by the late William McBirnie, Ph.D.
MATTHEW
Matthew was a brother of James the Less and both were the
sons of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14). Matthew's other name was Levi. He
was a customs officer (Matt.10:3) in Capernaum, in the territory
ruled by Herod Antipas. He belonged to the class of bureaucrats
called portitores serving under the publicans, the officers who
were concessionaires for taxes according to the Roman custom of
that day. As such he would have had some education and have been
acquainted with the Aramaic, Greek and Latin languages. The tax
collectors of whom he was one, although scorned by the Jews,
seemed as a group to hear the message of Jesus gladly (Matt.
11:19; Luke 17:34,15:1).
By the time Matthew was called, Peter, James and John, who
also came from Capernaun, were already disciples of Jesus (Matt.
9:11; 14:18; Mark 5:37). Unlike some of the other Apostles
Matthew did not enter the group from the followers of John the
Baptist.
Significantly, among the events recorded in his gospel is
the notation that the first thing Matthew did after his call was
to invite Jesus to his home for a feast. Matthew filled the place
with the only people who would set foot in his house, his fellow
"tax gatherers and sinners". The term was an epithet, not a
description. When Jesus was criticized for keeping company with
them He responded, "those who are well need no physician, but
those who are sick." And in a paraphrase of the words of Micah
8:8-8 Jesus added, "Go and learn what this means, I desire mercy
and not sacrifice for I come not to call the righteous but
'sinners'" (Matthew 9:11-12).
Like most of the Apostles, Matthew seemed to have
evangelized in a number of countries. Irenaeus says that he
preached the gospel among the Hebrews. Does this mean in
Palestine or to the Jews abroad? Probably both. Clement of
Alexandria stated that he spent 15 years in this work. Clement
also said that Matthew went to the Ethiopians, the Greeks of
Macedonia (northern Greece), the Syrians and Persians. (Clement
of Alexandria, Strom.,49) An early Christian writer named
Heracleon declared that Matthew did not suffer martyrdom. But
most authorities affirm that he was painfully put to death.
THE WRITING OF THE GOSPEL
Jerome tells the story of the authorship of the gospel by
Matthew:
"Matthew, also called Levi, Apostle and aforetimes publican,
composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew
for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this
was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is
uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present
day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently
gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume
described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who
use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist,
whether on his own account or on the person of our Lord the
Saviour, quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not
follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint, but
the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist, 'Out of Egypt have I
called my son,' and 'for he shall be called a Nazarene'" (The
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Jerome, p.362).
(But the fact is today NO Hebrew MMS exists of the Gospel of
Matthew - Keith Hunt).
Eusebius quotes Papias, who lived 100 A.D., as saying that
Matthew had composed in Aramaic the Oracles of the Lord which
were translated into Greek by each man as he was able. Irenaeus,
about a century and a half earlier than Eusebius had stated that
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their
own dialect." (The New Testament, A Survey, Tenney, p.151) St.
Augustine also said Matthew had written only in Hebrew while the
other gospel writers wrote in Greek.
(All of this is very unprovable as to if Matthew FIRST wrote in
Greek and THEN it was translated into Hebrew, or if he did indeed
FIRST write in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. All that
said, the sure fact is that we DO NOT have ANY part of Matthew -
some or all - written in Hebrew today. If we did you can be sure
copies of it would be all over the place, published in book form,
written in magazines etc.and etc. - Keith Hunt).
Matthew understood the way in which Jesus fulfilled the
prophecies of the Old Testament. More references appear in his
gospel to this fact than in any of the other three gospels.
We are in Matthew's debt for the only version of the story about
the man who found a treasure hid in a field and sold all he had
to purchase it. Matthew knew from personal experience what that
meant. He, too, had forsaken his profitable and lucrative career
and had followed Jesus.
VARIOUS TRADITIONS OF MATTHEW S MINISTRY AND DEATH
There are so many traditions which seem to be mutually
contradictory that one can but list them all and try to make a
synthesis of them as Barclay has done:
"Socrates said that Matthew was allotted Ethiopia in the
apostolic comity agreement (The E.H.,1,19; cf. Rubinus,1,9).
