The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus' Public Ministry?

Author(s): John P. Meier

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 116, No. 4 (Winter, 1997), pp. 635-672
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3266551 .
Accessed: 19/02/2013 04:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JBL 116/4 (1997) 635-672

THE CIRCLE OF THE TWELVE:

DID IT EXIST DURING
JESUS' PUBLIC MINISTRY?

JOHN P. MEIER
CatholicUniversity, DC 20064
Washington,

In present-day debates about the historical Jesus (dubbed by some "the

third quest"),l scholarshave argued repeatedlyand at length over a small group
of central questions: for example, who Jesus thought he was, how we should
classify him according to religious types, and what sort of eschatology he pro-
claimed. Yet other key questions that have a notable impact on how we decide
these central ones have received only scant attention.
One such question is the existence of the circle of the Twelve duringJesus'
public ministry.If such a circle did exist, it would indicate a great deal about
Jesus' view of his mission and of his eschatological hope for the restoration of
Israel. Hence, it is not surprisingthat scholarslike E. P. Sanders,who sees Jesus
very much in terms of an eschatological prophet concerned with restoration
eschatology, argue for the existence of the Twelve.2Correspondingly,scholars
who think of Jesus in terms of a wanderingCynic philosopher espousing a first-
century version of egalitarianismand feminism tend to deny the existence of
the circle of the Twelve duringJesus' lifetime.3

1Two helpful reviews of the literature,the first favorableto the Jesus Seminar, the second
unfavorable,can be found in Marcus J. Borg, Jesus in ContemporaryScholarship (Valley Forge,
PA: Trinity Press International, 1994); and Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity,1995). For a large collection of articles on the subject, see Studying the
HistoricalJesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A.
Evans; NTTS 19; Leiden: Brill, 1994). An updated annotatedbibliographycan be found in CraigA.
Evans, Life ofJesus Research (NTTS 24; rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1996).
2 E. P. Sanders,
Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1985) 61-119, esp. 98-106; idem,
The Historical Figure of esus (London:Penguin, 1993) 169-95.
3 For
Jesus understood in terms of "Jewishand ruralCynicism,"see John Dominic Crossan,
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a MediterraneanJewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 1991)
72-90, 338-41. For Crossan'sdenial of the existence of the Twelve during Jesus' lifetime, see his
Who KilledJesus? (San Francisco: Harper, 1995) 75. For a critique of the Cynic interpretationof
Jesus, see Paul Rhodes Eddy, "Jesusas Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis,"JBL 115
(1996)449-69.

635

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
636 Journalof Biblical Literature

What is noteworthy is that most of the scholars who take the latter posi-
tion, including those associatedwith the Jesus Seminar,tend either to pass over
the Twelve in silence or to dismiss summarilywith a few sentences the group's
existence during Jesus' ministry.In a sense, there is nothing new here. From
the beginning of the twentieth century, a number of prominent German
exegetes, notablyJuliusWellhausen, Rudolf Bultmann, Philipp Vielhauer,Wal-
ter Schmithals, and Giinter Klein have taken the negative position without
thrashing out the arguments in great detail. Rarely,if ever, are the criteria of
historicityapplied with rigor.
This article seeks to address this lack and to show in the process that the
more probable opinion is that the circle of the Twelve did exist during Jesus'
ministry. However, before the case for this position can be argued, one must
first clear up the confusion often encountered even in scholarlyliterature con-
cerning three distinct but partiallyoverlapping terms: disciples, apostles, and
the Twelve.4

I. The Problem of Terminology:

Disciples, Apostles, and the Twelve
1. Of the three terms, the most general is "disciple."5If we sift the tradi-
tions of the Gospels for material going back to the historical Jesus, it appears
that a disciple was a person called directlyby Jesus to follow him. This call came
from Jesus' initiative alone. In this strict sense, discipleship meant following
Jesus literally,physically.It therefore involved leaving home, family,and work,
and exposing oneself to possible hardshipsand opposition from others, includ-
ing one's own family.Clearly,not every adherent of Jesus counted as a disciple.
People who supported his movement but who apparentlystayed in their homes
and offered hospitalitywhen he visited-such as Mary,Martha,or Zacchaeus-

4 One finds this confusion even in scholars who elsewhere observe the
proper distinctions:
e.g., Crossan says that "Markcriticizes the Twelve Apostles [emphasis mine]" (Who KilledJesus?
18), although that set phrase-to say nothing of the later concept connected with the phrase-does
not occur in Mark.
5 The statements made here about
discipleship are commonplaces and need not be bela-
bored. For standardtreatments, see MartinHengel, Nachfolge und Charisma (BZNW 34; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1968) = The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (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 Matthew'sGospel as Reflectedin the Use of the Term Mathetes
(NovTSup 59; Leiden: Brill, 1988); Ben Witherington III, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1990) 118-43; Joachim Gnilka,Jesus von Nazaret: Botschaft und Geschichte (HTKNT
Sup 3; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna:Herder, 1990) 166-93; Hans Weder, "Disciple, Discipleship,"ABD
2.207-10; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus' Call to Discipleship (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,
1992); Stephen C. Barton,Discipleship and Family Ties in Markand Matthew (SNTSMS 80; Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Whitney Taylor Shiner, Follow Me! Disciples in
MarkanRhetoric (SBLDS 145; Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1995).

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 637

may have been devoted adherents of Jesus, but they were not in the strict sense
disciples.
2. Much more narrowin scope is the phrase "theTwelve,"which indicates
a special group of twelve men who were not only disciples of Jesus but also
formed an inner circle around him.6 In employing this terminology, I imitate
the usage of Markand John, who alwaysspeak of "the Twelve"absolutely (e.g.,

bibliography,see J. B. Lightfoot, "The Name and Office

6 For basic orientation and further

of an Apostle," in Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (1865; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1957) 92-101; Julius Wellhausen, Einleitung in den drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: Reimer, 1905)
112; Julius Wagenmann, Die Stellung des Apostels Paulus neben den Zwolf in den ersten zwei
Jahrhunderten(BZNW 3; Giessen: Topelmann, 1926); KirsoppLake, "The Twelve and the Apos-
tles," in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, The Acts of the Apostles, Volume V (1933; reprint,
Grand Rapids:Baker, 1979) 37-59; Nils AlstrupDahl, Das Volk Gottes (1941; reprint, Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963) 158-59; Werner Georg Kiimmel, Kirchenbegriffund
Geschichtsbewusstseinin der Urgemeindeund bei Jesus (SymBU 1; Zurich: Niehans, 1943) 3-7,
30-32; Hans von Campenhausen, "Der urchristlicheApostelbegriff,"ST 1 (1947) 96-130; Rudolf
Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; London: SCM, 1952) 1.37; Innozenz Dau-
moser, Berufungund Erwdhlungbei den Synoptikern(Meisenheim am Glan: Hain, 1954) 74-82;
Philipp Vielhauer, "Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der VerkiindigungJesu,"in Aufsdtze zum
Neuen Testament (TBi 31; Munich: Kaiser, 1965) 55-91; Gunther Bornkamm,Jesus of Nazareth
(New York:Harper & Row, 1960) 150; Gunter Klein, Die zwolfApostel: Ursprung und Gehalt
einer Idee (FRLANT 77; G6ttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961); B6da Rigaux,"Die 'Zw6lf
in Geschichte und Kerygma,"in Der historischeJesus und der kerygmatischeChristus (ed. Helmut
Ristow and Karl Matthiae;Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,1962) 468-86; idem, "The Twelve
Apostles,"Concilium 34 (1968) 5-15; M. H. Shepherd, Jr., "Twelve,The," IDB 4.719; Karl Hein-
rich Rengstorf, "dodeka,etc.," TDNT 2.321-28; Jurgen Roloff, Apostolat-Verkiindigung-Kirche
(Giitersloh: Mohn, 1965); Jean Giblet, "Les Douze: Histoire et theologie," in Aux origines de
l'eglise (RechBib 7; Bruges: Desclee, 1965) 51-64; Gottfried Schille, Die urchristliche Kolle-
gialmission (ATANT 48; Zurich/Stuttgart:Zwingli, 1967); Robert P. Meye, Jesus and the Twelve
(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1968); Sean Freyne, The Twelve:Disciples and Apostles (London/Syd-
ney: Sheed & Ward, 1968); Walter Schmithals, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church
(Nashville/New York:Abingdon, 1969) 67-95, 231-88; KarlKertelge, "Die Funktion der 'Zw6lf im
Markusevangelium,"TTZ 78 (1969) 193-206; Rudolf Schnackenburg, "Apostel vor und neben
Paulus,"in Schriftenzum Neuen Testament(Munich:K6sel, 1971) 338-58; Gunther Schmahl, "Die
Berufung der Zwolf im Markusevangelium,"TTZ81 (1972) 203-13; idem, Die Zwolf im Markus-
evangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchung (Trier Theologische Studien 30; Trier:
Paulinus, 1974); Klemens Stock, Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein:Das Verhdltniszwischen Jesus und
den Zwolf nach Markus (AnBib 70; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975); Wolfgang Trilling, "Zur
Entstehung des Zwolferkreises:Eine geschichtskritischeUberlegung,"in Die Kirche des Anfangs
(Heinz Schiirmann Festschrift; ed. Rudolf Schnackenburg, Josef Ernst, and Joachim Wanke;
Leipzig: St. Benno, 1977) 201-22; Ernest Best, "Mark'sUse of the Twelve,"ZNW 69 (1978) 11-35;
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98-106; Jacques Dupont, "Le nom d'Apotres: a-t-il 6et donne aux
Douze par Jesus?"in Etudes sur les evangiles synoptiques (ed. Frans Neirynck;2 vols.; BETL 70;
Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1985; original, 1956) 2.976-1018; Francis H. Agnew,
"TheOriginof the NT Apostle-Concept:A Reviewof Research,"JBL105 (1986) 75-96; W. Horbury,
"TheTwelve and the Phylarchs,"NTS 32 (1986) 503-27; RaymondE. Brown, "TheTwelve and the
Apostolate,"NJBC, 1377-81 (?? 135-57); RaymondF. Collins,"Twelve,The,"ABD 6.670-71.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 638 Journal of Biblical Literature

Mark6:7; John 6:67). They never use phrases such as "the twelve disciples"or
"the twelve apostles."7
It is in Matthew that we come across the phrase "the twelve disciples"
(Matt 10:1; 11:1; possibly 20:17). The problem with "the twelve disciples" is
that it might be interpreted to mean that the group called the Twelvewas coter-
minous with the group called disciples. In fact, Matthew, unlike Mark, may
intend such an identification when he speaks of"the twelve disciples."8Need-
less to say, the use of "the Twelve"as completely equivalent to "the disciples"
does not reflect the earliest strataof Gospel traditionsor the historicalsituation
of 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'smodel "disciplewhom Jesus loved"-who most probablyis an
idealized presentation of some historical follower of Jesus in or around Jeru-
salem9-does not seem to have belonged to the Twelve. Hence, in this survey

Strictly speaking, this is also true of Luke, who follows Markin speaking of "the Twelve."
However, as we shall see below, Luke seems to identify "theTwelve"with "the apostles,"though he
does not use "the twelve apostles"as a fixed formula.
8 Meye claims that, in Mark'sredactional view, the Twelve and the disciples are cotermi-
nous groups (Jesusand the Twelve, 110-15). However, his thesis fails because (1) Levi the toll col-
lector is explicitly called by Jesus to discipleship (Mark2:13-15) but is not numbered among the
Twelve, and (2) we are told as early as 2:15 (in the most probable interpretationof the Greek) that
the disciples were many-at a time when, of the Twelve, only Peter, Andrew, James, and John
have been mentioned; the Twelve are not selected and named until 3:13-19. Given this larger
context, when Marksays in 3:13 that Jesus "himself summoned whom he wished, and they went to
him," the natural sense (especially after the sharp distinction between Jesus' disciples and the
large crowd in 3:7) is that Jesus chose the Twelve out of a larger group of disciples. Luke thus
interprets Markcorrectly when he rewrites Mark3:13 in Luke 6:13: "Andhe [Jesus] called his dis-
ciples, and chose from them twelve...." (3) One might also note that, while the rich man in Mark
10:17-22 refuses Jesus' call to discipleship, Mark has no problem presenting Jesus as earnestly
calling someone outside the Twelve to discipleship. Meye's contorted attempts (pp. 140-45,
157-59) to explain awaythe Levi incident, the many disciples in Mark2:15, and the call of the rich
man fail to convince.
In contrast to Mark, a number of Matthean redactional traits suggest that Matthew does
equate the Twelve with the whole group of disciples. (1) This is probablywhy Matthew the Evan-
gelist changes Levi's name to Matthew (Matt 9:9; contrast Mark2:14), that is, so that everyone who
is called by Jesus to discipleship winds up in the list of the Twelve ("Matthewthe toll collector"in
Matt 10:3). (2) Thus, with no Levi as in Mark and no "disciplewhom Jesus loved" as in John, no
individual disciple is named or highlighted in Matthew who does not appear in his list of the
Twelve. (3) By omitting any separate storyof the selection of the Twelve (as found in Mark3:13-19
// Luke 6:12-16), Matthew avoids having to present Jesus calling the Twelve out of a larger group,
presumablyof disciples. Still, Matthew does retain Mark'sstory of the aborted call of the rich man;
hence, the picture in Matthew is not absolutely clear. Perhaps one can say that Matthew presents
the circle of the Twelve as de facto coterminous with the circle of disciples. On the whole question,
see Stock, Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein, 199-203.
9 For a defense of the
position that some historical figure stands behind John's "disciple
whom Jesus loved," see Oscar Cullmann, Derjohanneische Kreis (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1975)
67-88; Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York/Ramsey, NJ/

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 639

of the data, I regularlyavoid Matthew's"the twelve disciples"as open to mis-

understanding.
3. Even more do I avoid the traditionalChristianphrase "the twelve apos-
tles,"which is open to both conceptual and historicalconfusion.10During Jesus'
public ministry,"apostle"(Aramaic elfah; Greek adr6ooXo;) was probablynot
used by him or his disciples as a fixed term for a particulargroup of his follow-
ers. At most, an Aramaicword like seli.hn("messengers,""envoys")may have
been used in an ad hoc sense when Jesus sent some disciples out on a tempo-
rary mission. This is probably the sense of the word in its rare occurrences in
Mark and Matthew (Mark6:30; Matt 10:2). It is only when the Twelve return
from the temporarymission on which Jesus has sent them that, for the one time
in his Gospel, Markuses the word: "Andthe apostles rejoined Jesus" (6:30).1l
The sense of "apostles" here is simply "those sent out on mission and now
returning from that mission." Once the mission is over, the term disappears
from Mark. Similarly,the only time Matthew uses the term in his Gospel is at
the beginning of the missionarydiscourse, as Jesus prepares to send the Twelve
out on their limited mission to Israel (10:2).12Thus, in both Gospels "apostle"is

