(17 votes, average: 4.65 out of 5)
Loading...As you know, Platinum members on the blog are allowed to publish posts for other Platinum members, who then vote on one to be included on the entire blog. I’m pleased to publish this guest post by Douglas Wadeson, on an unusually intriguing and important topic. Did Jesus twelve disciples stay committed to the movement after his death, as everyone assumes? Or are there reasons to think that most of them actually abandoned the cause?
Read this challenging post and let us know what you think!
(And think about moving up to the Platinum level yourself: along with being allowed to publish your own posts, you will be invited to a special quarterly webinar with just the Platinums and me).
******************************
Early Christianity had many stories about the adventures of the Twelve Apostles after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Thomas is tricked into becoming a missionary to India.1 John travels about evangelizing while demonstrating control of bedbugs!2 Andrew was said to travel to the area now known as Ukraine to evangelize there – I’ve been there several times and a statue of Andrew is seen outside their parliament building and elsewhere.3 The vast majority of these stories are so fanciful and written so late that scholars do not take them as factual, but they have worked their way into Christian traditions. What did the Apostles do after Jesus? Did they even remain faithful, let alone evangelize?
All four Gospels hint at doubts among the Apostles, even after Jesus’ reported resurrection appearances. Mark, our earliest gospel, portrays the Twelve as mostly clueless throughout Jesus’ ministry. At Jesus’ arrest “His disciples all left Him and fled” (Mark 14:50). In the original ending, at 16:8, the women flee the tomb and do NOT tell the other disciples about the resurrection, leaving the reader to wonder what happened. I have long thought that this ending was to explain why Jerusalem was not filled with reports of Jesus’ resurrection right away. Could it be that the real reason for the so- called Markan Mystery is that most of the apostles apostatized? They never did “get it” and they left the movement. Luke says that when the women reported the empty tomb (despite what Mark said) “these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe the women.” But Luke then has Jesus appear and prove Himself to the doubters. Matthew is most explicit: even after seeing the resurrected Jesus “some were doubtful” (Matthew 28:17). Tough audience! John has the famous story of “doubting Thomas,” but as with Luke, Jesus has to appear on the scene to dispel the doubts. However, in chapter 21, which may have been a later addition to the gospel, “Simon Peter, Thomas who was called Didymus, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples” appear to have returned to their occupation of fishing and seem surprised when Jesus shows up.
Of course, in the book of Acts, the follow-up to the Gospel of Luke, all of the Twelve, including a replacement for Judas, join in preaching the good news of a resurrected Jesus. However, after chapter 2 the only apostles mentioned are Peter, John and James (whose only noted accomplishment is being killed by Herod, Acts 12:2). Instead, you have newcomers doing the evangelizing, such as Stephen, Philip and of course, the enormously influential Paul.
Paul mentions the Twelve as witnesses of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:5.4 However, just as with the mysterious 500 who saw Jesus, he provides no names or details. This may have been reported to him and he passes it on, without having personal knowledge of these events. In his letter to the Galatians he tells of going to Jerusalem but only mentions Peter/Cephas, and James the brother of Jesus, not the brother of John who was among the Twelve (Galatians 1:18, 19). Fourteen years later he reports meeting with “James and Cephas and John” (Galatians 2:9). In none of his other letters does he mention any of the Twelve by name, except for “Cephas,” possibly another name for Peter.5 Granted, we seem to have only seven authentic letters from Paul, so we have to be careful in drawing inferences from limited material.
So, in Acts and the letters of Paul we only hear stories of Peter, James, and John; nothing about the rest of the Twelve.6 Going back to the Gospels, who were portrayed as the closest disciples of Jesus, his inner circle? Those three. For example, when Jesus is transfigured it is those three He takes with Him (Mark 9:2f, etc.). I suggest that after the reported resurrection of Jesus these were the only three who remained faithful and continued the work of Jesus’ ministry. Perhaps they were the only three of the Twelve who had personal visions of Jesus after His death. They were then thought of as those closest to Jesus, while the others left the movement. So those three became the inner circle of Jesus in the Gospels.
One could argue that Paul did not meet the rest of the Twelve simply because they were already out evangelizing. After all, Thomas was in India, and Andrew in Ukraine, etc. Possible, but I find it curious that if the rest of the Twelve were out evangelizing we have no credible reports of it. Only entertaining but hard-to-take-seriously stories. Why only invented stories rather than authentic stories of their work on behalf of Jesus? We have reports of their martyrdoms, but perhaps that was a way to explain their absence from the Christian movement. It serves the Christian mission to portray them as martyrs.
