Thursday, August 14, 2025

SEARCH FOR THE 12 APOSTLES continued-- 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 - END

 

In Search of the Twelve Apostles

James, the son of Alphaeus

The confusion with the name James


by McBirnie, Ph.D.


JAMES THE SON OF ALPHAEUS


     James, the son of Alphaeus, who is also called the "Less" or
perhaps "Younger," was a brother of Matthew Levi and the son of
Mary. Which "Mary" is not altogether certain though she appears
to be the wife of one Clopas [Cleophas], which may have been
another or second name for Alphaeus.
     As with Matthew, James was a native of Caperuaum, a city on
the northwestern shores of the Sea of Galilee. Here in the early
part of his ministry Jesus also moved into His own house. He
preached in the local synagogues, in private homes, as well as at
the seashore where large numbers of people often gathered. We do
not know how or where Jesus first met James and Matthew. Probably
they had heard him during His preaching services. It is quite
likely that when Jesus called Matthew to follow Him it was not so
much a first acquaintance, but a final call to decision to one
who had already shown a keen interest. If James and Matthew were
brothers, and were cousins of Jesus, that fact would of course
shed light on their previous acquaintance.
     Matthew, no doubt, suffered in his conscience because, as a
tax-gatherer for the house of Herod Antipas, the satrap of Rome,
he must necessarily have incurred the displeasure of the Jews who
hated Herod and Rome alike. In any case, it would seem quite
evident that Matthew had made his peace with Herod's
administration if not with the Romans, but he must have had to
have overridden his conscience. After Jesus called film, Matthew
immediately threw a great feast for his friends, who included a
number of other tax-gatherers and their mutual friends, none of
whom would have been in very good repute with the Jewish
community. Jesus was the guest of honor at this feast, and we get
a picture of the enmity of the Jewish community toward the tax
collectors in that Jesus was bitterly criticized by the local
Pharisees for eating with those they called, "Tax Collectors and
Sinners." In Israel at the time this phrase "tax collectors and
sinners" seems to have been a colloquialism for those who were
hopelessly corrupt and outside the mercy or interest of God.
Having defiled themselves they would necessarily defile any whom
they contacted.
     We have no indication that James was among those who
gathered for that feast. Every indication is that he was not.
Temperamentally and perhaps ideologically, he differed from his
brother, Matthew.

     James and Matthew Levi Bar Alphaeus were said to have been
of the tribe of Gad, one of the ten tribes of the northern
confederacy which was taken captive in the eighth century B.C. as
a result of the Assyrian invasion by Tiglath Pileser. However,
bearing the name Levi more probably indicates that both Matthew
and James were of the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe. The
tribe of Levi, unlike the tribe of Gad, had fled from northern
Israel before the Assyrian invasion and had joined with Judah.
That a child not of a priestly tribe of Levi should have been
named Levi would be most unlikely in those days.
     But Matthew had betrayed his priestly heritage and had
become a collaborator with Herod and Rome. It would be natural to
suppose that his brother James was in total disagreement with
Matthew Levi's choice of secular matters. Later tradition about
James indicates that James himself was at first a "Zealot" (a
revolutionary group seeking to throw off the yoke of both Herod
Antipas and Rome). But his patriotic and nationalistic idealism
was rudely dashed by the policy of bloodshed which characterized
the Zealots. Therefore, James probably became an ascetic, who
sought refuge in his own piety from the bloodshed of the Zealots.
But was he an ascetic? This opens the question which must he
settled about the identity of James himself.


THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE MEN CALLED "JAMES"

(1) With the identity of James, the brother of John, the son of
Zebedee, known otherwise as "James the Elder" and "James the
Great", we have no trouble. His is the only fairly complete story
in the New Testament of any of the original Twelve, besides, of
course, Judas Iscariot. This James was slain by beheading at the
command of Herod Antipas to please the Jewish leaders who always
suspected Herod's devotion to Judaism was mere lip service.

(2) James the Less or Younger, son of Alphaeus and Mary, who is
the object of our study here, is a man of whom we know
comparatively little except that he was brother to Matthew, also
an Apostle, Joseph, an early Christian and Salome, an unknown
woman.

(3) There is also a James who was the father of the Apostle named
Judas or Thaddeaus, now commonly called St.Jude, who is carefully
distinguished in Scripture from Judas Iscariot. James, the father
of Jude, is probably the same as James the son of Zebedee and
brother of John.

(4) James, the brother of Jesus, is the best known to us of all
the early Apostles except for Peter, John and Paul. He was not
one of the Twelve, however.

     It is the confusion of identity between James the Less and
James the brother of Jesus which makes it practically impossible
to know who each was, and what each did as distinct from the
other.
     Most of the ancient denominations, such as the Roman
Catholic or Armenian Orthodox, identify James the Less and James
the brother of Jesus as one and the same. Their reasoning is
complicated, contradictory and not defensible by the Scriptural
record. Essentially though, it is an attempt to assert that,
contrary to what St.Paul wrote in Galatians about "James the
brother of the Lord," James the just was a cousin of Jesus. The
reason for this tortured attempt to explain St.Paul's plain
statement away is to protect the doctrine of the perpetual
virginity of Mary by implying that when St.Paul wrote "brother"
he really meant cousin. Obscure references in Greek literature
are used by some to show that this was possible.
     The early heresy of Docetism attempted to convince
Christians that all sexual intercourse was evil. The later
elevation of Mary to the stature of a demigoddess, forced some of
those who took this view to invent out of whole cloth the notion
that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were perhaps children of
Joseph by a previous marriage. Thus James the brother of the Lord
becomes James the half brother. However, at this point a further
contradiction inserts itself. How could James the Less be the son
of Joseph and also be the son of Alpheaus?

     The answer which has apparently satisfied most of the
scholars of the oldest branches of organized Christianity is to
make Mary the mother of James the Less, a sister of Mary the
mother of Jesus. This reduces James the Less to the status of a
cousin of Jesus rather than a half brother.

     One cannot but sympathize with the defenders of this point
of view under the pressure they were under to preserve the
doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
But their solution is simply impossible. Never in history have
two sisters been given the same name in the same family. The
purpose of names is to distinguish between children. With the
great number of names available to the ancients it would be
grotesque to suggest that there were two Marys in the same
family.

     We may be safe, therefore, in assuming that James the
brother of Jesus was indeed just that. There is little doubt that
this James did not believe in Jesus before the resurrection, for
the New Testament is careful to tell us that Jesus made a special
post-resurrection appearance to a "James". This was probably the
brother o£ Jesus. We are not told when this happened nor why it
was necessary, but we do have two facts. Jesus' brothers in the
flesh did not believe in Him before the resurrection, yet in the
book of Acts, James the brother of Jesus, is described as the
chairman of the church of Jerusalem, exceeding in rank Peter and
John. It is a probability, therefore, that James the Less and
James the brother of Jesus were not only different people, but
also that each time in the New Testament where the name of
"James" appears, after the official roster of the Apostles is
listed in the first chapter of Acts, it refers to James, the
brother of Jesus. We are sure that he was the spokesman for the
Apostles. At the conference where Paul and Barnabas received a
special commission to preach to the Gentiles, Paul certainly
mentions him as having been the first and only Apostle with whom
he personally conferred three years after his conversion, except
for Peter.
     When Paul went to Jerusalem again before his final
imprisonment in Jerusalem, James appears again as the spokesman
of the Twelve, urging Paul to demonstrate his fidelity to the
Mosaic Law in order not to offend the Jews in Jerusalem. Paul
purposely refers to this "James" as one of the "pillars" of the
church along with John.
     A careful reading reveals that it is James, the brother of
Jesus, whom Paul meant rather than James the Great, since by this
time James the Great was dead. It is not an utter impossibility
that James the Less is meant, but the whole thrust of Paul's
historic references to "James" seemed to be, according to the
context of Paul's writing, the "James" who is the brother of the
Lord.
     James the brother of Jesus undoubtedly wrote the Epistle
which bears his name.
     There is also a great deal of traditional information about
the life and death of James the brother of Jesus, which has been
wrongly attributed to James the Less.
     Over 2o0 years ago an English scholar, Darman Newman, summed
up this tradition:

"Prayer was his constant business and delight. He seemed to live
upon it and to trade in nothing but the frequent returns of
converse with heaven. In the procuratorship of Alvinus the
successor to Festus, the enemies of James decided to dispatch
him. A council was hastily summoned. They plotted to set the
scribes and Pharisees to insnare him. They told him they had a
mighty confidence in him and that they would that he might
correct the error and false opinion the people had of Jesus. To
that end he was invited to go to the top of the temple where he
might be seen and heard by all. There they demanded, 'Tell us,
what is the institution of the crucified Jesus?' The people
below, hearing it, glorified the blessed Jesus. The Scribes and
Pharisees perceiving now that they had overshot themselves and
that instead of reclaiming the people had confirmed them in their
(supposed) error, thought there was no way left but presently to
dispatch him, that by his sad fate others might be warned not to
believe him. Wherefore, suddenly crying out that James the just
himself was seduced and had become an imposter, they threw him
down from the place where he stood. Though bruised, he was not
killed by the fall, but recovered so much strength, as to get
upon his knees and pray to heaven for them.
They began to load him with a shower of stones until one more
mercifully cruel than the rest with a fuller's dub beat out his
brains. Thus dyed [sic] that good man in the 90th year of his
life [this is of course, impossible. ED] and about 24 years after
Christ's ascension, He was buried upon the Mt.of Olives in a
tombe which he bad built for himself." ("The Lives and Deaths of
the Holy Apostles," Dorman Newman, 1885).

     Newman based his narration on fairly good early traditions.
James the brother of Jesus is, therefore, the James who was
prominent in the Jerusalem church and was martyred by being
thrown from the pinnacle of the Femple and then buried on the Mt.
of Olives.

     This is the "James" whom the Armenians and others confuse
with James the Less. According to Armenian tradition, after the
destruction of the Monastery in which the body of the martyred
Apostle was originally buried, his bones were removed to the
Cathedral of St.James in Jerusalem on Mt.Zion. They were placed
beneath the principal altar. This Cathedral is also believed to
be the site in which the head of the Apostle James the Great,
brother of John, was buried.
     The Armenian Monastery of St.James covers the entire summit
of Mt.Zion totaling 300 acres, or 1/6 of the entire old city of
Jerusalem. The remains of James the brother of Jesus were
transferred from the Kedron Valley in the fourth century and
buried in his home, the ruins of which were later incorporated
into the Cathedral.