Toronto: Paulist, 1979) 31-34; James H. Charlesworth,The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Vali-
dates the Gospel ofJohn? (ValleyForge, PA:TrinityPress International,1995).
'0 What follows is not intended to be a complete survey of the use of "apostle"in the NT; it
merely serves to explain why I choose to speak of "the Twelve" and not of "the twelve apostles."
Defenders of the position that, during his earthly ministry,Jesus did not give the Twelve the title
"apostles,"understood as a fixed designationproper to them, include Dupont, "Le nom," 1017-18;
Roloff, Apostolat, 144-45; Rigaux,"TwelveApostles,"8. For the somewhat ambiguous position of
KarlHeinrich Rengstorf,see his article "apostello,etc.," TDNT 1.429.
11In my view, the phrase "whom he also named apostles," which some important manu-
scripts (Sinaiticus,Vaticanus,Koridethi)read in Mark3:14 after "andhe appointed twelve,"is not
original;rather, it represents a harmonizationwith Luke 6:13, where the disputed phrase is found
word for word (apartfrom 3:14, the verb for "named"[6vogd(co]never occurs in Mark,while Luke
uses it three times in his two volumes). This harmonization,highlightedby the awkwardposition of
the phrase in Mark3:14, is hardlysurprisingsince the Greek manuscripttraditionevinces various
attempts to harmonize Mark'sstory of the selection of the Twelve with Matt 10:1-4 and Luke
6:12-16. Here I agree with Vincent Taylor (The Gospel according to St. Mark [2d ed.; London:
Macmillan, 1966] 230), Meye (Jesusand the Twelve, 190), Rudolf Pesch (Das Markusevangelium
[2 vols.; HTKNT 2; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna:Herder, 1976, 1977] 1.203), and Morna D. Hooker
(The Gospel According to Saint Mark [BlackNT Commentary;Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991]
110-11) and disagree with Metzger (TCGNT [2d ed.], 69), who thinks that the external evidence is
too strong to warrantthe disputed phrase's omission. However, even he and his committee admit
the shaky status of the phrase by putting it in brackets and assigningit a C rating,which indicates
that the committee composing the text of the UBSGNT had difficulty deciding which variant to
place in the text. The position of Robert A. Guelich (Mark1-8:26 [WBC 34A; Dallas:Word, 1989]
154) is similar to that of Metzger; definitely in favor of reading the disputed phrase is Robert H.
Gundry(Mark [GrandRapids:Eerdmans, 1993] 164).
12
Curiously,it is in Matt 10:2, and not in Luke's Gospel, that we find the extremely rare NT
locution, "the twelve apostles." The viewpoint of the late-first-century church may be reflected
ever so fleetingly here.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 640 Journal of Biblical Literature

purely an ad hoc term indicating a temporary function that the Twelve dis-
charge;they are apostles only when actuallyout on mission.
It was in the early church that "apostle"was first used as a set designation
for a specific group-though different authorsused the designation in different
ways. What is beyond doubt is that in the first Christiandecades "apostle"had a
range of meanings that extended far beyond the Twelve. The pre-Pauline creed
that Paul quotes in 1 Cor 15:3-7 creates a list of various persons who experi-
enced appearancesof the risen Jesus:"Cephas,then the Twelve, then ... more
than five hundred brothers ... then James, then all the apostles"-all the apos-
tles being obviously a wider categorythan the Twelve.
This was the mode of speaking of the primitive pre-Pauline church, and
basically Paul adopted it as his own.13Though clearly not one of the Twelve,
Paul fiercely vindicated his right to the title apostle (e.g., Gal 1:1, 17; 2:8; 1 Cor
9:1-2; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; 11:5; 12:11-12; Rom 1:1, 5). Ironically,it is uncertain
whether Paul considered all the Twelve to be apostles.14He explicitlyattributes
apostleship to only one member of the Twelve, Peter (Gal 1:17-19; 2:8),
though, in the context of Gal 2:1-10, John (the son of Zebedee) may also be
understood to be one. Paul may also have considered James the brother of
Jesus an apostle, but the key text (Gal 1:19) is ambiguous.15Two people who are

13 There is no need to
engage in highly speculative theories about the Christianterm "apos-
tle" arisingeither from the rabbinicinstitutionof the sdliah (a legal agent sent out on a mission with
the full authorityof the sender)-an institutionnot documented before the time of Jesus-or from
supposed gnostic apostles in Syria (a scholarlyconstruct of Schmithalsthat is not witnessed in the
early first century CE).The general OT concept of God sending certain messengers (especially the
prophets) 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 risen
Jesus by the disciples (however one evaluates such claims) form a much more intelligible back-
ground and catalystfor the apostolate in the first days of the early church. Contraryto the theory of
Klein, Paul the apostle did not invent the concept or institution of the apostolate; he found the
apostolate present in the early church and sought to claim the same status for himself (see, e.g., Gal
1:17-19; 2:8; 1 Cor 9:1-6; 15:7-9). On all this, see Brown, "Twelveand the Apostolate,"1380-81.
14For the opinion (contraryto that of Klein or Schmithals)that the Twelve did count as apos-
tles in the earliest days of the church, see Roloff, Apostolat, 57-60; Brown, "Twelveand the Apos-
tolate," 1381. An initial methodological problem is hidden in the word "count"-in whose eyes?
Another problem, more properly exegetical, is that the key text in 1 Cor 15:3-8 is open to more
than one interpretation: (1) On the one hand, "all the apostles"in v. 7, Paul's self-designation as
"the least of the apostles"in v. 9, and his claim that he has labored more than "allof them" in v. 10
are taken by some to mean that Paul understandsthe Twelve in v. 5 to be apostles. (2) On the other
hand, since the "fivehundred brethren"in v. 6 probablydid not all count in Paul'seyes as apostles,
at least some persons or groups in the list were not automatically regarded as apostles simply
because they witnessed a resurrection appearance. How, then, can we be sure that the Twelve
counted as apostles simply because they are in the list as witnesses of the resurrection?
15 Gal 1:19
may be read either as "I did not see any other of the apostles except [ei n~i]James"
or as "I did not see any other of the apostles, but [ei gi] (I did see) James."On this see Max Zer-
wick, Graecitas Biblica (5th ed.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1966) 158 (?470).

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 641

not members of the Twelve are mentioned by Paul as being eminent apostles
and Christians before Paul became one: a man named Andronicus and a
woman named Junia (Rom 16:7).16 Paul also knows of "apostles of the
churches,"possibly envoys or missionariessent out by local churches for partic-
ular tasks (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25).17
The close connection, if not total identification, between the Twelve and
the apostles in later Christianthought is due mainlyto the theology of Luke. In
Luke'sversion of Jesus' selection of the Twelve (Luke 6:13), Jesus "summoned
his disciples [the larger group], andfrom them he chose twelve, whom he also
named apostles."While this text does not prove that Luke thought that only the
Twelve 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.18
In the story of the mission of the Twelve, Luke introduces the missionarydis-
course by stating that Jesus called together the Twelve (9:1);when these same
people come back to Jesus to report on their mission, Luke says that "the apos-
tles" returned (9:10). At the beginning of Acts, Luke stresses the need to fill the
position in the Twelvevacated by the apostateJudas (Acts 1:12-26). Matthiasis
then chosen by lot to take up the apostolate (d7cooatoil)abandoned by Judas,
and so he is numbered "withthe eleven apostles."That Matthiaswas already a
witness of both the public ministry of Jesus and of Jesus' resurrection (Acts

16 See the
philologicaldiscussionby Joseph A. Fitzmyer,Romans (AB 33; New York:Double-
day, 1992) 737-38. As James D. G. Dunn (Romans [2 vols.; WBC 38 and 38A; Dallas:Word, 1988]
2.894-95) and many other recent commentatorspoint out, (1) the Greek 'Iouvtavin Rom 16:7 is to
be taken as a woman's name and (2) the clause oi'tive; eiatv 7iniorqot iv Tot; d7ooaT6,otSalmost
certainly means in this context "who are outstandingamong the apostles,"not "outstandingin the
eyes of the apostles."Others mentioned by Paulwho may rankin his mind as apostles include Barn-
abas (if we may read together passages like 1 Cor 4:9; 9:6; Gal 2:9 and understand Paul's "we"to
include Barnabas in the apostolate). The apostolic "we"may include Sylvanus and Timothy in
1 Thess 2:6-7 and Apollos in 1 Cor 4:6 (+ 9), but this is less likely.
17 On 2 Cor 8:23, see Victor Paul Furnish, who
prefers to translatethe phrase as "representa-
tives of the churches"to avoid the impressionthat these people are apostles in the same sense that
Paul is (II Corinthians [AB 32A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984] 425). On Phil 2:25, see J. L.
Houlden, who holds that here Epaphroditusis called an "apostle"in the sense of a messenger of the
Philippian church sent on Christian business (Paul's Lettersfrom Prison [Westminster Pelican
Commentaries;Philadelphia:Westminster, 1970] 93).
18For a careful
exegesis of Luke 6:12-16, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to
Luke (2 vols.; AB 28A, B; New York:Doubleday, 1981, 1985) 1.613-20. Fitzmyer'sjudgment is that
"thisepisode in the Lucan Gospel ... equates with them [the Twelve] the apostles, ascribingeven
this title to Jesus himself' (p. 616). On p. 618, Fitzmyer states that Luke restrictsthe title "apostle"
to the Twelve. For the same opinion, see Hans Conzelmann, The Theologyof St Luke (New York:
Harper & Row, 1961; German original, 1953) 216 n. 1; Heinz Schiirmann,Das Lukasevangelium
(HTKNT 3; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna:Herder, 1969) 1.314-15; Josef Ernst, Das Evangelium nach
Lukas (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1977) 207-8; Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to
Luke (Atlanta:John Knox, 1984) 115; Peter K. Nelson, Leadership and Discipleship: A Study of
Luke 22:24-30 (SBLDS 138; Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1994) 44-45.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
642 Journal of Biblical Literature

1:21-22) and yet did not possess "apostleship"(dnoxroX/ii,v. 25) until he was
chosen 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 apostles
coterminous.19
Yet the matter is not absolutely clear. Contraryto the strikingbut excep-
tional usage in Matt 10:2 ("the twelve apostles") and Rev 21:14 ("the twelve
apostles of the Lamb"), Luke-Acts never employs the set phrase "the twelve
apostles,"which was to become a fixed formula in the later church. Moreover,
while Luke's Gospel never clearly identifies anyone outside the Twelve as an
apostle, Acts does depart from the customary Lukan way of speaking in Acts
14:4 + 14, where Barnabas and Paul are called "the apostles." Whether this
divergence from ordinary Lukan usage is due to a source Luke is using,
whether "apostles"carrieshere the special sense of Christianmissionariessent
out on a temporary mission by the local church of Antioch, or whether Luke's
concept of apostle is not so completely identified with the Twelve as many crit-
ics claim is unclear.20Suffice it to say that Luke is the NT authorwho most con-
sistently uses the labels "the Twelve" (or "the Eleven") and "the apostles"
interchangeablyor in close association.He is thus the main NT catalystfor the
later Christiancustom of speakingof "the twelve apostles."
From this quick survey,one can appreciatethe varied and sometimes con-
fusing uses of "Twelve,""disciples,"and "apostles"in the NT. To avoid this ter-
minological confusion, in the following survey I will follow Mark and John in
speaking simply of the Twelve.21
19On the
passage, see Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte (2 vols.; HTKNT 5;
Freiburg/Basel/Vienna:Herder, 1980, 1982) 1.212-32; on p. 222, Schneider asserts that, in Luke-
Acts, the Twelve and the apostles coincide; similarly,von Campenhausen,"Der urchristlicheApos-
telbegriff," 104, 115. This, in fact, is the majorthesis of Klein in Die zwolfApostel, 202-16.
20 Schneider (Die
Apostelgeschichte,2.152, 159) thinks that "the apostles"in 14:14 stood in
Luke's source and that Luke himself has introducedit in 14:4;so also Ernst Haenchen, Die Apostel-
geschichte (MeyerK3; 6th ed.; G6ttingen:Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1968) 362 n. 5; Hans Conzel-
mann, Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia:Fortress, 1987; German original, 1963) 108,
111; cf. Klein, Die zwolf Apostel, 211-13. Possibly the source used the term in the sense of the
authorized messengers of the church at Antioch. Schneider speculates that Luke was willing to use
the title in Acts 14 in order to create a parallel (with regardto preaching the faith and working mir-
acles) between Paul and Barnabas on the one hand and the twelve apostles on the other. The
attempt to claim that "the apostles"in 14:4, 14 is not the originalreadingin the Greek text of Acts is
a solution born of desperation (contra Klein, pp. 212-13); Codex Bezae is the only significant wit-
ness to omit "the apostles"in v. 14. In "The Apostles According to Luke," chap. 8 of her Human
Agents of Cosmic Power in HellenisticJudaism and the Synoptic Tradition(JSNTSup41; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1990) 109-23, MaryE. Mills apparentlythinks that, in Acts, Luke presents Paul as an
apostle parallelto the apostle Peter. This identificationseems to stem from her emphasis on Luke's
view of the apostles as disciples who, in Acts, performwonders in the name of, and by the power of
the name of, Jesus. Her treatment does not distinguishcarefullyenough among various terms like
"disciples,""apostles,"and "theTwelve."
independent agreement of Mark and John in speaking simply of "the Twelve" indi-
21 The

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 643

II. The Existence of the Twelve duringJesus' Ministry

That I should have to argue that there was a special group of twelve follow-
ers aroundJesus during his public ministrymay strike some readers as strange.
Yet, as I mentioned above, a number of distinguished critics throughout the
twentieth century have considered it probable or certain that the group called
the Twelve actuallyarose in the early church and was later retrojected into the
ministryof Jesus.22Hence, there is a need to apply the criteriaof historicityto
the NT data to ascertain whether the Twelve existed as a group during Jesus'
lifetime.
A. In the first place, the existence of the Twelve during Jesus' ministryis
supported by the criterionof multipleattestationof sources andforms.23
1. Markmentions the Twelve ten or eleven times in his Gospel: 3:14 (and
possiblyv. 16); 4:10; 6:7;9:35; 10:32;11:11;14:10, 17, 20, 43. In recent decades,
NT exegetes have paid a great deal of attention to Mark'sredactionalportraitof
the Twelve-a portrait that some critics judge to be unrelievedly negative.24

cates, in my view, that this was the earliest form of expression,going back to Jesus;see Rigaux,"Die
'Zwolf,"' 472. That Matthew at times (26:14, 20, 47) and Luke always speak simply of "the
Twelve"-Luke never uses the fixed designations "the twelve disciples"or "the twelve apostles"-
supports this view. Matthew's"twelvedisciples"and Luke'sidentification (or at the very least close
association) of "the Twelve"with "the apostles"both betray signs of secondary developments that
culminate, as far as Christiantraditionhistory is concerned, in Revelation's"the twelve apostles of
the Lamb"and in the title of the Didache, "The Lord's Teaching through the Twelve Apostles to
the Nations"(cf. Barn 8:3).
gives a convenient list of majorcritics (predominantlyGerman) on both
22 Adelbert Denaux

sides of the question ("Did Jesus Found the Church?"LS 21 [1996] 25-45). (In what follows, I add
a few more scholarsto his list.) Those who affirmthe existence of the Twelve duringJesus' ministry
include Julius Wagenmann, Werner Georg Kiimmel, Lucien Cerfaux, Hans von Campenhausen,
Jacques Dupont, Birger Gerhardsson,Beda Rigaux,Giinther Bornkamm,Ulrich Wilckens, Jiirgen
Roloff, Anton Vogtle, Heinz Schiirmann,Rudolf Schnackenburg,Martin Hengel, Helmut Merk-
lein, E. P. Sanders,JoachimGnilka,RaymondE. Brown,and Joseph A. Fitzmyer.Those who (with
varying degrees of probability) deny it include Julius Wellhausen (taking up a suggestion from
Friedrich Schleiermacher),Johannes Weiss, Emmanuel Hirsch, Philipp Vielhauer, Giinter Klein,
Walter Schmithals, Herbert Braun, Gottfried Schille, Siegfried Schulz, Hans Conzelmann, and
John Dominic Crossan. Extensive bibliography,mostly on German authors on both sides of the
issue, can be found in the notes of Klein's Die zwolf Apostel, 34-37. For a brief summary of the
arguments that many critics use to support the existence of the Twelve during Jesus' ministry,see
Kiimmel, Kirchenbegriff 30-32; the summaryis echoed by Klein in his rebuttalin Die zwolfApos-
tel, 35. It is astonishingthat, although Klein'sdenial of the origin of the Twelve in Jesus' ministryis
basic to his larger thesis about "the twelve apostles,"he almost disdains to argue the point, giving
only a cursorysummaryof the argumentsof Vielhauerand like-minded scholars(pp. 35-37).
Throughout this article I presuppose both the two-source theory of Synoptic relationships
23

and the literaryindependence of the Fourth Gospel from the Synoptics.