Another possibility was that the rest of the Twelve did carry on what they thought to be Jesus’ ministry: teaching the Jews to repent and get ready for the coming kingdom of God. As such they would blend into the ongoing history of the Jews without creating a new religion, as happened with those who proclaimed a resurrected divine Jesus whose sacrifice for sins was the key to salvation. In fact, those preaching what came to be the Christian gospel would have looked down on and dismissed those who were preaching a lesser understanding of Jesus and His message. Perhaps they would have even been thought of as “false apostles” by Paul and others (2 Corinthians 11:13, Galatians 1:6-8). That may be one reason Paul seems to distance himself from the original Twelve in Galatians 1 & 2 (especially 2:6). Perhaps in Galatians 2:9 when Paul says that James and Cephas and John gave him “the right hand of fellowship” he is implying that the remainder of the Twelve, if they were still around, did not. They had a different understanding of Jesus’ message and mission.
So, those of the Twelve who did not remain faithful to the work, or who preached a Jewish rabbi Jesus rather than a divine savior of the world get written out of the picture in favor of those like Paul in an increasingly Gentile church. Instead, they become martyrs of legend who promoted what became “true” Christianity.7 The three who remained faithful become Jesus’ inner circle of closest disciples. If you think it unlikely that some of the Twelve would have left the movement, keep in mind that one of the disciples went so far as to betray Jesus and turn him over to the authorities. Is it such a stretch to think that some of the others also turned away after the death of Jesus? Is it possible that Judas better represents the prevailing attitudes among the Twelve than the surviving Three?
I realize this is heavy in speculation and it is difficult to make an argument from silence, but what is your explanation for the lack of substantive information about the work of the Twelve after the time of Jesus, in addition to clear indications of doubt among them?8 Well, if someone eventually invents a time machine perhaps one day we will know for sure.
1 The Acts of Thomas, written in the early 3rd century.
2 The Acts of John, ca. 180 CE.
3 Apparently it didn’t take: Christianity did not become established in Kievan Rus until Price Vladmir was baptized near Sevastopol in 988. I have visited the baptismal pool that was supposedly used, a beautiful site overlooking the Black Sea.
4 Note that he mentions the Twelve, and then also “the apostles.” Paul mentions a number of apostles in his letters other than the Twelve, but it seems they all were, or claimed to be, witnesses of a resurrected Jesus. Perhaps like Paul, through visions?
5 Dr. Ehrman has some posts on the blog addressing the question of whether Peter and Cephas were the same person.
6 Of course, there are books supposedly written by James and Jude, but those are generally thought to be referring to brothers of Jesus, not members of the Twelve, and pseudepigraphic (forged).
7 Not that the apocryphal stories are all thoroughly orthodox. For example, some promote complete abstinence from sex even among married couples, which did not become standard doctrine.
8 Granted, even what we know about the Three is sketchy, but at least we have Acts and Paul’s testimony.
“So, in Acts and the letters of Paul we only hear stories of Peter, James, and John; nothing about the rest of the Twelve. Going back to the Gospels, who were portrayed as the closest disciples of Jesus, his inner circle? Those three.”
I agree with you that it is likely that only James, Peter and John who remained faithful to Jesus mission.
But in Acts, the mentioned James is jesus’ brother, correct?
In the Gospels, we are led to believe that James and John are brothers and the sons of Zebedee, correct?
So we somehow lose James the brother of John, son of Zebedee.
James, John — sons of Zebedee
Zebediah means “gift of God”
James, Jose — sons of Joseph
Joseph means “God will add/give.”
Here’s a thought:
James and John are the sons of Zebedee.
James and Jose are the sons of Joseph.
In an attempt to write out Jesus’ brothers, the gospels make James and Jose/John the sons of Zebedee.
But Zebedee is actually Joseph who is Jesus, James and Jose/John’s father.
So of Jesus’ inner three, James, Peter and John…James and John/Jose are his brothers.
This might be considered a stretch but it explains what happened to James the brother of John, the son of Zebedee.
Interesting thoughts. James Tabor, a scholar who has written for the blog, has written extensively on possible family connections among the disciples. Check his blog or books if you’re not already familiar with his ideas.
