Problems in John's Account of the Resurrection

[rakovsky]

There was this problem that the apostles thought needed to be fixed in a hurry. You're right. Originally there were 12, but one betrayed him. So while the guys were waiting around for Pentecost, they spent a little time thinking there should be 12 again. Even they said there were two guys hanging around the entire time Jesus' ministry was going on, so they picked out Barnabas and Matthias. They prayed about it, drew lots, and Matthias got the gig.

So, all the first-hand accounts probably saw the ten, Barnabas and Matthias, and a bunch of others hiding out in that room, knew that Matthias got the job, so by the time they were talking to Luke, they had accepted Matthias as an apostle.

At first glance, that makes sense. But if Barnabas and Matthias were counted by Luke as part of the twelve and were in the room with Jesus, then why didn't Luke say "the twelve", instead of "the eleven"?

"The Twelve" clearly referred to a set number of apostles. When Judas left, the apostles replaced him so that "the Twelve" remained as a group.

Luke doesn't mention Thomas not being in the room when Jesus appeared, but Luke did mention Judas leaving the group. So when Luke uses the phrase "The eleven", it sounds like it means "The Twelve minus Judas". Since Thomas were one of the set group of Twelve members at that time, then Luke should have said "the eleven minus Thomas" to be more exact. That is because, without mentioning Thomas' absence, "the eleven" leaves the impression that it was just the twelve without Judas.

Now in my old church there were six Big Wigs at the top of the nondenoms "important guys" list. (They're the ones who made the big decisions and came to give important messages to the not-very-organized groups of churches. But when I joined, they were all called "The Big Five." Um, I kept counting all their names and I needed an extra thumb. So, no, six, not five. I had to ask. Apparently two of them were hit or miss. One was off traveling the world into something else for a while, while the other guy was working with the other four. Or it would switch around, so every called them "The Big Five" because even though they were six, the decisions were always made by five.

OK, I understand what you are saying- two of them were hit or miss, so those two shared a single position. But with the apostles, there was no sharing of a position in the way in which you described in the gospels- they each had a position in the twelve, and that's why it was necessary to replace Judas to keep the number Twelve.

Given what Barnabas did in his lifetime -- talking to Peter, talking to Paul, back to Peter, usually with Paul, etc., he was really an important guy. I suspect a lot of people considered him an honorary apostles, so listened to him as an apostle.

That makes the numbers work whether it was 10, 11, or 12.

OK, Paul also considered himself an apostle, but he talked about "the twelve" in 1 Corinthians as if he (Paul) were not one of them.

So in conclusion, Matthias, or for that matter Barnabas, were not part of the set, listed number of twelve apostles at the time Luke was writing about. "The twelve" has a set meaning, and "the eleven" did too - The twelve minus Judas. Since Luke 24 doesn't mention Barnabas, Thomas, or Matthias, the normal understanding is that they were not part of The Eleven. You are forced to guess that since Matthias could have been there, and Matthias replaced Judas' spot (not Thomas' spot, by the way), then it's just as good with Matthias minus Thomas as if Thomas had been there himself. But that's not the way the text reads by itself or how "The Twelve" were designated.

 

[rakovsky]

i agree with the explanations about "the twelve" probably being more of a nomenclature to refer to the apostles as a group than an actual head count, and Paul also in 1 Cor 15:5 isn't referencing the specific event in the upper room as much as the fact that Christ appeared to them - from the next few verses, where he mentions other appearances, it seems to me that he's referring to the apostles as a specific group, and using the term like you might say "the quartet" even if one of them wasn't present.

Hi, Posthuman.

I think that this is the best answer. But the problem with just using it as a nominal group title only that allows for estimates, is that it puts in doubt how many apostles were actually there to confirm that the main miracle actually happened.

So for example, if a "quartet" of directors reviews a company project and decides that it's a good plan, but only three members of the quartet are present to review it, the fourth one, along with the company's stakeholders, could question the wisdom of their decision. However, if the "quartet"'s sole report simply said that "the quartet" reviewed and approved the plan, those stakeholders would lack awareness of the director's absence, which would have been vital in reaching their questioning of the decision.

Likewise, if only 6 people witnessed the appearance, and Luke called it an appearance to "the eleven" based on his use of nominal titles, it would make a difference in how reliable their testimony was of Jesus physically appearing to them. To consider an example of the importance of having many witnesses for an alleged miraculous event, one may note that the Mormons claim that eleven witnesses confirmed Joseph Smith had gold plates. But some scholars question if those individuals really all claimed to see the plates. if in reality only 6 people including Joseph Smith saw the plates, it puts in greater doubt that the plates existed.

as far as how many were actually gathered there, there were more disciples than just the apostles - Barnabas and Matthias, for example. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6 says He appeared to more than 500 all at the same time.

No, it doesn't say that about this appearance in question in Luke 24 on Day 1 of the Resurrection.
In Luke 24, two travelers report Jesus' appearance to Simon. Then Jesus shows up physically to the group, all on Day 1.
In 1 Cor 15, Paul says Jesus appeared to Cephas (aka Simon) and then to the twelve, and then to 500.
So the appearance to the 500 was a different event than the physical appearance to the twelve. This in turn opens up the question of what the appearance to the 500 was like. For example, was it like the Marian apparitions, where in reality some people claim to see Mary, others see the sun move, and others notice nothing unusual, and yet the Marian apparitions are reported as if thousands actually saw Mary.

in Acts 1:3 Luke writes that He appeared over a period of 40 days with "many convincing proofs" -- the accounts in the gospels are obviously not a complete record, nor are they meant to be, as John points out at the end of his gospel.

