Bartholomew appears as a member of the Twelve in every apostolic list (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). He appears sixth in the Synoptics, always after Philip, which may suggest they were close ministry partners or perhaps played a similar role among the apostles. In the canonical Acts, Bartholomew appears seventh after Thomas. While Bartholomew was not among the inner circle of disciples, his moderate place in the lists may indicate he was more prominent among the Twelve than others. As shown in Chapter 3, it seems reasonable to conclude that Bartholomew and Nathanael are different names for the same person.
Bartholomew is the subject of many later apocryphal and Gnostic writings such as the Gospel of Bartholomew, the Acts of Andrew and Bartholomew (Coptic), the Acts of Bartholomew and Barnabas, The Questions of Bartholomew (c. AD second–sixth century) and The Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle (AD fifth/sixth century). It may be surprising that these last two texts consider Bartholomew a central apostle who could bear such significant revelations about God. Yet Hans-Josef Klauck suggests these apocryphal traditions mark the fulfillment of the promise Jesus made to Nathanael (Bartholomew), whom he called an Israelite without deceit (John 1:47) who would “see greater things that these” (1:50).1
While the New Testament record of Bartholomew is bare, a variety of later tales, at least four primary traditions, report the missionary travels and fate of Bartholomew, which are not necessarily contradictory.2 First, according to the Acts of Philip, Bartholomew traveled to Hierapolis and Lyconia to minister along with the apostle Philip. Even though he was nailed to the wall of the temple, Bartholomew survived, unlike Philip, who has his ankles and feet pierced before being hung upside-down from a tree.
Second, Bartholomew traveled to Egypt. According to this tradition, when the apostles divided up countries for ministry, Bartholomew received a lot directing him to the Oases of Egypt. Unfamiliar with the country, Bartholomew appealed to Peter for help. Yet when they were denied entrance into Egypt, Peter sold Bartholomew as a slave to a camel owner. Bartholomew performed many miracles, preached the message of Jesus nightly, and eventually departed after three months. From there he left for Parthia, where he suffered martyrdom.3
Third, the Armenian Church has claimed Bartholomew as its patron saint for at least 1,400 years. In terms of the broader question of Christianity reaching Armenia, Nina Girosĭan observes:
The early appearance of Christianity coming to Armenia from Palestine by way of Syria and Mesopotamia is equally beyond doubt. The second century African church father Tertullian already listed the Armenians among the people who had received Christianity, and the mid-third century letter of Bishop Dionysios of Alexandria to an Armenian bishop named Meruzanes indicates a sizable community …. Consequently, it is now evidence that two currents of Christianity reached Armenia successively. The first came to the southern portion of the country closest to the original center of Palestine by way of Mesopotamia at a very early date. The second was brought to the northern Aršakuni Kingdom of Greater Armenia in the second decade of the fourth century.4
According to Orthodox Armenian historian Malachia Ormanian, the near instantaneous conversion of the whole of Armenia to Christianity at the beginning of the fourth century can only be explained by the pre-existence of a Christian community that had taken root in the country centuries earlier.5 History records early persecutions in Armenia (c. AD 110, 230, 287) that could only have occurred if there were significant numbers of Armenian Christians at that time.6 Of course, while this does not prove that Bartholomew actually visited Armenia or that he was martyred there, it does provide a historical context that helps make the narrative plausible. According to the Armenian tradition, Bartholomew appeared after St. Thaddeus, who had preached the Gospel in Armenia beginning in AD 43 before suffering martyrdom at Artaz (c. AD 66). Bartholomew appeared around AD 60, and was martyred in AD 68 at Albanus.7 According to the Roman Breviary,8 Bartholomew was flayed alive and beheaded.9 His tomb is venerated at Alpac (Bashkale), in southeast Armenia. Along with St. Thaddeus, Bartholomew is considered the “First Illuminator of Armenia.” Even though this tradition is not as central to the Armenian Church as the Thomas tradition is for India, it is widely accepted as part of its history.10
