Mary Magdalene was the Beloved Disciple.

Now most people proposing that theory do so while claiming the Text of the Fourth Gospel must have been changed in some capacity.  I do not, the two passages commonly taken as distinguishing her from them are when analyzed closely actually saying the opposite.

John 20 verses 1-2.

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.  Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

The key word here is "other" no other Beloved Disciple verse says that, the implication is that the primary Disciple to whom that title belongs was someone already in the scene, which only leaves Mary.  

Add to that how this is the only Beloved Disciple verse using a form of Philia instead of Agape and it clearly isn't good for ruling anyone out.

Now look at John 19:25-27, my personal translation.

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his maternal sister Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.  When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, "Woman, behold thy son!" Then saith he to the disciple, "Behold thy mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

As an aspiring writer myself it's clear to me that when Verse 25 describes a group of people including his mother standing by The Cross, then verse 26 says Jesus observed two people standing by, the intent is clearly that both people referred to in verse 26 are among those identified in verse 25, not merely one of them.

"But sons are male!" you may object.  It is already the point of this passage that Jesus is giving the legal responsibility of being her son to a person who's not literally biologically her son.  So likewise I don't think the biological sex or gender identity of the Disciple in question matters either.

Likewise the pronouns used here and at the end of chapter 21 may not be as gendered in the Greek as the translators assumptions have lead us to believe.  But even if they are it could be because of this legal sonship and nothing else.

I also now believe Magdalene and the sister of Lazarus & Martha are the same Mary.  In John 11 when you see a from of "love" in the English, in the Greek a form of Philia is used both times it's only referring to Lazarus in verses 3 and 36, but Agape is used when it refers to Lazarus and Martha and their sister together in verse 5.  Elsewhere in the same chapter the remaining sister is named Mary, I think this chapter which proceeded all the usual Beloved Disciple passages sets the precedent that Mary will sometimes not be referred to by name but as someone Jesus loves using Agape.  This also results in my concluding the other disciple who Jesus loved Philia in chapter 20 is Lazarus.

I've talked before about my belief that there has been some slight corruption in the letter of Polycrates.  

"We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumeneia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man'...I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus."[Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Chapter 24]

I believe the "John" of this letter was originally either not named at all or was named Mary.  I also think it's a misinterpretation of the letter to think this Disciple is wearing the Brest Plate of the High Priest, that reference is tied to them being the one who rested on the Bosom of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, I think they symbolically are the Breastplate with Jesus as the High Priest.

There are known traditions independent of this that say Mary Magdalene came to Ephesus, but they usually involve her coming there with "John" and Mary the Mother of Jesus, among those is Gregory of Tours.  Since the earliest Christians of Southern France were Ionians who migrated there in the 2nd Century the later tradition of Mary going to France could derive from the Ephesian tradition.  

Still I am skeptical of her even going to Ephesus, she may be among the Early Christians buried at the Dominus Flevit Church on the Mount of Olives.

The Church of Ephesus and Cessationism

First of all don't read too much into this premise.  I'm not arguing every Cessationist congregation is an Ephesus or that you need to be Cessationist to be an Ephesus.  And even though I'm a Continutationist making this observation, this potential relationship could be true even if Cessationism is true.  Ephesus has the third best review of the Seven Churches so it's by no means an inherently derogatory association, and the two with better reports are NOT praised for their Doctrines.

One of the main things Ephesus is praised for is exposing and rejecting False Apostles, and while in the immediate context I think this refers to the same "ravenous wolves" Paul warned the Ephesians about at Miletus in Acts 20:29, in terms of applying this to then future and now contemporary Church issues I feel it can tie into how I in-spite of being a Continuationsit on the Spiritual Gifts in general do believe the Office of Apostle was only for the first generation of The Church, that being one required being an Eye Witness to The Resurrection and that Paul defined himself as the last to become an Apostle.

So I get uncomfortable when people like the host of The Prophecy Club calls himself an Apostle, but I think this can also apply to the Catholic/Orthodox concept of Apostolic succession, and to the Temple Lot Mormons calling their leaders a Quorum of Apostles.  And any other Pentecostal or Charismatic leaders calling themselves an Apostle.

And I have other areas of disagreement with many of my fellow Continuationists, I have been considering rejecting the usual identification of Thyatira with the Catholic Church and instead seeing it's False Prophetess as embodying many of the excesses of the more problematic Charismatic tendencies.  

My reading of Corinthians on this issue is Paul taking the same Contiuationist position I do and needing to deal with both Proto-Cessationists and overly reckless Charismatics causing problems in the Corinthian Church.

The main criticism of Ephesus is that they lost their First Love.  I feel like rejecting the Spiritual Gifts is quite possibly the only way to truly do that.  But even if Cessationism is true, I think many Cessationsits especially the Baptists should consider that their reactionary response to what some Contiuationists are doing wrong can potentially lead to that.

The fact that Paul's Epistle to Ephesus is one that gets into Spiritual Warfare a lot could also be evidence that Congregation was slowly becoming one that neglected the Spirit.

In which case I also think it's also highly likely for Sardis churches to be Cessationists since they are spiritually dead.  They would be churches with Ephesus's vices but not it's virtues.

The Genealogy of John Mark

I'm inclined towards believing every Mark/Marcus mentioned in the New Testament is the same person (and that person was never in Egypt).  But if they're separate we know the author of the Gospel According to Mark is the Mark associated with Peter, 1 Peter 5:13 and Acts 12:12.

Acts 12 in verses 12 and 25 link a "John whose surname was Mark" to both Peter and Paul and Barnabas.  Individually both of those were common enough we can't assume two people are the same simply for having that name.  But together it's a lot less common and I feel Acts 12:25 would only repeat the exact same wording as verse 12 if they wanted to tell us they were the same person.

Peter refers to Mark as his Son in chapter 5 verse 13 of his first epistle.  Most people don't take that exactly literally, or rather not biologically, but what if it is?  In Acts 12:12 Peter is liberated from prison and heads to the house of a Mary the mother of John Mark, maybe he was going to the house of his wife and son?  In 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul says that all of the Apostles but him and Barnabas are married.

Now Mary was an insanely common name, so many are quite annoyed at attempts to identify different Marys with each other.  But I a made post last year arguing the individual Paul called Kepha was actually Mary Magdalene not Simon Peter.  I made a couple pretty strong smoking gun arguments, but the fact remains John 1:42 clearly identifies a Kephas with Peter.  What if it was because Peter and Mary Magdalene were married that this title became one they shared?  And Paul chose to use Petros for the Husband and Kepha was the Wife?

