| |
|
|
| Dean's Blog
(updated 05/25/08) |
| Welcome
to my corner of the universe! So, what is this article
on the Church website anyway? Well essentially, it is
a “Blog”, from the mind of Dean Hovey-Smith. What is a
Blog? Well, if you are not familiar with this term it
is defined as (in a simplified way): “a personal diary
on any topic of choice, written in reverse order”.
So really, this blog is not the “church’s
opinion”, or anything so official. What you see written
are my opinions only, written in a very irreverent format,
so you look past the style, and more into the substance.
But, despite my style of irreverence, keep in mind I
have great respect for the source material (namely the
“Holy Bible”), so all I want to do, is to draw on additional
Historical and Archeological data, to frame up a more
complete picture, of the people written about in the
Bible. I make no promises of all this being completely
accurate, but it is intended only to “spark debate”
or further discussion, or even better, further Bible
Study! I hope you find it interesting! What you read
may be very controversial at times, but maybe you will
think about what is being said, and we can talk!
(Note: I usually provide source
material either at the bottom of a blog entry or within
the text, so you can read this stuff yourself! For more
info, email me at deanhoveysmith@halifaxchurchofchrist.org,
with the subject: “Blog: request for more info”.)
|
(King) David. So, did he really exist?
(It feels good to be writing again. Sorry for the
delay between blogs.)
Really??? There is some question there?? Well, yeah…let’s
face it, there has been a few years since (the Bible
says) that he lived!
David was the second king of the United Kingdom of
Israel according to the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.
But…only recently though, did historians, anthropologists
and archeologists truly have enough evidence to consider/discover
that this “character” of the Bible was/may have been,
truly “alive”.
What do you mean??? Well, for the longest time there
was never definitive evidence, of his existence and
some believed he was simply a fable. Or, it was a legendary
tale written into the texts of the Torah, to simply
lift the spirits of the Jewish people to give them hope
that such a hero once existed. (Kind of’ like the stories
of Superman & Batman of comics/movies, or most recently,
of Iron Man of Marvel Comics, and the new movie. But
trust me, that stuff is just fiction!!!)
To see what I mean, lets look at the events leading
up to this new discovery…
The Bronze and Iron Age remains of the City of David
were investigated extensively in the 1970s and 1980s
under the direction of Yigael Shiloh of Hebrew University.
Fieldwork there and elsewhere in Jerusalem failed to
discover significant evidence of occupation during the
10th century BCE: not only are there no signs of monumental
architecture, but even distinctive 10th century pottery
shards were absent.
Elsewhere in the territory of biblical Judah and Israel,
no royal inscriptions could be found that existed from
the 10th century BCE, nor was there evidence of a royal
bureaucracy, nor did they find the inscribed potshards
which would provide evidence of widespread literacy.
Surveys of surface finds (which may be the real
problem here, as extensive digging was not done) aimed
at tracing settlement patterns and population changes,
have shown that between the 16th and 8th centuries BCE,
(a period which includes the biblical kingdoms of David
and Solomon), the entire population of the hill country
of Judah was no more than about 5,000 persons, most
of them wandering pastoralists, with the entire urbanized
area consisting of about twenty small villages.
(In my opinion though, due to the shear “time frame
lapse” involved, and the nature of the desert like conditions,
and sifting of the earth over that period, much of this
evidence may have been lost and buried forever.)
So what is the new evidence, that he was real? Well,
on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof.
Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee,
found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23
x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified
as part of a victory pillar erected by the King of Syria
and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription,
which dates to the ninth century BCE, c.850-835 BCE,
(that is to say, about a century after David was thought
to have ruled Israel), includes the words Beit David,
or "House" or "Dynasty" of David".
It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David
ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly
indicate that a King called David established a dynasty
in Israel during the relevant period. A year later,
in 1994, two more fragments from the inscription were
found at Tel-Dan.
Another piece of significant evidence comes from Dr.
Avi Ofer's archaeological survey conducted in the hills
of Judea during the last decade, which shows that in
the 11th-10th centuries BCE, the population of Judah
almost doubled compared to the preceding period. The
so-called Rank Size Index (RSI), a method of analyzing
the size and positioning of settlements to evaluate
to what extent they were a self-contained group, indicates
that during this period - David's supposed period -
a strong centre of population existed at the edge of
the region. Jerusalem is the most likely candidate for
this centre. (Amazing how new evidence changes everything,
in just a few years…)
To sum up the evidence then: in the tenth century BCE,
a dynasty was established by David; the population doubled
in the hill country of Judah, which acquired a strong
central point, probably Jerusalem, a previously settled
site that was important enough to be mentioned in Egyptian
documents. These facts are certainly consistent with
the biblical account.
The Mesha Stele from Moab, and from a similar time,
may contain the same phrase (translation of the language
on this has been an issue). Also, Kenneth Kitchen (a
leading expert on Biblical History, who has written
over 250 books) has proposed that an inscription of
c. 945 BCE by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq I mentions
"the highlands of David".
