[Akoue]

Gosh, you all are making me blush a bit.

Tee-hee-hee.

[arcura]

Altenweg,
I'm glad you did not stay in the shadows.
Blushing is attractive and rare in today's culture.
I make you shine.
Merry Christmas
Fred

[JoeT777]

Warren H. Carroll took a fascinating stand in his book The History of Christendom, 1985 by Christendom Press; it seems the authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John are regularly questioned, he suggests a rather simple solution. These Gospels bear the name of eye witnesses; both Matthew and John were among the Twelve. However the Gospels of Mark and Luke are rarely questioned although they do not claim to have been eyewitnesses. Carroll argues that the probative eyewitness ought to be given weight.

For Catholics we could stop here with a reliance on tradition. Our tradition (small 't') holds that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were authored by the Apostles whose name they bare, and in the order listed here.

Even still, it's likely that these four Apostles chose to write because they were the most prolific of the Twelve. Matthew, the tax collector, would have been proficient in several languages and wrote first; his gospel was likely written in Aramaic and reputedly re-wrote it in Greek.

Biblical critics often suggest that Mark's gospel was written first. Such critics say that with strong parallels to Matthew it's likely that Matthew followed and is a fleshed version of Mark. Carroll points out the flawed logic by exposing the fact that Mark was a much simpler man, less educated; logically, he points out, simpler people write simpler gospels.

Luke seems to be somewhat of a mystery. Since there is such interment detail of the Virgin Mary, it's strongly suggested (citing ancient tradition) that he knew her personally.

And lastly the Gospel of John was written at the end of the first century A.D. It's suggested that St. John wrote his Gospel with the benefit of the synoptic Gospels. Being in his 90's at the when writing the Gospel, John seems to take a mystical approach with the passion of Christ and the ascension. I've heard traditions were St. John and the Virgin Mary lived in the same town in keeping with Christ's last command, “behold thy mother.” Still critics will argue that the Gospel John wasn't written by the son of Zebedee the fisherman. John 19:32-37 and John 21:20-24 both have passages of testimony similar to those heard of a witness in a court of law.

I'll leave the dates to Akoue

JoeT

[Akoue]

Warren H. Carroll took a fascinating stand in his book The History of Christendom, 1985 by Christendom Press; it seems the authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John are regularly questioned, he suggest rather simple solution. These Gospels bear the name of eye witnesses; both Matthew and John were among the Twelve. However the Gospels of Mark and Luke are rarely questioned although they do not claim to have been eyewitnesses. Carroll argues that the probative eyewitness ought to be given weight.

For Catholics we could stop here with a reliance on tradition. Our tradition (small ‘t’) holds that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were authored by the Apostles whose name they bare, and in the order listed here.

Even still, it’s likely that these four Apostles chose to write because they were the most prolific of the Twelve. Matthew, the tax collector, would have been proficient in several languages and wrote first; his gospel was likely written in Aramaic and reputedly re-wrote it in Greek.

Biblical critics often suggest that Mark’s gospel was written first. Such critics say that with strong parallels to Matthew it’s likely that Matthew followed and is a fleshed version of Mark. Carroll points out the flawed logic by exposing the fact that Mark was a much simpler man, less educated; logically, he points out, simpler people write simpler gospels.

Luke seems to be somewhat of a mystery. Since there is such interment detail of the Virgin Mary, it’s strongly suggested (citing ancient tradition) that he knew her personally.

And lastly the Gospel of John was written at the end of the first century A.D. It’s suggested that St. John wrote his Gospel with the benefit of the synoptic Gospels. Being in his 90’s at the when writing the Gospel, John seems to take a mystical approach with the passion of Christ and the ascension. I’ve heard traditions were St. John and the Virgin Mary lived in the same town in keeping with Christ’s last command, “behold thy mother.” Still critics will argue that the Gospel John wasn’t written by the son of Zebedee the fisherman. John 19:32-37 and John 21:20-24 both have passages of testimony similar to those heard of a witness in a court of law.

I’ll leave the dates to Akoue

JoeT

Thanks, Joe, that's interesting. I do disagree with Mr. Carroll on one point, namely he order of composition of Mark and Matthew. It's true that Matthew was written first in Aramaic, and we know that Mark was written for a community of non-Aramaic speakers since it has to explain in Greek the meanings of Aramaic expressions. Left out is the famous Q, for Quelle, another postulated early Gospel lost to history. For my part, I think it perfectly possible that there may have been such a Gospel, though I think people sometimes appeal to this possibility in a somewhat profligate way. If there were a Q, an early but lost Gospel, it would likely have been lost very early indeed.

