judge

I have had someone tell me that.."Some of those(early christian ones) writings came from men who were well aquainted with the Apostles."

Is this true? Or is it propaganda?

thanks for any help.

Diogenes the Cynic

Other than the authentic letters of Paul, there is no evidence that any Christian writing (early or otherwise) was written by anyone who knew an apostle. There are 2nd Century Christian traditions that Mark was a secretary of Peter, that Matthew and John were written by the apostles of those names and that Luke was a companion of Paul. All of those traditions are spurious.

Roger Pearse

Not so.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

Clement of Rome is a contender, possibly having known John.

Ruhan

Agreed. Most of these associations come from Papias via Eusebius, however even Ehrman doubts the reliability of these claims. Papias described a gospel the Gospel of Matthew as only a collection of Jesus' sayings. Was Papias referring to the version of Matthew we have today or was he referring to another sayings gospel which has since been lost. Papias' testimony is so unreliable and we don't have any of his writings except through Eusebius' quotations, that are questionable in and of themself.

For instance, did the now Catholic Euseubius quote Papias as saying that Mark was Peter's student to give some sort of Papal authority to the older synoptic Gospel?

Huon

My opinion (which can be mistaken, of course) is that the first followers of Jesus were not Christians as we could understand this name, members of a Christian church. They were expecting the rapid end of the present world, and for that, they had no need of any gospel. The real long term organisation of a church became a necessity, probably towards the end of the first century, when all the first fidels had died, and the predictions were not fulfilled (today, but wait a little more !).

gstafleu

Given the amount of problems that seem to pop up when trying to establish anything like a Historical Jesus, the problems one can expect when trying to establish historical apostles must be prodigal.

Gerard

jakejonesiv

Hi Chris,

Since the OP mentions early Christian writings, how do you know that Clement, the alleged third pope of Rome (Irenaeus, Adv Her 3:3:2-3), was the author of 1 Clement, if indeed that is what you are suggesting?

What evidense do you have that this Clement know the alleged Apostle John?

According to Tertullian, Clement was supposed to be the second pope, ordained by St. Peter himself. Do you believe Tertullian was accurate?

Thanks,

Jake

I am leaving aside for this post the possibility that 1 Clement is not an authentic 1st century Chrsistian work.

Gamera

Luke seems to be strongly associated with Paul. If he was his contemporary, it seems reasonable to assume he could have met Peter or some other surviving Apostle. Luke seems like an inquisitive person.

Toto

Why do you think that aLuke is strongly associated with Paul? The author of Luke-Acts appears to have written well after the apostolic period, if there was one. Enough time has passed that he (or she) can talk about prior versions of events and the need to set forth an orderly account. He or she spends most of Acts talking about Paul, but the Paul of Acts seems to be almost a cartoon version of the Paul of the letters.