Very early on in his public ministry, Jesus reached out to 12 individuals, inviting them to be his personal disciples. Mark offers two purposes for the selection of the Twelve. First, they were to “be with him” (Mark 3:14a). They ate with him, travelled with him, ministered with him, watched him do miracles, and listened to his teachings; some even observed his arrest, trial, and execution.1 During their time with Jesus, they experienced a rigorous apprenticeship patterned after the approach Judaism took towards the Old Testament.2 Second, Jesus selected the Twelve that he “might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons” (Mark 3:14b–15). Through the Twelve, Jesus was multiplying his effectiveness. Even more importantly, though, he was preparing them to carry on his work after he was gone.
The term “the Twelve” appears in all four Gospels.3 The Synoptic Gospels and Acts provide the names for the Twelve (see Table 1.1).
The Gospel of John offers no list, but does refer to some of them, including Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, Judas (not Iscariot), Judas Iscariot, the “son of Zebedee,” who are not mentioned by name, and the disciple “whom Jesus loved.”
How, if at all, can we reconcile the different names mentioned as members of the Twelve? Some scholars have suggested that differences among the lists indicate that the original names were forgotten when the Gospels were written down, making the tradition unreliable.4 However, differences in the lists are minimal, and their similarities offer a potentially decipherable pattern. In all four lists, for example, the names occur in three groups of four names—except Acts omits the then-deceased Judas Iscariot—and the first name in each group is the same: Peter always tops the first group, Philip the second, and James, son of Alphaeus, the third; the order of the subsequent names varies. Richard Bauckham provides a plausible explanation: “It is quite intelligible that a list of this kind should be remembered as consisting of three groups, with the first name in each group a fixed point in the memory, but with the order of other three names in each group variable.”5 In addition, the slight variation in the lists may also suggest that the Twelve was more widely known than a standardized list of names.6
One difference that requires explanation is the variation between Thaddaeus and Judas, son of James. There are two possible explanations. First, Thaddaeus might have been an original member of the Twelve who dropped out for an unknown reason, whom Judas, son of James, replaced some time later. Some have suggested that the exact composition of the Twelve may have varied from time to time.7 It seems unlikely, however, that Matthew and Mark would include in the list a dropout instead of his replacement. This differs from the case of Judas, since Judas was essential to the furtherance of the story and his betrayal is indicated in the list. Second, Judas, son of James, and Thaddaeus8 might have been the same person. It was not uncommon for Palestinian Jews to have both Semitic and Greek names.9 Furthermore, Judas, son of James, needed to be distinguished in some way from Judas Iscariot. He is referred somewhat awkwardly as “Judas, not Iscariot” in John 14:22, yet it seems unlikely this was his usual designation.
The difference also appears in the names between Bartholomew, as mentioned in the four lists, and Nathanael, mentioned in John 1:45–52. Bartholomew has traditionally been identified as Nathanael. Three reasons have been offered to justify this conclusion. First, Bartholomew is a family name, not a proper name. Bartholomew comes from the Hebrew for “son of Talmai.” Second, Bartholomew immediately follows Philip in the three Gospel lists, and Philip is the one in the Gospel of John who brought Nathanael to Jesus (John 1:45). Third, Nathanael never appears by name in the Synoptic Gospels, and equally Bartholomew never appears by name in the Gospel of John. It seems reasonable to conclude that Bartholomew and Nathanael are the same person.10
Finally, there is the question of the identification of Matthew and Levi. Although Matthew occurs in all four lists, there is the distinct call of Levi (Mark 2:13; Luke 5:27), which parallels Matthew’s call (Matt 9:9). The similarity in wording between the three accounts as well as the chronology of preceding event—healing the paralytic—and subsequent event—a shared meal with “sinners”—indicates these refer to the same occasion. Thus, the traditional view is that Matthew and Levi are the same person. Robert Stein finds this view reasonable since first-century Jews often had two or more names. He concludes the tax collector could have been called “Levi Matthew.” Another possibility is that Levi was Matthew’s name prior to conversion. Still, identifying Matthew with Levi has its detractors. However, this issue does not need to be resolved to proceed with the investigation, for the name Matthew appears in all four lists of the Twelve regardless of the identity of Levi.