     In the Treasury of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem
are listed (1) a reliquary containing the "arm of James the Less"
and (2) another containing "the fingers of James the brother of
the Lord."
     It is more likely that the reliquaries contain bones of the
same man, James the brother of the Lord.
     The tomb in the Valley of the Kedron, now called the Grotto
of St.James, was originally the burial place of a Herodian
priestly family of the sons of Hezir. In the fourth century,
monks living in the Grotto found a skeleton which was held to be
that of an apostolic "James" though they incorrectly identified
this skeleton as that of James the Less. There is nothing to
mitigate against it being the genuine skeleton of James the
brother of Jesus, merely because it was found in the family tomb
of the sons of Hezir. From the treatment of the body of Jesus by
Joseph of Arimathea, who weleomed Jesus body in his own family
tomb, it is quite conceivable to infer that the family of Hezir
might have extended compassionate burial to the body of James.
This is the skeleton which now lies under the altar in the
Cathedral of St.Tames.
     An unbroken tradition among the Armenians traces this body
back to its discovery in the fourth Century. The tomb of the sons
of Hezir is located immediately across from the "pinnacle" of the
temple area to this day. Of James, Tbeodorus said, "He was thrown
from the pinnacle of the temple and did not hurt him, for a
fuller slew him with a club he carried and he was buried on the
Mt.of Olives." ("Dome of the Rock" Judith Erickson, Jerusalem,
1971).

     It is interesting and perhaps significant that recent
excavations of the exterior southwest wall of the old city have
uncovered fuller's vats. Fullers were the laundrymen of the first
century, and fuller's earth was a kind of soap in wide use until
comparatively modem times. The water that comes from the pool of
Siloam, which is not far from the pinnacle of the temple, would
have been a necessity for the public laundries of Jerusalem.
One can easily get the picture: the crowd gathers on the pinnacle
of the temple to throw James to his doom in the valley below. The
fullers rush up from their laundry not far away with clubs in
their hands which they had used for beating their garments.
Caught up in the fury of the mob they smashed the skull of the
aged Apostle after he fell. The compassionate members of the sons
of Hezir, a family of priests offer a niche in their extensive
tomb. Not far from where he was slain the battered body of the
brother of Jesus is laid to rest. Standing in the doorway of this
tomb, while on the steep western rock wall of the lower slopes of
the Mt.of Olives, the visitor of today can easily reenact the
entire dreadful scene of martyrdom and burial.

     It would be helpful to a critical study such as this if this
James the brother of Jesus, could indeed be successfully and
firmly identified as also James the Less, but this is simply not
possible to honest scholarship.

     But what then of James the Less?

     The linking together of James, the son of Alphaeus in the
various lists of the Apostles gives the impression of more than
an arbitrary or accidental grouping. James is listed with Simon
the Zealot. Jude, the son of James the Great, is also referred to
as a Zealot in the Apostolic Constitutions. The quotation in two
of the ancient manuscripts of that work describes him thus:

"Thaddeaus was called Lebbaeus who was surnamed Judas the Zealot"
("The Master's Men," William Barclay, p.115) The fourth figure in
the Apostolic listing is Judas Iscariot. He, too, may have been a
Zealot according to Barclay. ("The Master's Men," William
Barclay, p.115) However, it is quite evident that this is only
speculation as far as James, the son of Alphaeus is concerned.
His mother was a faithful follower of Jesus, going in company
with Mary, the mother of Jesus, all the way to the Cross. Was it
his mother, Mary, who won him to Christ, or was it James who won
his mother? We do not know. But certainly one thing is evident.
If James, the son of Alphaeus was, during his idealistic youth, a
Zealot, he soon forsook the movement and became an ardent
Christian.

     One of the earliest church historians who is quoted by
Eusebius, Heggesippus, who wrote in 169 A.D., says that James
lived the life of a Nazarene (Nazarite?) before and after
becoming an Apostle of Jesus Christ. As a member of this order he
drank no wine and ate no meat except the Paschal Lamb, never
shaved or cut his hair and never took a bath. James wore no
clothes except a single linen garment which (he) also carefully
avoided cleaning (with) water. He spent so much time in prayer
his knees became hardened like the hooves of a camel. [These
legends (which echo the sounds of the early days of the Monastics
more than those of the first century and lack probability) earned
for James the title 'James the Just'. So righteous was his life
that he alone of the Christians was allowed to go into the
Holiest of Holies, and Jews as well as Christians strove to touch
the hem of his garments as he passed in the street.

     This tradition of Heggesippus simply does not ring true.
First, the description more nearly fits James the brother of
Jesus who is the more likely bearer of the title "James the Just"
Second, it is almost certain that no one but the Jewish high
priest was permitted to go into the Holiest of Holies. Whether be
was a Jew or a Jewish Christian, there is no reason to believe
that anyone else, however holy his life, was ever permitted into
the Holy of Holies. Third, none of the other Apostles are
recorded to have held scruples against eating of meat and
washing. This would have been contrary to the traditions of the
Jews and the early Christians alike. We feel there is nothing
whatsoever in this description to fit James, the son of Alphaeus.

     A more interesting and perhaps more likely tradition is
preserved in the "Golden Legend," a seven volume compilation of
the lives of the saints arranged by Jacobus de Voragine,
Archbishop of Genoa in 1275 A.D., which relates that James
resembled Jesus Christ so much in body, visage and manner that it
was difficult to distinguish one from the other. The kiss of
Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane, according to this tradition,
was necessary to make sure that Jesus and not James was taken
prisoner. ("The Twelve Christ Chose," Asbury Smith, p.116,117)
     If Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a cousin of Mary, the
mother of James, this could account for the family resemblance
between the two. Certainly there was no closer relationship
between the two Marys than that of cousins. But then, bearded
young men of the same race often have a resemblance. Yet we must
point out that it is not certain that Jesus even wore a beard.
Even so, a facial resemblance could have existed. On the basis of
this tradition, James is usually pictured in Christian art as
beautiful of countenance. His handsome features full of spiritual
and intellectual beauty make him easily recognizable in early
pictures of the Twelve.

     Again, we must challenge the generally held concept of Jesus
as being a handsome man. There is no indication whatsoever in the
New Testament that this was true. The only reference at all to
the appearance of Jesus is found in the 53rd chapter of Isaiah
(verse where we read the prophetic prediction that the Messiah
would have "no beauty that we should desire him."
     Yet in all of this perhaps we can detect a small kernel of
truth. James the son of Alpbaeus may indeed have had a facial
resemblance to Jesus.
     Such traditions as are preserved often contain at least a
grain of truth.
     Though confusing James the Less with the James who was the
brother of Jesus, the authoritative writer, Aziz S.Atiya, in his
"History of Eastern Christianity" relates the one historical
tradition that has a ring of probability. He says, "The seeds of
Syrian Christianity had been sown in Jerusalem during the
Apostolic age, and the contention has been made that the first
bishop of the Syrian church was none other than St.James of the
Twelve Apostles, identified as `St. James the Less" ("A History
of Eastern Christianity," Aziz S.Atiya, p.239).

     According to the study made by Budge, ("Contendings of the
Apostles II", E. A. Wallis Budge, p.264-266), James was stoned by
the Jews for preaching Christ, and was buried by the Sanctuary in
Jerusalem. 

     We must speculate at this point how and when the body of
James the Less was discovered in Jerusalem and taken to
Constantinople for interment in the Church of the Holy Apostles.
This could have happened during the reign of Justinian. According
to Gibbon, Justinian rehabilitated the Church of the Holy
Apostles which was built by Constantine the Great in the year 332
in Constantinople. ("The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,"
Edward Gibbon, p.510). Justinian had a keen awareness of Biblical
history and compared his building of Santa Sophia with the temple
of Solomon. (Ibid., p.508) Since this was the age of the frantic
search for the relics of the early Christians, especially those
of the Apostles, it is entirely possible that the body identified
as that of James the Less was brought from Palestine to
Constantinople to add Apostolic association to the Eastern
Orthodox Church and empire. This cannot be proven but it is
highly likely since Justinian's word was law in the entire Middle
East, and the churchmen were eager to please him.

     The Armenian church in Jerusalem had, by the time of
Justinian, established its claim to the body of James the brother
of Jesus, whom they mistakenly supposed to be identical with
James the Less.
     Justinian would probably have honored this conviction and
left the body of James the brother of Jesus in place in Jerusalem
while disagreeing with the identification of it as the body of
James the Less. Why he later forwarded the body or parts of it to
Rome can only be guessed at. Perhaps it was a part of some
political agreement to keep his political alliance with Rome
intact.
     The historian who is aware of the complexities of the
histories of the relationship of the Eastern and Western Roman
Empires and the Eastern and Western division of organized
Christianity can easily sense this scenario.
     The body of James the son of Alphaeus, was brought from
Constantinople to Rome about the year 572 ("A Traveller's Guide
to Saints to Europe," Mary Sharp) and was interred by Pope John
III in a church which was first known as the "Church of the
Apostles Philip and James the Less." Only in the 10th century was
this title shortened in common speech to the "Church of the Holy
Apostles."
     Archaeologists who have examined the lower part of the
present day structure of the church in Rome affirm that the
structure is the work of the sixth century and beyond doubt that
which was constructed by Pope John III. The original church was
dedicated the first of May 580 A.D. The bones of St.Philip were
probably interred on that date, and the bones of James were added
later. Still later, skeletal remains of other Apostles were
added. There they may be seen to this day.

                           ....................

          To be continued 


The Search for the Twelve Apostles

The Apostle Jude Thaddaeus

IN SEARCH FOR THE TWLEVE APOSTLES (published 1973)

by McBernie Ph.D.



     There are a number of men named "Judas mentioned in the New
Testament for "Judas" is simply the Greek form of Judah, probably
the most common name among the Jews. Jude is the Latin form of
Judah.
     St.Jerome called this Judas, "Triontus," which means, the
man with three names. In Matthew he is called "Lebbaeus" whose
surname was "Thaddaeus." (Matthew 10:3) in Mark he is called
"Thaddaeus." (Mark 3:18) Luke refers to him as, "Judas the son of
James." (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13 )
     The correct identification of this Judas is extremely
complicated, not only because of the three names which are used
for him in the Scriptural record but also because of the
enigmatic reference to him as the "son of James." We could tell
considerably more about him if we were certain exactly who this
James was. The Roman Catholic versions choose to translate the
reference in Luke 6:16 as "brother of James." But the revised
versions generally agree that he was the son of the man named
James. In the Greek it merely says, "Judas of James" but the
common meaning of this is "son of."
     Further complicating the identification of this Apostle is
the fact that there are two other prominent New Testament
characters by the name of Judas. There is Judas Iscariot who
betrayed Jesus, and Judas the brother o f Jesus who was probably
the author of the Epistle of Jude. In this book the writer spoke
of himself as the "brother of James." It is believed that modesty
forbade him to claim Jesus as his brother after the flesh, but it
is quite certain that he was a younger son of Joseph and of Mary.