Ambrose connects him with Persia, Paulinus of Nola with Parthia,
Isidore with Macedonia.
Clement of Alexandria indicates that he died a natural death (The
Miscellanies, 4,9). Clement says he was a vegetarian eating
seeds, nuts, and vegetables without flesh. The Talmud says that
Matthew was condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin.
The apocryphal 'Acts of Andrew and Matthew' which later was put
into Anglo-Saxon verse, claims that he was sent to the
cannibalistic Anthropophagi who attempted to put his eyes out and
put him in prison for 30 days before eating him. On the 27th day
he was rescued by Andrew who came by sea miraculously escaping a
storm and thus rescued Matthew. Matthew returned to the
Anthropophagi working miracles among them and the king became
jealous of him. They bound Matthew, covered him with papyrus
soaked in dolphin oil, poured brimstone, asphalt and pitch upon
him, heaped up tow and wood and surrounded him with the golden
images of the 12 gods of the people. But the fire turned to dew
and the flames flew out and melted the metal of the images.
Finally the fire took the form of a dragon, chased the king into
his palace and curled around about him so that he could not move.
Then Matthew rebuked the fire and prayed and gave up the ghost.
The King was converted and became a priest and with two angels
Matthew departed to heaven." ("The Master's Men," William
Barclay, pp.66-68).
(I think we can see the Roman Catholic fanticies here, and the
story gaining more mystery religion as time went - Keith Hunt).
According to E.J.Goodspeed (Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist)
there was a confusion in the early stories between Matthias and
Matthew. The tradition of the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43 a.)
tells of the trial and execution of one "Matthai." Matthew
probably did not die in the same country as Matthias.
The difficulty in knowing for certain the countries which
Matthew probably visited lies in the identification of the
country called "Ethiopia." The Ethiopia in Africa is well known
to us, but there was also an Asiatic "Ethiopia" which was south
of the Caspian Sea in Persia. It was in the kingdom of the
Parthians, but from all accounts was off the well-traveled trade
routes.
(This is probably the area where Matthew went, for that was the
area where Israelites were dwelling, not down in the African
nation by the same name - Keith Hunt).
As we have seen, St.Ambrose links Matthew with Persia. The
associations of St.Thomas with a "Gospel of Matthew which was
reputedly found in India are well known. This would seem to
indicate at least a tradition of the Apostle Matthew as having
been near the Asiatic "Ethiopia." It would be natural for a copy
of Matthew's gospel to have found its way to India if Matthew
himself had been in Persia, which he probably indeed did visit,
for Persia was on the direct trade route from Antioch to India.
(Indeed, much more sense for Matthew to be in that part of the
world, where Israelites were dwelling in the first century A.D. -
Keith Hunt).
THE PRESENT BURIAL PLACE OF MATTHEW'S BODY
Next door to the cathedral in Salerno, Italy, which contains
the body of Matthew there is an archeological museum which
publishes a guide book for those who make pilgrimages to the
church. It is written by Arturo Carucci and offers the following
information about the tomb of the Apostle:
"A fresco on the side of the center balcony shows John, Bishop of
Paestum receiving Athanasias the monk who found the body of
Matthew. Another shows Gisolfo I ordering the Abbott John to get
the body of the evangelist Matthew at Capaccio to bring it to
Salerno. Above the seats of the chorus (choir) there is a
reminder of the moving of the body of St.Matthew. It shows a
procession with the body of the Apostle being brought into the
church.
In the center of the crypt there is the tomb of Saint Matthew
located at about 2 meters of depth and surmounted by a
two-fronted altar, rich of marble and dominated by an ample
'umbrella canopy', finely embroidered, which covers two bronze
statues representing the Evangelist: one for each front of the
altar. They were made in 1808 by Michelangelo Naccarino (1822);
the Saint is in the traditional position. The sculptor knew how
to give the bronze a great expression of power. The tomb and the
altars are adorned in an elegant marble base which has enormous
candelabras at each corner. They were a gift from the School of
Medicine.