An impressive case can be made for the historicity of the Twelve as a group Jesus personally formed. Three primary arguments have been offered for the existence of the Twelve during the ministry of Jesus. First, references to the Twelve appear in various sources and forms.11 The different lists of names for the Twelve indicate they may represent independent tradition. Second, by the criterion of embarrassment, the early church would have been very unlikely to invent a story of Jesus personally choosing Judas to be a member of the Twelve. This is one reason why E.P. Sanders considers the existence of the Twelve among the “(almost) indisputable facts about Jesus.”12 Third, if the tradition of the Twelve were invented, one would expect early church records to be filled with examples of the Twelve’s powerful influence and leadership in the church. Yet the opposite is the case. Neither Luke nor Paul has much to say of the Twelve. While the lack of early information on the Twelve makes it difficult to determine the historicity of their martyrdom accounts, this same absence is an indication that the group was not a mere invention of the early church.
Richard Bauckham recently completed an onomastic study of Jewish names of this time that lends additional support to the authenticity of the Twelve.13 Among Jews in first-century Palestine there were a small number of very popular names and a large number of rare ones. As would be expected, if the tradition of the Twelve were reliable, a combination of common and rare names would be on the lists. This is exactly what we find. Taken together, these facts make it highly likely the Twelve existed as a special group of disciples who formed an inner circle around Jesus.
The basic sense of “apostle” (apostolos) refers to one “sent out” as an authorized emissary on behalf of a superior. In Luke and Acts, the term apostle predominantly designates the Twelve.14 The ministry of these apostles principally involved proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39–41; 13:31), teaching (Acts 2:42), and prayer (Acts 6:2–4). Many signs and wonders were enacted through the apostles as testimony to the truth of their proclamation (Acts 2:43; 3:1–10; 5:12–16). Given that they were commissioned directly by Jesus, the earliest Christian writings portray the apostles as having the authority of Christ himself.15
Specific criteria for inclusion in the Twelve include, as Peter makes clear, that he must be “one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection” (Acts 1:22) Thus, according to Peter, a member of the Twelve must have been with Jesus from the time of his baptism until his ascension, and he would become a witness (martyrs) of his life, and specifically to his resurrection. The book of Acts makes repeated claims that the mission and authority of the apostles come from the personal appearances of the risen Jesus.16 This value for eyewitness testimony is consistent with ancient Greco-Roman culture. The best evidence was believed to come from eyewitnesses, and reports further removed from the events were considered weaker.17
The Gospel of John offers additional support to the Lukan idea that an apostle gained authority to proclaim the risen Jesus by having been with Jesus from beginning to end. In his final speech to his disciples after the last supper, Jesus said: “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning” (15: 26–27). Luke and John agree that true witnesses to the work of Jesus have “been with [Jesus] from the beginning.” Richard Bauckham believes this idea was widespread in the early church beyond these two authors: “Evidently in the early Christian movement a special importance attached to the testimony of disciples who had been eyewitnesses of the whole ministry of Jesus, from its beginning when John was baptizing to Jesus’ resurrection appearances.”18 Support for Bauckham’s thesis can be found in the Apostolic Fathers.19 The apostles’ confidence to suffer in their proclamation of the Gospel came from the belief that they had personally seen the risen Jesus.
The Twelve provide an important link between the time of Jesus and the early church. They provided the initial witness to the risen Jesus (Acts 2:14; 4:33; 5:29–32) and authenticated the mission work to the Samaritans and Gentiles (Acts 8:14; 11:1–18). After accomplishing these tasks, the Twelve disappear from Acts. Although Matthias is chosen to replace Judas early in Acts, there is no attempt to fill the vacancy created by the death of James about a decade later (Acts 12:1–2). After the Twelve accomplish their task, Acts shifts to focus on Peter, James the brother of Jesus, then Paul.
The New Testament refers to “all the apostles” in a broader sense, beyond the Twelve (1 Cor 15:7, 9), which had its basis in appearances of the risen Jesus, and thus they are considered “witnesses.” Candidates for this group include Barnabas (Acts 14:14; 1 Cor 9:5–6), Stephen (Acts 22), Andronicus and Junias (Rom 16:7), Timothy and Silas (1 Thess 1:1; Col 1:1), Apollos (1 Cor 4:6, 9), and last of all Paul (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8). Authority of this group of apostles came not simply from Christ, but from the risen Christ.20 This group of apostles, which includes the Twelve, was to publicly proclaim the risen Jesus, and they were expected to suffer in the course of being witnesses.
While Paul and James did not belong to the Twelve, they did have apostolic authority from having seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:7–8).21 Neither believed in Jesus during Jesus’s own lifetime: the brothers of Jesus, including James, rejected him (John 7:5), and Paul had even persecuted the church (Acts 8:3; Gal 1:13). So while James and Paul were not part of Jesus’s inner circle during his public ministry, they were eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus; their martyrdoms, then, in terms of providing support for their testimony as that of the Twelve, would be equally significant. This is why they are considered apostles along with the Twelve for the sake of this investigation.
While the apostles undoubtedly engaged in their first missionary work to the people of Israel, some doubts exist regarding whether they engaged in missionary work to various nations of the world after ministering to the Jews. Mark’s Gospel, which was likely the first to be written and circulated, contains little reference to a universal commission.22 The writings of Matthew and Luke, however, both likely written after AD 70, emphasize that the apostles are to “make disciples of all nations” and to be witnesses “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Matt 28:19; Acts 1:8). There is a clear shift in emphasis from Israel to the nations of the world.
There is little doubt the apostles first witnessed their faith to Israel. But what evidence is there that they engaged in missionary work beyond Israel? There is both internal and external evidence the apostles engaged in missionary work after their departure from Jerusalem.
Jesus called the Twelve with the specific purpose that they would be missionaries (Mark 3:14). After a period of preparation, Jesus sent the Twelve to minister in pairs, which involved healing the sick, casting out demons, and proclaiming the kingdom of God (Mark 6:7–13; Matt 10:5–16; Luke 9:1–6). This commission has the ring of historicity.23 The mission was limited in duration, and focused specifically on the house of Israel. Yet, in the subsequent verses Jesus says: “Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles” (Matt 10:17–18; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12–13). Jesus warns his followers that their preaching will be deeply opposed and they will be brought before the highest authorities in the land. The emphasis on “governors and kings” indicates that Jesus is no longer speaking of their present mission, but the future mission to the Gentiles outside Palestine. This short-term trip is preparation for future missionary activity to all the nations. It is worth noting that Jesus views persecution positively as an opportunity for the apostles to “witness” to the truth of the Gospel. They expected to suffer for proclaiming the kingdom of God to all the nations.
If the mission is to be universal, why begin just with Israel? The reason was theological, not pragmatic.24 Jesus always intended the kingdom of God to be universal, but he did begin with the Jews.
The book of Acts shows the beginnings of the Christian mission. One of Luke’s primary purposes is to show the development of Christian evangelism from a religious sphere to a larger secular sphere that includes governors and kings. Acts 1:8 functions as a summary statement, then, for the entire book: the mission begins in Jerusalem (1–7), but then spreads to Judea and Samaria (8–12), and finally to the ends of the earth, which in the story is Rome (13–28). The phrase “ends of the earth,” however, is not limited to Rome, as the prophets often use the same phrase to indicate distant lands (Isa 49:6). Some specific events in Acts indicate the universal focus and expansion of the Gospel.
1. Philip the Evangelist proclaimed Christ in Samaria (Acts 8:4–8) and shared with an Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26–40). The apostles in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to confirm the news (Acts 8:14–25).
2. Paul was specifically chosen by Jesus to be his emissary to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15), even while he continued to preach to the house of Israel. Paul was also aware of other Christians involved in missionary work, such as the apostles (1 Cor 9:5; 12:28–29) and other “brothers” who proclaimed the Gospel (Phil 1:12–18).
3. After his vision at Joppa, Peter concluded: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34b–35). Peter then shared how he and the other apostles were witnesses to the risen Jesus, sent out to proclaim that message so that everyone who believes will be saved (Acts 10:43). Peter also preached the Gospel and saw people “turn to the Lord” as he traveled through Judea, Galilee, Samaria, and Lydda (Acts 9:32–35).
4. The church of Antioch also sent out missionaries to both Jews and Gentiles who had not been reached with the Gospel (Acts 11:19–22; 13:1–2).
5. Acts concludes with Paul preaching “with all boldness and without hindrance” in his final speech in Rome, suggesting the story continues and the witnessing is as yet incomplete.25 Acts 28 is an intentionally open-ended conclusion to indicate that the worldwide witnessing of the Gospel must continue.26
The biblical precedent for the great commission is clear: Jesus trained his apostles to reach the nations, and even commanded them to do so, and the book of Acts recounts the effects of this teaching. The apostles not only proclaimed the risen Jesus, but as their response to the missionary report from Samaria indicates, they personally directed the missionary efforts from Jerusalem.
The New Testament records the commission to reach the ends of the earth. But was such a task even possible in the first century AD? Could the apostles have made it to faraway places like Spain, Ethiopia, and India? In his massive two-volume work Early Christian Mission, Eckhard Schnabel provides multiple reasons to believe such a task was entirely possible.27 While these facts do not prove the apostles engaged in missionary activity to distant lands, they do rebut objections meant to undermine the plausibility of such an endeavor. The apostles had the resources, training, and incentive to engage in missionary work. In addition, the Roman Empire was fairly stable during the time of Claudius (AD 41–54), which is the initial period the apostles would have engaged in missionary activity.28 Not only was missionary activity possible in the first century AD, there is also positive external evidence for such endeavors.
The Twelve led the Jerusalem church until Herod Agrippa (AD 41–44) initiated a persecution that resulted both in the death of James, the son of Zebedee, and the arrest of Peter (Acts 12:1–4). It seems at this point that the Twelve left Jerusalem and transferred leadership to a group of elders led by James the brother of Jesus (Acts 11:30; 12:17; 15:12–21; 21:15–19; Gal 2:9). Acts 12 marks a significant turning point in the ministry of the Twelve and the Jerusalem church. After sharing about his escape from prison, Peter “departed and went to another place” (Acts 12:17). The other apostles likely left at this point as well—if not earlier. It is noteworthy that “the brothers,” as well as James, are to be informed about Peter’s departure. The other apostles are not mentioned. It seems likely they had already left Jerusalem. Given their awareness of the death of James and subsequent arrest of Peter, it seems abundantly probable the apostles would have fled Jerusalem to avoid the wrath of Herod Agrippa.29
The consistent testimony of the early church is that the apostles left Jerusalem to engage in missionary work. As demonstrated below, both orthodox and Gnostic sources see missions as the prime task of an apostle. It is impossible to say whether the persecution was the initial motivation for their mission work, or if the persecution simply put existing plans into motion. Regardless, we have considerable external support for the departure of the Twelve to engage in mission work. This list focuses on testimony within the living memory of the apostles:30
Clement of Rome 42:3–4b (c. AD 95–96):
Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities.31
The Preaching of Peter (c. AD 100–120):
Jesus says to the disciples after the resurrection, “‘I have chosen you twelve disciples, judging you worthy of me,’ whom the Lord wished to be apostles, having judged them faithful, sending them into the world to the men on the earth, that they may know that there is one God.”32
Ascension of Isaiah 3.17–18 (c. AD 112–138):
And the Beloved sitting on their shoulders will come forth and send out His twelve disciples; And they will teach all the nations and every tongue of the resurrection of the Beloved, and those who believe in His cross will be saved, and in His ascension into the seventh heaven whence He came.
The Gospel of Thomas 12 (c. AD 140):
The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that you will depart from us. Who is it who will be great over us?” Jesus said to them, “Wherever you have come, you will go to James the Righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”
1 Apology 39.2–3, Justin Martyr (c. AD 155–157):
For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach all the word of God.33
The Epistle of the Apostles (c. AD 150–175):
He answered and said to us, “Go and preach to the twelve tribes of Israel and to the gentiles and Israel and to the land of Israel towards East and West, North and South.”34
The Acts of Peter 5 (c. AD 180–190):
While they were grieving and fasting God was already preparing Peter at Jerusalem for the future. After the twelve years had passed, according to the direction of the Lord to Peter, Christ showed to him the following vision, saying, ‘Peter, Simon, whom you expelled from Judea after having exposed him as a magician, has forestalled you at Rome … . But do not delay. Go tomorrow to Caesarea, and there you will find a ship read to sail to Italy … . Instructed by this vision, Peter did not delay to mention it to the brethren and said, “I must go to Rome to subdue the enemy and opponent of the Lord and brethren.”35
Apollonius (c. AD 200):
Moreover, he says, on the basis of tradition, that the Savior ordered his apostles not to leave Jerusalem for twelve years.36
The historical value of these individual sources undoubtedly varies, and while individual sources do disagree over the particulars of some of the apostles’ lives, they generally agree the apostles stayed in Jerusalem for some time before embarking on world missions. The apostolic commission to world missions thus meets the criterion of multiple attestation.37 Why do these sources not tell a more consistent and coherent tradition of exactly where each apostle went? Eckhard Schnabel offers important insight:
If the sources from the second and third centuries presented a coherent and consistent tradition, then this would be used as an argument against the authenticity of such a conference in Jerusalem twelve years after Easter. It is a fact that no early Christian text that reports or claims to report historical events attempts to provide a comprehensive historical account. It is precisely the missing ‘coherence’ that may indicate that Christian authors of the second and third centuries had information about the ministry of the apostles. Since they did not write a comprehensive history of the early church, they passed on information that they had in a selective and uncoordinated manner.38
In sum, we have firm historical support for the missionary endeavors of the Twelve after Jerusalem.
The Twelve were the first witnesses to Jesus, and they spearheaded the initial missionary movement from Jerusalem. Assuming Acts preserves a historical core, the apostles boldly proclaimed their faith after Pentecost, willingly suffering and facing possible death. And if Acts preserves historical kernels in this regard, we see that after Pentecost they boldly proclaimed their faith even in the face of suffering and possible death.
The boldness of the apostles starkly contrasts with their character before Pentecost. Before Pentecost, the apostles regularly misunderstood the teachings of Jesus (Matt 13:1–23; 16:23), they bickered with one another (Mark 10:35–45), they lacked faith (Mark 4:40; Matt 14:31; Mark 9:18; Mark 9:19), and they abandoned Jesus at his arrest (Mark 14:50). What accounts for the radical change in the apostles? How could they go from an ordinary band of men with little courage to a bold group willing to suffer and die for their faith? How did they come to fear God more than men? Luke provides insight:
But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, who you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at the right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him” (Acts 5:29–32).
1 Peter, James, and John were with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane at his arrest (Mark 14:32–50; Matt 26:36–56; Luke 22:39–53; John 18:1–11). Peter followed Jesus into the courtyard (Mark 14:54). John was present at the cross (John 19:26–27). This, of course, assumes the apostle John is “the beloved disciple.”
2 Ronald Brownrigg, The Twelve Apostles (New York: Macmillan, 1974), 33–34.
3 Matt 10:1–25; 11:1; 20:17, 47; Mark 3:14, 16; 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:10, 17, 20, 43; Luke 6:13; 8:1; 9:1, 12; 18:31; 22:3, 47; John 6:67, 70–71; 20:24.
4 For instance, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I–IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, The Anchor Bible, vol. 28 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 620.
5 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 98.
6 Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 246.
7 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 243–44.
8 There is early textual evidence that “Lebbaeus” should replace the name Thaddaeus. Some Greek manuscripts even combine the two forms of the text: “Thaddaeus who was called Lebbaeus” or “Lebbaeus who was called “Thaddaeus” (Barclay M. Newman and Philip Stine, Matthew: A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew [New York: United Bible Societies, 1988], 284–85).
9 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 100.
