Talk:Apostles in the New Testament

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Other apostles" and POV[edit]

I like Paul Tillich. I absolutely love C.S. Lewis. However, calling the former the "apostle to the intellectuals" and the latter "apostle to sceptics" is highly POV in a post-reformation age. Tillich is a Protestant who writes solely from that POV, so putting him up on the level of apostle is a bias. Lewis, too, is a Protestant. I think he wirtes to intellectuals fully as much as Tillich does, but he does so with a humane touch. For "apostle to the intellectuals," Thomas Merton and Søren Kierkegaard could also qualify. For apostle to skeptics, the list is enormous. Virtually all Christian writers attempt apologetics at some point, and I don't see Lewis as much of a converter. He assumes a Christian readership far more than a non-believing one. At any rate, I have removed the following from the article for these reasons:

Further "Apostles" would include:

Geogre 14:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Comments: The original ~12 [the gospel's names don't match and name more than 12] Apostles are probably Jewish ethnicity, although Andrew (Andreas), Philip (Philippos), Bartholomew (Bartholomaios), Thaddeus (Theodotus) are Greek names. Also, although James the brother of Jesus is never named an Apostle, he clearly is the leader of the Jerusalem Church (later called first bishop of Jerusalem), presumably because he is the brother of Jesus (those who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary don't believe he is the son of Mary). And the church contains Aramaic speaking members [Ac1.19] and Greek speaking members [Ac6.1] and 7 Greeks are added to the 12 Apostles: Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolaus.

One more comment regarding apostle/disciple. Disciple is the translation of the Greek mathetes or student. Apostle is the translation of the Greek apostolos or emissary. Thus Paul can claim to be an apostle (an emissary on a mission), but he is not part of the group of "12 Apostles" selected by Jesus or approved by the Jerusalem Church. Likewise Paul calls some people apostles/emissaries, but they may not be part of the "12 Apostles" of the Jerusalem Church.

One more comment: you say apostolos=messenger, it could, but in general apostolos=emissary is a better translation, messenger=angelos which is the word commonly translated as angel. A messenger carries a message (word), an emissary is on a mission (action), but at times the distinction is blurred. Ref: Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, Univ. of Chicago Press


About the "70" only mentioned in Luke 10:1-10

What English translation translates the Greek as apostle here? The Greek has the *verb* apostello which means to send away. Ref: Greek-English Lexicon of NT, Bauer et al

I removed the sentence "In Acts 6.1, seven Greeks are appointed by the 12 Apostles: Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolaus." These Greeks were called deacons, not apostles, and the sentence really had nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph.


Mkehrt

Biased use of "purported" to describe resurrection[edit]

The word "purported" (end of second paragraph) has a connotation associated with fabrication. A quick Google definition shows "appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely;". To characterize the resurrection in this way amounts to taking a position on the legitimacy of the resurrection which is dubious because whether the resurrection occured is beyond the scope of this article. In place of the word "purported" should be either a neutral word (maybe "reported"?) or preferably no word at all. This would maintain Wikipedia's reputation of objectivity. 63.232.207.49 (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Nathan T.[reply]

It's not biased. Wikipedia does not endorse any religion, therefore it does not endorse Christian theology as objectively true. Wikipedia does not endorse miracles, since according to the historical method miracles cannot constitute objective historical facts. This is enshrined in WP:RNPOV and in general in WP:NPOV. Sorry, this are the WP:RULES, if you edit here you have to obey our rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Told you: if you want to edit here you have to obey our WP:RULES. WP:NPOV is website policy, you will be reverted if you disobey it. And no, for Wikipedia the resurrection of Jesus isn't a historical fact, pretty much as it isn't a historical fact that Muhammad flew upon a winged horse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barnabas and James the half Brother of the Savior were apostles[edit]

Acts 14:14 refers to Barnabas as an Apostle Gal 1:19 refers to James, the Half Brother of the Savior, as an Apostle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.153.105 (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carter?[edit]

Under the section on the stories of apostles being called, a random person named Carter is mentioned and their quote is not referenced nor is this person identified. It goes on to talk about rejection of patrical society. It's just very out of place and has no source. BurrShotFirst1 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likely connected to a book by Warren Carter, mentioned in the "Further reading" section; I agree that it is confusing there, as referencing the author only by their last name implies that they've been more formally introduced earlier in the text, which is not the case here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article title proposal[edit]