In 1989 the floor at the north side was opened and the altar was
erected at the tomb of the Evangelist, altering the harmony and
the original design of the two fronted altar." (II Duomo di
Salerno e il suo Museo, Arturo Carucci, pp.66,69).
Carucci gives us the date of the building of the cathedral
and the interment of the body of the Apostle Matthew:
"Inside is the 'holy seat' [special chair] said to be that of
Saint Gregory VII; because, from the 11th century the Holy
Pontiff ascended during the consecration of the temple in 1084.
The seven circular steps, instead, are new like the chairs of the
'bema.' The inscription celebrates the millennium (1954) of the
translation of the relies of Saint Matthew.
Dedicated to the Virgin Mary the church was elevated over the
tomb of St.Matthew by the Norman Duke, Robert Guiscardo right
after the conquest of Salerno in 1078.
Not everybody knows that the body [of St.Matthew] is entrusted to
and honored in Salerno. It is enclosed in a magnificent crypt
deserving of the veneration of the people of Salerno and
deserving of St.Matthew." (op. cat. p.11)
(It could be possible the RC church has the remains of Matthew.
We need to remember the RC church does go back to the first
century, as it came OUT OF the TRUE Church of God. Then again it
may also be the fancy Babylon mysteries it promolgates even in
claiming it has this or that body of this or that disciple of our
Lord - Keith Hunt).
LEGENDS ABOUT ST.MATTHEW
It is evident from the legends and traditions of the
Apostles that the confusion in the records in the Middle Ages
about place names have made it impossible to be sure which
"Ethiopia" is associated with St.Matthew. For example, did the
following story arise out of imagination or does it correctly
associate Matthew with the Ethopia in Africa?
"It is related in the Perfetto Legendario, that, after the
dispersion of the Apostles, he travelled into Egypt and Ethiopia,
preaching the Gospel; and having arrived in the capital of
Ethiopia, he lodged in the house of the eunuch who had been
baptized by Philip, and who entertained him with great honor.
There were two terrible magicians at that time in Ethiopia, who
by their diabolical spells and incantations kept all the people
in subjection, afflicting them at the same time with strange and
terrible diseases; but St. Matthew overcame them, and having
baptized the people, they were delivered forever from the
malignant influence of these enchanters. And further, it is
related that St. Matthew raised the son of the King of Egypt from
the dead, and healed his daughter of the leprosy. The princess,
whose name was Iphigenia, he placed at the head of a community of
virgins dedicated to the service of God: and a certain wicked
heathen king, having threatened to tear her from her asylum, was
struck by leprosy, and his palace destroyed by fire. St.Matthew
remained twenty-three years in Egypt and Ethiopia, and it is said
that he perished in the ninetieth year of our era, under
Domitian; but the manner of his death is uncertain; according to
the Greek legend he died in peace, but according to the tradition
of the Western Church he suffered martyrdom either by the sword
or the spear" ("Sacred and Legendary Art" Mrs.Anna Jameson, pp.
142-43).
(I may be possible that an apostle like Matthew did visit the
African nation as the eunuch that Philip baptized was there, and
it would have been natural for an an apostle to vist him and help
him preach the Gospel. Maybe Matthew did do some miracles also,
but in time traditions tend to get fancier and embelished upon.
The "virgin convent" sounds too Roman Catholic to take it
seriously - Keith Hunt).
The Roman Catholic tradition of the life and death of
Matthew is given us by Mary Sharp in "A TraveUer's Guide to
Saints in Europe":
"Matthew's body is reputed to be enshrined in the Cathedral of
San Matteo at Salerno, Italy, and other relics in many churches,
including Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome.
After the Ascension, St.Matthew is said to have traveled to
Ethiopia where he was entertained by the eunuch whom St.Philip
had baptised. He performed several miracles, including the
healing of the King of Egypt's daughter of leprosy. Accounts
differ as regards his death. Some say that he was beheaded,
others that he died a peaceful death" (p.152).
