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 (Ordinances^a) 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 (pIsa^d) 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 (Temple^a
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 (DibHam^a);
4Q508 (Festival Prayers^b) 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 symbolic
action of entering into the land of Israel from the Transjordan similar to the entry
of the generation of Moses and Joshua. When these observations are juxtaposed in
the same paragraph, they suggest that the Twelve were at least shaped by Jesus'
knowledge of the covenant renewal traditions of Joshua. We can place somewhere
in this mixture the plausible connection of John with Qumran and the role that
twelve (see above) played there as a possible genesis for Jesus' use of twelve.⁹⁰
While this grouping is eschatological, it is equally covenantal. The covenantal,
however, shapes the eschatological.

19                                        IBR Studies

Here then are the suggestive details:

     The baptism evoked the entry into the land in ancient history (Josh 3:1-4:18);
     the use of twelve stones can be plausibly connected to Jesus' choice of twelve
     (Josh 4:1-10). When John declared vociferously that God is able from these
     stones(Luke 3:8 par. Matt 3:9) to raise up children for Abraham, this was
     perhaps what turned Jesus from disciple into prophet. Part of his task was to
     make the stones declare the glory of God's covenant with Abraham.

            The mission of the Twelve was an attempt to spread the message
throughout the land and, if any vision was involved on the part of Jesus, then the
hope was to gain the land and its people for the Kingdom of God. This evocational
context emerged from the Jewish hope to restore the land, to reunify the tribes, and
to reestablish the covenant.
            (3) There are solid grounds for contending that Jesus envisioned a
reunification of the twelve tribes that would take place in the land of Israel. This is
only implied, I am suggesting, in the choice and sending of the Twelve, but it is
firmly assumed in the Q tradition in Luke 22:30 par. Matt 19:28 and probably in a
text otherwise not studied here--namely, Luke 13:28-30 par. Matt 8:11-12
(compare with Ps 107:2-3; Isa 43:5-6; Ps. Sol. 11:2-3).⁹¹
                (4) It is implied in all that precedes that Jesus' choice of the Twelve to
embody his covenantal and eschatological vision implies a political vision, a
vision for the nation, and this in some ecclesial sense. Jesus thinks the current
leadership is in need of replacement; his twelve special followers are to be that
new nation (Matt 21:43). To embody his vision in these Twelve is heady political
stuff. The evidence considered here does not go as far as G. W. Buchanan did, or
even as far as R. A. Horsely did, in attempting to reconstruct a political Jesus.⁹²
However, the evidence clearly implies that Jesus had a design for the nation; his
vision was not yet the world.
            This political design clearly implies negative critique of the establishment.
It would take us wide of the mark here to consider whether Jesus' critique of the
leadership in the form of his choice of the Twelve is primarily targeted at the
Pharisees or the Sadducees, but the evidence does imply a trenchant dissatisfaction
with what is going on in Jerusalem and, no doubt, through Jerusalem, in Galilee.
His vision is grand enough to critique the entire leadership. While I am not
convinced that this critique of the establishment emerges because Jesus is a
Galilean, as was mentioned so suggestively by G. Vermes,⁹³ Jesus' childhood
region certainly does not frown on such grandiose plans for the nation. His critique
is solid: anti-Pharisee, anti-Sadducee, and anti-Roman (what else can the
disparaging words of Luke 7:24-35 par. Matt 11:7-19 mean?). Jesus envisions a

                                 McKnight:  Jesus and the Twelve                                20

new leadership for the entire nation, and this means that the entire establishment
must be swept clean, a veritable coup d' ètat, with his Twelve as the new
shepherds for those who would then be lost in Israel.

Summary

Jesus' sending out the Twelve shows little parallel with the expectation of the
reunification of the twelve tribes. Instead, the connotations of his choice and
sending out of the Twelve show more significant parallels with Qumran
leadership, T. Judah 25:1-2, and T. Benj. 10:7, and covenant reestablishment as
found in Joshua 4. His expectation of the reunification of the twelve tribes in the
land does emerge in the Q tradition (Luke 22:30 par. Matt 19:28; Luke 13:28-30
par. Matt 8:11-12), and his Twelve were to function in a leadership rule in that
Kingdom. There is significant evidence for us to think that Jesus had in mind a
restored Israel--twelve new leaders, the land under control, a pure Temple, and a
radically obedient Israel. The two themes of covenant and eschatology that swirl
around the number twelve form a combined witness to the centrality of Jesus'
vision for Israel: salvation-historical fulfillment--that is, covenant reestablishment
--in his mission's inauguration of the Kingdom and the embodiment of leadership
in his twelve special leaders, who will rule and liberate the twelve tribes of Israel
in the Kingdom.

