I have a question in regards to the identity of the 12 apostles.

Did Jesus literally have 12 apostles or was 12 a symbolic number used for theological purposes by the gospel writers (e.g. to represent the 12 tribes of Israel)?

Or was there confusion by the NT writers as to exactly who were part of the 12? Thus the various names in the gospels.

Or were some of the 12 known by different names in the various gospels(e.g. is Levi in Mark really the Matthew of Matthew’s gospel? See below).

Below is a list given of the 12 by the gospel writers. The total amount of names come up to 15.

Matthew’s list in 10:1-4 - Simon (Peter), Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Judas Iscariot, Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Thaddaeus.

Mark’s list in 3:16-19 - as Matthew 10:1-4, but Levi is mentioned in Mark 2:13-14. Significant if we take into account Matt 9:9 where Levi becomes Matthew.

Luke 6:12-16 as Matthew 10:1-4 and Mark 3:16-19, however Thaddaeus is not mentioned but Judas son of James is (as in Acts 1:13). Levi’s calling is in Luke 5:27-30

John 1:43-51 includes Nathanael, which no other gospel does.

Joe,

It seems I’m stalking you on the boards tonight. ;-)

Very interesting question!

I think 12 was symbolic, in the sense as you said to represent the 12 tribes of Israel.  However, 12 was also literally important as in Acts 1 they appoint another apostle to replace Judas: so obviously 12 was an important number. 

In terms of the number of “apostles”, I think there were more than 12.  Paul (Romans 1:1) and Barnabas (Acts 14:14) - among others - are called apostles, and we have “The Seventy” as well as numerous other followers of Jesus.  Whether or not they can all be termed “apostles” is an interesting point.  The New Bible Dictionary I have gives the chief “qualification” (!) for an “apostle” as:

..the divine call, the commissioning of Christ.

It also says it is assumed apostles were there from the time of John’s baptism to the resurrection.  However, it goes on to explain that Matthias was commissioned by God through the apostles, and Paul had his direct encounter with Christ. 

Confusing, hey? ;-) Not sure I have answered the question, but I hope it is food for thought.

Regarding name changes:
[list]
[*] I was told Matthew = Levi [Mk 2:15, Lk 5:29 [meal at Levi’s] is said to correspond to meal in Mt 9:10]
[*] This site provides evidence that Thaddaeus = Judas of James [’Judas’ was not popular after Mr Iscariot] - other web sites I glanced at said similar.
[*] I have heard Nathanael = Bartholomew [a quick look at the NBD says that Bartholomew is a named derived from that of the father, and the bearer of that name would likely have another name too - sketchy, perhaps]
[/list:u]

[Edited @ 10:55 - made a boo-boo! ;-)]

[quote author="Joe Capuana"]Did Jesus literally have 12 apostles or was 12 a symbolic number used for theological purposes by the gospel writers (e.g. to represent the 12 tribes of Israel)?

I think both statements contain some truth. The number 12 is clearly symbolic, but in order to reinforce the symbolism Jesus probably deliberately chose 12 apostles.

It is worthwhile remembering that the term Apostolos appears to be used in different ways in the NT. First, there it is used as a technical term to designate a member of the group of twelve (defined, it would seem, by the criteria outlined in Acts 1:21-22). Second, it is used in a more generic sense (it was, after all, not a technical term prior to the use in the NT) meaning simply “messenger” (e.g. John 13:16), or in reference to Jesus himself (Heb 3:1).

[quote author="Joe Capuana"]John 1:43-51 includes Nathanael, which no other gospel does.

This is not quite correct. John does not use the word apostolos except for John 13:16, where it does not carry the special meaning found in the other gospels. In John, Nathanael is included amongst the earliest disciples, but it does not follow that he was included amongst the apostles.

Similar comments apply to Levi in Mark, who is not explicitly identified as an apostle. Nonetheless, Mark appears to alternate using the names Matthew and Levi for the same person. It was not uncommon for people in NT times to have more than one name.

I think that if you eliminate the common names from the lists you wind up with the following discrepants:[list][*]Simon the Canaanite;
[*]Simon the Zealot;
[*]Thaddaeus;
[*]Judas son of James[/list:u]
To make up 12, these 4 names would need to represent 2 people.

Of these, Simon the Canaanite is most easily reconciled to Simon the Zealot. Not only are the names “Simon” the same, Zealot designates a member of a political (if that’s the right word) group. The word translated “Canaanite” in some versions is Kananaios, not Chananaios. The latter term means “Canaanite” (see Matt 15:22), the former is probably derived from the Aramaic word qan’an meaning “Zealot.” (See the note in the NET Bible.) Thus the two really are the one.

The identification of Thaddaeus (which happens to be the chief’s name in Get Smart) with Judas is less readily confirmed. There are a number of explanation, and certainly the fall in favour of the name Judas could have played a part, but none are certain.

I was reminded of the symbolic importance of 12 when reading Revelation 7, concerning the 144,000 JWs (oops, sons of Israel).

There are 12 sets of 12,000. But Joseph and Manasseh both get a run. So, no Dan - no Ephraim either. I’m sure John had nothing against Danites.

Similar comments apply to Levi in Mark, who is not explicitly identified as an apostle. Nonetheless, Mark appears to alternate using the names Matthew and Levi for the same person. It was not uncommon for people in NT times to have more than one name.

Identifying Thaddaeus as Judas of James has never been a problem for me. I’m not convinced that Nathanael = Bartholomew. That Levi = Matthew is for me less convincing. I have always found it difficult to believe that Levi and Matthew are the same person.

There doesn’t seem to be strong enough evidence to suggest that Matthew and Levi are the same person. Whatever evidence exists seems to suggest against alternative names for the same person. A commentary I read a while back said it was uncommon for a Jew to change a Semitic name to another Semitic name. It was more common for a Jew to change his name from a Semitic name to a Greco-Roman name (such as in the case of Paul and Peter). Most of the examples that have survived, the argument goes, are of name changes from Semitic to Greco-Roman. Also, in the gospels, if one was known by another name, the gospel writer did occasionally bring this up as to avoid confusion (For example see Matt 10:2).

In Mark 2:13 Levi is referred to as �son of Alphaeus.� Levi is never identified as one of the 12 disciples, though in Mark 3:18 James, one of the twelve, is also referred to as �son of Alphaeus.� It seems that Mark has understood Levi and James to be brothers. The mention of Levi and James both being the �son of Alphaeus� suggests that Levi had some close connection to the twelve.

Could it be that Matthew seemed to have a need to change Levi to Matthew to deal with the fact that Levi�s calling in Mark resembled so much like the calling of the other disciples?