd