Talk:Seventy disciples

Apostles?

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

How is this? with quotes from Luke and an explanation of the conventional term for these emmissaries, which is apostles. If our anonymous complainant is satisfied, removing the tag would be a courtesy. --Wetman 21:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You should make it clear that the Bible doesn't call them apostles. They are called the 70 or 72. I'll do an edit, see what you think.

Anyone know which Christian sects consider the 70 to be apostles? I know the Orthodox do. Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? I assume the Roman Catholic Church does not. Any Protestants?

Just Google: Catholic Encyclopedia Seventy-two disciples ...You might find sites to add to the very slender External links at this article. --Wetman 21:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't find an entry for the Seventy in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I assume it's one of many points of contention between the Roman Church and Orthodox Christianity.

clarification of Greek of Luke 10:1-20: The noun apostolos or apostoloi is not found in the passage. What is found is apesteilen (sent them out) in Luke 10:1 and apostello (send you out) in Luke 10:3. The conclusion is that they are not literally called Apostles (which is why you won't find English translations that call them Apostles) however it would be logical for a Greek reader to conclude that those who are sent out (apostello the verb) are emissaries (apostolos the noun) much as it would be logical for an English reader to conclude that those sent out on a mission are probably missionaries.

...just as it would be equally logical for an educated English reader with a general sense of the Greek intent.... the conclusion being drawn is that such normal logic mustn't be applied when reading the Gospel of Luke'? I presume that the urgent subtext of these contortions is that "apostles" may only refer to the Twelve. So, okay. (So many agendas, so little time...) --Wetman 08:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it's just an attempt to be neutral and to get the facts correct. Luke 10:1-20 does not literally call the Seventy by the term apostle, however it does use the verb form (it gives them the action that apostles would have, which implies they are apostles, however implication and fact are not indentical) and it certainly speaks of them as though they are apostles.

for reference here's the greek: http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/cgi-bin/gnt?id=0310

and here's the transliterated greek (easier to post in English): http://bibledbdata.org/onlinebibles/greek_translit/42_010.htm 10:1 meta de tauta anedeixen o kurios tsb=kai eterous ebdomêkonta a=[duo] kai apesteilen autous ana duo a=[duo] pro prosôpou autou eis pasan polin kai topon ou a=êmellen tsb=emellen autos erchesthai 10:2 elegen a=de tsb=oun pros autous o men therismos polus oi de ergatai oligoi deêthête oun tou kuriou tou therismou opôs b=ekbalê ts=ekballê ergatas a=ekbalê eis ton therismon autou 10:3 upagete idou tsb=egô apostellô umas ôs arnas en mesô lukôn

Just in case ASDamick mindlessly reverts again

This is what ASDamick is reverting to:

The Gospel of Luke is alone among the synoptic gospels in containing two episodes in which Jesus sends out his followers on a mission. This first occasion (Luke 10:1-6) is closely based on the mission in Mark 6:6b-13 which, however, recounts the sending out of the Twelve Apostles, though with similar details. The parallels suggest a common origin in the posited Q document.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Bible would know this is incorrect. Here is the correct version:

The Gospel of Luke is alone among the synoptic gospels in containing two episodes in which Jesus sends out his followers on a mission. The first occasion (Luke 9:1-6) is closely based on the mission in Mark 6:6b-13, which however recounts the sending out of the Twelve Apostles, rather than seventy, though with similar details. The parallels (also Matthew 9:35,10:1,7-11), suggest a common origin in the posited Q document. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.169.4.36 (talk • contribs) .