If this is all true, “... then we have solid evidence
that a 9th-century Aramean king considered the founder
of the Judean dynasty to be somebody named David. “
(Kenneth Kitchen).
To be fair though, this debate of the authenticity
of these finds rages on. On one side of the debate (doubting
King David’s existence) is Israel Finkelstein of Tel
Aviv University, who says in his book The
Bible Unearthed (2001): "[O]n
the basis of archaeological surveys, Judah remained
relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated
and very marginal right up to and past the presumed
time of David and Solomon, with no major urban centers
and with no pronounced hierarchy of hamlets, villages
and towns.”
(My note: this he says, despite Dr. Ofer’s work!!! Oh
my….)
On the other side of the debate is William Dever, who
in his book What Did the Biblical Writers Know
and When Did They Know It?, holds that the
archaeological and anthropological evidence supports
the broad biblical account of a Judean state in the
10th century BCE. Very interesting…. (I think Mr. Dever
is correct here, by the way. I even recommend you read
his book!!!)
Now the biblical evidence (of which the physical evidence,
is really only corroborative evidence for the biblical
documents, by the way…) for David’s existence comes
from three sources: the Psalms, the book of Samuel,
and the book of Chronicles. Now before I go any further,
as you all know, I have great respect for the Bible,
and its authenticity in terms of both faith, and historical
accuracy. However, I think it is important that we “pull
a few things apart” right now. (OK, so…brace yourselves,
this is not going to be pretty, or pleasant…)
So, OK, here is an issue, I have with the Psalms. While
almost half of the psalms are headed "A Psalm of
David", (in any given translation you or I may
read), the headings are later additions (not part of
the original text), and the Hebrew preposition translated
in English as "of" can also be translated
as "for". So, were they written by
David??? Or, were they written for David? Well,
no really knows for sure. So then, no psalm can be attributed
to David as the author of any of them with certainty,
and aside from the headings, they contain no information
about David's life that is useful for any sort of “historical
reconstruction”.
Ummm…OK, so when I look at this closely, now I have
a problem with Chronicles. Chronicles, when you really
read through it all, re-tells Samuel from a different
theological vantage point, but contains little, if any,
historical/event information that is not already available
in the book of Samuel, in regards to David. (In other
words…nothing new or additional information is available
for the reader.) However, Chronicles does provide corroborative
evidence to 1st and 2nd Samuel, so this is still substantive
evidence, which still needs to be considered!
So bottom line? Well, in the end, we are left with
really solid literal evidence of the books of 1st and
2nd Samuel and the information contained within. The
vast majority of biblical scholars have accepted that
these two books form part of a continuous history of
Israel, compiled no earlier than the late 7th century
BCE, and they also incorporate earlier works and fragments.
For example, scholars such as the late John Bright,
whose "History of Israel", believes the book
of Samuel can simply be taken at face value, as an accurate
historical document. A vocal minority of others, of
course, disagree.
Before I reveal my particular opinion in this matter,
I want to say that even among the best minds there will
always be those who, despite the evidence, continue
to have many questions. I always think that the more
questions you ask the better, and will prove your worth
(in this case includes archeologists, anthropologists
and biblical historians) as a scientist, and/or those
simply pursuing truth. I think, that one should never
settle for anything (in terms of evidence etc.), and
continue to probe, ask questions, and look for truth.
Also, remember that despite the people you may disagree
with, I believe that “all voices should be heard”. Freedom
of speech is vital to the pursuit of truth. Keeping
an “open mind” on such matters is never a bad thing.
That being said however, based on the evidence laid
out above (which is in no way meant to be complete,
and only really skims the surface of a much larger discussion/investigation)
I personally do think there is substantive and reasonable
evidence from a reliable document (namely what we modern
day Christians call the Bible, or Jews call the Torah),
and corroborative evidence from recent archeological
finds, that such a person as King David of ancient Israel
really did exist.
There are those of you who may say “well of course
he does! He goes to church, and believes the bible is
faultless!” While it may be true I am a Christian, and
have a strong belief in the Bible, let it never be said
that I came to my faith easy, or that I “have always
believed”, as those statements are simply not true.
I am an “open minded” person, who happens to possess
a critical mind, and also I have a very strong belief
in scientific methodologies. My personal opinion is
that “science enhances faith”!
What is my next blog about??? Well watch this space,
and find out! Please email me at deanhoveysmith@halifaxchurchofchrist.org
if you wish to comment on this or any other blog!
|
Dean’s
Blog #2
The Apostle Paul, so really, who was
he?
Yeah….I was wondering that too. I mean,
Paul was not even his REAL name! (Or was it???)
