P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, but not the only one. In any case, there is no reason to believe he was there at the begining.
- Status
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Wasn’t John 13 or so when he became a disciple of Jesus? And wasn’t he a disciple of John the Baptist before that?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I don’t see how you got this. It would appear that these were the only two on the short list, for those were Luke’s words.
N
NHInsider
Guest
I didn’t check the text before I posted, and you are correct that it could be interpreted that the two nominated were the only two “qualified,” although I think the fact that they were “appointed” or “put forth” implies that they were chosen from amongst the “qualified” - which would probably have consisted at minimum of the 72 sent forth in Luke 10.
N
NHInsider
Guest
I have never heard that John was believed to have been so young. . .is this based on the presumed date of his death?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Even if he was 13, he would not have been considered a “boy” in those days, since coming of age takes place at the age of 12 in Jewish tradition.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I don’t know. I think I got that from St. Ireneaus Ministries, but I can’t rightly recall. I’ll see if I can find something on it.
P
patrick457
Guest
Mark’s grammar, syntax and vocabulary is rather basic, inelegant and rough, but Mark is a great storyteller: despite his quite limited Greek, he manages to make his narrative engaging and powerful.
And since we’re talking about Mark, if we’re going to replicate his writing style, it would probably look like this:
And when evening was come, I go to my companion’s house to talk to him. And the rain was pouring strongly, and the deafening sound of thunder rings in my ears. Now immediately on the way there was a man standing on the road, who to me seems to be wearing a broad hat, who grabs my hand and, wresting my hand, takes my golden watch and runs away with it. I try to chase him, but he runs faster than me, and the man disappeared in the darkness. I quit my chase because the darkness is very immense, because there are no lampposts by the road of that area, but went on to my companion’s house. Now my companion is very wealthy, and his house is a very big edifice, and the door of his dwelling made out of big planks of oak, with brass knockers. Despite his wealth and this big house, I know my companion to be a frugal man, and one that likes to play pranks on people for mere fun.
And I am knocking to his door, but no one answers. But an old man - the servant of my companion - opens the door and questions me, saying, “In what can I be of service?” And I answer him, “I wish to see my friend.” But he says, “He is not here.” And asking him where he is, the servant was saying to me, “He went outside a while ago, wearing a broad hat.” And I am being shocked at this information, and I was thinking that it must be my companion who took my watch from me as a prank against me. And I say, “It must be him,” for he always plays pranks on me on a quotidian basis.
Now immediately, as I was standing at the door, my companion wearing a broad hat comes, laughing. And he holds in his hand my watch which he took from me. And he returned it, saying, “What a good reaction you had down there.” And lacrima poured from my eyes because of this rather audacious deed of his, and I says to him, “Stupid man! I have taken you for a thief. Why did you pull this prank against me?”
Another (much better) writer’s version of the story (in this scenario, we’ll say that it’s Luke):
I decided to go to the house of my friend, Mr. Grant, at the onset of evening. The rain was pouring very strongly; the sound of thunder clashed and rang in my ears. Now as I was walking on the road, there was a man standing there, who looked as if he was wearing a broad hat. He ran to me, and, grabbing my right hand and wresting it, took my golden watch, and ran away with it. I chased him, but he ran faster than me. The man eventually disappeared under the cover of dark, prompting me to quit my chase. Besides, the darkness was very immense and there were no lampposts by the road in that area. Feeling dejected, I went on to my friend’s house. Now my companion was a wealthy man, but he was frugal - if one that likes to play pranks on people for mere fun.
When I was approaching my friend’s house, I looked at the streets. Nobody seemed to be there, when someone tapped me in the back. I was terrified at first, but to my relief, it was only old Mr. Thompson. After exchanging some pleasantries, I asked him, “Did you see our friend, Mr. Grant?” Mr. Thompson said in reply, “I did, just a while ago. He seemed to be grinning, as if he had just played tricks on somebody again.” I chuckled at this and I said, “Oh, no wonder about that. He’s pulling a prank on me everyday.” Mr. Thompson was in a hurry and said he had to go home. After bidding him farewell, I continued my trip until I reached the pine-and-oak doors of my friend’s house.
I knocked at the door for a few minutes, but no one answered, when finally an old man - a servant of my friend’s - open it and asks me, “If it isn’t Master John Doe! In what can I be of service?” And I told him that I was looking for my friend. He answers me thus, “I am afraid that the master’s not here: he went outside a while ago, wearing a broad hat.” When the servant mentioned this, I was very shocked. A thought dawned in my mind: was it Mr. Grant who took my watch from me as a prank against me? I finally said to myself - with a slight hesitation - that it could be him. Him taking my watch to play with me is not out-of-character for him, for he always plays pranks on me on a daily basis.
As me and the servant were talking, my companion came, laughing. And sure enough, he was wearing a broat hat. I noticed that in his hand he held my watch which he took from me. He returned it to me, saying, “What a good reaction you had down there.” I was almost driven to tears because of my own foolishness, and because of Mr. Grant’s audacity to pull such a joke, and I said to him, “Stupid man! I have taken you for a thief. Why did you pull this prank against me?”