Mark the Evangelist vs. John Mark

The Mark the Evangelist article says John Mark is the same person, however both names are on the list of 70. What is the source for this list anyway?--Andrew c 22:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Apostates

The article contains the following passage:

Some of the original seventy sent by Jesus later apostasized. Thus, some of the names on the above list were not actually in the original seventy, but are considered part of the group anyway as "replacements", similarly to Matthias's replacement of Judas Iscariot in the Twelve Apostles. The following are those who fell away from mainline Christianity:

• Nicolas of Samaria, one of the Seven Deacons
• Phygellus of Ephesus
• Hermogenes of Magara
• Demas

I remove this until someone has given a reference for this information. Simple bible verses saying that Demas, Hermogenes or Phygelus have left Paul is not enough for that". In the case of Nicolas the issue is much more complicated. He is mentioned (in Eusebius, if I am not mistaken) as the eponym for the Nicolatians (mentioned in Rev 2) but the same passage tells us that he didn't apostasize or found the group but that a utterance of him was taken up by that group.

Maybe a possibility would be to include the Bible reference into the list. Having now reviewed the list, I see that none of the four is actually contained in the list. Another error is having Nicolas hail from Samaria when he's from Antioch (Act 6,5).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My Edits

I have sorted the information given about the commission of the 70 so that the text clearly distinguishes:

• Jesus' orders about their behaviour
• their actual mission (healing and preaching)
• the powers granted to them (which they actually find out only later, so maybe we needn't include this here)
• the consequences of their rejection (which wasn't part of their preaching, as the former version implied)

I have removed the bit about their names being written in heaven. Jesus actually never said that but that they should rejoice at that (which need not be a guarantee nor something special for them) instead of their new found powers. If the Eastern Orthodox Churches place special importance on this we should state this in another manner.

What about the passage beginning "Most commonly named are"? I assume that this is supposed to mean, other names commonly included are. Their replacing others refers to the first list given, so I think it better to move them up to a place prior to the book of the Bee.

One last question, more out of curiosity: The 70 are specifically told to eat any food. Is there any (Eastern Orthodox) tradition that this indicates that the 70 were send to gentiles (that were barred, according to Matthew, from the mission of the 12)? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use

Given that there are public domain translations of the Bible, I don't see a twenty verse quotation from the New American Bible which is still under copyright as satisfying the fair use policy. The article needs to use a free use (pre-1923) translation for the quote since it is available. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your substitution will be accepted with great pleasure. --Wetman 05:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not everyone's taste, but I chose to use Young's Literal Translation, tho any PD translation is acceptable as far as I am concerned. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

John Mark and Matthias

Dear LarryWKelly (in particular), you crossed out John Mark from the list and added a note about this being a duplication and the instruction "replace with Matthias".

• For one, do not simply cross out names from a list. Where's your reference for that? If you got a list mentioning Matthias instead of John Mark, the solution is not to cross JM out but simply to replace him with Matthias. If you don't, it is inadmissable Original Research.
• I agree that John Mark is a duplication of Mark the Evangelist. However, the traditional list can be wrong by committing such errors. Some lists also include a Cephas, who is actually none other than Saint Peter (definitely not one of the 70).
• Who says that the replacement is Matthias? I am asking for your reference for that and that was what the fact tag was about, not about the trivial fact that Matthias later was elected one of the Twelve.

Therefore I removed your reference and restored the fact tag. If you do not provide it in time, the article will be reverted to the version unambiguously including John Mark. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC.)

Note from LarryWKelly the three basic sources were from Apostles.com (http://www.apostles.com/stmatthias.html) ,from newadvent.org (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10066a.htm), and from ewtn.com (http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/MATTHIAS.HTM).

I cross out John Mark to get a discussion started and to get concurance, before a formal replacement. All those three references cited St. Matthias as one of the 72 Disciples or a one of two to the Disciples from which Lots were chosen to replace Judas Iscariot, and elevate him as an Apostle (Acts 1: 21-26). User:LarryWKelly User talk:LarryWKelly

I am afraid none of these links say anything about (John) Mark at all. I am separating the issues accordingly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Archeological Find

Sorry Roy Brumback, I don't think there is enough evidence for the archeological find. Granted it was printed in the Daily Mail.