24 Examples of studies on the Twelve (some of which do not always
distinguish carefully
between "disciples" and "the Twelve") include Theodore J. Weeden, Sr., Mark-Traditions in
Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); Rigaux, "Die 'Zwilf"'; Meye, Jesus and the Twelve;

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
644 Journal of Biblical Literature

Granted Mark'stheological focus on the Twelve, it is sometimes supposed that

most if not all of his references to the Twelve come from his own redactional
activity.25This conclusion, however, does not necessarily follow. For one thing,
as Ernest Best points out, "disciples,"not "the Twelve,"is by far Mark'sfavorite
designation for committed followers of Jesus.26Most critics would not want to
argue that therefore the disciples are purely a redactionalcreation of Mark.
Moreover, there are positive reasons for thinking that at least some of
Mark'sreferences to the Twelve come to him from his tradition.Basing himself
on the detailed analyses of Karl Kertelge and Giinther Schmahl, Wolfgang
Trilling argues that, while many of the Markanreferences to the Twelve may
well be redactional, at least two references seem firmly embedded in the pre-
Markantradition.27
a. The first reference comes in the introduction to the list of the twelve
names in Mark3:16-19, materialthat most critics recognize as pre-Markantra-
dition.28To be sure, Mark3:13-19 (the choice of the Twelve and the listing of

Kertelge, "Die Funktion"; Schmahl, Die Zwolf; Klemens Stock, Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein;
Augustine Stock, Call to Discipleship (GNS 1;Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1982); Ernest Best, Mark:
The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh:Clark, 1983); idem, "Mark'sUse of the Twelve";Vernon K. Rob-
bins, Jesus the Teacher (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1984); Shiner, Follow Me!
25 So Siegfried Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelleder Evangelisten (Zurich:Theologischer Verlag,
1972) 335 n. 92.
26 Best, "Mark'sUse of the Twelve,"11-35. Vielhaueruses Mark'sredactionin a different way
to argue againstthe existence of the Twelve duringJesus'ministry("Gottesreich,"69): the historical
existence of the Twelve is dubious because, from a literarypoint of view, the Twelve are only loosely
connected with the narrativeof Mark'sGospel. I find this a strangeargument;the strictlogical nexus
between the historicalexistence of the Twelve and the way Markworks references to them into the
redactionalstructure of his Gospel is difficult to grasp. Mark'sliterarystructureis often loose and
episodic. In fact, the same point could be made in regardto "the disciples"in Mark;yet hardlyany-
one would want to use this point to argue againstthe historicalexistence of Jesus'disciples.
27
Trilling, "Zur Entstehung," 204-6; cf. Kertelge, "Die Funktion," 196-97. For a similar
judgment, see Rigaux, "Die 'Zwolf,"' 470-82. One might ask whether even these authors too
quickly assign most of the references to the Twelve to Mark'sredaction. For one thing, the mere
presence of the phrase "the Twelve"in sentences that introduce sayingsof Jesus does not automat-
ically prove that, in such instances, "the Twelve"has been introduced redactionallyby Mark.If one
should take, for example, Pesch's view of Markas a conservative redactor of large blocks of tradi-
tional material (especially in the passion narrativebroadly understood), then, even in verses intro-
ducing sayingsof Jesus, variousreferences to the Twelve might belong to pre-Markantradition.
28 Guelich sums
up the matter well (Mark1-8:26, 155): "Withfew exceptions (e.g., Klein ...
and Schmithals .. .), the common consensus accepts the appointment of the Twelve (3:16-19) as a
pre-Markantradition.The Semitism behind 'to appoint'(epoiesen), the names of many who never
appear again in Mark,the use of patronymsand surnames like Peter, Boanerges and Iscariot, and
the presence of similar lists in Matt 10:24; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13 support this consensus. The
extent of Mark'sredaction in 3:13-15, however, is more debatable."Guelich goes on to argue that
even 3:13-15 evidences an underlyingtradition.See also Karl-GeorgReploh, Markus-Lehrer der
Gemeinde (SBM 9; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969) 43-50; Pesch, Das Markusevan-
gelium, 1.202-3.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 645

their names) is, as it now stands, a product of Markancomposition. Neverthe-

less, the various repetitions, parentheticalexplanations,and disruptionsof syn-
tax in Mark 3:13-19 create the overall impression that Markis reworkingand
explaining an earlier tradition-a position that most commentators accept. In
addition, as we shall see below, Luke has an independent traditionof the twelve
names; therefore the list of the twelve names is not a Markancreation out of
thin air.Hence, the introductoryclause in Mark3:14 ("andhe made [= created,
appointed] twelve")-or something similarto it-would have stood in the tra-
dition as the title or introduction of the list.29Mark 3:16a ("andhe made the
Twelve")might represent a possible alternate form of the traditionalintroduc-
tion to the list, but unfortunatelywhether v. 16a is part of the original Markan
text or a later gloss is uncertain.30
b. The designation "the Twelve"was also embedded in the pre-Markan
passion tradition, specifically in reference to Judas as "one of the Twelve"(ei;
TScv8beicKa)-notably in 14:43, when Judas"handsover"Jesus at the arrest in
Gethsemane.31 This set phrase, "one of the Twelve" is used also of Judas in
14:10, 20, though some would see these cases as Markan redaction. In any
event, the designation of Judasas "one of the Twelve"precisely when reference
is made to his act of betrayalis clearly not a Markaninvention;for, as we shall
see below, the independent tradition of John uses the same designation when
speaking of Judas's act of betrayal ("Judas... was going to hand him over,
[though Judas was] one of the Twelve," 6:71). In sum, the group called the
Twelve is not a pure Markancreation, but alreadyexisted in the tradition(s)he
inherited, notably in the list of the Twelve and the traditionabout Judas.
2. The lists of the Twelve can shed further light on the question. While
Matthew and Luke are almost entirely dependent on Markfor their references
to the Twelve,32the slightly different lists of the names of the Twelve that they
record (Mark3:16-19 // Matt 10:2-4 // Luke 6:14-16 // Acts 1:13) may indicate

29 On
this, see Schmahl,Die Zwolf, 64-65. The absence of the definite article before "twelve"
in Mark3:14 ("andhe made [i.e., appointed] twelve")does not militate againstthe basic point that
the pre-Markantraditionknows of a special group of twelve followers.
30 For the argumentspro and con, see
Metzger, TCGNT (2d ed.), 69. Guelich argues in favor
of 3:16a being originalin Mark'stext:its function is to resume the thought "afterthe parenthesis of
3:14b-15" (Mark1-8:26, 154).
31That Trilling reflects the consensus of Markanredaction critics on this point can be seen
from the chart (drawnup by MarionL. Soards)in RaymondE. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (2
vols.; Anchor Bible Reference Library;New York:Doubleday, 1994) 2.1504-5. The vast majorityof
redaction critics listed in this chart who have examined Mark 14:43 consider it a part of the pre-
Markanpassion narrative.The relationof the Judastraditionto the criterionof embarrassmentwill
be treated below.
32As Kertelge notes ("Die Funktion, 196), the one great exception is the indirect reference
to the Twelve in Matt 19:28 par. (from Q).

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
646 Journal of Biblical Literature

that in this material Matthew and/or Luke represents an independent tradition

about the Twelve. If this be the case, then the commonly held view that the list
of the Twelve in Mark3:13-19 comes from pre-Markantraditionwould be con-
firmed by the independent parallelsin M and/or L.
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 the
names of the Twelve:33

Mark Matthew Luke Acts

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

First Group of Four

Simon Peter Simon Peter Simon Peter Peter
James [son of] Andrew his brother Andrew his brother John
Zebedee
John brother James [son of] James James
of James Zebedee
Andrew John his brother John Andrew

Second Group of Four

Philip Philip Philip Philip
Bartholomew Bartholomew Bartholomew Thomas
Matthew Thomas Matthew Bartholomew
Thomas Matthewthe Thomas Matthew
toll collector

Third Group of Four

James [son of] James [son of] James [of] James [of]
Alphaeus Alphaeus Alphaeus Alphaeus
Thaddeus34 Thaddeus Simon the Simon the
Zealot Zealot
Simon the Simon the Jude [of] James Jude [of] James
Cananean Cananean
JudasIscariot Judas Iscariot JudasIscariot

33For basic
exegesis and further bibliography, see the standard commentaries, including
Pesch, Das Markusevangelium,1.202-9; Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, 153-66; Gundry, Mark, 163-70;
Fitzmyer, Gospel Accordingto Luke, 1.613-21; also Stock, Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein,7-53.
34 Much is made by some critics of the name "Lebbaeus,"which is found in some manu-
scripts of Markand Matthew in place of or along with "Thaddeus."All sorts of theories of equiva-
lencies or substitutions (either merely of the names or of actual historicalpersons) are suggested;
see, e.g., Taylor, Gospel According to St. Mark, 233-34; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The
Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh:Clark, 1988, 1991, -) 2.156; JoAnn
Ford Watson, "Thaddeus(Person),"ABD 6.435. In my view, "Thaddeus"(by itself) is the original
reading in both Markand Matthew. (1) In Mark3:18, "Lebbaeus"is found only in Codex Bezae and

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 647

Far from the variations in the lists of the Twelve disproving the group's
existence during Jesus' lifetime, the Synoptists'disagreementswithin the basic
agreement of their lists argue for a primitiveoral traditionthat underwent some
changes before the Gospels were written.35Actually,the variationsare hardly
massive. Despite some commentators' sweeping statements about discrepan-
cies in the lists, there is only one basic difference in the names: for the "Thad-
deus" mentioned in tenth place in Markand Matthew,Luke (in both Luke 6:16
and Acts 1:13) has "Jude[or Judas]of James"in eleventh place. Otherwise, not
only are the other eleven names the same, but even the basic order of the
names (three majorblocks of four names each) is the same.
The first block of four names alwaysbegins with Peter and alwayscontin-
ues (in varyingorder) with James and John (the sons of Zebedee), plus Andrew,
the brother of Peter. The second block of four names alwaysbegins with Philip
and always continues (in varying order) with Bartholomew, Matthew, and
Thomas. The third block of four names alwaysbegins with James [the son] of
Alphaeus and always continues with Simon the Cananean [ = the Zealot] and
Judas Iscariot (alwaysat the end of the list). The one variationin names, Thad-
deus or Jude of James, is found, not surprisingly,in the third block of names.
Understandably,the least known and most easily forgotten individualswere rel-
egated to the third block-the one glaringexception being the notoriousJudas,
who is put at the end of the entire list for obvious reasons. If one considers that
this list of twelve men (many of whom were otherwise unknown individuals)
was handed down orallyduring the first and possibly second Christiangenera-

a numberof the Old Latinmanuscripts; it is thereforerestrictedto onlya partof the so-called

Westerntextualtradition.Quiterightly,the UBSGNT(4thed.) assignsthe reading"Thaddeus" an
A (certain)status.(2) In Matt10:3,the readingsaremorevaried:"Thaddeus," "Thaddeus who is
calledLebbaeus," "Lebbaeus whois calledThaddeus," etc. Whilethe testimonyof the textualwit-
nesses is moreconfused,the UBSGNT(4th ed.) rightlyprefers"Thaddeus" and assignsit a B
(almostcertain)rating.In favorof the unadorned "Thaddeus" in Matt10:3,I thinkanargumentcan
be mountedfromthe conclusionswe reachedaboutthe sourcesof the listsof the Twelve:apart
fromthe presentcase,thereis no reasonto supposethatthe Mattheanlistof the Twelveis derived
fromanysourcebeyondthe Markanlist. Consequently, once one decidesin favorof the simple
"Thaddeus" in Mark,it is difficultto see whatredactional reasonwouldhaveled Matthew,withno
othersourcein frontof him,to change"Thaddeus" to "Lebbaeus." Whether"Lebbaeus" arises
merely out of scribalconfusion in the copying of certainmanuscripts orwhether exegeticaldifficul-
tiesin reconcilingthevariousNTlistsof theTwelveledsomeChristianscribesto changethe name
on purposeis hardto say.For the theorythat"Lebbaeus" arosefroman effortto introduceLevi
into the list of the Twelve ("Lebbaeus"being a Latinismfor "Levi"),see BarnabasLindars,
"Matthew,Levi,Lebbaeusandthe Valueof the WesternText,"NTS4 (1957-58)220-22. In any
event,"Lebbaeus" is notoriginalin thetextof eitherMarkor Matthew; henceit hasno relevanceto
ourtreatmentof the historicalexistenceof the Twelveduringthe ministryof Jesus.Theconfusion
overLebbaeusaroseamongChristianscribes,not amongJewsfollowingJesusor evenamongthe
earliestPalestinian JewishChristians.
35 On this point, see Meye, Jesus and the Twelve, 200-201.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
648 Journal of Biblical Literature

tion, the surprisingfact is that only one name varies in all four lists: Thaddeus
versus Jude of James.
This one variationhas been explained by some commentators in terms of
alternate names for the same person, but this solution smacks of harmoniza-
tion.36 The variation may simply reflect the fact that the Twelve as a group
quicklylost importance in the early church, and so the church'scollective mem-
ory of them was not perfectly preserved. Another possible reason for the varia-
tion may lie in the fact that Jesus' ministry lasted for two years and some
months. Considering Jesus' stringent demands on the Twelve to leave family,
home, and possessions to be his permanent entourage on his preaching tours
through Galilee and Judea, we should not be astonished that, sometime during
the two years of the ministry,at least one member left the group. Any number
of reasons might be suggested for the departure: voluntary leave taking, dis-
missal by Jesus, illness, or even death. Whatever the cause, it may well be that
one member of the Twelve departed and was replaced by another disciple.
That Jesus would provide a replacement is itself significant. As Sanders has
stressed, the Twelve were important precisely because their number symbol-
ized and embodied the eschatological hopes of Israel and the eschatological
message of Jesus: the restorationand salvationof all Israel, of all twelve tribes,
in the last days.37
Granted the relativelyminor variationsin the twelve names within a con-
text of overall agreement, is there sufficient reason to think that Matthew
and/or Luke knew a list other than the one they received from Mark'sGospel?

