Why Didn't They Know?

From *The Skeptical Review*, Autumn 1991:

by Farrell Till

John's account of the resurrection has Peter and another disciple running to the empty tomb after hearing from Mary Magdalene that the body of Jesus was gone. The unnamed disciple, outrunning Peter, arrived at the tomb first and waited:

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes (20:6-10, NRSV).

Luke also indicated that the disciples of Jesus had not expected his resurrection, for Luke said that after Peter looked inside at the linen cloths, "he went home, wondering at that which had come to pass" (24:12). Numerous references to the apostles' skepticism of a resurrection appear elsewhere in the New Testament (Lk. 24:11,38; Jn. 20:24-25; Matt. 28:17).

New Testament Prophecy Failures

The following is an excerpt from "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled", by Farrell Till:

NEW TESTAMENT FAILURES

Except for the book of Revelation, the New Testament isn't considered as prophetic as the Old Testament; nevertheless, one can still find examples of unfulfilled prophecies and broken promises in the New Testament.

All twelve apostles to be rewarded: When Peter asked Jesus what reward the apostles could expect for forsaking all to follow him Jesus said, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19:28). A lot of theological rhetoric has been expended on the meaning of "the regeneration." Did Jesus refer to the church era that began on the day of Pentecost when he would sit on the "spiritual" throne of David or did he have in mind a period that would follow his second coming? Regardless of the time period he was referring to, the passage poses a problem. How, for example, could Judas, who was one of the twelve at the time this was said, ever be permitted to sit on a throne in a judge's capacity? In another gospel account, Jesus himself called Judas the son of perdition (John 17:12). So will the "son of perdition" be awarded a throne to sit on during the regeneration? That hardly seems possible, because Jesus said at the last supper that it would have been better for Judas if he had not been born (Mark 14: 21). If he should be awarded a throne in Jesus's kingdom that would make this statement false, wouldn't it? How could it, in any sense, be said of a man elevated to such a position as this that it would have been better for him if he had never been born? Some Bible apologists argue that Jesus, omnisciently knowing that Matthias would be chosen to succeed Judas (Acts 1:23-26), said twelve thrones instead of eleven because of his intention to keep his apostolic crew in full force. If that is so, one might argue that he, omnisciently knowing that Saul of Tarsus would later be called into the apostleship as "one born out of due time" (1 Cor. 15:8), would have been more exact had he said thirteen thrones rather than twelve. Others insist that the number twelve should not be interpreted so literally, that this is just a case of the figure of speech known as ampliatio, the retention of a name or designation after the reason for the original designation has ceased to exist. In counterargument, however, the opposition has every right to ask if there will ever be an end to figurative and spiritual interpretations of scriptures that pose serious problems for the inerrancy doctrine. There were twelve apostles present when Jesus made this prophecy, so why should we not believe that he meant twelve?

Authorship Of "Matthew"

From the Errancy Discussion list, 10-4-97:

MATT

The consensus of biblical scholars normally means 'higher criticism', something I am none too impressed with. The Gospel is attributed to the disiciple Levi ooopppsss sorry Nancy :) Matthew, if there is evidence to say otherwise then Let's hear it.

TILL

Well, how about this "evidence", Matt? Those critics whom you aren't at all impressed with have recognized that the author of "Matthew" used the gospel of Mark as his source, because over 90% of the gospel of Mark is embedded in the gospel of Matthew. If Mark really wrote Mark, then he was not an eyewitness to the events he wrote about, but if Matthew wrote Matthew, he was an eyewitness to most of the events. Why would an eyewitness have to rely on an account written by someone who was not an eyewitness in order to write a biography of Jesus?

How Did The Apostles Die? (4)

From the Alt. Bible. Errancy discussion group, 6-5-99:

The Apostle Peter

GOODGUY
I think you have been looking in the wrong places for your "apostle data". (if you have looked at all) I would like you to start simple with the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Youll find that the British Scholar Herbert Workman describes Peters death. How does one look past the Encyclopedia Britannica when in the midst of research? 

