Anyone know how each of the apostles died?

I've got troubles with words like, "generally agreed" and "thought to be". Those just show conjecture, not fact. There are like ten hypotheses about what happened to Matthew, and even Paul's death isn't certain.

I'd like to know if there are any historical records of what happened to them? Anything from Roman records or other history that can state what happened to any of the apostles? Legend and supposition don't really do it for me.

Click to expand...

Lambslove, we get these from ancient accounts. They are very historical. I do not see the difference here between "history" and "legend." When something is "generally agreed on" it means that most accounts say it happened this way, but not all. Anyway, I am just showing the historical record, I never said that one account is fact, and that another is fiction, neither do these little summaries I've been posting. Its just a description of the historical accounts we have, and what they say.

ps139 said:

Lambslove, we get these from ancient accounts. They are very historical. I do not see the difference here between "history" and "legend." When something is "generally agreed on" it means that most accounts say it happened this way, but not all. Anyway, I am just showing the historical record, I never said that one account is fact, and that another is fiction, neither do these little summaries I've been posting. Its just a description of the historical accounts we have, and what they say.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Often we get trapped into thinking that history = objective truth. Histories are simply written accounts from the perspective of the author who rarely recieves first hand information in their writtings. By then, history and legend usually aren't all that different. And even if they are first hand, they are still written from his/her perspective and worldview.

I think that one of the problems is that in their time that these men were not thought of as particularly significant. So no written record of there end was made. This leaves us with only oral tradition and record.

Probably some of which is pretty accurate some well some is probably not

Such it is with ancient history.
Ya pays your money and ya takes ya chances

PG

ps139 said:

Lambslove, we get these from ancient accounts. They are very historical. I do not see the difference here between "history" and "legend." When something is "generally agreed on" it means that most accounts say it happened this way, but not all. Anyway, I am just showing the historical record, I never said that one account is fact, and that another is fiction, neither do these little summaries I've been posting. Its just a description of the historical accounts we have, and what they say.

Click to expand...

There is a big difference between history and legend. True history is based on verifiable information, first hand accounts, official records, diaries, etc. Legends are stories with little or no verifiable basis. Around here, there a legend that a certain building is haunted, but no one has ever seen the ghost and the story on which it is based is fiction. Supposedly, 13 drunken teenagers fell to their deaths from the roof the the building on Halloween night 50-some years ago, and every halloween since then, the spirits of the teenagers return to the building and reenact the tragedy. However, no one has ever fallen from the building, let alone died from a fall, and although dozens of people have stayed all night at the building on Halloween, no ghosts were ever observed. Yet the legend persists because it is an interesting story.

Same with the apostles, probably. Someone asked for an explanation of whatever happened to them, and somehow legends evolved. Unless there is some verifiable basis for the legends, they can't be considered history. If you are satisfied with the legens, sobeit. I'd personally rather say, "It's not really known how they died," than to repeat old legends as if they were fact.

Lambslove, I guess my question to you is, why do you seem to consider the historical writings of St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebios, Moses of Chorene, and Lipsus to be "legend." If you read what I posted, those are part of the sources from which this information comes. Some of them are secular historians, others are saints! Irenaeus was a disciple of Ignatius, who was a disciple of the apostle John. He was an early bishop, or "overseer" of the church. I consider him trustworthy. So I do not understand why you would call all of that "legend" ??
Some of it, like "The Abssynians say" or "the Georgians say," well I can understand your doubts about that. But thats certainly not representative of the whole of the evidence.

lambslove said:

There is a big difference between history and legend. True history is based on verifiable information, first hand accounts, official records, diaries, etc. Legends are stories with little or no verifiable basis.

[snip]

Same with the apostles, probably. Someone asked for an explanation of whatever happened to them, and somehow legends evolved. Unless there is some verifiable basis for the legends, they can't be considered history. If you are satisfied with the legens, sobeit. I'd personally rather say, "It's not really known how they died," than to repeat old legends as if they were fact.

Click to expand...

