Are there any instances of politics or pissing contests between the 12 apostles? I can’t imagine having 12 people (of any sex) in a group and not have some sort of pecking order develop.
I’d have thought Jesus would have been the alpha male. Wasn’t John supposed to be favourite?
John: “the one whom Jesus loved”
Peter: upon this rock I shall build my church"
Judas: why did he do it?
Making all the necessary assumptions - that any of these people actually existed, that these 12 people actually existed, that they had the roles assigned to them, that any of the incidents took place, that any of the words were spoken, etc - the bible, as with all religious texts, is written to be propaganda. It is explicitly not designed to be a real life record. Any interaction among the apostles would be carefully sanitized for public consumption, unless a particular moral point could be made otherwise.
Spoken with aplomb and verve.
How about a cite?
There were disputes. And they were recorded.
Among the 12, there was one dispute where they bickered among themselves who was [to be] the greatest. (Jesus addressed this with them)
Later Paul, (not among the 12) chastised Peter publicly.
There are other instances where Paul et al, had disputes with other believers, some of which were removed from the congregation.
Pissing matches?
Yes.
cites upon request
There’s a definite “Jesus loved me* best!” subtext running through the book of John.
-FrL-
*John
Why absolutely: The New Testament (by multiple authors)
I really don’t get some of this “cite” eagerness when what is posted is essentially a summary capsulization of the obvious…would it make the post more robust somehow if there were a written version somewhere else?
Since this is a factual forum, the Bible is a proper noun, much like the Qur’an. And speaking of propaganda, I believe your loaded phrases such as “carefully sanitized” and sweeping generalizations such as “any interaction” are themselves definitively propaganda because they reflect your views and bias on the topic.
To address the OP, Peter was the apostle with the most bravado, swearing that he would never betray Jesus, being the first to call Him the Son of God, and being a general hardass when they met and he was concerned about his finishing his fishing. It is also the case that Jesus assigned Peter a leadership role at least twice: as a shepherd, and as the foundation for His church (which was when his name was changed from Simon to Peter, meaning “rock”.)
Perhaps the poster wanted something more specific. The New Testament has a of text in it.
Literarily speaking, Raindog is right, the New Testament contains several instances of disagreements and implied disputes as to pecking order and authority among the Apostles.
From a strictly critical historical perspective. there isn’t much – if anything – that we can know for sure about them.
Peter, James [bar Zebedee, not bar Alphaeus], and John seem to have been a sort of ‘inner circle’ within the Twelve. There are several instances – the Transfiguration comes quickly to mind – where He’s hanging out with these three in particular, as opposed to the larger group. Peter of course assumed leadership of the Eleven after Jesus’s departure. James, of course, got offed early (Acts 12:2); the James who shows up after that and writes an Epistle is “the brother of the Lord.”
Lotsa dispute about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and what the inference to be drawn is, but there are several parallels where one or more of the Synoptic Gospels as John in the place where the Gospel according to John has “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” So general consensus is that it’s John bar Zebedee.
Peter is regarded as the first pope, so a Roman Catholic would say that he got the alpha-male spot after Jesus left.
There is evidence, both from the NT and elsewhere (Josephus) that James, the brother of Jesus, was the alpha male, so to speak, taking over the movement after the death of his sibling. I also recall reading a source (Eusebius, possibly) in which a deputation of Christians appeared before the emperor Hadrian, led by Simon, another relative of Jesus, evidence perhaps that a Christian calpihate (succession through relationship to the founder) might well have taken root had not the Christian center of gravity shifted after the fall of Jerusalem to Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, etc, all places where Pauline Christianity held sway.
I did know about Peter being considered first pope, and John being considered closer to Jesus. I was really looking for something maybe in the acts of the apostles or letters to the corinthians that would belie internal squabbling or political maneuvering after Jesus had ascended.
**aldiboronti ** came closest to the kind of information I was looking for. Thank you all very much.
Gibbon records an incident of this sort, but it’s during the time of Domitian, and didn’t involve the Emperor personally:
Part of your confusion is a failure to differentiate between a cite (a quote from a respected source, or a link to a specific passage in said source) and a source (an author or publication from which information is effected).
In this particular case, your supposition is about the New Testament and therefore the New Testament can’t be the source of your supposition, unless it’s original research in which case it’s useful to point out which particular passages you are using as evidence.