10 Perhaps counting slightly against this tradition is the apostolic list found in the Epistle of the Apostles (c. AD 150–175), which lists Bartholomew and Nathanael as separate apostles. The reason this evidence is only slight is that it also has Peter and Cephas as separate apostles, yet virtually all scholars recognize Cephas is another name for Peter.
11 Mark mentions the Twelve at least ten times: 3:14; 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:10, 17, 20, 43. John, who has no special interest in the Twelve, directly mentions the group in 6:67–71. John also refers to Thomas as “one of the Twelve” (20:24). In addition, there may be an indirect reference to the Twelve in the Q tradition of Matt 19:28/Luke 22:30. Paul also has a brief mention of the Twelve in 1 Cor 15:5.
12 E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1985), 101.
13 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 67–88
14 Luke 6:13; 9:1, 10; 22:14, 30; 24:9–10; Acts 1:26; 2:37, 42–43; 4:33–37; 5:2, 12, 18, 29, 40; 6:6; 8:1, 14–18; 9:27; 11:1.
15 Passages that indicate the apostles had the very authority of Christ himself include the earliest biblical texts (Mark 3:14–15; Matt 10:14, 20; John 14:26; 17:8, 18; Acts 10:41–42; 2 Pet 3:2) and the apostolic fathers (1 Clement 42:1–2; 47:1–3; Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians 7:1; Letter to the Romans 4:4; Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 39; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1).
16 Acts 1:22; 2:32; 4:20; 5:32; 10:39; 13:31; 22:15.
17 Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 1:768.
18 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 116.
19 For instance, see First Clement 42:1–3 and Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 3.
20 Paul makes this claim twice: 1 Cor 9:1, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?”, and in 15:8 Paul says, “Last of all, as one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”
21 Rosenblatt argues that the details of Saul as a young man witnessing the death of Stephen (Acts 7:58) were not meant to indict Paul as an accessory to murder, but to make the theological point regarding the integrity of Paul’s identity as a witness to Jesus. Marie-Eloise Rosenblatt, Paul the Accused: His Portrait in the Acts of the Apostles (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), 26.
22 There is a reference to a universal commission in Mark 16:15: “And he said to them, ‘God into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.’” The final 12 verses in Mark, 16:9–20, do not appear in the earliest manuscripts and so are rejected by most scholars. If these verses should be included, as a minority of scholars suggest, it would only strengthen the case for a universal commission.
23 For a case for the historicity of the missionary endeavors of the Twelve, see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 3:157–63.
24 Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission: Paul and the Early Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 2:295.
25 John B. Polhill, Acts, The New American Commentary, vol. 26 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 86.
26 Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 111.
27 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:470–99.
28 The stability during the reign of Claudius is in contrast to the preceding reign of Caligula (AD 37–41), who was insane during part of his time in power, and the subsequent reign of Nero (AD 54–68), who launched the first official state persecution of Christians. See Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 66.
29 Polhill, Acts, 283.
30 There are many later examples which claim the apostles left Jerusalem to engage in missionary work: Letter of Philip to Peter; (Pseudo-)Hippolytus on the Twelve; Origen, Commentary on Genesis, vol. 3, as cited in Eusebius, Church History 3.1; Fragments of Polycarp; The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles; Epistle of Peter to Philip 140.23–27; Acts of Thomas 1.1; Didascalia Apostolorum 24; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.1b–2a.
31 Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, as cited in Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Apostolic Fathers—Justin Martyr—Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev and chronologically arranged by A. Cleveland (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Co., 1885), 1:16.
32 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.6, as cited in Ante-Nicene Fathers: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Co., 1885), 2:491.
33 Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin, as cited in Ante-Nicene Fathers: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Co., 1885), 1:175–76.
34 The Epistle of the Apostles 30, as cited in J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 575.
35 The Acts of Peter 5, as cited in Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 401–02.
36 Eusebius, History of the Church 5.18.
37 Support for the apostolic commission comes from a variety of genres, including letters (1 Clement), church order teachings (Didascalia Apostolorum), historical accounts (Eusebius, Church History), and historical novels (Acts of Thomas, Acts of Peter). See Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:174–75.
38 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:531.