¹ The intention and emphasis of each text are noteworthy: the mishnaic text elaborates on each in the
direction of piety and describes the legacy of each disciple (the good qualities of each disciple of Yohanan
b. Zakkai, their response to the meaning of the straight path and the bad road, and their three memorable
sayings); the text of the Babylonian Talmud discredits Jesus, his disciples, and the emerging church by the
absence of favorable witness for Jesus and by exegesis, which also confirms execution for each of the
named disciples of Jesus (which names are Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah), only one or two
(Matthai and Todah [Thaddaeus?]) of which appears to be in the Christian list. The lists of the disciples in
the earliest Jesus traditions are stark and nearly absent of commentary; their intentions appear to be nothing
more than a list in order to know who are the authentic Tradents of the Jesus tradition.

² The one irregularity is Thaddaeus or Judas ben Jacob (Jude son of James). Most conclude that Simon the
Zealotand Simon the Cananean are the same person. However, E. P. Sanders leads these differences to a
different conclusion: see his Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993) 120-22. His arguments
are not without serious merit but will not be the focus of this study. See here N. T. Wright, Jesus and the
Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 2; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 300 n. 214.

³ In particular, see P. Vielhauer, Gottesreich and Menschensohn in der Verkndigung Jesu, in Aufstze zum
Neuen Testament(TB 31; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1965) 55-91; G. Klein, Die zwölf Apostel: Ursprung und
Gehalt einer Idee(FRLANT 77; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961); W. Schmithals, The Office of
Apostle in the Early Church(trans. J. E. Steely; Nashville: Abingdon, 1969) 67-87, 231-88.

21                                         IBR Studies

⁴ J. P. Meier, The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus' Public Ministry JBL 116 (1997) 635-72;
see also E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 98-106, where he states that the
historicity of the Twelve is the weakest item in the list of his facts about Jesus (p. 101). For further studies,
see J. Dupont, Le nom d'aptres a-t-il t donn aux douze par Jesus, OrSyr 1 (1956) 267-90, 425-44 (Jesus
established the Twelve but the word apostle is later); B. Rigaux, Die Zwölf in Geschichte und Kerygma, in
Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus: Beitrge zum Christusverstndnis in Forschung und
Verkndigung(ed. H. Ristow and K. Matthiae; Berlin: Evangelische, 1960) 468-86; idem, The Twelve
Apostles, Concilium 34 (1968) 5-15; R. P. Meye, Jesus and the Twelve: Discipleship and Revelation in
Mark's Gospel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1968) 192-209; W. Trilling, Zur Entstehung des
Zwlferkreises: Eine geschichtskritische berlegung, in Die Kirche des Anfangs: Für Heinz Schrmann (ed. R.
Schnackenburg et al.; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 201-22 (who opts for pre-Markan, and therefore probably
authentic, tradition in Mark 3:14a, 16a and for substance in the inclusion of Judas as well as in the tradition
in 1 Cor 15:5 and the term eleven; Matt 19:28 is inconclusive); B. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London:
SCM, 1979) 154 n. 82; J. Becker, Jesus of Nazareth (trans. J. E. Crouch; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998) 27-28;
H. O. Guenther, The Footprints of Jesus' Twelve in Early Christian Traditions: A Study in the Meaning of
Religious Symbolism(AOS 7/7; Berne: Peter Lang, 1985). In what follows I will not catalog views on the
historicity, since the arguments and evidence are summarized with exhaustive thoroughness by J. P. Meier.

⁵ Ancient evidence does not easily submit to the supposedly impartial and scientific criteria established by
modern Jesus historians. Any reading of modern scholarship finds a plethora of compelling arguments used
to establish solid historical evidence; only sometimes do these arguments follow the lines of the criteria.
Three modern examples, each using historical judgment with considerable lan but without being tied to the
criteria, are Sanders, Jesus and Judaism; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and
the Question of God 2; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996); and P. Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the
Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity(New York: Knopf, 1999). Of the three, it is the
latter that shows methodological tension in that Fredriksen uses dissimilarity along with an argument,
working backwards, that if Paul and a Jesus tradition both have something there is good reason to believe it
is historically probable. Historians have to live with methodological tension, since historiography is not
laboratory science. A good bibliographic entry into criteria research can be seen in C. A. Evans, Jesus (IBR
Bibliographies 5; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1992) 52-67; see also his more exhaustive volume, Life of
Jesus Research: An Annotated Bibliography(2d ed.; NTTS 24; Leiden: Brill, 1996). One example of the
complexity of argument and artful skill and judgment needed by a modern historian concerned with
reconstructing an ancient, myth-overladen life is J. C. Holt, Robin Hood (London: Thames and Hudson,
1982). Jews (FBBS 9; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955). That the same applies to the restriction from entering
Samaritan territory can be found in John 4:4-42.