Fourth, Bartholomew went to India. The Martyrdom of Bartholomew (The Passion of Bartholomew) reports the travels of Bartholomew to India, where he casts out a demon, heals the lunatic daughter of King Polymius, then converts the royal family to the faith. The heathen priests become enraged at Bartholomew and have him beaten, beheaded, and his body thrown into the sea. Although reminiscent of the features of Paul in the Acts of Paul, The Martyrdom of Bartholomew offers the earliest known description of the apostle Bartholomew:
He has black curly hair, white skin, large eyes, straight nose, his hair covers his ears, his beard long and grizzled, middle height: he wears a white colobium with a purple stripe, and a white cloak with four purple “gems” at the corners: for twenty-six years he has worn these and they never grow old: his shoes have lasted twenty-six years: he prays 100 times a day and 100 times a night: his voice is like a trumpet: angels wait on him: he is always cheerful and knows all languages.11
Eusebius offers support for the tradition that Bartholomew ministered in India. In the middle of the second century, Stoic philosopher Pantaenus became a Christian. Because of his zeal, he was sent east to India to preach the Gospel. To his apparent surprise, “he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time.”12 Jerome confirms this tradition.13
There is nothing surprising about Pantaenus finding Christians in India, since tradition reports the apostle Thomas went there a century earlier. The question is whether or not Bartholomew personally visited India. We have no reason to see Bartholomew and Thomas as rivals. Considering the size of India, it is not unlikely or impossible that two apostles would minister in different parts, or they could have ministered together. If Bartholomew ministered with Philip in Hierapolis, there is no reason why he could not have gone to India with Thomas as well. On the other hand, Kurikilamkatt suggests that Pantaenus may have misunderstood the local Christians, confusing “Mar Tholmai” with “Bartholomai.”14 If so, then the entire tradition was the result of a misunderstanding and there is no good reason to believe Bartholomew ever set foot ashore India. This is an interesting hypothesis, but it cannot be proven.
Given the tentative nature of the evidence, scholars disagree about whether Bartholomew journeyed to India. While the majority of scholarly opinion remains against it, a significant minority accepts it.15 As noted in Chapter 9 on Thomas, there is nothing implausible about an apostle traveling to India in the late first century. The pressing question, of course, is whether or not it is probable.
While we have some positive evidence for Bartholomew’s visit to India, the lack of a consistent Indian tradition as for Thomas challenges the tradition. Nevertheless, A.C. Perumalil suggests that the Bartholomew Christians continued as a separate community until the coming of the Portuguese, when they became one with the Christians of Bombay.16 Given the slight positive evidence for such an endeavor, Leslie Brown suggests the story of Pantaenus’s visit and his discovery of a Gospel brought by Bartholomew may have credibility, but has been overwhelmed by the Thomas tradition.17 The Indian tradition of Bartholomew may be lacking the requisite evidence to make it more probable than not, but we have at least some positive evidence that demands further research and analysis by both Western and Eastern scholars alike.
Nevertheless, the consistent testimony is that Bartholomew engaged in missionary work beyond Judea. There is no record that Bartholomew stayed in Jerusalem and died there. Every account has him traveling well beyond Judea, spreading the newfound faith. While there is disagreement over where he went and how he died, we have no good reason to doubt that he left Jerusalem to spread the Gospel of Christ. While the particular location(s) of the missions of Bartholomew may be difficult to discern, Bartholomew undoubtedly took the missionary charge of Jesus seriously.
Of the variety of traditions regarding the fate of Bartholomew, no known traditions hold that he rejected his faith or died peacefully, but there is significant variety about how, where, and when he experienced martyrdom. In the Acts of Philip (c. fourth/fifth century), Bartholomew travels with Philip to Hierapolis. While both apostles are tortured, Bartholomew is set free, yet the crucifixion of Bartholomew in Lyconia is predicted just before the execution of Philip.18
In the Contendings of the Apostles, Budge reports the tradition that Bartholomew met his fate in Naidas, Parthia.19 According to this tradition, Bartholomew traveled to Naidas, a great city upon the sea, to minister to people who had no knowledge of God. Many turned to God in repentance. Bartholomew traveled around the country, preaching, healing, and casting out demons. However, as a result of Bartholomew’s preaching, the wife of King Acarpus decided to stop sleeping with him. Furious, the king accused Bartholomew of sorcery and had him tossed into the sea in a sack full of sand.