LL, I think there is a tendency of some sola scriptura Christians to assume any accounts of biblical characters outside the Bible is fiction, especially if it is found in a source preserved by the Catholic Church.

We need to be more careful. WRT the apostles, a lot is unknown. As stated above, for some, such as Matthew, there are so many conflicting accounts it is impossible to say anything at all. Part of the reason, BTW, for the conflicting accounts is that some of the accounts probably referred originally to Matthias, but again, we can't tell which ones. The NT mentions at least 3 early Christian leaders named James, making some of the James accounts difficult to sort out, as well.

Let's take the accounts for what they are worth, and not paint them all as "legend." There is good evidence that Peter died and was buried in Rome, having been crucified upside-down. It is said that Thomas travelled as far as India. The fact that there is a very ancient Christian community there that survives to this day and has preserved this story is some evidence, but not conclusive. The Matthew stories are not consistent enough for anyone to make a judgment about today.

What is a "verifiable basis?" Historical methods in the ancient world were not the same as ours today. If you judge all ancient history by modern standards, a whole lot of what we think we know about Julius Caesar is just legend and conjecture. Eusebius and Josephus and Suetonius are all considered among the best ancient histories, although external evidence indicates that they each got some of their facts wrong.

I suggest we not lump together all extra-biblical Christian history into the category of "legend," but evaluate it by the same standard as we would use for secular ancient history. WRT the apostles, we know more about some than about others.

Beyond that, if you want to say that history recorded outside of scripture is of limited spiritual significance, that is your privilege. So is today's weather report. There's nothing wrong with trying to find out, and the mere fact that something is believed by many Catholics but thought unimportant by most protestants is not a sufficient basis to cast doubt.

Good point. Specifically on this topic, I have a question. Did paul actually get killed by nero? We have a catholic cathedral/basillica over in St. Paul dedicated to him (who ever would have guessed?) which has extensive ingravings concerning his missionary journey to Spain. It seems that there's less evidence to support his martyrdom than many would think...

Thanatosimii said:

Did paul actually get killed by nero?

Click to expand...

I don't know whether it was by Nero, but it seems to have been under the reign of Nero.

"The martyrdom took place towards the end of the reign of Nero, in the twelfth year (St. Epiphanius), the thirteenth (Euthalius), or the fourteenth (St. Jerome)." Catholic Encyclopedia

"At Rome, the birthday of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, who suffered martyrdom on the same day, under Emperor Nero. Within the city the former was crucified with his head downwards, and buried in the Vatican, near the Triumphal Way, where he is venerated by the whole world. The latter was put to the sword and buried on the Ostian Way, where he received similar honours."
From the Martyrology

Well here are some more:
St. James the Greater (brother of John, son of Zebedee and Salome, posibly a first cousin of Jesus - if Salome was Mary's sister, depends how you read Jn. 19:25).

On the last journey to Jerusalem, their mother Salome came to the Lord and said to Him: "Say that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom" (Matt., xx, 21). And the two brothers, still ignorant of the spiritual nature of the Messianic Kingdom, joined with their mother in this eager ambition (Mark 10:37). And on their assertion that they are willing to drink the chalice that He drinks of, and to be baptized with the baptism of His sufferings, Jesus assured them that they will share His sufferings (Mark 5:38-39).

James won the crown of martyrdom fourteen years after this prophecy, A.D. 44. Herod Agrippa I, son of Aristobulus and grandson of Herod the Great, reigned at that time as "king" over a wider dominion than that of his grandfather. His great object was to please the Jews in every way, and he showed great regard for the Mosaic Law and Jewish customs. In pursuance of this policy, on the occasion of the Passover of A.D. 44, he perpetrated cruelties upon the Church, whose rapid growth incensed the Jews. The zealous temper of James and his leading part in the Jewish Christian communities probably led Agrippa to choose him as the first victim. "He killed James, the brother of John, with the sword." (Acts 12:1-2). According to a tradition, which, as we learn from Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, ix, 2, 3), was received from Clement of Alexandria (in the seventh book of his lost "Hypotyposes"), the accuser who led the Apostle to judgment, moved by his confession, became himself a Christian, and they were beheaded together. As Clement testifies expressly that the account was given him "by those who were before him," this tradition has a better foundation than many other traditions and legends respecting the Apostolic labours and death of St. James, which are related in the Latin "Passio Jacobi Majoris", the Ethiopic "Acts of James", and so on.