     However, the "Judas son of James" we study here was probably
the son of James the Great, the son of Zebedee. This
identification is based upon the following argument. 

(1) This Judas was the son of James. (2) He could hardly have
been the son of James the brother of Jesus, since that James was
probably younger than Jesus and it would have been impossible for
him to have a son old enough for the son also to have been an
Apostle. Besides, all early tradition describes James the brother
of Jesus as a holy man who was probably an ascetic, and
therefore, probably unmarried. (3) "James the Less" was the son
of Alphaeus, the brother of Matthew and Joseph and Salome. If his
title "James the Less" actually means "James the Younger," we
must ask, younger than whom? Obviously, younger than James the
Great. Would, therefore, a man who is plainly declared to be the
younger of the two James' have a son old enough to be an Apostle?
This leaves us with James the Great, sometimes called James the
Elder, as the father of Judas. If this is so, then we can clearly
identify "Judas Thaddaeus Lebbaeus" as the grandson of Zebedee
and the nephew of John the Apostle.
     The name Thaddaeus may be a diminutive of Theudas or
Theodore, derived from the Aramaic noun "tad" which means
"breast" and which would mean "deal" or "beloved," that is, one
close to the heart of the one who named him.
     The other name, Lebbaeus, may be a derivation of the Hebrew
noun "leb," which means heart, and in that case it would bear the
same meaning as Thaddaeus. (See Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Volume
11, p.120).


EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS ABOUT ST.JUDE


     The Gospel of the Ebionites mentioned by Origen narrates
that St.Jude was also among those who received their call to
follow Jesus at the Sea of Tiberius. In the "Genealogies of the
Twelve Apostles" Jude was declared to be of the house of Joseph.
According to the "Book of the Bee," he was of the tribe of Judah.
(It is, however, more probable that if Jude is the son of James
the Great, be was of the tribe of Judah-ED )
     Another apocryphal document called "The Belief of the
Blessed Judas the Brother of Our Lord Who Was Surnamed Thaddaeus"
describes his mission in Syria and Dacia and indicates him as one
of the Twelve. The apocryphal book, "The Acts of St.Peter"
describes that Apostle as appointing St.Jude "over the island of
Syria and Edessa." It is obviously at this point that we are
suffering from a corrupted translation since there can hardly be
any such place as "the island of Syria." Syria is an inland
country, the capitol of which is Damascus.
     A solution suggests itself. Damascus is an "island' of
green, that is to say an oasis, in a "sea" of sand and
wilderness. Further, when the Apostle Paul was baptized it was in
Damascus, at the hands of a Christian named Annanias while he,
Paul (then Saul) was staying "in the house of a man called Judas"
about whom we know nothing except that he was the proprietor of
the house in which Paul stayed. (Acts 9:11) Admittedly, this is
flimsy evidence indeed for an apocryphal writer to build a legend
upon, to the effect that St.Peter appointed St.Jude to be a
missionary to "the island of Syria." But this obscure Scripture
reference to a Judas in Damascus, and the fact that the word
"oasis" could mean an "island" of fertility in a barren
wilderness, might actually be enough for the birth of the legend.
     The Jude of Damascus is not St.Jude, but the reference might
well have assisted the association of St.Jude with Syria.
     When it comes to a reference to a city called Edessa we are,
of course, on firmer ground, since there is an abundance of
tradition associating St.Jude with that part of Armenia of which
Edessa was the leading city.
     The "Acta Thaddaei" mentioned by Tischendorf (in "Acta
Apostolorum Aprocrypha, 1851, 281) refers to Thaddaeus as one of
the Twelve but also as one of the Seventy, as does Eusebius. 
St.Jerome, however, identifies this same Thaddaeus with Lebbaeus
and "Judas of James."
     A book published by The Church of the East in India
(Souvenir-India, p.125) contains a statement which confirms the
movement of Jude from Jerusalem eastward. This church makes a
claim that the leaven which they use in their Communion bread is
made from "the Holy Leaven ... a portion of the original bread
used by Christ at the Last Supper was brought to the East by the
Apostle Thaddaeus. And in every Holy Communion since the bread
used is made from meal continuous with that used in the first
Lord's Supper." The same book continues, "The Apostolic liturgy
of St.James of Jerusalem, brother of our Lord who celebrated the
first Qurbana or Holy Communion, is still in use in the Church of
the East, without variation or change. It is known among us by
the name of saints 'Addai' [St.Jude Thaddaeus-Ed.] and Mari who
brought the Liturgy from Jerusalem to Edessa."
     Despite the charm of this tradition it presents at least one
difficulty. The bread of the Lord's Supper could not have been
made with leaven, since the first Lord's Supper was the
celebration of the Passover and unleavened bread was commanded by
the Mosaic Law, according to Exodus 12:15. Thus we cannot accept
the tradition that Thaddaeus (Jude) brought the leaven or
sour-dough from the original Lord's Supper. Nevertheless, the
name of the city of Edessa appears in connection with Thaddaeus
(Jude) and this at least demonstrates the historical continuity
of that association.
     An early church historian (Nicephorus Callistus, His. Eccl.
240) tells how Thaddaeus (Jude) preached in Syria, Arabia,
Mesopotamia and Persia. He adds that Thaddaeus (Jude) suffered
martyrdom in Syria.

ST.JUDE AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

     The association of the Armenian Church with the Apostles is
one of the firmest facts in all post-Biblical Christian
historical tradition. St.Jude is consistently associated as one
of five of the Apostles who visited Armenia and evangelized
there. Armenia became the first Christian nation in the world.
Christianity was officially proclaimed in 301 A.D. as the
national religion of Armenia. 

(Nope, not so! Here McBirnie did not do his home work, if had, he
would have known that it was BRITAIN that was the FIRST Christian
nation on earth, declaring Christianity as its national religion
in the 2nd century A.D. - way before Armenia ever did - Keith
Hunt).

     King Tiridates, together with the nobility of his country,
were baptized by St.Greogry the Illuminator. In the history of
the Armenian church (Jerusalem and the Armenians by Assadour
Antreassian, p.20) the author states:

"Thus all Christian Churches accept the tradition that
Christianity was preached in Armenia by the Apostles Thaddeus and
Bartholomew in the first half of the first century, when the
Apostles of Christ were fulfilling their duty in preaching the
Gospel in Jerusalem and all Judea and in Samaria, and unto the
uttermost parts of the earth - (Acts 1:8). Armenia was among the
first to respond to the call of Christ so early. Thus, the above
mentioned Apostles became the first illuminators of Armenia. The
generally accepted chronology gives a period of eight years to
the mission of St.Thaddeus (35-43 A.D.) and sixteen years to
that of St.Bartholomew (44-60 A.D.), both of whom suffered
martyrdom in Armenia (Thaddeus at Ardaze in 50 A.D. and
Bartholomew at [Derbend] in 68 A.D.)."

     The same author writing on the organization of the Armenian
church makes the following claim. "As head of the Armenian
Church, the Catholicos of all Armenians at Etchmiadzin is
regarded as the successor of the Apostles Thaddaeus and
Bartholomew."

     Aziz S. Atiya in his authoritative "History of Eastern
Christianity" deals with the origins and development of Armenian
Christianity with restraint but with a clear reflection of this
tradition:

"It is conceivable that Armenia, because of its close
proximity to Palestine, the fountain head of the faith of Jesus,
may have been visited by the early propagators of Christianity,
although it is difficult to define the extent of the spread of
this new religion among its inhabitants. Orthodox Armenian
historians, such as Ormanian, labour to make a case for the
continuity of Apostolic succession in their church. To him the
'First Illuminators of Armenia' were Saints Thaddaeus and
Bartholomew whose very shrines still stand in the churches of
Artaz (Macao) and Alpac (Bashkale) in south-east Armenia and have
always been venerated by Armenians. A popular tradition amongst
them ascribes the first evangelization of Armenia to the Apostle
Judas Thaddaeus who, according to their chronology spent the
years 43-66 A.D. in that country and was joined by St.Barth-
olomew in the year 60 A.D. The latter was martyred in 68
A.D. at 'Derbend.' According to Armenian tradition, therefore,
Thaddaeus became the first patriarch of the Armenian Church, thus
rendering it both Apostolic and autocephalous. Another tradition
ascribes to the See of Artaz a line of seven bishops whose names
are known and the periods of whose episcopates bring the
succession to the second century. Furthermore, the annals of
Armenian martyrology refer to a host of martyrs in the Apostolic
age. A roll of a thousand victims including men and women of
noble descent lost their lives with St.Thaddaeus, while others
perished with St.Bartholomew.
It is interesting to note that the apocryphal story of King
Abgar and Our Lord was reiterated by some native writers as
having occurred in Armenia in order to heighten the antiquity of
that religion amongst their forefathers.
Though it is hard to confirm or confute the historicity of these
legends so dear to the hearts of Armenians, it may be deduced
from contemporary writers that there were Christians in Armenia
before the advent of St.Gregory Ulluminator, the fourth-century
apostle of Armenian Christianity. Eusebius of Caesarea (ca.
260-340 A.D.) refers to the Armenians in his 'Ecclesiastical
History' on two occasions. First, he states that Dionysius of
Alexandria (d. ca. 264), pupil or Origen, wrote an Epistle 'On
Repentance', 'to those in Armenia ... whose bishop was
Meruzanes.' On a second occasion, speaking of Emperor
Maximin's persecution of 311-13, he says that 'the tyrant had the
further trouble of the war against the Armenians, men who from
ancient times had been friends and allies of the Romans; but as
they were Christians and exceedingly earnest in their piety
towards the Deity, this hater of God [i.e., Maximin], by
attempting to compel them to sacrifice to idols and demons, made
of them foes instead of friends, and enemies instead of allies.
Although this second episode must have occurred in the lifetime
of Gregory the Illuminator, there is no doubt as to the antiquity
of the first reference to the Armenians.
Further, if we believe the argument advanced by Ormanian and
other native Armenian historians about a second-century quotation
from Tertullian, it must be admitted that Christianity was not
unknown in that region at that early date" (pp.315-16).