There is good reason to believe that the authors of Matt. And Luke had access to Mark when composing their Gospels. There are some discrepancies between John and the synoptics, which have long since been catalogued (Augustine and John Chrysostom mention them) and this suggests that John's Gospel didn't rely upon Mark in the way Matt. And Luke did. (They may have used it as a kind of template, which they in turn filled in and fleshed out. Which is a really good thing.) But I'm not sure what turns on this at the end of the day. Mark was written in Rome, the cosmopolitan heart of the ancient Mediterranean, and so it isn't all that surprising that it would have been quick to circulate. The other Gospels appear to have made the rounds rather more slowly.

[arcura]

JoeT777 and Akoue,
Thanks very much for that information.
It is extremely interesting and informative.
Merry Christ's mass,
Fred

[De Maria]

Thanks, Joe, that's interesting. I do disagree with Mr. Carroll on one point, namely he order of composition of Mark and Matthew. It's true that Matthew was written first in Aramaic, and we know that Mark was written for a community of non-Aramaic speakers since it has to explain in Greek the meanings of Aramaic expressions. Left out is the famous Q, for Quelle, another postulated early Gospel lost to history. For my part, I think it perfectly possible that there may have been such a Gospel, though I think people sometimes appeal to this possibility in a somewhat profligate way. If there were a Q, an early but lost Gospel, it would likely have been lost very early indeed.

There is good reason to believe that the authors of Matt. and Luke had access to Mark when composing their Gospels. There are some discrepancies between John and the synoptics, which have long since been catalogued (Augustine and John Chrysostom mention them) and this suggests that John's Gospel didn't rely upon Mark in the way Matt. and Luke did. (They may have used it as a kind of template, which they in turn filled in and fleshed out. Which is a really good thing.) But I'm not sure what turns on this at the end of the day. Mark was written in Rome, the cosmopolitan heart of the ancient Mediterranean, and so it isn't all that surprising that it would have been quick to circulate. The other Gospels appear to have made the rounds rather more slowly.

Although one Catholic visionary, whose name escapes me, said that there was a disciple John, not the Apostle nor the Baptist, who took notes throughout Jesus' ministry, I'm inclined to believe that the Q is mnemonic. Remember, the ancients were much more skilled at memorizing events and speeches than are we. It was part of the Jewish tradition to pass down ORAL tradition. We pass down traditions which we've heard and written down. They didn't have that luxury. Writing was difficult, the materials were hard to come by.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Alty]

Silly question, but Catholic school was long ago. ;)

What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple? Sorry, probably a really stupid question, but I really would like to know.

[JoeT777]

Silly question, but Catholic school was long ago. ;)

What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple? Sorry, probably a really stupid question, but I really would like to know.

My opinion on the meaning of Apostle & disciple:

Apostle = from Greek apostello "to send forth"

Disciple = from Latin discipulus – implies a follower of an art or science and that there is an authority higher in that art e.g. a disciple is opposed to Christ as Master as a scholar is opposed to a teacher. The word disciple is sometimes used with the original Twelve.

As I understand it, the word Apostle is used, almost exclusively, for one of the original Twelve Disciples of Christ. In addition to this some, such as Paul, are called 'Apostle' because of a miraculously conversion. Rarely, an 'Apostle' can be some of those disciples of lesser status than original Twelve.

The way I make the distinction is that an apostle is a disciple sent out on a mission by the master. In the case of Scriptures, an 'Apostle' is one of the original Twelve, but of a larger group of disciples, sent to spread the Word by their Master, Christ.


JoeT

[Alty]

Thanks Joe, good info. :)

[Akoue]

De Maria,

Like you, I'm inclined to think of Q as mnemonic as well. I'm not sure we should be out looking for a lost text, as some people seem to think. You are quite right: People forget how extraordinarily expensive books and the materials required for producing them were in the ancient world. Even after the advent of the printing press, a single copy of the Bible cost more than several castles.

Joe, Altenweg,

Yes, any student is a disciple, but not all disciples are "sent". In the NT, though, I don't see a particularly rigid distinction being made--unless one is talking about the Twelve, who clearly had a special status as both disciples and apostles.

[Akoue]

Ps:

It's also important to remember how very low the literacy rate was in the ancient world. THe production of texts would be of little advantage to the average person. Most people, for most of our history, had access to Scripture only by listening to others read it aloud to them. Hence the orality of Tradition lived on long after the production of texts.

[JoeT777]

Akoue, et al:

It's agreed that not all disciples are "sent". I found myself in defense of using the term 'Apostle' for all four Gospel writers erlier today. While I was just parroting Carroll in my previous post, it occurred to me while responding to Altenweg that the four may rightly be called Apostles even though some may not have been in the group of twelve. We hold that the Gospels were written as an inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As such, the authors of the Gospels were being sent out, as it were, to write. Thus, the writers become disciples on a Divine mission and could rightly be called Apostles (with a capital 'A'); regardless of whether they belong to the group of Twelve. I'm just thinking out loud here, and didn't mean for this to be a diversion.

Not that I have the wherewithal to speak with any authority, but I've always had an aversion to the Q. My first encounter with the Q was when “hippieism” seemed to use it as ammunition against Christians; in the late 60's and 70's. (I told my age! – actually I was very young – yeah like, would you believe 5-years old – OK how about 10-year old, OK …?) Consequently, I've built a prejudice against the concept of a Q. Unfortunately, that prejudice isn't built on any factual knowledge – Q just seems counter intuitive. Even still, it would seem that the similarities in certain passages are well beyond chance. To resolve this conflict, I've come to hold a view similar to DeMiria's; there must have been a “Protogospel” in the tradition of oral teaching.

Uhmm, there's that word 'tradtion' again - Do you thing a body of believes, organized, and deliberately set out to write the Good News to “hand down” to the next generation – Christians didn't last long; you do know that Christians were “shot on site”, in a manner of speaking …. Nah too coincidental


JoeT

[Tj3]

Tj3,
You have been told that many time over several years. Please don't bother to ask again.
It will just start another confrontation and the hut down of another thread,
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

I have seen your claims, but I am asking where scripture says that there were more than 12 Apostles.

Please answer that question.

Keep in mind:

- There were 12 Apostles, and then Judas was gone, leaving 11.
- We are told that there are only 12 Apostles (and only will be 12 Apostles), therefore only one could be added to replace Judas.
- Therefore only one of Matthias or Paul can be the God chosen replacement.
- There is no evidence that God chose Matthias to be an Apostle.
- Paul was clearly and specifically chosen by God, as were the other 11.

[Tj3]

Scripture counts St. Matthias
Acts 1:25
That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

I know that the other Apostles chose him. I am asking where scripture says that He was God's choice.

and St. Paul as Apostles.
Romans 11:13
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

That makes fourteen.

You count different than I do.

[Tj3]

Acts 1 15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

This is specific with respect to Judas, and does not refer to Apostolic succession as a doctrine. Further, have a gander at what the Apostles said were the qualifications. One would have to be 2000 years old today to qualify.

[Akoue]

Sorry, Tom, that ship has sailed. If you want to argue about this please go to the thread I dedicated to the subject. This thread is about SCripture and Tradition.

[Tj3]

Sorry, Tom, that ship has sailed. If you want to argue about this please go to the thread I dedicated to the subject. This thread is about SCripture and Tradition.

Akoue,

Comments were made addressed to me regarding this. I am responding. If the folk do not wish to discuss further, that is fine, they do not need to respond.

Odd, though that you chose to question my posts - I have seen mighty little discussion on scripture and tradition in the last couple of pages.

[Akoue]

Joe,

I get your reservations. Being backed into a corner can turn anybody off. I think it would be eminently cool if a Q-Gospel were to turn up one day, but I don't really see what ahngs on it. This is why I find people's frequent appeal to it undermotivated.

[Akoue]

Akoue,

Comments were made addressed to me regarding this. I am responding. If the folk do not wish to discuss further, that is fine, they do not need to respond.

Odd, though that you chose to question my posts - I have seen mighty klittle discussion on scripture and tradition in the last couple of pages.

Nope, just people being nice to one another. That's always healthy for conversation, though. And I, and I'm sure many others, would be delighted to discuss the number of Apostles with you--just please take it up on the other thread.

[Tj3]

Nope, just people being nice to one another. That's always healthy for conversation, though.

That is why I frequently recommend that discussions be kept respectful. No name-calling, abuse, etc. that we see far too much of on boards like this. Likewise, respect for what others on the list are discussing is importaant, without one person unilaterally assuming authority to choose who is allowed to discuss what, and specifically suggesting that the rights of some to discuss differ from the rights of others.

And I, and I'm sure many others, would be delighted to discuss the number of Apostles with you--just please take it up on the other thread.

All you need to do is just not discuss it or the discussing of discussing it and it will go away. I am not sure why, if you don't want it discussed, why you keep discussing the discussing of the topic.

After all, I was just responding to someone else's comment. And you for some reason did not comment on that. You just don't seem to want me responding to the subtopics raised by others. But I don't care - if no one else comments, it goes away. If you keep commenting, it keeps going.

So, your choice - we can keep discussing this, or you can let it drop.