Very interesting, even if admittedly speculative! I think it’s also important to keep in mind that we know nothing at all about the early Jesus Movement until Paul’s letters starting in 50-51 CE, and his interest in the other apostles seems limited to whether they supported or interfered with him personally. It occurs to me that there is the possibility that some of the others preached other ideas, such as Docetism, which were shortly declared heretical; it would have weakened the charge of heresy to admit that some of the original companions of Jesus were the source of those beliefs.
Right, even if all 12 remained faithful in some way that doesn’t mean they all preached what became orthodox doctrine, so got marginalized or were reinvented in legendary form.
Now you’ve got me wondering if the 12 apostles were actual historical figures at all, or just a storytelling device. I know they’re multiply attested, but then so are several tales about Batman, vampires, and Bigfoot. And the 12 apostles seem like just the sort of thing a storyteller would invent to represent the 12 Tribes of Israel. Certainly it’s possible they all really existed and occupied positions of authority in Jesus’ ministry, but I wonder if scholars are overconfident on this point.
I wonder, too. Dr. Ehrman contends that Jesus’ statement that the 12 would be ruling over the 12 tribes must go back to Jesus, because no later Christian would have Jesus say that to a group that included Judas, but I think there’s still room for skepticism.
Interesting post. I think you might be right that some of the 12 who appear near the end of the lists may have fallen away from the faith. There may be a hint of that in the parable of the sower where the seed on rocky ground produces temporary grain.
The explanation they were evangelising in distant lands seems another credible explanation.
Perhaps a third option is that some of the Apostles were unremarkable and did not leave much of a mark on history? We may imagine these lesser Apostles would have been useful for providing and correcting the traditions of Jesus in their communities, but for the most part, they may not have achieved much more than that.
By the way, the tradition that Thomas went to India seems to have such a strong and well-established local claim that I find it difficult to imagine it was invented entirely. The Acts of Thomas are clearly legendary, but the tradition itself seems to hold some water IMHO.
Thanks for your thoughts. Even if some of the Twelve did travel, it’s hard to know what they really taught about Jesus. Wish we had better documentation!
We probably have the teachings of Peter preserved in GMark (according to Papias), 1 Peter, Acts, and perhaps in the fragments of Preaching of Peter.
Bauckham has done an excellent job in demonstrating the use of the Plural-to-Singular Narrative Device in GMark betrays signs of a third person (likely Mark) having preserved eyewitness testimony (Bauckham2006:156).
For John, we have the Johannine literature and some fragments of Papias.
Although Peter and John did not compose most of these works (they were written by others), they nonetheless have a high chance of preserving their teaching.
I heard Bauckham speak at a local university some years ago on the subject of eyewitness testimony in the gospel of John. I don’t recall all his arguments, but I do recall I came away unconvinced. Of course, such speculation would not be necessary if the gospel writers had clearly cited their sources. My guess is that they did not know the origin of these stories, just that they were in circulation and accepted and they deemed them worthy of being preserved. Perhaps I’m too spoiled by modern methods where good writers actually document their sources.
No need to speculate or guess, Fishician, we are lucky to have a variety of ancient sources that can help us reconstruct the sources for the gospels.
According to Papias, who quotes the Elder John (who Irenaeus claims in the Apostle John), Peter was the source of Mark’s gospel. We can be fairly certain the Papian fragment is historical as it passes the criteria of embarrassment. No early Christian source would invent a story that this gospel wasn’t composed by a non-eyewitness and had chronological errors – but this is precisely what this fragment says.
For John we have the Muratorian fragment which states “When his fellow disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, “Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us.” On the same night, it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind.”
This suggests a committee was behind the gospel, under John’s direction, which is similar to what scholars propose today in that a Johnannie community was responsible for the text.
Dr. Ehrman has posts about Papias and problems with his credibility, although I do find his story of Judas entertaining. I just don’t have the confidence in those sources that you do.
Excellent post, Dr. Wadeson.
Dear Dr.
Going to a Catholic monastery high school, taught by a Filipino Vatican doctorate and probably in Episcopalean Jr High:
Matthew portrays Jesus as King; Mark portrays Jesus as man; Luke as Son of Man [whatever that is]: & John as Son of God?
After absorbing G Campbell Morgan’s The Apostles & The Acts et al, I was rejoicing on the streets of Shanghai probably before Y2k that the disciples [now Apostles] were educated in advanced Greek!
A