⁶ R. W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (San
Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1998) 71.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ See Borg, Jesus: A New Vision--Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship (San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1987); see also his essays, A Temperate Case for a Non- eschatological Jesus and Jesus and
Eschatology: Current Reflections, in his Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity,
1994) 47-68, 69-96.

⁹ My own study fits into the same category; cf. A New Vision for Israel, 120-55.

¹⁰ D. C. Allison, for instance, contends that it is possible that Q 22:28-30 ended Q¹ as well. See his Jesus
Tradition in Q(Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 1997) 35-36.

                                    McKnight:  Jesus and the Twelve                                  22

¹¹ For the historicity of this text, see the discussion below (pp. 24-26).

¹² On this, see J. Nolland, Luke (WBC 35; 3 vols.; Dallas: Word, 1989-93) 1.364, 365-67.

¹³ Since some of the divergences between Mark and Luke can be explained as Lukan stylistic improvements
(e.g., keeping the brothers together in group one of the list or changing Simon the Cananaean to the
Zealot), it is possible that Luke's list is simply Mark's with some redaction. However, Luke (varying from
the Markan-Matthean tradition) has Jude ben James in both his Gospel and the Acts (cf. John 14:22). The
differences between Luke's list and Acts can be best explained as Lukan redaction rather than use of
sources, though the variations in the second block of names are not easy to unravel. As a result, Meier
contends, probably accurately, that Luke had access to an L tradition with a list of the disciples (cf. The
Circle of the Twelve, 650-52).

¹⁴ Meier, ibid., 663.

¹⁵ I still consider the hermeneutical discussion by Meyer (Aims, 23-110) to be the finest explanation to date
of Jesus study criteria (indexes). However, analysis of ancient texts frequently forces historians to
transcend or to work outside such categories. In particular, as can be seen in some recent studies of Jesus
(including those of E. P. Sanders, N. T. Wright, J. D. Crossan, P. Fredriksen, as well as my own recent
offering), operating from the mission or focus of the life of Jesus may yield better results than from criteria
and sayings. If certain facts are established (e.g., that Jesus was put to death on a political charge, that he
announced the imminent arrival of the Kingdom, et al.), then how are we to construe Jesus' life and his
intentions? My New Vision for Israel is less concerned with establishing which sayings are authentic than
with expounding traditionally-interpreted sayings in light of a reconfiguration of his mission as a mission to
Israel. In many cases, the traditional interpretation, considered by some to be inauthentic because of that
interpretation (e.g., his perception of his own death), yields to a more accurate historical perception of a
particular (and, therefore, becomes as plausibly authentic as it becomes less traditional theologically). Few
of my reviewers have seen this.

¹⁶ Meier, The Circle of the Twelve, 663-70.

¹⁷ So W. Klassen, Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 34-38.

¹⁸ So Meier, The Circle of the Twelve, 65. Meier thinks the traditions develop here: from Mark 15:24 to
John 13:18; Matt 27:9-10; and Acts 1:16, 20. He also counters the proposals of Vielhauer, Klein,
Schmithals, and Crossan (pp. 667-70).

¹⁹ J. D. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death
of Jesus(San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1995), finds treachery on the part of Judas far more likely
than the inclusion of Judas in the Twelve or than of his death as described in early Christianity (pp. 71-75).

²⁰ Ibid., 71.

²¹ See Rigaux, Twelve Apostles; J. Roloff, Apostolat-Verkndigung-Kirche: Ursprung, Inhalt und Funktion
des kirchlichen Apostelamtes nach Paulus, Lukas und den Pastoralbriefen(Gtersloh: Mohn, 1965) 138-68.

²² Meier, The Circle of the Twelve, 670 (italics mine).

²³ Even the ultimate cameo appearance of Matthias may suggest the disappearance of a former member

23                                         IBR Studies

(Acts 1:20-26). And, as was asked by members of our discussion, why not Barnabas? or James? or Paul?
Why choose someone who is otherwise completely unknown? Such a record may well indicate memory of
a transient, unknown figure.

²⁴ See G. B. Caird and L. D. Hurst, New Testament Theology (New York: Oxford, 1994) 382.

²⁵ Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 101. The following is only slightly overstated by Sanders: The twelve
disciples are in one way like the seven hills of Rome: they are a little hard to find, although the idea is very
old(p. 102).

²⁶ Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), here pp. 103-8;
see also A. Greil and D. Rudy, Social Cocoons: Encapsulation and Identity Transformation Organizations,
Sociological Inquiry 54 (1984) 260-78.

²⁷ E.g., Ep. 28.11. Found in A. J. Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition (SBLSBS 12; Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 292.

²⁸ A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to
Wrede(trans. W. Montgomery; foreword D. R. Hillers, and F. C. Burkitt; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1998) 344 (an edition that unfortunately fails to mention the translator and lacks the
important introduction by J. M. Robinson, which was translated for the German edition!). German edition,
p. 394. Further, p. 351 (ET): Eschatology is simply dogmatic history history as moulded by theological
beliefs which breaks in upon the natural course of history and abrogates it (German, p. 403). In this context,
Schweitzer sees the twelve as those who are destined to hurl the firebrand into the world, and are
afterwards . . . to be his associates in ruling and judging it(p. 371).

²⁹ This has been thoroughly explored by H. Schrmann, Der Jüngerkreis Jesu als Zeichen fr Israel (und als
Urbild des kirchlichen Rtestandes), in his Jesus' Gestalt und Geheimnis: Gesammelte Beitrge (ed. K.
Scholtissek; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1994) 64-84. A study devoted to Jesus is his Die Symbolhandlungen
Jesu als eschatologische Erfllungszeichen. Eine Rckfrage nach dem irdischen Jesus,  Jesus' Gestalt und
Geheimnis, 136?56.

³⁰ J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (trans. J. Bowden; New York:
Scribner's, 1971) 234-35 (though the eschatological twelve embodies a universal salvation, pp. 245-47);
Meyer (Aims, 153-54), who cites only the evidence given by Jeremias (who refers to his own earlier work);
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 104; J. Gnilka, Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History (trans. S. S.
Schatzmann; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997) 183; Caird and Hurst, New Testament Theology, 173,
382-83 (cf. G. B. Caird, Jesus and the Jewish Nation [Ethel M. Wood Lecture; London: Athlone, 1965] 8-
9, 20-21); G. Theissen and A. Merz, Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch (2d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1997), 200?201; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 300 (who has that deft British of
course).

³¹ Jeremias, Proclamation, 234. Inclusion of Gentiles cannot be established on the basis of the number
twelve; nor does the term restoration lead in that direction. Gentile inclusion must be established on the
grounds of other evidence. Twelve may be a claim on all Israel but not more than Israel.

³² Sanders, Historical Figure, 120; see also p. 185.

³³ E.g., ibid., 107 (also idem, Jesus and Judaism, 104).

                                 McKnight:  Jesus and the Twelve                                24

³⁴ Gnilka, Jesus, 183; see the more complete study of this in G. Theissen, Gruppenmessianismus:
berlegungen zum Ursprung der Kirche in Jngerkreis Jesu, Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 7 (1992) 101-
23; B. F. Meyer, Jesus and the Remnant of Israel, JBL 84 (1965) 123-30; idem, Aims, 115-28, 132-37, 153-
54, 210-19; R. N. Flew, Jesus and His Church: A Study of the Ecclesia in the New Testament (London:
Epworth, 1943), 17-98.

³⁵ The heaviest emphasis given to the ecclesial dimension can be seen in A. M. Farrer, The Ministry in the
New Testament, in The Apostolic Ministry: Essays on the History and the Doctrine of the Episcopacy (ed.
K. E. Kirk; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946) 113-82, esp. pp. 119-33. A good balance can be found in,
among others, Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 299-300, 430-31; D. Flusser, Qumran und die Zwölf,
Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem; Magnes, 1988) 173-85 (originally published in 1965);
Roloff, Apostolat, 138-68 (explores twelve in the context of the development of the ecclesiological
development of the apostolate).

³⁶ See C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (3d ed.; Black's New Testament Commentaries;
London: Adam & Charles Black, 1981) 54; Rigaux, Die Zwlf, 482-86; R. Schnackenburg, God's Rule and
Kingdom(trans. J. Murray; New York: Herder & Herder, 1963) 215-34; Schrmann, Die Symbolhandlungen
Jesu, 145-46.

³⁷ Roloff, Apostolat, 146.

³⁸ On p. 147 n. 37, Roloff states: Der Zwölferkreis der Erdentage ist gerade keine heilsmchtige Realitt in
sich selbst, sondern ist Gef und Werkzeug für das gegenwrtige Wirken Jesu.

³⁹ E.g., W. G. Kmmel, Jesus und die Anfnge der Kirche, ST 7 (1953) 1-27.

