What Happened to each Apostle's Churches?

by pandicornhistorian

Okay, so any good Catholic will know that the Papacy's power is primarily derived from St. Peter, who founded the Church in Rome, yadda yadda yadda, "Rock upon which I build my church", etc. etc.. That's where they derived their teaching from. One could also easily argue that the Protestants, Calvinists, and Anglicans also derive their roots from Peter's church.

The Mar Thoma Churches derive their origins from St. Thomas, who did the Apostle equivalent of looking at a map of the known world, pointing to a spot off of it, and making his way all the way over to Kerala, India, to start the church there. Surprisingly, they're still around.

I think some people in Spain claim that their Church is descended from James and Simon the Zealot, Matthew went down to Ethiopia, and Matthias went "up". Paul gets a lot of credit from Catholics and East Orthodox alike. There's probably a really edgy cult that derives their origins from Judas who I'd imagine sound a lot like Puritans (We are unworthy of God's love etc. etc.). Aside from that, I got nothin'.

So, what happened to the churches of the other guys? Did some fail to make churches? Did they just get eaten by the Catholics? Did they die out? Do I have the wrong one for Ethiopia?

iakosv

A bit of “all of the above” in response to your suggestions. There are a lot of traditions floating around so you can add to the ones that you have identified (see below); however, the historicity of these traditions is another question entirely and one I will avoid for this answer.

Regarding the apostles, we are mainly thinking about the 12 disciples who symbolise the 12 tribes of Israel (e.g., as per Helen Bond, The Historical Jesus, 114-116). While it is reasonable to believe that there were 12 specially chosen followers of Jesus, their identities are not fixed, and this is likely significant. Some were more important than others, and appear across most accounts, others are more peripheral, and their names change.

We can have a go though. Taking the New Testament accounts you can devise a list of 12 that would look something like this:

  1. Simon/Peter

  2. James

  3. John

  4. Andrew

  5. Philip

  6. Bartholomew

  7. Matthew

  8. Thomas

  9. James

  10. Thaddaeus

  11. Simon

  12. Judas Iscariot

This list is taken from Mark 3:13-19. Matthew has the same names (10:1-4), Luke 6:12-16 has one difference in the original 12 (Thaddaeus is replaced by Judas son of James), John, awkwardly, mentions five who are in the above list, but also two who are not, and then does not specify names after that. Acts 1 follows Luke except that Judas Iscariot (the traitor) is replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:12-26).

Judas Iscariot dies, though there are conflicting accounts of how this happens when you compare Matthew 27 and Acts 1. After that, the book of Acts refers to the death of James, the brother of John (executed by King Herod, Acts 12), and Simon-Peter, who takes charge of the church after Jesus’ death. Simon-Peter is based in Jerusalem but travels to Antioch and back and then disappears from the narrative after chapter 12.

The lack of information in the New Testament accounts has led most historians to conclude that the importance of the apostles developed over time in church history. In the early church, apart from a few key figures, the lives and works of the 12 apostles went largely unrecorded. This is probably why there are so many, often conflicting, traditions that arise later as to the fate of the apostles. It is typical for areas to claim a link to an apostle as a matter of pride, regardless of the truth. The Spanish tradition for James is probably such an account.

Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History (HE = Historia Ecclesiastical) is useful, especially book 3, chapter 1 (link to the text: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm). He was writing in the early decades of the 300s and collates and comments on a lot of sources that are now lost. If you read through him, and take a look at the list again, we get a list of traditions that goes something like this (with a few additions from elsewhere):

  1. Simon-Peter – travels to Pontus and then on to Rome where he is executed (HE 3.1)

  2. Andrew – Scythia (HE 3.1), other traditions also have him in and around the Black Sea

  3. James – killed early on as described in Acts 12:1-2 (Spain via later legend)

  4. John – Asia (modern day western Turkey), he ends up in Ephesus where he dies and possibly writes a number of NT texts, including Revelation (HE 3.1 and 3.31.2)

  5. Philip – dies in Hierapolis, which is also in western Turkey today (HE 3.31.3), he should not be confused with the Philip of Acts 8 who converts the Ethiopian Eunuch

  6. Bartholomew – India (HE 5.10.3), although Armenian tradition is that he (also?) went there

  7. Thomas – interestingly Eusebius does not refer to the India tradition for Thomas but instead links him with Syria (HE 1.13) and Parthia (HE 3.1); these accounts are not mutually exclusive with India though, some scholars think that Christianity arrived in India via Syrian Christians, alternatively he may have been to both (people can make multiple trips after all and Paul’s story in Acts has him making numerous missionary journeys), I wrote about this six months ago in another thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gvxegt/thomas_the_apostle_went_to_preach_the_gospels_in/

  8. Matthew – I have not heard of the Ethiopian tradition that you mentioned, but there is not a lot on Matthew’s journey generally; he is said to have evangelised to the Jews but this is vague

  9. James – (The Lesser?) dies in Egypt according to some traditions, his fate is not mentioned in HE

  10. Thaddaeus – goes to Syria along with Thomas (HE 1.13)

  11. Simon – lots of traditions for him, including Egypt, Persia, and Armenia, none in HE

  12. Matthias – heads north apparently, to Georgia/Armenia