Jesus and the
Twelve
By:
Scot McKnight
IBR Jesus
Project Paper 2.
That Jesus associated himself especially with twelve of
his followers is a datum firmly established by good arguments across a broad
spectrum of modern Jesus studies. But why Jesus chose the Twelve is in need of
serious reconsideration because the standard, eschatological explanation has
rarely
been examined. A careful examination of the evidence pertaining to the number
twelve in the Hebrew Bible and in
ancient Jewish sources suggests that Jesus
chose the Twelve to evoke the twin themes of covenant renewal (a Joshua theme)
and eschatological restoration (with the reunification of the twelve tribes
implied).
Key Words: Twelve, Historical Jesus, covenant, twelve tribes, eschatology,
Qumran
Without overstating the case, we can
affirm today that Jesus scholarship has
come to this confident conclusion (among others): the number twelve signifies a
category already in existence during the life of Jesus, and most scholars think
that
Jesus chose the number twelve with
fundamental intention. Which intention, or
which set of factors shaped this intention, however, has not yet been
confidently
concluded. It is the purpose of this paper to assess once again the arguments
for
the historicity of the Twelve and then to suggest why it was that Jesus
selected twelve.
The list of the twelve names appears
in Mark 3:16-19; Matt 10:2-4; Luke
6:14-16; and Acts 1:13; such a listing of a famous teacher's pupils is known
also
in rabbinic Judaism (m. Abot 2:8-14; compare the list of Jesus' supposed
disciples
in b. Sanh. 43a).1
Apart from one irregularity2 and some minor
differences in order, which I
shall not explore here, the names are solidly consistent and grouped in fours.
McKnight: Jesus
and the Twelve 2
Mark
|
Matthew
|
Luke
|
Acts
|
|
Simon Peter
|
Simon Peter
|
Simon Peter
|
Peter
|
|
James b.
Zebedee
|
Andrew
|
Andrew
|
John
|
|
John b.
Zebedee
|
James b. Zebedee
|
James b.
Zebedee
|
James b.
Zebedee
|
|
Andrew
|
John b.
Zebedee
|
John b.
Zebedee
|
Andrew
|
|
Philip
|
Philip
|
Philip
|
Philip
|
|
Bartholomew
|
Bartholomew
|
Bartholomew
|
Thomas
|
|
Matthew
|
Thomas
|
Matthew
|
Bartholomew
|
|
Thomas
|
Matthew
|
Thomas
|
Matthew
|
|
James b.
Alphaeus
|
James b.
Alphaeus
|
James b.
Alphaeus
|
James b.
Alphaeus
|
|
Thaddaeus
|
Thaddaeus
|
Simon the
Zealot
|
Simon the
Zealot
|
|
Simon the
Cananean
|
Simon the
Cananean
|
Jude b. James
|
Jude b. James
|
|
Judas
Iscariot
|
Judas
Iscariot
|
Judas
Iscariot
|
|
Apart from this evidence, the
following traditions mention the Twelve:
Mark mentions a separate ordination
(Mark 3:13-15; compare with Luke 6:13);
the group is occasionally described as being with Jesus, in whose presence they
are instructed (4:10; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:17); and Judas is designated one of the
Twelve(14:10, 43; compare with Matt 26:14; Luke 22:3; John 6:71). In
addition,
the Q tradition underscores the special role that the Twelve will have in the
future
Kingdom as judges (Matt 19:28 par. Luke 22:30). The later Evangelists confirm
these impressions: Matthew paints the Twelve onto his canvas as recipients of
Jesus' instruction (for example, Matt 11:1; 20:17; 26:20), and the same is done
by
Luke (8:1; 18:31) and John (6:67, 70). John identifies Thomas, alias Didymus,
as
one of the Twelve (20:24). It is not the purpose of this essay to examine the
historicity of each of these traditions but instead to assess the reliability
of Jesus'
having a specially designated Twelve and to see if this number provides insight
into the mission of Jesus.
1.0. The Historicity of the
Twelve in Jesus' Ministry
The most
complete analysis of the historicity of the Twelve is by J. P. Meier,
whose study forms a survey of research, a response to the major critical
studies,3
3 IBR Studies
as well as a
consensus-building programmatic statement.4 One of the
first papers I
wrote in preparation for a Ph.D. dissertation on Matthew's presentation of the
missionary discourse was a study of the intention of Jesus in the mission of
the
Twelve. More than a decade later, Meier's study summarizes the arguments, and
these arguments have not changed substantively. In the case of Meier, we
encounter characteristic thoroughness and special emphasis given to criteria.5 I
shall reexamine these arguments and then add, by way of confirmation, a final
explanatory argument for the historicity of the Twelve.
Before I do this, I wish to
give a response to the recent conclusion of the
Jesus Seminar regarding the viability of a special group called the Twelve
during
the life of Jesus. Their conclusion is that there
was general agreement among the
Fellows that the number twelve in connection with an inner circle of disciples
is a
fiction.6 Four arguments
are advanced: first, sources. The presence of the Twelve
in Q is acknowledged but assigned to the later (third) stage of the evolution
of Q;
the category twelve is not found in
the Gospel of Thomas, it does not appear in the
body of the Didache, and is absent from Clement's letter to Corinth and
Ignatius's
letters. Second, Sachkritik: the Twelve are connected to the eschatological self-
consciousness of the Christian community, and this eschatological outlook
is a
later Christian retrojection onto the Jesus traditions. Here we see the role
that
theology, in particular the noneschatological Jesus, plays in determining what
is
history. Third, redaction criticism: it is argued that the number twelve appears in
Mark's editorial work rather than in the
body of the anecdotes, and the use of
twelve including Judas must also be regarded as a fabrication if
the figure of
Judas is a fiction, as many scholars think.7 Fourth, problems
with the lists: the
inconsistencies in the lists (Mark, Luke, and John's lists of names) suggest
that the
category twelve is more symbolic than
it is historical.