⁴⁰ The most important recent study on Jesus' symbolic actions is by M. D. Hooker, The Signs of a Prophet:
The Prophetic Actions of Jesus(Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 1997), here p. 39, where she sees the Twelve as
an eschatological embodiment of Jesus' intention. See also my Jesus and Prophetic Actions, BBR 10
(2000) 197-232.

⁴¹ Some arguing for historicity are unclear regarding specific intention on the part of Jesus: e.g., C. G.
Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospel (2 vols.; 2d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1927) 1.88. Others see his intention
as a broad claim on all Israel: e.g., Becker, Jesus, 28.

⁴² E. P. Sanders speaks for many: that twelve would necessarily mean restoration (Jesus and Judaism, 98).

⁴³ See my Jesus and Prophetic Actions.

⁴⁴ Horbury, The Twelve and the Phylarchs, NTS 32 (1986) 503-27.

⁴⁵ Cf. Flusser, Qumran und die Zwölf. Flusser contends that the origins of the Twelve for Jesus can be
traced to the Qumran material, which also has a substantive parallel in the book of Revelation.

⁴⁶ For each citation from the Scrolls, I have used the translation of F. Garca Martnez and E. J. C.
Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (2 vols.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997).

⁴⁷ So Horbury, Twelve, 511. See further in 1QM 3:14; 5:1-2.

25                                        IBR Studies

⁴⁸ For this text, see esp. J. M. Baumgarten, The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation, and the
Sanhedrin, JBL 95 (1976) 59-78, esp. the restored text on p. 60.

⁴⁹ Numbers of judges in the Sanhedrin, for instance, were debated; see m. Sanh. 1:6; see also 4:3.

⁵⁰ Gnilka, Jesus, 183.

⁵¹ Cf. F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB 24A; New York: Doubleday, 1989) 893.

⁵² Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 96; he cites further evidence on pp. 96-98. On the theme of exile, see now
the important edited collection of J. M. Scott, Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions
(JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997).

⁵³ In this paper I will not examine the various other terms used for the followers of Jesus, such as apostles
and disciples. The issues here are (1) church development and (2) redactional perspective of the
Evangelists. Early redaction critics of Mark saw most of these references as Markan redaction; cf, e.g.
Trilling, Zur Entstehung, 201-10; Roloff, Apostolat, 140-45 (Mk hat den Zwlferapostolat gekannt, p. 143);
Gnilka, Jesus, 182. For fuller study, compare Meier, The Circle of the Twelve, 636-42; F. H. Agnew, The
Origin of the NT Apostle-Concept: A Review of Research,JBL 105 (1986) 75-96.

⁵⁴ On which text, see Roloff, Apostolat, 145-48.

⁵⁵ If the two-by-two mission is genuine memory, it is less likely that it was mutual support (cf. Qoh 4:9?12;
Gen 2:18) than a form of providing an additional witness (cf. Deut 17:6; 19:15; John 8:17; 2 Cor 13:1; 1
Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28; as well as Acts 8:14; 13:2; 15:27, 36-40; 17:14; 19:22; 1 Cor 9:6; cf. also Jos. Asen.
3:2). See J. Jeremias, Paarweise Sendung im Neuen Testament, in New Testament Essays: Studies in
Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 1893-1958(ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1959) 136-43; D. Daube, Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels, NTS 19 (1972) 1-
15. From another angle, see J. D. Crossan (The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
Peasant[San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1991], 333-37), who proposes a plausible Sitz im Leben for
the notion of healed healers.

⁵⁶ For my own study of these texts, see New Shepherds for Israel--Matthew 9:35-11:1: An Historical and
Critical Study of Matthew 9:35-11:1(Ph.D., diss., University of Nottingham, 1986); subsequent studies
include R. Uro, Sheep among Wolves: A Study on the Mission Instructions of Q (Annales Academiae
Scientiarum Fennicae: Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 47; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia,
1987; D. J. Weaver, Matthew's Missionary Discourse: A Literary Critical Analysis (JSNTSup 38;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); E. C. Park, The Missionary Discourse in Matthew's
Interpretation(WUNT 2/81; Tübingen: Mohr, 1995) 9-31 (a spotty survey of scholarship). These four
dissertations are each concerned with the mission at the level of church tradition and redactional theology;
they shall be left to the side except when tradition-critical remarks are apposite. See also D. C. Allison Jr.,
The Jesus Tradition in Q (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 1997) 104?19; P. Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie
der Logienquelle(NTAbh n.s. 8; Mnster: Aschendorff, 1972) 236-355; H. Schrmann, Mt 10, 5b-6 und die
Vorgeschichte des synoptischen Aussendungsberichtes, in Neutestamentliche Aufstze: Festschrift für Prof.
Josef Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag(ed. J. Blinzler; Regensburg: Pustet, 1963) 270-82 (who contends there
was a single messianic mission, found now in the remnants of Luke 10:1; Matt 10:5-6; Luke 10:8-12 [Matt
10:5-6 was originally between Luke 10:7 and 10:8] this mission was eine letzte groe Anfrage an Israel vor
dem Ende; idem, Die Symbolhandlungen Jesu, 146). I am unpersuaded that the mission can be accurately
described as a symbolic action or even as an eschatologische Erfllungszeichen, though the shaking off of

