The Apostle
Martyrdoms
By Abdullah Smith
How do we know the apostles were martyred? The New Testament does not
tell us how the apostles died. The Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea records that the
apostles were martyred in different parts of the world, these early Church traditions are
based on legends. Scholars acknowledge that Eusebius was a propagandist who presented
fables as facts, he promoted lying and deceit.
The martyrdom accounts are conflicting. The following website exposes
the contradictory legends on false traditions:
· Andrew: Martyrdom by crucifixion (bound, not
nailed, to a cross).
· Bartholomew (Often identified with Nathaniel
in the New Testament): Martyrdom by being either 1. Beheaded, or 2.
Flayed alive and crucified, head downward.
· James the Greater: Martyrdom by being
beheaded1 or stabbed2 with a sword.
· James the Lesser: Martyrdom by being thrown
from a pinnacle of the Temple at Jerusalem , then stoned and beaten with clubs.2
· John: Died of old age.1
· Jude (Often identified with Thaddeus in the
New Testament): Martyrdom by being beaten to death with a club.2
· Judas: Suicide.1
· Matthew: Martyrdom by being burned, stoned,
or beheaded.1
· Peter: Martyrdom by crucifixion at Rome with
his head downwards.1
· Philip: Martyrdom.2
· Simon: Martyrdom by crucifixion.1
or being sawn in half.2
· Thomas: Martyrdom by being stabbed with a
spear.2 (Source)
Strangely, the earliest accounts date from the 3rd century, they are preserved
by Origen of Alexandria (d. 250), and he recorded the same
traditions that were later transmitted to Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 340).
The tradition of apostles' martyrdom goes
back at least to the beginning of the third
century. In his third commentary on Genesis, Origen of
Alexandria (ca. 185-254) writes that the apostles divided up the work of evangelizing the
world between themPeter, for example, took Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,
and Bithynia, and at "the last came to Rome, and was crucified head-downwards; for he
requested that he might suffer thus." According to Origen,
other apostles went elsewhere; Thomas was assigned Parthia
(today's India), and John was given "Asia."
Scholars debate as to where Origen picked up his informationsome argue that he drew from
the roughly contemporary Acts of Thomas,
an apocryphal book relating Thomas' adventures as a missionary in India. That book
states that Jesus' original 11 disciples "divided the countries among them, in order
that each one of them might preach in the region which fell to him and in the place to
which his Lord sent him."
But there are other sources to consider as
well. Eusebius (ca 260-341) wrote perhaps the most complete history of the apostles, though he merely quoted other bishops for his
authority. Acts 12: 2 tells us, for example, that Herod Agrippa had James, the brother
of John, executed. To this, Eusebius adds the story told by the bishop Clement of
Alexandria (d. ca. 215)Origen's mentorthat
"the person who led James to the judgment-seat was moved when he saw him bear
witness, and confessed that he himself was also a Christian."
Or take the death of Philip, which bishop Polycrates of Ephesus (130-196)again via Eusebiuswrote
that Philip "has fallen asleep in Hierapolis, [as have]
also his two daughters who grew old in virginity." It's debatable whether Polycrates
actually meant Philip was martyred, since he also mentions that the apostle John
"has fallen asleep at Ephesus." (Tradition has it that John died peacefully in
his old age, after being returned from his exile in the island of Patmos.)
(online Source)
The website concludes the reliability of these traditions
because they were based on oral traditions!
Are these sources reliable? Can Christians
stand on the testimony of these early church fathers to make the case for these
martyrdoms? We can, if we accept that in the first couple centuries of the church, much of
the Christian story was passed on by word-of-mouth, and bishops of the church would guard
these stories zealouslyespecially with heretical sects threatening the church.
This is ridiculous, a desperate attempt by Christians to solve the
dilemma. The process of oral tradition was unstable, open to mythical embellishment:
This literature was oral before
it was written and began with the memories of those who knew Jesus personally. Their
memories and teachings were passed on as oral traditions for some forty years or so before
achieving written form for the first time in a self-conscious literary work, so far as we
know, in the Gospel of Mark, within a few years of 70 A.D
.But oral tradition is by
definition unstable, notoriously open to mythical, legendary, and fictional
embellishments
.
The career of any remarkable person is
remembered in oral tradition precisely by
being mythicised, connected with certain almost universally
known patterns. (Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 10, 12)
Oral traditions
are unreliable. They are not able to be tested against each other, they cannot be proven
from history, they can easily become distorted as they are
passed along. Common sense should tell us that a thing written is more reliable than a
thing spoken. [1]
Furthermore, the early Church fathers were not honest, they promoted
deception. Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 340 CE) is reported to have said: 'It is an act of
virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interests of the church might be
promoted 1. Jerome, the 4th century Latin scholar
also said: Great is the force of deceit! provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention 2
Here is what the renowned scholar Lloyd Graham says about the Church
fathers: most ignorant men
All evidence of source
destroyed, the Christian Fathers could not substitute their own absurdities. And to
substantiate them they altered words and inserted verses that did not exist in the
original texts. Celsus, a witness to this falsification, said
of the revisionists, Some of them, as it were in a drunken state producing
self-induced visions, remodel their Gospel from its first written form, and reform it so
that they may be able to refute the objections brought against it. On this same
subject Massey wrote thus: They made dumb all pagan testimony against the unparaled imposture then being perfected in Rome. They had almost
reduced the first four centuries to silence on all matters of the most vital importance
for any proper understanding of the true origins of Christian superstition
.It is
well known the Christian Fathers were notorious forgers: even the Catholics admit that.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia,
In all these departments forgery and interpolation as well as ignorance had wrought
mischief on a great scale. (Lloyd Graham, Deceptions
and Myths of the Bible, p. 445)
Regarding the martyrdom of James in Acts 12, the Jewish historian
Josephus says nothing. In fact, the Roman and Jewish historians do not mention the
apostles martyrdoms at all! There is no
historical evidence to prove the apostles were martyred, the Church does not realize this.
Even scholars are testifying that the apostles of Christ were very few.
In the late 2nd century, the Greek philosopher Celsus wrote:
"For in order to remind others, that
by seeing a few engaged in a struggle for their religion, they also might be better fitted
to despise death, some, on special occasions, and these individuals who can be easily numbered, have endured death for the
sake of Christianity. [2]
Most of the early martyrs of Christianity were Unitarians. The later
Trinitarians were not killed as martyrs, but as criminals, drunkards, and fornicators etc.
"... As for the fifth century, Salvianus, a priestly historian, had this to say: "Besides a
very few who avoid evil, what is almost the whole body of Christians but a sink of
iniquity? How many in the church will you find that are not drunkards, or adulterers, or
fornicators, or gamblers, or robbers, or murderers--- or altogether? And we are told
Christianity uplifted the race, rid the world of pagan sin and paved the way for true
civilization. This too is Catholic scholarship. (Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 455)