Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE MISSION OF JESUS §13.3
whom Jesus chose literally left little or no mark. 98 Once again, then, it was the
memory of twelve which stuck; the detail of who made up the twelve was of
much less significance.
(3) Above all there is the presence of Judas the traitor in the list. That it was
indeed 'one of the twelve', 99 'who handed him (Jesus) over', 100 is again firmly
rooted in the tradition of the first Christians. It must be judged very unlikely that
the earliest tradents would have chosen on their own initiative to retroject such a
choice back into the life of Jesus, raising questions as it did about Jesus' own insight
into the character of his most intimate group of disciples. 101
The point here is that the symbolism of 'twelve' is quite clear. The implication
is that these disciples were thus chosen by Jesus for a role somewhat analogous
to that of the twelve patriarchs of Israel. 102 That is, they were somehow to
represent the restored people, the number twelve presumably indicating the reunification
of the separated tribes, as in Ezek. 37.15-22. 103 That this deduction is
on the right lines is strongly confirmed by the only Q passage which speaks of
twelve: those thus specially chosen by Jesus will sit on (twelve) thrones judging
98. Even with James and John, the fact that they were nicknamed 'Boanerges, sons of
thunder' (according to Mark 3.17) and the reason for the nickname are hardly to be explained
by any traditions regarding them surviving from the period of the first churches (on the possible
Galilean provenance of the nickname, see Dalman, Words 49). But there is always 'the beloved
disciple' of the Fourth Gospel to be considered (see below, vol. 3).
99. Meier refers particularly to Mark 14.43 and John 6.71 as evidence of old tradition
('Circle of Twelve' 645).
100. Mark 3.19/Matt. 10.4/Luke 6.16; Matt. 26.25; 27.3; John 6.71; 18.2, 5. See also
Mark 14.10, 43 pars.; Acts 1.16. See further below, §17.lb.
101. Meier naturally emphasises the criterion of embarrassment at this point ('Circle
of Twelve' 663-70; Marginal Jew 3.143). 'It is harder to imagine how the promise of messianic
dignity to the Twelve could have arisen only after Easter' (Theissen and Merz, Historical
Jesus 216-17). Charlesworth relates how he changed his mind on the subject (Jesus 136-
38). Because he cannot envisage the role played by such a betrayer, Funk judges 'Judas Iscariot
the betrayer in all probability a gospel fiction' (Honest 234). Similarly Crossan,
against the obvious trend of the evidence, argues that Judas was not one of the Twelve, since
the institution 'did not exist until after Jesus' death' (Who Killed Jesus? [San Francisco:
Harper, 1996] 81).
102. Cf. Jas. 1.1; Rev. 7.4-8; 22.2. 'The twelve are a visible symbol that the proclamation
of the Kingdom of God is directed to all Israel' (Becker, Jesus 233).
103. Of the texts listed in chapter 12 n. 57, note also particularly Jer. 3.18 and Sir. 36.11.
See also Horsley, Jesus 199-201; Gnilka, Jesus 183; Meier, Marginal Jew 3.148-54;
S. McKnight, 'Jesus and the Twelve', BBR 11 (2001) 203-31. Pace Rowland, Christian Origins
152, 'twelve' implies restoration rather than remnant theology. Wright wonders whether the inner
group of three (Peter, James, and John; see below, chapter 13 n. 250) was a Davidic symbol
echoing the three who were David's closest bodyguards (2 Sam. 23.8-23; 1 Chron. 11.10-25)
(Jesus 300).
510