As noted previously, according to the tradition of the Armenian Church, Bartholomew was martyred in AD 68 at Albanus. According to Hippolytus on the Twelve 6: “Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward, and was buried in Allanum, a town of the great Armenia.”20 One difficulty in establishing the reliability of the Bartholomew tradition is how late it appears in Armenian historiography. The first reference is in the History of Armenia by Movsēs Xorenac’I (Moses of Khorene), who was born AD 410–415 and who probably wrote his History around AD 480. As a criticism of the tradition, Van Esbroeck notes that the oldest Armenian historians do not mention Bartholomew at all.21 Yet it should be kept in mind that Movsēs Xorenac’I was the first Armenian historian to write a comprehensive history of Armenia, beginning with the most ancient events. Historians before Movsēs discussed particular events, whereas Movsēs wrote an entire history of Christianity in Armenia (for example, Agathangelos wrote his History on the life and times of Gregory the Illuminator).22 Xorenac’I is the first historian who would be expected to mention Bartholomew, and in fact he did.
It is also important to remember that Armenia had no native literature until the conversion of the nation to Christianity in the early fourth century.23 If Bartholomew in fact traveled to Armenia and experienced martyrdom, the tradition would have been transmitted orally, so early written records would not exist. Like that of all ancient people groups, Armenian literature was originally preserved orally through epic tales, legend, ritual songs, and lyric poetry. Although the exact date for the origin of oral history for Armenia is unknown, recorded events trace back to the ninth century BC, and possibly as early as the fifteenth century BC. According to the authors of The Heritage of Armenian Literature, epic tales that have been transmitted orally often contain a historical core.24 They suggest that the origin of Christianity in Armenia is a “mixture of fact and fiction,”25 and that there may be a historical core to the tradition that Thaddeus and Bartholomew both came as missionaries to Armenia, and that they both died as martyrs. The lack of early written records cannot count against this tradition since, regardless of their actual fates, this is exactly what should be found.
More significant for the Armenian tradition are doubts concerning the reliability of the History by Xorenac’I.26 He is considered the “Father of Armenian History,” and has been described as the Herodotus of Armenia. He undoubtedly preserved some sound and valuable material, but scholars are divided over how much his scholarship can be trusted. Various extreme positions have been taken, from hypercritical rejection to naive acceptance. Armenian scholar Aram Topchyan suggests a balanced approach:
Consequently, what one should do nowadays is, firstly, to get rid of extreme mistrust and prevailing negative stereotypes, and, secondly, to continue extracting from the work of the longsuffering “father of Armenian historiography” as much useful information as possible. Such an approach seems even more mandatory against the background of today’s balanced tendencies in the research of classical authors (tendencies applicable to ancient historiography as a whole), and given the absolute lack of any substitute for Xorenac’I’s book in Armenian literature, especially for the pre-fourth century history.27
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the relevant passage concerning Bartholomew is straightforward and contains no flowery details.28 He makes no mention of the tradition Bartholomew was flayed to death, which first appeared around AD 600.29 It simply reads: “There came then into Armenia the Apostle Bartholomew, who suffered martyrdom among us in the town of Arepan.” Immediately afterward, Xorenac’I mentions the tradition that the apostle Simon came to Persia and was martyred in Veriospore. Xorenac’I refrains from commenting on the reliability of the Simon tradition because he is not sure of the facts. He ensures his readers that he tells them only what is necessary and what he is certain about. Given the character of his presentation, then, we might reasonably believe Xorenac’I must have been quite confident that Bartholomew was martyred in Armenia.