A SUGGESTED BIOGRAPHY OF MATTHEW
Matthew, also called Levi, was the son of Alphaeus and the
brother of James the Less. It is apparent that Alphaeus was a
godly man, but though Matthew was given the priestly name of
Levi, he was probably far from godly in his early life. It
required a great deal of ambition and greed for a Jew to
willingly be known as an associate of the House of Herod Antipas
and a servant of the hated Romans by becoming a tax gatherer for
them. The way this term (publican) is used in the Bible indicates
that to be a tax gatherer was to obtain a position in which graft
and corruption were not only possible, but likely. Also there was
the embarrassment of being known as a collaborator with Rome. The
Roman occupation troops were hated with the same kind of scorn
that the Jews in the 20th century felt toward the Nazis.
Nevertheless, Jesus sought to reconcile James, who may well have
been a nationalistic Zealot, with his brother, Matthew, the
collaborator with Rome. Both became in time ardent disciples of
Jesus. Matthew probably remained in the Holy Land, as tradition
says, for 15 years. After this, encouraged by the reports of the
success of other Christian leaders among the Jews of the
Diaspora, and also among the Gentiles, he went forth on several
missionary journeys.
It is possible that he wrote his Gospel first in the Aramaic
language which was well understood by the people of northern
Palestine. Later he may have made copies in Hebrew and
distributed them in several places where he went. This is most
likely as it is evident that Matthew directed his appeal more to
potential converts among the Jews than to the Gentiles. The
Gospel of Matthew is filled with many references to Old Testament
prophecy about the Messiah as being fulfilled in Jesus. Those
quotations would have been of only passing interest to Gentiles.
But, like other Apostles, Matthew eventually incurred the wrath
of the Jewish establishment and was forced to turn to the
Gentiles who gave him a more ready hearing.
(But remember all the arguments to one side, the clear fact is
that we have NO part of Matthew preserved in any Hewbrew text. It
was the Greek text of all the NT that God decided to preserve -
Keith Hunt).
There are too many references in the traditions and legends
of Matthew's ministry to kings and other high government
officials for us to ignore the possibility that his evident
literacy and his former experience as a bureaucrat may well have
fitted him to understand just how to present the Gospel to people
in high places. It is certain that he did indeed go to Persia and
to the mysterious area there known as "Ethiopia." It is possible
that he was in grave danger of his life there. It is not
impossible that he may also have journeyed to the Ethiopia in
Africa as Roman Catholic tradition indicates.
We do not know just how or when his body was eventually
discovered. But it is evident that the monk, Athanasias, appeared
before the Norman Duke of Salerno and confidently announced that
the body had indeed been found, and he advised the Duke to bring
it to Salerno as an Apostolic relic deserving of the great
Cathedral which was built there. Probably a few of the same bones
were later transferred to Rome. (There is no good reason to deny,
however, that the majority of the bones remain in Salerno to this
day).
There are too many stories of Matthew's death to be certain
just where he died. It is likely that it was not in Ethiopia in
Africa, but rather in Egypt. The connection of the legends of
Matthew with the Sanhedrin is significant. The Sanhedrin was a
body of important Jews in Alexandria, Egypt.
This would hint as to an historical relationship of Matthew
to Egypt. It is perhaps possible that Matthew was martyred in
Egypt upon his return from Ethiopia in Africa, but this
conclusion is not certain.
What is certain is that Matthew was a gifted writer, an
ardent disciple and had perhaps had the best education of any of
the Twelve. Thus he was well equipped to witness to people in
places of authority, and was a vessel well chosen to write the
great gospel which bears his name.
...................
To be continued
James, the son of Alphaeus
The confusion with the name James
THE SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES
by the late 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 the late 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.
........................
To be continued The Search for the Twelve Apostles Judas Iscariot
by the late 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).
..................
To be continued In Search for the Twelve Apostles Matthias
by the late 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.