The arguments presented above
would require fuller retort than is possible
in this amount of space but, because what follows below is a defense of the
Twelve during the lifetime of Jesus, I can limit my comments. To begin with,
denying an imminent eschatology to Jesus bifurcates Jesus scholarship today,
but
there is hardly a consensus for a noneschatological Jesus. The most important
and
eloquent proponent of the noneschatological viewpoint, who also maintains an
independent line from the one found in the Funk orientation of the Jesus
Seminar,
is Marcus Borg.8 On the other
hand, the major studies of the present generation
have had a decidedly eschatological Jesus' and I think here of B. F. Meyer, E.
P.
Sanders, J. P. Meier, N. T. Wright, and D. C. Allison.9 The argument
of the Jesus
Seminar here also wobbles on too confident of a judgment on the supposed layers
of the Q tradition for, as many would argue, if we are not able to judge the
various
stages of evolution in the Q tradition, then the Twelve in Matt 19:28 par. Luke
22:30 may well be at the root of the Q tradition.10 In other words,
for starters, if we
McKnight: Jesus and the Twelve 4
endorse an
eschatological Jesus and think Q is hardly capable of clear and
compelling dissection by modern scholarship, then the Twelve may go back to
Jesus. The arguments for this theory are noteworthy and encompass the
criticisms
of the Jesus Seminar, and to these I now turn.
First, multiple attestation
suggests that the Twelve emerged in the lifetime
of Jesus as special companions and men who were sent out on a mission to extend
the ministry of Jesus. As is seen in the lists above, the Twelve are attested
in three
Gospels and Acts. It is almost certain that Matthew and Luke are dependent on
Mark, but two points serve to show independence: (a) the variations of the
lists
even while dependent; (b) the variation within Luke-Acts. Some have argued from
these variations that Matthew and Luke each had access to a pre-Markan
tradition
list of the Twelve names; Meier contends that Luke 6:14-16 may derive from L.
The lists indicate then, at least, a single tradition (Mark) that was picked up
with
editing by later Evangelists; it is possible that the variations can be
explained by a
pre-Markan tradition or an L tradition.
More importantly, the term twelve is found in various strata of the
Jesus
traditions as well as different forms (meeting the criteria established in the
community of scholarship), indicating at least a historical core to the number,
even
if the precise names are not clearly identifiable. Mark (3:14; 4:10; 6:7; 9:35;
10:32; 11:11; 14:10, 17, 20, 43), Q (Matt 19:28 par. Luke 22:30),11 perhaps L
(Luke 8:1-3),12 John (6:67,
70, 71; 20:24), and Paul (1 Cor 15:3-5) all indicate the
presence of the Twelve during the life of Jesus. In addition to multiple attestation
of sources, says Meier, these texts also give us multiple
attestation of forms: the
Twelve are mentioned in narrative (Mark, John), sayings (Q, John), a catalogue-
like list (Mark, probably L),13 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
support in the NT texts.14
Second, using an
argument that I consider logic rather than criteriological
science,15 I would say
that there are elements of tension in the emerging Jesus
traditions that suggest the Twelve emerged from the time of Jesus. Meier calls
this
the criterion of embarrassment.16 Judas is
called one of the Twelve (for
example,
in Mark 14:43) and, so the argument goes, early Christians would not have made
that kind of stuff up! There is no plausible context in the early church for
inventing a betrayer if there was not one; and, mutatis mutandis, there
is no reason
to make the betrayer one of the Twelve if there was not a betrayer.17 Why would
someone create trouble for himself if he were making things up? Further, the
crucifixion of Jesus and the betrayal by Judas are indissolubly connected and
are
5
IBR Studies
in fact
correlates: see 1 Cor 15:3-5 and John 17:12.18 Since it is
clear that the early
church most likely would not have invented Judas, a close associate who
betrayed
Jesus, as a Fundament of the story about Jesus, and since he is included
among the
Twelve, it is probable that the Twelve emerged from the time of Jesus and
Judas.19
In the quotable words of Dom Crossan: He
is too bad to be false.20
Third, the fluctuating
and fading tradition history of the Twelve in the NT
suggests an early arrival as well as an early departure of the Twelve.21 Meier states
this argument clearly: If the group of
the Twelve had arisen in the early days of the
church [rather than during the life of Jesus] and, for whatever reason, reached
such prominence that its presencewas massively retrojected into the Gospel
traditions, one would have expected that the history of the first Christian
generation would be replete with examples of the Twelve's powerful presence and
activity in the church.22 First, we
know so little about some of the Twelve that
one must question the theory that they were invented wholesale. Why not use
other names that are known, and why use persons who seem to have negligible
influence? Second, why do the Twelve appear so infrequently in the NT? Apart
from the Jesus traditions, they hardly emerge: in the pre-Pauline creedal
formula
(1 Cor 15:3-5), in Acts not after 6:2,23 and only
once in Revelation (21:14). If they
were invented as authoritative figures to function at some institutional level,
we
are led to ask what institution this might have been and why they are not shown
meeting this need.
The facts press us to this
conclusion: the Twelve emerged in the life of
Jesus and then were virtually dropped as a functioning institution. Two
considerations support this view: (1) the problems in the lists suggest that
the
names were either unknown, or the figures were a distant memory (they were
names only remembered for their twelveness,24 leading
Sanders to the view of the
historicity of a symbol25); (2) the
expectations established by Jesus for the future
role of the Twelve in judging the twelve tribes of Israel, in some form of
restoration (Matt 19:28 par. Luke
22:28-30), were for interpreters gradually
marginalized or at least deemphasized by other views of the future for God's
people. The earthly life of Jesus, then, had a genuine focus on the Twelve:
time,
changes, social relocations, alternative leadership developments, and the
charismatic power of key figures such as Peter and Paul simply eclipsed the
institution of the Twelve. At the beginning, there were the Twelve; by the
middle
of the first century, they were history--but they were indeed just that. And
what
was this history all about? Why did Jesus choose Twelve? Before we answer this
question, one other supporting argument for the Twelve may be offered.
