andrewcriddle

Although some scholars whom I respect and admire have suggested this, personally I'm doubtful.

The Holy Spirit seems much more prominent and theologically central in Luke-Acts than in the Pastorals.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

I asked Dr. Robert Price about this issue. He said:

"Virtually everything we read about the apostles and their fates (fully compiled in William Stewart MacBirnie's The Twelve - I think it is--can't spot my copy on the shelf) is from legendary sources such as the 2nd century (and later) Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, John, Peter, Paul, Andrew & Mattias, Philip, etc., etc. No reason to accept any of it.

"It is not simply a forgone conclusion that Cephas is Simon Peter, though he might be. The Epistle of the Apostles lists them as separate people. And John of the Pillars is never called "son of Zebedee." And James is supposed to be James the Brother of the Lord, James the Just. And yet are we not supposed to think the inner circle trio of "James, Perter, and John" in the gospels are the same as the Pillars?

"I believe Eisenman is correct: that all 12 are really doublings or triplings of the original 3 or 4 Pillars, or Desposunoi, Heirs of Jesus:

"John bar Zebedee and John the Baptist come from a fourth Pillar "John the Lord's Brother"

"Simon Peter, Simon Zelotes, and Cleopas = Simeon bar-Cleophas, listed by Eusebius as James the Just's successor as head of the Jerusalem church.

"Judas Iscariot, Judias "not Iscariot," Theudas, Thaddaeus, Addai, and Didymus Thomas, Bar-Tholomew (as well as the Koranic Hud and Ad) = Judas Thomas, brother of the Lord in Mark 6.

"James bar Zebedee, James of Alphaeus (= Cleophas, "The Substitute"), Lebbaeus (="Oblias, "the Bulwark"="the Pillar") = James the Just (I would add Silas in Acts)

"Philip is an addition from the list of seven deacons.

"Andrew = man, the Son of Man, in connection with Peter, who was one of the brethren of Jesus the Son of Man, Simeon bar-Cleophas.

"Matthew is a pun on "disciple" (mathetai)

"Siegfried Schultz, Merrill P. Miller and others deny there ever was a Jerusalem church, partly since there is no fiundation legend for it, partly because, contra Acts, no such movement, championing the slain Jesus and blaming the authorities couold possibly have survived, much less propagated itself under the noses of the authorities they accused."

TedM

Maybe so with regard to some of their fates, but their existence is certainly mentioned in earlier works (ie gospels, Galations, 1 Cor 15, etc.)

Paul doesn't put 'son of' after John, Peter, or James, as might have been the custom for other writers. What is Price's point?

Interesting, except Mark mentions James as the name of a brother of Jesus, and he also mentions a James as brother of John. Acts says this brother of John was killed prior to the James of the council (the pillars). So, who knows?

Evidence?

Evidence?

Evidence? Why are all listed as separate people in the gospels, if their names are so similar? Doesn't that seem pretty stupid?

Evidence?

Evidence?

Sure, Paul was making it all up in Galations and 2 Corinth. As, was the writer of Acts. Maybe the reason they survived is because they were ultra-Jewish Nazarenes. Acts calls them Nazarenes, and Hegissupus says James was ultra-Jewish. The NT book of James sounds that way too. I don't have to accept every word in these books literally to get a sense of what likely reflects some truth, but I guess others do.


IF you can't provide the evidence I've asked for there is no need to debate anything here, since as we've agreed our agendas are different.

ted

Diogenes the Cynic

Did Price really say this?

Matthai is a Hebrew name meaning "Gift of God." The Greek rendering of Matthai is Matthaios. In Latin it becomes Mattheus and in English, Matthew.

Mathetai would actually mean "students" (or "disciples") in the plural. The singular is mathetes. Neither mathetes or mathetai play any obvious role in the name of the disciple called Matthaios in the Gospels. It's explained simply enough by tagging a Greek ending onto a Hebrew name. While an intended pun on mathetes is not impossible, I think it's a bit of a reach and is completely unnecessary to explain the name.

Peter Kirby

By the way, what does Nathanael mean?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

"Gift of God" (Natan'el).

If you're wondering why it's the same as Matthai, it's because the latter is a diminutive of Matatyahu, "Gift of Yahweh," while the former is "Gift of El."

Peter Kirby

I suggest that the NT Nathanael and the NT Matthew are the same person. That explains why Matthew is absent from John, while Nathanael is absent from the Synoptics.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

Makes sense to me but, doesn't Nathanael often get identified as Bartholomew?

Peter Kirby

Yes, often enough, but why?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Johnny Skeptic

Message to TedM: You mentioned evidence, but the title of this thread says external evidence. What I am asking for is external evidence of the claims and activities of the disciples that was not written by Christians. Otherwise, we cannot rule out the possibility of propaganda. The supposed 500 eyewitnesses were much more numerous than the disciples were, so their testimonies would have been much impressive than the disciples' testimonies. What external, non-Christian evidence is there of their existence?