TILL
Goodguy doesn't know that general encyclopedias, especially in religious matters, often present only what is popularly believed? It would have helped the discussion if he had stated what he "knows" to be the historical facts about the death of Peter, but since he didn't, I'll have to discuss Peter without the benefits of Goodguy's expertise on the subject. In his listing of the apostles below (which I will eventually get to), Goodguy stated that Peter was crucified. I assume that he also accepts the tradition that he was crucified upside down. The only problem is that Goodguy is again wandering around in the area of Christian tradition, and the traditions about Peter are the same as the traditions about the deaths of the other apostles: they are rooted entirely in biased sources.

Even Goodguy's own source (*Encyclopedia Britannica*) acknowledged early in the article about "Saint Peter" that "(t)he sources of information concerning the life of Peter are limited to the NT: the four gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, and the two letters that bear the name of Peter" (Vol. 9, 15th Edition, p. 330). In other words, what is known about Peter has been derived from biased sources; there are no disinterested sources that mention this man who was presumably the cornerstone apostle of the church. Traditions about Peter are another source of information, of course, but traditions are... well, traditions are traditions, and the various traditions about the apostles and the manners in which they died are so varied and so contradictory that no rational person can consider them sources of reliable historical information. Many of the traditions about Peter concern his alleged ministry, martyrdom, and interment in Rome, all of which are not the least surprising in view of the early movement to make Rome the headquarters of the Catholic Church. What better way to strengthen the claim that the church should be centered in Rome than to have this as the place where the chief of the apostles lived, preached, and died the death of a martyr? 

Goodguy's own source said of the traditions about Peter's tenure in Rome, "It is probable that the tradition of a 25-year episcopate of Peter in Rome is not earlier than the beginning or the middle of the 3rd century. The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century" (p. 332). In dispute? Is Goodguy's own source telling us that the traditions about Peter's tenure in Rome are so unreliable that they are actually "in dispute"? Let's notice also that Goodguy's source uses the word "tradition" in the quotation cited above. That word "tradition" keeps popping up in everything that I read about the life of Peter, and I never seem to find any solid evidence from disinterested secular sources that would make the existence of Peter and the experiences that tradition assigns to him historically reliable. Certainly, traditions that developed two centuries after the death of a person cannot be considered historically reliable. 

How Did The Apostles Die? (3)

From Alt.Bible.Errancy discussion group, 6-5-99:

The Apostle Andrew

TILL

Goodguy's list indicates that the apostle Andrew was crucified, so let's look at the reliability of this tradition, which, I will emphasize, is only a tradition. Earlier today, John Phipps posted on the Errancy list a copy of a message that he sent to Goodguy in which he asked why Goodguy seems so eager to accept traditions about the apostles but not the many other traditions that originated with the Catholic Church. The assumption was that Goodguy is not a Catholic, and so his position on the apostles seems inconsistent with his rejection of other traditions (unless he is a Catholic and buys the whole ball of wax). At any rate, the traditions about the fate of the apostle Andrew, as we will see, are steeped in Roman Catholic lore. The traditions are inconsistent and even contradictory, but for the most part they do agree that Andrew was crucified. In *The Search for the Twelve Apostles,* McBirnie sees this one thread in the traditions as evidence that Andrew did die by crucifixion. In this respect, McBirnie is arguing the same way that biblicists do in the matter of inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives in the gospels. They all agree that Jesus rose from the dead, and so somehow that is supposed to constitute reliable evidence, even though the narratives are otherwise riddled with inconsistencies. 