Fourth, the encapsulation
theory of conversion suggests that close followers
would be historically likely.I do not mean by this that Jesus chose only
twelve
McKnight: Jesus
and the Twelve 6
because of
encapsulation theory. Instead, I am suggesting that a close group of
associates is likely to have emerged among converts to Jesus and that twelve, as a
mere symbol for close associates, is thereby suggested--even if the specific
number is not implied in the argument. Recent research in conversion, most
clearly presented by L. R. Rambo,26 shows that
all religious conversions take
shape in a pattern that permits individual variations of considerable
magnitude.
Rambo himself presents a consensus-like report of the following stages:
context,
crisis, quest, encounter (with an advocate) and interaction, commitment
(involving
surrender and testimony), and consequences. Our concern here is with the
encounter: this is the point at which an encapsulation process takes
place, the
point at which the potential convert is initiated into and exposed to a new
self-
contained world of meaning. Encapsulation is the process of shielding in order
for
conversion to take place effectively; it may involve physical, but certainly
involves social and ideological, encapsulation. In this encapsulation process
there
are four dimensions of influence: relationships, rituals, rhetoric, and roles.
A
convert's identity is reshaped through some form of encapsulation.
If this can be assumed, and I
believe Rambo's model of conversion is a
compelling presentation of years of research (both clinical research and
research
into the history of scholarship), a simple conclusion follows: it is highly
likely, in
fact, nearly certain, that Jesus isolated some of his followers and encapsulated
them in order to lead them into a complete conversion. It follows then that
there
was a special group of Jesus' followers. That they were called the Twelve is not
confirmed by encapsulation theory, but that there would have been some close
associates is nearly certain. At a general level of religious experience, here
thinking of conversion to Jesus' vision for Israel, it is highly probable that
there
would have been a few men who were considered the closest associates of Jesus,
and we have every reason therefore to look for such a group in the earliest
Jesus
traditions. This conclusion can be confirmed by evidence both in Judaism (John
the Baptist had disciples) and in the wider Mediterranean world (see, for
example,
the Epistle of Socrates and the Socratics).27
Conclusion:
It is highly probable, then, that Jesus had a special group of
followers, designated during his lifetime as the Twelve. These twelve men are
found in a variety of forms scattered throughout the early Jesus traditions;
their
presence creates tension within the traditions themselves; the history of the
early
Jesus and Christian traditions reveals an echo of a now-distant institution in
the
Jesus materials; and, on general religious grounds, it is likely that Jesus had
a
group of closest associates. What is the significance of such a group of Twelve
followers?
7
IBR Studies
2.0.
The Twelve in Context
Background
Now that we
have established the tradition of the Twelve as reliably going back to
the very life of Jesus, it remains for us to ask how the term twelve has been
interpreted by scholars who see the tradition as reliable and how it might be
interpreted if a wider lens is used to encompass even more ancient Jewish
evidence.
Apart from an occasional study
or two, the reason for choosing precisely
twelve has not been investigated as much as the historicity of the Twelve. In
fact,
most scholars fight hard to win an argument for the historical reliability of
traditions about the Twelve and then simply conclude: historical, therefore
eschatological. In the words of Albert Schweitzer, Primitive theology is simply a
theology of the future, with no interest in history!28 In short,
most scholars
conclude that the choice of twelve was symbolic29 but had
only one motive: to
inaugurate the restoration and reunification of the twelve tribes as promised
in
ancient Jewish traditions, most notably in Isaiah and Ezekiel.30 Jeremias
expresses
this position well: That Jesus chose
precisely twelve men to serve as messengers
indicates that he had a particular programme in mind. The twelve
messengers
correspond to the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19.28 par. Luke
22.29f); they
represent the eschatological community of salvation.31 Or, in the
words of E. P.
Sanders, an eschatological miracle, a
decisive act by God to redeem his people.32
If the majority
focus on the number twelve as an
eschatological image with
some emphasizing a claim on the whole nation33 or
emphasizing that Jesus' vision
was for the nation (in contrast to simply individual redemption for the
remnant: for
example, 1 Kgs 19:18; Isa 7:3, 9; 8:16-20; 10:21; 28:16; 37:31; 42:19;
43:10,12;
Jer 3:16; 23:3; 30:8-9; 31:10; Ezek 34:15-16; Mic 4:6-7; 7:18-19; Amos 5:15;
Zeph 3:12),34 others,
without denying the eschatological dimension, center on the
Twelve as a nucleus of the remnant or as leaders of a new movement within
Israel.
Here the focus becomes more ecclesial, referring to leadership of a new
movement
shaped by the various quests for holiness within first-century Judaism.35 A
combination of the two above views, extending the view of those who emphasize
the ecclesial dimension, suggests both a continuity and a discontinuity:
the old
Israel
now fulfilled.36 No one
speaks more completely for this view than Jurgen
Roloff: Jesus dokumentiert also in der
Berufung der Zwölf seinen
Herrscheranspruch ber das endzeitliche Israel. Zugleich aber bleibt es
nicht beim
bloen Anspruch: im Akt der Berufung konzipiert er dieses neue Gottesvolk in
einer
Weise, die zugleich zeichenhaft und real ist.37 In this
view of the Twelve, we have
christology,38
eschatology, ecclesiology, and symbolic action.
McKnight: Jesus
and the Twelve 8
Finally, others have suggested that
the term twelve is to be interpreted
more
simply: as no more than a claim on the nation as a whole.39 In other
words, twelve
was a symbol,40 a general
evocation of all Israel,
rather than an embodiment of a
specific hope for restoring Israel by reuniting the twelve
tribes.41 The only
way to
arbitrate this disparity of viewpoints is to examine the evidence once again.
In
studying this issue, I was surprised how frequently influential pieces of
research
seem not to examine the breadth of data about the concept twelve in ancient
Judaism. In particular, the almost knee-jerk impulse to favor the
eschatological
perception of why Jesus' choice of twelve is in need of serious
reconsideration.
