How old are the 12 Apostles?

[Arch Angel]

How old are the 12 Apostles and who wrote the books of the Gospels? When were the books written? These were questions that I as asked and I did not have detailed information to. I'm doing my own research at the moment but would love to hear your thoughts or to be pointed to specific links that could answer these questions. -Thanks!

[DavidFilmer]

Originally Posted by Arch Angel

How old are the 12 Apostles and who wrote the books of the Gospels?

Only one Gospel is generally regarded as having been written by an Apostle (namely, John). Mark and Luke were obviously gentiles, and most Biblical scholars do not believe that Matthew the Evangelist (Gospel-writer) was the same person as Matthew the Apostle.

John is the brother of James. When named, James is always first, implying he is the older brother. So John was probably younger than James.

John is often depicted as a very young man (maybe a teenager) in religious art, but there is no Biblical precedent for this.

[st lucy]

Originally Posted by Arch Angel

How old are the 12 Apostles and who wrote the books of the Gospels? When were the books written? These were questions that I as asked and I did not have detailed information to. I'm doing my own research at the moment but would love to hear your thoughts or to be pointed to specific links that could answer these questions. -Thanks!

Are you asking how old are the 12 apostles now or when Our Lord choose them?

I think most scholars say that they are around the same age as Our Lord for the execption of St John who was younger.

As for the the Gosples, most Bibles have an intro before each Gosple that might help you understand the authors a little better.

[LemonAndLime]

I'd say they were a couple thousand years old now.

[Randy Carson]

Originally Posted by Arch Angel

How old are the 12 Apostles

At present, they are slightly more than 2,000 years old.

who wrote the books of the Gospels?

It is generally believed that they were written by:

Matthew
Mark
Luke, and
John

When were the books written?

Here are a few dates:

Date of Authorship of the New Testament Books
(All Dates from www.newadvent.org)

47 James
48-49 1 Thessalonians
50-67 Mark
53-54 2 Thessalonians
53-58 Galatians
64-65 Jude
64-67 Matthew (per Irenaeus)
90-100 1 John, 2 John, 3, John
95 Revelation
96 John

[Barbkw]

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm (Intro to Matthew)

http://usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/intro.htm (Intro to Mark)

http://usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/intro.htm (Intro to Luke)

http://usccb.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm (Intro to John)

[Big Ro]

I'm no anthropologist, but I watch a lot of documentaries. Tee-hee. My limited understanding of the history of this region during the time of Christ tells me that people would not have lived much past their 40's in general. So, Christ would have been considered middle to elder aged to use modern terms. His Apostles were fisherman or other types of craftsmen with the exception of Matthew, who was a tax collector as I understand it. So, I've always perceived them as being probably younger than Christ, but certainly not older. My research tells me that all of the Gospels and the NT, I think, was written before 70 A.D. because the destruction of the Second Temple in Jeruselum is not mentioned at all. Christ prophesied the event and so scholars tend to think that if they knew about it at the time they were writing, they would have used it as powerful proof that Christ was divine. So, if we can assume that the Apostles were no more than ten years younger than Christ but no older, they would have been no older than about 60 and no younger than 30 or 40 years old whent he gospels were written. I don't think we can apply this logic to Luke however. He was not from Jeruselum. He was from Ephesus according to my research. I didn't get this from documentaries by the way. I also read quite a bit. So, as far as I know, we really don't have a good read on how old Luke might have been. Most schoalrship says that Luke was a physician. I would imagine that it would take time to acquire medical knowlwedge much like to day and he could have been a physician in to old age.

[Big Ro]

Originally Posted by Barbkw

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm (Intro to Matthew)

http://usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/intro.htm (Intro to Mark)

http://usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/intro.htm (Intro to Luke)

http://usccb.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm (Intro to John)

Thanks Barb. I was just reading the intor to John. It's the last Gospel so I have only just begun reading about it's history. It seems that the intro suggests that the order in which we find the Gospel was reached in the last decade of the first century, but isn't really clear about when it was actually written. I could almost interpret it as having been written prior to 70 a.D. but not put in to it's present form until the 90's. I would like to hear your your thoughts.

