![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/04\/Jesus60.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry<\/em><\/a> (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 \u201cbrief\u201d replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions<\/a> (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Mike describes himself as \u201cof the Jewish faith\u201d but is quick to point out that labels are often \u201cmisleading\u201d and \u201cdivisive\u201d (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, \u201cReformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad\u201d variants of Judaism and learns \u201cfrom those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.\u201d Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment<\/a> on my blog.<\/p>\n He says his book \u201ccan be described as Jewish apologetics\u201d and one that provides reasons for \u201cwhy members of the Jewish community should\u00a0not\u00a0convert to Christianity.\u201d I will be writing many critiques of the book and we\u2019ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I\u2019m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike\u2019s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.<\/p>\n To see all the other installments, search \u201cMichael J. Alter\u201d on either my Jews and Judaism<\/a> or Trinitarianism & Christology<\/a> web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.<\/p>\n I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Michael Alter wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n CONTRADICTION #93<\/em> The Number of Disciples Who Saw\u00a0Jesus<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Church tradition contradicts itself as to whether or not Jesus appeared\u00a0before eleven disciples or twelve disciples. Paul, writing in 1 Corinthians 15:5,\u00a0states unequivocally that after Cephas, Jesus was witnessed by the Twelve:\u00a0\u201cAnd that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.\u201d Similarly, Mark 16:14\u00a0reported: \u201cAnd that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In direct contradiction, Luke 24:33 states that following Jesus\u2019s postresurrection\u00a0he appeared to \u201cthe eleven\u201d in Jerusalem: \u201cAnd they rose up the\u00a0same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together,\u00a0and them that were with them.\u201d Therefore, this appearance occurs on Easter\u00a0Sunday evening.<\/span><\/p>\n Luke\u2019s narrative provides information that someone was missing, but\u00a0who? Based on Matthew 27 and Acts 1, one would naturally think that it<\/span> John 20:24 states that the missing disciple is Thomas: \u201cBut Thomas,\u00a0one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.\u201d<\/span> One rationale challenging the view of Christian apologists is that this\u00a0\u201cgroup of Twelve\u201d had to have included Judas because Acts 1:26 records<\/span> Protestant apologist Eric Lyons<\/a>\u00a0provides the rebuttal:<\/p>\n Numerous alleged Bible discrepancies arise because skeptics frequently interpret figurative language in a literal fashion. They treat God\u2019s Word as if it were a dissertation on the Pythagorean theorem rather than a book written using ordinary language. . . . The simple solution to this numbering \u201cproblem\u201d is that \u201cthe twelve\u201d to which Paul referred was not a literal number, but the designation of an office. This term is used merely \u201cto point out the society of the apostles, who, though at this time they were only eleven, were still called the twelve, because this was their original number, and a number which was afterward filled up\u201d (Clarke, 1996). Gordon Fee stated that Paul\u2019s use of the term \u201ctwelve\u201d in 1 Corinthians 15:5 \u201cis a clear indication that in the early going this was a\u00a0title<\/b>\u00a0given to the special group of twelve whom Jesus called to \u2018be with him\u2019 (Mark 3:14).<\/p>\n This figurative use of numbers is just as common in English vernacular as it was in the ancient languages. In certain collegiate sports, one can refer to the Big\u00a0Ten<\/strong>\u00a0conference, which consists of\u00a014<\/strong>\u00a0teams, or the Atlantic\u00a0Ten\u00a0<\/strong>conference, which is also made up of\u00a014<\/strong>\u00a0teams. At one time, these conferences only had ten teams, but when they exceeded that number, they kept their original conference \u201cnames.