It seems exceptionally confusing to have one article at Apostle and another at Apostles. WP:PLURAL advises that plurals should redirect to singular titles, so reasonably Apostles should point to Apostle. It is probably the case that many links to the former article are intended for this article, and vice versa. I propose reinstating the title Apostle (Christian) to avoid ambiguity. The large majority of links still point to Apostle (Christian); it would be minimal effort to change the few links to this namespace to point to the previous title. --Hazhk (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, Apostles in Christianity might be preferable. --Hazhk (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move in itself, but have moved the article to "Apostles in the New Testament" as there are many meanings to "apostles" in Christianity. Veverve (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion[edit]

What Ehrman and Moss claim, scholars have known for centuries. That's why the reference to an 18th century historian of Antiquity. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: the martyrdom of Paul the Apostle is well historically referenced: it is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy, the First Epistle of Clement (95–96 AD), Ignatius (110 AD) and Dionysius of Corinth (166–174 AD). The fact that Paul was martyrized is accepted by virtually all scholars. The martyrdom of James the Great is attested in the Acts of the Apostles (90-95 AD), the martyrdom of James the Just is attested in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews (93 AD) and the martyrdom of Peter the Apostle is mentioned in the First Epistle of Clement. So, the claim that "all the martyrdom are unattested in historical or Biblical sources" is simply false, whatever Ehrman and Moss claim.--Karma1998 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If they claim it, they are top scholars, and that leaves the matter at disputed. Anyway, for the statement in our article to be true it suffices that most of the 12 apostles weren't martyred. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good, then I will edit it so that it states that "the remainder of claims is unattested". (PS "They weren't martyred?" We know nothing of what happened to them, so they may. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).--Karma1998 (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is possible that all of them have been martyred. The claim, however, is about evidence that they were martyred: we simply don't know, and exegeses remarked an embarrassing silence which might suggest that some of them have defected. James, brother of Jesus is not even mentioned in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, but the death of three of them is attested; as for the others, I agree with you that there are no sources but tradition. About the fact that they may have defected: once again, it is merely a speculation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which you do not have.--Karma1998 (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It did not claim in the article they weren't martyred. I have claimed in the article there is no evidence they were martyred. Big difference. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I claimed that sources tell us that only three of them were martyred (which is what Gibbon also said, actually). As for the others, I agree: there are no sources but tradition, so nothing can be said about them. -Karma1998 (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you see from the article Saint Peter, even his martyrdom is disputed among mainstream scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From Acts of the Apostles: Acts and the Gospel of Luke make up a two-part work, Luke–Acts, by the same anonymous author, usually dated to around 80–90 AD,[1] although some scholars suggest 90–110.[2][1]

Do you realize what this means? If does not claim that Peter was martyred, it does not even claim that Paul was martyred, it does not claim that any apostle got martyred. So, restoring my wording.

So, my point is now clear: there is nothing in the Bible which states that any apostle got martyred. And the historical evidence thereupon is simply disputed. So, it is not a historical fact that Peter got martyred, not a historical fact that Paul got martyred, and so on. And how could a man pretending to be Paul claim in his forged letter that Paul has already gotten martyred? It does not make sense. That would not have been a credible lie, and liars seek to be believed.

From James the Great: F. F. Bruce contrasts this story to that of the Liberation of Saint Peter, and notes that "James should die while Peter should escape" is a "mystery of divine providence".[3]

So, the lie about the martyrdom of James the Great is not credible, either. E.g. the title king applied to that Herod is wrong. And it begs the question that the apostle was murdered for believing in Christ rather than some accident, or while a rabble attacked the Romans. James the Just wasn't AFAIK an apostle.

