S.C.Carlson

Not explicitly. People infer that identity from the fact that the name of the toll-collector called by Jesus is Levi in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 but Matthew in Matt 9:9.

Those concerned about the discrepancy tend to think that Levi and Matthew are the same person with two different names.

Most scholars conclude that 1 Thessalonians was Paul's earliest surviving letter and that it was written around 49. (A small number argue that Galatians was a little bit earlier, but I think this number is dwindling.)

Many Jews in the first century had both Jewish and Roman names, so it is likely that Paul had been his Roman name since his youth (particularly since "Saulos" in Greek had the meaning of a prostitute's gait; cf. the name "Fanny" today). In the narrative of the Acts of the Apostle, Saul's other name of Paul was first mentioned in connection with his so-called first missionary journey to Cyprus (which happens to feature a governor named Sergius Paulus).

The date AD 70 is the year in which the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem at the end of the four-year Jewish War. It was a traumatic event, and it changed Judaism (and Christianity) forever.

Stephen

Clivedurdle

Some very doubtful statements there! "Paul" may have been a school of writers, dating is not clear - why not near Marcion 140?

In history of WW2 there is something called the Allied view of history. Maybe we should use similar terms when discussing this christ figure, and be clear we may be giving what are actually propaganda positions.

Julian

Again, we are presenting commonly accepted mainstream views here. Not starting discussions or debating alternate views, valid though they may be.

Julian

Clivedurdle

Actually I can see a lot of woolly christians who are basically gnostic about 100 who because they effect some roman gods' temple businesses by being too puritanical about the gods come to the notice of the authorities, and not much gets written to around 130 with the second Jewish revolt.

I can't even see it as being originally from Palestine - it feels far too cosmoplitan!

HJism I would argue is post 130!

Julian

[MOD]
Let's try this again, this time in red and official:

Again, we are presenting commonly accepted mainstream views here. Not starting discussions or debating alternate views, valid though they may be.

Julian
Moderator BC&H
[/MOD]

RUmike

Well, basically Matthew took over Mark's pericope of the "calling" of Levi the tax collector when Matthew used Mark's gospel to write his own. [Note: I am using "Mark" and "Matthew" to refer to the authors of the gospels simply for convience... do not think those are the actual people who wrote those gospels! ] But Matthew changed Levi's name to Matthew in the story, and also changed it in the list of the 12. Eventually, this gospel became to be known as written by Matthew. Technically though, his name as being Levi is better attested. Presumably they are two names for the same person, although there is little reason for thinking that Jesus historically had a disciple named Matthew or Levi, other than the fact that these may (or may not?) be common Jewish names of the time.

RUmike

The most common dating is shortly before or after 70 C.E. This is due mainly to the author's seeming knowledge of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem: in Mark's time, either it just happened, or is clearly going to.

Just in case you are wondering... Matthew and Luke seem to have independently used Mark's gospel and a now-lost sayings gospel Q in constructing their gospels. The most common dates of these is Mathew 80-85 and Luke 85-90, although I'm not entirely sure why Luke is usually dated later than Matthew. It is probably good enough to say they both wrote in 80's, generally around the same time.

The Fourth Gospel (John) is a bit stickier, but here is what I understand the consensus to be: There is a now-lost "signs" source, called the Signs Gospel, because it has Jesus performing signs to show that he is the messiah. This source may be as old as Q, and many date it to before the year 70, because it makes no allusions to the destruction of the temple. Around the last decade of the 1st century, a redactor took the signs source, incorporated his own material, and this became "the gospel according to John" (son of Zebedee, one of the 12). Originally, this book ended at chapter 20, but a later editor added chapter 21. (Read the end of chapter 20... it clearly reads like an ending to the gospel!) This is how the book comes to us now.

Interestingly, Mark has Jesus clearly stating that NO signs will be given to his generation, yet in GSigns there are plenty and that's basically all Jesus does. It seems, then, that Mark was actually writing at least partly to counter the claims of communities like that from which the Signs gospel came.

If I've taken any liberties in simplifying things, someone please correct me I must admit that I know little about GJohn and that is probably my next area of study.

Clivedurdle

But that isn't enough! Textbooks give the variety of positions, so we should! I'm not wanting to debate them here but ensure the various perspectives are explicitly stated!

walt6

I have two questions.

Are there any early writings to show what happened to the disciples (or apostles)? They seem to have vanished from the scene. Is there any documentation to support Peter going to Rome.

I recently heard that there is some new evidence indicating that Mary Magdalene was a disciple and not a prostitute. Any comment on this?

RUmike

This thread is about giving the general consensus or serious competing theories in mainstream modern biblical scholarship. The theories you have mentioned do not even come close to this.