I guess the whole incident with Mr. Thompson came from a Q Source
And since we’re talking about Mark, if we’re going to replicate his writing style, it would probably look like this:
And when evening was come, I go to my companion’s house to talk to him. And the rain was pouring strongly, and the deafening sound of thunder rings in my ears. Now immediately on the way there was a man standing on the road, who to me seems to be wearing a broad hat, who grabs my hand and, wresting my hand, takes my golden watch and runs away with it. I try to chase him, but he runs faster than me, and the man disappeared in the darkness. I quit my chase because the darkness is very immense, because there are no lampposts by the road of that area, but went on to my companion’s house. Now my companion is very wealthy, and his house is a very big edifice, and the door of his dwelling made out of big planks of oak, with brass knockers. Despite his wealth and this big house, I know my companion to be a frugal man, and one that likes to play pranks on people for mere fun.
And I am knocking to his door, but no one answers. But an old man - the servant of my companion - opens the door and questions me, saying, “In what can I be of service?” And I answer him, “I wish to see my friend.” But he says, “He is not here.” And asking him where he is, the servant was saying to me, “He went outside a while ago, wearing a broad hat.” And I am being shocked at this information, and I was thinking that it must be my companion who took my watch from me as a prank against me. And I say, “It must be him,” for he always plays pranks on me on a quotidian basis.
Now immediately, as I was standing at the door, my companion wearing a broad hat comes, laughing. And he holds in his hand my watch which he took from me. And he returned it, saying, “What a good reaction you had down there.” And lacrima poured from my eyes because of this rather audacious deed of his, and I says to him, “Stupid man! I have taken you for a thief. Why did you pull this prank against me?”
Another (much better) writer’s version of the story (in this scenario, we’ll say that it’s Luke):
I decided to go to the house of my friend, Mr. Grant, at the onset of evening. The rain was pouring very strongly; the sound of thunder clashed and rang in my ears. Now as I was walking on the road, there was a man standing there, who looked as if he was wearing a broad hat. He ran to me, and, grabbing my right hand and wresting it, took my golden watch, and ran away with it. I chased him, but he ran faster than me. The man eventually disappeared under the cover of dark, prompting me to quit my chase. Besides, the darkness was very immense and there were no lampposts by the road in that area. Feeling dejected, I went on to my friend’s house. Now my companion was a wealthy man, but he was frugal - if one that likes to play pranks on people for mere fun.
When I was approaching my friend’s house, I looked at the streets. Nobody seemed to be there, when someone tapped me in the back. I was terrified at first, but to my relief, it was only old Mr. Thompson. After exchanging some pleasantries, I asked him, “Did you see our friend, Mr. Grant?” Mr. Thompson said in reply, “I did, just a while ago. He seemed to be grinning, as if he had just played tricks on somebody again.” I chuckled at this and I said, “Oh, no wonder about that. He’s pulling a prank on me everyday.” Mr. Thompson was in a hurry and said he had to go home. After bidding him farewell, I continued my trip until I reached the pine-and-oak doors of my friend’s house.
I knocked at the door for a few minutes, but no one answered, when finally an old man - a servant of my friend’s - open it and asks me, “If it isn’t Master John Doe! In what can I be of service?” And I told him that I was looking for my friend. He answers me thus, “I am afraid that the master’s not here: he went outside a while ago, wearing a broad hat.” When the servant mentioned this, I was very shocked. A thought dawned in my mind: was it Mr. Grant who took my watch from me as a prank against me? I finally said to myself - with a slight hesitation - that it could be him. Him taking my watch to play with me is not out-of-character for him, for he always plays pranks on me on a daily basis.
As me and the servant were talking, my companion came, laughing. And sure enough, he was wearing a broat hat. I noticed that in his hand he held my watch which he took from me. He returned it to me, saying, “What a good reaction you had down there.” I was almost driven to tears because of my own foolishness, and because of Mr. Grant’s audacity to pull such a joke, and I said to him, “Stupid man! I have taken you for a thief. Why did you pull this prank against me?”
I guess the whole incident with Mr. Thompson came from a Q Source
T
TMC
Guest
Many have speculated that he was that young, or even younger. Among other things, it would explain why he was the only male disciple to be at the foot of the cross – he could approach with the women without fear of arrest because he was too young for the Romans to consider him to be a threat. If you re-read John with the idea that he is a youth, it fits well. He lays his head on Jesus’ chest at the Last Supper, he outruns Peter to the tomb, etc. All consistent with a young person. Interesting to think about, but just speculation.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
T
TMC
Guest
I agree, but who knows? Maybe he was an orphan, or a young relative of John’s. Interesting to think about, but (again) speculative.
S
Sheeniac
Guest
Thanks all - this has been fascinating, including the link to the other thread: “The Q source–a theory elevated to fact?”
While I am leaning towards thinking that it’s a weak theory, there are some strong points to it.