………………….
To be continued
SEARCHING FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES
Simon the Zealot
by the late 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 the late 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
Searching for the Apostle
John Mark
OTHER MEN OF THE GOSPEL
by the late William Steuart McBirnie Ph.D.
JOHN MARK
Professor JOSE O'CALLAGHAN, a Spanish scholar at the
Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, has identified 19 tiny
scraps of papyrus, found in 1947 among the Dead Sea Scrolls as
fragments of a copy of St.Mark's gospel written around 50 A.D.
"The date is what matters. Biblical scholars have long assumed
that Mark's gospel, based on recollections of the Apostle Peter,
was set down in writing shortly before Peter's death in Rome,
which would date it around 68 A.D.
"Since Jesus was crucified about 33 A.D., (actually can be proven
to be 30 A.D. - Keith Hunt) the previous dating of Mark's gospel
- generally regarded to have been the first one written - left a
hiatus of 35 years in which the historical details of the life of
Jesus either were transmitted by word of mouth or by now lost
records (such as the famous "Q" document which scholars have long
postulated but never found).
"O'Callaghan's papyrus fragments, established by scientific
methods as having been in a Palestinian library in 50 A.D.,
indicates that Mark's gospel may well have been in circulation
within about a dozen years of the time of Jesus' death.
This is very important because it means Mark's record had to
survive the acid test of any journalistic or historical writing -
being published at a time when it could be read, criticized, and
if unauthentic, denounced, by thousands of Jews, Christians,
Romans and Greeks who were living in Palestine at the time of
Jesus ministry. (Glendale News Press, Saturday, April i5, 1972)
United Press International, Louis Cassels)
The writer of the second Gospel, as it appears in the order
of our Bible, was a figure of great importance in postolic age.
He was given a Roman name (Mark, Marcus) and a Jewish name
(John, Jonah). Mark's home was in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12) and as
his father is not mentioned, it is possible that at the time he
was living in comfortable surroundings in a large house with his
mother, Mary, and his cousin, Barnabas, (Col.4:10) who was also a
man of means (Acts 4:36).
It is believed that his family, perhaps upon his father's
death, had moved to Jerusalem from Cyrenaica, a Roman colony in
North Africa. This would perhaps imply that Mark had a Roman
father and certainly a Jewish mother.
In 44 A.D., at the first mention of John Mark in Acts, he,
as well as his mother Mary are already believers. Probably he was
led to Christ by Simon Peter who affectionately referred to him
as his "spiritual son". (I Peter 5:13)
After a notable experience in company with many of the
leaders of the Jerusalem church, which probably made its
headquarters in his mother's house, he was chosen to accompany
Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. It is possible that while yet in
Jerusalem he learned the incident he later recorded in Mark 3:21
from James the brother of the Lord.
He went with Paul and Barrnabas on their first missionary
journey from Antioch to Cyprus, the original home of Barnabas.
When they went on to Turkey, John Mark suddenly decided to return
to Antioch. Sir William Ramsey speculates that the possible
contagion of Paul's fever, which occurred at Perga before the
missionary team was scheduled to go inland to Antioch, plus the
dire tales of bandits in the desolate mountains which lay ahead
of them, might have dissuaded Mark from going to that wild
central area of Turkey.
Others have suggested that Mark did not then fully accept
the Pauline doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone.
This idea is alluded to in Acts 13:5,13. It is tbought that Mark
was of the Jewish party and St.Luke there emphasized that by
using only his Hebrew name. This might imply a serious doctrinal
difference with St.Paul based upon the fact that he (Mark) was
still a devout Jew, and at that time unable to accept the
doctrine of faith for salvation. No failure at this doctrinal
point was apparently acceptable to St.Paul. Even later than this
event, Barnabas himself is said by Paul to have had misgivings
about the doctrine of salvation by faith. (Gal.2:13) Barnabas
obviously, influenced Mark, at least at first.