Eusebius claimed that the apostle Andrew was "chosen" of the Saviour to preach in Scythia (*History of the Church,* edition previously cited, p. 107), which was located in the Crimean region. Eusebius, however, made no mention of the manner of Andrew's death, although in the same paragraph he refers to the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul. The paragraph mentions Thomas and John and the places where both preached but says only that John died at Ephesus. One must wonder why, if he was aware of excruciating deaths that they had experienced, Eusebius didn't cite the details of the deaths of Andrew and Thomas. This paragraph begins Book 3 after which Eusebius had just ended Book 2 with a discussion of Neronian persecution in which both Peter and Paul had died. It would seem that if Eusebius had known of the horrible fates of other apostles, he would have mentioned them too. However, the paragraph that begins Book 3 specifies only that Peter and Paul had died as martyrs but says nothing about the ways that Thomas and Andrew had died. Curious indeed! Could this possibly mean that Eusebius, who was born about A. D. 260, was unaware of any traditions about how Thomas and Andrew had died? Eusebius referred to Thomas two other times in this work (pp. 66-67, 72-73) but only to mention that Thomas was sent to preach in Edessa. No reference is made to the manner of his death. Eusebius mentioned Andrew nowhere else in his "history of the church." 

This doesn't mean that no traditions existed about Andrew and his manner of death. McBirnie claims that "(a)nother strong tradition places his [Andrew's] ministry in Greece" and that there, "according to the tradition, he was imprisoned, then crucified by order of the proconsul Aegeates, whose wife Maximilla had been estranged from her husband by the preaching of St. Andrew" (edition previously cited, p. 80). Yet the Russian Church claims Andrew as its patron saint largely on the strength of Eusebius's claim (just mentioned) and an apocryphal work "The Acts of St. Andrew and St. Bartholomew," which claims that Andrew was a missionary to the Parthians, who occupied a region now included in Northern Iran and the southern part of the former Soviet Union. 

Edgar Goodspeed cited another tradition that put the ministry of Andrew in Ephesus in Asia Minor (where the apostle John allegedly wrote his gospel). Goodspeed said that tradition put Andrew in the mission field of Scythia but that the "Acts of Andrew, written probably about A. D. 260, describes his labors as taking place chiefly in Greece or in Macedonia, where his martyrdom occurs at Patras as described in his Acts" (*The Twelve,* John C. Winston Company, 1967, p. 99). 

McBirnie said of these conflicting traditions, "Now it would seem, at first glance, that these three traditions are contradictory. But perhaps they are mutually complementary. After all, Andrew had to minister *somewhere* in the world, and if he did not die in Jerusalem it is very possible that he went to Asia Minor to be with his old friend John. Or if for a while he went beyond Asia Minor to Scythia, that too is reasonable..." (p. 81). McBirnie rambled on, stringing together more possibilities and "could-have-beens," but the end result was an attempt to argue that we can't let ourselves be distracted by inconsistencies in the traditions about Andrew. Most of the traditions say that he was crucified, and so why not accept that? 

Other traditions about Andrew show the folly of accepting as historical facts claims that have nothing to support them but religious traditions. One tradition alleged that the Apostle Matthias (who was chosen in Acts 1 to replace Judas) was captured by cannibals, and Matthias was sent to rescue him. After a long voyage, he arrived at Matthias's place of detention and secured his release by converting the entire population of cannibals. As far as I know, this tradition gives no explanation for why Matthias had not been killed and eaten by the cannibals before Andrew could arrive on the scene to bring about his release, but religious traditions almost always have annoying holes in them like this. I suppose that Christians like Goodguy have conditioned themselves not to be bothered by such trivia. 

Various traditions about relics from Andrew's life and ministry have circulated in the Catholic church, and as recently as 1964 Pope Paul VI returned to the Episcopal See of Patros, a skull reputed to be Andrew's, which had been sent to the Church of Saint Peter for safekeeping after the Turks had invaded Byzantium in A. D. 1460. Other relics of Andrew include pieces of his cross, pieces of rope with which he had been secured to the cross, and other bones. 

It is on the basis of such nonsense as this that people like Goodguy rhapsodize that men like Andrew were willing to die for their faith in the resurrection of Jesus, and I have just barely touched the many conflicting traditions about Andrew. I have been unable to find any disinterested accounts of Andrew's ministry and death. If Goodguy knows of any, perhaps he will send them to us. 

