Kosh

Mods: if this really belongs in BCA, please move it...

In another thread, Radorth retorted:
Can anyone point me to this evidence that the apostles (the original twelve) actually existed? I'm curious as to how much we have.

Thanks

Toto

Peter Kirby has an essay here:

http://www.didjesusexist.com/seven.html

Kosh

So, apparently we have no writings from them, and no contemporary mentions of them?

Thanks for the link, Toto.

Peter Kirby

I think BC&A is the most appropriate forum for this.

If you accept that Paul wrote Galatians, then he is a contemporary who mentioned Cephas, James (bro of the Lord), and John as pillars in Jerusalem. They are considered apostles. Someone like Doherty would grant their existence but maintain that there is no evidence for them knowing a real Jesus.

Some scholars do think that the apostle Peter wrote 1 Peter (through an amenuensis per 5:12) and that the same James wrote the Epistle of James. Others would identify John as the author of Revelation or the beloved disciple in the fourth gospel. But this is disputed.

The traditions of apostolic martyrdom are scanty before the end of the second century (of the Twelve, only Peter as hinted in the Johannine appendix and 1 Clement, and James, not the brother, in Acts...oh, and Judas, three ways). I am looking for a good source that catalogues all the ancient traditions of martyrdom (and traditions of non-martyr death), and may create such a survey myself if I can't find one. Suffice it to say that the "all the apostles save John" martyrdom claim is a legend.

Steven Carr has a good essay on The Martyrs.

best,
Peter Kirby

Wizardry

I agree.

Biff the unclean

But then you are left with the problem of Paul being Gnostic-lite (as it were) and not knowing when Jesus lived. If these people with these very common names were THE people you wouldn't expect that to be the case.

Vinnie

I think it is very clear that Paul knew when Jesus lived. If he knew how to count to 50 and add and substract it would have been quite obvious.



Vinnie

Kosh

Welcome back Vinnie.

What passages that Paul wrote (those considered
to be authentic - what, maybe 6 of the letters?)
do you think supports this?

Vinnie

I'm just passing through. My summer search for greener pastures was interupted by a rocky embankment and a very large quad falling on me as we both tumbled down a hill composed predominately of rocks. Too bad nobody was there with a video camera. My stupidity would have made a nice Jackass scene. Well, at least my friend's $9,000 quad is okay after the fall

Fortunately some trees stopped us from falling all the way down and a severely painful wrist and a week of missed work is the extent of my damage. I'm lucky as hell. Cheated Dr. Death twice now

I think its 7 letters that are authentic.

Anyways, any passages which mention the followers of Jesus (existing: aka living contemporary with Paul) and any mention of Jesus' brother. Its simple mathmatics: i Jesus has a brother alive or followers alive during the 50s when Paul was writing, how long ago could Jesus have existed? Naturally, if Paul mentioned these things then hemust have known Jesus ot have been recently crucified. The issues are intertwined. If Paul knew James, Peter and so forth he clearly had a chronology.

This would all be consistent with the expectation of an imminent return of the Lord as well. By 50 A.D. The Thessalonians were already concerned about the return of the Lord. (1 Thess 4:15-17). As E.P. Sanders (HFJ p.179) notes, "Paul's concerts were shaken by the fact that some members of the congregation had died; they expected the Lord to return while they were all still alive." E.P. Sanders also goes on to argue that there appears to be a saying behind this belief and reconstructs it from the independent usage by Matthew and Paul.

Notice the word in bold

My own thoughts are that Paul probably did not know all that much about the historical Jesus and he wasn't too concerned about the details of the HJ. His "rez experience" was pretty much all the Jesus needed.

I'd love to see the methodology used and how it determines that Peter existed but shows that there is not any credible evidence that he knew Jesus. I don't see how the two issues can be separated! Or is the latter simply assumed on the basis that there was no historical Jesus?

If Doherty grants the existence of Peter, on what grounds does he do so. This owuld be interesting to me

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Vinnie, I'm sure Doherty would have no problem declaring the apostles to be mythical as well as Jesus. There is just the matter of eyewitness testimony, for those who think that Paul wrote some letters attributed to him. Or was Paul arguing with himself in Galatians 2:11-14? But note that some people separate "Cephas" and Peter, the former being (purportedly) the only name given to this Jerusalem pillar by Paul.

best,
Peter Kirby