I will strictly stick to the historical
details of this man’s life, and “understandings” (based
on historical studies, archaeological data etc.., as
well as biblical references), and will not really delve
into any spiritual aspects. (For that sort of thing,
please refer to the sermons on this website! :)
)
Relatively speaking, (there is some
debate on this by historians) right around the same
time Jesus was born; the Apostle Paul was born with
his birth name Saul, in Tarsus, located in modern day
Turkey. (It was called Tarsus, Cilicia in the Roman
province of Asia Minor back then). The city of Tarsus
was stood on the banks of the river Cydnus, so it became
a center of extensive commercial traffic with many countries
along the shores of the Mediterranean, as well as with
the countries of central Asia Minor. Tarsus became a
city distinguished for the wealth of its inhabitants.
As a reward for its exertions and sacrifices during
the civil wars of Rome, Tarsus was made a free city
by Augustus Caesar. Free cities were permitted in the
Roman Empire to use their own laws, customs, and magistrates,
and they were free from being subject to Roman guards.
(An important fact in Saul’s life, see more below.)
At some point, according to Christian tradition, his
parents moved to, and lived in, Jish, Galilee.
(On a side note: Tarsus is still a commercial
centre today, trading in the produce of the fertile
Çukurova plain, and also the city is a thriving industrial
centre refining and processing that produce for export.
The climate is typical of the Mediterranean region,
with the summers being very, very hot, and the winters
are chilly and damp. Tarsus has slightly more in the
way of culture (cinema, theatre etc.) than most Turkish
country towns but in many ways still has a small town
feel, where people walk in the road rather than on the
sidewalk. Predictably the people of the mountain forests
in the hinterland have an even quieter rural existence.
The local cuisine includes: hummus; şalgam (pickled
turnips); tantuni (a sandwich of grilled meats; the
tiny pizzas called "fındık lahmacun"; and
cezerye (a carrot sweet).)
The Book of Acts records that Saul was
a Roman Citizen — a privilege he used several times
in his defense, as he appealed against convictions in
Judaea to Rome (Acts 22:25 and Acts 27–28). The details
of how he became citizen though, are subject of some
debate. It was rare for a Jew to become a citizen, so
it was both treasured, and considered a great honour,
during this period of the Roman Occupation. We do know
that Jews who became citizens were ones “who contributed
greatly to the empire”. So, therefore it is often assumed
by some historians that Saul’s parents were of great
(or of at least moderate) wealth and influence, and
may have been friends with high ranking officers of
the Roman Empire. Then, once citizenship is granted,
by default, all of the children became citizens. Then
again, it is more likely that since Tarsus was a “free
city”, Saul was then entitled to the privileges of a
free man, and was simply considered a Roman Citizen,
by the empire.
He was also a “an Israelite of the tribe
of Benjamin, circumcised on the eighth day" according
to Philippians 3:5. But, due to his place of birth,
he was not a Jew from Israel, and had no direct connection
to the Jews there until later in life. (See below.)
Until then, he would have been taught in both Greek
and Jewish ways of life, and traditions. This knowledge
would prove to be immensely useful later in life, as
he preached to both Greek and Jew alike, during his
missionary journeys. The Greek influence can also be
seen in his style of writing, when he wrote several
book of the Bible. Also, Saul uses such things as Greek
political terminology (Phil 1:17, 3:20), the Greek games
(Phil 2:16, 1 Cor. 9:24-27), references to Greek commercial
terms (Philemon 18), and even Greek legal terminology
(Gal. 3:15, 4:1-2, Rom. 7:1).
According to Acts 22:3, he studied in
Jerusalem (most likely his parents sent him there, at
the age of 14, after his Bar Mitzvah), under the Rabbi
Gamaliel, who was well known in Paul's time. Rabbi Gamaliel
I, was a leading authority in the Sanhedrin in the mid
first century. He was the grandson of the great Jewish
teacher Hillel the Elder. He died twenty years before
the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem. Luke
describes Gamaliel with great respect in Acts Chapter
5.
In Acts Ch. 23:16 we learn that Saul
had a sister, and she had a son, so Saul was an uncle.
The Bible never says whether Saul was married or not.
Some historians think that he was married at one time
based on what he said in 1 Corinthians 9:5, "Don't
we have the right to take a believing wife along with
us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers
and Cephas?" If Saul was married at one time, his
wife likely died, considering he never mentions her
in any of his writings. Also, Saul did declare that
he had the gift of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7.
Again, some historians believe that
the Saul was married, as history tells us that in order
for anyone to be a member of the Sanhedrin; they were
required to be married. However, Saul never stated that
he was a member of the Sanhedrin. (He definitely seemed
to be on the path, "I was advancing in Judaism
beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous
for the traditions of my fathers" (Galatians 1:14)).
However, Paul might not have advanced that far, before
He converted to Christianity.
Speaking of which, Saul (later Paul),
had an unusual conversion. As you know, the first 12
apostles were picked by Jesus directly (see Mark 3:13-14).
