What nonsense. There are whole transitions of Christianity that don't agree with the '12 apostles'.
And there are plenty of historians that disagree that there is any solid bases for the claim that there were exactly 12 apostles. Even assuming that term had a specific meaning in the first century.
There is plenty of evidence that the very term apostles no is different then historically. Paul himself, literally the oldest source on Christianity we have, disagrees with the classic 12 apostles theory, as Paul claims he is an apostle.
So pretty much every serious historian disagrees that there is a clear cut '12 apostle' that were consistent and named since the time of Jesus. In the oldest document we have of the time period no '12 apostles' are mentioned.
There are so many serious issue with the whole idea of '12 apostles'.
> [0]
That's not a source. The majority of that 'history' is church internal history that has very, very thin bases that actual historians would accept.
The fact is we almost nothing first century sources that talk about this (and even what we have is heavily bias and unreliable). Pretty much all of this history is 2nd century at best (most of it later). And we have plenty of evidence that this is by far a long enough within religions to evolve a mythology.
And there are plenty of historians that disagree that there is any solid bases for the claim that there were exactly 12 apostles. Even assuming that term had a specific meaning in the first century.
There is plenty of evidence that the very term apostles no is different then historically. Paul himself, literally the oldest source on Christianity we have, disagrees with the classic 12 apostles theory, as Paul claims he is an apostle.
So pretty much every serious historian disagrees that there is a clear cut '12 apostle' that were consistent and named since the time of Jesus. In the oldest document we have of the time period no '12 apostles' are mentioned.
There are so many serious issue with the whole idea of '12 apostles'.
> [0]
That's not a source. The majority of that 'history' is church internal history that has very, very thin bases that actual historians would accept.
The fact is we almost nothing first century sources that talk about this (and even what we have is heavily bias and unreliable). Pretty much all of this history is 2nd century at best (most of it later). And we have plenty of evidence that this is by far a long enough within religions to evolve a mythology.