[Usagi]

Originally Posted by Big Ro

I'm no anthropologist, but I watch a lot of documentaries. Tee-hee. My limited understanding of the history of this region during the time of Christ tells me that people would not have lived much past their 40's in general.

Be careful not to confuse "average life expectancy" with the actual life span of the people at a given time. High rates of infant mortality can drag down the average life expectancy, meaning that people who actually survived the first few years of life could have lived quite a bit longer than the calculated average.

Lots of people died young (often very, very young) in earlier ages, but that doesn't mean that people in their 40s were considered elderly.

Usagi

[Erich]

Originally Posted by DavidFilmer

Only one Gospel is generally regarded as having been written by an Apostle (namely, John). Mark and Luke were obviously gentiles, and most Biblical scholars do not believe that Matthew the Evangelist (Gospel-writer) was the same person as Matthew the Apostle.

Sadly, this is what has been taught in high schools -- even in Catholic ones -- for at least the past 35 years, along with Markan priority (i.e. the theory that Mark's gospel was written first) and the (related) `Q source` theory (which attempts to explain why certain material is found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark). But these novel theories leave a lot to be desired.

For one thing, there is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that `Q` or its author ever existed. If `Q` had existed, it would have been the most precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. According to the Markans we owe the preservation of `The Our Father` and `The Beatitudes` to `Q`. Mark did not bother to record them. If `Q` had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been treasured, copied and passed from hand to hand and read at Services.

Instead, we are expected to believe that the community that produced `Q` later lost it, although it was so important that Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, made much use of it. Then the communities of Matthew and Luke also lost it. It is hard to believe that only two copies were made of `Q` and these just happened to be in the possession of the isolated communities in which Matthew and Luke lived and these communities lost them. If more copies were made for many communities, Markans have to explain how all these copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature?

I recommend The Authors of the Gospels, which lays out convincing proof that Matthew wrote his eyewitness account first, then Luke wrote his "orderly account", then Mark wrote his account which was published before Luke's (thus explaining the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John order we find in our Bibles), then John. For example:

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (c 150-215) was a pupil of Pantoris, the first great Christian teacher at Alexandria in Egypt. Clement records that he himself had travelled widely, meeting and listening to `truly notable men` from all over the Roman Empire ((EH 5, 11)). While Rome was the administrative heart of the Church, her intellectual centre was at Alexandria.
...
The next quotations are of particular importance with regard to the subject of this booklet. They are quoted by Eusebius from Clement`s books.

“So greatly then did the brightness of true religion light up the minds of Peter`s hearers that they were not satisfied to have a once-for-all hearing nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with appeals of every kind begged Mark, the follower of Peter, whose gospel we have, to leave them too a memorial in writing of the teaching given them by word of mouth. Nor did they cease until they had persuaded the man, and in this way became the cause of the written gospel according to Mark. And it is said that the Apostle, when the fact became known to him through the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved [or ratified] the writing for use in the churches.

Clement relates the anecdote in the sixth book of: `The Outlines` [Hypotyposes], and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, also bears witness to it and to Peter mentioning Mark in his earlier letter. Indeed they say that he composed it at Rome itself, and that he indicates this when referring figuratively to the city as Babylon in these words: `The elect [the church] that is in Babylon greets you and so does my son Mark` ((EH 2. 15, 1-2 and RO 166)).

`And again in the same books, Clement states a tradition of the very earliest presbyters about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. He used to say that the first written of the gospels were those having the genealogies. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. While Peter was publicly preaching the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, the audience, which was numerous, begged Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, to write down the things he had said.

And he did so, handing over the Gospel to those who had asked for it. And when Peter got to know about it, he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it … But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel`. ((EH 6:14, 5-7 and RO 166r)).

In this last paragraph above, Clement of Alexandria clearly sets down which two gospels were the first to be written - Matthew and Luke. He is the only early historian to specifically write concerning the chronology of the Gospels. He said he was quoting the very earliest presbyters [note in the plural]. Other writers did not dispute his evidence.