36
So, rightly,Fitzmyer, Gospel Accordingto Luke, 1.619-20. On p. 614, he points to the vari-
ations in the lists of the names of the twelve tribes (or twelve patriarchs)in the OT as a similarphe-
nomenon. For a full study of these variations,see PhillipJ. Rask,"The Lists of the Twelve Tribes of
Israel"(Ph.D. diss., The Catholic Universityof America, 1990). Actually,compared with the many
variationsin the names of the twelve tribes found in the OT, the pseudepigrapha,Qumran, Philo,
Josephus, and the book of Revelation,the variationsin the four lists of the Twelve in the NT are rel-
atively minor.
37While I
agree with Sanders on this main point, I disagree with him on a subsidiarypoint.
Sanders thinks that Jesus was indeed interested in the symbolism of the number twelve, but not
especially in alwayshaving exactlytwelve men in the group designated as "the Twelve":"Jesusused
the number 'twelve' symbolically,without anyone then, any more than later, being able to count
precisely twelve [individualmen in the group]"(JesusandJudaism, 102). As a matter of fact, Mark,
Matthew, and Luke do count precisely twelve men in the group, though Luke differs from the
other two Synoptists with respect to one person's name. I do not understand how this particular
group of men could symbolize the eschatological hopes connected with the number twelve and
even be called by the set term "theTwelve"unless in fact duringJesus'ministrythe members of the
group were-at least most of the time-twelve in number. To be sure, one must allow for the pos-
sibility of a short hiatus, when one member left the Twelve and was replaced by someone else. This
may have happened during Jesus' ministry in the case of Thaddeus and Jude of James and after
Jesus' ministry with Judas Iscariot and Matthias. But brief gaps do not amount to the conclusion
that the number of disciples in the Twelve did not matter;the apparentlyhistoricalphenomenon of
replacement argues in the opposite direction.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 649

Or can the variationsin Matthew and Luke/Acts be best explained simply by

Matthew'sand Luke'sredactionalchanges in Mark'slist? The answer may differ
depending on whether we look at Matthew or Luke.
a. Matthew's two notable divergences from Mark may be explainable
simply from Matthew'seditorialactivityand theological viewpoint:
i. As his whole Gospel shows, Matthew loves neat patterns;he will often
reorder Markand Q to create numericallyarrangedblocks of material. Hence
it is hardly surprisingthat he reorders Mark'sfirst block of four names; he ele-
vates Andrew from fourth to second place to create two pairs of two brothers.38
Having created pairs in the firstblock, Matthewcontinues the pattern through-
out the list of the Twelve: for example, "Philipand Bartholomew,Thomas and
Matthew."Perhapsin this way he compensates for not takingover Mark'sstate-
ment that Jesus sent out the Twelve "twoby two" (Mark6:7).
ii. The variationsin the second block of four names are likewise due to the
First Evangelist'sredactionalactivity:he changes the name of Levi the toll col-
lector in Mark 2:14 to that of Matthew the toll collector in Matt 9:9. He thus
assures that every named individual who is directly called to discipleship by
Jesus winds up in the list of the Twelve.39The First Evangelist hammers home
the identification by appending the designation "the toll collector"(6 TeX&0vrS;)
to the name of Matthew in the list of the Twelve. But why is the name of
Matthew placed last in the second block? Since no one else in the second block
of names has a description attached to his name, the evangelist may have felt
that the list would flow more smoothly if the lengthier phrase "Matthewthe toll
collector"was placed at the end of the second block.
In sum, it seems likely that the First Evangelist'slist of the Twelve can be
explained simply as his redactionalreworkingof Mark'slist. Yet one cannot be
absolutely sure of this. The list of the Twelve in Acts also puts Matthew at the
end of the second block of names;only these two lists agree on this point. I tend
to think that this correspondence is pure coincidence, but it warns us not to be
too certain in our judgments.40

38 Like
Luke-Acts, Matthew drops the Markanparentheticalreference to the nickname that
Jesus gave the sons of Zebedee ("Boanerges,"which, Mark3:17 claims, means "sonsof thunder").
Matthew and Luke probably dropped the reference because (1) it disturbs the flow of the list,
and/or (2) it may have been as puzzling to the later evangelists as it is to modem exegetes.
39 One
problem remains: Why did the First Evangelist choose Matthew in the list of the
Twelve to be the person who is identified with Levi? Various suggestions can be found in Rudolf
Pesch, "Levi-Matthaus (Mc 2.14/Mt 9.9; 10.3): Ein Beitrag zur Losung eines alten Problems,"
ZNW59 (1968) 40-56; MarkKiley, "Why'Matthew'in Matt 9,9-13?" Bib 65 (1984) 347-51.
40 Davies and Allison point out further minor agreements between the Matthean and Lukan
lists vis-a-vis Mark (Gospel According to Matthew, 2.144-45). They leave open the possibility that
Matthew and Luke reflect here a Q tradition,though for the most part they explain Matthew'slist

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
650 Journal of Biblical Literature

b. The case of Luke-Acts is different and more complicated. To take

Luke's Gospel first:some of the divergences from Markcan be explained, as in
Matthew's list, by stylistic improvements. For instance, Luke as well as
Matthew probably thought that putting Andrew right after Peter to create two
pairs of two brothers produced a neater pattern.41Luke tends to avoid Hebrew
and Aramaicwords in his Gospel, so it is not surprisingthat he gives a transla-
tion of Simon the Cananean:Simon the Zealot.
However, there is a puzzling variation in Luke that is not paralleled in
Matthew.Instead of Thaddeus, mentioned by Markand Matthew in the second
place of the third block of names, Luke has "Jude[i.e., Judas] of James"in the
third place, Simon having been moved up to second place. This same "Judeof
James"is found in the same place in the list of Acts. Stylistic reasons obviously
do not explain the change, nor apparentlydo theological agendas. Luke never
mentions Jude of James outside his two lists; Jude of James is neither better
known nor more theologically significant than Thaddeus, whom he replaces.
That another Jude/Judas (in addition to Judas Iscariot) existed among Jesus'
most intimate disciples is independently supported by a stray tradition in the
Fourth Gospel's account of the Last Supper: "Jude [Judas], not the Iscariot,"
who is never mentioned elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel, suddenly appears to
ask Jesus a question (John 14:22).42Thus, since the replacement of Thaddeus
by Jude of James cannot be attributed to Luke'sredactionalactivity,and since

as his redaction of Mark; cf. Gundry, Matthew, 182-83 (who takes the view that Luke used
Matthew).
41 Here is a
prime example of a "minoragreement"of Matthew and Luke against Markaris-
ing out of the coincidental desire of both writers to improve Mark'stext. Similarly,that Luke, like
Matthew, adds "his brother"after Andrew's name may be an accidental agreement and probably
should not be used to argue for a Q list of the twelve names. Matthew may add "hisbrother"after
Andrew'sname to balance the same phrase used after the name of John, the brother of James. Per-
haps Luke does not fully employ this balancingprocedure (i.e., he does not append "his brother"
after John's name) because James and John are treated differently than Andrew in Luke's Gospel.
James and John have alreadybeen introduced as the sons of Zebedee (and hence brothers) back in
Luke 5:10. But Andrew is absent from this Lukan version of the initial call of Peter, James, and
John after the miraculouscatch of fish (Luke 5:1-11). Therefore, as Luke mentions Andrew for the
first and only time in his Gospel in the list of the Twelve (6:14), he supplies the explanationthat he
necessarilyomitted when he dropped the Markanversion of the call of the firstfour disciples (Mark
1:16-20):Andrew was Peter's brother.
42 On this text and the various changes made in the ancient versions to clarifythe identity of
this person, see Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; AB 29, 29A; Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970) 2.641. Rudolf Schnackenburgthinks that the Jude mentioned in
John 14:22 surely belongs, in the mind of the evangelist, to the Twelve (Das Johannesevangelium[4
vols.; HTKNT 4; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna:Herder, 1965, 1971, 1975, 1984] 3.92). While I do not
think that this can be established with certainty,it is noteworthy that all the other named disciples
who interact with Jesus during the Johannine Last Supper (Peter, Judas Iscariot, Thomas, and
Philip) appearin the Synopticlists of the Twelve. Hence I consider it possible that the Jude in John
14:22 is the Jude of James mentioned in Luke 6:16 // Acts 1:13.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 651

the existence of another Jude is independently witnessed by the Fourth

Gospel, the most natural explanationis that Luke found this name in a list he
inherited from his L tradition. In short, Luke rather than Matthew gives us
solid evidence for a list of the Twelve independent of Mark'slist.43
c. Whether the Acts of the Apostles supplies us with still another indepen-
dent tradition is doubtful. As was the case with Matthew, I think that the
notable differences from Mark can be explained on redactional grounds.44In
Acts 1:13, Luke seems to be meshing his Markantraditionwith his own special
tradition (L); the conflated list seems further modified by Luke's redactional
concerns in Acts. However, as we shall see, one divergence is difficult to explain
on any grounds and leaves us unsure.
The most significant differences in the list of Acts 1:13 as compared with
Luke 6:14-16 are as follows:
i. In the first block of names, Luke follows Mark in keeping Andrew
fourth.
ii. With an eye to what will happen in Acts, Luke, for the sole time in any
of the lists, reorders the two sons of Zebedee by putting John before James in
Acts 1:13. This change probablyreflects two aspects of the story of the Twelve
in the early chapters of Acts: John is the regular"sidekick"of Peter, and James
is the first of the Twelve to die and so to drop out of the story of Acts.
iii. The second block of names in Acts is somewhat puzzling in that the
order is unique among the four lists: Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, and
Matthew. There is no discernible reason for this change, since both the list in
Mark3:18 and the list in Luke 6:14-15 read Philip, Bartholomew,Matthew,and
Thomas. This divergence in order is the only serious argument in favor of see-
ing an independent traditionin Acts 1:13.
iv. The final difference is in the third block of names: the omission of
Judas Iscariot.This is readilyexplainedboth by Judas'sbetrayalof Jesus, which
has alreadybeen recounted in the Gospel (Luke 22:3-5, 22-23, 47-48), and by
Judas'suntimely death, which is about to be narratedin Acts (1:16-26).
In sum, the results of our survey are mixed. In my opinion, Matthew'slist
is purely a product of his redaction of Mark'slist; no independent tradition is
visible. The case of the list in Acts is more difficult,though I tend to think that it

43 Schurmann
argues strongly for a non-Markansource at Luke's disposal (Das Lukasevan-
gelium, 1.318-19); he suggests, however, that this list of names had already been joined to the
materialbehind Luke 6:12-13a in Q. Also in favorof Q is Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte,1.206.
44Schneider
rightly claims that Luke reaches back to the material in his Gospel (Die Apos-
telgeschichte, 1.199); see also Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 120; Conzelmann, Acts of the
Apostles, 9.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
652 Journal of Biblical Literature

can be explained simply as a conflation of the lists found in Mark'sand Luke's

Gospels, with further modificationsdue to Luke'sprogramin Acts. Admittedly,
the change of order in the second block of names is difficult to explain; one
might perhaps appeal to a desire for variety on purely stylistic grounds. In con-
trast to Matthew'sGospel, though, the list Luke presents in his Gospel (6:14-
16) does not seem explicable simply as a redaction of Markfor stylistic or theo-
logical reasons. The replacement of Thaddeus by Jude of James finds no expla-
nation in the theological program or stylistic preferences of Luke. Hence, I
think it most likely that Luke 6:14-16 represents a traditionof the names of the
Twelve that is independent of that in Mark3:16-19. Therefore, the L tradition
as well as the Markantradition witnesses both to the existence of the Twelve
during the life of Jesus and to the names of the individualswho made up the
Twelve.
3. Besides tradition in Mark, and probably in L, the Johannine tradition
gives independent attestationof the Twelve duringJesus'ministry.The fact that
the Twelve are mentioned in John is all the more weighty because John has no
special interest in the group called the Twelve. The Johanninetraditionnames
importantdisciples or supportersof Jesus (e.g., Nathanaeland Lazarus)who are
not listed in the Synopticcataloguesof the Twelve;and the anonymous"disciple
whom Jesus loved,"the model of all discipleship,does not apparentlybelong to
the Twelve. The few references to the Twelve that occur in John thus have the
air of being relics or fossils embedded in primitiveJohanninetradition.
In John'saccount of the public ministry,references to the Twelve are clus-
tered-and, indeed, isolated-at the end of the Bread of Life discourse in John
6. Faced with desertion by many of his disciples, Jesus asksthe Twelvewhether
they will leave him as well (6:67). Peter, acting as spokesman, proclaims his
faith in Jesus as the Holy One of God (w. 68-69). Almost in a tone of sad mus-
ing, Jesus replies with a rhetoricalquestion (v. 70): "Have I not chosen you, the
Twelve, and [yet] one of you is a devil?"In a characteristicaside, the evangelist
explains Jesus' terse prophecy to the reader (v. 71): "He spoke of Judas, [the
son] of Simon Iscariot; for he was going to hand him over, [although] he was
one of the Twelve."45Remarkably,this exhausts the direct references to the
Twelve in John'saccount of the public ministry.Perhaps it is not accidental that
these references are clustered at the end of John 6, the only chapter of John's
Gospel that parallels the account of the Galilean ministry in the Synoptics,

exegetical problems involved here, see Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1.
45 On the

298; pp. 301-2 he lists the parallelsbetween John 6:67-71 and the variousversions of the Synop-
on
tic scene of Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi. The mention of Judas'father, Simon, and the
attributionof "Iscariot"to Simon ratherthan to Judas(this is the readingof the best manuscriptsin
John 6:71) are unparalleledanywhere in the Synoptictradition-another sign that John represents
an independent traditionhere.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 653

especially the "breadcycle" in Mark 6-8, which culminates in Peter's confes-

sion of faith at CaesareaPhilippi.
There is one other reference to the Twelve, but it is only indirectly con-
nected with the public ministry. In John 11:16, as Jesus prepares to go to
Bethany to raise Lazarusfrom the dead, Thomas, "who is called Didymus [the
Twin],"glumly remarks"tohis fellow disciples":"Letus also go that we may die
with him." In 14:5, Thomas reappearsbriefly at the Last Supper,asking queru-
lously: "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the
way?"It is, however,only in one of the resurrectionappearancesthat Thomas is
introduced with the specific identification,"Thomas,one of the Twelve, called
Didymus.. ." (20:24).
Thus, directly or indirectly,the Fourth Gospel, which has no formal list of
the Twelve, identifies Peter, Thomas, and Judas as members of the group.
Though Andrew and Philip are never so identified, their prominence through-
out the public ministry as a pair 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 known
in the Johanninetraditionas members of the Twelve.What is telling, though, is
that we must piece this information together from fragments of a tradition
about the Twelve that may have had some importance in the early Johannine
community but apparentlyholds no great interest for the Fourth Evangelist.
We are dealing with a traditionvery different from the one we find in the 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 probably L, there may be an indirect refer-
ence to the Twelve46in the Q tradition,though this judgment depends on how
we reconstructthe traditionunderlyingMatt 19:28// Luke 22:30. This Q logion
has been placed by the two evangelists in strikinglydifferent contexts; neither
context can claim to be the originalsetting of the saying.47Matthew inserts the