                                 McKnight:  Jesus and the Twelve                                26

dust can be so designated (cf. Mark 10:11; contra Schrmann, Die Symbolhandlungen, 146).

⁵⁷ E.g., J. Dupont, Vous n'aurez pas achev les villes d'Isral avant que le Fils de l'homme ne vienne (Mat. x,
23), NovT 2 (1957-58) 228-44, here p. 229; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949) 73-
74; F. Hahn, Mission in the New Testament (trans. F. Clarke; SBT 47; London: SCM, 1963) 42-43 (but cf.
p. 46).

⁵⁸ On this, see esp. P. Hoffmann, Lk 10:5-11 in der Instruktionsrede der Logienquelle, in Evangelisch
Katholischer Kommentar: Vorarbeiten(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971) 3.37-53, here pp.
38-39.

⁵⁹ Meier, The Circle of the Twelve, 657. At some level, then, the notion of sending twelve coheres with the
term apostle, though recent research has shown the term to be less derived from the Hebrew sa'iah, even
though substantively related: cf. Agnew, Apostle-Concept. See also R. W. Herron Jr., The Origin of the
New Testament Apostolate, WTJ 45 (1983) 101-31. A foundational text, though not often discussed in the
literature, remains Isa 61:1-11.

⁶⁰ Manson, Sayings, 73. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 103: In particular, apart from what we learn from the
symbolic nature of the number twelve, we do not know Jesus' purpose in calling them. Mark 3.14 says that
it was for them to be with him, and that has recently been taken to be a plain statement of fact. [Here he
refers to Eduard Schweizer's 1968 book on Jesus.] But Mark cannot have known what was in Jesus' mind.
Two points: (1) Being with Jesus is so obviously historical it cannot be contested--what else do disciples do
but accompany their master? Sanders is overly sceptical here. I do not question that some German
scholarship has grossly overinterpreted being with him into a neat ecclesiological formula. (2) I am unsure
what Sanders means by cannot when it comes to Mark's knowledge--does he mean some kind of
psychological knowledge? In which case, Sanders' scepticism is justified. Or does he mean he cannot know
Jesus' intention or another person's intention? If so, Sanders is again overly sceptical. The ancient tradition
of Peter's connection to Mark may not be that far from historical reality. The actions of Jesus in gathering
disciples to be with him and of sending them out (if they were sent out) surely imply that Jesus wanted
them with him and that he wanted them to spread the Kingdom. These assertions of Jesus' intention can be
exaggerated in significance; but they need not be. On knowing another's intentions, the classic study
remains G. E. M. Anscombe, Intention (Library of Philosophy and Logic; 2d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell,
1979).

⁶¹ While the terms restoration and reunification [of the twelve tribes] may be properly distinguished, with
the former being the more general Jewish expectation and the latter a special dimension of this larger
expectation on the part of some, at times the terms are also nearly synonymous: those expecting a
reunification of the twelve tribes certainly also had in mind this action of God as part of the larger
restoration. Restoration is a good term for describing Jewish eschatology as well as the particular slant that
Jesus gives to this hope when he uses the term Kingdom. N. T. Wright is not alone in being asked why
Jesus does not use the term restoration; the answer to this question is that Jesus thought the term
Kingdom was a better term expressing the complex of factors that scholars today call restoration. When
Jesus uses Kingdom, he has in mind the fulfillment of the Jewish expectations that involved the restoration
of Israel.

⁶² This text has only occasionally been questioned with respect to authenticity. The Jesus Seminar, for
instance, found a Jesus who was more universal in orientation, so it assigned the saying to a Judaizing
branch of earliest Christianity. But, the saying is Matthean neither in style or substance (except for the
parallel at 15:24), and it leaves us with a Jesus somewhat incongenial to the Church's mission. That is, on
the basis of criteria, it is fundamentally dissimilar to earliest Christianity. On this, W. D. Davies and D. C.
Allison Jr., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew (ICC; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-97)

27                                            IBR Studies

2.168-69.