Next is the question of how Mark is related to Barnabas.  In Collisions 4:10 the word sometimes translated cousin or nephew (and "Sister's son" in the KJV) is a word for relative that doesn't really seem to be that specific.  This is the only time the New Testament ever uses this word, but it seems like there may be precedent for it not being a literal biological relation at all, and maybe Paul is just using it here because of the connection Mark and Barnabas had in Acts 15:36-39.

When we're first introduced Barnabas in Acts 4:36 he's described as being from Cyprus.  Later on he and Mark together become strongly tied to Cyprus in Acts 13 and 15:36-39.  I also argued for the possibility that Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are the same.  And there are some early traditions that suggest Lazarus and his Sisters fled to Cyrpus sometime soon after the events of the Fourth Gospel.

The Gospel According to The Beloved Disciple

This post is kind of a follow up to my Heresies of Asia Minor post, and with also some prior groundwork laid by my Mary Magdalene and Bethany post.

One of the reasons that I can't put too much stock in what The Early Church Fathers said is that the Patristic Tradition is pretty unanimous that the Gospel we commonly call "The Gospel According to John" was written by John Son of Zebedee brother of James who one of the Twelve.  But the fact is the text of that Gospel tells us who wrote it, and it's not one of The Twelve or someone named John.

At the end of The Gospel we're told "The Disciple who Jesus Loved" wrote The Gospel (21:20-23).  Normally an analysis will say Chapter 13:23-25 is the first time this Disciple is mentioned.  However if you just read The Gospel without bringing prior assumptions into it, it's clear that this verse is identifying someone we were already introduced to.

But first I need to note that most of the traditional Beloved Disciple verses use Agape, but chapter 20:2 uses Phileo.

In chapters 11 verse 3 the sisters of Lazarus inform Jesus of his death by saying "he whom thou lovest is sick" using Phileo.  Verse 5 says that Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus using Agape.  In verse 36 the Judeans observe "look how Jesus loved him" using Phileo again referring to Lazarus.

Chapter 12 depicts Lazarus sitting next to Jesus just as the Beloved Disciple does in 13:23-24.

The argument that the Beloved Disciple must be one of the Twelve is dependent on verses from the Synoptics that are taken as saying only the Twelve were at the Last Supper, but they don't actually say that, they emphasize the Twelve being there but do not say it was only the Twelve. In fact it is made clear in the Synpotics that someone else owned the house they had it in.

Chapter 21 does mention the Sons of Zebedee, so if you wanna assume the Beloved Disciple can't be mentioned by any other designation in this Gospel, that rules them out as well. 

Others have proposed this theory before me, but I have some differences from them.  For example I'm rather skeptical of the whole connecting Lazarus to the family of Beothus theory.

http://www.alanrudnick.org/2017/04/13/john-was-not-the-disciple-whom-jesus-loved/

https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/bibleandculture/2007/01/was-lazarus-the-beloved-disciple.html

I also like to stress based on 11:5 that the designation can be expanded to include his Sisters, which helps explain 20:2, and I also still lean towards it being Mary who was entrusted with his mother in 19:25.

I also disagree with the idea that the ending of the Gospel is implying the Beloved Disciple had died before it's final publication.

But biggest of all, I don't think John the Presbyter was a student of the Beloved Disciple.  I don't think either John or the Bethany family ever went to Ephesus, Ephesus is mentioned quite a bit in the New Testament with no hints at any of them being there.  But Revelation 2 does refer to there being False Apostles in Ephesus, I think one of them claimed to be John and claimed credit for all five books traditionally ascribed to John, and then came to be sometimes known as John the Presbyter based on the 2nd and 3rd Epistles.  And because the "Apostolic Succession" of the early Church went back to his alleged students like Ignatius and Polycarp, that false attribution came to be accepted at face value.  In the authentic writings of Ignatius and Polycarp they never claim to be disciples of John or anyone else, and it seems Papias distinguished the John he knew from any of the Apostles.

There is an ancient Eastern Extra-Biblical Tradition that Lazarus received his Bishop's Omophorion from The Virgin Mary. It was apparently something she wove for him.  So there is some evidence their association was remembered.

Most even Atheist scholars agree that all three Epistles commonly called "of John" probably have the same author as The Gospel.  The first of them I don't even view as an Epistle since it doesn't have an Epistle style introduction or ending.  I think it was an Appendix to the Gospel.

It's Revelation that scholars have trouble seeing as being by the same author.  And I think that argument can hold up better then attempts to deny certain Paulian letters had the same author.  The issue is that usually The Gospel is given first dibs on being the true Son of Zebedde (though plenty of Atheists think none could have been written by a Galileen Fisherman) while I'm pointing out that Revelation is the only of these books who's author actually claims to be named John.

These books being dated to between 90 and 100 AD is often itself seen as evidence against them being written by Eye Witnesses because of the modern obsession with saying people didn't live as long back then.  The problem with that narrative is "average" life-span statistics are skewed by how there used to be higher infant mortality rates.  I think the Twelve Disciples were younger then Jesus to begin with, and Paul was younger then the Twelve.  In every era of history some people have successfully lived to 100, therefore some people born around 5 BC could have made it to 96 AD.

Quadratus letter to Hadrian says some people Jesus healed and rose form the dead were still alive at the time he wrote that letter.  That's a category Lazarus specifically fits into.  Simeon the second Bishop of Jerusalem was said to have been 120 when he was martyred during the reign of Trajan according to Eusebius.  If some theories about the Bethany family are true, he could have been the father of Lazarus and his sisters, or the same person as Lazarus, because the Simon of Matthew 26 and Mark 14 seems to have something to do with the Bethany family when you cross reference it with John 12.

Below is additional theorizing that is much more speculative.

Maybe part of the reason the Gospel became associated with the name of John is how it talks about John The Baptist at the beginning.  It's not the only Gospel to kind of begin with John but it's treatment of John is arguably unique.  John is the first personal name mentioned in the text.

The name Lazarus is often thought to be a nickname. (It being a presumed form of Eleazar never sat right with me, all other El theophoric names still begin an E in their Greek forms, and I don't think a spelling like Lazarus is ever used in Josephus of someone known to be an Eleazar.)  A theory that among other things complicates how he relates to the Parable in Luke 16.  So he could be someone also named John which was a common name.  However there are the Ossuaries at Dominus Flevit which have a Mary, Martha and Eleazer together.

Wikipedia pages about the Eastern Traditions of Lazarus and his sisters say they preached the Gospel in many lands not just Cyrpus, but I can't find specifics about that.  What I find unlikely about the Cyprus tradition is that Lazarus would be ordained by Paul and Barnabas when Paul's own definitions of Apostolic Authority would place Lazarus ahead of him.  Paul's time on Cyrpus with Barnabas is recorded in Acts 13 with no reference to them visiting Kition or ordaining any Bishops or meeting Lazarus and the Bethany sisters.