     In a book published by the Armenian Christians in Jerusalem
called "The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem," the Armenian
tradition of St.Jude is described as natural from the early
relationship of Armenia to the Holy Land:

"The indestructible and everlasting love and veneration of
Armenians for the Holy Land has its beginning in the first
century of the Christian Era when Christianity was brought to
Armenia directly from the Holy Land by two of the Apostles of
Christ, St.Thaddeus and St.Bartholomeus.
The early connection with Jerusalem was naturally due to the
early conversion of Armenia. Even before the discovery of the
Holy Places, Armenians, like other Christians of the neighbouring
countries, came to the Holy Land over the Roman roads and the
older roads to venerate the places that God had sanctified. In
Jerusalem they lived and worshipped on the Mount of Olives.
After the declaration of Constantine's will, known as Edict of
Milan, and the discovery of the Holy Places, Armenian pilgrims
poured into Palestine in a constant stream throughout the year.
The number and importance of Armenian churches and monasteries
increased year by year" ("Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem,"
p.3).

     One of the most unusual side references to the association
of St.Jude (Thaddaeus) with Armenia is found in Catalogue No.1,
"Treasures of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem":

"The traditional founders of the Armenian Church were the
apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew, whose tombs are shown and
venerated in Armenia as sacred shrines. During the period between
the Apostolic origins of the Armenian Church and the beginning of
the 4th century, when the country as a whole formally adopted
Christianity, there have been Armenian bishops whose names are
mentioned by ancient historians," ("Treasures of the Armenian
Patriarchate of Jerusalem" by Arpag Mekhitarian, Helen and Edward
Mardigian Museum - Catalogue No. 1, Jerusalem, Armenian
Patriarchate, 1969, p.3).

     The association of St.Jude with Persia, where part of the
ancient Armenia is found today (the other parts being within
Turkey and the Soviet Union) is acknowledged by Roman Catholic
tradition as follows: 

"St.Jude preached throughout Samaria, Edessa and Mesopotamia and
penetrated as far as Persia where he was martyred with a javelin
or with arrows or by being tied to a cross. He is pictured as a
young or middle aged man in sacred art. His relies are widely
distributed. Some are in St.Peter's, Rome, and others in the
Church of St.Saturninus in Tolosa, Spain." ("Traveller's Guide to
Saints in Europe," Mary Sharp, p.129).

     We have a mixture of traditions about the death and burial
places associated with St.Jude. In "The International Standard
Bible Encyclopaedia" (p.2964) C.M.Kerr says that the burial
place of Thaddaeus is variously placed in Beirut and in Egypt.
     However, in 1971 this writer carefully investigated these
claims and found no evidence of an Egyptian tradition for the
tomb of St.Jude, and no knowledge whatever in Beirut of any such
association. Consultation with both Catholic and Syrian Orthodox
Church leaders in Lebanon indicate that no such tradition exists
there today.
     On the other hand the Assyrian Church leaders, as well as a
major general of the Iranian Army, informed the author during a
visit to Teheran (October 16, 1971) that the original tomb of St.
Jude (Thaddaeus) was in a small village called Kara Kelisa near
the Caspian Sea, about 40 miles from Tabriz. This is in Iran,
near the Soviet border. This could well be the site of the
original tomb of St.Jude even though it is likely that to keep
the relics safe from the invasion of Genghis Khan, the relics
themselves may have been moved westward and scattered from Rome
to Spain. The tremendous tomb which is built for these relics in
St.Peters Basilica in Rome, which is located directly south of
the main altar in a side area, attests to the firm belief among
the Catholic authorities that some of the genuine relics of St.
Jude are indeed to be found there in Rome to this day.


THE LEGEND OF ST. THADDAEUS

     An attractive legend has come down to us from Eusebius
concerning Thaddaeus. This legend tells of a correspondence
between Jesus and Abgar, King of Edessa (in what is now southern
Russia). Eusebius claims to have seen this correspondence in the
archives of Edessa and to have translated it himself from the
Syriac language. In the letter Abgar tells that he has heard of
Jesus, his divinity, his miracles and his cures. He invites Jesus
to come to Edessa to escape from the ill-treatment of the Jews
and to heal him of his affliction. Jesus replies in a letter that
he must remain in Palestine and fulfill all things there, but
that after he is taken up into heaven, he will send one of his
disciples to heal him. The story claims that, after the ascension
of Jesus, Thomas sent Thaddaeus to Edessa where he preached the
gospel and healed many people, including the King. The story ends
with Thaddaeus refusing to accept a large gift of gold and silver
from the King.
     A later account of the legend, which is added by John of
Damascus, says that since Jesus could not go to Edessa, he
allowed the messenger to try to paint a picture of him to satisfy
the longing of Abgar to see him. The messenger could not paint
the face of Jesus because of the light that flowed from him. So
Jesus pulled a garment over his face, and on it the picture of
his face remained. The garment was sent to Abgar and became the
means whereby many miracles were wrought. It is then said that
Thaddaeus went on to preach the gospel in other places and was
finally killed with arrows at Mt.Ararat.

(We must remember that many basic true traditions, in time, do
get added to, embelished upon, and become larger than life, so
with the above - Keith Hunt).

     A historical footnote by Jean Danielou in "The Christian
Centuries" (p.82-83) records that the earliest church historian,
Heggesippus, tells that Domitian, the Roman emperor who
imprisoned John the Apostle, once visited, Jerusalem and summoned
before him the descendants of Jude who had been denounced to him
as of the royal house of David. He examined them and found that
they were only simple farmers and dismissed them as of no
potential danger to his rule. Eusebius, who tells the story and
quotes Hegesippus, earlier recalled that Emperor Vespasian had
ordered a search for all the descendants of David after the
capture of Jerusalem (HE, III 2, 20).

     This story is one of the most significant of the historical
footnotes to early Christianity because it confirms the literal
Davidic ancestry of Jesus. Christians today have thought of Jesus
as a "King" because he was the Son of God. They have overlooked
the historical fact that he was an actual descendant of David
legally through Joseph and both legally and by blood through
Mary who was also of the royal house of David. Alas for our
history of St.Jude the Apostle, however, the grandsons of Jude
mentioned here were the grandsons of Jude, the brother of Jesus,
the author of the book of Jude - not the St.Jude (Thaddaeus) into
whose history we have inquired in this study.


THE BIOGRAPHY OF ST.JUDE

     Subject to the corrections of further discoveries, the
following biographical sketch can be deduced from the traditions
and discoveries which are at hand:

     Jude was the son of James the Elder and the grandson of
Zebedee. He was of the tribe of Judah as befits a man whose name
is the Greek form of Judah. He probably followed his father into
the ranks of the Apostles from the place near Capernaum where
they were engaged in fishing. He may have had a close alliance
with the 'Seventy' who were also disciples of Jesus. But he had
as well, a firm position as one of the Twelve.
     St.Jude is mentioned in the Bible as asking a single
question of Jesus. "How is it you will reveal yourself to us and
not to the world?" (John 14:22).
     Many scholars believe this was the last question any
disciple asked of Jesus before Jesus began His prayer vigil in
Gethsemane, which concluded with Jesus being seized by the
sergeants of the high priests. Jesus answered Thaddaeus, "If a
man loves me and keeps my word, my Father and I will love him and
we will come to him and abide with him" (John 14:23).
     After the resurrection Thaddaeus is listed in the official
roster of the Apostles (Acts 1:10). He was present on the day of
Pentecost. Doubtless he was one of the first Apostles to leave
Jerusalem for a foreign country. If there is even a grain of
truth in the Abgar legend, St.Jude became one of the first
Apostles to witness directly to a foreign king, a Gentile. There
is no serious reason to doubt that St.Jude did indeed evangelize
that area of Armenia associated with the city of Edessa, in
company perhaps with St.Bartholomew, and for a brief period with
St.Thomas.
     One can also believe that he spent his years of evangelistic
effort in Syria and Northern Persia. It is likely that he died
there and was originally buried at Kara Kelesia. It is also
likely that later a part or all of his body was removed for
safekeeping because of the threat of the Mongolian invasion. It
is also not unreasonable to believe that important relics of St.
Jude are now to be found in Rome and Tolosa, Spain.
     Another Apostle with whom he is frequently associated is St.
Simon Zelotes. It is said that his bones are mixed with those of
St.Simon in the tomb at the Vatican. The Persian tradition is
that the two were slain at about the same time, or possibly
together.

                         ........................


The Search for the Twelve Apostles

Judas Iscariot

THE SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES

by McBirnie, Ph.D.


JUDAS Iscariot


     ON the night in which He was betrayed by Judas, Jesus
offered a prayer which is recorded in John's gospel:

"Those that Thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost,
but the son of perdition;" (John 17:12). Of all the characters
who march across the stage of Bible history there is none so
tragic nor so despicable as that of Judas Iscariot. A poet
described him as:

"The base Judean who flung a pearl away Richer than all his
tribe."

     There is something horrible about the way he betrayed Christ
with a kiss. One preacher has described it as:

"The hiss of a kiss."

     Not the least of all the darksome aspects of his life is the
way he died. There is a mystery of horror about this character
which makes him typical of all the dastardly traitors of all the
ages. Even Jesus said of him:

"It would have been good had he never been born." 

     Thomas De Quincey, in his essay on Judas Iscariot, has tried
to picture Judas as merely a miscarried patriot. He describes him
as one who actually loved Jesus and only hung himself because his
scheme for forcing Jesus into political leadership against Rome
misfired, and Jesus Himself was accidentally put to death. The
only trouble with this and other recent attempts to white-wash
the character of Judas is that Jesus Himself rejected his
interpretation before Judas even betrayed Him. Jesus said,
"Have I not chosen you twelve, and yet one of you is a devil'
(John 6:70).

And again:

"The Son of Man goeth as it is written of Him; but woe unto that
man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It had been good for that
man if he had not been born" (Matt.28:24).

     The name Judas Iscariot is a corruption of Judas of Kerioth.
Kerioth was a small town some few miles south of Hebron. Judas
was the only one of the Apostles who was not a Galilean, but a
Judean. His father's name was Simon (John 13:2).
     Today the name of Judas is a synonym of scorn and loathing.
No mother ever names her child Judas. Yet when Judas bore the
name, it was an honorable one. One of the greatest patriots of
the Jewish nation was Judas Maccabeus. One of the brothers of
Jesus Christ was named Judas, though we call him today "Jude,"
which is a shortened form of the name Judas. Indeed, the name
Judas is merely a form of Judah. Judas, then, was named for his
tribe, the Tribe of Judah.
     We think of Judas as being the arch-traitor. Even today a
goat used to lure sheep to their destruction in the slaughter
house is known as a "Judas goat." A plant which grows in the East
which looks attractive but which is bitter to taste is called the
"Judas tree." Yet, the Disciples did not originally think of him
in this light. They were perfectly willing to trust him because
apparently he seemed trustworthy. They freely elected him
treasurer of their band. Not only this but they were astounded
when the revelation of his treachery was made.
     When Jesus affirmed that someone would betray Him, the
Disciples began to ask, "Is it I?" Not, "Is it Judas?"

