Covering all topics of history and the interpretation of texts, posts here should conform to the norms of academic discussion: respectful and with a tight focus on the subject matter.
I can't help feeling that if say 8 out of the surviving 11 had been associated with Jesus from the time of Jesus' baptism by John then this language would have been appropriate. IMHO it does not imply that all of the 11 had associations with John.
Andrew Criddle
Surely it would include at least Peter, though, right? He is the one speaking.
See my addition to my earlier post. We may have been at cross purposes, sorry.
Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:52 amEDITED TO ADD
I may have misunderstood your claim. If your argument is that in the earliest form of the tradition none of the apostles go back to the time of John's ministry then my comment is beside the point.
My point is about the chronology. Mark's asserts that the first disciples (including Peter) were called only after John's imprisonment, John's that the first disciples (including Peter) were called well before. Acts, however, seems to presume John's chronology (especially in Peter's case, since he is speaking), not Mark's.