Verse Analysis:
Mark’s Gospel - 661 verses
Matthew’s - Similar to Mark 600
Q - 235 (meaning overlap with Luke)
Only in Matthew - 233
Luke’s - Similar to Mark 365
Q - 235 (meaning overlap with Matthew)
Only in Luke - 550
235 verse overlap could suggest that one had the other 2 in front of him when writing…
While I am leaning towards thinking that it’s a weak theory, there are some strong points to it.
Verse Analysis:
Mark’s Gospel - 661 verses
Matthew’s - Similar to Mark 600
Q - 235 (meaning overlap with Luke)
Only in Matthew - 233
Luke’s - Similar to Mark 365
Q - 235 (meaning overlap with Matthew)
Only in Luke - 550
235 verse overlap could suggest that one had the other 2 in front of him when writing…
B
buffalo
Guest
Explained in The Gospels are Historical
P
patrick457
Guest
Which reminds me: some actually theorize that most of Jesus’ disciples were young men under twenty, pointing out the fact that apparently, only Jesus and Peter paid the half-shekel Temple tax (something that men twenty years of age or older are required to pay, as per Exodus 30:13-14) in Matthew 17:24-27.
P
patrick457
Guest
If I could offer some replies to two out of three: age is not always directly correlated with running speed.
And the beloved disciple “leaning back” (anapipto, ‘to lie down’, ‘to recline (at a table for a meal)’) - the same verb used for Jesus “sitting down” at the table again in 13:12 - i.e. he leaned back as he was, could also serve another purpose: he could speak very quietly (out of the reach of the other disciples) and still be heard by Jesus. He leaned back a little nearer to Jesus - which would attract less attention than if he turned round to speak to Him. But you make a very good point about why the beloved disciple could stand near the cross with the women.
P
patrick457
Guest
It was certainly the majority opinion, but there was a minority one back in the olden days which posit that they’re actually two different people. One proponent of this was Didymus the Blind, who claimed authority from the Gospel of the Hebrews for this - where, he says, Levi’s other name is Matthias (which is kinda moot, since the names Matthew and Matthias come from the same root).
N
NotWorthy
Guest
My thinking on Peter and the shekel is that Jesus was, once again, making Peter His spiritual son.
In Matthew 16, Jesus had already called Himself the “Sign of Jonah”. Then Jesus calls Peter, “Simon BarJonah”. Simon’s dad was John, which is not a transliteration of Jonah (like I always assumed). Jesus basically called calls Simon His Son.
So, what’s this got to do with the half-shekel? The better translation in Matthew 17 is, “What is your opinion, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take tolls or census tax? From their sons or from foreigners?”
Once again, Jesus is equating Simon with Sonship, either God the Father’s or Jesus.
That’s my two cents worth… now where’s my change!
A
abucs
Guest
Hi Sheeniac,
i don’t want to confuse things
but i favour the Griesbach Hypothesis.That is that Matthew wrote first Gospel for the Palestinian Jews, Luke wrote next for the Gentiles based on Matthew and independent research and then Mark wrote third when recording the preaching of Peter who was preaching in Rome using both Matthew and Luke and throwing in his own words and reflections in basic Greek.
No need for the invention of Q at all.
maplenet.net/~trowbridge/farmer.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-gospel_hypothesis
Mark Goodacre who supports Mark writing first but who also thinks Q is not credible.
markgoodacre.org/Q/
M
milkbar
Guest
I read this thread a little bit yesterday but quit halfway through. I just searched to see if anyone had mentioned this but don’t see NAB anywhere in the thread. I came to point out that I was reading Matthew chapter 12 just now to look for a specific verse, and read several of the footnotes, like this one… usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew12.htm#foot14
Toward the end of the intro there is a discussion of Matthew’s sources.
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm
Whoever wrote these footnotes seems to have believed that there was a Q and Matthew used it. I don’t have an opinion, just pointing it out.
Toward the end of the intro there is a discussion of Matthew’s sources.
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm
Whoever wrote these footnotes seems to have believed that there was a Q and Matthew used it. I don’t have an opinion, just pointing it out.
B
bingbang
Guest
I noticed that a lot of people in this thread just take what early church fathers said as fact. I don’t really know if this is a great idea. Yes, they may have only been a century or less from when these documents were written, but that is a long time in those dates. Its not like these documents were originally dated. If Mark was written first, but Matthew was circulated on a more wide scale at an earlier time, it would seem like Matthew was written first.
I just don’t think that we should put much stock into what church fathers said about the origins of the gospels in the first few centuries. Any document had to get copied and transported by foot between towns. Any story that came with the guy that delivered the gospels to other areas would be believed. I just would place a lot more faith in modern linguistic and historical experts than the stories of the church fathers.
I just don’t think that we should put much stock into what church fathers said about the origins of the gospels in the first few centuries. Any document had to get copied and transported by foot between towns. Any story that came with the guy that delivered the gospels to other areas would be believed. I just would place a lot more faith in modern linguistic and historical experts than the stories of the church fathers.
- Status