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 11-06-2006, 02:09 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default Early christian writings and the apostles

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.
judge is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 02:36 PM   #2
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

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.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 11:07 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
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.
Not so.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 11:34 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Clement of Rome is a contender, possibly having known John.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 04:35 AM   #5
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
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.
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?
Ruhan is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 09:36 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bordeaux France
Posts: 2,796
Default

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 !).
Huon is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 11:30 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,719
Default

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
gstafleu is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:43 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer View Post
Clement of Rome is a contender, possibly having known John.
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.
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:42 PM   #9
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

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.
Gamera is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 05:48 PM   #10
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

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.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:09 AM.

Top

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