Confused with names of apostles

[KnowtheSilence]

Background: a pastor friend of mine cited the "who would die for a lie" argument a while back and asked what I thought of it. I told him that I had always heard eleven of the twelve disciples were martyred for not renouncing their faith, but I didn't actually know where these stories had their source. He suggested I look into it, and I'm finally getting around to it.

Problem: I've started by making a list of all the named individuals who could have been witnesses to the resurrected Jesus and were supposedly martyred, but I'm having trouble keeping some of the names straight.

First issue, Jude. I thought that Jude was another name for Thaddeus, but now I'm encountering lists of martyrs that mention "Jude, brother of Jesus." This Jude is not another name for James, brother of Jesus, right? We're talking about two different people called "brother of Jesus"? And is Jude, brother of Jesus, the same person as Jude/Thaddeus, or are they two separate people?

Second issue, James. I want to make sure I'm keeping all of them straight. Is the following correct:
James the Just = James, brother of Jesus
James, son of Zebedee = James the Great(er)
James, son of Alphaeus = James the Less(er)

Is that all of them, or are there other Jameses floating around I need to include?

 

[Harry3142]

The 12 apostles are Simon (also called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

In Luke Thaddaeus is called 'Judas son of James' in order to differentiate between him and Judas Iscariot. Matthew also went by the name 'Levi' in Mark's gospel. Bartholomew went by the name 'Nathanael' in John's gospel. James the Zealot was also called 'James the younger' in Mark's gospel. James the son of Zebedee was also called 'James the greater' due to his being the first apostle to be martyred (Acts 12:2).

The Jude and James who have books in the New Testament are accepted as being brothers, and they were both half-brothers of Jesus himself.

 

[football5680]

Background: a pastor friend of mine cited the "who would die for a lie" argument a while back and asked what I thought of it. I told him that I had always heard eleven of the twelve disciples were martyred for not renouncing their faith, but I didn't actually know where these stories had their source. He suggested I look into it, and I'm finally getting around to it.

Problem: I've started by making a list of all the named individuals who could have been witnesses to the resurrected Jesus and were supposedly martyred, but I'm having trouble keeping some of the names straight.

First issue, Jude. I thought that Jude was another name for Thaddeus, but now I'm encountering lists of martyrs that mention "Jude, brother of Jesus." This Jude is not another name for James, brother of Jesus, right? We're talking about two different people called "brother of Jesus"? And is Jude, brother of Jesus, the same person as Jude/Thaddeus, or are they two separate people?

Second issue, James. I want to make sure I'm keeping all of them straight. Is the following correct:
James the Just = James, brother of Jesus
James, son of Zebedee = James the Great(er)
James, son of Alphaeus = James the Less(er)

Is that all of them, or are there other Jameses floating around I need to include?

Yes, Jude who is called the brother of Jesus is different from James. When it says brother or sister of Jesus in the bible it does not mean they were the children of Mary. There is no Aramaic word for cousin so they would say brother or sister. The only other way to do it would be to say something like he is the son of my mothers sister and obviously it would be easier to say brother.

Only 10 of the 12 apostles were martyred. Judas betrayed Jesus and committed suicide and Saint John escaped execution through a miracle and the Romans sent him to Patmos which was a Roman penal colony. When he was there he wrote the Book of Revelations which is the last book in the Bible.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Yes, Jude who is called the brother of Jesus is different from James.

Is he the same Jude as Thaddeus?

Only 10 of the 12 apostles were martyred. Judas betrayed Jesus and committed suicide and Saint John escaped execution through a miracle and the Romans sent him to Patmos which was a Roman penal colony. When he was there he wrote the Book of Revelations which is the last book in the Bible.

When people say that "11 of the 12" were martyred, they're usually discounting John and Judas but adding Matthias.
Although there are apparently some sources that say that even John was martyred. Haven't found those yet, but I have come across a reference to him being boiled in oil but miraculously surviving.

 

[football5680]

Is he the same Jude as Thaddeus?

It's possible but we don't know. Jude was another name for Thaddeus but people are split on whether there were two Jude's. The Bible says there is an apostle named Jude and the brother of Jesus is Jude but these statements would not exclude the apostle named Jude from being called the brother of Jesus.

When people say that "11 of the 12" were martyred, they're usually discounting John and Judas but adding Matthias.
Although there are apparently some sources that say that even John was martyred. Haven't found those yet, but I have come across a reference to him being boiled in oil but miraculously surviving.

The story about John that you spoke about is the one that I go with because this is what the earliest sources we have said.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There do exist disagreements within some of the hagiographic/martyrological material, with different legends with some of the apostles. Though, I'd argue that the earlier and more widespread the story, the more likely it is over and against alternatives.

I would further add that an exact accounting of the martyrdom of each apostle isn't required for the argument of "not dying for a lie" to hold out. The fact that anyone would be willing to offer up their life for a conviction is demonstrative that they actually held to that conviction.