\u201d Their names are a designation for a particular conference, not a literal number.<\/p>\n In 1884, the term \u201ctwo-by-four\u201d was coined to refer to a piece of lumber two-by-four inches. Interestingly, a two-by-four still is called a two-by-four, even though today it is trimmed to slightly smaller dimensions (1 5\/8 by 3 5\/8). Again, the numbers are more of a designation than a literal number.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Biblical use of \u201cthe twelve\u201d as a designation for the original disciples is strongly indicated\u00a0in many Gospel passages<\/a>. Jesus Himself did this: \u201cDid I not choose you,\u00a0<\/b>the twelve . . .?\u201d (Jn 6:70). He didn\u2019t say, \u201cdid I not choose you twelve men?\u201d By saying, \u201cthe twelve\u201d in the way He did, it\u2019s proven that it was a [not always literal] title<\/strong> for the group<\/em>. Hence, John refers to \u201cThomas, one of\u00a0<\/b>the twelve\u201d after Judas departed, and before he was replaced by Matthias (Jn 20:24).\u00a0Paul simply continues the same practice. It was also used because \u201ctwelve\u201d was an important number in biblical thinking (40 and 70 are two other such numbers). For a plain and undeniable example of this, see Revelation 21:12, 14, 21.<\/p>\n Mark always uses \u201cthe twelve\u201d specifically like a title. Every time he refers to \u201ctwelve\u201d (nine times<\/a>), he says \u201cthe twelve\u201d; never \u201cthe twelve disciples\u201d or \u201ctwelve apostles\u201d. As for Mark 16:14, Alter makes a mistake. The KJV that he uses for his book has \u201celeven\u201d and not \u201ctwelve.\u201d So do (it looks like) all other translations. On a \u201cparallel Bible\u201d page for this verse<\/a> I couldn\u2019t find a single translation that has \u201ctwelve.\u201d So even though Mark used \u201cthe twelve\u201d like a title, he was still being literal, since he switched to \u201celeven\u201d after Judas departed in infamy.<\/p>\n Luke follows Mark\u2019s practice exactly, by using the phrase \u201cthe twelve\u201d six times<\/a>, then switching to \u201cthe eleven\u201d in Luke 24:9, 33. So he, too, was also being literal.<\/p>\n Matthew is interesting, because in five uses before Judas\u2019 departure, he uses \u201cthe twelve\u201d twice (26:14, 47), \u201cthe twelve disciples\u201d twice (20:17; 26:20), and \u201cthe twelve apostles\u201d once (10:2). He, too, uses \u201celeven\u201d after Judas\u2019 betrayal: \u201cNow the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them\u201d (28:16). Once again, then (like Mark and Luke), he is being literal as well about the number of Jesus\u2019 original disciples \/ apostles.<\/p>\n John, in four usages, always says \u201cthe twelve\u201d (6:67, 70-71; 20:24). In the last instance, Judas had left the group, so it was an instance of the non-literal use of the title, as in Paul (as explained above). John never uses \u201celeven.\u201d<\/p>\n In the book of Acts, Luke follows his literal use. When a vote was taken for an apostle to replace Judas, Luke wrote: \u201cAnd they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi\u2019as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles\u201d (1:26). In 2:14 (i.e., after Matthias has joined the ranks) he states: \u201cBut Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, . . .\u201d And in 6:2: \u201cAnd\u00a0<\/b>the twelve\u00a0summoned the body of the disciples . . .\u201d<\/p>\n So we see no contradiction at all here. The Synoptic Gospels + Luke in Acts all refer to the group of disciples \/ apostles in a literal way, whether using \u201cthe twelve\u201d as a title or not. John is literal three times and non-literal once. Paul is also non-literal on one occasion. In those two instances, it\u2019s quite sufficiently explained by apologist Eric Lyons above (and I think, bolstered by my further observations and documentation). We use the same non-literal technique today (as he noted) by referring to the Big Ten and Atlantic Ten conferences in college sports (both conferences actually having 14 teams), and \u201ctwo by four\u201d for lumber (when the actual size is\u00a01 5\/8 by 3 5\/8).