46 I
purposely use the phrase "anindirect reference to the Twelve in the Q tradition"because
Matt 19:28 par. does not directlyname "theTwelve"with the fixed formula(oi 865e6Ea)found else-
where in the Gospels; we have here instead a reference to the Twelve by way of the image of
"twelve thrones"(presuming for the moment the Mattheanwording to be original). Nevertheless,
Jesus speaks to certain close followers and promises them that at the last judgment they shall sit on
twelve thronesjudging (or ruling)the twelve tribes of Israel. Grantedthe knowledge of a leadership
group called the Twelve in the early church, not only the Mattheanand Lukantexts in their redac-
tional contexts but also the traditionallogion circulatingin the early church could hardly refer to
any group of persons except the Twelve.
47On this point, and on the logion in general, see Jacques Dupont, "Le logion des douze
tr6nes (Mt 19,28; Lc 22,28-30)," in Etudes sur les evangiles synoptiques (ed. Frans Neirynck; 2
vols.; BETL 70; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1985; original, 1964) 706-43; Ingo
Broer, "Das Ringen der Gemeinde um Israel:Exegetischer Versuch iiber Mt 19,28," in Jesus und
der Menschensohn(Anton V6gtle Festschrift;ed. Rudolf Pesch, Rudolf Schnackenburg,and Odilo
Kaiser;Freiburg/Basel/Vienna:Herder, 1975) 148-65; Walter Grundmann,Das Evangelium nach

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 654 Journal of Biblical Literature

logion into Jesus' teaching on the dangers of wealth and on the rewardawaiting
disciples who leave family and home for his sake (Matt 19:23-30; cf. Mark
10:23-31); the larger context is Jesus'journey up to Jerusalemfor the Passover
and his passion. Luke instead places the Q logion in the mini-discourse Jesus
delivers at the Last Supper. The need to adapt the saying to each context may
help explainwhy the first part of the sayingis so different in Matthew and Luke
and reflects the redactional concerns of the respective evangelist.48However,
the final words of the saying are basically the same in both Gospels, as Jesus
makes an eschatologicalpromise to certain disciples:49

Matthdus (THKNT 1; 3d ed.; Berlin: Theologische Verlagsanstalt, 1972) 435; Fitzmyer, Gospel
According to Luke, 2.1411-19. That the final part of the saying, which is under discussion here,
comes from Q is admitted by most scholars (e.g., Siegried Schulz, Paul Hoffmann, Dieter
Liihrmann,AthanasiusPolag, Ivan Havener, John S. Kloppenborg, M. Eugene Boring, and David
Catchpole). Some critics, however, prefer to see two independent traditions that have been pre-
served in M and L; so T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (1937; reprint, London: SCM, 1949)
216-17. Migaku Sato remains dubious about the existence of the saying in Q (Q und Prophetie
[WUNT 2/29; Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1988] 2, 23) . For a survey of views, see John S. Kloppen-
borg, Q Parallels (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988) 202. For a somewhat different approach,main-
taining that Luke 22:30 is part of a pre-Lukan (and non-Markan) tradition of the Last Supper,
possibly even part of a special Lukanpassion narrative,see Heinz Schiirmann,Jesu Abschiedsrede
Lk 22,21-38, III. Teil, Einer quellenkritischenUntersuchungdes lukanischenAbendmahlsberichtes
Lk 22,7-38 (1957; NTAbh 20/5; 2d ed.; Munster:Aschendorff, 1977) 36-63, 139-42; Schurmann
feels less certain about some of his views in his "Afterword"to the second edition (pp. 168-70).
Daniel Margueratgoes too farwhen he claims that Rev 3:20-21 is anotherversion of this logion (Le
jugement dans l'evangile de Matthieu [Le Monde de la Bible 6; 2d ed.; Geneva: Labor et Fides,
1995] 462). Rather, it displayssome of the same apocalypticmotifs, but it does not use them in the
same way or say the same thing.
48On the one hand, Matthew must try to insert the material into his larger teaching on the
demands and rewardsof discipleship in Matthew 19; the introduction of the theme of the Son of
Man at the final judgment, a favorite theme of Matthew's, may be redactional in 19:28. On the
other hand, Luke is obviously stitching together various disparate logia. Indeed, Luke 22:29-30a,
with the themes of kingdom, covenant, and eating and drinkingat Jesus' table fit awkwardly(with
respect to both content and syntax)with v. 30b (sitting on thrones and judging the twelve tribes of
Israel). The composite nature of Luke 22:28-30 is examined by Broer ("Das Ringen," 149-50).
Along with a number of other critics, Schulz thinks that Luke 22:30a is probablyredactional(Q: Die
Spruchquelle der Evangelisten, 332). For the larger theological context of the Lukan form of the
saying within Luke-Acts, see Jacob Jervell, "The Twelve on Israel's Thrones," in Luke and the
People of God (Minneapolis:Augsburg,1972) 75-112. For variouscriticswho champion Matthew's
or Luke's form of the saying as more original, see Broer, "Das Ringen," 148 n. 2 (continued on
p. 149).
49 It is
surprisingthat Klein (Die zwolf Apostel, 36) thinks that he can dismiss the question of
the Q logion simply by noting that the word "regeneration"(czak^yyeve.oia)in Matt 19:28 makes
the saying "suspect."This ignores the key point that likely Q materialcan be found only in the final
words of Matt 19:28 // Luke 22:30: "you shall sit on (twelve) thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel."Quite properly, this is the part of the text that is put in bold print and underlined by Klop-
penborg (Q Parallels, 202; cf. Rigaux,"Die 'Zwolf,"'476). Q research, by definition, focuses on the
material Matthew and Luke have in common, while omitting the material that is likely to come
from Matthean or Lukanredaction-which is probablythe case with Matthew's cakryyeveoia.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 655

Matt 19:28 Luke 22:30

you50shallsit youshallsit
on twelvethrones on thrones
judgingthe twelvetribes judgingthe twelvetribes
of Israel of Israel

Even if we had only the Lukan form of the saying, Luke'scontext of Jesus
addressing his closest disciples at the Last Supper with the promise that they
would "judge" (= rule? obtain justice for? pass judicial sentence on?)51the
twelve 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 "twelve"
before "thrones"or whether Matthewhas added it. Argumentscan be mounted
for 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 largercontext that he is thinking of
the Twelve, "whomJesus named apostles"(Luke 6:13). Luke alone states at the
beginning of the Last Supper that "the apostles reclined at table" with Jesus
(22:14; Luke'ssource, Mark 14:17, speaks of "the Twelve").The addressees of
the Q logion in v. 30 are described by Jesus in v. 28 as "you ... who have

50 For all the differences in the introductionsto this

logion in Matthew ("youwho have fol-
lowed me") and Luke ("you are the ones who have persevered with me in my trials"),there is an
underlying similarity:Jesus is speaking not to the crowds in general but to followers who are espe-
cially close to him. Contra Broer ("Das Ringen," 163), there is no reason to doubt that the second
person plural ("youshall sit")is originalin the saying.
51 For the different meanings of Kpivo that are possible here, see Dupont, "Le logion,"
721-32. The two basic possibilities are (1) "tojudge," namely, at the last judgment, with (a) either
the positive nuance of "obtainjustice for," "see justice done for," (b) or the negative nuance of
"condemn" (a likely sense in Matthew's redactional theology); or (2) "govern,""rule,""exercise
sovereignty over" (not the usual sense in the NT, but a sense witnessed in the OT and pseude-
pigrapha, and a possible sense in Luke's redactional context and theology). Needless to say, one
meaning does not necessarily exclude the other; moreover, in light of the saying'sstrong OT and
Jewish eschatological flavor,one must allow for a Semitism in the use of the verb. (Broer's strange
interpretation of icpivo ["Das Ringen," 162-63] in terms of the followers of Jesus engaging in a
judgment that annihilates Israel on the last day finds no basis in the Q sayingtaken by itself, apart
from its redactionalcontext in Matthew.) In any event, the reference to the twelve tribes of Israel,
which did not exist as an empirical reality in Jesus' day but which were expected by at least some
Jews to be regathered or reconstituted in the end-time (see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew:
Rethinking the HistoricalJesus [3 vols.; Anchor Bible Reference Library;New York:Doubleday,
1991, 1994, -] 2.237-88), points forwardto some eschatologicalevent (the finaljudgment) or situ-
ation (the kingdom of God fully come). Dupont suggests that the curious mention of "thrones"in
the plural in the scene of judgment in Dan 7:9 (while the Ancient of Days has a "throne"in the sin-
gular) may lie behind Jesus' promise to the Twelve ("Lelogion,"732-37). While the plural did pro-
voke later rabbinic speculation and thoughts about the great ones or princes of Israel sharing in
God's judgment, we cannot be sure that such speculation circulatedin Jesus' day.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
656 Journal of Biblical Literature

remained with me in my trials,"a good description, in Luke's mind, of those

who belonged to the Twelve (cf. Acts 1:21-22). Thus, unlike Matthew'scontext
in Matthew 19, which speaks only of "disciples,"Luke'scontext alreadymakes it
fairly clear that the audience addressed is the Twelve-an inference that then
receives reinforcement from the mention of the twelve tribes in the saying.
Indeed, granted Luke's characteristic care for style and his desire to avoid
needless repetition, it is quite understandablewhy he would want to avoid the
repetition of the word "twelve"within the space of three words.52
Second, Luke's chosen context-namely, the Last Supper-may have
prompted him to drop the explicit reference to the twelve thrones at the final
judgment. In Luke's ordering of the Last Supper material,Jesus has just pre-
dicted his betrayalby 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 not
persevere to be one of those seated on the thrones on judgment day; Matthias
will take his place (Acts 1:15-26). Understandably,Luke wishes to soften an
apparent clash between a prophecy of doom and a prophecy of reward for the
same person (Judas).Or,to put the point more bluntly,he wishes to circumvent
the embarrassment of having Jesus issue a prophecy about the Twelve that is
not verified of one of their number. Accordingly,he drops the reference to the
twelve thrones.53
In contrast, since Matthew inserts the Q saying into an instruction on
discipleship during the journey to Jerusalem,and since Judasis not mentioned
or even thought of in the larger Mattheancontext, Matthew naturallydoes not
feel Luke's problem of clash or embarrassment. Indeed, since the preceding
context 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 "twelve"
before "thrones"in the saying is necessary if the persons to whom the promise
refers are to be made absolutely clear. On the whole, therefore, it seems more
likely that the reference to "twelve thrones"and therefore to the circle of the
Twelve is originalin the Q saying.54

52
Dupont notes that in this same verse Luke apparentlymakes another change for the sake
of style: Matthew's more naturalKpivoveS xq8s6o6lca u.;Aqxo- 'Iopacl, (probablyreflecting Q)
receives an unusual inversion (seen elsewhere in Luke's Greek style) in Luke's Tag866Kea u)kaSd
KpivovTeS; Toi 'Iopalk ("Le logion,"721). Workingwith his theory of a pre-LukanLast Supper tra-
dition, Schiirmannsuggests that "twelve"before "thrones"was dropped in the pre-Lukantradition
to make possible a more general applicationof a saying that originallyreferred only to the Twelve
(JesuAbschiedsredeLk 22,2138, III. Teil, 52).
53 So
Dupont, "Le logion,"720; Witherington,ChristologyofJesus, 141.
54 So,
among others, Roloff, Apostolat, 148-49; Trilling, "ZurEntstehung," 215; Fitzmyer,
Gospel According to Luke, 2.1419; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 141; Schulz, Q: Die
Spruchquelleder Evangelisten, 332; Marguerat,Lejugement, 462 n. 45 (though Schulz and Mar-
guerat do not think that the saying goes back to the historicalJesus; so also Rudolf Bultmann, Die
Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition [1921; FRLANT 29; 8th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 657

This promise to the Twelve makes perfect sense within the larger context
of Jewish eschatological hopes in general and Jesus' eschatological proclama-
tion in particular.55In other words, the core promise in Matt 19:28 par. meets
the criterion of coherence. Even in OT and pseudepigraphicliterature that is
not itself apocalyptic (e.g., Tobit 13; Sir 36:1-17), the hope for the regathering
or reconstituting of the tribes of Israel in the end-time is expressed.56Such a
hope fit perfectly into Jesus' proclamationof the coming of God's kingly rule,
for Jesus addressed his proclamationnot to the world indiscriminatelybut to
Israel 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 prophets) began the regatheringof the twelve tribes. Accord-
ingly, within his larger prophetic vision of God coming to rule Israel as king in
the end-time, Jesus promised in Matt 19:28 par. that his inner circle of the
Twelve, the prophetic sign and beginning of the regathering of the twelve
tribes, would share in the governance (or judgment?) of the reconstituted

Ruprecht, 1970] 170-71). It is interesting to note that Vielhauer,who rejects both the authenticity
of Matt 19:28 par. and the existence of the Twelve during the ministryof Jesus, nevertheless states
that, although the original form of the logion cannot be determined, the saying does refer to a
promise Jesus makes to the Twelve about ruling the twelve tribes of Israel ("Gottesreich,"67). It
might also be noted that, if one were to suppose that the original Q saying did not refer to the
Twelve, the mere presence of the "twelvetribes"in the logion would not have given rise automati-
cally or naturallyto the numeral "twelve"before "thrones"in a secondarystage of the tradition. In
the OT, the intertestamentalliterature,and the NT, we find many passagesthat speak of or depict
the regathering or the judging of all Israel (sometimes the point of all the tribes is stressed), yet
none of these depictions generates the idea of twelve thrones corresponding to the twelve tribes
being judged or ruled. The twelve thrones in Matt 19:28 is most naturallyexplained as a correlative
of the Twelve who are addressed.
55For a defense of the
position that Jesus' proclamationwas eschatological in both a future
and a realized sense, see Meier, MarginalJew, 2.237-506.
56That the idea of the regatheringof the twelve tribes of Israel in the end-time (or in the days
of the Messiah) was a living hope in the time of Jesus is shown by manyJewish works,both OT and
pseudepigrapha, which either were composed or continued to be read around the time of Jesus:
e.g., Tobit (fragmentsof which have been found at Qumran;see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "TheAramaic
and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from QumranCave 4," CBQ 57 [1995] 655-75); Baruch 4-5; Sir
36:10-13; 48:10; 2 Macc 1:27-29; 2:17-18; Pss. Sol. 11; 17:26-32,4046; 1QM 2:1-3, 7-8; 3:13-14;
5:1-2; llQTemple 18:14-16. On these texts and their relation to the eschatological hopes con-
nected with the idea of the Twelve, see Sanders,Jesus and Judaism, 95-106. More specifically,that
the symbolism of the twelve patriarchsof Israel, instructing the twelve tribes and foreshadowing
their history, was alive at the time of Jesus is shown by the basic form of the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs.While the Testamentsin their present state displayChristianredaction (the pre-
cise extent of which is still debated among critics), their roots reach back to the pre-Christian
period in Palestine-witness the fragmentsof Testamentsof some of the patriarchsat Qumran.On
this point, see Howard ClarkKee, "Testamentsof the Twelve Patriarchs,"OTP 1.775-80-though
Kee minimizes Christian influence and pushes the date of the Testaments back farther (second
century BCE) than I would.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
658 Journal of Biblical Literature