Farrell Till

How Did The Apostles Die? (2)

From Alt.Bible.Errancy discussion group, 6-5-99:

The Apostle Matthew 

TILL
So Goodguy knows that Matthew died by the sword? That's interesting, because of all the traditions about the deaths of the apostles, Matthew's are so varied and contradictory that even staunch Bible believers admit that there is no way to determine which legend is true. Clement of Alexandria indicated that Matthew died a natural death (*Miscellanies, 4.9). If this is true, then it couldn't very well be said that Matthew died for what he knew to be truth. If that were the case, then all people who die of natural causes would be martyrs for what they know to be true. 

In *A Traveler's Guide to Saints in Europe* (Trinity Press: London, 1964), Mary Sharp said that Matthew traveled to Ethiopia after the ascension, "where he was entertained by the eunuch whom St. Philip had baptised." He allegedly performed various miracles, "including the healing of the King of Egypt's daughter of leprosy." Sharp noted that "accounts differ" regarding the death of Matthew. "Some say that he was beheaded, others that he died a peaceful death" (p. 152). In *Sacred and Legendary Art* (Houghton Mifflin, 1957, third edition), Anna Jameson also put Matthew in Ethiopia in the company of the eunuch, but in addition to the legend about the daughter of the king of Egypt, her account had Matthew also resurrecting the king's son from the dead. After her cure, Matthew made the princess the head of a company of virgins, who were, dedicated to the service of God. When a "wicked heathen king" threatened to take the princess from her asylum, he was struck with leprosy and his palace destroyed by fire. Jameson noted that this legend had Matthew spending 23 years in Egypt, where he died in is 90th year under the reign of Domitian, but the legend did not state the manner of his death. Jameson then added the details of a Greek legend about Matthew, which claimed that he "died in peace," but a conflicting "tradition of the Western Church" claimed that "he suffered Martyrdom either by the sword or the spear" (pp. 142-143). 

How Did The Apostles Die? (1)

From Alt.Bible.Errancy discussion group, 6-5-99:
TILL

To begin my response to Goodguy's position that how the apostles' died constitutes evidence of the resurrection, I'm going to post my article "How Did the Apostles Die?" that I published in the July/August 1997 issue of *The Skeptical Review.* It will present general principles that will show the unsoundness of this often-repeated claim. Afterwards, I will address specific points in Goodguy's postings. If he cares to respond, I will, of course, post his responses to the list, but I predict that we won't hear much from him.

************************* 

How Did the Apostles Die? 

Christian apologists, both real and would-be, argue that the willingness of the apostles to die for their faith is proof that the resurrection of Jesus was a real experience in their lives. People will die for what they *believe* to be true, the argument goes, but they would not die for what they know is *not* true. In this issue (pp. 10-11), Dave Matson has rebutted this argument by showing how that the postresurrection appearances of Jesus could well have been only imaginary or psychological experiences of those who allegedly claimed that they saw Jesus alive after his death. If so, then the apostles who were martyred (if indeed any were) would have died not for what they *knew* to be true but only for what they *thought* they knew was true. There's a big difference. 

How Did The Apostles Die?

The following article is from *The Skeptical Review*, 1997/July-August:

By Farrell Till 

Christian apologists, both real and would-be, argue that the willingness of the apostles to die for their faith is proof that the resurrection of Jesus was a real experience in their lives. People will die for what they believe to be true, the argument goes, but they would not die for what they know is not true. In this issue (pp. 10-11), Dave Matson has rebutted this argument by showing how that the postresurrection appearances of Jesus could well have been only imaginary or psychological experiences of those who allegedly claimed that they saw Jesus alive after his death. If so, then the apostles who were martyred (if indeed any were) would have died not for what they knew to be true but only for what they thought they knew was true. There's a big difference.