     Judas probably became a disciple of Christ when Jesus took
one of His preaching tours through Judea. At least it is probable
that he first met Jesus at this time, though his call to become a
disciple may have been received at the Sea of Tiberius, as is
recorded in Matthew 4:18-24.
     From the time of his call to be a disciple until the Passion
Week, we have no specific references to Judas which describe any
activities of himself alone. John's gospel records a few things,
mostly in retrospect to show that the character of Judas was
black from the beginning. (It was almost a year before His
crucifixion when Jesus said that Judas was a devil. However long
Judas may have deceived the Apostles, he did not, of course,
deceive Jesus.
     About the time of the Passion Week we begin to read more of
his sinister character. At the anointing of Jesus by Mary, Judas
asked:

"Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred shillings and
given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor;
but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was
put therein" (John 12:5,8).

Jesus also mentioned Judas' coming defection when He said:

"He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me"
(John 13:18).

     This is a quotation from the Old Testament referring to a
reference in the Book of Psalms. It seemed by these veiled
references that Jesus was giving Judas as much opportunity as he
could to repent, as if to inform him that He knew all along that
Judas was going to betray Him, but still was announcing that the
door of mercy was open.

     There are many difficulties to reconcile in the life of
Judas. 

     First of all we must seek the answer to "why did Judas
become a disciple?" Some have said that he intended to betray
Jesus all along because he saw in Jesus a threat to the Jewish
nation. Others suggest that he was sincere for a while, but then
saw that Jesus was not going to fulfill His destiny as a
political deliverer and therefore sought to get out, currying
favor with the priests, as well as earning what pitiful funds he
could as the price of his betrayal. Some have even suggested that
Judas was ordained by God to be a traitor because of the
prophetic references in the Old Testament. This, however, must be
rejected, for surely God condemns no one in advance to be
anything, for every man is free to be what he will.

     Perhaps the most significant thing that can be said of Judas
was that in feeling sorrow for his crime of betrayal, he did not
seek to atone for his sin to the One whom he had wronged, but
went to his accomplices in crime, the priests, and there sought
to set himself aright. And because those whom he had served in
his selfishness failed him at the end, he went out and hanged
himself.
     The life of Judas is one of unrelieved tragedy. In fact,
there is no more tragic spirit in all the world's history. Judas
is the greatest failure the world has ever known. His life is a
lesson which points vividly to the pitfalls of out spiritual
pilgrimage.
     An excellent summary of the last days of Judas is given in
ISBE:

"After the betrayal, Mark, Luke and John are silent as regards
Judas, and the accounts given in Matthew and Acts of his remorse
and death vary in detail. According to Matthew, the actual
condemnation of Jesus awakened Judas' sense of guilt, and
becoming still more despondent at his repulse by the chief
priests and elders, 'he cast down the pieces of silver into the
sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.'
With the money the chief priests purchased the potter's field,
afterward called 'the field of blood, and in this way was
fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah (11:12-14) ascribed by
Matthew to Jeremiah (Matt.27:2-10). The account given in Acts
1:18-20 is much shorter. It mentions neither Judas' repentance
nor the chief priests, but simply states that Judas "obtained a
field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, be
burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out" (verse
18). The author of Acts finds in this the fulfillment of the
prophecy in Ps.89:25. The Vulgate rendering, "When he had hanged
himself, he burst asunder," suggests a means of reconciling the
two accounts.
     According to a legendary account mentioned by Papias, the
death of Judas was due to elephantiasis (cf Hennecke,
Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 5). A so-called 'Gospel of Judas'
was in use among the gnostic sect of the Cainites.

     It is significant that Judas alone among the disciples was
of southern extraction; and the differences in temperament and
social outlook, together with the petty prejudices to which these
generally give rise, may explain in part though they do not
justify, his after treachery - the lack of inner sympathy which
existed between Judas and the rest of the Apostles. He
undoubtedly possessed a certain business ability, and was
therefore appointed keeper of the purse. But his heart could not
have been clean, even from the first, as be administered even his
primary charge dishonestly. The cancer of this greed spread from
the material to the spiritual. To none of the disciples did the
fading of the dream of an earthly kingdom of pomp and glory bring
greater disappointment than to Judas. The cords of love by which
Jesus gradually drew the hearts of the other disciples to
Himself, the teaching by which He uplifted their souls above all
earthly things, were as chafing bonds to the selfishness of
Judas. And from his fettered greed and disappointed ambition
sprang jealousy and spite and hatred. It was the hatred, not of a
strong, but of an essentially weak man. Instead of making an open
breach with his Lord, he remained ostensibly one of His
followers: and this continued contact with a goodness to which he
would not yield (cf Swete on Mark 14:10), and his brooding over
the rebukes of his Master, gave ready entrance for 'Satan into
his soul.' But if he 'knew the good and did not do it' (cf John
13:17), so also he was weak in the carrying out of his nefarious
designs. It was this hesitancy, rather than a fiendish cunning,
which induced him to remain till the last moment in the upper
room, and which prompted the remark of, Jesus "What thou doest,
do quickly" (John 13:27). Of a piece with this weakmindedness was
his attempt to cast the blame upon the chief priests and elders
(cf Matt.27:3,4). He sought to set himself right, not with the
innocent Jesus whom he had betrayed, but with the accomplices in
his crime; and because that world which his selfishness had made
his god failed him at the last, he went and hanged himself. It
was the tragic end of one who espoused a great cause in the
spirit of speculation and selfish ambition, and who weighed not
the dread consequences to which those impure motives might lead
him (cf also Bruce, "Training of the Twelve;" Lathan, "Pastor
Pastorum;" Stalker, "Trial and Death of Jesus Christ"). C.M.
Kerr" (ISBE, Volume III, p 1765-66).

     There is little material about Judas in any of the common
aprocyphal sources. In a work, "The Arabic Gospel of the
Infancy," it relates that Judas was demon-possessed even when he
was a child. Men all through history have sought to psychoanalyze
the mind of Judas. J.G.Tasked in, "The Dictionary of Christ and
the Gospel" quotes two verdicts on Judas. Lavater said of Judas,
"Judas acted like Satan, but like a satan who had it in him to be
an apostle." Pressense said of Judas, "No man could be more akin
to a devil than a perverted apostle."

     A current guidebook on Jerusalem states: 

"Haceldama (Field of Blood) is a name given to the so called
'potter's field' that was bought with the 30 pieces of silver
that Judas had earned for betraying Jesus. Judas, repenting of
his deed, flung the money at the feet of the priests who were
unwilling to accept it because it was 'blood money.' After Judas
had killed himself the money was used to buy a field to serve as
a burial place for strangers (Matt.27:3-10). Today the Greek
Convent of St.Onipruis marks the site which is riddled with
rock-hewn tombs full of the skulls and bones of pilgrims who,
through the ages, have been buried in potter's field-the, Field
of Blood. The traditional hiding place of the Apostles during
Jesus' trial is shown within the convent in a rock-hewn tomb that
has been appropriately named the 'Cave of the Apostles'," ("This
Is Jerusalem," Herbert Bishko, p.44).

                            ..................


In Search for the Twelve Apostle

Matthias

SEARCH FOR THE TWLEVE APOSTLES

by William Steuart McBirnire, Ph.D.


MATTHIAS

     THIS DISCIPLE remains a figure of mystery. Not one of the
original Twelve, he was later chosen to take the place of Judas.
Some scholars as David Smith and G.Campbell Morgan have
questioned the manner of his choosing. Because of the silence of
the Scriptures about his later ministry they have concluded the
Eleven were hasty in their election of Matthias. Their reasoning
goes that Paul should have been chosen, and that the disciples
were moving ahead of the leading of the Spirit. We must reject
this idea as unrealistic. Pau's conversion did not occur until a
very long time after the date of Matthias' election, and Paul's
ministry as an Apostle was yet further removed in time. Paul had
to endure years of obscurity in Tarsus after his conversion until
he became a missionary. During this time James the Great had also
been killed by Herod, thus leaving another vacancy among the
Twelve. Paul was never accepted as one of the original Apostles;
nor indeed could he have been since he did not know Christ in the
flesh. The purpose of an Apostle was stated on the occasion of
the election of Matthias by Peter:

"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time
that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the
baptism of John until that same day that He was taken up from us,
must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection
... and they prayed, 'Thou Lord who knowest the hearts of all men
show which of these two thou has chosen ... and the lot fell on
Matthias and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles." (Acts
1:26)

     Years later, the Apostle John referred to the New Jerusalem
as having, "twelve foundations, and in them the names of the
twelve Apostles" (Rev.21:14). This clearly affirms the importance
of Matthias, by implication.

     Dr.Goodspeed says it was James, the brother of Jesus Christ,
who actually took Judas' place, being named by Paul (in Galatians
1:19; 2:9) as a leader and "pillar" of the church. But this is
suspect on two grounds. First, Goodspeed's identification of
James as an Apostle does not meet the qualifications set forth
(above) by Peter, since James the brother of Jesus was not
converted until after the resurrection, and therefore he could
not have been a witness of His teachings. Second, Dr.Goodspeed's
theories of the identity of the authorship of the book of James
are at variance with most other equally competent commentators,
and therefore it is probable that his identification of Jesus'
brother James as an Apostle in the sense that the Eleven were is
open to question, though this James was also an apostle in the
sense that others were who were not of the Eleven.