(cur) (last) 00:15, 11 June 2008 Roy Brumback (Talk | contribs) (14,436 bytes) (Add archeological find of their possible church.) (undo)

I agree. Plus there's a plethora of news stories that call the claims made to be 'hogwash' and 'a load of hoo-ey':

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080613-old-church.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365626,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/archaeology

I recommend this dogend be removed from the article. Frunobulax (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Placed a Refimprove tag a top of article

I added a Refimprove tag because this article is poorly referenced.Jason3777 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Added WP:OR Tag to the Analysis Section

Added the tag because it is undocumented and appears to be WP:OR. Jason3777 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we believe this?

Can we believe that these are the names of the seventy disciples sent out by Jesus Christ as mentioned in the Bible (Luke 10: 1, 17)? As far as I know, no one during Jesus time recorded these names.

This article is a list of persons with whom Paul came in contact during his missionary work and are recorded in his writings, Paul was not even one among the seventy because he was converted only after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

What happened to the other disciples of Jesus Christ whose names are given in Matthew (10:3-4), Mark (3:16-19), Luke (6:14-17) and John (1:40, 21:2). None of them tried to record their achievements. Even Paul mentioned these names only casually in his letters.

I have my doubts whether some of these people were born after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and many of them have not even heard of Jesus Christ before they met Paul.

Who is this Quadratus (No.60)? Is this name in the New Testament?

This article is a fine example of creating an article without any study or research. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Change to The Record of Hippolytus

I cut out a sentence and a half which seemed to be POV pushing original research. I'll paste the fragment here in case someone wants to reincorporate it. "It would not be surprising if he had some insider information to pass on to later generations. Unfortunately because he was the first antipope, and that he wrote in Greek rather than Latin, his works were shunned, neglected and lost to the West,". IrishStephen (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Q Document Reference

The article indicates the following: "The parallels (also Matthew 9:35, 10:1, 10:5–42), suggest a common origin in the posited Q document." The current writing suggests it is a fact that the parallels suggest the pre-existance of a Q document. To some the paralells may suggest such, but to other it may not at all suggest such. It is opinion. As such, I suggest that the word MAY be insterted to read, "... may suggest a common origin..." Tesseract501 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 06:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Seventy Disciples → Seventy disciples — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC) While "seventy disciples", "seventy apostles", and "the seventy" may be capitalized in many sources, Wikipedia policy avoids capitalization and specifically mentions religious ideas. I think the proper handling of these terms within the article would be to italicize them on their first use and then use them in plain, lower case text thereafter. Jojalozzo 14:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Layout

Setting out a series of lists of by and large the same people, with little indication of their sources, is quite unsuitable. A completely different organisation of the article would be much better and would enable much of the repetition to be avoided. Deipnosophista (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been doing a brief Google search -- which led me here -- & what information that is out there is either incomplete or badly organized. Even worse than this article. (Sigh.) The best I can figure out is that this list may have originated with Dorotheus of Tyre (mentor of Eusebius of Caesarea), or it was written anonymously & later attributed to him or Hippolytus, the 3rd-century anti-Pope & writer. If it is not the work of Dorotheus (who died in 362), then it was a creation of the later 4th century. In any case, it appears to be a late work full of speculation & fiction, & where earlier traditions exist about individuals listed in it this list often contradicts them. (Yeah, I'm probably insulting folks of Orthodox Christian faith by writing that, but that's my honest impression.) It would be good if someone did some serious research into the history of this document--Luke only mentions there were 70 disciples, & does not name any of them--& give us more than this well-intentioned, but unsatisfactory--article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just one list please

Can't we simply have a chapter "Eastern Orthodox view" that contains a list of 70/72 people that are recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church, with a brief explanation of how this church has decided on this list. And then remove all the other lists from the article. Is someone knowledgeable enough about Eastern Orthodox tradition to do that? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox Church is famous for not being dogmatic like the West, there are several lists, and that's not a big deal, no need to censor down to one list. 75.0.1.243 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Aquila

The article on Priscilla and Aquila says Aquila is traditionally listed among the Seventy Disciples but he is not mentioned here. 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:28E2:8393:5DB1:FD78 (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)