⁶³ On this, see my Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). That there was some kind of crisis in Galilee is rarely held today; cf. F.
Muner, Gab es eine galilische Krise  in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker (ed. P.
Hoffmann et al.; Freiburg: Herder, 1973) 238-52; H. Montefiore, Revolt in the Desert (Mark vi. 30ff), NTS
8 (1962) 135-41.

⁶⁴ See C. A. Evans, From House of Prayer to Cave of Robbers: Jesus' Prophetic Criticism of the Temple
Establishment, in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James
A. Sanders(ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon; BibIntSeries; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 417-42.

⁶⁵ On this, see my New Vision for Israel, 1-15 et passim; Caird and Hurst, New Testament Theology, 361;
see also V. Taylor, The Life and Ministry of Jesus, in The Interpreter's Bible (ed. G. A. Buttrick; Nashville:
Abingdon, 1951) 7.125-26.

⁶⁶ On which, see K. Snodgrass, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Inquiry into Parable Interpretation
(WUNT 27; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1983).

⁶⁷ On this, cf. D. Bosch, Die Heidenmission in der Zukunftsschau Jesu (ATANT 36; Zrich: Zwingli, 1959),
132; T. W. Manson, Only to the House of Israel?: Jesus and the Non-

⁶⁸ Manson, Only to the House of Israel?, 24.

⁶⁹ See Schrmann, Der Jüngerkreis Jesu, 70-72; J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 333-37.

⁷⁰ Cf. here E. Arens, The HLQON-Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition (OBO 10; Freiburg: Universittsverlag /
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976). Among other things, the bare facts as discerned by Arens
show that Jesus had a vocation-consciousness (Sendungsbewusstsein) rather than a self-consciousness
(Selbstbewusstsein) (p. 339).

⁷¹ See esp. G. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993); Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.398-506; W. Manson, Principalities and Powers:
The Spiritual Background of the Work of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, Bulletin for the Society of New
Testament Studies 3 (1952) 7-17; McKnight, A New Vision for Israel, 107-10.

⁷² Cf. Becker, Jesus, 211-33; Goppelt, Theology, 1.139-57; R. H. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of
Jesus: An Examination of the Presuppositions of New Testament Theology(SBT 12; London: SCM, 1954)
35-43; J. Hempel, Heilung als Symbol und Wirklichkeit im biblischen Schrifttum (Nachrichten der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 3; Göttingen; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958) 237-314 (esp.
pp. 271-91); M. Brown, Israel's Divine Healer (Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology; Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995).

⁷³ It is at this juncture that the Tradent role of the Twelve becomes fundamental, even if its later
ecclesiological dimensions need to be relinquished. Cf., e.g., Roloff, Apostolat, 166; R. Riesner, Jesus als
Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-berlieferung(WUNT 2/7; Tübingen: Mohr,
1981) 481-87; Moule (Birth, 225-37), who connects the Twelve to the process of canonization.

⁷⁴ Details are imprecise (e.g., bag, sandals or no sandals? staff or no staff?) but the general impression is

                                 McKnight:  Jesus and the Twelve                                28

strong that Jesus restricted his missioners' provisions. In general, see the important study of W. L. Liefeld,
The Wandering Preacher as a Social Figure in the Roman Empire (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University,
1967) 245-71; cf. m. Ber. 4:5; m. Ros Has. 2:9.

⁷⁵ Cf. Perrin, Rediscovering, 142-45.

⁷⁶ See G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986) 273-
77; Meier, The Circle of the Twelve, 653-59; J. Friedrich, Gott im Bruder: Eine methodenkritische
Untersuchung von Redaktion, berlieferung und Traditionen in Mt 25, 31-46(Calwer Theologische
Monographen 7; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1977) 53-56.

⁷⁷ For example, Paliggenesiva could be Matthean redaction; but the term is hard to count in Matthew's
arsenal, since it is found in the NT only one other time (Titus 3:5).

⁷⁸ The Lukan context preceding this logion concerns the defection of Judas (Luke 22:21-23); this context is
less likely than Matthew's. See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3.55, for summary conclusions. It is possible,
however, to read Luke's context as a reaffirmation of Jesus' authority in spite of betrayal, in which case,
the balance is again even. A conspectus of judgments on this logion's status in Q can be found in J. S.
Kloppenborg, Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, and Concordance (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988)
202. For a less-confident judgment on the historicity of the logion, see Trilling, Zur Entstehung, 213-20; for
a more positive assessment, see Rigaux, Die Zwlf, 476-77.

⁷⁹ So, e.g., Meier, The Circle of the Twelve, 657-58. See for the broader picture, my New Vision, 120-55.

⁸⁰ So Nolland, Luke, 3.1066.

