Huon

No mention of Bartholomew-Nathanael occurs in ecclesiastical literature before Eusebius, who mentions that Pantaenus, the master of Origen, while evangelizing India, was told that the Apostle had preached there before him and had given to his converts the Gospel of St. Matthew written in Hebrew, which was still treasured by the Church. "India" was a name covering a very wide area, including even Arabia Felix. Other traditions represent Bartholomew as preaching in Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, Armenia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, and on the shores of the Black Sea.

The manner of his death, said to have occurred at Albanopolis in Armenia, or possibly in Derbend, on the Caspian Sea, is equally uncertain; according to some, he was beheaded, according to others, flayed alive and crucified, head downward, by order of king Astyages of Babylon, for having converted his brother, Polymius, King of Armenia.

The only small problem is that no king of Armenia ever bore the name of Polymius. Astyages is the name of a king of the Medes (584-c.550 BCE). Moses of Chorene (Vth century) wrote a history of Armenia, where he writes that Bartholomew was martyred in the town Arebanos, in Armenia. It seems that this town is not Erevan, but a place between the lakes of Van and Ourmia.

Huon

Though the tradition that St. Thomas preached in "India" was widely spread in both East and West and is to be found in such writers as Ephraem Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinus, Jerome, and, later Gregory of Tours and others, still it is difficult to discover any adequate support for the long-accepted belief that St. Thomas pushed his missionary journeys as far south as Mylapore, not far from Madras, and there suffered martyrdom. In that region is still to be found a granite bas-relief cross with a Pahlavi (ancient Persian) inscription dating from the seventh century, and the tradition that it was here that St. Thomas laid down his life is locally very strong. Certain it is also that on the Malabar or west coast of southern India a body of Christians still exists using a form of Syriac for its liturgical language. Whether this Church dates from the time of St. Thomas the Apostle (there was a Syro-Chaldean bishop John "from India and Persia" who assisted at the Council of Nicea in 325) or whether the Gospel was first preached there in 345 owing to the Persian persecution under Shapur (or Sapor), or whether the Syrian missionaries who accompanied a certain Thomas Cana penetrated to the Malabar coast about the year 745 seems difficult to determine. We know only that in the sixth century Cosmas Indicopleustes speaks of the existence of Christians at Male (?Malabar) under a bishop who had been consecrated in Persia.

lycanthrope

I was just wondering thats all, in the Bible you hear about the 12 but then I wonder what happened to them after the Romans sack Jerusalem...

Huon

Of Matthew's subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data. St. Irenæus tells us that Matthew preached the Gospel among the Hebrews, St. Clement of Alexandria claiming that he did this for fifteen years, and Eusebius maintains that, before going into other countries, he gave them his Gospel in the mother tongue. Ancient writers are not as one as to the countries evangelized by Matthew, but almost all mention Ethiopia to the south of the Caspian Sea (not Ethiopia in Africa), and some Persia and the kingdom of the Parthians, Macedonia, and Syria.

According to Heracleon, who is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Matthew did not die a martyr, but this opinion conflicts with all other ancient testimony.

lycanthrope

The following excerpt is from the Atheist for Jesus website. I was just wondering if there is any truth in this matter and what literature is available that discuss this. The whole idea that the 12 original Apostles didnt like Paul is a new revelation to me!

http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/

The Original Apostles are based in Jerusalem while Paul sets up churches in the Greek and Roman Empires.

The Original Apostles send out emissaries to Paul's churches telling them that Paul is teaching false doctrine (Paul's letters are primarily aimed at countering these visits. The "So called special apostles" [2 Cor 11:5] that Paul defended himself against were none other than the original apostles (Peter and John, [and James the brother of Jesus]).

The Original Apostles ALMOST prevail. Paul himself admits that his followers are leaving him: "All deserted me" [2 Tim 4:16]. Even his closest friends (Barnabas and Demas, see 2 Tim 4:10 and Gal 2:13) return to the side of the Original Apostles.

Just when it seemed that the Original Apostles (and, in my honest opinion, the true story of Jesus) would win out, the Romans conquered Jerusalem and the Original Apostles were (along with much of the Jewish population) scattered into the desert.

With the Original Apostles no longer able to counter Paul's preaching, Paul's version becomes accepted among his churches.

When it comes time to choose the canon of the church, it is chosen by people who have been raised in and are practicing Paul's religion. It is only natural that they will view anything that attacks Paul's credibility as being heretical.

Huon

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.

Huon

From Revelation :
9. I, John, your brother and your partner in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience in Christ Jesus, was in the island which is called Patmos, for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the spirit on the Lord's day and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying: What thou seest, write in a book and send to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamus and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.

If I am not mistaken, Paul wrote a letter to Ephesians, and nothing to the other towns which belonged to the territory of John…

Toto

Atheists for Jesus starts with the premise that Jesus was a good guy who preached humanistic values of peace and love; but the church is obviously corrupt and loves money, power, and warfare, and has been so for most of its recorded history. How can you explain this? Find someone to blame, and Paul is an obvious culprit. (Unless you want to blame the original disciples who couldn't understand what Jesus was saying - but they are as shrouded in myth as Jesus. Or you could blame Constantine, or Eusebius. But not Jesus!)

There is along pedigree for this idea - the whole search for the historical Jesus is an attempt to find the real Jesus that the church left behind. Thomas Jefferson cut out the supernatural parts of the Bible and decided he had found the real Jesus.

But I don't think there is any real evidence for this idea, however popular it is. It's just an attempt to make sense of the disconnect between what people like about Jesus and the actual history of the church.

lycanthrope

I would disagree with you Toto, I was searching around and found that there was evidence to suggest there was bad blood between Paul and the other 12 !

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/antioch.html

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/paulvpeter.html

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pella.html

skepticdude

what's interesting is that you hear exactly nothing about most of the original 12 after Jesus dies. However, you would figure that what they did was equally important, if not more so, than oddball #13 apostle Paul.

Assuming as much of the Christian view as a skeptic can for the sake of argument, the original 12 DID fan out, start churches, engage in controversies, and write epistles. The only reason such writings would be excluded from the NT is by later councils who care more about restoring unity of religion than they do preserving historical fact.