<\/p>\n Much ado about nothing again, but Alter can apparently never concede even a single<\/em> example of a botched supposed \u201ccontradiction\u201d because he appears to think that the New Testament always<\/em> has to contradict itself if there is the slightest perceived difficulty in interpreting it. When called on it, as I have been doing, he objects to the lack of simplicity in the explanation, by repeating the same canned boilerplate in my comboxes over and over. Here he is again utilizing this silly technique and (as almost always) refusing to actually interact<\/strong>\u00a0point-by-point with my specific arguments<\/em>, on 5-3-21 on my blog<\/a>:<\/p>\n Dave\u2019s position and those of other apologists is simple: Instead of letting the text speak for itself, Dave and other apologists are saying, \u201cLet me explain to you what the author meant to say.\u201d Dave and other apologists strongly imply that they, as guardians of the truth, are the only ones capable of explaining what the original authors of the text meant to say . . .. The final decision belongs to the reader. Your intellectual and common sense is respected.<\/span><\/p>\n Readers, this writer will implore you to use your brains. What does the text mean to any average person after any sensible hearing or reading (possibly one or two languages removed from the original)? In no uncertain words, Dave implies that as a guardian of the truth, he and other apologists are the ones capable of explaining what the original authors of the text meant to say.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nothing personal<\/em> here against Michael, of course. I have enjoyed our cordial relations. This is not<\/strong><\/em> \u201cad hominem<\/em>.\u201d I am objecting to his\u00a0arguments<\/em> and also to some extent, his\u00a0technique<\/em> in argumentation, which are things separate from him <\/i>as a person.<\/p>\n It\u2019s precisely because God expects us to use our brains<\/em> and not be gullible advocates of blind faith<\/em> (another charge Alter has leveled again and again at the NT writers and other Christians), that we can use our noggins and figure out what is going on here with the use of numbers. Alter seems to prefer to keep it on a \u201csimpleton\u2019s\u201d level, where something appears<\/em> to be a contradiction but actually isn\u2019t <\/em>when we actually think<\/em> and rationally analyze<\/em> and use our brains<\/em> in closely examining it. That fits his<\/em>\u00a0anti-New Testament \u201cagenda\u201d quite nicely. He\u2019s always railing about the \u201ctheological agenda\u201d of the NT writers, as if it is an inherently dishonest and shameful thing to believe in a particular theology and inevitably hostile to accuracy and factuality and historicity.<\/p>\n But he wouldn\u2019t dream of applying this cynical, simplistic technique to the interpretation of his Hebrew Bible, which is the basis of his own religious practice (which I greatly respect) of piously adhering to the restrictions of the Sabbath every week. Historic Judaism certainly doesn\u2019t take such an approach. Anyone can read the Talmud to see thousands of examples of a robust thinking interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and also the oral law delivered to Moses on Mt. Sinai (that I firmly believe in as a Christian). It wasn\u2019t a \u201csimple matter\u201d to those rabbis; nor is NT interpretation the domain of simpletons and uneducated people. Christianity is a thinking man\u2019s religion, just as Judaism is.<\/p>\n People (usually atheists) tear down the Hebrew Bible all the time, as immoral and self-contradictory (complete with mockery of God: or what is caricatured<\/em> as \u201cGod\u201d), just as they go after the New Testament with a hatchet and a buzz saw. I defend both, because I believe in faith (with abundant reason<\/em><\/strong> and not \u201cblind faith\u201d) that both documents are inspired and infallible revelation from God to us.<\/p>\n But when it comes to the New Testament, Alter has decided to be quite hostile and impervious to any reason that resolves what he wrongly insists is a \u201ccontradiction.\u201d This goes beyond simply not being a Christian and honest, sincere theological disputes. I\u2019m not talking about that. What I am referring to is an extraordinary level of bias and irrational prejudice against the NT texts<\/em>: whether or not NT theology is rejected. This leads to the weak and feeble arguments that I have been refuting over and over (only to have my arguments ignored at least 90% of the time).