⁸¹ That the christology of the twelve judging is Son of Man christology was pointed out long ago. See, e.g.,
Roloff, Apostolat, 149-50. Paul believed saints would judge the world (1 Cor 6:2-3) and in the Apocalypse
the victor is promised a seat with the Son of Man (1:13), on his throne (3:21; 20:4), which is the place of
judgment. On this, cf. A. Geyser, The Twelve Tribes in Revelation: Judean and Judeo-Christian
Apocalypticism, NTS 28 (1982) 388-99. Each of these traditions may well derive from the Q tradition.

⁸² I. Broer, Das Ringen der Gemeinde um Israel: Exegetischer Versuch ber Mt 19, 28, in Jesus und der
Menschensohn: Fr Anton Vgtle(ed. R. Pesch et al.; Freiburg: Herder, 1976) 148-65; W. Trilling, Zur
Entstehung des Zwlferkreises: Eine geschichtskritische berlegung, in Die Kirche des Anfangs (ed. R.
Schnackenburg; Freiburg: Herder, 1978) 201?22; E. J. Kissane, A Forgotten Interpretation of Mt 19:28,
Irish Theological Quarterly 17 (1921) 359-66; Beasley-Murray, Jesus, 275-76; Nolland, Luke, 3.1067
(ruling); Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3.55-56; Roloff, Apostolat, 149; R. A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral
of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 201-8.
D. Flusser connects judging to the stones of the Urim and Thummim and finds confirmation in Rev 21:14,
19-20 (Qumran und die Zwölf). The absence of a priestly emphasis in the Jesus traditions speaks against
this theory. His lines of thought continue throughout a presentation of Jesus: see his Jesus (coll. R. Steven
Notley; 2d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998). See also R. A. Horsley and J. A. Draper, Whoever Hears You
Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q(Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 1999) 262-63.

⁸³ The use in Matthew of the Greek term paliggenesiva has generated significant debate: (1) it is possible to
find a Semitic foundation for such a Greek term (cf. 1QS 4:25); (2) it seems probable, however, that the
term is a Matthean expression; (3) it is entirely reasonable to think Jesus could have said something that
gave rise to such a translation; (4) it is remotely possible that Jesus suggested the restoration of the twelve
tribes; (5) it is most likely that the term describes an era (cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.66; cf. Beasley-Murray,

29                                           IBR Studies

Jesus, 275 and n. 235). On the term, see F. W. Burnett, Paliggenesiva in Matt 19:28: A Window on the
Matthean Community,JSNT 17 (1983) 60-72; J. D. M. Derrett, Palingenesia JSNT 20 (1984) 51-58; D.
Sim, The Meaning of Paliggenesiva in Matthew 19:28, JSNT 50 (1993) 3-12.

⁸⁴ Cf. Jeremias, Proclamation, 272; Broer, Ringen, 158?59; contra Kissane, Forgotten, 361-66.

⁸⁵ Rigaux, Die Zwölf, 483.

⁸⁶ See Beasley-Murray, Jesus, 276-77.

⁸⁷ See esp. R. L. Webb, Jesus' Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications, BBR 10 (2000) 261-309, idem,
John's Baptizing Activity in the Context of First-Century Judaism, Forum 1 (1999) 99-123 (though I would
distance myself from use of the view that proselytes were baptized upon conversion in first-century
Judaism); idem, Josephus on John the Baptist: Jewish Antiquities 18.116-119, Forum 2 (1999) 141-68.

⁸⁸ S. McKnight, Jesus' New Vision within Judaism, in Who Was Jesus? A Jewish-Christian Dialogue (ed. P.
Copan and C. A. Evans; Louisville: WJK, 2001) 73-96.

⁸⁹ Cf. Webb, John the Baptizer, 360-66 (who sketches this interpretation admirably); C. Brown, What Was
John the Baptist Doing?BBR 7 (1997) 37-50; see also my essay Jesus and Prophetic Actions.

⁹⁰ H. Schrmann has argued, however, that dimensions of Jesus' vision were in place prior to the baptism;
cf., e.g., Jesu Aufbruch zum Jordan: Beginn der ureigenen Basileia-Verkndigung Jesu, in his Jesus'Gestalt
und Geheimnis: Gesammelte Beitrge(ed. K. Scholtissek; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1994) 31-44.

⁹¹ See esp. Allison (Jesus Tradition, 176-91) who single-handedly disputes the consensus that this text is
speaking of Gentile inclusion in the Kingdom.

⁹² G. W. Buchanan, Jesus: The King and His Kingdom (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1984);
Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence.

⁹³ G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1973).