While it is easy to truck out evidence of an eschatological orientation, a
fuller
grasp of the evidence permits a broader (and more historically-nuanced)
interpretation.42
The Context of
the Hebrew Bible
If we follow
the biblical story line without attempting to reconstruct a critical
history of either the term twelve
(sne' asa'r and so on) or the
term tribes (sibte') if
we read the story as a first-century Jew probably would have done the
following
points are notable. First, the story
of the Twelve begins not with Jacob but
Ishmael, whom Elohim promises that he will make fertile and exceedingly
numerous. He shall be the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a
great nation(Gen 17:20, njpsv; compare 25:12-18). But, as the text reads, My
covenant I will maintain with Isaac(17:21).
Second, the predominant use of
twelve is for the sons of
Jacob/Israel
(35:22-26; Sir 44:23-45:1). The sense of the twelve sons of Israel as heads of the
twelve tribes moves from a physical literality (the actual sons of Israel and a
real
tribal interest; see Gen 42:13, 32; 49:28; Tob 1:4; 4:12; 5:9-14; Add Esth
14:5) to
a representation for the descendants (the twelve tribes) and hereditary
representatives(twelve tribal princes/chieftains, and so on). So: Moses
sets up an
altar at the foot of Sinai with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel (Exod
24:4); Moses finds chieftains and heads (Num 1:5-16) who will help him
take a
census of the whole house of Israel (see 1:44); Moses sends twelve to
reconnoiter
the land that was promised to Israel (Deut 1:22-23); and upon entry into the
land
beyond the Jordan and after its reconstitution, the twelve play a major role (see
Josh 4:2, 3, 8, 9, 20; 18:24; 19:15; 21:7, 40). Much later Ezra offers twelve
goats
to purify Israel, the whole
of Israel, according to the number of the tribes of Israel
(Ezra 6:17). The same reference to the twelve tribes is found in the later
tradition
of 1 Esdras (5:1, 4; 8:54) and, of course, the original tribal structure
becomes the
9
IBR Studies
foundation for the emergence of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.
A feature of this tribal use
of twelve is the regular use of
twelve objects as
an embodiment of the twelve tribes of Israel: twelve pillars (Exod 24:4);
twelve
stones on the breastplate (39:14; compare with Sir 45:11); twelve bowls (Num
7:84); twelve bulls, rams, lambs, goats (7:87; 1 Esdr 7:8; 8:65-66); twelve
staffs
(Num 17:17[2]); cutting a prostitute into twelve pieces, one for each tribe
(Judg
19:29); and Ahijah's cutting of the robe into twelve pieces, ten for Jeroboam,
when the kingdom was split (1 Kgs 11:30-31; see also Jos. Asen. 5:6).
Third, an important feature of
the term twelve is its association
with
covenant establishment and renewal. Whenever twelve is mentioned in the
Hebrew Bible, one naturally thinks of Israel's sons and their successors.
Inasmuch
as Israel's tribes are tied
into a sacrificial cult, there will be evidence for the
entirety of Israel
being represented vicariously in sacrifices (for example, Exod
24:4; Num 7:87). More importantly, when the children of Israel are
about to enter
into the land, an event that will be in fulfillment of a covenant promise given
to
Abraham (Genesis 12; 15), a covenant renewal, is enacted and the number twelve
plays a central role in the renewal. Joshua is instructed by Yhwh to select
twelve
men, one from each tribe (Josh 4:1),
who are to pick up twelve stones from the
middle of the Jordan
where the priests are standing and to deposit them where they
spend the night (4:3). These stones are to become an iconic catalyst to
tell the
story of how the waters of the Jordan
were cut off by God because of the Ark of
the Lord's Covenant, and they are to be a memorial for all time (4:7). In addition,
Joshua himself sets up a small altar of twelve stones at the feet of the
priests who
are supporting the Ark of the Covenant, and
they have remained there to this day
(4:9b). When they encamp at Gilgal, Joshua sets up twelve stones as a memorial
(4:20). Eventually, the tribes are assigned twelve cities (see, for example,
18:24;
19:15; 21:7, 38). To my knowledge, few have looked to Joshua43 for a
background
to Jesus' choice of twelve as I shall do below; entering into this discussion
now is
what the great American humorist James Thurber called a flashforwards!
Fourth, we ought to observe
the frequency with which twelve are selected
to represent the nation. In Num 1:44 we find that there is one chieftain for each
ancestral house, twelve total; in 31:5 twelve thousand, one thousand per tribe,
are
chosen; to reconnoiter the land, one man per tribe is selected (Deut 1:23);
later,
Joshua is instructed by Yhwh to select one man per tribe on two different
occasions (Josh 3:12; 4:2; compare with a similar use in 1 Esdr 5:1, 4; 8:54).
When the myth of the translation of (portions of) the Hebrew Bible into Greek
is
elaborated in the Letter of Aristeas, the tribes and the number twelve emerge: six
translators from each tribe (35-51).
McKnight: Jesus
and the Twelve 10
The Context
of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Pseudepigrapha
An important
extension of this fourth sense of representatives can be seen in the
Dead Sea Scrolls' attention to twelve leaders, and here the
eschatological nature of
the community and its fundamental beliefs enter the picture to give these
twelve
leaders both an ecclesial and an eschatological function. The evidence
is neither
unambiguous nor abundant, though a possible historical trajectory has been
traced
in the insightful article of William Horbury.44 More
importantly, in the use of
twelve with a leadership role at roughly the time of Jesus, as well as in a
particular
community with eschatological orientations, we find a significant parallel to
the
presence of twelve in the vision of Jesus.45 Examples
of use of the number at
Qumran follow:
1QS 8:1: In the Community council (there shall be) twelve men and three
priests.46 Their
task--To be perfect in the whole revelation, to implement the truth,
to practice unassuming behaviour of one
to another (8:2), to preserve faithful
commitment to the Law in the land to atone for sin, and to walk with one
another
in light of the revelation (8:3). 1Q28a 11-22 (also called 1QSa, or Rule
of the
Congregation):
At [a ses]sion of the men of renown,
[those summoned to] the gathering of
the community council, when [God]
begets the Messiah with them. After, [the
Mess]iah of Israel shall [enter] and before him shall sit
the heads of the
th[ousands of Israel, each] one according to his
dignity, according to [his]
po[sition] in their camps and
according to their marches. And all the heads of
the cl[ans of the congre]gation with
the wise [men?] shall sit before them.