[Erich]

Originally Posted by Randy Carson

Here are a few dates:

Date of Authorship of the New Testament Books
(All Dates from www.newadvent.org)

47 James
48-49 1 Thessalonians
50-67 Mark
53-54 2 Thessalonians
53-58 Galatians
64-65 Jude
64-67 Matthew (per Irenaeus)
90-100 1 John, 2 John, 3, John
95 Revelation
96 John

From newadvent.org

Ancient ecclesiastical writers are at variance as to the date of the composition of the First Gospel. Eusebius (in his Chronicle), Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus are of opinion that the Gospel of Matthew was written eight years, and Nicephorus Callistus fifteen years, after Christ's Ascension--i.e. about A.D. 38-45.

New Testament scholar Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew to sometime before the end of the first century (and as early as 60), based on a comparison of the style of its script with papyrus scrolls from Qumran, Pompeii, and Herculaneum (which, of course, are datable before 70 or 79). Matthew D'Ancona says the following in the book he co-wrote with Thiede, Eyewitness to Christ:

"...Yet Thiede...argued that they [i.e. the Magdalen papyrus fragments] were of astonishingly early origin, dating from the mid-first century A.D..."

This review of that book even describes how Thiede arrived at that date:

"...Thiede reexamined the fragments, using state-of-the-art electronic scanners with close analysis of the paper, ink, letter formation, line length, and other factors to redate the fragments to around A.D. 60. Thiede's tests and skill appear to be well within responsible papyrology, although his conclusions have met with strong opposition from critics..."

Needless to say, Thiede's conclusions "have met with strong opposition from critics" precisely because of their implications for the dating of Mark (and for Markan priority)!

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Arch Angel

How old are the 12 Apostles and who wrote the books of the Gospels? When were the books written? These were questions that I as asked and I did not have detailed information to. I'm doing my own research at the moment but would love to hear your thoughts or to be pointed to specific links that could answer these questions. -Thanks!

We don't exactly know how old they were. One theory has it that aside from Peter, all the other apostles were apparently young men, citing the fact that apparently, only Jesus and Peter paid the Temple tax in Matthew 17:24-27, which - it is said - only those 20 and older are obligated to pay. A little weak IMHO, but interesting nevertheless.

Who wrote the Gospels? We can't know just by inferring from the text since the authors never give their names in the text itself. However, tradition claims that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. For the record, the fact that they never give their names is interesting: it is as if they wanted to eliminate interest in who wrote the story and to focus the reader on the subject. The claim of an anonymous history is higher than that of a named work. In the ancient world, an anonymous book, rather like an encyclopedia article today, implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. It would have lessened the impact of the Gospels if say, they wrote, "I, Matthew wrote this, my personal version of Jesus' life" instead of just "this is what Jesus said."

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Erich

Sadly, this is what has been taught in high schools -- even in Catholic ones -- for at least the past 35 years, along with Markan priority (i.e. the theory that Mark's gospel was written first) and the (related) `Q source` theory (which attempts to explain why certain material is found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark). But these novel theories leave a lot to be desired.

First of all, let me point this out.

In the minds of many folks, Markan priority and the Two-source Hypothesis seem to be intertwined with each other, but this is actually not the case. As Mark Goodacre points out, the problem with many introductions to the Synoptic Problem is that very often people go straight to the solutions instead of the actual problems themselves and then refract all the data through their preferred solution (which is very often the Two-source Hypothesis). Which is not too good: you must first consider the problem itself, and only then choose the solution which best solves the problem in your opinion.

What I'm going to post is a rather blatant ripoff of Prof. Goodacre, so apologies in advance.

First of all, what is the term Synoptic? It is derived from the Greek words σύν (syn "together") and ὄψις (opsis "view"). The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes exactly the same wording (much more evident if you read the original Greek). This degree of parallelism in content, narrative arrangement, language, and sentence structures can, it is said, only be accounted for by literary interdependence between the three authors.