WHAT EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS HAVE SAID ABOUT MATTHIAS

     Clement of Alexandria identifies Matthias with Zaccheus.
This is impossible since Zaccheus was never a disciple of Jesus
in the sense that the other Apostles were. And furthermore,
Zaccheus could not have witnessed as to the teachings of Jesus
"beginning with the baptism of John" (Acts 1:22). Clement writes
that Matthias was remarkable for teaching the necessity of
mortifying the flesh with its irregular passions and desires.
("Lives of the Saints," Rev.Hugo Hoever, pp.84,85).
     Eusebius suggests that Matthias had been one of the Seventy
sent out by Jesus (Luke 10:1). This is entirely possible. In this
role Matthias must have had the opportunity to show qualities of
leadership which impressed the Eleven.
     "The Traditions of Matthias" is quoted by Clement in A.D.
190-210. Dr.Goodspeed estimates this apocryphal work to have been
written shortly before this period, but fully a century after the
lifetime of Matthias (Goodspeed, "The Twelve"). This would
indicate only a traditional value in this apocryphal story, but
it is interesting to know that it is comparatively early, and
that it at least reveals Matthias to have been important in the
thinking of some early Christians.
     Matthias is one of the five Apostles credited by Armenian
tradition with evangelizing Armenia. These five were Thaddaeus,
Bartholomew, Simon the Cananaean, Andrew and Matthias. (ISBE,
Matthias).

     Budge, in his "Contendings of the Twelve" records an
apocryphal tradition which tells of Matthias being imprisoned and
blinded by the Ethiopian cannibals (Budge, Con. Ap. II, 183, 184,
287-88). This story claims he was rescued by St.Andrew.
     It is interesting to note that there must have been two
countries called "Ethiopia" in Biblical times. The one in Africa
is the one we know today. Local traditions there still affirm
that the Ethiopian Eunuch who was led to Christ and baptized by
Philip was the founder of the church which survives to this day.
Ethiopian churches are Coptic churches which bear an historical
tradition in common with the Copts of Egypt.
     The other Ethiopia where St.Matthias is said to have
encountered cannibalism, is not altogether identifiable today;
but it seems to have been one of the provinces of Mesopotamia or
Armenia. Little historic evidence exists that cannibalism was
ever regularly practiced in this Ethiopia though there is no
proof that in isolated instances it might not have indeed
occurred. To this writer's certain knowledge, cannibalism still
exists in many parts of Africa today. There are some indications
that ritualistic cannibalism (eating human flesh for the sake of
some supposed benefit to the eater, i.e., eating the heart of a
captured warrior to gain the victim's bravery) was practiced in
ancient Britain (it is not known very well, but some of the
Indian tribes did dwell in Britain for a time - Keith Hunt) and
among the Mexican and American Indians before the Spanish
Conquest. Even among starving America degenerates cannibalism has
at times been known. Thus we cannot say cannibals did not exist
in this Middle Eastern "Ethiopia."

     According to the Martyrdom of St.Matthias, he was sent to
Damascus, and died at Phaleaon which is a city of Judea (Budge,
II 289-94.) Other sources mention Jerusalem as the place of
Matthias' ministry and burial. That tradition is that he was
stoned to death there by the Jews (Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Matthias).
     Irenaeus refers to Matthias as being "ordained" in the place
of Judas.
     No trace is left of an apocryphal "Gospel According to
Matthias." It was a heretical work referred to by Origen (Hom. on
Luke i) and Eusebius. (Eusebius HE 111 25, 6).
     The gnostic Basilides (133 A.D.) and his son Isadlore
claimed to ground their doctrine in the Gospel of Basilides on
the teaching Matthias received directly from Jesus (Hippol.,
7.20) (cf Hennecke, Neutestamentlicke Apokryphen, 167).
     According to ancient church tradition as recorded in "Sacred
and Legendary Art" (Anna Jameson, p.263), Matthias suffered
martyrdom at the hands of the Jews either by lance or by the axe.

     Roman Catholic tradition concerning the death and burial of
Matthias indicates that he preached and suffered martyrdom in
Judea, but these sources acknowledge that some early writers
indicate that Matthias was martyred at Colchis, and still others
at Sebastopol in A.D.64. They aso indicate that the body of
Matthias was kept in Jerusalemn and later taken to Rome by St.
Helena from which some relies (bones) were afterward transported
to Treves (now Prier] in Germany, ("A Traveller's Guide to Saints
in Europe," Mary Sharp p.153).

     Dorman Ncwnnan writing in 1685 acknowledges many of these
traditions as follows:

"In the 51 year of our Lord, he died at a place called
Sebastopol and was buried near the temple of the Sun. The Greeks,
recorded herein by many Antiquaries tell us that he was crucified
and his body was said to have been kept a long time in Jerusalem,
thence transported to Rome by Queen Helena, and there parts are
venerated to this day (i.e.1685) though others with great
eagerness contend that his relics were brought to and are still
preserved in Trier in Germany" ("The Lives and Deaths of the Holy
Apostles," Dorman Newman).


THE PRESENT BURIAL PLACES OF THE RELICS

     The visitor to Trier may obtain an extremely well written
local "Guide to the Monuments" (by Eberhard Zahn p.49,51). It
records:

"When in 1127 relics of the Apostle Matthias were found, the
veneration of St.Eucharius was soon transferred to St.Matthias.
Increasing pilgrimages to the tomb of the Apostle demanded a new
building which was begun in 1127 and consecrated in 1148 by Pope
Eugen III.
The Matthias-church is still a center of pilgrimage to the tombs
of the first holy bishops, St.Eucharius and St.Valerius, and to
the recently reinstalled sepulchre of the Apostle Matthias under
the intersection of the nave and the transepts. Thus this church
preserves traditions from antique times until our present days."

     The reliquary containing the bones of Matthias is a noted
tourist attraction in Trier. When the writer visited this ancient
Roman city, he found that this burial was spoken of in local
museum publications as "the only body of an Apostle to be buried
north of the Alps." In 1966 on the occasion of his first visit to
Trier this writer was shown the relics of Matthias which were
then kept in a golden sarcophagus located in a side chapel
attached to the Monastery church of St.Matthias.
     On the occasion of a more recent visit (1971) it was
observed that a new sarcophagus of white and dark gray marble had
been placed in front of the main altar in the larger church
building. The white marble part of the new sarcophagus is carved
into a life-sized image of the Apostle recumbent upon the gray
marble reliquary now containing the bones. Thus, as is also true
in the case of the head of St.Andrew, Apostolic relics have been
moved again in the last ten years! The visitor to Europe can
visit two burial sites for Matthias, both described as authentic
by Roman Catholic authorities. Knowing the penchant of various
relic-seeking religious groups in the Middle Ages for fragmenting
the bodies or relics of Apostles, there need be little doubt that
both Rome and Trier contain parts of the body of Matthias, if in
fact his body was preserved and transported as the records
indicate. Admittedly there is a great deal of room for mistakes
to have been made at several of the important steps of the
transmission of these relics.

     Queen Helena, who first moved them, was as eager a believer
as any who have ever lived. She had unlimited power and wealth,
with a faith to match. One can hardly believe that she was as
critical a collector of Apostolic relics, and for that matter
sacred places, as modern scholarship could wish. Her "discovery"
of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, for example, was based upon a
vision she was reputed to have had. One can admire her piety,
determination, and her indefatigable zeal to recover as much as
she could of original first century Apostolic associations. But
it is certain that she was at times mistaken.

A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY

     A synthesis of information about Matthias would indicate the
following biography:

     As one of the earliest followers of Jesus, Matthias was
prominent among the Seventy. He had apparently accompanied the
Twelve Apostles on numerous occasions and very possibly may have
been at first a disciples of John the Baptist as were St.John and
St.Andrew. He was certainly elected to take the place of Judas
immediately after the ascension of Jesus. Therefore, he was
present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and took a prominent
part in the turbulent and thrilling days of the expansion of
early Christianity. As a Jew he would naturally have gone forth
from Jerusalem to minister to the portion of the far-flung
diaspora of Israel. There were colonies of Jews and other Hebrews
to be found in practically every center of population throughout
the Middle East. There is therefore no difficulty in accepting
the tradition of his apostleship in regions of Armenia, and of
the probability of great peril which befell him in the cities of
Colchis, Sebastopol and elsewhere. It is certainly possible that
he may at one turn have been aided by St.Andrew since Apostles
often went forth in pairs.
     One can see him returning to Jerusalem, a battered witness
of dangerous missionary experience. Perhaps upon his return he
found a greater antagonism toward Christianity among the Jews
than when he had left. In any case, the antagonism proved more
dangerous than before and ultimately it was fatal to him. One can
also accept the possibility that later Queen Helena transferred
his remains to Rome, although she was much fonder of
Constantinople than of Rome. In any case, she may have initiated
the preservation and transference of the body of St.Matthias.
     There is a systematic tradition of the western movement of
almost all Apostolic relics. Three factors contribute to this:

(1) The collecting zeal of St.Helena and others. (2) The imminent
peril to the Christian churches and the Apostolic relics by the
invading Persians in the fifth and sixth centuries. (3) The
values placed upon relics and the need to safeguard them which
was universally shared by churchmen in the Middle Ages.
     These three factors rescued relics which were believed to
have been authentic and transported them to areas which were
considered safer than the original tombs or the secondary burial
places, such as Constantinople itself. One cannot overlook the
fact that the Eastern Roman Empire frequently sought to
strengthen alliances with Rome and the Roman Catholic Church.
     Relics of Apostles were considered as extremely valuable
political chessmen, which is one reason they have been so well
preserved unto this day.
     In any case, the relics of Matthias seem to have found their
final resting places in both Rome and Trier where they can still
be seen.

                          ......................


SEARCHING FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES

Simon the Zealot


IN SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES

by McBirnie Ph.D.