If the traditions of Lazarus on Cyprus do have some truth to them, it's notable that they only account for about 30 years after his Resurrection, which takes us to 60 AD or 66 AD at the latest.  I'm confident he did live a lot longer then that. 

Update April 2020:  I have decided that The Disciple who Jesus Agape when used of a single individual is Mary, and Magdalene and the sister of Lazarus are the same Mary.  And The Disciple who Jesus Phileo when used of a single individual is Lazarus.

I have abandoned my past flirtation with the idea of Mary Agdalene as Jesus Sister.  But I do still think "Mother's Sister" in John 19:25 should probably means "Maternal sister" and so I now think Mary of Cleophas is one of his Sisters. 

In verse 26 when Jesus "his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he apagao" both character refereed to here are ones identified in the prior verse.  The male pronouns are possibly just translating pronouns not actually originally meant to be gender specific.  When He says refers to this disciple as "son" so His Mother he means the legal meaning of sonship, not biology or gender.

The Heresies of Asia Minor

I'm annoyed by people appealing to the Early Church Fathers as if a doctrine being affirmed by them from very early on must make it valid, because The New Testament informs us heresies were emerging already in the first generation of The Church.

In Acts 20:16 Paul arrived in Ephesus and proceeded to warn them about false teachers who will emerge as soon as he leaves them.  Verses 29-31.

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.  Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.  Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."

And later in 2 Timothy 1:15 Paul laments that all of Asia has departed from him.

In Revelation 2:2 the Ephesian Church being addressed is commended for rejecting False Apostles.  But the same false doctrines Ephesus resisted here we can infer were not so well resisted by the other churches, especially Pergamos.  Jesus refused to say anything bad about Smyrna because they were dying for their Faith, but even martyrs can be influenced by bad doctrines.

Now the Anti-Paul people insist Revelation is on the other side of this conflict, that Paul and his Clique are the False Apostles Jesus refereed to.  After all Paul said "All of Asia" seemingly not allowing Ephesus as an exception.

The Bible will sometimes use the word "all" hyperbolically when exceptions do exist.  That Ephesus is where Paul gave the warning, and also the only of the Seven Churches to also be recipients of a Paulian Epistle, is sufficient reason to expect them to be the exception.  Also Timothy himself was a Bishop in Ephesus when these letters were written so clearly he represents some support Paul still had there.

Meanwhile it could be a specific Church in Ephesus that John was in contact with being addressed.  It can be inferred that Ephesus is the city these False Apostles were operating in and that's why they're relevant to that message.

However it's also interesting that Jesus addresses them as the "Church of Ephesus" not the "Church in ____" as he did 5 of the 6 following Churches.  Could it be that the true Ephesian Church Paul founded was not actually in Ephesus anymore?  Remember he met with them as Miletus once.

I should mention that different definitions of what "Asia" meant in these kinds of contexts can create ambiguity about if Phyrgian locations (like Laodicea and the recipients of Colossians and maybe Philadephia) count as Asia. Some texts of 1 Timothy end with Paul saying he wrote that letter in Laodicea.  1 Peter 1:1 by not mentioning Phrygia at all is probably counting it as Asia, but language in Acts 16 seems to imply neither Phrygia or Mysia (where Pergamon was) count as Asia.  The Roman Province of Asia included all Seven cities however.  Polycrates seems to be counting Phrygian locations like Hierapolis and Laodicea as Asia, but since Pergamon and Thyatira aren't mentioned we don't know if he'd count them.

I think the more specific use of Asia is treating it as a synonym for Lydia (but with Coastal cities like Miletus, Ephesus and Smyrna added), which The Bible never uses as a location name, but in Acts 16 a woman from Thyatira is called Lydia in the KJV but the Greek means Lydian(of Lydia).  Thyatira was on the border between Lydia and Mysia.  Sardis was the capital of Ancient Lydia and the seat of a Proconsul under Rome.

I talked about the Apostles of Ephesus on this blog before, in that post mostly accepting the traditions at face value.  But now, given this direct Biblical Evidence of False Apostles in Ephesus, I should perhaps be just as skeptical of the traditions about John and the Marys going to Ephesus as I am of Peter going to Rome.  My theory that traditions of Mary Magdelene going to France are derivative of earlier traditions of her going to Ephesus because of Ephesian Christians migrating to France remains valid however.

It's interesting then how much of the alleged "Apostolic Succession" of the Early Church Fathers goes back to Asia Minor.  Polycarp, Ignatius and presumably Papias were all direct students of a "John" who was in Ephesus in the late first century.  Students of Polycarp founded the early church of Lyon in France, one of whom Irenaus was the mentor of Hipolytus an early Bishop of Rome and only Early Church precedent for Dispensationalist interpretations of Daniel 9 and 11.  Ignatius who is given much of the credit for the development of Early Church Hierarchy was a Bishop of Antioch so also played a role in spreading these doctrines beyond Asia Minor.

The Montanists also had their origin in Asia Minor, and were an influence on Tertulian the first Church Father to write in Latin and thus a major influence on later Latin Church writers like Augustine. 

Marcian also first emerged in Asia Minor.  Now at face value he's the opposite of departing from Paul, Marcian was Paul's biggest super fan.  But we see in 1 Corinthians that Paul was also annoyed by people saying they are "Of Paul" he would not like the term "Paulian Christianity".  Paul's warning in Acts 20 was of multiple heresies not just one, some emerging from without and some emerging from within.

Frankly the reason why so much confusion exists about the Nicolatians is because people keep turning to the Early Church Fathers opinions to identify them when in my view they were the Nicolatians and so in constant denial about who the Nicolatians really were and what they taught.

What Papias is quoted as saying about John The Presbyter I view as evidence that the original John of Ephesus was not an authentic Biblical John, but that his followers confused him with John later.

The canonocity of 2 John and 3 John were sometimes disputed in the Early Church.  Including attributing them to John the Presbyter.  But that early dispute gave them the same author, some today think these two Epistles were actually condemning each others authors.  That 3 John's description of Diotrephes fits the author of 2 John like a glove.  And so likewise the author of 3 John could be one of the people 2 John complains about.  Neither text actually identifies itself as having been written by a John.

But assuming they have the same Author, they still both show heretics had emerged within the presumed Johnian community.

Diotrephes has been seen as the first Monarchial Bishop.  Some early Church references do imply that in Asia Paul's Churches had many Elders who were all Bishops while Churches founded by "John" had one Bishop and multiple elders, a Structure elaborated upon by his student Ignatius.  So whether he wrote 2 John or not I think Diotrephes which means "nourished by Zeus" could be a name for the false John of Ephesus.

