Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Who was the Twelfth Disciple?

Here is Shane's next question:

Here's another question, who was the twelfth disciple?

According to 10:2-4
-Mark 3:16-19
The twelfth disciple was Thaddaeus.

According to Luke 6:14-16
The twelfth was Judas (son of James).

According to John 21:2
The twelfth was Nathaniel.

The other eleven were, Peter, Andrew, Philip, James, Bartholomew, John, Thomas, James, Matthew, Simon, Judas Iscariot.
Shane, are you really sure? Let's compare the lists:

Matt 10:2-4
Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot,

Mark 3:16-19
Peter,  James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot

Friom Luke 6:14-16
Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot

From John 21:2
Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. (at least 7 men)

Matthew and Luke agree with number of people and the names used. Luke is different, and I will deal with Luke in a moment. John 21:2 cannot be compared to the other passages because it is not attempting to name the 12. It lists only 7 people not 12. Therefore no way could John be trying to name the twelve...and Jesus had more more disciples than just those twelve. Besides this is after Judas Iscariot....um... moved on to where he belongs.

As for Luke's differences. Thaddaeus was also known as “Judas, son of James” (Luke 6:16) and Lebbaeus (Matthew 10:3 KJV). Simon the Zealot was also known as Simon the Canaanite (Mark 3:18 KJV). (http://www.gotquestions.org/twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html)

Recall that in the first century many Jews went by a Jewish name and a Gentile name. Like Paul's Jewish name was Saul. Mark's Jewish name was John.  Judas is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Judah. Thaddaeus is a Greek from of an Aramaic name. One way to refer to him would Judas (or Jude) Thaddaeus. Matthew and Mark used his last name, Luke used his First name. There is no conflict here.

Why would you, Shane,  think that this is conflict?

Update: I did a little more digging. The Greek word for "brother" (aldophus)  is not in the text of Luke 6:16. I saw a translation that says Judas was a relative of James. When I examine the text the word translated "son of" in Luke 6:16 is 'IakoBou (sp) which means in the context of the verse mean "of James". The word is used in verse 15 where it says that  apostle James is the "son of Alphaeus". Why change the meaning of the word in verse 16? It shouldn't..

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

12 comments:

  1. Marcus.

    First of all, What evidence is there that Judas son of of James, and Thaddaeus are the same person?

    The scripture from Matthew you provided already states that this disciples name is Lebbaeus....?....and his surname is Thaddaeus....?

    What evidence is there that this same person went by Judas Son of James as well....?

    If there isn't anything substantial enough for your claim, I will have to regard this as special pleading only!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marcus.

    On further inspection I noticed another issue, the KJV, and other versions actually say in Luke-6:16, "Judas the BROTHER of James".

    Where as newer versions change this issue by saying "Judas the SON of James".

    Why do you suppose newer versions change this?
    Seems to me that there was a descrepency here which needed to be changed?

    If this Judas was the brother of James, then which James?

    James the brother of John (sons of Zebedee)?
    In this case Judas would also be John's brother as well as James?
    The scriptures repeatedly refer to (James and John, sons of Zebedee), yet nowhere does it indicate in scripture that Judas is also John's brother not just that of James?

    If this Judas was the brother of James (Jesus brother), then Judas would likewise be Jesus earthly brother too!
    Yet nowhere does it indicate in scripture that Judas was Jesus brother, even though the author thought to tell us Judas was James brother?

    So on one hand, this Judas is said to be James (son of Zebedee) brother, but yet fails to mention that John was also Judas's brother?

    On the other hand, Judas is said to be James (Jesus earthly brother) brother, yet fails to mention that Jesus was also his brother.
    This last one is very odd since the authors thought to let us know James was Jesus brother, but not Judas?.....why even bother to tell us that Judas is James brother?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Marcus.

    There is also a James son of Alphaeus mentioned in Luke.
    If this is Judas brother (or father) depending on which bible you read...lol...then this is equally a problem because Matthew (Levi) is also said to be the son of Alphaeus?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Special pleading is not needed. Laebbaeus Thaddaeus would have been a Hellenized name. What is more likely that Luke would disagree with Matthew and Mark or like many Jews, this guy had a Jewish name and a "government name"? t6o reject this means that you want to think that there is a conflict when you have no reason to assume one. None of Jesus' disciples were his brothers at this point. Jesus had 4 brothers and they all thought He was crazy. I mean if your brother showed up talking the way Jesus was, you;d think he was crazy too. They did not believe in Him. And we know that at least two of them changed their minds after the resurrection. What would it take to make you think your brother was God incarnate?

    how is it a problem if Levi and James are the sons of Alphaeus? I don't think they are. Why assume that there was only one Alphaeus?

