The more plausible interpretation is that Paul’s reference to “the Twelve” pertains to the Twelve Tribes

I am missing the context here. More plausible than what? [Update: This was in response to the comment above by Miller.]

Because no other interpretation has been offered here. Pretty much everyone agrees with you on that. It matches practice at Qumran, who also had a council of twelve running things in anticipation of the resurrection of twelve tribes.

Perhaps you mean 1 Cor 15 means Jesus “appeared to the tribes” but then it would say that, and also, it can’t have meant that, because 1 Cor 15 is describing the limited circle of those having authority to preach (see Gal 1), so in no way can he have meant mass appearances to millions of people. Likewise, he only says one of the listed appearances was en masse, the brethren (who, by receiving a mass vision, are not identified as apostles: they did not receive a personal vision appointing them to authority). The twelve therefore can only mean individual persons (not even an appearance to twelve “all at once” as Paul only says that of the non-apostolic brethren), and thus he means twelve individual persons, thus something like the Qumran council.

The Gospels’ reinterpretation of “the Twelve” as “twelve apostles” represents a later development

Incorrect. That the twelve were apostles is established in Paul, because 1 Cor 15 and 9 and Gal 1 show that that was the definition of an apostle (receiving a personal vision of Jesus appointing you; as opposed to a mass sighting, which did not confer apostolic rank), and the word means “one sent,” i.e., “missionary,” and the twelve were that (as Paul attests repeatedly). Likewise, when Paul lists ranks in the church, apostles are at the top (1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Corinthians 4:9). So there was no other rank the twelve could be (as confirmed in 1 Corinthians 9:5).

It’s possible you are confusing “apostle” (one who received a vision) with “disciple” (a student of a living teacher). Paul never mentions disciples, even when he mentions ranks in the church (neither does Hebrews or 1 Clement or 1 Peter, BTW), so that concept definitely was invented later. As might also have been most of their names.

Similarly, James explicitly addresses the Twelve Tribes in full, yet makes no mention of the apostles whatsoever. This confirms communication between early Christian authors and the Twelve Tribes but does not establish the existence of the Twelve Apostles.

The Gospels’ reinterpretation of “the Twelve” as “twelve apostles” represents a later development, and Paul himself neither establishes such an identification nor introduces an alternative meaning. Instead, he relies on existing knowledge—knowledge that, in this case, is the only one proven to exist at that time and place: the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

[Update: This is in response to the comment above by Miller—Ed.]

Because those are all singular.

Paul makes clear only this event was a mass appearance (only this occurred “all at once,” meaning all the rest are private, and thus separate, appearances, not group experiences). That tells us two things: (1) it was different and (2) it was more likely (as data shows that kind of thing is what most usually) caused by some ambiguous external stimulus.

It is also possible this was a charismatically anchored ecstasy, i.e. no external stimulus existed, but whoever was charismatically leading the ecstasy told or primed them to see something, which in their altered state their brains all duly provided (that is also among the well-documented phenomena we have in the psychological science of religious experience). I discuss this possibility and the science (as well as the other possibilities) in OHJ, Ch. 4, Element 15.

But the other experiences (scattered, fleeting, entirely individual and private) are by that data most likely internal (as Paul reports, Jesus was revealed “in him” not as an external stimulus, contra Acts, although Paul could have read an external event as an internal one, so we can’t rule that out, it’s just less frequently the cause of a string of isolated and fleeting visions). And the language is indistinct as to whether waking visions or dreams are meant (either or both can be the case, as ancients made no particular distinction when believing a God appeared to them: if did not matter whether it was in their sleep or not).

I’m not sure what theory you are advancing. Paul had no long-term goals, because he thought the world would be melted in his lifetime. He was certainly subverting imperial values, but not to destroy the Empire, but to sit it out with a “purer” kingdom within it created by Christian action until Rome was literally vaporized by God.

I recommend this video by David Skrbina where he explains this theory in detail.
https://youtu.be/XMqvP2m1Dqs?si=gwlWNodFnVhKRmTm

I can also confirm that, at least in that church, the type of glossalalia depicted in Acts happened not a single time! Definitely never any fire or appearance thereof! And definitely never any real languages! Though there were certainly anecdotal accounts of speech in tongues where real languages were spoken! But somewhere else! Argumentum ad trust me bro! Hic Rhodus Hic salta!

That’s interesting apologetics on their part. And I wish I could use that argument. But it doesn’t really track usage.

You won’t find examples of epanô being used in the Roman-Hellenistic period in that same sense of “over.” It actually would mean, in respect to space, “in front of” or “in the presence of,” and even if it mean over, it would mean literally over (as in, “the top part of,” i.e. literally on their heads). Whereas when paired with a number it almost always means “above” in the sense only of number (i.e. “a larger number than five hundred”), hence why most Bible translations now so render it.

But even if we “re-read” Paul as clumsily meaning a spatial referent (a more competent writer of Greek would in that case have chosen a different preposition or construction), the most obvious sense then would be “appeared in the presence of” or “appeared before,” not “appeared up above” (much less so far above as to be in heaven—which Paul would understand to be thousands of miles away). And even if, even less competently, Paul was trying to mean “over,” according to current usage in his time he would mean literally on top of, not in the heavens vastly far away (which could describe the scene in Acts and thus have inspired it, as that’s where the tongues of fire are, but notice here we are several steps removed from the more obvious sense).

I suspect the apologists you cite are “abusing Greek” to invent a sense they want, in order to avoid doctrinal threat: Jesus is supposed to have ascended to heaven and not returned, so he doctrinally had to be “above” the five hundred in that sense. Ergo they “need” to make epanô mean that here. Standard apologetics. It is not based on any facts or logic regarding how Greek works, particularly when Paul wrote.

Hence Kearney’s argument is fallacious: it falsely presumes apologists never resort to specious means to get a result they want. It also falsely presumes Medieval Greek is the same was Hellenistic Greek, but I suspect even in Medieval Greek epanô was never really used in this sense, although I haven’t checked—but if it was, this evinces in them the fallacy of anachronism: misreading Paul as using a dialect that didn’t even exist at the time.

In truth had Paul meant this, he’d have chosen anôthen, not epanô. Or indeed he’d have used the actual phrase anôthen ek tôn ouranôn. One can posit he did and the text has become corrupted, but probability declines with complexity, and there are far simpler emendations one could then propose here.

John Chrysostom mentions in his Homilies of First Corinthians that:

“Some say that “above ,” is above from heaven; that is, “not walking upon earth, but above and overhead He appeared to them:”.

This interpretation survives in writings of Oecumenius (8th Century?) and Theophylact (11th century). The first of those writers says that some interpret epanô as “from heaven” (ek tou ouranou) and the other one that some think it means “from the heavens above” (anôthen ek tôn ouranôn). Peter J. Kearney in his article (“He Appeared to 500 Brothers (1 Cor. XV 6)” Novum Testamentum Vol. 22, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1980), pp. 264-284) argues that this is at least acceptable Greek because none of the three interpreters either accept or reject it.

Se the reading could be: “he appeared once above five hundred brothers” or in your theory, “he appeared once above brothers at Pentecost” or similar.

So this could have been like The Fatima Sun Miracle where Jesus “appeared” from heaven.