Click to expand...

There is a tradition that St. James preached in Spain, but there is not much evidence for it, and that evidence is somewhat contradictory.

St. James "the Less" aka "the brother of the Lord"

Traditions respecting James the Less are to be found in many extra-canonical documents, especially Josephus (Antiq., XX, ix, 1), the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (St. Jerome, De vir. ill., II), Hegesippus (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", II, xxiii), the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (Ep. of Peter) and Recognitions (I, 72, 73), Clement of Alexandria (Hypot., vi, quoted by Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", II, i). The universal testimony of Christian antiquity is entirely in accordance with the information derived from the canonical books as to the fact that James was Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, who lived about the middle of the second century, relates (and his narrative is highly probable) that James was called the "Just", that he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor ate animal food, that no razor touched his head, that he did not anoint himself or make use of the bath, and lastly that he was put to death by the Jews. The account of his death given by Josephus is somewhat different. Later traditions deserve less attention.

Click to expand...

St. John the Evangelist:

The Christian writers of the second and third centuries testify to us as a tradition universally recognized and doubted by no one that the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province. In his "Dialogue with Tryphon" (Chapter 81) St. Justin Martyr refers to "John, one of the Apostles of Christ" as a witness who had lived "with us", that is, at Ephesus. St. Irenæus speaks in very many places of the Apostle John and his residence in Asia and expressly declares that he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus (Adv. haer., III, i, 1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan (loc. cit., II, xxii, 5). With Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xiii, 1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle's banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96). Previous to this, according to Tertullian's testimony (De praescript., xxxvi), John had been thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil before the Porta Latina at Rome without suffering injury. After Domitian's death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age. Tradition reports many beautiful traits of the last years of his life: that he refused to remain under the same roof with Cerinthus (Irenaeus "Ad. haer.", III, iii, 4); his touching anxiety about a youth who had become a robber (Clemens Alex., "Quis dives salvetur", xiii); his constantly repeated words of exhortation at the end of his life, "Little children, love one another" (Jerome, "Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.", vi, 10). On the other hand the stories told in the apocryphal Acts of John, which appeared as early as the second century, are unhistorical invention.

Click to expand...

Most probable that St. John is the only apostle who did not die a martyr.

forgivensinner001 said:

Oops, just realized this was the Baptist forum and here I go trying to answer a question. I was Southern Baptist for 12 years so it's an honest mistake.

Click to expand...

I was Free Will Baptist for a few years. That was when I was just a kid, and going with friends to church.

lambslove said:

There is a big difference between history and legend. True history is based on verifiable information, first hand accounts, official records, diaries, etc. Legends are stories with little or no verifiable basis. Around here, there a legend that a certain building is haunted, but no one has ever seen the ghost and the story on which it is based is fiction.

Click to expand...

There have been many legends proved by archaeology and research. More often than not, legends have served to point researchers to the correct spot for discovery. Not all legends are true, of course, but do not discount them offhand before they have been completely disproved.

SerenityBlue said:

There have been many legends proved by archaeology and research. More often than not, legends have served to point researchers to the correct spot for discovery. Not all legends are true, of course, but do not discount them offhand before they have been completely disproved.

Click to expand...

I remember reading a few years back about the disappointment caused in secular circles when a border stone was found in Syria I believe that mentioned the "House of David" and the stone was dated around 1000 BC. Up until then the only record of David's existence was the Bible. You gotta love it when God blows the sand off something and "legend" becomes historical reality.

ps139 said:

St. John the Evangelist:

Most probable that St. John is the only apostle who did not die a martyr.

Click to expand...

This is fascinating, thanks for posting!