BuffaloBill

Can you suggest some online resources that examine the roles of the 12 Apostles? I'm interested mainly about their portrayal as bumbling, credulous, clueless followers, and also their contributions, or lack of, to early Christianity.

Thank you in advance.

offa

well, let's start from the basics. Name the twelve Apostles! [baiting removed]

offa

TedM

I'm not sure if anyone will find this to be of value, but here is what I came up with by doing some bible searches:


Matthew lists the following:

Simon-Peter
Andrew, Peter’s brother
James, some of Zebedee
John, James’ brother
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James, son of Alphaeus
Thaddaeus
Simon the Zealot
Judas Iscariot

Mark's list is the same as Matthew’s

Luke and Acts are the same as Mark except they have Judas, son of James, and exclude Thaddaeus.

In Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 Jesus calls “Levi“, a tax collector. Mark says he was the “son of Alphaeus�. Matthew 9:9-13 says the tax collector was called Matthew. Matthew never mentions the name Levi. Mark and Luke never again refer to a Levi, but they do list Matthew among the disciples. Probably Matthew was also called Levi. Since Matthew and Acts mention Matthew and then James, the son of Alphaeus, one can only speculate as to whether Mark’s Matthew was also the brother of James the son of Alphaeus. Neither Mark or Luke list the two together, however.

John, which traditionally is believed to have been written by the disciple John, says in several places that there were twelve disciples (6:67, 6:70,71, 20:24), but never mentions them all. It mentions only the following disciples: Simon Peter, Andrew his brother, Philip, Nathaniel, Thomas, and the “sons of Zebedee“(mentioned only in 21:2), Judas Iscariot, and another Judas specifically stated to not be Judas Iscariot (the betrayer). In several places it refers to “the disciple whom Jesus loved�, which traditionally has been assigned to John, one of the sons of Zebedee and the brother of James. The two that differ from the synoptics are Nathaniel (not found in any) and Judas (not Iscariot), who is found in Luke and Acts, but not in Matthew and Mark.


Other findings which may be of interest:

Mark 3:17says that Jesus gave James and John, sons of Zebedee, the name Boanerges, which means "Sons of Thunder"
Mark places the house of Simon and Andrew in Capernaum

Luke 5:10 says that James and John were fishing partners with Simon Peter


The gospel of John never mentions James or John., though 21:22 does mention the “sons of Zebedee�
John 1:35-1:40 says that Andrew was formerly one of John the Baptist’s disciples
John 1:42 and 21:15-17 says Simon (Peter) is the “son of John�
John 1:44 says that Philip was from Bethsaida, of Galilee, the same city of Andrew and Peter. Bethsaida was very close to Capernaum..
John 1:45 says that Philip introduced Nathanael to Jesus
John 6:71 and 13:26 say Judas Iscariot was the son of Simon Iscariot, 13:2 also says he was the son of Simon
20:24 and 21:2 says that Thomas was called Didymus, and that Nathanael was from Cana of Galilee

A few comments based on all of the above: Simon Peter, Andrew, James, and John apparently knew each other, being brothers or fishing partners. Philip likely knew them also since he was from the same city as Andrew and Peter. Andrew also knew Nathanael. Therefore 6 of them already had some connection to each other. And as we see above, Matthew may have been the brother of James, son of Alphaeus. IF one were just making all of these people up, I wouldn’t expect there to be this many connections, nor to be as many similarities in names (2 Simon’s, 2 James’, 2 Judas’), nor for it to include pairs of brothers. The existence of these along with the matter-of-fact way in which they are mentioned are evidence to me of authenticity.

The author of John provides more detail about the disciples than the others. My understanding is that Gjohn reveals a strong knowledge of the geography also. These may be evidence that the author of all or some of the document was indeed that of tradition, an insider, “the disciple whom Jesus loved�, John, the son of Zebedee.

What about Thaddeus and Judas son of James? One explanation is that Judas the son of James wanted to differentiate himself from Judas Iscariot, the other disciple with his name, for obvious reasons, and therefore took on the name Thaddeus. Seems reasonable to me. Especially since we already have some evidence of others with two names (Simon-Peter, Matthew-Levi).

What about Nathanael? Perhaps he was also known as Bartholomew. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention Bartholomew one time and in each he is mentioned in the list right after Philip. In John, Philip knew Nathanael before he was called by Jesus. It could be a coincidence but I doubt it.

ted

John Kesler

You may enjoy Farrell Till's Why Didn't They Know?.

I've always found it interesting that Matthew/Levi, allegedly an apostle and author of the gospel bearing his name, reports his calling to apostleship with almost the exact wording used by Mark.

I would be interested in knowing how similar these passages are in Greek, and what the likelihood of such a correlation being the result of oral tradition is, if one of our Greek experts would so oblige.

TedM

John, that's a very interesting observation! I tend to believe that the book of Matthew is a compilation of sayings and perhaps some stories that possibly really were written down early on by Matthew (as Papias is said to have written), and other sources such as Mark, all combined sometime later.

ted

BuffaloBill

Thank you, John Kesler. That link looks like what need.