Armenian scholar Malachia Ormanian believes the apostolic origins of the Armenian Church can be considered “an incontrovertible fact in ecclesiastical history.”30 While recognizing the facts are somewhat veiled historically, he provides three reasons why the tradition can be trusted. First, there are no historical improbabilities in Bartholomew and Thaddeus ministering and dying in Armenia. Second, all Christian churches in Armenia agree on his apostolic journey, preaching, and martyrdom in Armenia. Third, the name Albanus, which is the traditional site of his martyrdom, can be identified as Albacus. Ormanian writes:
The apostolic origin, which is essential to every Christian Church, in order to place her in union with her Divine Founder, is claimed to be direct when that origin is traced back to the individual work of one of the apostles; it is indirect when it is derived from a Church which herself has a primitively apostolic basis. The Armenian Church can rightly lay claim to such a direct apostolic origin …. And if tradition and historic sources, which sanction this view, should give occasion for criticism, these have no greater weight than the difficulties created with regard to the origin of oter apostolic Churches, which are universally admitted as such.31
The Martyrdom of Bartholomew, which likely originated in the fifth or sixth century and is today preserved in Greek, Latin, and Armenian,32 reports yet another tradition of the fate of Bartholomew—that he traveled to India, was beaten with clubs, beheaded by heathen priests who complained to the king about him, and then his body was thrown into the sea—later manuscripts from the ninth and twelfth centuries incorporate the Armenian tradition that he was flayed to death.33 From the fifth century onward, a variety of traditions report that Bartholomew met his fate in India.34 The Hieronymian Martyrology (c. fifth century) also reports that Bartholomew was beheaded in Citerior, India, by order of King Astriagis. Perumalil believes that this is most likely Bombay (modern-day Mumbai), a port town in western central India. The claim that the body of Bartholomew was thrown into the sea matches this identification. According to Perumalil: “If the writer was inventing a mere fable, a coincidence of this kind would not have been found.”35 The same location is mentioned by Pseudo-Sophronius, a seventh-century writer.36 A flourishing Christian community was found there in the sixth century. Thus, Perumalil concludes: “Hence in all probability the Apostle Bartholomew preached on the Kalyana [western] Coast of India, made converts and established a church that was still extant in the sixth century.”37
As with the case of other apocryphal accounts, the question is whether The Martyrdom of Bartholomew preserves historical material. That it appears much later than the primary Acts counts against the tradition. Other scholars are quite sanguine about the possibility that it contains a historical nucleus. Thomas Schmidt notes:
The work is a fifth-century composition that, like other apocryphal works already described, may combine fabrication with a core of historical material. Certainly the pattern—healing, successful preaching (often involving an influential individual), then local reprisals—is familiar from the early chapters of Acts, and it formed a model for the spread of Christianity for almost a thousand years.38
The Martyrdom of Bartholomew contains names of two kings and three gods. Is there any reason to believe these names are historical? Given that names often undergo change over time, especially when foreigners pronounce Indian names, Perumalil suggests that Astaruth may be the Indian god Astarudra, Baldad may be Baladat (an incarnation of Vishnu) or Baladeva (older brother of Krishna), and Becher may be the Hellenized form of the Kanarese Bachiran.39 As for the two kings, Perumalil notes that historical sources for this time are very meager. Yet the numismatic and inscriptional data suggest that when the Martyrdom of Bartholomew speaks of King Polymius, it refers to the Indian name Pulumayi, and that King Astreges may be identified as either Attrakan (of Pakrit) or Aristakarman (of the Puranas).40
A few important points stand out from analyzing traditions of the fate of Bartholomew. First, we have no record that he either recanted his faith or died peacefully, and we should consider the significance of his appearance in a decent number of apocryphal and Gnostic accounts. Second, the various accounts unilaterally agree that he died as a martyr. R.A. Lipsius notes the breadth of variation in the accounts of the death of Bartholomew:
The gnostic legend of Bartholomew has him crucified, the Coptic narrative has him put in a sack full of sand then sunk in the sea, the local Armenian saga has him beaten with clubs, a fourth tradition, probably originating in Persia, has him flayed, and finally a fifth tradition has him beheaded.41
While there is substantial disagreement about how and where he met his fate, there is no disagreement he was executed for reasons tied to his faith.