Israel. Matt 19:28 par. thus gives us much more than a bare indication of the
historical existence of the Twelve. It gives us an important statement of Jesus'
eschatological vision and his intention in creating the Twelve as part of that
vision.
Indeed, it is a vision that makes much more sense in the context of Jesus'
ministry than in the context of the first generation of the early church, where
the Twelve as an eschatological group (especially in relation to the idea of
reconstituting the twelve tribes of Israel) disappearwith surprisingrapidity.In
light of the quick demise of the Twelve as a visible and influential group in the
early church (as distinct from some prominent individual members, such as
Peter), one might mount a type of argument from dissimilarityor discontinuity.
In the OT, intertestamentalliterature,and the NT, there is much talk about and
many verbal pictures of the judgment of Israel, including scenes of courts and
thrones, with variousindividualson the thrones. Yet nowhere else in Jewish lit-
erature before or during the time of Jesus do we find the picture of twelve men
sitting on twelve thrones sharing in God's prerogative of passing judgment on
(or ruling?) eschatological Israel. In the NT, the Twelve are assigned various
roles and are portrayed in various ways, both positive and negative. But no-
where else in the NT do we find the Twelve sitting on thrones and judging or
ruling Israel in the end-time.
Thus, compared with pre-ChristianJudaismand with the rest of the NT,
the picture Jesus paints and the function he ascribes to the Twelve in Matt
19:28 par. are unique to this logion.57Being discontinuous on this point with
both Judaismand early Christianity,the saying is best ascribed to the historical
Jesus. Indeed, if one wants to claim that the saying was instead created by the
early church, one must face a difficult question: Why would the early church
have created a saying (attributedto the earthlyJesus duringhis public ministry)
that in effect promised a heavenly throne and power at the lastjudgment to the
traitorJudas Iscariot?58In the end, the criteriaof coherence, discontinuity,and
embarrassmentall argue for the saying'sorigin in the public ministry.59
One minor objection to my whole argument, however, needs to be
addressed. Even if we grant a reference to the Twelve in Matt 19:28 par., the
Twelve appear only this one time in Q. Some critics, such as Vielhauer,use this
as an argument againstthe existence of the Twelve duringthe life of Jesus.60Yet

57So
Trilling, "ZurEntstehung,"216. The partialparallels brought forwardby Dupont and
others come from the later rabbinicliterature.
58This
point is made by Manson, Sayings ofJesus, 217; similarly,Witherington, Christology
ofJesus, 141.
59 For a list of critics
maintaining or denying the saying's authenticity, see Schulz, Q: Die
Spruchquelleder Evangelisten, 333 n. 80.
60
Vielhauer,"Gottesreich,"69. In a curiousvariationon this argument,Sato uses the absence

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 659

this is a very curious argument, since the word "disciple"(OuaOrriS;)

is almost as
rare 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); all
other suggested cases occur in either Matthew or Luke but not in both
Gospels.61
Even more surprisingis the fact that neither Q passage speaks directly of
Jesus' disciples. In Matt 10:24 par.,Jesus utters what seems to have been a gen-
eral truth or proverb:"No disciple is above [his] teacher."The present contexts
created by Matthew and Luke make clear that the reference is to the disciples
of Jesus (see, e.g., Matt 10:25), but such an explicit reference does not exist in
the 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 to
deny the existence of the historical disciples of the historicalJesus. 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 Twelveis indirect ratherthan
direct. Certain followers addressed by Jesus in Matt 19:28 will sit on twelve
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel-a promise that makes no sense
unless 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 same
should hold true of the one reference to the Twelve. All this simply reminds us
of the fragmentaryand random nature of the material preserved in Q. More
particularly,it reminds us that Q is made up mostly of sayings, many of which
would have been directed to Jesus' disciples or more specificallyto the Twelve.
There was no reason for Jesus to be constantly mentioning the identity of his
audience in the sayingshe was patently addressingto them.
5. The final independent source to be investigatedis, from the viewpoint
of both literary composition and tradition history, the earliest: Paul'spassing
mention of the Twelve in 1 Cor 15:5. However, the special problems this text
involves lead me to consider it last.
What is especially noteworthy in 1 Cor 15:5 is that the mention of the
Twelve comes, in a sense, not from Paul'sown mouth or mind. The reference to
the Twelve is rather embedded in an early pre-Pauline formula of faith (1 Cor
15:3-5), of which Paul is now reminding the Corinthians.62He 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 und
Prophetie, 23). As I point out in the main text, the almost complete absence of ga0qTTi;(referringto
a disciple of Jesus) in Q shows, by way of analogy,how fragile such an argumentis.
passages, see Kloppenborg,Q Parallels,224.
61 For a list of all the

precis of the various reasons that lead to this judgment-a commonplace among NT
62 A

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
660 Journal of Biblical Literature

formula that he taught them when he converted them to Christianity;in fact, it

is a formula that he himself learned when he became a Christian. This is the
point of his somewhat convoluted introductionto the creedal formula:"I make
known to you [i.e., I remind you], brothers, of the gospel that I announced to
you, the gospel that you received [7apeXdlpeTe].... For I handed on [cap&-
6)Ka] to you, first of all, what I myself received [TcapEika3ov]" (w. 1 + 3). The
vocabularyof handing on and receiving was used in the ancient world by philo-
sophical schools, Gnostic literature, and rabbinic circles (e.g., m. 'Abot 1:1) to
designate importanttraditionsthat were carefullypassed down from teacher to
student.63 Paul uses the same terminology to introduce his narrative of the
institution of the Eucharistat the Last Supper (1 Cor 11:23-25).
Since Paul is writing to the Corinthiansca. 55-56 CE,since he converted
them ca. 50-51, and since he himself became a Christianand learned this prim-
itive creed from other believers in Jesus somewhere around 31-34, we have
here 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).64The creedal for-
mula probably underwent expansion over the years, with further recipients of
resurrection appearancesbeing added. But an early,if not the earliest, version
had a basic four-partstructure (1 Cor 15:3-5):
Christdiedforoursinsaccordingto the Scriptures,
andwasburied,
andwasraisedon the thirddayaccordingto the Scriptures,
andappearedto Cephas[i.e.,Peter]andthento the Twelve.
Now, practicallyno 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 he
alreadyhad the name Cephas/Peter ("Rock")during that time.65Accordingly,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 summaryof "the gospel" is something he both "received"and
"passed along"to the Corinthians;(2) the stylized form of the four statements in 1 Cor 15:3-5 in
two balanced sets; (3) the repeated 6o ("that")before each clause, which implies a kind of quota-
tion, and (4) the appearanceof several non-Pauline words in such a short compass (The First Epis-
tle to the Corinthians [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987] 718). On this, see Joachim
Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words ofJesus (London: SCM, 1966) 101-3. On specific questions con-
cerning 1 Cor 15:3-5, see John Kloppenborg, "AnAnalysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula in 1 Cor
15:3b-5 in Light of Some Recent Literature,"CBQ 40 (1978) 351-67; Jerome Murphy-O'Connor,
"Traditionand Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3-7," CBQ 43 (1981) 582-89.
63 For relevant texts, see Hans Conzelmann, Der erste
Brief an die Korinther (MeyerK 5;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) 230.
64For these and other questions of Pauline chronology,see Robert Jewett, A Chronologyof
Paul's Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 29-38; Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth
(Wilmington,DE: Glazier, 1983) 129-52; Gerd Luedemann,Paul Apostleto the Gentiles:Studiesin
Chronology(Philadelphia:Fortress, 1984) 262-63; JosephA. Fitzmyer,"Paul,"NJBC, 1330-32 (? 9).
65 We have
multiple attestation of sources for the claim that Jesus himself gave Simon the

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 661

think that it goes against the natural thrust of the text to argue, as Vielhauer
does, that the Twelve did not exist as such during the public ministrybut were
rather called into existence in the postresurrectionperiod, indeed precisely by
a resurrection appearance. To support this view, Vielhauer lays great stress on
the contradiction he sees between (1) the mention of the "Twelve" (not
"Eleven")who are said to receive a resurrectionappearancein 1 Cor 15:5 and
(2) the traditionin all four Gospels that JudasbetrayedJesus-thus leaving only
a circle of eleven men to receive a resurrectionappearance.66
I think Vielhauer sets up a false dichotomy between two different literary
forms (creedal formulaand 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.67The presence of "the Twelve"in the
early and terse creedal formula of 1 Cor 15:5 simply underlines the essential
symbolic significance of the Twelve, which would have been especially impor-
tant to the earliest Christian Jews of Palestine: the Twelve represented the
twelve tribes of Israel, which many Jews expected to be restored in the last
days. This interpretationof the Twelveis supportedby the Q logion (Matt 19:28
par.) that we have alreadyexamined. The symbolismof the number twelve was
thus all-important.Not surprisingly,the number quicklybecame the very name
of the group, a set designationor stereotyped formulathat could be used of this
eschatological group even when membership changed or when-for a rela-
tively brief time after Judas'sdefection-it lacked one member.68In a way, this

name Cephas (= Peter) during the public ministry:Mark3:16; John 1:42;and probablythe L list of
the Twelve in Luke 6:12-16 (v. 14). (Some might want to add the special M tradition in Matt
16:18.) There is no rival NT tradition that asserts that Simon's second name was conferred after
Easter. Moreover, if one wanted to argue that Simon received the name Cephas/Peter only in the
early days of the church, one would have to explainwhy and how a name given Simon (by whom?)
so relativelylate became the standardway of referringto him in so many different streams of NT
tradition in the first, second, and third Christian generations (Paul, Mark, M, L, John, and the
Petrine epistles). In all this, I take for grantedthe position espoused by the vast majorityof NT crit-
ics, namely, that Simon Peter and Cephas are the same person. For a critique of this position, see
Bart D. Ehrman, "Cephasand Peter,"JBL 109 (1990) 463-74; for a defense of the majorityposi-
tion, see Dale C. Allison, "Peter and Cephas:One and the Same,"JBL 111 (1992) 489-95.
f6 Vielhauer, "Gottesreich,"69-71.
67 In addition, Vielhauer
employs a facile distinction between a fixed group of twelve men
who constituted a perduringinstitution and a group of twelve men who simply existed as a circle of
persons at a particularpoint of time in the past ("Gottesreich,"69). This is to set up a questionable
dichotomy, especially for the fluid situationduring the ministryof Jesus and the earliest days of the
church.
68 On this, see Joachim
Jeremias,New TestamentTheology,Part 1, The ProclamationofJesus
(NTL; London: SCM, 1971) 233-34. While I readilyadmit that the present form of the story of the
choice of Matthiasin Acts 1:15-26 displaysboth legendarytraits and Lukan redaction, I would not
so quickly dismiss the underlying idea that, amid the eschatological fervor of the disciples' initial
proclamation of Jesus' resurrectionto their fellow Israelites, they selected (by whatever means) a
disciple to replace Judas-the restored circle of the Twelve thus perfectly mirroringthe eschato-

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 662 Journal of Biblical Literature

fixed usage of "the Twelve"is intimated by the very wording of 1 Cor 15:5:first
Cephas is mentioned alone, and then we hear of the Twelve,with no attempt to
adjust or clarifythe wording to indicate that, in the initial resurrectionappear-
ances, Cephas both stood apartfrom and yet was a member of the Twelve.
One might add here an observation about the way in which the nomen-
clature of the Twelve developed in the early church. As we can see from the
independent witness of Paul, Mark,and John, "the Twelve,"used absolutely as
a substantive and not as an adjective modifying "disciples"or "apostles,"was
the earliest designation of this inner circle. Far from "the Eleven" being the
early and naturalway of referringto the circle when one member was missing,
the phrase "the Eleven" occurs only in the second-generation stage of the
Gospel tradition. Fittingly, it is Matthew and Luke, the two evangelists who
supply detailed stories of Judas'death, who, out of their historicizingimpulse
for numerical exactitude, use the phrases "the eleven disciples" (Matt 28:16),
"the eleven apostles"(Acts 1:26), or simply "the Eleven" (Luke 24:9, 33).69 This
accountant-likeprecision is the sign of a late, not an early,stratumof the tradi-
tion. Not surprisingly,such precision is found in secondary, expansive narra-
tives, not in an early,terse creedal formulathat says only the essential. In brief,
when one attends to the different literaryforms of 1 Cor 15:3-5 and the Gospel
narratives,coming as they do from different Sitze im Leben and having differ-
ent functions, I think Vielhauer'ssupposed contradiction,on which he bases his
denial of the Twelve'sexistence duringJesus'lifetime, evaporates.

logical promise of a restored twelve tribes of Israel. To dismiss the entire traditionof the choice of
Matthiasas legendary or "secondary"with an apodictic statement (so Klein, Die zwolfApostel, 36)
instead of a detailed argumentwill not do. It is interesting to note that Schmithals (Office of Apos-
tle, 70) dismisses the selection of Matthiasas legend in his main text, but then he apparentlyhesi-
tates in n. 58: "The account of the later choice of Matthias, may, of course, go back to early
traditions which told of a filling out of the circle of the twelve after Judas' apostasy."Haenchen
allows that the assertion that Matthias and not Barsabbasbecame an apostle by casting lots goes
back to tradition and is not a Lukan invention (Die Apostelgeschichte,128). In favor of a historical
core to the Matthiastraditionis Rigaux,"Die 'Zwolf,"'479.
69 On this, see
Rigaux, "Die 'Zwolf," 480; Trilling, "Zur Entstehung," 211. The second-
century canonical ending of Mark'sGospel, probablya pastiche of resurrection-appearancestories
from Matthew and Luke, also uses the late designation "the Eleven" (Mark 16:14). "The Eleven"
also appears in Acts 2:14, but only because Peter is distinguishedas leader and spokesman from the
other eleven members of the recently reconstituted Twelve. Intriguingly,with that we exhaust all
the occurrences of the word "eleven"(ev6eKa)in the NT. The word thus occurs only in stories con-
tained in late NT writings, stories set in a postresurrection context. As we find in some other
instances, the Fourth Evangelist retains the more primitive way of speaking. Although he knows
that the Twelve existed during Jesus' public ministry,that Thomas and Judaswere both members
of the Twelve, and that Judas apostatized by betrayingJesus, John nevertheless refers to Thomas
after the resurrectionas "one of the Twelve"(John20:24). In this matter, instead of sharingthe his-
toricizing tendencies of Matthew and Luke, John retainsthe primitiveway of speaking found in the
confessional formula of 1 Cor 15:3-5.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 663