SIMON THE CANAANITE


     SIMON was also called Canaanite, or Cananean, or Zealot (Gr.
Kanaios) in various New Testament references; "the Canaanite"
(Mt.10:4; Mk.3:15 AV) or "the Cananaean" (Mt.10:4; Mk.3:18 RV) or
"Zelotes (Lk.6:15; Acts 1:13 AV) or "the Zealot" (Lk.6:15; Acts
1:13 RV).
     According to the "Gospel of the Ebionites" or "Gospel of the
Twelve Apostles" (of the second century and mentioned in Origen)
Simon received his call to the apostleship along with Andrew and
Peter, the sons of Zebedee, Thaddaeus and Judas Iscariot at the
Sea of Tiberias (cf Mt.4:18-22; see also Henneke,
"Neutestamentliche Apokryphen," 24-27).
     Edgar Goodspeed gives us a personal account of an Armenian
tradition which was related to him, about several of the Apostles
including Simon:

"Armenian tradition, Miss Louise Nalbandian tells me, names four
other Apostles besides Thaddeus and Bartholomew who preached the
gospel in Armenia - Simon the Canaanite (meaning the Cananaean or
Zealot, of Matt.10:4; Mark 3:18); Judas (meaning Judas son of
James, Acts 1:13, who is usually identified with Thaddeus of Mark
3:18; Matt.10:3); Andrew: and Matthias, the thirteenth Apostle,
appointed to take the place of Judas Iscariot, (Acts 1:26).
Allowing for these identifications, the total list of apostolic
missionaries to Armenia would number five--Thaddeus, Bartholomew,
Simon the Zealot, Andrew and Matthias." ("The Twelve," Edgar J.
Goodspeed, p.98)

     Writing in 1685 Dorman Newman gave the following account of
Sunon Zelotes:

"He is said to have diverted his journey towards Egypt, Cyrene,
Africa, Martania, and Lybia. Nor could the coldness of the
climate benumb his zeal or hinder him from shipping himself over
into the Western Islands, yea even to Britain itself. Here he is
said to have preached and wrought many miracles, and after
infinite troubles and difficulties which he under-went, suffered
martyrdom for the faith of Christ, being crucified by the
infidels and buried among them.
Others indeed affirm, that after he had preached the gospel in
Egypt be went to Mesopotamia, where be met with St.Jude the
Apostle and together with him took his journey into Persia where,
having gained a considerable harvest to the Christian Faith, they
were both crowned with martyrdom: but this is granted by all
learned men to be fabulous, wanting all clear foundation in
Antiquity to stand on." (T"he Lives and Deaths of the Holy
Apostles," Dorman Newman, p.94)


     The Coptic Church of Egypt affirms that Simon "went to
Egypt, Africa, Britain and died in Persia." (Alkhrida, Precious
Jewels, COPTIC CHURCH 1915, Egypt, p.56)

     Otto Hophan in his book, "The Apostles," says:

"A third general opinion, which later Greek commentators in
particular followed placed the scenes of Simon's Apostolic labors
in N.W.Africa, Mauretania and even Britain." (p.285)

     Eberhard Arnold in his exhaustive critical and devotional
study, The Early Christians, quotes Tertullian, one of the early
Church fathers, regarding the early Christian witness to Britain:

"In whom have all the nations believed but in Christ who is
already come? In whom have they believed the Parthians, Modes,
Elamites, and those who inhabit Mesopotamia, Armenia, Phrygia,
Cappadocia; those who live in Pontus, Asia, and Pamphylia, in
Egypt, in Africa beyond Cyrene; those born here and those who
came here from Rome; also the, Jews in Jerusalem and other
national groups, as now the various tribes of the Gaetulians and
of the wide regions of the Moors, and the Spaniards to their
remotest  boundaries; the different nations of Gaul; the
haunts of the Britons, inaccessible to the Romans; the lands of
the Samaritans, Dacians, Germans, Scythians; and many remote
nations, provinces, and islands which are unknown to us and which
we cannot enumerate?
We are but of yesterday, yet we have filled all that is yours:
cities and islands, forts and towns, assemblies and even military
camps, tribes, councils, the Palace, the Senate, the Forum. We
left you only the temples." Tertullian, "Against the Jews" V11;
Apology 37 ("The Early Christians," E. Arnold, p.217, 218)
From the book the "Early Christians; After the Death of the
Apostles" by Eberhard Arnold. Copyright 1971 by the Plough
Publishing House, Rifton, N.Y. 12471. Used by permission.

     The exhaustive study of the Bollandistes records: 

"Afford in his annals of the British church accepts that an
Apostle came to Britain because Eusebius says, 'Surely later,
Apostles preached in Britain.' (Eus. "Demonstration Evang." ["The
Bollandistes," Pub. by Soc. of Bollandistes "Acta Sanctorium" De
S. Simone Apostolo Et Martyre, p.421-426, 1867, Paris, October,
Vol.12] Chap.5 Sect 112, Book 3 is quoted) 

     According to the Bollandistes (p.428) the arm of St Simon
was given by a Persian Bishop to the Premonstrarians convent in
Trier but preserved in the monastery church of St.Norbet,
Cologne, Germany. This monastery seems to have been destroyed in
the saturation bombing of Cologne in World War 11. Personal
investigation by the writer in November, 1971, turned up no trace
of it.

     In his book, "The Christian Centuries," Jean Danielou
indicates that Christianity had indeed penetrated all along the
coast of North Africa.

"Christianity was probably planted in Carthage as early as the
end of the first century, otherwise it is difficult to explain
how the city had a  Christian population at the time of     
Tertullian. 'We fill your squares, your markets, your
amphitbeatres', he writes the 'Apologeticum.' The Council of 
Carthage, in 216, was attended by seventy-one African bishops,
but we know nothing about the conditions in which the Gospel was
preached." ("The Christian Centuries," Jean Danielou, p.151)

     The importance of the presence of Christianity in Carthage
to our story of the journeys of St.simon is that the historical
record and traditions indicate Simon traveled westward from
Jerusalem through Mauritania, which was the name of one of the
countries of North Africa. It probably included Cathage. That
tradition is mentioned in "The Popular and Critical Bible
Encyclopaedia" as follows:

"These tranditions, however, assigned a different destiny to this
Simon, alleging that he preached the Gospel through North Africa,
from Egypt to Mauritania, and that he even preached to the remote
isles of Britain." ("The Popular and Critical Bible Ency."
Rt.Rev.Samuel Fallows, p.1590) 


THE TRADITIONS OF ST.SIMON IN BRITAIN

     There is a long and widespread tradition which links several
of the Apostolic figures to Great Britain. Later we will show
that this was by no means unreasonable. If St.Thomas could
journey east to India, surely other Apostles could have journeyed
northwest to Britain. It would be more than strange if some of
them did not. Dorman Newman in his book on the lived of the
Apostles gives us the following tradition:

"St.Simon continued in Worship and Communion with the other
Apostles and Disciples of Christ at Jerusalem; and at the Feast
of Pentecost received the same miraculous Gifts of the Holy
Spirit; so that he was equally qualified with the rest of the
brethren for the Ministry of the Gospel. And we cannot doubt but
that he exercised his Gifts with Zeal and Fidelitgy: But in what
part of the world, is not very certain. Some say he went to
Egypt, Cyrene and Africa, and all over Mauritania, preaching the
Gospel tp those remote and barbarous Countries. And, if we may
believe our own Authors, he came into these Western Parts, as far
as our island of Great Britain; where having converted great
Multitudes, with manifold Hardships and Persecutions, he at last
suffered Martrydom by Crucifixion, as 'tis recorded in the Greek
Menologies. But Bede, Vsuardus, and Ado, place his Martyrdom in
Persia, at a City called Suanir, where they say the idolatrous
Priests put him to Death; and for this they allege the Authority
of Eusebius his Martyrology translated by St.Jerome; which,
though it be not without many Faults, nor entirely either
Eusebius's or St.Jerome's hath yet the advantage of Antiquity
above any now extant. As to the City Suanir in Persia, it is not
known to our Geographers. Possibly it might be the Country of the
Suani or Surani, a People mentioned by Pliny and Ptolemy, in
Colchis, or a little higher in Sarmatia; which may agree with a
Passage in the spurious History of St.Andrew, That in the
Cimmerian Bosphorus there is a Tomb in a Grot, with an
Inscription, That Simon the Zealot, or Canaanite, was interred
there. But this is but uncertain Tradition." ("The Lives and
Deaths o f the Holy Apostles" Dorman Newman, 1685)

     One of the earliest historical traditions about a visit of
St.Simon to Britain is from Dorotheus. It is quoted in the book,
"St.Paul in Britain," as follows:

"The next missionary after Joseph [to come to Britain--ED] was
Simon Zelotes the Apostle. There can be little doubt, we think,
on this point. One Menology assigns the matyrdom of Zelotes to
Persia in Asia, but others agree in stating he suffered in
Britain. Of these the principal authority is Dorotheus, Bishop of
Tyre, in the reigns of Diocletian and Constantius (A.D.300). His
testimony we consider decisive: - 'Sirnon Zelotes traversed all
Mauritania, and the regions of the Africans, preaching Christ. He
was at last crucified, slain, and buried in Britain. Crucifixion
was a Roman penalty for runaway slaves, deserters, and rebels:
it was not known to the British laws. We conclude Simon Zelotes
suffered in the east of Britain, perhaps, as tradition affirms,
in the vicinity of Caistor, under the prefecture of Caius Decius,
the officer whose atrocities were the immediate cause of the
Boadicean war. Two things strike the investigator of early
Christian history: the marvellous manner in which Christian seed
is found growing and fructifying in unheard-of places; the
indifference of the sowers, of perpetuating their own name and
labours." (Dorotheus, Synod. de Apostol.; Synopsis ad Sim Mot.,
as quoted in "St.Paul in Britain," R.W.Morgan, p.9)

     In the opinion of most historians the visit to St.Joseph of
Arimathea to Glastonbury, England, is only legendary.

     Nevertheless, a formidable body of scholars has researched
this matter very carefully and one cannot simply ignore them,
even if what they wrote seems to be more in the nature of making
a case for a desired conclusion rather than a purely objective
study of history. For instance, Lionel S.Lewis lists the
following historical tradition:

"There is Eastern confirmation of the story that St.Simon came
here [i.e., Britain, ED].
(1) Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre (A.D.303), or the writer who
attributed the Synopsis to him, in his Synopsis de Apostol. (9.
Simon Zelote's says: "Simon Zelotes preached Christ through all
Mauritania, and Africa the less. At length he was crucified at
Brittania, slain and buried."
(2) Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople and Byzantine
historian, A.D.758-829, wrote (Book 11, c.40): 'Simon born in
Cana of Galilee, who for his fervent affection for his Master and
great zeal that he showed by all means to the Gospel, was
surnamed Zelotes, having received the Holy Ghost from above,
traveled through Egypt and Africa, then through Mauritania and
all Lybia, preaching the Gospel. And the same doctrine he taught
to the Occidental Sea, and the Isles called Britanniae.'
(3) Greek Menology. The Menology of the Greek Church celebrates
St.Simon's Day on May 10, and supports the statements of his
having preached and been martyred in Britain ("Annales
Ecclvsiastici" Baronius under A.D.44. Sec. XXXVIII)." (St.Joseph
of Arimathea at Glastonburg, P.117).

     George F.Jowett draws the same conclusion: 

"In the year A.D.60 special mention is made of Joseph going to
Gaul and returning to Britain with another band of recruits,
among whom is particularly mentioned Simon Zelotes, one of the
original twelve disciples of Christ. This is the second time it
is specially mentioned that Philip consecrated Joseph and his
band of co-workers prior to embarking for Britain. Probably the
inclusion of Simon Zelotes indicated an important missionary
effort, hence the consecration. This was the second journey to
Britain for Simon Zelotes - and his last. According to Cardinal
Baronius and Hippolytus, Simon's first arrival in Britain was in
the year A.D.44, during the Claudian war. Evidently his stay was
short, as he returned to the continent.
Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Byzantine historian,
A.D.758-8299., writes:

'Simon born in Cana of Galilee who for his fervent affection for
his Master and great zeal that he showed by all means to the
Gospel, was surnamed Zelotes, having received the Holy Ghost from
above, traveled through Egypt, and Africa, then through
Mauritania and all Libya, preaching the Gospel. And the same
doctrine he taught to the Occidental Sea, and the Isles called
Britanniae.'