Third, it is not necessarily the case that these accounts are true or false in their entirety. It may be that some traditions are completely false. It may also be the case that some traditions retain a historical kernel of his travels, but incorporate fictional details of his martyrdom. And some may contain an accurate rendering of both his travels and martyrdom. At this point, the data remain inconclusive, but simply because some of the accounts contain irreconcilable details, we should not dismiss them all as fictional.
Fourth, there is nothing implausible about the various means mentioned for his manner of death. Victims were regularly drowned, beaten, crucified, and even flayed to death.42 Bartholomew could have been killed in any of these ways. In particular, death by flaying was one of the most painful and horrific methods of execution ever invented. Executioners would aim to remove the entire skin, peel by peel, while the victim was still alive. Victims who did not die from the flaying were often burned, impaled, or crucified. Flaying can be traced back long before the time of Christ, and was practiced in Turkey, China, and in many other Eastern countries.43 While the record of Bartholomew’s death by flaying is late, there is precedent for this kind of death during that time, and no reason to doubt its plausibility.44
Similar to other less prominent apostles, the evidence for the martyrdom of Bartholomew is mixed. There is disagreement about when, where, and how he died, but there is unanimity that Bartholomew met his fate by martyrdom. Yet it must be conceded that the first accounts are late. With these considerations in mind, the following probabilities seem most reasonable in regard to the missionary work and fate of Bartholomew:
1. Bartholomew engaged in missionary work outside Jerusalem—very probably true (Matt 28:18–20; Acts 1:8; Hippolytus on the Twelve 6; various traditions from Hierapolis, Lyconia, Egypt, Armenia, and India).
2. Bartholomew experienced martyrdom—as plausible as not (History of Armenia by Movsēs Xorenac’I; Hippolytus on the Twelve 6; Martyrdom of Bartholomew; Hieronymian Martyrology; Contendings of the Apostles).
1 Hans-Josef Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction, trans. Brian McNeil (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003), 99.
2 Brownrigg suggests Bartholomew may have first gone to Phrygia, then India, and finally to Armenia, where he was martyred. Ronald Brownrigg, The Twelve Apostles (New York: Macmillan, 1974), 136. The latter two points find confirmation in Hippolytus on the Twelve 6.
3 Given the similarities between this story and the Acts of Thomas (for example, apostle sold as a slave; talking serpent which is commanded by an apostle to suck the poison out of its victim), Schneemelcher believes the author used the Acts of Thomas and adapted it to an Egyptian situation. See Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R.M. Wilson (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 2:451–52.
4 Nina Girosĭan, “The Aršakuni Dynasty (A.D. 12-[180?]-428),” in The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, ed. Richard G. Hovannisian (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997), 1:83.
5 Malachia Ormanian, The Church of Armenia: Her History, Doctrine, Rule, Discipline, Liturgy, Literature, and Existing Condition, ed. Terenig Poladian, trans. G. Marcar Gregory (London: A.R. Wombray, 1955), 7.
6 Ian Gillman and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Christians in Asia before 1500 (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 92.
7 Aziz S. Atiya, History of Eastern Christianity (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968), 315–16.
8 The Roman Breviary is a seventh- or early eighth-century composite work from earlier sources and authors. See Pierre Batiffol, History of the Roman Breviary, trans. Atwell M.Y. Baylay (New York: Longmans, Green, 1896), 1.
9 A. Le Houllier, “Bartholomew, Apostle St.” New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2 (New York: Catholic University of America Press, 1967), 132.
10 As a whole, the Armenian Church assumes the tradition to be true rather than feeling the need to defend it, as do many Indian scholars concerning the Thomas tradition. Many Armenian history books mention the tradition without providing historical evidence for how it is known to be true. For instance, in Armenia: A Journey Through History, Arra S. Avakian mentions the tradition of Bartholomew and Thaddeus visiting Armenia in a historical timeline of key events in Armenia, but begins the history of Christianity in Armenia at the turn of the third/fourth century, when Armenia became the first nation to officially embrace Christianity. It is somewhat surprising not to see any details about the journey of Bartholomew (and Thaddeus) to Armenia. See Arra S. Avakian, Armenia: A Journey Through History (Fresno, CA: Electric Press, 1998).