Then Mathias was picked indirectly (see Acts 1:12-26)
by the remaining 11 (after Judas died). So, this “picking
of an Apostle” was even more removed later on, as Saul
was chosen by Jesus, (after Jesus died), in a vision
to Saul during a trip on “the road to Damascus” (please
see both Acts Ch.9 and ch.22).
Following his stay in Damascus after
his conversion, where he was baptized, Paul says that
he first went to Arabia, and then came back to Damascus
(Galatians 1:17). According to Acts, his preaching in
the local synagogues got him into trouble there, and
he was forced to escape, being let down over the wall
in a basket (Acts 9:23). He describes in Galatians,
how three years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem,
where he met the Apostle James, and stayed with the
Apostle Peter for 15 days (Galatians 1:13–24). According
to Acts, he apparently attempted to join the disciples
and was accepted only owing to the intercession of Barnabas
— they were all understandably afraid of him as one
who had been a persecutor of the Church (Acts 9:26–27).
He later went back to Tarsus, after running into trouble
speaking again Hellenists (a polytheistic faith, based
on Greek Philosophies).
Paul's narrative in Galatians states that 14 years after
his conversion he went again to Jerusalem. It is not
known exactly what happened during these so-called "unknown
years," but both Acts and Galatians provide some
details. At the end of this time, Barnabas went to find
Paul and brought him back to Antioch (Acts 11:26). From
there, he began his Missionary journeys that are well
chronicled in his writings, that later became part of
the bible we know today.
One question remains unanswered though,
“How did Saul, adopt the name Paul?” Well, first of
all, a reader of the New Testament will first notice
the name change the Apostle Paul’s name from Saul to
Paul in Acts 13:9. Up until chapter 13 in Acts the apostle
is always called Saul. From Acts 13:9 he is always called
Paul. The only exceptions are in passages in which Paul
related the words Jesus spoke to him at his conversion
(Acts 22:7, 13; 26:14). But these passages are not truly
exceptions since they repeat what happened to the apostle
on the road to Damascus in Acts 9.
So how do we account for the change
of name? Some have said in popular circles that the
new name came from Paul’s conversion. But this view
is contradicted by Acts itself. Luke continues to call
the apostle Saul immediately after his conversion. Some
early church fathers, like Origen and Jerome, suggested
that his named was changed to Paul after the conversion
of the Cypriot proconsul, Sergius Paulus, in Acts 13:5-12.
On this view Paul adopted the name of this prominent
Roman official who Saul/Paul converted.
Most likely however, is that the apostle
was given at birth, as a Roman citizen, both a Greco-Roman
name and a Hebrew name. His Hebrew name was Saul, but
he was also given a Greco-Roman name “Paul” as a Roman
citizen. So why was there the sudden shift from Saul
to Paul in Acts 13:9? Perhaps Paul wanted to be known
by his Greco-Roman name since he was the apostle to
the Gentiles and was going to the Gentiles as a missionary.
In all his letters Paul introduces himself to his readers
as “Paul” not “Saul.”
Lastly, I just want to quickly talk
about Saul/Paul’s death. Near the end of his life, according
to the Book of Acts (28:30–31), Paul spent two years
in Rome under house arrest, where he continued to preach
the gospel and teach about Jesus being the Christ. Of
his detention in Rome, the book of Philippians provides
gives us more detail. It was clearly written from prison
and references to the "praetorian guard" and
"Caesar's household," which may suggest that
it was written from Rome. Whether Paul died in Rome,
or was able to go to Spain as he had hoped, as noted
in Romans (15:22–27), is uncertain. Eusebius of Caesarea,
who wrote in the fourth century, states that Paul was
beheaded in the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero. This
event has been dated either to the year 64, when Rome
was devastated by a fire, or a few years later, to 67.
So, there you have it! A little historical
background, on one of the most influential Apostles
of the New Testament churches. I hope you found it interesting.
Next time??? Well, I want to explore the life of King
David! Until then, Email me & let me know what your
thoughts are on my Blog!!!
|
Dean’s
Blog #1
The Apostles (who were they???)
So really, who were the apostles anyway?
Who were these 12 guys, following some homeless dude
(Jesus of Nazareth) around the countryside of Israel?
Well, it is an interesting question really. From what
I read in the Bible and from what I hear in sermons
at church, they were picked by this guy Jesus of Nazareth,
(which I keep saying, ‘cause “Jesus” was a really common
name back then, or “Joshua”, but we can talk about that
some other time…), to be “group of men sent on a mission
to spread the “Good News” or “Gospel”.
Ok, so let’s talk first about what the
word “Apostle” really means, then I will tell you a
little more about the men involved, and their personal
histories. But before we do that, I think it is important
to define the forbearers of the “men sent by God”, namely
the Prophets in the Old Testament vs. the “new” rank
of Apostle, in the New Testament. What really is different
between a Prophet and an Apostle?