We will now describe the data, grouping them into five types:

Triple Tradition: Material shared by all three Gospels. It largely consists of narrative material (miracles, healings, and a huge chunk of the passion narratives) but also contains some sayings material. One of its characteristics is that it seems to have a lot to do with Mark, i.e. Mark is the mediating factor or the 'middle-term'. In other words, where you get the Synoptics agreeing together, usually the agreements are between Matthew and Mark, or between Luke and Mark, or between all three. Taken altogether, they comprise the majority. Compared to this, agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are far fewer in this material.

The agreement is not just in the wording, but also often in the order. Where Matthew and Luke apparently depart from Mark's order, they don't keep up usually long; very often they revert into agreeing with Mark, and they very rarely depart from Mark together.

Double Tradition: Material shared by Matthew and Luke but not by Mark, comprising about 200 verses. Not as large as triple tradition, but still substantial to some extent. Its content is mainly sayings material (i.e. the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes) but includes some narratives such as the centurion's servant and the testing/temptation in the desert as well. The interesting thing about this material is that you don't have much of it in a closely parallel order; there is some kind of parallel order, but not the same one you get with triple tradition.

Special Matthew (M): Material found only in Matthew. Like double tradition, much of it is sayings material (for instance, the parables in Matthew 25:1-13 and 25:31-46), with a few exceptions (i.e. the Temple tax in Matthew 17:24-27). Some of it can also be found embedded within triple tradition material (for example, Judas' death and Pilate's wife in Matthew 27).

Special Luke (L): Material found only in Luke. You have narrative material like the announcement to Zechariah (and John the Baptist's actual birth), the Annunciation and Visitation, the boy Jesus in the Temple and the Road to Emmaus, and also sayings like the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.

Special Mark: Material found only in Mark. Compared to Matthew and Luke, there is not much 'special Mark' material. A few examples we can give here are: Jesus healing a deaf and mute man using His spittle and fingers (7:31-37), Jesus having two attempts at healing a blind man (8:22-25), and the young man "clothed with a linen cloth over his naked body" in Gethsemane (14:51-52).

But here, we should mentioned that just about every category has some kind of difficulty. Everytime you think you've grasped all the key data, you'll suddenly find that there is something else. Still, it is important to have an understanding of some of the key pieces of data before one moves on to the complications.

Also, it is important to see Mark as the man in the middle here, as we've mentioned, noting triple tradition and the extent how Mark mediates between Matthew and Luke as the common denominator.

[patrick457]

Many scholars and students of the New Testament labour under the misapprehension that the theory of Markan priority necessitates believing in the existence of Q, but this is a fallacy.

First of all, the Two-Source hypothesis holds that Matthew and Luke used Mark independently of one another, which makes Q a necessity. It is the means of explaining the existence of double tradition material. However, the independence of Matthew and Luke is not a necessary element in the theory of Marcan Priority. The so-called Farrer Hypothesis - which posits that Mark wrote first, then Matthew, then Luke, who used both Gospels - proposed by Austin Farrer (1904-1968), who wrote On Dispensing With Q in 1955, strongly affirms the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke, but adding that Luke also knew Matthew. We must also add that some scholars are ignorant of the Farrer theory and this generates the mistaken impression that belief in Q is a key element in affirming Markan priority.

In certain parts of the world, this impression is reinforced by the Griesbach-Farmer (aka Two-Gospel) Hypothesis, which combines rejection of Q with rejection also of Markan priority in favor of Matthean priority. In places where Griesbach is the best known alternative to the dominant paradigm (e.g. in America), it is not surprising that some scholars assume that Q and Markan Priority are inextricably linked.

As for me, I'm personally divided between Matthean priority as represented by the hypothesis formulated by people like Johann Jakob Griesbach and William Farmer and Markan priority as represented by Farrer's theory, though admittedly, I'm recently leaning towards the latter.

[Arch Angel]

WOW thanks for the replies everyone! I realized after I clicked "post" that I would get a few comical remarks as to the age of the apostles "now" haha! There's a LOT for me to read now so thanks again everyone, its a big help, God bless!