11 J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 518.
12 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.10.3, as cited in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1890), 1:225.
13 Jerome, On Illustrious Men 36.
14 James Kurikilamkatt, First Voyage of the Apostle Thomas to India (Bangalore, India: Asian Trading Corporation, 2005), 100.
15 A. Mathias Mundadan, From the Beginning up to the Middle of the Sixteenth Century up to 1542, History of Christianity in India, vol. 1 (Bangalore, India: Theological Publications in India, 1984), 65; C. Bernard Ruffin, The Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles After Calvary (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1997), 117.
16 A.C. Perumalil, The Apostles in India, 2nd ed. (Dasarahalli, India: St. Paul Press Training School, 1971), 139–40.
17 L.W. Brown, The Indian Christians of St. Thomas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 63.
18 The Acts of Philip 15.36.
19 E.A. Wallis Budge, The Contendings of the Apostles: Being the Histories and the Lives and Martyrdoms and Deaths of the Twelve Apostles and Evangelists (London: Oxford University Press, 1935).
20 Pseudo-Hippolytus, Hippolytus on the Twelve 6, as cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Fathers of the Third Century, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Co., 1885), 5:255.
21 Michael van Esbroeck, “The Rise of Saint Bartholomew’s Cult in Armenia from the Seventh to the Thirteenth Centuries,” in Medieval Armenian Culture, University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies, vol. 6 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 162. Esbroeck suggests there were both political and religious reasons for why the Armenians claimed Bartholomew as their apostolic saint.
22 M. Chahin, The Kingdom of Armenia (New York: Dorset, 1987), 201.
23 Everett Ferguson, ed., Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, vol. 1 (New York: Garland, 1997), s.v. “Armenian Christian Literature,” by Robin Darling Young.
24 Agop J. Hacikyan, The Heritage of Armenian Literature, ed. Gabriel Basmajian, Edward S. Franchuk, Nourhan Ouzounian (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1999), 1:23.
25 Ibid., 1:75.
26 According to M. Chahin, most scholars criticize the work of Xorenac’I as inaccurate. Yet Chahin notes that many scholars use the narratives of Xorenac’I for further research and study. See Chahin, The Kingdom of Armenia, 201.
27 Aram Topchyan, The Problem of Greek Sources of Movsēs Xorenac’I’s History of Armenia (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2006), 15.
28 Movsēs Xorenac’I, History of Armenia Book IX: Martyrdom of Our Apostles.
29 Els Rose, Ritual Memory: The Apocryphal Acts and Liturgical Commemoration in the Early Medieval West (c. 500–1251) (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2009), 86–89.
30 Ormanian, The Church of Armenia, 4.
31 Ibid.
32 Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 518
33 Rose, Ritual Memory, 84.
34 The reports that Bartholomew met his fate in India include Gregory of Tours (sixth century), St. Bede the Venerable (eighth century), Usuard of Sagermanum (ninth century), Odo, bishop of Vienne (ninth century), the Greek Menology of Constantinople (tenth century), and a Syrian tradition written by Amr (fourteenth century). See Perumalil, The Apostles in India, 133–35.
35 Rose, Ritual Memory, 114.
36 Ibid., 111.
37 Ibid.
38 Thomas E. Schmidt, The Apostles After Acts: A Sequel (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013), 150.
39 Perumalil, The Apostles of India, 118.
40 Ibid., 126–29.
41 As translated and quoted in Hans-Josef Klauck, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, trans. Brian McNeil (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 244.
42 Geoffrey Abbot, Execution (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2005).
43 Ibid., 113.
44 Although flaying was typically a form of punishment, there are other known reasons why it was administered to some. See Sarah Kay, “Original Skin: Flaying, Reading, and Thinking in the Legend of Saint Bartholomew and Other Works,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 36 (2006).