<\/p>\n The sky wouldn\u2019t fall down if Michael Alter admitted that he was mistaken and in error regarding this alleged \u201ccontradiction\u201d and many others. He wouldn\u2019t have to forsake his Judaism (however he construes it) or become a Christian. The stakes aren\u2019t that high. These are questions having to do with logic and reason, and only indirectly theological. He can always revise his book and admit that he blew some of his arguments; that he accepted correction here and there (maybe on five out of 913 pages?). People would only respect him for that. He would lose nothing.<\/p>\n I\u2019m merely calling for an objective, educated, informed analysis of the New Testament texts without the extreme bias and hostility (that was documented in my previous reply<\/a>). It seems to me that if Alter is an objective thinker, and assuming he is an honest one (as I do) and open-minded, that it stands to reason that he could and would admit that one or two of his 120 or so proposed \u201ccontradictions\u201d fail and have been refuted by myself or someone else. I don\u2019t think he regards himself<\/em> as infallible and incapable of error.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong>Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke<\/em> (2016, Netflix USA)<\/span> <\/span>[Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication<\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Michael Alter submits supposed \u201ccontradictions\u201d regarding \u201ctwelve\u201d or eleven disciples (before & after Judas\u2019 departure). In fact, the numerical usage is mostly literal but sometimes not.<\/span><\/p>\n Tags<\/em>:\u00a0alleged Bible contradictions,\u00a0alleged Resurrection contradictions,\u00a0Bible \u201ccontradictions\u201d,\u00a0Bible \u201cdifficulties\u201d,\u00a0Bible Only,\u00a0biblical inspiration,\u00a0biblical prooftexts,\u00a0biblical skeptics,\u00a0biblical theology,\u00a0exegesis,\u00a0hermeneutics,\u00a0Holy Bible,\u00a0inerrancy,\u00a0infallibility,\u00a0Jewish anti-Christian polemics,\u00a0Jewish apologetics,\u00a0Jewish critique of Christianity,\u00a0Jewish-Christian discussion,\u00a0Michael J. Alter,\u00a0New Testament,\u00a0New Testament critics,\u00a0New Testament skepticism,\u00a0Resurrection \u201cContradictions\u201d,\u00a0Resurrection of Jesus,\u00a0The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry,\u00a0\u201ctwelve\u201d or eleven disciples?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 \u201cbrief\u201d replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":56098,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[448,172],"tags":[13616,4129,12966,525,524,514,2637,1879,1633,1878,1387,1386,535,4068,140,13451,13448,13445,13457,13454,282,13495,13498,13261,1347,13481],"class_list":["post-56623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-jews-judaism-old-testament","category-trinitarianism-christology","tag-twelve-or-eleven-disciples","tag-alleged-bible-contradictions","tag-alleged-resurrection-contradictions","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-bible-difficulties","tag-bible-only","tag-biblical-inspiration","tag-biblical-prooftexts","tag-biblical-skeptics","tag-biblical-theology","tag-exegesis","tag-hermeneutics","tag-holy-bible","tag-inerrancy","tag-infallibility","tag-jewish-anti-christian-polemics","tag-jewish-apologetics","tag-jewish-critique-of-christianity","tag-jewish-christian-discussion","tag-michael-j-alter","tag-new-testament","tag-new-testament-critics","tag-new-testament-skepticism","tag-resurrection-contradictions","tag-resurrection-of-jesus","tag-the-resurrection-a-critical-inquiry"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nis Judas because he had already supposedly hanged himself after repenting\u00a0his treason against Jesus or he died as a consequence of a fall. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\nTherefore, the question remains, was Jesus appearance witnessed by eleven\u00a0disciples or twelve disciples?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nthat it was not until after<\/em> the Ascension, some forty-plus days after Jesus\u2019s\u00a0crucifixion, that another person, Mathias, was voted in to replace Judas. (This\u00a0topic is also discussed later.) \u201cAnd they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell\u00a0upon Mathias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.\u201d However, this\u00a0Christian apologetic is meaningless because Judas could not<\/em> have been one of\u00a0\u201cthe eleven\u201d if he was already supposedly dead, according to Matthew 27:5.<\/span> (pp. 562-564)<\/p>\n