The origins of identifying the Beloved Disciple with the name of John are partly based on Polycrates statements about the John of Ephesus who he doesn't say was one of the 12.  He does say this John was a Priest (as in Kohen not as in Presbytr) possibly specifically a High Priest since he wore the Sacredotal Plate.  There was a High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple in the First Century named John, he was one of the sons of Ananias and probably the John kindred to the High Priest mentioned in Acts 4.  He served as High Priest twice both very briefly and we don't know what became of him afterwards.

Crenthius was one of the earliest Proto-Gnostics, and he spent time in Asia Minor.  Some also speculate he specifically was among those John's Epistles were written against.   What's distinct about Crenthius is that while Gnostic in many ways including separating the Demiurge from The Father.  He didn't view the Demiurge as Evil but rather taught we still had to follow The Law of Moses.  In a way that makes him a lot like Rob Skiba, who's an ardent Hebrew Roots believer but believes a lot of quasi Gnostic stuff.

The claim that Crenthius's Gospel was a version of Matthew I think must be wrong.  His doctrines make much more sense if he was focusing on Mark.  In fact I now think his Hersey was the origin of removing the last portion of Mark 16.

Melito the Eunuch who fell asleep in Sardis was also someone who seems to have had Legalistic tendencies.  The heresies Paul warned of I think are likely to include falling back into Legalism, after all the Ravening Wolves imagery suggests some of these false teachers will be fellow Benjamites based on Genesis 49.

This does not mean Asia Minor was the only source of Hersey.  Simon Magus I still believe was the real Peter of Rome, Justin Martyr was another mystic from Samaria who started his own school in Rome, and Tatian (possibly the first to teach Endless Torment and other Gnostic ideas) was a student of his. Justin was an early example of seeking to justify claiming that Socrates and Plato taught Christian ideas because they were in contact with the Logos.

I'm not trying to demonize anyone.  Some of the people I mentioned in this post were Martyred for their Faith in Jesus, and for that I firmly believe they won the Crown of Life no matter how flawed their doctrines were.  My point is simply that being an early belief of The Church doesn't make it a correct one.

There is a website called Church-History.Org which has some good information on it, but it says that Protestants were right to reject the Catholic Understanding of Tradition and Apostolic succession but were wrong to reject "Apostolic Tradition".   The problem is this Apostolic Tradition becomes exactly the same thing as the "Oral Torah" of Rabbinic Judaism aka The Pharisees Jesus preached against.  And it cites Ignatius as proof monarchical Church structure isn't heretical while admitting it's not supported by Scripture.

All references in the New Testament to "traditions" that seem positive are to teachings that became written down in the New Testament.  You need to remember when Paul was writing not even all 4 Gospels had been written down yet, and most of his Epistles predate Luke-Acts which were written while he was in Rome.  One of the things Jude refers to as a teaching from the Apostles is written down in 2 Peter, which some scholars think was written later then Jude.  But for the most part these "traditions" are what Jesus taught in The Gospels and what Peter and John taught in the first 11 chapters of Acts.

I don't think the person Paul calls Kepha/Kephas is Simon Peter.

I know that in John 1:42 Simon is called Kephas and we're told that means Petros.  But the Protestant understanding of Petras and Petros is that Jesus is the Eben/Petra and all of us believers are Petron carved out of him.

Paul's Epistles use the name Peter only in Galatians, but he also uses Kephas once there.

In Galatians 2 he refers to Peter in verses 7 and 8, then to James, Cephas and John in verse 9, then to Peter again in verses 11 and 14.  Reading through the whole chapter it seems odd to me that he would this one time use a different name.

Now comparing to the Gospels, you might feel compelled to say Galatians 2:9 is like the verses that refer to Peter, James and John.  But Paul names them in a different order, in those verses Peter was always first.  And Paul is not contradicting Peter's primacy, the prior two verses just defined Peter as being in charge of bringing The Gospel to the Circumcision.  Also the James in this verse isn't the Son of Zebedee since it's about Acts 15 and he was Martyred in chapter 12.

It seems more likely that after already talking about Peter this verse is then listing other Pillars of the Church in Jerusalem.

The rest of Paul's references to Kephas are in 1 Corinthians.  1:12 and 3:22 refer to Paul himself, Apollos and Kepha being people who have fans in Corinth who are having fandom rivalries with each other, and Paul reminds them we're all supposed to be focused on Christ.

Chapter 15 is the most defining identifying characteristic of this Kepha however.   In verses 4 and 5 he says.

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

He didn't say "then the rest of the twelve".  Even without comparing this to other sources on the Resurrection, it clearly seems to be saying Kepha is not one of the Twelve.

Paul's list of Eye Witnesses to the Resurrection is not complete, but that who he does list is chronological is part of his point, he defines himself as the least of the apostles in part because he was the last eye witness to the Resurrection.

In The Gospel accounts, Peter does not see the risen Jesus till about the same time most of the Twelve do.  Peter enters the Empty Tomb, but that's not seeing the risen Jesus.  The defining characteristic of Kepha in 1 Corinthians 15:5 is being the first Eye Witness to the Resurrection.

Matthew 28 and Luke 24 tell us the Women who found the Tomb Empty saw the risen Jesus before the 12.  And Mark 16:9 and John 20 further clarify that the individual first eye witness of The Resurrection was Mary Magdalene.

Now I know this observation might seem like music to the ears of the DaVinci Code style conspiracy theorists, who'll say Paul is an older source so this is evidence that the Church later gave to Peter a title that belonged to Mary Magdalene.  But as I already pointed out, Paul does give primacy to Peter and discourages those who place too much importance on Kepha or himself or any other Apostle.

Since Magdalene probably comes from Migdol which means Tower, perhaps it refers to a stone tower?

Update March 27th 2024: I've now argued in favor of now viewing Mary as The Beloved Disciple.  

Also I've noticed that in 1 Corinthians 1:12 and 15:4-5 the Greek Textus Receptus says Cepha with no S on the end, that makes it arguably Grammatically Feminine.

I'm going to do something I used to be less willing to do and argue there has been textual corruption.  And then originally Cephas was only used in 1 John and all Paul's references are to Cepha.  Thus Cephas is Peter but Cepha is Mary.

Torah as The Foundation of The Canon

A few posts I've made over the last two months have been addressed to people who's view on Canon I've described as "Torah Only".  The Remember The Commands YouTube channel rejects that description it seems, preferring to say it's the Torah as the Foundation.

Thing is it's basically the same thing, when you're using an extreme interpretation of the Prophet Test to discredit any book that has any apparent conflict with The Torah.  But of course they have a different attitude towards alleged places where The Torah contradicts itself.

Numbers 12:6-8 is cited as explaining why Moses is distinct from other Prophets, why what Moses said and wrote is more Canon then anything else.