In Hebrew (since the Old Testament was
originally written in that language), there three words
used for the word Prophet. First, there is navi, which
likely means "proclaimer”, from Deuteronomy 18:18
(where God said, "I will put my words in his mouth
and he will speak to them all that I command him."
Thus, the navi was thought to be the "mouth"
of God). Secondly, there is the old name for navi, which
is ro'eh, which literally means "Seer”. Thirdly,
the word, hozeh, is used which also means "Seer”,
(for example it is used in 2 Sam. 24:11). In 1 Ch. 29:29
all of these three words are used: "Samuel the
seer (ro'eh), Nathan the prophet (nabi'), Gad the seer"
(hozeh). So, a prophet is both “the mouth” of God, (someone
who has a message from God), and also a “person with
unusual powers of foresight” (a seer) who gives the
people a “look ahead”, of all things spiritual.
I am not Jewish (I am just a mix of
various European races), but Jesus was, and so were
all of the original 12 men called Apostles (later a
13th, with Matthias being chosen after Judas’ unfortunate
suicide, and then a 14th, with Paul (or Saul) joining
the pack, but I am getting ahead of myself…), so we
need to define the word “Apostle”, first in Jewish &
Hebrew terms, then in Greek terms (since the New Testament
was written in Greek.)
According to Walter Bauer's Greek-English
Lexicon of the NT: "...Judaism had an office known
as “apostle””. So this word is not a modern day word,
and is not a title “made up” by the Christian community
or church. “Apostle” is also derived from a Hebrew word
for a pharisaical college, or a loose English translation
of Apostle would be "friends”. Friends??? Interesting.
Ummm… there has gotta be a better translation…
OK, so I did some more research, so
let’s put some meat on the bones if you will. The Jewish
origins of the word (and title) “Apostle”, comes from
the word shaliah, (written in Greek in the New Testament
as apostolos, itself a derivative of the Greek verb
“apostello”) both meaning “to send”. The word shaliah
also carries with it certain “unwanted” or “serious”
connotations. It always means “someone who acts as a
representative in some legal matter”, e.g. conveying
a divorce-document on behalf of a principal.) Piecing
it together then, the word Apostle means “to send someone
who acts as a representative in some legal matter.”
Since the New Testament was written in Greek, a direct
translation of apostolos, into English can be written
as “Official Delegate”. It does not necessarily mean
then an: “emissary conveying a message”. (What??? All
those sermons were wrong???)
Before we explain that, you can see
that both of these words (“emissary” and “delegate”)
give great “power” and seriousness to their title, for
the original twelve (and later all disciples) were (as
we find written by Paul) “Ambassadors for Christ”. As
you know, (and backed up by various Scriptures) the
original Twelve were also: “emissaries sent out by the
earthly Jesus to convey a message of repentance in preparation
for the coming kingdom of God”.
Similarly, Paul claimed to have received
his commission from the heavenly Jesus, (a claim disputed
by some, then and now, as a delusion), (see 1. Cor.
9:1-2). Paul was therefore claiming a high status as
a recipient of divine appointment, i.e. a prophet, or
an emissary with a message to bring from God. But, the
word Apostle does not meant that!!!
Confused yet??? Yeah, I get that. So
really, if the word “Apostle”, does not mean “Emissary
or Prophet”, (a mere messenger) but means carry a more
“heady” meaning of “a Delegate, or Ambassador”, (being
the very representative of a head of government) why
is this word used by Jesus as a title for these men,
(Mark 3:13-14: “13Jesus went up on a mountainside and
called to him those he wanted, and they came to him.
14He appointed twelve—designating them apostles—that
they might be with him and that he might send them out
to preach…”)???
My personal opinion, is that the word
was used so that the Jewish Christians (originally)
might “take notice”, to see the “gravity of the situation”.
Who likes being given divorce papers, by a court appointee????
Well…no one!!! Yet, the apostles were meant to be the
very representative of “Yahweh”, or “I am”, or the “God
of Israel”, since they were given this title by his
Son, their Messiah, and this “Jesus of Nazareth”. And
after the resurrection of Jesus, they would represent
the Messiah, very “Son of God”. The Apostles then had
large shoes to fill, with lots of serious responsibility!!!
Also, another way to think of it, is Jesus was signaling
a serious transition to these Jews (and later Gentiles),
of a transition from God sending people as “mere messengers”,
(Prophets, in the Old Testament) to sending men as “legal
representatives” (Apostle, in the New Testament) of
God, with all the rights, privileges, responsibilities,
and duties of that office! Jesus wanted to get “a little
more serious” with these men, for these men to be seen
and heard by all people, both present and future.
The New Testament writer Matthew also
recorded Jesus as saying: ““Come, follow me," Jesus
said, "and I will make you fishers of men."