Then, too, simply on a commonsense level, if one were to read a sentence

like "PresidentSmith appeared before ChairmanJones and the board of direc-
tors,"one would not naturallythink that President Smith appointed the board
of directors (or Jones as chairman) in the moment when (or even after) he
appeared before them. The natural sense of"Christ ... appeared to Cephas
and then to the Twelve" is that both Cephas and the Twelve existed as such
before Christ appeared to them. This naturalreadingof 1 Cor 15:5 is supported
by what we have already seen in our survey: namely, that the independent
sources of Mark,John, L, and Q all think of the Twelve as a group aroundJesus
during his public ministry. Granted this widespread understanding of the
Twelve in various streams of NT tradition, one would have to put forward
weighty evidence to counter the plain and unaffected sense of 1 Cor 15:5, and
Vielhauerproduces no such evidence. Hence, the pre-Pauline formulain 1 Cor
15:3-5 is rightlyplaced alongside the Gospel traditionsalreadyexamined as an
independent witness to the existence of the Twelve during Jesus'ministry.
In sum, Mark,John, Paul, probablyL, and probablyQ give multiple attes-
tation from independent sources that the Twelve existed as an identifiable
group during the public ministry.A furtherpoint should now be noted. In addi-
tion to multiple attestation of sources, these texts also give us multiple attesta-
tion offorms: the Twelve are mentioned in narrative(Mark,John), sayings (Q,
John), a catalogue-like list (Mark, probably L), and a creedal formula (1 Cor
15:3-5). In light of this broad spread of both sources and forms, suggestions
that the Twelve arose only in the early days of the church must be judged pure
conjecture with no real supportin the NT texts.
B. Alongside the criterion of multiple attestation of sources and forms
stands the criterion of embarrassment,a criterion already alluded to when we
discussed Luke'sredaction of the Q sayingin Luke 22:30. Next to the bare fact
of Jesus' death by crucifixion-one of the most horrific forms of execution in
the ancient world-perhaps the most shockingevent at the end of Jesus' career
was his being "handedover"or "betrayed"70 by his intimate disciple Judas,who

O7
Treatments of Judascommonly speak of his "betraying"Jesus and of the "betrayal."While
I use this terminology at times for the sake of convenience and convention, "to betray"is not the
most accurate translationfor the NT verb 7apa6iS&oa,which is routinely connected with Judas's
name in the four Gospels. Strictlyspeaking,the verb means to "handover"or "giveover";the verb
is used in the NT narrativesto affirmthat Judas"handedover,""gaveover,"or "delivered"Jesus to
the hostile authorities. To be sure, in the specific context of an intimate, trusted disciple handing
over his supposedly revered teacher to authoritieswho may have him executed, the act of handing
over may indeed constitute an act of betrayal, but that further meaning comes from the larger
frameworkof the story, not from the particularverb employed. And what is the largercontext in the
various Gospels? Simply as a matter of fact, Luke explicitlynames Judas the "betrayer"(7po66Trm,
6:16), thus makingclear how at least one NT author understoodthe terminologyof "handingover."
The woe Jesus speaks at the Last Supper (Mark14:21 parr.)over the one who hands him over indi-

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 664 Journalof BiblicalLiterature

in all four Gospels bears the mournfultag "one of the Twelve."71

Indeed, the parallelbetween the scandal of Jesus' cross and the scandal of
Jesus' being handed over to the authoritiesby Judas-and the parallel ways in
which these events were handled or explained by the church-is instructive.
As for the cross, for two obvious reasons practicallyno one would deny the fact

cates that Mark-along with Matthew and Luke-and probably the pre-Markan tradition (so
Pesch, Das Markusevangelium,2.346-53) likewise saw the handing over in a negative light. Of
Matthew's and John's evaluations of Judas'saction we are hardly in doubt. But why, then, do the
evangelists, including Luke, as well as the traditionbefore them, favorthe verb sapa8iS(op,("hand
over")?One possible answer is that the use of the verb trapaSi6Soptallows the NT authorsto inter-
weave Judas'saction with those of other persons, human and divine, who are said in one sense or
another to hand Jesus over-notably God the Father, who, in a soteriological sense, hands Jesus
over to his death (though here the verb is regularlyput into the passive voice and the agent is left
unexpressed); on all this, see Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1.211-13. What exactly constituted
Judas's act of "handingover" is hotly debated among scholars;probably it was his cooperation in
telling the authoritieswhen and where they could most easily arrestJesus without public notice or
uproar (so Brown, "OverallView of Judas Iscariot,"in Death of the Messiah, 2.1401). Debates over
Judas'smotives, intentions, and moralculpability,while of theological interest, are insoluble from a
purely historicalpoint of view since we lack any firm data on these matters;the relevant statements
in the Gospels and Acts represent early Christian theology. For a fanciful reconstruction, see
William Klassen,Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? (Minneapolis:Fortress, 1996) 73-74. One is
not surprised to see that Klassen'sbook ends on pp. 205-7 with "A Suicide Note from Judas Iscar-
iot, ca. 30 C.E." The quest for the historicalJudas,like the quest for the historicalJesus, often ends
up giving us a novel.
71
Trilling ("ZurEntstehung,"208) considers the tradition of the betrayalof Jesus by Judas,
"one of the Twelve,"the strongest argumentin favorof the pre-Easter existence of the Twelve; see
also Wagenmann, Die Stellung,5. Quite rightly,Trillingthinks that the variousattempts of critics to
explain how Judas became a member of a post-Easter group of disciples called the Twelve (or was
retrojected into a mythicalpre-Easter group called the Twelve) fail to convince. In what follows in
the main text, the sole focus is on Judas as an argument for the existence of the Twelve during the
public ministry;no attempt is made to cover all the materialor questions about Judas. For various
approaches to Judas (sometimes with a great deal of novelistic and psychologizingtendencies), see
Donatus Haugg, Judas Iskarioth in den neutestamentlichen Berichten (Freiburg: Herder, 1930);
Roman B. Halas,Judas Iscariot (Studies in SacredTheology 96; Washington,DC: Catholic Univer-
sity of America, 1946); K. Liithi,Judas Iscarioth in der Geschichteder Auslegungvon der Reforma-
tion bis zur Gegenwart (Zurich: Zwingli, 1955); Oscar Cullmann, "Der zwolfte Apostel," in
Vortrdge und Aufsdtze 1925-1962 (ed. Karlfried Frohlich; Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck; Zurich:
Zwingli, 1966) 214-22; Wiard Popkes, Christus Traditus: Eine Untersuchung zum Begriffder
Dahingabe im Neuen Testament (Stuttgart/Zurich:Zwingli, 1967) 174-81, 217-18; Bertil Gartner,
Iscariot (FBBS 29; Philadelphia:Fortress, 1971); J.-Alfred Morin, "Les deux deriers des Douze:
Simon le Zelote et Judas Iskari6th,"RB 80 (1973) 332-58, esp. 349-58; H. L. Goldschmidt and M.
Limbeck, HeilvollerVerrat?Judas im Neuen Testament (Stuttgart:KatholischesBibelwerk, 1976);
W. Vogler,Judas Iskarioth (Theologische Arbeiten 42; 2d ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1985); H. Wagner, ed., Judas Iskariot (Frankfurt:Knecht, 1985); Hans-Josef Klauck,Judas-Ein
Jiinger des Herr (QD 111; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna:Herder, 1987); Giinther Schwarz,Jesus und
Judas (BWANT 123; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1988); Paul McGlasson,Jesus and Judas: Biblical
Exegesis in Barth (AAR Academy Series 72; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 135-47; William
Klassen, "JudasIscariot,"ABD 3.1091-96; idem, Judas; Brown, "OverallView of Judas Iscariot,"
Death of the Messiah, 2.1394-1418.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 665

that Jesus was executed by crucifixion: (1) This central event is reported or
alluded to not only by the vast majorityof NT authorsbut also by Josephus and
Tacitus (criterion of multiple attestation of sources and forms). (2) Such an
embarrassingevent created a major obstacle to converting Jews and Gentiles
alike (see, e.g., 1 Cor 1:23), an obstacle that the church struggled to overcome
with varioustheological arguments.The last thing the church would have done
would have been to create a monumental scandal for which it then had to
invent a whole apologetic (criterion of embarrassment).Precisely because the
undeniable fact of Jesus' execution was so shocking, precisely because it
seemed to make faith in this type of Messiahpreposterous,the early church felt
a need from the beginning to insist that Jesus' scandalousdeath was "according
to the Scriptures,"that it had been proclaimedbeforehand by the OT prophets,
and that individual OT texts even spelled out details of Jesus' passion. That
Jesus' death became increasingly surrounded by OT texts used apologetically
has caused almost no one to deny the brute and brutal fact of Jesus' execution.
Rather, it was precisely the disturbing fact of his crucifixionthat called for an
explanationand so called forth a flood of OT quotationsand allusions.
My point is that, in this whole process, Jesus' crucifixion stands in clear
parallel to Jesus' being handed over by Judas. The same two criteria, multiple
attestation and embarrassment, may be invoked to establish the historicity of
both events. That Judas handed Jesus over to the authorities is attested inde-
pendently by Mark, by John, and by the stray tradition lying behind the very
different accounts of Judas'sdeath presented by Matthew and Luke (M in Matt
27:3-10 and L in Acts 1:16-20).72 The criterion of embarrassment clearly
comes into play as well, for there is no cogent reason why the early church
should have gone out of its way to invent such a troubling tradition as Jesus'
betrayal by Judas, one of his chosen Twelve. Why the church should have
expended so much effort to create a story that it immediatelyhad to struggle to
explain away defies all logic. Rather,just like Jesus' death, Jesus' betrayal by
Judas, a member of the intimate circle of the Twelve, called for an explanation
and so called forth OT texts to soften the shock.
Not unlike Jesus' death, the earliest explanationof the betrayal may well
have been the generic one: this has been prophesied, this has been written, this
is according to the Scriptures.Just as the creedal formulain 1 Cor 15:3-5 con-
tents itself with a generic "accordingto the Scriptures,"so Mark 14:21 parr.
explains in vague fashion: "The Son of Man goes his way as it is written con-
cerning him; but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is handed
over."A similarvague reference to the fulfillment of Scriptureis found in John
17:12: "And not one of them [i.e., Jesus' disciples] was lost except the son of
perdition [Judas],in order that the Scripturemight be fulfilled."

72 On this, see
Rigaux,"Die 'Zwolf,"'479.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
666 Journal of Biblical Literature

A second, more developed stage of explanationcan also be discerned. Just

as in the passion narratives(e.g., the dividing of Jesus' clothing in Mark 15:24;
cf. LXX Ps 21:19), references to scripturepassages are woven into the story of
the betrayalwithout being explicitly cited. For example, indicating that one of
the Twelve at the Last Supperwill betrayhim, Jesus prophesies that "one of you
will hand me over, the one who eats with me" (Mark 14:18, with a possible allu-
sion to, but not a direct citation of, LXXPs 40:10).
In a still further stage of theological explanation,John'sGospel (13:18) has
Jesus cite LXXPs 40:10 explicitlyto show that the betrayalby Judaswas proph-
esied: "butin order that the Scripturebe fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread lifted
up his heel against me."' Similarly,in the stories of Judas'sdeath, explicit cita-
tions of scripture are used to demonstrate that the tragedy had been prophe-
sied (Matt 27:9-10; Acts 1:16, 20). Jesus' being handed over by Judas thus
parallels Jesus' death in a basic way: the shocking fact calls forth the scripture
texts-not vice versa. The betrayal by Judas is no more a creation of OT
prophecy used apologeticallythan is Jesus' death. Indeed, in the case of Judas,
one must admit that most of the scripture texts cited apply to Judas only by a
broad stretch of the imagination.The church was evidently strugglingwith the
scandalous fact of the betrayal and did the best it could to find some OT texts
that could qualifyas prophecies of the tragedy.None of the texts cited, taken by
itself, could have given rise to the idea of the betrayal of Jesus by one of the
Twelve.73
We can therefore put together the following three points: (1) Judaswas a

73The
betrayalof Jesus by Judas,"one of the Twelve,"is a majorstumblingblock for the posi-
tion of Vielhauer;ironically,in this dilemma, he mirrorsthe early church. The contorted reasoning
by which he tries to show how the church derived from OT texts the idea that one of the Twelve
betrayed Jesus fails to convince ("Gottesreich,"70). He is willing to allow as historicalfact that one
of Jesus' disciples betrayed him (why this much of the Judastraditionis accepted but not the rest is
never made clear). The early church then sought scripture texts (understood as prophecies) to
explain this scandalous fact. The church invented the scene of Jesus' designation of the betrayer at
the Last Supper, creating the allusionto MT Ps 41:10 or LXXPs 40:10 (a trusted friend who shared
meals with the psalmist then attackshim)-an allusion that was later made explicit in John 13:18.
The idea of betrayalby a table companion who had been a long-term follower of Jesus gave rise in
turn to the idea of betrayal by one of the Twelve, once the group of the Twelve had arisen in the
early church and then been retrojected into the life of Jesus. Not only is this theory in general con-
voluted and gratuitous; it also fails specifically because (1) the supposedly pivotal Psalm verse is
never explicitly cited prior to John's Gospel; (2) in any event, the Psalm verse says nothing about
handing over one's table companion to his enemies, a key element of the Judas tradition; (3) the
complicated, multistage tradition history Vielhauer postulates demands a fair amount of time for
the idea of betrayalby one of the Twelve to develop in the church;yet the traditionof the betrayal
by Judas is already embedded in both the pre-Markanand the pre-Johannine passion traditions;
(4) finally,Vielhauer'stheory never explains adequatelywhy or how the same name (JudasIscariot
[or Judas son of Simon Iscariot]) arose independently in both the pre-Markanand pre-Johannine
passion traditions as the name of the member of the Twelve who turned traitor. For a critique of
Vielhauer'stheory from a slightlydifferent angle, see Sanders,Jesus and Judaism, 99-101.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 667

member of the Twelve; this historical fact is supported by multiple attestation

of sources (the Markanand L lists of the Twelve;the pre-Markanpassion narra-
tive lying behind Mark14:10, 20, 43; John 6:71;and the special L traditionlying
behind Acts 1:15-26). (2) Jesus was handed over to the authorities by Judas;
this historical fact is supported by multiple attestation, as we have just seen.
(3) Finally,as we have alsojust seen, that Jesus was handed over by Judasis also
supported by the criterionof embarrassment.Hence, the fact that Judas,one of
the Twelve, handed Jesus over to the authoritiesis firmly rooted in the histori-
cal tradition and so too, by logical consequence, is the existence of the group
called the Twelve, to which Judasbelonged.74
One regrets the need to plod through such detailed reasoning to prove
what should be evident to anyone. But, by their strange denials of the obvious,
critics like Vielhauer, Klein, Schmithals, and Crossan make it necessary to
argue at length to demonstrate what most people have never doubted. The
arguments these critics use to deny the betrayalby Judasvary,but they are all
equally convoluted. To take the grand example:Vielhauerholds that Jesus was
indeed handed over by one of his disciples. But, accordingto Vielhauer,it was
the early church that used OT prophecies to create Judas, one of the Twelve,
and to make him the one who handed Jesus over. Judas, like the Twelve, was
retrojected by the church into the story of Jesus'passion and death.
Now, all this demands a very odd tradition history.On the one hand, the
attempt of the early church to insert the Twelve (a group that supposedly arose
only after Easter) back into the ministryof Jesus presupposes a desire to exalt
the Twelve and magnifytheir status in the church. On the other hand, we are to
suppose that, roughly around the same time, the church created the story that
one of the Twelve was Jesus' betrayer.The two actions cancel each other out.
Moreover, for the theory to work, one must suppose that, within a few years,
the early church had totally forgotten the name of the disciple marked by the