But Deuteronomy 18:15-19 foretells a future Prophet like Moses, who's authority will be exactly like how Moses was described in Numbers 12.

I believe that Prophet was Jesus.  That belief requires a great deal of Faith, as does placing one's Faith in the God of Moses.  So anything Jesus quoted as Scripture must be Scripture, and He also passed on His authority to the 12, starting with Peter.  And Peter called Paul's writings Scripture.

It's interesting in the context of this title of Jesus to remember what Exodus 7:1 says.  Typologically that's another place where Moses represents Jesus, and Aaron all New Testament believers, since now we are all Priests.

Basically what I'm saying is, to Christians Jesus is our Cornerstone, and His Apostles who wrote the New Testament are our Foundation.   The dispensation of The Torah is over.

Update November 25th 2017:

Some who aren't Christians or Rabbinic Jews seek to deconstruct the whole idea of Messianic Prophecy.  They might insist that Deuteronomy 18 wasn't meant to be about a single individual.   But that it would be an office.

Meanwhile the context in Numbers 12 is Yahuah explaining why Miriam and Aaron' authority are not like that of Moses.  So you can argue the intent was only that while Moses lived no one else's authority equals Moses.

The end of Deuteronomy does clearly say there was no one like Moses during whatever time separated it's authorship from the Death of Moses.  However....

When you look at Samuel's story in 1st Samuel 3, it's easy to conclude that perhaps that author meant us to think of Samuel as the Prophet like Unto Moses, and he was contemporary with other events foretold in Deuteronomy, in chapter 17.  Samuel is often considered the first Prophet in the sense of how that Office functioned during the Kingdom period.  And most of the Prophetic books are arguably defining themselves as being like how Moses is defined in these passages of Numbers and Deuteronomy, with only Daniel fitting Numbers 12's description of the not Moses like Prophets.

This view can be reconciled with the Christian view.  The Prophet like unto Moses is ultimately Jesus, but other Prophets foreshadowed Him, and then He passed His Authority onto The Apostles.

The Offices of Apostle and Prophet

The New Testament offices of Apostle and Prophet are not the same, they are distinct.

I am a Continuationist, the Spiritual Gifts are for today, one of those is Prophecy.

An Apostle is something more specific.  Chris White has a good video on Apostolic Succession directed at Catholic Doctrine.

Thing is other versions of that doctrine have been utilized by non Catholic denominations.  I already did a post once on the Baptist version of it some Baptists believe.

This post is partly about a problem I've noticed of some Pentecostal and Charismatic Christian Leaders calling themselves Apostle.  Paul defined himself as the Last Apostle (1 Corinthians 15:8-9), and made clear you had to be an eye witness to the Resurrection to be an Apostle in the verses leading up to that.  Acts 1 agrees that being an eye witness was a requirement for being an Apostle.

Critics of Continuationism sometimes assert that the Canon isn't closed if there is still Prophecy, and some Contuionationists seem to effectively teach that.  But prophecy has to be tested against Scripture, and I believe only Apostles could add to Scripture.  In order for something to be Scripture it had to be written by an Apostle or approved by one.

I've seen some Ceasationists use Apostle and Prophet as if they are the same.  But The New Testament clearly treats them as distinct.  There are some passages where you can cite that verse alone and say maybe they're being used as synonyms there.  And in a sense I think every Apostle was a Prophet.   But verses like 1 Corinthians 12:28 clearly define them as distinct.

I can't currently think of a Hebrew word that might equate to what Apostle means in the New Testament.  But in concept I can point to Numbers 12 which distinguishes between the authority of Moses and that of other Prophets.  Jesus was the Prophet like Moses and He gave His Mosaic authority to the Apostles.

Some of the people who want to reject Paul act like Paul's claim to Apostolic status makes him a 13th Apostle, or in some way the only one additional to the 12.  But that's clearly not what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15, placing James the Half-Brother of Jesus and many others between the 12 and himself as the last.  Acts 14:14 says Paul and Barnabas were both Apostles.  In Romans 16 Paul identifies as an Apostle a woman seemingly not named anywhere else in Scripture named Junia (though there's a theory she's the same woman as Joanna in Luke's Gospel).

Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture at the end of 2 Peter.  People try to argue around this fact, but it's undeniable.

I bring this up because the Anti-Paul people often desire to limit the title of Apostle only to the 12 (with Matthias taking Judas's spot).  Yet they try to get around the full implication that that would remove canonical status from at least 2 of the Gospels.  And that they may have to throw out James and Jude too if you believe the tradition that they were written by Half-Brothers of Jesus not the James son of Alpheius and Jude "Not Iscariot" of the 12.  And they frequently use James in their attacks on Paul.

Ironically for all this James vs Paul theorizing nonsense, it is only Paul who tells us James the Brother of Jesus qualified as an Apostle. Without him, we'd have no direct Biblical basis for believing that James ever became a Believer at all.  The James of the Acts 15 council I believe was the surviving James of the 12, not Jesus' brother.

Apostles of Ephesus

According to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Church, Mary Magdalene went to Ephesus along with the Mother of Jesus and the Beloved Disciple.  Gregory of Tours, the first historian of Medieval France, agreed with that tradition.  But later a tradition developed that Mary Magdalene (and eventually others with her) came to southern France.  And much later that would get tied into the modern Holy Grail Bloodline mythology.

Naturally I consider the older Eastern tradition more likely to be true.  But I'm curious about how these kinds of traditions develop.  Why would French mythographers choose Mary Magdalene over one of the 12?

With Britain I feel there is evidence that a Christian community popped up there in the first century.  But with Gaul a Christian community doesn't seem to show up till the second half of the second century.  And the oldest one was in Lyon, where it seems the first Christians of Lyon came from Ephesus.  Pothinus and Irenaus, the first two Bishops of Lyon were students of Polycarp, who was believed to have been a student of John.  And contemporary with them, the Bishop back in Ephesus was Polycrates, who is interesting for a few reasons.  Also the Bishopric of Vienne, another location in southern France, is said to go back to Crescens who Paul mentions in II Timothy 4:88-10 as being on a mission to Galatia.

So maybe the later tradition comes from this community of Christians seeing Mary Magdelene as a founder of theirs back in Ephesus?

There are debates about if the assumption that John son of Zebedee is the Beloved Disciple is true.  No one doubts the three Canonical Epistles attributed to John were written by the same authors as The Gospel, but the author of those Epistles doesn't name himself either.  Revelation is the only John book thought to be by a different author, and only it identifies it's author as being named John.

I've been thinking for awhile about what my position on that is.  I'm obviously not for any that say the text has been changed somewhere, so that rules out the Mary Magdalene theory.  And I think it is someone probably not mentioned by name in the Gospel According to John, so that rules out Lazarus.