It's a weakness that it doesn't say what all those infallible proofs are, because it forces you to rely on the wisdom of their judgment.

If someone whom you generally trust told you that they know infallibly that they experienced an extreme magical event or miracle, but didn't give further details to show whether it actually happened (eg. the proofs), would you have a deep opinion on whether it did?

We might be able to conclude things from the gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances, but just hearing that there were more appearances and proofs, by itself, doesn't actually make a stronger case.

how many apostles, i would say 10, because Thomas wasn't there on that specific occasion - as John informs us, and i'd guess John would also inform us if another member of "the twelve" wasn't present (except Judas, who is an obvious omission),

Yes, I would have said that too, except now its looks from Luke 24's claim about "the eleven" that we can't really trust that the gospel author would actually tell us if someone else were absent.

You added correctly:

but then again it might be that someone else wasn't there that day too, but didn't have doubt like Thomas did.

However, why couldn't also another person be absent who did have doubt like Thomas? Just because it says that Thomas' doubt was cleared up on the second visit doesn't mean that there wasn't another doubting person absent on the first group appearance.

but in addition to the 10 or less, how many 'disciples' that weren't one of "the twelve"?
who knows? maybe as many as 500. or maybe that was another occasion.

Supposedly they were hiding and the appearance was in a single room in a house, so it seems it wouldn't be anywhere near that many.

some cast doubt on Paul's statement of '500' brethren seeing Christ, because of Acts 1:15, where the disciples are choosing a replacement for Judas, and "about 120" are gathered. the assumption is that the total number of Christ's followers in Jerusalem at the time is 120 - so how could there possibly be 500? but Acts 1:15 is telling us specifically about the people gathered to deal with the question of Judas no longer being among them -- and isn't necessarily giving a census of all the disciples. besides this, 120 is a very specific number. it is specifically, the minimum number of people in a Jewish community such that it is necessary to have a Sanhedrin present. it's a Jewish legal 'quorum' more or less - fewer than 120, and they don't count as a community able to make their own decisions apart from another community. 120 or more, and they can function as an independent community, and must have their own legal body. 120 is the 'unit size' of Jewish self-governance. so when Luke tells us that there are "about 120" present, he's saying that there are "enough" to make this important decision.
this is what i've been taught, and the significance of the number comes from the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah, which was a council of 120 established ~ 500 BC, and became a pattern of rabbinic assembly. the modern Israeli Knesset (or "assembly") has 120 members, patterned after this. if this is way wrong, of course i'd like to know (!!), or if anyone else knows more about it, i'd love to hear that too

Sure, I agree that just because 120 people chose the replacement for Judas doesn't mean that 500 people didn't see Jesus on another occasion. I see two different objections:
(1) The appearance to the 500 is not specifically mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and I don't even know of an early extraBiblical church tradition about it. So it seems that, rationally speaking, he could have vastly exaggerated the numbers from the already large number Acts gives for the people who saw the Ascension. Believers from Corinth who sufficiently wanted to check up on this could make a long pilgrimage to Jerusalem and then find the many apostles who allegedly saw the Ascension. If the pilgrims didn't find 500, they could then be told by Paul that the other 400 or so were for one reason or another now spread across the Levant or Roman empire, eg. that the 400 were just pilgrims.

Of course, the fact that it's not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible doesn't prove that it didn't happen either. If you already believe that Paul is a very dependable witness and that the Resurrection happened, then I don't think that one can disprove that the 400 witnesses existed either.

(2) The appearance to the 500 might have happened in some form, but not as a physical event, only a spiritual or visionary "appearance". This would be like a modern alleged mass sighting of Mary or like Paul's own nonphysical vision of Jesus in the Temple. We don't have any information to say based on the Bible that the appearance to the 500 was a physical event. And if it's not a physical event, then it's more questionable if the appearance was real or just a mass hallucination.

 

[Seeking2Serve]

A brother in the Lord made me aware of the prophetic nature of the contradictions in the gospels as well as other places where an historcal account of an event is being given (e.g. The Acts Of The Apostles).

Applying the day for a thousand years principle, the 7th day Sabbath being a shadow of the Sabbath Millenium when Christ will rule on the earth. The 8th day being the millenium that follows after when the general resurrection occurs. This helps shine light on why Thomas is recorded as seeing the Lord on the 8th day. Thomas representing those people who will not be convinced He is their Lord and their God unless they see and touch Him.

 

[bondservant]

I think it has a lot to do with John 10:27 my sheep hear my voice.....remember Jesus is the word as John stated. It is also thought that Jesus looked a lot like John the Baptist in other text and Judas had to go up and kiss him to identify him to the crowd and shoulders. So I base my thought on John 10:27 because after he spoke they saw. As for the head count still looking but there is a difference between apostle and disciple dunno yet.

 

[Crustyone]

It is a sad thought and likely wrong, but has anyone considered that because the holes and puncture wounds were still in the body, that the face might be nearly unrecognizable from the beatings He took before His being hung on the cross? Some beatings can really disfigure a face.

 

[bondservant]

That's a good point also, (never thought of it) went with John 10::27 as a prophecy sorta thing but you may have a point. Did you get a grip on the head count?