Matthew 4:19” So, in other words, instead of being “fishermen”
(more on this below), they were now sent out to “fish
for men” to recruit others for the cause of Jesus. This
was a significant change from the prophets of old, for
instead of men of God simply carrying a message, they
were sent to help change peoples lives, and to “serve
notice” that the Messiah had arrived.
In fact, to give you some perspective
on this, in the book of Corinthians, there seems to
be a “ranking” of the positions in God’s Church: “28And
in the church God has appointed first of all apostles,
second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles,
also those having gifts of healing, those able to help
others, those with gifts of administration, and those
speaking in different kinds of tongues. 1 Corinthians
12:28 NIV” Make sense??? God had now chosen at the time
of Jesus, to send out a “higher office” to complete
his work, and then the new Disciples, the Saints (you
and I), after the apostles were gone, would then continue
that work until Jesus’ return.
OK, so I still have not answered, “Who
were these guys?” Now that we have dealt with spiritual
side somewhat, I would like to explore the historical
people involved. I will use mostly the Bible to give
you a good sketch of the men involved, with only some
references outside of the Bible, and only if needed.
(I did a fair amount of research on this, only to say
in other words, “I stole a bunch of stuff”!!!)
So, let’s break it down, man by man.
According to the lists provided in each
of the Gospels (Mark 3:13-19, Matthew 10:1-4, Luke 6:12-16),
“the Twelve” chosen by Jesus near the beginning of his
ministry, were, according to the Gospel of Mark:
1. Simon, whom Jesus named Peter (also
known as Simon bar Jonah, Simon bar Jochanan (Aram.),
Cephas (Aram.), and Simon Peter), a fisherman from Bethsaida
"of Galilee" (John 1:44; cf. 12:21), was born
in Bethsaida (John 1:44), Peter's mother-in-law was
healed by Jesus at their home in Capernaum (Matthew
8:14–17; Mark 1:29–31; Luke 4:38) which, coupled with
1 Corinthians 9:5, implies that Peter was married. Before
he joined Jesus, Peter was a fisherman along with his
brother Andrew. The Gospel of John also depicts Peter
fishing after the resurrection in the story of the Catch
of 153 fish. In Luke's account Simon is the owner of
a boat that Jesus uses to preach to the multitudes who
were pressing on him at the shore of Lake Gennesaret
(Luke 5:3). Of special note: Peter is always mentioned
first in the lists of the Twelve. He is also frequently
mentioned in the Gospels as forming with James “the
Elder” and John a special group, or “inner circle” within
the Twelve Apostles, present at incidents to which the
others were not party, such as at the Transfiguration
of Jesus. Peter is also often depicted in the Gospels
as spokesman of all the apostles, and as one to whom
Jesus gave special authority. All four canonical gospels
recount that, during the Last Supper, Jesus foretold
that Peter would deny association with him three times
that same night. As is well documented in the Gospels,
during Jesus trial, he later did so. Peter delivered
a significant open-air sermon during Pentecost. Peter
took the lead in selecting a replacement for Judas Iscariot
(Acts 1:15). He was twice arraigned, with John, before
the Sanhedrin and directly defied them (Acts 4:7–22,
Acts 5:18–42). He undertook a missionary journey to
Lydda, Joppa and Caesarea (Acts 9:32–10:2), becoming
instrumental in the decision to evangelize the Gentiles
(Acts 10). He was present at the Council of Jerusalem,
where Paul further argued the case for accepting Gentiles
into the Christian community without circumcision. Verses
18-19 in the last chapter of the Gospel of John have
been interpreted as referring to Peter's martyrdom by
crucifixion, though without reference to its location.
Christian tradition also holds that Peter asked the
Roman authorities to be “hung upside down”, as he felt
unworthy to be crucified the same way as Jesus.
2. James, son of Zebedee and Salome and brother of John
the Evangelist. The Gospels state that James and John
were with their father by the seashore when Jesus called
them to begin traveling. According to Mark, James and
John were called Boanerges, or the "Sons of Thunder”.
The Acts of the Apostles 12:1-2 records that King Herod
had James executed by sword.
3. John the brother of James: Jesus named both of them
“Boanerges”, which means "sons of thunder".
Christian tradition identifies him with the authors
of several New Testament works, including the Gospel
of John. He is often considered as one of the “inner
circle” of Jesus, since these three (Peter, James and
John) were the only witnesses: of the raising of Jairus'
daughter (Mark 5:37), of the Transfiguration (Matthew
17:1) and of the Agony in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37).
John alone remained near Jesus at the foot of the cross
on Calvary with Jesus’ mother, Mary. Special Note: John
was allegedly (according to many historians etc.) banished
by the Roman authorities to the Greek island of Patmos,
where some believe that he wrote the Book of Revelation.
According to Tertullian (in The Prescription of Heretics)
John was banished (presumably to Patmos) after being
plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing
from it. It is said (although unverified) that the entire
coliseum were converted to Christianity upon witnessing
this miracle. He is said to have died from old age on
Patmos.
4. Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, a Bethsaida fisherman,
and a former disciple of John the Baptist. Andrew is
said to have been martyred by crucifixion at Patras
(Patrae) in Achaea. Tradition holds that Andrew had
been crucified on a cross of the form called Crux decussata
(X-shaped cross) and commonly known as "St. Andrew's
cross"; this was performed at his own request,
as he deemed himself unworthy to be crucified on the
same type of cross on which Christ was crucified. (Special
Note: About the middle of the tenth century, Andrew
became the patron saint of Scotland. The only reason
I say this, is due to the fact that since Nova Scotia
means” New Scotland”, and Nova Scotia’s flag (blue cross
on white back ground) is the reverse of the Flag of
Scotland (white cross on blue background),it is representing
Andrew’s cross!)
5. Philip from Bethsaida of Galilee (John 1:44, 12:21),
the same town as Peter and his brother Andrew. Of the
four Gospels, Philip figures most prominently in the
Gospel of John. His two most notable appearances in
the narrative are as a link to the Greek-speaking Jewish
community (Philip introduces members of this community
to Jesus); and during the Last Supper when he asked
Jesus to see the Father, providing Jesus the opportunity
to teach about the unity of the Father and the Son.
Philip is always listed fifth among the apostles (Matthew
10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14 and Acts 1:13). Christian
traditions describe Philip as the apostle who proselytized
in Greece, Syria, and Phrygia. He was said to have been
martyred by crucifixion in the city of Hierapolis.
6. Bartholomew, son of Talemai; it has been suggested
that he is the same person as Nathanael, who is mentioned
in John 1:45-1:51. Why? Well in the gospels, Philip
and Bartholomew are always mentioned together, while
Nathanael is never mentioned; in John's gospel, on the
other hand, Philip and Nathanael are similarly mentioned
together, but nothing is said of Bartholomew. Most Biblical
scholars reject this identification, however. (I just
put that in there, to “stir the pot”! C’mon people,
ya gotta think!!!) It is unknown how he died.
7. Matthew, the tax collector, also known as "Levi",
son of Alphaeus. The identity of “Matthew the Evangelist”
is complex for a number of reasons. The gospel to bear
the name "Matthew" was written anonymously,
with tradition ascribing authorship to Matthew at a
later date. Both the style of Greek used and the means
of describing events lead nearly all Biblical scholars
to conclude that the author of the gospel was not a
companion of the historic Jesus. Some scholars use the
designation "Matthew the Evangelist" to refer
to the anonymous gospel author, and "Matthew the
Apostle" to refer to the Biblical figure described.
Christian tradition holds that they are the same person.
In the gospels of Mark and Luke, as well as in the Acts
of the Apostles, Matthew is mentioned without any title,
identifier, descriptions, or actions. Virtually nothing
besides his apostleship can be determined from these
accounts, and he is not mentioned at all in the Gospel
of John or subsequent epistles. The Gospel of Matthew,
on the other hand, names Matthew as the tax collector
called by Jesus, whom the other gospels name "Levi".
This gospel subsequently gives Matthew the title "the
tax collector" in his list of the Twelve Apostles.
Christian tradition holds that Matthew and Levi were,
in fact, two names for the same person (in much the
same was that tradition posits a "Jude Thaddeus"
to reconcile the Jude of Luke and Acts with the Thaddeus
of Matthew and Mark.)
8. Thomas, also known as Judas Thomas Didymus - Aramaic
T'oma' = twin, and Greek Didymous = twin. There is more
we “don’t know” than we know about this man. So much
of what we do know from historians is really “mere speculation”
in my view, so I won’t mention any of that here. We
do know that he is the “Doubting Thomas”, from when
the resurrected Jesus presents himself and his best
known appearance in the New Testament, in John 20:24-29.
He doubts the resurrection of Jesus and demands to feel
Jesus' wounds before being convinced. After seeing Jesus
alive (the Bible never states whether Thomas actually
touched Jesus’ wounds or not), Thomas professed his
faith in Jesus, exclaiming "My Lord and my God!";
and from that point onward, he is also called Thomas
the Believer.
9. James the son of Alphaeus. He is generally identified
with James the Less, and is more commonly known by that
name in church tradition. James is rarely mentioned
in the Bible, other than being listed as an Apostle
in the Gospels. “James the Less” on the other hand,
is only mentioned three times, each time in connection
with his mother. Mark 15:40 refers to "Mary the
mother of James the younger and of Joses", while
Mark 16:1 and Matthew 27:56 refer to "Mary the
mother of James". His father’s name “Alphaeus”
is also the name of the father of Matthew the Evangelist
(also known as Levi) in Mark 2:14. So it is possible
that James and Matthew were brothers. But, there is
no Biblical account of the two being called brothers,
even in the same context where John and James or Peter
and Andrew are described as being brothers.