The idea that it was a disciple in Jerusalem, usually not involved in what was going on in Galilee and thus not one of the 12, I think is viable.  If it's the person who owned the house they had the Last Supper in, then that would likely be the man holding the pitcher of water in Luke 22:10.

One thing I've considered is, John was a very common name back then, maybe it was a different person not in the Twelve but also named John?  And that explains why a different author would be confused with John.

John 18:15-16 implies the Beloved Disciple is known to the High Priests.  Acts 4:6 lists a John among the kindred of the High Priests.   Also interestingly the Samaritan High Priest during the time of Jesus was named Johnathon, but I doubt that is who it is.  Actually it's highly probably the John of Acts 4:6 is Johnathon son of Ananias who had two shorts administrations as the High Priest in 36-37 and 44 AD.

In a supplemental portion to a post on my Prophesy blog I suggest that it was a different John who came to Ephesus, John the Presbeter.

Polycrates is considered the oldest source on John being the Beloved Disciple.  Here is the letter he wrote as transcribed by Eusebius.

"We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumeneia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man'...I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus."[Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Chapter 24]

When referring to Philip he specifically said he was one of the Twelve.  But he doesn't say that for this John who did what the Beloved Disciple is described as doing in John 13:23-25.  Just calls him a  Witness and a Teacher.  The Beloved Disciple witnessed both the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Side note, some people may think Polycrates here is an early example of confusing Philip of the Twelve Disciples with Philip the Evangelist simply because daughters are mentioned.  Philip the Evangelist had four daughters (Acts 21:8-9), Polycrates only mentions three for this Philip.  And these three daughters are not specifically described as having been Prophetesses.  Paul said all of the Apostles but him were married (1 Corinthians 9:5), so it's perfectly plausible that both Philips had daughters.

On the other hand I myself am not entirety against a theory that both Biblical Philips were actually the same person.  No passage mentions both by name together.  I get why people assume Acts 6 allows no overlap between the Twelve and the Seven.  But remember in John chapter 12 the Philip who is of the Twelve serves as the contact between Greek Speaking Jews interested in Jesus message and the Twelve.  So Acts 6 could just be him still playing that role.  And Stephen is mentioned first even over one of the Twelve because he became the first Martyr, while when Acts was written Philip's Martyrdom may not have even happened yet.  In that context you may wonder why Polycrates only mentioned three daughters?  Well he was only mentioning people who died in Asia Minor (or the Roman Province of Asia), maybe the fourth died somewhere else?  And it is interesting that for both Philips the traditions about their careers post existing the book of Acts takes them to Asia, though different cities, yet Polycrates knew only one Asian Philip to reference.

Back to Mary Magdalene.  Every Gospel but Luke doesn't mention her till the Crucifixion account.  In Luke she's mentioned in Luke 8 briefly.  This lack of information is probably why it's so popular for writers to fuse her with other characters.  Maybe she was married to the Beloved Disciple?  And that's why she traveled to the same place that he and Mary the Mother of Jesus did?

You may wonder then why Polycrates didn't mention either Mary?  Maybe it was a little bit of Sexism, he didn't mention any women by name, and perhaps only mentioned daughters of Philip as they further back up the citing of Philip.  Or maybe given the agenda of this letter he didn't mention people who didn't keep the Passover on the 14th, or at least who he couldn't prove did.

Update August 17th 2017: Another interesting note is that the Tarasque, the monster Martha of Bethany tamed in France according to the Golden Legend, was said to be originally from Galatia, another region in Asia Minor.  If you think Fate/Grand Order has something to do with that popping into my head right now..... you're correct.

Baptism and Baptists

Baptists are called Baptists because they are the Christians who try the hardest to practice and understand Baptism Biblically.  But even they slip up.

Even the ones who understand it's not needed for Salvation, have this issue where they add other requirements besides profession of faith for it.  Basically in response to others who Baptize everyone and everything without consent, many Baptists want to put all kinds of restrictions on Baptism.

Most even Independent Baptists require you to become a member of their specific Church (I don't think Churches should even have official membership lists), which in turn often requires an agreement (that they usually don't really try to enforce) to live by a bunch of rules.

Even if not requiring membership they feel that they have to ask all kinds of questions, to make sure you're ready for a Christian life.

Before things like Infant Baptism became an issue these problems were popping up, The Didachae around 100 AD was saying you should fast for a day before Baptism.

Let's look at Acts 8: starting in verse 36

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.  And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

No membership, no joining any earthly group, no making sure he got various Doctrines right, no asking him what he was willing to give up for Jesus, no asking him how he intends to live his life.  He just asked him if he believed, and he believed, and that was it.

People also have this notion that Baptism is a public declaration of Faith in Jesus.  This wasn't Public, they were alone, no one else saw this.

John The Baptist alone Baptized people Publicly.  Paul defined John's Baptism as distinct from the water baptism the Church practiced after Pentecost.

Acts 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.  And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.
Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Lots of Baptists don't understand this, I'm kind of disturbed how often Baptists act like John not Jesus and the Disciples was the founder of their religion.  John is defined Biblically as the end of The Old Testament, not a beginning.

They think Apollos only needed to be Baptized again because it doesn't really count if you weren't Saved when you were Baptized before.  I think it is good to Rebaptize converts from other forms of Christianity.  But that isn't the point here, the emphasis was on it being of John rather then Jesus.

When we receive the Holy Spirit we are Baptized spiritually, not with Water.  The Water Baptism The Church does is mainly an outward symbol of that Baptism, as well as being "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Colossians 2:12.

A lot of Baptists seem really afraid of accidentally Baptizing someone who's not really Saved.  But why care?  All you did was waste some water.

As far as the error of thinking Baptism is necessary for Salvation.  There are really only two verses that doctrine is built on.

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

The condition of those that Believe but aren't Baptized isn't addressed either way.  Clearly this verse alone doesn't settle the issue.  Some might argue that this means the salvation isn't secure until Baptism.  I think the reason Baptism is excluded from the second statement is to make clear that Baptism without belief doesn't Save.

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

First of all, the Context of this being Pentecost and addressing the Gifts of the Holy Spirit tells me this isn't Water Baptism but the Baptism of The Holy Spirit.

Secondly, nothing said here makes it needed for Salvation, on Salvation he just said "all who call upon the name of The LORD".

I also feel many people added to The Church at this time were already Saved, I think a lot of the early mass conversations were merely bringing into The Church those already Saved.  Because I'm not and have never been the kind of Dispensationalist who thinks Salvation used to work differently.  Paul proved his doctrine of Salvation from The Old Testament, where Baptism never existed.  I disagree with the claim of some Hebrew Roots people who think it came from the Mikvah custom.