    As for of Judas (Thaddeus) was the son or brother of James, it really doesn't matter because James was such a common name. Why is is this a problem. None of the accounts say that Judas did not have a relative named James. Names were so common then that they had to put a designation on them to tell difference. Among Jewish men Jesus (Joshua), James (Jacob), John, Judas (Judah or Jude) and Joseph were so common that you had to give the father's name. The Greek word used in Luke 6:16 is now translated father rather than brother because of better textual data, not because the translators want to hide a mistake in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Marcus.

    Not sure how the greek name for "brother" could be translated to father without changing the whole context?
    Either James was his brother, or his father!

    If there is more then one James being refered to here, then that seems unlikely to me, because why mention these "James's" if they are no one important????
    I think the reason the author would even bother to mention the name "James" was because he was refering to someone specific, someone common to the story.

    As for your answer to Judas son/brother of James and thaddaeus, yes I think Luke could disagree with the others, Luke probly didn;t even know Matthew.
    You gave me a plausible answer that (could be), but there is still nothing that is verifying your answer in the scriptures or anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  6. IT would have been important to the contemporaries. There is no reason at all to think that they are all the same James. We are not given enough information to pin it down any farther than I have. But that is not a conflict or contradiction just because you didn't get as much information as you want. "James" was such a popular name back then it certainly could have been offered as a a designation so that the people would know which Judas they were talking about.

    If this is a conflict how does this make the Bible wrong? Or falsify Christianity?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Marcus.

    You said "it would be important to the contemporaries".

    Ok, but I thought the bible was Gods inspired word to all mankind?....therefore shouldn't it be written in clear understandable format for everyone?

    You also said "but that is not a conflict or contradiction just because you didn't get as much information as you want"..........
    On the contrary, the contradiction is right there in the scripture!

    The contradiction is there at least in appearance.......and you lack the information to give a definite answer to explain it away.....!.....all theologists can really do is give "maybe's" and "probablies".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Marcus.

    Whenever you get tired of this exchange let me know.

    Here is another descrepency.

    Genesis 1:3, "God said let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good. Then He seperated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness night".

    So as of the first day of creation week, we have day and night. The scripture even verifies this by saying afterward-"And evening and morning came, marking the first day"!

    Yet, we have in Genesis 1:16, "God made two great lights-the larger one (sun) to govern the day, and the smaller one (moon) to govern the night".

    So we have here, God creating day and night on the first day of creation week....but God does not make the sun until the fourth day of creation week?

    How was it that day and night existed before the sun was even created.....?

    We now know in this modern age, that day and night are reconciled with the sun....the sun is our only source of light.

    We now know in this modern age, that the moon is not a light....the moon only reflects the sun's light thats it!

    It seems pretty obvious that the author of Genesis was not a divinly inspired person.

    More likely, the author did not relize the immense size of the sun thousands and thousands of miles away, and did not realize it was the sun itself which gives us our only source of light.

    More likely the author did not realize the moon was not a light in and of itself, the moon only reflects the suns light!

    It is easy to see why the author would not realize these things. If we never developed the sciences and understandings we have today, we would probably think the same things based on our limited observations.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Shane you didn't answer my question. IF there is a conflict in the name of the twelve disciples(and because we don't have all the details) how does it detract from the message? As for Genesis, I will be posting a response soon.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Marcus.

    I dont think it detracts from the gospel message of Christ, I think it jeoprodizes the claim of the bibles inerrancy.

    If one error is admitted, then there is really no telling what other scriptures may be in error.
    Therefore the bible would lose its claim as the wrod of God and its authority over believers because God would not contradict Himself!

    This is why I think apologists, theologists, and christians like yourself, will go to great lenghts to reconcile these issues and will accept them no matter how unsound they may be!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think that this is another case where you cannot say that this is a contradiction. At worst you can say that it brings up questions you for which we have no definitive answer and the Bible has many of those...but no contradiction. It also does not destroy Biblical inerrancy.

    ReplyDelete