10. Thaddeus: The identity of this apostle, varies between
the Gospels and also between ancient manuscripts of
each gospel: Mark names him as Thaddaeus, different
manuscripts of Matthew identify him as either Thaddeus
or "Lebbaeus"; Luke names him as Judas, son
of James (translated in the KJV as: "Judas the
brother of James" Luke 6:16). It is presumed that
all these names refer to the same person. Some traditions
say that he was martyred in Persia and that his body
was placed in a crypt in (which is now known as) St.
Peter's Basilica. Other traditions say that he brought
Christianity to Armenia with Saint Bartholomew and that
he was martyred in Armenia. There is no independent
evidence for any of this.
11. Simon the Cananean, named in Luke and Acts as "Simon
the Zealot". To distinguish him from Simon Peter,
he is called Kananaios, or Kananites (Matthew 10:4;
Mark 3:18), and in the list of apostles in Luke 6:15,
repeated in Acts 1:13, Zelotes, the "Zealot".
Both titles derive from the Hebrew word qana, meaning
The Zealous. The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai, means
one who is zealous on behalf of God. Zealotry was a
movement in first century Judaism, one of the "four
sects" at this time. There were three main Jewish
sects at this time, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and
the Essenes. The Zealots were a "fourth sect",
founded by Judas of Galilee (also called Judas of Gamala)
and Zadok the Pharisee in the year 6 against Quirinius'
tax reform, (shortly after the Roman state declared
what had most recently been the territory of the tribe
of Judah a Roman Province), and that they agree in all
other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they had
an inviolable attachment to liberty, and said that God
is to be their only Ruler and Lord. The Zealots then
became a Jewish political movement in the 1st century
which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province
to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from
the country by force of arms during the Great Jewish
Revolt (CE 66-70). When the Romans introduced the imperial
cult, the Jews unsuccessfully rebelled. The Zealots
continued to oppose the Romans due to Rome's intolerance
of their culture and on the grounds that Israel belonged
only to a Jewish king, by descended from King David.
(Since the fact that Jesus was descended from King David,
was probably why Simon thought Jesus was the next “King
of Israel”, and why that title stuck, and so much so,
that Jesus was questioned about the idea by the Romans).
12. Judas Iscariot: Among the twelve, he was apparently
designated to keep account of the "money bag"
but he is mostly known for his role in Jesus' betrayal
into the hands of Roman authorities. The name Iscariot
may refer to the Judaean towns of Kerioth or to the
sicarii (Jewish nationalist insurrectionists, who were
a cadre of assassins among Jewish rebels intent on driving
the Romans out of Judea), or to Issachar. After he died
by suicide, (Matthew 27:3-8) he was replaced as an apostle
shortly after Jesus' resurrection by Matthias.
OK, but Dean, you mentioned 2 more Apostles????
2 more??? Well, yeah. As I just said, the remaining
11 apostles after both Judas’ and Jesus’ death, appointed
Matthias (the 13th Apostle), as the “replacement” to
Judas. (Acts 1:23-26). What do we know of him? Well,
nothing really. other than this reference in the Bible.
There is nothing in historical documents, or even a
decent rumor about this guy!
Lastly, we need to talk about Saul of
Tarsus, later called the Apostle Paul, the 14th Apostle.
According to Acts, Paul was born in Tarsus, Cilicia
in Asia Minor, or modern-day Turkey, under the name
Saul, "an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised
on the eighth day" (Philippians 3:5). Acts records
that Paul was a Roman citizen — a privilege he used
a number of times in his defense, appealing against
convictions in Judaea to Rome (Acts 22:25 and Acts 27–28).
According to Christian tradition, his parents lived
in Jish, Galilee. According to Acts 22:3, he studied
in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel, well known in
Paul's time. He described himself as a Pharisee (Philippians
3:5). He supported himself during his travels and while
preaching — a fact he alludes to a number of times (e.g.,
1 Cor. 9:13-15). According to Acts 18:3, he did so by
working as a tentmaker. He first appears in the pages
of the New Testament as a witness to the martyrdom of
Stephen (Acts 7:57-8:3). He was, as he described himself,
a persistent persecutor of the Church (1 Corinthians
15:9, Galatians 1:13), until his experience on the Road
to Damascus which resulted in his conversion to Christianity.
Since there is so much known on Paul,
my next Blog will be on Paul, and the many controversies
surrounding him!!! As they say in the entertainment
biz, “Stay tuned”!!!!
For the moment, I hope this was somehow
informative, and maybe even thought provoking!!!
Dean Hovey-Smith (deanhoveysmith@halifaxchurchofchrist.org).
***The main goal of this article is to heighten curiosity,
spark further study or discussion for those who want
to deepen their own convictions on this topic. In no
way are the points made or conclusions reached intended
to be representative of everyone in the Halifax Dartmouth
Church of Christ but rather those of the author himself.
Please use at your own leisure and discretion.***
|
|
|
|
Appalsamy
Media & Design