While the number twelve does not appear here, one might
suppose that
precisely twelve heads are in mind
for at least one of the above-italicized words.
Their sitting here refers to a holy
convocation of the leadership for judgment or for
a meal (see lines 17-22). 4Q159 (Ordinancesa) frgs. 2?4:3-4: And [te]n men and
two priests, and they shall be judged by these twelve. These twelve,
which include
two priests, are assigned judgment over capital offenses (line 5). 1QM
(Milhamah,
or War Scroll) 2:1-3:
They shall arrange the chiefs (y#(r) of the priests behind
the High Priest and
of his second (in rank), twelve
chiefs (My#)r r#(
Myn#) to
serve in
perpetuity before God. And the
twenty-six chiefs of the divisions shall serve in
their divisions and after them the
chiefs of the levites to serve always, twelve,
one per tribe. And the chiefs of
their divisions shall each serve in his place. The
11 IBR Studies
chiefs of the tribes, and after them the
fathers of the congregation, shall take
their positions in the gates of the
sanctuary in perpetuity.
Here we have twelve priests serving
before God eternally, twelve
(additional?) levites, and twelve (more?) chiefs/tribal princes.47 4Q164
(pIsad) 4-6:
Its interpretation [of I will place all
your battlements of rubies from Isa. 54:12]
concerns the twelve [chiefs of the priests who] illuminate with the
judgment of the
Urim and Thummim [without] any from among them missing, like the sun in all
its light.48 This
duodecimal council (line 2), similar
to the council in 1QM 8:1, is
composed of priests and laity, and these twelve function along with heads of the
tribes(line 7; twelve in number, of course). We have here then a council of
some
sort, composed of twenty-four, a priestly, oracular judicial body (see Ezek
48:31;
Rev 21:12-14, 19-21).
We find an even more
intriguing piece of evidence in 11Q19 (Templea
Scroll) 57:11-14: And twelve princes (yy#)n) of his [the
eschatological king]
people shall be with him, and twelve
priests and twelve levites, who
shall sit
together with him for judgment and for the law. With the ideal king,
we have here
a council of thirty-seven, both priestly and tribal, exercising judgment (see
11Q19
576, 11-12; 11Q13 [Melchizedek]; compare with 1 En. 45:3; 51:3;
61:8; 62:1-2).49
The theme of judgment pervades the scrolls when it comes to the twelve.
Outside the scrolls, the
interesting prediction of T. Abraham 13:6, a second-
century C.E. text, suggests a Jewish motif of judgment by twelve: And at
the
second Parousia they will be judged by the twelve tribes of Israel (OTP, trans. E.
P. Sanders). Other texts confirm this: T. Judah 25:1-2: And after this Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob will be resurrected to life and I and my brothers will be
chiefs
(wielding) our scepter in Israel:
Levi, the first. T. Benj. 10:7: Then
shall we also
be raised, each of us over our tribe, and we shall prostrate ourselves before
the
heavenly king.
In summary: The number twelve in the biblical story denotes the
tribes of
Israel, the descendants of
Jacob, who became Israel.
Twelve thus defines biblical
Israel, pre-captivity Israel, as a tribal-based community with its
roots in God's
redemptive acts under Abraham,
Israel, Moses,
and Joshua. Further, the number
twelve becomes a central feature of
the conquest of the land and, in particular, of
the crossing of the Jordan and the reestablishment of the covenant in
connection
with this major act of Yhwh, as he fights for his people in granting the land
he has
promised. In Israel's
tribal arrangement, twelve men are regularly selected, just as
twelve objects are sometimes put forward, to embody the entirety of the nation
in
some ritual enactment. These twelve function vicariously.
McKnight: Jesus
and the Twelve 12
One negative
conclusion is immediately noticeable for Jesus studies: I have found
no instance of twelve functioning eschatologically in the Hebrew Bible,
although
the term does function eschatologically in the unfolding Jewish tradition. This
means that an eschatological connotation will rarely exhaust the intentions of
later
writers who use the tradition of the number twelve.
Eschatology
and the Use of the Word Tribe
For
eschatological connotations we must turn to other evidence, including the term
tribe. In so doing, I shall present
data that envision a regathering of the tribes
of
Israel (combining the lost
Northern tribes with the two and one-half tribes extant
[Judah, Benjamin, half-Levi]) in an eschatological act of God to reunite the
sons
of Israel
and preserve them from disaster (T. Zeb. 9:1?3; 2 Bar. 1:2; 62:5;
77:19;
78:1). Reunification of the tribes is an ideal
state of affairs.50
Besides a fairly common use of
the word tribe (for example, Num
33:54;
Deut 1:13; 16:18; 1 Sam 15:17; 1 Kgs 11:31-32; Ps 78:55), there are several
eschatological instances, some with a priestly orientation: (1) clearly Isa
11:11-12:
In that day, my Lord will apply his hand
again to redeeming the other part of his
people from Assyria. He will hold up a
signal to the nations and assemble the
banished of Israel and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of
the
earth (compare with 27:13); (2) possibly Isa 49:6: Is it too little that you should be
my servant in that I raise up the tribes of Jacob and restore the survivors of
Israel?; (3) perhaps Isa 63:17: Relent
for the sake of your servants, the tribes that
are your very own!; (4) Jer 3:18; 29:14; 30:3; 31:7-10; 32:36-41: Jeremiah,
who at
times is absorbed with Ephraim, also clearly expects a reunification of the
twelve
tribes in the land, a restoring of the fortunes of Israel and Judah, because Ephraim
is my firstborn(31:9); (5) clearly Ezek 36:8-11; 37:19: Thus says the Lord God: I
am going to take the stick of Joseph which is in the hand of Ephraim and of the
tribes of Israel associated with him, and I will place the stick of Judah upon
it and
make them into one stick; they shall be joined in my hand(see 32:36-41);
(6) also
Ezek 47:13: These shall be boundaries of
the land that you shall allot to the twelve
tribes of Israel(compare with 47:21; 48:1, 19, 23, 29, 31); (7) at the
foundation of
this hope for restoration perhaps lies Amos 9:14: I will restore my people Israel;51
and, finally, (8) we can note the following texts: Mic 2:12; 4:6-7; Zeph
3:19-20;
Zech 10:8-10.