Was Simon Peter of Rome really Simon Magus?

[Update February 2023: This theory is one I no longer support]

The Apostolic Fathers and the tradition of Peter in Rome

I've had a theme on this blog of addressing the error of appealing to the Church Fathers as an authority.  Whether doing so for or against Catholic dogma.

I want to talk specifically about the so called "Apostolic Fathers" these are often considered distinct from the other Church Fathers, they were supposedly the direct successors of The Apostles, the 2nd, 3rds and 4th of the various Bishoprics.

Their period is sometimes arbitrarily dated as ending in 125 AD.

There should be at least 20 (each of the 12 plus Paul and Barnabas, plus the half siblings of Jesus, and Nicodemus and Lazurus, and Cleopas, at the very least all held Apostolic rank, and that is with me reluctantly conceding to those who would deny the rank to the Female Eyewitnesses of the Resurrection) individuals to hold such a rank, but really a lot more since they each brought The Gospel to many cities, and founded many churches, and it can be shown Biblical church government was not originally monarchical.  There is also the 70 Disciples to consider.  There were actually 100s of people in the upper room at Pentacost.

But only a handful are preserved as having written or said anything for us to quote.  Since history is written by the winners, and it was the scribes of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions who decided what works to preserve, it's safe to assume that they were very selective.  Some of those other supposed successors we have traditions about, but not writings or sermons they preached.

Most of that handful we have are from being quoted by later Church Fathers. It's Clement of Rome and Ignatius alone who left significant writings behind that we still have, and of the many works attributed to Clement only First Clement (aka The Epistle of Clement to The Corinthians) is genuine.  And it's valid to question if those writings were even preserved accurately.  God promised to preserve his Word, not anything ever written by a Christian.

Other works affiliated with this era are unnamed authors like Shepherd of Hermas or the Didachae (which I glibly call the first Baptist Constitution).  The Didachae is often considered the oldest extra Biblical Christian writing.  It has nothing majorly objectionable, but does add to Scripture like saying you need to fast for a day before Baptism.  It doesn't seem to address Faith Alone or Eternal Security either way.

Of all the supposed Apostolic Fathers who left writings behind.  Only Clement of Rome is identified by tradition with a person named in the NT, the Clement Paul mentioned in Philippians.  Contrary to how Catholics try to twist it First Clement definitely teaches Salvation by Faith Alone, but doesn't address Eternal Security one way or the other.  But he's a problem because the whole motive behind the letter was thinking he had authority to tell the Corinthians what to do, the root of Papal authority was kind of there already.

Yet when he refers to Peter only once in the Epistle, he is very vague, and does not say where he was when he died or confirm him having been to Rome at all, or claim to be a successor of Peter or to have been appointed by Peter as Tertullian claimed Clement was.  He talks about Paul far more but doesn't confirm he was a student or associate directly of him either.

He also never mentioned Philipi or the Philippians.  So is this really the same Clement?  It was a not uncommon Roman name (Philipi was a city where everyone had Roman Citizenship).  Later Clementine traditions would seek to say he was Titus Flavius Clemens, a member of the Flavian family.  There is reason to suspect Titus Clemens might have become a Christian, but given his age and biography no way he was ever in Philipi, or prominent at all while Paul was alive.

Many Protestant and Evangelical Christians have grown accustomed to accepting the Catholic Tradition linking Peter to Rome.  Often arguing based on Irenaeus and the Apostolic Constitutions that it was Paul not Peter who appointed Linus to be Bishop of the Roman church.  But still believing Peter had been there.  I myself in the past had accepted it, saying based on Eusebius that Peter had came to Rome twice, in 42 AD and later in the 60s when he died.

Sometimes extra-Biblical traditions can seem universal but still be false.  Like the whole Nimrod masterminded Babel thing.

The oldest source on Peter in Rome is really the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah, but that doesn't even name the one of the 12 it says Nero Martyrded.  The author could have considered Nero responsible simply for it being done by the Roman government, even if there was no direct personal involvement from Nero.  Andrew was traditionally held to be martyred in Achaia Greece, the city of Patrae in the northern Peloponnese, by the order of the Roman Governor.  Traditional date is November 30th 60 AD.

But also maybe the assumption that the Ascension of Isaiah was identifying Nero is wrong.  It never says anything about Rome, the main identifier with Nero besides supposedly killing one of the 12 is having killed his mother.  But certainly others throughout history have killed their mothers.  The Ascension of Isaiah is the product of a time when the trendy thing was to identify The Antichrist (who this killer of one of the 12 is supposed to be) as a Jewish False Messiah.  Also if the author wanted readers to think of Nero and Agrippina, the incest angle would have been much better to lead with.

The only one of the 12 who's martyrdom is documented in Scripture was James the Son of Zebedde.  He was killed by Herod Agrippa, there are reasons in Acts 12 to see Agrippa as a type of The Antichrist, especially if you have Ezekiel 28 in mind.

Agrippa's mother was Berenice, the daughter of Herod The Great's sister Salome.  We don't know what happened to her, she's last mentioned retiring to Rome well before her son becomes King.  Our main source on Agrippa's life is Jospehus who was a friend of his son Agirppa II and tended to portray Agrippa very positively.  If he had for some reason murdered his mother Josephus would have concealed it.  In the 2nd century other sources on the 1st century AD were around that haven't survived, like the other 3 of Philo's 5 books about Jewish persecutors contemporary with Caligula, and Justus who had an antagonistic relationship with Josephus and Agrippa II.

I don't want to accuse Agrippa of anything, but it's highly possible a critic of the Agrippas like Justus could have slandered them.  And then that slander influenced the author of the Ascension of Isaiah.

But it could also simply be that the author meant something allegorical rather then literal with "Slayer of his Mother", like being a slayer of his own people.  If he had Gnostic heresies in mind (for or against them) he could have been thinking of the relationship between Sophia and the Ialdobath in Gnostic cosmologies.  It also certainly could be he meant this to allude to The Beast killing the Whore of Babylon in Revelation 17.

How did The Gospel come to Rome?

From The Bible, we know in Acts 2 some Jews who lived in Rome were present right at Pentecost, wouldn't surprise me if Priscilla and Aquilla were among those.  Later Cornelius was a Centurion from Italy, it's safe to say he wound up spending some time later back in Italy.  Rome didn't need an Apostolic mission to plant the initial seed of The Gospel there.

From Romans 16 we know Peter wasn't in Rome when Paul wrote to them.  Same with Paul's later Epistles written when he was in Rome and occasionally references people there with him, no Peter. Peter has still never left the Near East the last time we see him in Acts.