74In his book Who KilledJesus?,Crossanavoidsthe improbablehypotheses of Vielhauer and

Klein by admitting that a disciple named Judas did actually betray the historical Jesus. But then
Crossan proceeds to deny the natural inference that the circle of the Twelve, to whom Judas
belonged, existed during Jesus' ministry.He does this by denying that Judaswas a member of the
Twelve. Judascould not have been a member of the Twelve since (claims Crossan)the Twelve as a
fixed group did not exist during the ministryof Jesus. Instead of arguingthis pivotalpoint at length,
Crossan simply declares apodictically (p. 75): "I do not think he [Judas] was a member of the
Twelve, because that symbolic grouping of Twelve new Christianpatriarchsto replace the Twelve
ancient Jewish patriarchsdid not take place until after Jesus' death. There are, for example, whole
sections of early Christianitythat never heard of that institution. But different and independent
early Christian traditions knew about him [Judas] ..." This is a strange type of reasoning; these
same arguments, used in the same sweeping manner, could just as easily prove the opposite since
(1) different and independent early Christiantraditionsknew about the Twelve and (2) whole sec-
tions of early Christianitynever heard about Judasor at least never mention him in the NT. Much
more careful applicationof the criteriaof historicityto the data is required.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 668 Journal of Biblical Literature

dubious distinction of having handed Jesus over to the authorities-hardly a

likely lapse of memory for a religious movement that preserved lists of the
names of the Twelve (Mark3:16-19 parr.),of the four brothers of Jesus (Mark
6:3 par.), of the Seven Hellenists (Acts 6:5), of the earliest prophets and teach-
ers at Antioch (Acts 13:1), and of variousfemale followers of Jesus (Mark 15:40
parr.;Luke 8:2-3).75
Takinga somewhat different tack from Vielhauer,Giinter Klein and Wal-
ter Schmithalshold that the story of Judasreflects some notorious case of apos-
tasy in the early church. Schmithals,for instance, claims that Judas, one of the
Twelve who experienced a resurrection appearance (as stated in 1 Cor 15:5),
later committed apostasy,denounced the Christiancommunity to the authori-
ties, and so in that sense "handedJesus over."76When the Twelve were retro-
jected into the life of Jesus, Judasthe betrayerwas likewise retrojected into the
passion narrative.
Actually, an intriguing phenomenon can be detected as we watch Klein,
Schmithals, Crossan, and other critics develop Vielhauer'sbasic approach or
provide variationsthereof: the more one tries to explainawaythe NT testimony
about Judas, the member of the Twelve who handed Jesus over, the more one
begins to write a novel whose plot has no empirical basis in the data of the NT
documents. Even more intriguingly,when we look at the various reconstruc-
tions of Vielhauer, Klein, Schmithals, and Crossan, we notice one key agree-
ment amid all their disagreements:
1. Accordingto Klein and Schmithals,Judas,a member of the post-Easter
group called the Twelve, betrayed the early church; he, his betrayal, and the
whole group of the Twelve were subsequently retrojected into the life of Jesus.
2. According to Vielhauer, instead, some disciple of Jesus did actually
hand him over; it is the idea that the betrayerwas one of the Twelve, along, of
course, with the group called the Twelve, that was later retrojected into the life
of Jesus.77
3. Crossan goes the German skeptics one better by streamlining the
whole approach.He maintainsboth that Judaswas a historicalfollower of Jesus

75On this
point, see Rigaux,"Die 'Zwolf,"'478.
76Schmithals,Office
ofApostle, 69.
7
Meye (Jesusand the Twelve, 208) rightlyobserves of Vielhauer'sapproach:"Judasis first
stolen awayfrom Jesus'company along with the whole pre-Easter circle of the Twelve ... and then
by a most intricate process returned to Jesus'company,with the Twelve, as a theological postulate."
See also Eduard Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Markus (NTD 1; 2d ed.; G6ttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1968) 71-72. Schille thinks that the difficulty of explainingJudas'sposition in
the later traditionof the Twelve is eased if we suppose that Judasbelonged to the group of Galilean
pilgrims around Jesus who went up with him to Jerusalemfor the final Passover (Die urchristliche
Kollegialmission,148). How this explainsthe inexplicableescapes me.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 669

and that he did actually hand Jesus over. According to Crossan, it was simply
the post-Easter group called the Twelve (and consequentlyJudas'smembership
in the Twelve) that was retrojectedinto the life of Jesus.
Amid all these disagreements among the critics, one espies the all-
determining point of agreement: come what may, the Twelve must not exist
during the life of Jesus, for this would contradict all the portraitsthese critics
paint of Jesus-especially the popular American one of Jesus the egalitarian
Cynic with no concern for the future eschatologyof the people Israel. Since the
betrayer Judas, as one of the Twelve, is a chief obstacle to the critics' denial of
the Twelve's existence during Jesus' ministry78-and of all that the Twelve
imply for Jesus' mission and message-Judas must somehow be explained
away. How exactly he is explained away is not all that important-witness the
divergent theories of these critics.79What is determinativehere is not historical
data but the a priori decision that the Twelve did not-must not-exist during
Jesus' ministry. From this one decision flow all the critics' convoluted and
improbabletraditionhistories, created simply to avoid accepting a NT tradition
that is supported by variouscriteriaof historicity.80
Going through these theories is tiresome, to be sure. But at the very least,
such an exercise makes us reflectively aware of why we affirmthe historicityof
certain significantaspects of Jesus'life, including the key data that he created a
circle called the Twelve, one of whom handed him over to the authorities.As an
extra dividend, our brief study of the Judastraditionserves another purpose: it
refutes any wholesale rejection of the historicityof the passion narratives.Our
examinationof the betrayalby Judas has demonstrated that a relatively minor
event in the passion narrativesis nevertheless factual.We are not left with mas-
sive agnosticism beyond the mere fact that Jesus was crucified under Pontius
Pilate. Therefore, if a specific incident in the passion narrativesis to be judged
a creation of the early church-which is certainly the case at times-the spe-

point is stressed by Trilling,"ZurEntstehung,"208.

78 This

79Witness, indeed, the twists and turns of a single critic'sposition. In his article "Der Markus-
schluss, die Verklarungsgeschichteund die Aussendungder Zwolf,"ZTK69 (1972) 379-411, written
after The Officeof Apostle, Schmithalswaffles on the question of whence and how Judasand the tra-
dition abouthim arose. A number of suggestionsare offered;their imaginativenature maybe judged
by the following:"It is also possible that Markwished to discredit as the 'betrayerof Jesus' a former
disciple of Jesus who was named JudasIscariotand who was appealed to as a bearer of traditionby
Christian circles that Mark is attackingin his Gospel." To make room for Judas in the list of the
Twelve, Markmay have replacedJudasof Jameswith JudasIscariot.
80
Perhaps the basic lack of cogency in the various attempts to deny the existence of the
Twelve during Jesus' ministryis reflected in the hesitation ofWellhausen (Einleitung, 112), one of
the earliest proponents of the theory. He thinks it probable that the Twelve did not belong to the
life of Jesus but first appearedat the beginning of the apostolicperiod. Yet he adds that it is possible
that they were Jesus' companions at the Last Supper and thus in a certain way were the "testamen-
taryheirs of the Master."

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
670 Journal of Biblical Literature

cific arguments for that position must be spelled out. A sweeping, global argu-
ment about OT prophecies creatingthe whole passion narrativewill not do.

C. In addition to the specific criteria of multiple attestation and embar-

rassment,we should ponder a final, more general consideration:the whole way
in which the traditionabout the Twelve crests and ebbs in the NT period argues
in favorof the Twelve'sorigin in the life of the historicalJesus ratherthan in the
first Christian generation.81If the group of the Twelve had arisen in the early
days of the church and, for whatever reason, reached such prominence that its
presence, unlike that of other church leaders (e.g., the Seven Hellenists, Barn-
abas, the prophets and teachers at Antioch), was massivelyretrojected into the
Gospel traditions, one would have expected that the history of the first Chris-
tian generation would be replete with examples of the Twelve'spowerful pres-
ence and activityin the church.
The exact opposite is the case. As we have seen, the Twelve are mentioned
in the four Gospels, in the pre-Pauline formula in 1 Cor 15:5, and in the early
chapters of the Acts of the Apostles (the group called the Twelve is never men-
tioned after Acts 6:2, while even references to "the apostles"diminish notably
after chap. 8, disappearing entirely after 16:4). This exhausts all purportedly
historicalreports of the Twelve in the NT. They are mentioned again only fleet-
ingly in Rev 21:14, an apocalypticvision of the heavenly Jerusalemat the end of
time ("thetwelve apostles of the Lamb").
What should strike us immediately in this list are the gaping holes. The
only writer from the first Christiangeneration whom we know by name and of
whom we know any detailed facts is Paul. In his epistles, Paul alludes to his
interaction with or compares himself to other church leaders-notably James,
Peter, and John, but also Barnabas,Apollos, the apostles, and the brothers of
Jesus. In starkcontrast,what is glaringlyabsent in Paul'sletters is any mention
of the Twelve, the fossil of a reference preserved in the primitivecreed of 1 Cor
15:5 being the sole exception that proves the rule. When we stop to consider
how Paul goes on at length about his relations or struggles with Peter, James,
John, Barnabas, Apollos, and various apostles or "pseudo-apostles" in the
churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Galatia,and Corinth during the 30s, 40s, and
50s of the first century,it is astoundingthat Paul never mentions his relationsor
interaction with the Twelve as a group. Likewise surprisingis that Luke, for all
the emphasis he puts on the Twelve as a living link between the time of Jesus
and the time of the church, has increasinglylittle to say about the Twelve as the
chapters of Acts pass on. The total silence from the rest of the epistolarylitera-

81For this type of argument, see A. M. Farrer,"The Ministryin the New Testament,"in The
Apostolic Ministry (ed. Kenneth E. Kirk; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946) 113-82, esp.
119-20.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Meier:The Circle of the Twelve 671

ture of the NT-deutero-Paul, James, Peter, John, Jude, and Hebrews-is

equally deafening.82
The only reasonable conclusion one can draw to explain the cresting and
ebbing of references to the Twelve in the NT is the commonsense one: the
Twelve are prominent in the story of Jesus because that is where they actually
played a significant role. On the basis of their close relationship with Jesus,
which they claimed had been restored and confirmed by a resurrectionappear-
ance, the role of the Twelve continued into the earliest days of the church;but
it declined and disappearedwith surprisingrapidity.
The reasons for the swift disappearance or total absence of the Twelve
from most of the NT are unclear. Perhaps some members of the Twelve, like
the martyredJames, the son of Zebedee, died in the first decade after the cruci-
fixion;and no attempt was made to replenish a foundationalgroup that was not
viewed as ongoing in the church. Once this happened, it would make sense to
speak of influential individualslike Peter, but it made little sense to continue to
speak of the Twelve in regardto the present situationof the church, as opposed
to remembering the Twelve'sactivityin the life of Jesus or in the earliest days of
the church. Other explanationsfor the early disappearanceof the Twelve are
also possible: for example, the power of the Twelve as a group was eclipsed by
the ascendancy of individualleaders like Peter or James, or some other mem-
bers of the Twelve imitated Peter in undertakinga mission to Diaspora Jews in
the East or the West-thus leaving no visible group of twelve leaders "on the
scene" in Palestine.
Whatever the reason or reasons for their disappearance,clearlythe Twelve
were present and active during the life of Jesus and the earliest days of the
church; and, just as clearly,their presence and activitysoon waned. So quickly
did they fade from the scene that the majorityof the names in the lists of the
Twelve are just that-names and little more. This hardly coheres with a revi-
sionist theory that would want to deny the Twelve'sexistence as a group during
the ministryof Jesus and to postulate a sudden, meteoric rise of influence in the
early church.83This is a prime example of ignoring the simple and obvious

82The same could be said for almost the entire corpus of the apostolic fathers. The use of
"twelve"to mean the twelve apostles or disciples is limited to the title of the Didache (which is
probably a secondary accretion to the body of the work; see Kurt Niederwimmer, Die Didache
[Kommentarzu den Apostolischen Viiter 1; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989] 81-82)
and to an indirect reference within an allegoryof Herm. Sim. 9.17.1 (the twelve mountains repre-
sent the twelve tribes to whom the apostles preached the Son of God).
83 Schmithals mentions yet completely misunderstands this point in Office of the Apostle,
69-70. He constructs the highly unlikely scenario of (1) a life of Jesus without the Twelve, (2) the
sudden creation of the Twelve after Easter as a result of a resurrectionappearance,(3) the confer-
ral of such an importantand lofty status on the Twelve in the early church that the group was retro-
jected into various streams of NT tradition (Mark, Q, L, and John), (4) the disintegration of the
Twelve quite early on, as early as the apostasyof Judas and not later that the martyrdomof James

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
672 Journal of Biblical Literature

explanationthat arises naturallyfrom the NT data in favorof a convoluted the-

ory that is based on next to no evidence.

III. Conclusion
In brief, when one draws together the arguments from multiple attesta-
tion of sources and forms (Mark, L, John, Q, and pre-Pauline tradition), the
argument from embarrassment,and the argument for the general flow of the
NT traditionsabout the Twelve, and when one adds to these the grave difficul-
ties under which alternativehypotheses labor, one position emerges as clearly
the more probable:the circle of the Twelve did exist during Jesus' public min-
istry.The impact of this position on our view of the mission and eschatology of
Jesus has already been intimated in this article. But a full consideration must
await furtherwork.

the son of Zebedee, and consequently (5) the almost total absence of the Twelve from the rest of
the traditions and writings of the first-centurychurch. (6) Things become more complicated if one
adds refinements from his later article, "Der Markusschluss,"398-401 (e.g., Markwas the first to
retroject the Twelve into the public ministry). Such a convoluted hypothesis, with a meteoric rise
followed by a meteoric fall, strainscredulity and in the end is totally unnecessary.

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:37:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions