FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-11-2004, 12:58 PM   #11
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by conkermaniac
...and perhaps the authors were trying to cash in by name recognition
The authors never called themselves apostles or named themselves at all. The names to which the gospels are atrributed were 2nd century traditions ascribed to anonymous books.

None of the authors of the gospels even claim to be eyewitnesses of Jesus much less apostles.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 10-12-2004, 04:22 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boro Nut
As with the disciples, if they really were contemporary Jewish men they would have Jewish names like Aaron, Mossher, Uri, Yittshack etc, certainly not Luke, Fred, Pete, Jimmy and so forth. The English didn't arrive until decades later and they didn't stop long, someone else had already trashed the place. They would hardly take centre stage in the most famous novel set in the area.
It is my understanding, the provinces of Judea, Israel and Palestine were thoroughly Hellenized. Most men involved in trade (as the fisherman of Galilee would have been) would have had both a Greek name and a Hebrew name. Trade was done in the lingua franca, which was Greek.

The names you cite above (not including Fred) were Greek. "Pete" was Petros. There is a character in the Pauline epistles called Cephas, and there is speculation as to whether this was the same man as Peter of the gospels (as the name means the same thing.)
Magdlyn is offline  
Old 10-12-2004, 04:44 AM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alkech
I'm sure this has been addressed before, but this seems to be the relevant thread that comes up through a search.

This is a question I often thought about, why Mark and Luke and not any of the more prominent disciples? Any others have any thoughts?

When you invent a tradition like this you can't get too specific or elsewise provide the means of checking up on the veracity of the claim.
rlogan is offline  
Old 10-12-2004, 05:01 AM   #14
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn
It is my understanding, the provinces of Judea, Israel and Palestine were thoroughly Hellenized. Most men involved in trade (as the fisherman of Galilee would have been) would have had both a Greek name and a Hebrew name. Trade was done in the lingua franca, which was Greek.
Magdlyn, Boro is our resident jester. Pay no attention to the man behind the besmirchin'.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 10-12-2004, 09:08 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 21
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
No one knows who Theophilus was, or what connection he might have had to Luke, even if he was a real person and not part of the novelization.
Theophilus=Greek for "friend of God." "theo"=God, "philus"= friend.

This is most likely a generic greeting to a colleague or friend, and not to a specific person. The modern equivalent might be, "Dear Fellow Christian."

Nobody's sure whether Luke was writing a polemic to other nameless "friends of God," or whether he was addressing someone in particular.
Wily Coyote is offline  
Old 10-12-2004, 09:38 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 21
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by alkech
This is a question I often thought about, why Mark and Luke and not any of the more prominent disciples? Any others have any thoughts?
In C.E. 393, at the Synod of Hippo, the Church chose 27 books to comprise the New Testament, including the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Synod of Carthage four years later reconfirmed that only these books would be considered.

In choosing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Synods expressly excluded nearly sixty other documents that had been labeled "gospels" throughout the years, but for one reason or another, were considered inappropriate for inclusion in the New Testament. Why? Hard to say. Only fragments of many of these documents exist today, but many of these other gospels run contrary to "accepted" church doctrine and were even considered heretical.

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is only a "sayings" gospel and attributes to Jesus no miracles, and makes no mention of the Resurrection. The author of the Thomas writings was most likely also a gnostic, which was a small sect which claimed exclusive knowledge (or gnosis) of the meanings of Jesus' messages, which obviously clashed with the teachings of the early Church.

In the fragmentary Gospel of Mary Magdalene, it's suggested she was Jesus' wife. Hardly appropriate for the Canon.

And on and on. there are gospels of Peter, of Barrabas, Matthias, James, Philip, an infancy gospel of Thomas, none of which passed muster as far as the Synods were concerned.
Wily Coyote is offline  
Old 10-12-2004, 12:24 PM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Quote:
none of which passed muster as far as the Synods were concerned
because, according to Gibbon

Quote:
"...the complaint of Celsus that the Christians were perpetually correcting and altering their gospels."
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 10-12-2004, 03:26 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wily Coyote
The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is only a "sayings" gospel and attributes to Jesus no miracles, and makes no mention of the Resurrection. The author of the Thomas writings was most likely also a gnostic, which was a small sect which claimed exclusive knowledge (or gnosis) of the meanings of Jesus' messages, which obviously clashed with the teachings of the early Church.
gThomas is in no way truly gnostic. It actually fits in more with canon, but as you said, it didn't have any miracles of Jesus etc...
Chris Weimer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:22 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.