And I don't understand what an uneducated (i.e. illiterate) fisherman, speaking neither Greek nor Latin, not a Roman citizen, would have to do in Rome. Or how he could pay such travel. I mean: we live in the modern world, and there are many millions of people who cannot afford buying a plane ticket. Of course, assuming that the Christians were relatively rich and that they were many... but we cannot simply assume that, most evidence is that there were very few Christians at the beginnings of Christianity, and most of them were dirt poor and illiterate. According to Ehrman, all a group of 100 Christians had to do is convert the head of a family every year, and Bingo, the growth of Christianity was secured (3% annual growth rate, see [1]). And there were about 20 Christians to begin with. Other scholars have crunched the numbers and came to similar conclusions. Rodney Stark has estimated the Ancient growth rate of Christianity at 43% per decade. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahaza: That's true: there is not a shred of historical evidence about how any of the twelve apostles died. Maybe they were all martyred, maybe none of them was martyred, we simply don't know. There is no reliable information about their deaths. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not true, that "there is not a shred of historical evidence about how any of the twelve apostles died" (and that's not what it says in the article). Admittedly, Wills does use the word "legend" but that's very questionable sourcing. Wills is a highly polemical writer. I can't see the end of the Ehrman piece, but a blog post is not really the best sourcing either. The Encyclopedia of Christianity in the Global South on which the section also relies uses the word tradition.Jahaza (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza: See The Myth of Persecution. Anyway, its title says it all. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its title doesn't say it all, because the title doesn't say that a review in the mainstream Review of Biblical Literature published by the Society of Biblical Literature said that Moss's book was a "distortion of history" and that "Modern ideology drives Moss’s thesis more than ancient testimony"[2]. Jahaza (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza: Pretty one-sided characterization. Greg Carey wrote at [3] "Moss's basic position will surprise few historians." Indeed, her book is run of the mill in mainstream Bible scholarship. Perhaps it is news to the broad audience, but not news to scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: There are certainly some ancient sources which speak of the martyrdoms of many of the other apostles. For example, the martyrdom of the apostle Thomas is attested in the Acts of Thomas and is also referred by Ephrem the Syrian, while the martyrdom of the apostle Andrew is attested in the Acts of Andrew. And many other apocryphal acts and martyrdoms can be consulted HERE.
Certainly, these texts are legendary in nature, but but still testify that ancient traditions which claim that the apostles were martyred existed from early times in Christian history. Potatín5 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Potatín5: What Ehrman stated in print is available at [4] see pp. 178-179. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read 178 and 179 and they don't say anything about the deaths of the apostles being legendary.Jahaza (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was supposed to WP:V the claim that "Christianity was constantly under threat/repression" belongs more to Hollywood movies than to history. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do we have reliable accounts from later times. What we have are legends, about some of the apostles – chiefly Peter, Paul, Thomas, Andrew, and John. But the apocryphal Acts that tell their stories are indeed highly apocryphal.

— Bart D. Ehrman, "Were the Disciples Martyred for Believing the Resurrection? A Blast From the Past", ehrmanblog.org

"The big problem with this argument [of who would die for a lie] is that it assumes precisely what we don’t know. We don't know how most of the disciples died. The next time someone tells you they were all martyred, ask them how they know. Or better yet, ask them which ancient source they are referring to that says so. The reality is [that] we simply do not have reliable information about what happened to Jesus' disciples after he died. In fact, we scarcely have any information about them while they were still living, nor do we have reliable accounts from later times. What we have are legends."

— Bart Ehrman, Emerson Green, "Who Would Die for a Lie?"

Nowhere is Ehrman claiming that this would be his original finding. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The martyrdoms of Peter and Paul are known to be referred by 1 Clement and (in the case of Peter) also by John. Potatín5 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Potatín5: Valantasis, Richard; Bleyle, Douglas K.; Haugh, Dennis C. (2009). The Gospels and Christian Life in History and Practice. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 240. ISBN 978-0-7425-7069-6. Retrieved 25 September 2023. But how did Peter become associated with Rome when there is no historical evidence that he went there? This is how legends work.
So: was Peter in Rome? According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it's murky. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b CSB Bibles 2017, p. 1345.
  2. ^ Burkett 2002, p. 195.
  3. ^ Bruce 1964, p. 251.

Removing parts of #Inner circle among the Twelve Apostles[edit]

Does anyone oppose me removing the OR (interpretation of the bible) of Apostles in the New Testament#Inner circle among the Twelve Apostles, i.e. the first and last paragraph? Veverve (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article subject?[edit]

It seems to me this article (deliberately?) conflates apostles with the disciples of the godman. Can this be addressed more expressedly in the lede to clarify the article's subject? ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Apostle[edit]

In the section, "Names of the 12 disciples of Jesus Christ" listing "The order in which each of the 12 disciples joined Jesus Christ is as follows:" . . . 

   . . . I noticed that there were only 11 apostles listed, and so ventured to add in the 10th place the apostle Thaddeus, who seemed to have gone missing.        Please feel free to change his placement, as I'm not sure of the order nor have I a reference at hand for that, but put him there because the list is so very like the list in the Gospel According to St. Luke. MeletoThauma (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apostles_in_the_New_Testament&oldid=1217256136"