Were Matthew and John disciples of Jesus?

Answer 1

When you say Jesus' disciple (not the original 12 apostles), do you mean did they walked with Jesus? Mark is a relative (nephew ?) of Barnabas. Remember him? The one who was not chosen to replace Judas by the drawing of the lot[tery]. Matthew was chosen instead. So Mark very much probably walked with Jesus. Luke was Paul's (of Tarsus) Physician, travelling companion, and biographer. And since Paul never met Jesus personally, then Luke probably did not walk with Jesus either.

As a disciple is really a 'follower of the doctrines of a teacher or school of thought' then, in that sense, both Mark and Luke were disciples.

This may or may not have included walking with Jesus and then, by implication, personally witnessing his teaching and miracles and talking directly with him. Both show detailed knowledge which suggests close association. I would certainly be inclined to agree with the above conclusion that Mark 'very much probably walked with Jesus.' There is also evidence that there was a larger group of followers with Jesus than just the inner twelve disciples such as when he sent out the seventy to preach. see Luke 10 v 1. Both Mark and Luke could have been among these.

In the prologue to his Gospel Luke claims in verse 3 to '... having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first..' This is certainly much more than just what was told him by Paul. Luke in his Gospel account records a number of things which are nowhere else. One example is the extra details of Jesus early life. Another is the specific mention of the taxing when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria, (see Luke 2 v 2) which he uses (as was the custom of historians of his day) to anchor the events being recorded in the passage as being at a particular time as opposed to when Cyrenius was Governor ten years later.

Such detailed knowledge as displayed by Luke was probably not obtained only through careful historical inquiry but through first hand knowledge.

Mark's Gospel, while vastly different in literary style, displays (especially when read altogether) a sense of fast moving and busy action. Such a sense would be lost to anyone writing from a distance of either space or time.

No. Neither were named among the lists of Jesus' disciples. Other aspects of their association are discussed above. On; "Such detailed knowledge as displayed by Luke was probably not obtained only through careful historical inquiry but through first hand knowledge." I quote; "The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who is believed to be the person addressed, flourished in the latter half of the second century. Dr. Schleiermacher, one of Germany's greatest theologians, after a critical analysis of Luke, concludes that it is merely a compilation, made up of thirty-three preexisting manuscripts. Bishop Thirlwall's Schleiermacher says: "He [Luke] is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence" (p. 313). The basis of this Gospel is generally believed to be the Gospel of Marcion, a Pauline compilation, made about the middle of the second century. Concerning this Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says: "The arrangement is so similar that we are forced to the conclusion that it was either used by St. Luke or that it was his original composition. If he used it then his right to the title of author of the Third Gospel falls to the ground, as what he added was of small amount." On: Mark's Gospel, "Mark, according to Renan, is the oldest of the Gospels; but Mark, according to Strauss, was written after the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written. He says: "It is evidently a compilation, whether made from memory or otherwise, from the first and third Gospels" (Leben Jesu, p. 5I). Judge Waite, in his History of Christianity, says that all but twenty-four verses of this Gospel have their parallels in Matthew and Luke. Davidson declares it to be an anonymous work "The author," he says, "is unknown." Omitting the last twelve verses of Mark, which all Christian critics pronounce spurious, the book contains no mention of the two great miracles which mark the limits of Christ's earthly career, his miraculous birth and his ascension. Concerning the first three Gospels, the Encyclopedia Britannica says: "It is certain that the Synoptic Gospels took their present form only by degrees." Of these books Dr. Westcott says: "Their substance is evidently much older than their form." Professor Robertson Smith pronounces them "unapostolic digests of the second century." Researched by: Itchie.C2

According to the lists of disciples given in the Gospels, neither Mark or Luke is listed.

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; 14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

See also John 1 v 40 - 49

Thus, whatever position one takes on the inspiration of The Bible etc there is complete agreement that neither were disciples, even though the reasons are quite different.