Outside the canonical texts,
this notion of a restoration of the twelve tribes,
regathering the dispersed from both exiles, finds widespread52
expression, most
notably in Ben Sira 36 and probably in 48:10; 36:13, 16: Gather all the tribes of
Jacob, and give them their inheritance, as at the beginning. And these
tribes will
gather in Jerusalem
(36:18) and Zion (36:19), proving Yhwh's prophets
13 IBR
Studies
trustworthy (36:21). One thinks also of the implicit vision of Psalms of
Solomon
11 and 17:26-34: here we find the land divided into tribes once more (compare
with 8:28-32; 11:2; 17:44). Tob 14:7 anticipates exiled Israelites returning,
as do 2
Macc 1:27?28; 2:18; T. Levi 16:6; T. Asher 7:7; T. Benj.
9:2; Jub. 1:15; 2 Bar.
77:5-6; 78, especially v. 7; 1QM; 11Q19 (Temple)
18:14-16; 57:5-6; 59:1-13
(theme of covenant renewal); compare with 4Q252 3:1-14; 4Q504 (DibHama);
4Q508 (Festival Prayersb) frg. 2:2 (the time of the return, bw#); Jos. Asen. 5:6.
The vision of a restored
twelve tribes occupying the land emerges most
explicitly in the Hebrew Bible under the priestly hand of Ezekiel; Isaiah's
words
evoke the restoration of the twelve tribes, but his vision hardly focuses on
such an
image. In short, the expectation of the twelve tribes being restored, as in
former
days, is one significant crystallizing shape of future expectation in the
evidence of
the Hebrew Bible. Later traditions unfold these formative visions. However,
what
we do have in the Bible is a covenantal and selectional emphasis
on the concept
twelve when it expresses the ancient
establishment of God's people as heirs to
Jacob.
To contend, on the other hand,
that twelve means eschatological restoration
is to suggest a higher correlation than the evidence permits. To contend that
Jesus
must have meant eschatological
reunification of the twelve tribes because he used
twelve disciples may find support in some texts, such as in Isaiah, Ezekiel,
and
Ben Sira 36, but is the evidence so uniformly monodirectional? I think not.
When
the Jesus traditions are seen in this context, a new appreciation for what
Jesus
meant in choosing twelve emerges. If these several strands especially a covenantal
emphasis emerging from the Jordan River texts of Joshua with an ecclesial
dimension at the front and an eschatological hope in the future of Ezekiel at
the
back represent the fuller picture out of which choosing twelve would have
emerged and been understood by contemporary Jews, it is only by examining the
evidence of the Jesus traditions themselves that we will be permitted a more
nuanced grasp of what Jesus meant to evoke when he chose the Twelve.
3.0. Jesus and
the Twelve
Above we
established that there is solid evidence and there are persuasive
arguments for contending that Jesus used twelve
for a special group of his
followers (even if a name or two is not probative). If we could gather a larger
cluster of texts around the Twelve, we might establish with more precision the
intention of Jesus in choosing twelve. The evidence is not abundant, but there
are a
few significant segments to analyze: (1) general descriptions of the Twelve,
(2) the
choosing and sending of the Twelve, and (3) the Q tradition about the Twelve as
McKnight: Jesus
and the Twelve 14
future judges of the twelve tribes.
The Twelve in
the Jesus Traditions
First, I
consider the following segment to be possible information about the
Twelve, harder to prove historical because this kind of evidence is isolated
and
sometimes fraught with tradition-critical complexities. Nonetheless, it is
reasonable because it is coherent with the fact that Jesus did associate
himself
especially with a group of twelve disciples.53 For
instance, when Mark 4:10 tells us
that Jesus was alone after telling several parables and that h)rw&twn au)to_n
oi( peri_ au)to_n su_n toi=j dw&deka ta_j parabola&j, we are dealing with
narrative information (these are Mark's words) that is also reasonable and
coherent information: that is, if Jesus did gather the Twelve and did tell
parables, it
is reasonable that the Twelve were with him many times (see 3:14)54 as well as
that they asked him the meaning of his parables. Other pieces of evidence, in
my
judgment, belong in this segment: that the Twelve were urged to make themselves
servants (Mark 9:35 D) and to accept the fate of their teacher (10:32-34 par.
Matt
20:17-19; Luke 18:31-34; compare with John 6:67); that they Twelve were with
him during his last week (Mark 11:11; 14:17-20 par. Matt 26:20-25; Luke 22:14
[a)po&stoloi]; 22:21-23 [omits twelve]). If one thinks Jesus actually
fed a large
multitude miraculously, it is only slightly possible that the twelve baskets
remaining reflect this group's presence (see Mark 6:43 par. Matt 14:20; Luke
9:17; compare with Luke 9:12, where dw&deka is used).
I consider all this
information both possible and reasonable; if Jesus did
isolate the Twelve, it is highly likely that they did these kinds of things
with Jesus
and heard from Jesus about following him. However, what we learn here
about the
Twelve is negligible: that they heard Jesus' interpretation of various
parables, that
they were warned of his fate and that they would have to endure a trial
themselves,
and that they were with him during the last week and heard his words on those
special occasions. This kind of information tells us more about discipleship
than it
does about why Jesus chose the Twelve. If anything, it tells us that the Twelve
were more than a symbol but, instead, an actual part of the outworking of
Jesus'
vision of the kingdom, which he believed was presently entering history as his
still, small voice.