I believe it is safe to conclude, based on many factors, that the earliest generation of Christians really did believe what they said they believed. Whether or not their believing was justified or in vain becomes, itself, another argument; but that they actually believed these things is something I think we can be rather confident in saying.

In 1 Corinthians 15, when St. Paul mentions the basic confession of faith "which I also received"; that is that this proclamation of Christ having risen from the dead is the litmus test of Christian faith, upon which it all stands or falls; and that this Paul has preached, because it is what he also has received from the ones before him--namely the other apostles.

Upon this confession, this conviction, this faith rests everything else; if it's true Christianity stands, if it's false Christianity falls. Which ultimately means that this isn't a bit of later accretion, but is the core tenet of the entire 1st century Jesus movement.

To point to the accounts of martyrdom in the Christian tradition is simply a way of saying, "They really did believe this, this is really what the earliest Christians actually believed." Until we can frame the conversation beginning there, any further conversation--did it or did it not happen--likely cannot be had.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[KnowtheSilence]

There do exist disagreements within some of the hagiographic/martyrological material, with different legends with some of the apostles. Though, I'd argue that the earlier and more widespread the story, the more likely it is over and against alternatives.

I'd agree with you here.

I would further add that an exact accounting of the martyrdom of each apostle isn't required for the argument of "not dying for a lie" to hold out. The fact that anyone would be willing to offer up their life for a conviction is demonstrative that they actually held to that conviction.

I don't fully agree here. I agree that we wouldn't need an exact account for each and every apostle in order to put together a decent argument; even if it was only half of them, you could make an argument out of it. But the argument that is floating around is that eleven of the twelve were martyred, so that's the argument I'm trying to find evidence for.

And while I agree that giving up your life for a conviction is a very clear sign that that belief is sincerely held, it's not evidence that the belief resembles the truth. We can name several cult leaders who knowingly and willingly gave up their lives for something that they would have known was a lie, if it was a lie.

To point to the accounts of martyrdom in the Christian tradition is simply a way of saying, "They really did believe this, this is really what the earliest Christians actually believed." Until we can frame the conversation beginning there, any further conversation--did it or did it not happen--likely cannot be had.

Whether or not other early Christians sincerely believed isn't the conversation I'm having, though. I'm looking into a specific argument that says that there were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus who were willing to give their lives spreading the message of what they saw, including eleven of the twelve apostles. That there were other non-eyewitness Christians who sincerely held beliefs in the risen Christ as it was taught to them isn't in dispute, but that's a separate matter from the argument I'm investigating.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'd agree with you here.


I don't fully agree here. I agree that we wouldn't need an exact account for each and every apostle in order to put together a decent argument; even if it was only half of them, you could make an argument out of it. But the argument that is floating around is that eleven of the twelve were martyred, so that's the argument I'm trying to find evidence for.

And while I agree that giving up your life for a conviction is a very clear sign that that belief is sincerely held, it's not evidence that the belief resembles the truth. We can name several cult leaders who knowingly and willingly gave up their lives for something that they would have known was a lie, if it was a lie.


Whether or not other early Christians sincerely believed isn't the conversation I'm having, though. I'm looking into a specific argument that says that there were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus who were willing to give their lives spreading the message of what they saw, including eleven of the twelve apostles. That there were other non-eyewitness Christians who sincerely held beliefs in the risen Christ as it was taught to them isn't in dispute, but that's a separate matter from the argument I'm investigating.

In which case if even any of them (eye-witnesses, first-hand "experiencers" of the supposed event) indeed did die for what they believe, then that should give some credence. In which case we can look at, for example, the death of St. James the Just.

And further, I believe it's rather safe to say that St. Peter was martyred by way of crucifixion. Even without the legend as contained in the Acts of Peter we can see in the Fourth Gospel that Peter's death is implied in stretching out his hands (i.e. in crucifixion), we also have St. Clement who in his epistle writing at the end of the first century speaks of Peter having suffered trials and labors and finally having died while in Rome. So I think we can be rather confident then that St. Peter died as a martyr at the hands of Roman authorities, in Rome, crucified.

In this I do believe my point still stands. I don't think there should be any reasonable doubt that the first-hand hearers and close associates of Jesus, who claimed to be eye-witnesses of His resurrection, did in fact believe this and that at least some of them suffered a martyr's death. I think that in some cases the evidence is more favorable (e.g. St. Peter) and in other cases less favorable (IIRC there are at least three different hagiographical legends that place St. Simon the Zealot in three different locations at his death, making the stories more likely to be apocryphal).

But if even one or two who claimed to be eye-witnesses of the event suffered for their convictions, I think we can rather safely say that those who claimed to be eye-witnesses to the resurrection believed that it actually happened.

And as far as I'm many historians do believe that at least something happened, maybe not the resurrection, but something happened in the minds and lives of this band of men and women that turned them from a seemingly failed messianic following to go out amidst the whole empire of Rome and preach this same Jesus as King and risk all the political ramifications that came with such a proclamation.

I believe that something was the resurrection. It really happened. But skepticism is understandable. That's an awfully large pill to swallow; no less now than two thousand years ago.

-CryptoLutheran