Simon arrived in Britain during the first year of the Boadicean
war, A.D.60, when the whole Island was convulsed in a deep,
burning angler against the Romans, which was never equalled
before or after in the long years of conflict between the two
nations. Tacitus states that from A.D.59 to 62 the brutalities of
war were at their worst. Atrocities occurred on both sides, but
the Romans carried their vicious pertetrations to such a    
extent that even Rome was shocked. Bearing this in mind we can
readily understand that any Christian evangelizing outside the   
British shield would be fraught with imminent danger. At all
times the disciples of Christ were oblivious to danger, but when
the pressure became too severe invariably they fled the land
until matters quietened down. In the year. A.D.44 a Claudian
Edict expelled the Christian leaders from Rome. Many of them
sought sanctuary in Britain. Among those who fled to Britain from
Rome was Peter.
The south of England was sparsely inhabited by the native Britons
and consequently more heavily populated by the Romans. It was far
beyond the strong protective shield of the Silurian arms in the
south and the powerful northern Yorkshire Celts. In this
dangerous territory Simon was definitely on his own. Undeterred,,
with infinite courage, he began preaching the Christian gospel
right in the heart of the Roman domain. His fiery sermons brought
him speedily to the attention of Catus Decianus, but not before
he had sown the seed of Christ in the hearts of Britons and many
Romans who, despite the unremitting hatred of Decianus for all
that was Christian, held the secret of the truth locked in their
hearts.
The evangelizing mission of Simon was short-lived. He was finally
arrested under orders of Catus Decianus. As usual his trial was a
mockery. He was condemned to death and was crucified by the
Romans at Caistor, Lincolnshire, and there buried, 'circa' May
10th, A.D.61.
The day of the martyrdom of Simon Zelotes, the devoted disciple
of Christ, is officially celebrated by the eastern and western
church on May 10th and so recorded in the Greek Menology.
Cardinal Baronius, in his 'Annales Ecclesiastici,' gives the same
date in describing the martyrdom and burial of Simon Zelotes in
Britain." (The Drama of the Lost Disciples, F Jowett, p.157-59)


                          ......................


To be continued


SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES

CONCLUDED!

by William Steuart McBirnie, Ph.D.

SIMON the Zealot continued .....


     We cannot agree with Mr.Jowett that Simon was likked in
Great Britain as the tradition of his death in Persia is too
strong .... but there is no doubt Somin could have gone to
Britain, preached for awhile, perhaps even in London, and then
fled to the Middle East because of the destruction of London at
the hands of anti-Roman revolutionaries led by Queen Boadicea.

     Let ustherefore pursue the reasonableness of the tradition
of a short visit by St.Simon to Britain. First is the provable
fact that Britain was well known to people in the Middle East at
least a thousand years or more before Christ. The following
observation by Karl E.Meyer indicates this:

"Trade routes continued to expand, extending to astonishingly
distant places. Egyptian beads have been found in Wessex graves.
An even more exhilarating discovery was made in June 1953 at
Stonehenge when Professor R. J. C. Atkinson was preparing to take
a photograph of Sarsen Stone 53. For the first time be noticed
two carvings on the great slab--the outlines of an ax and a
dagger. The ax was of a familiar Bronze Age type, but the dagger
resembled those found in Mycenae in Greece. Atkinson believes
that the architect of Stonehenge III 'must certainly have been a
man who was familiar with the buildings of contemporary urban
civilizations of the Mediterranean world.' Britain at that time,
he goes on to remark, was more truly part of Europe than at any
other time until the Roman conquest." ( The Pleasures o f
Archaeology, Karl E. Meyer, p.203)

     There is thus considerable evidence to support the opinions
of historians of the past, that the products of Britain were well
known ......

     In his book, "Roman Britain" I. A. Richmond tells of the
development and growth of British industry and trade with the
continent of Europe:

"Much of the most famed of British metals in the days before the
Roman occupation was tin. The vivid accounts by Diodorus Siculus,
of overland pack-horse transport of Cornish tin from the Gallic
coast to Narbo (Narbonne) in the first century B.C., and of the
island emporium on the British coast, from which merchants
obtained it, all speak of a brisk and flourishing early trade,
monopolized in Caesar's day by the Beneti of Brittany." (Roman
Britain, I. A. Richmond, p.156)

"In the Thames valley the struggle had been in progress, with
varied success, for a generation or more; and this rivalry also
had brought about the appearance of British suppliant kings at
the court of Augustus. If Roman poets sometimes indulged in
prophetic visions of a conquest of Britain, the island chieftains
already viewed the event as a sobering likelihood." (Ibid., p.15)

     Concerning England in the first century Clayton writes:

"London was founded in A.D.43, but was then limited in size and
scope. The western confines halted at the Walbrook. The south was
bounded by the tidal Thames, which spread on the south bank when
wind and tide together reached a peak of influence. The northern
border of the colony, as it existed when Boudicea came, stood on
a line flanked at one end by the Walbrook, and at the east by
Bishop's Gate and Ald Gate, though neither of these gates were so
far built. The colony, commenced in 43, achieved prosperity and
became crowded during the first decade of its existence. By 61
this unwalled London city had definitely reached prosperity. 
Nothing indeed was farther from their thoughts than that the city
would be sacriiccd .....

     When eventually the Apostles divided up the civilized world
into areas of individual evangelism we can be sure they followed
the same routes and arrived at the same destinations as those who
had already heard the word in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.
It is instructive to see that Jerusalem was an international city
in the first century. Jews from all over the empire came there
from time to time, as did others who were not Jews, such as the
Ethiopian treasurer who was baptized by St.Philip on the way back
to Ethiopia from a visit to Jerusalem.

     In our search for the Apostles again and again we are
impressed with the relative ease of travel in the first century
which was made possible by the vast network of Roman roads all
over the empire from Persia to Britain. Not only did the Romans
force the local people in each area to build the roads but the
Romans themselves also both built and protected the roads. It was
not until the Roman empire was invaded by the Golhs, Huns,
Visigoths and others in the 5th century that the empire broke up,
mostly because the Roman roads could neither be maintained nor
kept secure.....

     Britain was at first located on the extreme edge the
frontier of the empire. But the raw frontier conditions were soon
overcome. There is much reason to be lieve that the Roman Way had
penetrated everywhere even before the time of Claudius. The
mineral wealth of England was surely imported by Rome before the
time of Claudius. Particularly the mineral, lead, which was used
in the highly developed plumbing of the cities and villas of
Italy. (Romans did not know they were slowly poisoning themselves
with the lead, but then neither did other countries until modern
times.) Lead and also silver were needed in vast quantities by
Rome, and the two metals were usually found together. To insure
the regular supplies of these commodities, the Romans used the
ships of Spain to trade with Britain long before the time of
Caesar.....
       
THE DEATH OF ST. SIMON

     If St.Simon visited in England it could not have been for
long. Putting together the events of those days we would conclude
that if the Apostle visited in England he might have come to
Glastonbury in company with Joseph of Arimathea. There certainly
is no other tradition known concerning the history of St.Joseph
of Arimathea and since the British tradition is vigorous we see
no reason to challenge it, though admittedly, it stands only upon
tradition and is not in proven history. Again., it must be
observed that all of the early Christians had to go somewhere or
else Christianity could not have spread throughout the Roman
empire as rapidly as it did. If in any country there is a strong
tradition concerning some Apostolic figures, and no
counter-tradition elsewhere, then we at least stand on the ground
of possibility and even probability. So it is with St.Simon and
St.Joseph.

     The way we, therefore, postulate the story of St.Simon is
this: he left Jerusalem and traveled first to Egypt and then
through North Africa to Carthage, from there to Spain and north
to Britain. Nothing in this theory is impossible or unreasonable.
He may have then gone from Glastonbury to London, which was by
that time the capital of the new Roman conquest. There he would
have preached in Latin to members of the Roman community. He
would not have been able to preach to the native Britons in their
language, but Latin was already widely used by the Britons and it
is possible that even some Britons could have heard the gospel
from St.Simon. (He may well have spoken Greek - Greek was the
common universal language of the Roman Empire, and we know from
historical sources Greek was spoken in Britain - Keith Hunt)

     If there were Jews in London, surely Simon would have gone
to them. There is, however, no historical proof that a church was
founded, and before long the revolutionaries led by the British
Queen, Boadicea, came against the Roman occupation forces. The
frightening rumors of her extermination of all Romans and her
destruction of London would surely have caused Simon to flee
toward the south of England. There he would have embarked upon a
ship to return to Palestine, because it was obvious that the
disruption of the Roman peace made England at that time a
doubtful field for the proclamation of the gospel. In other
words, Simon witnessed and preached but because of unsettled
conditions, was forced to retire.

     The next strong tradition finds St.Simon in Persia in
company with St.Jude with whom he was martyred. Mary Sharp
writes, "They were thought to have preached together in Syria and
Mesopotamia traveling as far as Persia and to have been martyred,
St.Simon being sawn asunder and St.Jude killed with a halberd."
(A Traveller's Guide to Saints in Europe, p.198)


     The book, "Sacred and Legendary Art," affirms the same
tradition of St.Jude and St.Simon, "They preached the Gospel
together in Syria and Mesopota and suffered martyrdom in Persia."
(Sacred and Legendary Art, Mrs. Ann Jamison, p.281)

     According to Roman Catholic tradition the bodies of Jude and
Simon are buried together, the bones being intermixed, the major
tomb being in St.Peter's in Rome, with fragments in the church of
St.Satuminus, Tolosa, Spain, St.Sernin, Toulouse, France and
until World War 2 in the monastery chapel of St.Norbet, Cologne,
Germany. (A Traveller's Guide to Saints in Europe, Mary Sharp,
p.198)

                            ..................


So ends the study by McBirnie on the TWELVE APOSTLES. He does
give studies on the Apostles who were NOT of the Twelve: John
Mark; Barnabas; John the Baptist; Luke; Lazarus; Paul.

Those studies I now present.

To be continued

 

 

 

 


No comments:

Post a Comment