Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§ 13.3 For Whom Did Jesus Intend His Message?
recalled with less care. 91 Which suggests in turn that members of that group
played a less prominent role in the earliest groups and churches, with the result
that their identity (as members of Jesus' own inner circle) became somewhat
confused in the corporate memory. 92 If this is indeed the case, then it is all the
more striking that the fact of twelve core disciples was so firmly established in
the tradition.
This line of reflection becomes stronger when we remember that the Jesus
tradition records the actual calls of only five of the core disciples, the first four 93
and Levi/Matthew. 94 One might have expected that the tendency to glorify Jesus'
twelve intimates evident from the second century 95 would already have resulted
in their conversions/calls being regarded as a treasured item in repeated performances
of the Jesus tradition during the first century. 96 But we hear nothing of
how Thomas, Bartholomew and the last group of four came to follow Jesus. This
presumably means that the early tradition was not much interested in them or
their personalities. 97 Which presumably confirms that they made little impact on
the corporate memory of the first Christian groups and churches. Several of those
91. It is perhaps significant in this regard that Papias mentions only the first seven (excluding
Bartholomew) (Eusebius, HE 3.39.4).
92. 'So quickly did they fade from the scene that the majority of the names in the lists of
the Twelve are just that — names and little more' (Meier, Marginal Jew 3.147). Cf. Casey, Aramaic
Sources 195-96.
93. Peter and Andrew, James and John (Mark 1.16-20/Matt. 4.18-22 with Luke 5.1-11
and John 1.37-42). Note also Philip (John 1.43). Nathanael (John 1.45-51) has been identified
with Simon the Cananean in the Greek liturgy, and with Bartholomew, but with insufficient reason
(Brown, John 1-12 82); as we saw above (§13.2c) Jesus 'called' more than the twelve.
94. Levi/Matthew (Mark 2.14-15 pars.); but the puzzling disagreement between Mark/
Luke (Levi) and Matthew (Matthew) raises the question whether the two were different persons
and whether Mark 2.14-15 remembers the call of a toll-collector called 'Levi' but not the call of
Matthew, one of the twelve, a question resolved by Matthew in renaming the toll-collector
'Matthew' (see discussion in Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium 1.330-31; Davies and Allison, Matthew
2.98-99).
95. See, e.g., W. A. Bienert in Schneemelcher and Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha
2.18-25.
96. Cf. § 18.4c below. Undoubtedly the call of the two pairs of brothers (Mark 1.16-20
pars.) has been idealized, at least to some extent, presumably to give them paradigmatic status;
the fact that the Synoptists have passed over any information regarding earlier contacts between
Jesus and Andrew and Simon (John 1.40-42) gives the episodes added drama. But the
performative flourish should not detract from the essential historicity of Jesus' call of the brothers
(see particularly Pesch, Markusevangelium 112-14; Davies and Allison, Matthew 1.393-95;
also below, chapter 14 n. 60).
97. In the Fourth Gospel, Andrew (John 1.40-42, 44; 6.8; 12.22), Thomas (11.16; 14.5;
20.24-28; 21.2), Philip (1.43-48; 6.5-7; 12.21-22; 14.8-9), and Judas, not Iscariot (John 14.22)
all have larger roles.
509