Second, that Jesus sent out
the Twelve opens up another segment of
information that intersects with the data about the number twelve in ancient
Judaism.55 The
fundamental texts are found in Mark 3:14; Matt 10:1; Luke 6:13
and Mark 6:7-13, 30; Matt 9:35-11:1; Luke 9:1-6, 10; 10:1-12; the texts appear
to
relate a threefold process: an early call and designation; a mission of the
Twelve; a
subsequent mission of the 70/72.56 It is
entirely probable that Matthew has
15 IBR
Studies
conflated Mark
with Q, along with other traditions;57 it is
possible that Luke's
mission of the 70 is a conflation of the sources available to him, although
others
think Jesus may well have sent out disciples more than one time.58 Few have
disputed that Jesus sent out some of his followers probably the Twelve mostly
because the story is found in separate traditions (Mark 6:7-13; Luke 10:1-16;
Matt
9:35-11:1 has residual elements from M; some see L traditions in Luke 10:1-16;
see also 22:35). The act itself is coherent with the substantive content of why
Jesus
chose twelve: to evoke the restoration of the twelve tribes not only must there
be
twelve but they must be its leaders.59 T. W.
Manson spoke for many when he said
and, like Melchizedek, still speaks: The
mission of the disciples is one of the best-
attested facts in the life of Jesus.60
Without extensive
exegesis of each text or a detailing of the tradition
history, the following observations are pertinent:
(1) The Twelve are not
physical descendants of each of the twelve tribes:
they are a symbolic representation of the twelve tribes. Jesus is
obviously not
using twelve in the sense of a
literal, physical fulfillment of the prophetic hope
of the reunification of the tribes, for this hope has every indication of being
physical. His intention here is to embody the hope of either
representing Israel
in a
covenant renewal or representing reunification symbolically in his chosen
twelve
followers.61 This very
action of Jesus is not without significance for his
understanding of what he is doing and how he sees Israel's history coming to its
fulfillment.
(2) The Twelve are restricted
to a Galilean/Israelite mission and are
prevented from extending their mission to either Gentiles or Samaritans (Matt
10:5-6).62 The restriction
by Jesus emerges from a complex historical-missionary
situation63 and
involves several critically-debated Jesus traditions (Mark 7:24-30
par. Matt 15:21-28; Mark 5:1-20 par. Matt 8:28-34; Luke 8:26-39; Mark 11:15-19
par. Matt 21:12-13;64 Luke
19:45-48; Mark 12:1-12 par. Matt 21:33-46; Luke
20:9-10; Mark 13:10 and 14:9 par. Matt 10:18; 24:14; 26:13; Q: Luke 7:1-10 par.
Matt 8:5-13; Luke 7:18-23 par. Matt 11:2-6; Luke 14:34-35 par. Matt 5:13-16;
Luke 4:16-30; Matt 7:6).
In summary, the following are
noteworthy: (1) Jesus had no mission to the
Gentiles; his mission was directed toward Israel because his mission was about
the
restoration of Israel as it realized its covenant expectations and hopes; (2)
the
eschatology of Jesus leads one to think of his mission as being an urgent call
to
repentance in light of the coming judgment of God on a disobedient nation;65 (3)
Gentile inclusion is by way of exception and permission to enter rather than
the
direct result of an intentional, inclusive mission; (4) Gentile inclusion is
primarily
an eschatological phenomenon as a result of God's direct intervention in
history,
and this places Gentiles in the final judgment (for example, Mark 12:1-12
pars.);66
McKnight: Jesus
and the Twelve 16
(5) along these
salvation-historical lines, then, one can argue that Jesus'
universalism is the consequence of his particularism: a mission
to Israel
embraces
an eventual impact for the entire creation.67 Just as
Isaiah's vision begins with
Israel and erupts into a
universal praise (Isa 61:1-11) and just as Israel
is to
become a light to the nations (49:4-7), so Jesus restricts his mission to Israel
because Israel's
restoration impacts the world. In the words of T. W. Manson, a
transformed Israel
would transform the world.68
(3) The mission of
the Twelve was fundamentally the same mission that
Jesus had,and this means that the Twelve's mission was to extend the
mission of
Jesus into the various villages of Galilee (Israel).69 If the authorization of the
Twelve is less demonstrable (see Mark 3:15; 6:7 par. Matt 10:1; Luke 9:1), what
the Twelve were commissioned to do70 becomes
potential information and, since
authorization is typically Jewish, the Twelve become at least ipso facto
authorized.
And what were they commissioned to do? (a) extend the Kingdom of God
and its
peace: see the Q tradition in Luke 10:5-6 (peace is perhaps a Lukan redaction);
10:9, 11; (b) the Twelve were enabled
to perform Kingdom miracles, such as
exorcism (Mark 6:7 par. Matt 10:1; Luke 9:1; compare with Mark 3:27; Luke
10:18; 11:20 par. Matt 12:28),71 healing
the sick (Matt 10:1 par. Luke 9:1; 10:9),72
and announcing the arrival of the Kingdom73 in short,
they were fishers of men
(Mark 1:16-20 par. Matt 4:18-22); (c) Matthew's specific instructions betray a
redactional hand designed to portray the mission of the Twelve as identical to
Jesus' actions in Matt 8:1-9:34; (d) their means of subsistence was identical
to
Jesus': trust in God for provisions through the hospitality of others (see Q:
Luke
9:58 par. Matt 8:20; Luke 11:3 par. Matt 6:11; Luke 12:22-31 par. Matt 6:25-34;
here Mark 6:8-11 par. Matt 10:9-15; Luke 9:3-5; 10:4-12).74
The implication
seems fairly straightforward: they were to be a radical
sign75 of the
Kingdom's power by finding support through local sympathizers.