== ==

Answer 2

A:The term 'apostle' means messenger, and according to the broader interpretation of this, Luke and Mark, both companions of Paul, were both messengers in the apostolic era, and therefore apostles. On the other hand, many do interpret the term more narrowly to exclude most of the early Christian messengers except the twelve disciples and Paul. Either way, Luke and Mark did not write the New Testament gospels, as they were anonymous until attributed to Luke and Mark later in the second century. Modern scholars say that Mark and Luke did not really write these gospels, so no matter how we define the term, the authors known as Mark and Luke were certainly not apostles.

Answer 3

It is unlikely that either Mark or Luke ever knew Jesus personally.

Traditionally Mark's gospel is thought to have been written by John Mark, a companion of Paul although, if this is so, it is likely that John Mark was also one of the outer circle of believers that were with Jesus, and the ''young man' who escaped the guards by running away naked at the arrest of Jesus. However, this is mere speculation, as is the theory that Mark was the scribe used by Peter to write down Peter's memoirs - most of which became Mark's gospel. So, for Mark's gospel, we cannot be certain who wrote it.

Luke, however, is different. It uses a different style of Greek, and nuances within the Geek and the subject matter (eg healing and forgiveness) strongly suggest that it was written by Luke, the 'beloved physician' friend of Paul. Add to this the biographical details where Luke writes himself into the story at pertinent moments in his second book 'The Acts of the Apostles' and a firm pointer to Luke having written both his gospel and Acts can be seen. If this is the case, and Luke, the companion and friend of Paul, wrote the gospel attributed to him, it is very unlikely that he would have known Jesus personally, but would have gleaned his information from Paul, Peter, some other disciples, and some even suggest Mary the mother of Jesus.

Answer 4

No

Mark was not one of the 12 disciples. The book attributed to Mark in the Bible may well have been written by John Mark, but this is not certain.

John Mark was a companion of Paul during his missionary journeys and a follower of Christ, but not one of the 12 disciples. Some scholars regard Mark as one of the 'outer circle' of followers of Jesus (one of the '72') from verses in his gospel which suggest that he was an eyewitness, but not one of the 12.

Answer 5

According to the gospels, Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus, but according to scholars they did not write the gospels that now bear their names. The New Testament gospels were originally anonymous and were only attributed by the Church Fathers to the apostles whose names they now bear, later in the second century. Thus we do not really know who wrote the gospels.

Scholars say that none of the gospels could really have been written by eyewitnesses to the events they portray, which would certainly rule out authorship by the disciples. Moreover, scholars have demonstrated that Matthew's Gospel was based on Mark's Gospel, containing some 600 of the 666 verses in Mark, often using exactly the same words in the Greek language. Luke's Gospel was similarly based on Mark, and John's Gospel was loosely based on Luke, with some material taken direct from Mark. Since the disciples would never have had to rely on an outside source, this is further evidence that they did not write the gospels that now bear their names.

Answer 6

No - Mark and Luke are said to have been companions of the Apostle Paul, but there is nothing to suggest they ever knew Jesus.

If this question concerns the authorship of the gospels that bear the names Mark and Luke, modern scholars say that they were not really the authors of the gospels that later became attributed to them. The gospels were all originally anonymous but the second-century Church Fathers sought to identify who, in their view, probably wrote each of the gospel accounts. For various reasons, they decided that Mark and Luke could have written two of the gospels. Mark's Gospel was written approximately 70 CE and Luke's Gospel around the turn of the century, so whoever the real authors were, they very likely were not even born in the time of Jesus.

Answer 7

The Mark and Luke mentioned briefly in Paul's epistles were not among the disciples mentioned in the gospels. They were also not the authors of the gospels that now bear their names, because all the New Testament gospels were originally anonymous.

Because of tradition, we usually use the names Mark and Luke for the two gospel authors, but these evangelists could not have known Jesus personally, if only because the Gospels are dated too late for someone of Jesus' generation: Matthew in the eighties and Luke around the end of the first century CE.

Answer 8

Yes disciple basicaly means follower are student of, all christians, even today , are disciples

Answer 9

Only in the sense that all true followers of Jesus are disciples. Luke was not among the original 12 and it is possible he never personally met or saw Jesus.