Romans 1:11 says that while there were Christians there The Church wasn't really established in Rome yet, and it was Paul's mission to go there and establish it.  In Romans 15 Paul said he wouldn't be building on another man's foundation.

In Galatians 2:11 Paul mentioned having an encounter with Peter in Antioch.  The Christians of Antioch had local traditions of Peter being their "first bishop" also.  In fact there were people in Antioch who claimed to be descended from Peter, in fact to this day certain families still claim it.  Peter like all of the 12 did have a wife and possibly children.

And then there is First Peter where he clearly says he was in Babylon.  I'm amused by those Protestants and Evangelicals who want to use the "Babylon is code for Rome" argument to back up their view of Revelation 17 when the whole origin of that argument was made by the Catholic Church to twist 1 Peter 5:13 into supporting their tradition.  Rarely is it acknowledged that there is equally strong regional tradition among Mesopotamian Christians that he meant exactly what he said.

Some people will claim Peter called himself The Apostle to The Gentiles in Acts 15 and use that as evidence he clearly wouldn't have not gone to the capital of the world.  But in the KJV, I don't see that in Acts.  In 15:7 he refers back to the events of 10-11.  But in general the 12's mission was to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.  Matthias who replaced Judas traditionally went to Ethiopia where there were Jews.

"The gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8).  Another Galatians passage calls Cephas, John and James the Apostles of the Circumcision.

Recent investigations of Hellenistic Mesopotamian records have even challenged the view that Babylon shrank in the shadow of Seleucica during the Greeco-Roman period.  It was a city with many Jews and Gentiles.  Antioch too we know had a strong Jewish population.  And he wrote 1 Peter to areas in Turkey, and clearly refereed to the exiles of the dispersion (translated strangers in the KJV) those who were still scattered abroad from the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles.

In addition to the City of Babylon itself there were other Jewish populations in Mesopotamia, the city of Seleucica also had a Jewish Population.  As did Nisibis which is a key modern Kurdish capital.  As well as Edessa the capital of Osroene.  All three of those were among the ones were Jewish uprisings happened during the Kitos War decades later in the reign of Trajan.  There was also a Jewish kingdom in Mesopotamia at this time ruled by a proselyte, Adiabene, I don't know whether Peter's letter would have been written during the reign of Izates II or Monobaz II, but it was likely one of those.  Some have even speculated that it was specifically Christianity they converted to but that Josephus and the Talmud obscured that fact.

Rome had a Jewish population, but it was not nearly as significant.

Papias statement about the origin of Mark's Gospel does not mention Rome btw, that is just something constantly read into it when later people have referenced it.  But even how Eusebius quotes it is unclear about where they were when Mark wrote it.

There is a rarely talked about alternative fate for Peter's Body.

What I feel like noting here is being buried on the Mount of Olives doesn't mean he died near there, Jewish Tradition has often said that is where the Resurrection will begin so being buried on the Mount of Olives is something many Jews have desired.  And it's importance in the New Testament means early Jewish Christians could have shared it.

But I find it unlikely that from Italy anyone would have risked trying to transport his body there.  There was always a risk traveling the Mediterranean Sea.  But from Antioch or Babylon I could find it being fairly plausible.  This also hurts the traditions about Lazurus, Martha and Mary of Bethany traveling to southern France, those were always late traditions.

Even a lot of the early sources that do support linking Peter to the Roman church fail to support the entirety of the traditional narrative.  Tertullian as I said before says Clement was appointed by Peter, unaware of Linus or Cletus it seems.  But he is also our oldest Christian source on Nero persecuting Christians, and doesn't mention Peter or Paul.  Eusebius was the first to say that both Peter and Paul were martyred by Nero.

In Tetullian's Apology quoted by Eusebius he doesn't mention Peter or Paul talking about Nero  He is cited as backing up the tradition with what he says in his Poscription Against Heretics 34.

"Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood; where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's[the Baptist]; where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile."

The problem is we know John's being plunged into oil according to every other source on it happened in Asia not Italy.  It looks like copiers may have corrupted something that was originally merely about Rome being responsible for martyrdoms.   It's really starting to seem to me like even Paul dying there is questionable.  First Clement says nothing of where Paul died, but says he took the Gospel to the extremity of the West.

Eusebius cites a Caius who worked for Bishop Zephyinus of Rome as referring to Apostles being buried on Vatican Hill.  The Vatican Hill was a cemetery of Rome's pagan priests, the idea that Peter or Paul would have been buried there is absurd.  Even Catholic sources admit it was a pagan cemetery.

"On the night of his death on the cross Peter’s followers BURIED his body. As in the case of Jesus on the hill of Calvary it was wrapped in linen  and secretly taken to a PAGAN BURIAL GROUND on the Via Cornelia, behind the stone structure of the arena. This PAGAN CEMETERY lay on a knoll called VATICANUS: the Latin word ‘vatis’ means a ‘prophet’ or ‘SOOTHSAYER’. In days gone by there had been an Etruscan oracle on this spot" (Keller’s comment – the official comment of the Roman Catholic Church p. 368).

In addition to Caius being likely an official propagandist for the Roman Bishop.  Eusebius says he said this disputing a Proclus who was advocating the "Phyrgian Hersey" which is what he called the Montanists.  So there were early Christians disputing this tradition.  I'm not sure how I feel about the Montanists, but dispute did exist Pre-Constantine about Peter being buried in Rome.  Phyrgia was in one of the regions 1 Peter was written to, Asia, so they might have known more then most about where it came from.

It's also entirely on Eusebius word that Dionysus of Corinth (around 171) said what Eusebius says he said.  Dionysus is the earliest witness that Peter and Paul were in Rome together, something none of even the highly fictionalized and illogical Apocryphal acts of the Apostles claimed.

Peter being in Corinth however briefly is more Bibliclally supportable then being in Rome, Given how he comes up in the Corinthian Epistles.  But even that is unclear.

Another early source on Peter in Rome  (but later then Dionysus or Caius) was Lactantius.  His account of it is awkwardly expressed.

Hippolytus of Rome was a Bishop of Rome, so he had a clear bias for wanting to promote such a false idea.

Apparently that's a lot that's textual confusing about the Apocryphal Acts of Peter, the explicit reference to Nero at the end is theorized to have been added later, and the Agrippa said to be responsible for Peter Martyrdom is sometimes identified with Herod Agrippa II who in 67 AD was in Judea not Rome.  I think it's possible this story was originally events set in Judea and/or Galilee that got moved to Rome later, the Albinus mentioned could have originally been the Lucceius Albinus who was governor of Judea.

Also Justin Martyr was the first to mention Simon Magus going to Rome and he doesn't mention Peter being there at the time.  And maybe even he never actually went to Rome.