This mission of Jesus and its extension through the ministries of his followers
now
gain support from the recently published Dead Sea Scroll 4Q521 frg. 2, col. 2,
as
emerging from an existing Jewish hope. Here the messianic ministry, largely
realizing the hopes of Isaiah 61, includes the very things early Jesus
traditions
attribute to Jesus: among other things, the Lord will call the righteous
by name,
renew the faithful, aid and preach good news to the poor, give an eternal
Kingdom
to the pious, free prisoners, give sight to the blind, straighten out the
twisted, and
raise the dead.
A third segment of information
emerges from a close scrutiny of the Q
tradition in Luke 22:28-30 par. Matt 19:28 that the Twelve will judge the
twelve
tribes of Israel.76 (1) The
tradition-critical history of this logion is notoriously
complex, revealing only potential redactional features of each Evangelist,77 though
the Matthean context perhaps has more to speak for it.78 The eschatology
of this Q
17 IBR
Studies
logion anchors it into the very life of Jesus, not only because it is
indisputably
Jewish and uncharacteristic of earliest Christian history (Judas will be
judging),
but also because its shape is entirely Jewish and coherent with Jesus' vision
(dissimilar at a substantive level).79 (2)
Matthew may duplicate the term dw&deka
but, in so doing, adds no new information; perhaps it is Luke who has omitted
the
term.80 (3) A
secure feature of the early Q tradition is the following: kri&nontej
ta_j dw&kwka fula_j tou= 0Israhl. This clause provides
valuable information
concerning why Jesus, distinct from the Twelve as the Son of Man in judgment
(see Matt 25:31; 26:64; 1 En. 62:5; 69:29), appointed twelve special
leaders.81 The
term judging may mean either
determinative judgment in an executive, judicial
sense (salvation or damnation; see Dan 7:9, 19-28; 1 En. 95:3; Ps.
Sol. 17:28;
1QH 4:22), even in a witnessing sense (Isa 24:23; see also 3:14); or rulership
and
establishing justice (see Matt 2:6; 20:20-21; Judg 3:10; Ps 2:10; Dan 9:12; 1
Macc
9:73; 11Q19 [Temple] 56:20). For our context, it is not necessary to
argue the pros
and cons of each. I adhere to the latter meaning largely because of the book of
Judges, Psalms (for example, 10:18; 35; 76:9; 82:1-4; 103:6), Isa 42:1; 49:6,
and
the Qumranic evidence cited above, where we set the Twelve in historical
context.82 In each
case the Twelve are appointed to a leadership role in the final
Kingdom,83 where they
will exercise rule/judgment over the twelve tribes of
Israel.84 Thus,
while in the sending tradition no evidence exists for a fulfillment of
the literal expectation for the reunification of the twelve tribes, in this logion
we
see such an expectation.
The Twelve,
Jesus, and the Historical Context
The historical
context for the Twelve, if drawn from our previous discussion of the
ancient evidence about twelve,
suggests the following: (1) the Twelve sent by
Jesus could conceivably correspond to the ancient custom of twelve
representatives; however, in every case of twelve representatives, those
who are
chosen represent each and every tribe (for example, Num 1:44; Deut 1:23;
Josh
3:12; 4:2, 3, 8; 1 Esdr. 5:1, 4; 8:54). What I am suggesting here is
that this
background for the use of twelve by
Jesus does not appear to be paramount. Jesus
chose the Twelve to embody all of Israel but not to represent each
tribe. The
parallel to the Qumran community's leadership
is more apposite here: a nonliteral
fulfillment of the reunification of the twelve tribes or a simple reutilization
of the
ancient twelve patriarchal ideal drives the choice of twelve as leaders in these
texts
and, in the case of Jesus, with no priestly emphasis. In the words of Beda
Rigaux:
Alles, was man daraus folgern kann [e.g.,
the parallel with Qumran], ist, dass in
den letzten Jahrhunderten des Judentums
ein Klima entstanden war, in dem die
McKnight: Jesus
and the Twelve 18
Geschichte Israels eine betont
theologische und messianische Bedeutung
erhielt. Man ging zurck auf Adam,
auf Henoch, auf die Patriarchen, um sie zu
Offenbarern der Geheimnisse Gottes
zu machen. Israel
war das Zentrum der
göttlichen Sorge.85
(2) The Twelve being sent by Jesus correspond
in potentially suggestive
ways with the Covenant renewal and the ancient story of crossing the Jordan,
entering into and capturing the land by the strong hand of Joshua(see Josh
4:1, 3,
7, 9, 20). Just as tribal representatives of ancient Israelites were to go
throughout
the land to capture it for Yhwh and then to rule
over that land, so the Twelve sent
by Jesus were to go throughout the land (esp. Galilee
and then beyond) and
declare the Kingdom so that the nation could be reclaimed for Yhwh's covenant.
Just as twelve tribal leaders formed the ancient leadership, so with Jesus the
leadership comprised twelve men. It is possible that the judging of the Twelve was
originally set in a Covenant reminder context: Luke 22:29-30 connects the two
concepts, as has been argued by Heinz Schrmann and Rudolf Otto.86
This connection of
the Twelve with the covenant ideal can be strengthened
by appealing to the foundational event of Jesus' mission: the baptism by John
in
the Jordan.87 The
connections I draw here are of varying degrees of probability
but, together, are suggestive that the Twelve were connected to covenant
renewal.
As I have stated in another context,88 this
baptism (1) took place in the Jordan, and
(2) probably the baptisands entered the water from the other side of the Jordan
and, only after the baptism, reentered the land as a symbolic action of covenant
renewal, purification, and conquest.89 The second
observation can be gleaned from
the following: John exposed Herod, who was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (Mark
6:8, 17-29; compare with Luke 13:31-33); John was imprisoned in Machaerus
(Josephus, Ant. 18.116-119); Jesus' response to John's query Are you the one who
is to come, or do we wait for another? shows serious connections with
Qumran
(see Matt 11:2-6 and 4Q521, frgs. 2, 4; esp. 2.1, 6-8, 12-13); the Gospel of
John
connects John's ministry to Perea (see John 1:28; 3:26; 10:40). Thus, it is
indeed
plausible that John's ministry was Transjordanian (Perean) and evoked a