Two years after the departure of John Mark from Perga, Paul
and Barnabas decided to go on another missionary journey from
Antioch. Barnabas wanted again to take Mark but Paul would not
agree. So Paul chose Silas and went overland in Turkey to visit
the churches he and Barnabas had organized on their first journey
there. Barnabas took Mark and went to retrace the steps he and
Paul had taken in Cyprus. Barnabas was eventually to die on
Cyprus probably in 58 A.D. (I Cor.9:5).
Eleven years later in Rome the breach between Paul and Mark
was healed. Mark was one of the faithful few among the Jewish
Christians there who stood by Paul. He is described by Paul in
Colossians as an honored fellow worker and a "great comfort" to
him. In the Colossian epistle there is a hint that Mark might
visit Colossae. It may be that this indeed happened. With St.
Peter he went with that Apostle to Babylon. In I Peter 5:13 Peter
sends Mark's greetings from Babylon.
Later Mark returned to Turkey. At the time of his second
Roman imprisonment St.Paul requested of Timothy that he bring
Mark to him in Rome. In his last letter St.Paul paid tribute to
Mark as being "useful for minister". (2 Tim.4:11)
While in Rome Mark must have written his gospel at the
request of St.Peter. "The Post-Nicene Fathers" records the
tradition:
"Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel
at the request of the brethren at Rome, embodying what he had
heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and
published it to the churches to be read by his authority as
Clemens, in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop
of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first
epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon,
'She who is in Babylon elect together with you saluteth you and
so doth Mark my son.'" (Jerome, p.364)
We must, of course, differ from the idea that the epistle of
First Peter was written in Rome. The traditions of the
eastern-most churches are unanimous that it was instead written
in Babylon which is exactly what it says in the epistle. The idea
that Rome was meant instead of Babylon is the only interpretation
possible in the figurative and symbolic way that St.John used
later in the Revelation. But there was no need to use "Babylon"
if Rome was meant in St.Peter's first epistle.
After the deaths of St.Peter and St.Paul in Rome there is a
clear tradition that John Mark went to Alexandria, a Greco-Roman
city in Egypt with a large Jewish population. For a time he
labored there. It is possible that during the years before he
joined St.Paul and St.Peter in Rome at the end of their lives, he
might have visited Alexandria and helped to organize a church
there. The chronology is not certain, but two visits to
Alexandria do not seem unreasonable.
Eusebius marks the tradition that Anianus, a convert of St.
Mark, succeeded him as the pastor of the church at Alexandria "in
the eighth year of Nero's reign." Since Nero outlived St.Paul by
less than two years this fact does not agree with the idea that
Mark was in Rome at or near the time of the deaths of Peter and
Paul. Yet from 2 Timothy it is clear that a short while before
St.Paul's death Mark was in Turkey, not Egypt.
In the chapter "Origins of Coptic Christianity", Aziz S.
Atiya (A History of Eastern Christianity, pp.25-28) tells of the
very detailed and firm traditions in Egypt among the Coptic
churches regarding St.Mark:
"St.Mark brought his Gospel with him to Alexandria; and though
the Greek version could have fulfilled his purpose in that city,
the suggestion is made that another version in the Egyptian
language was prepared for the benefit of native converts who were
not conversant with Greek.
"Mark's real labour lay in Africa. First, he crossed the
Mediterranean to Cyrenaica--the Pentapolis which had been his
parents' residence in bygone days. This country was colonized by
Greeks and many Jews who offered his zeal a ripe and hopeful
harvest. After performing many miracles and sowing the seeds of
his faith, he went to Alexandria by a circuitous route through
the oases and Babylon, or Old Cairo. Alexandria was the Eastern
counterpart of Rome, both in importance and in being a stronghold
of paganism, and it was imperative that Christianity should win
the two. The task was as worthy as it was hazardous.
Here we face the important problem of dates. The History of the
Patriarchs mentions, explicitly that the revelation to Peter and
Mark, that they should advance on Rome and Alexandria, came in
the fifteenth year after the Ascension of Christ, that is, 48
A.D. Other sources put his entry into Alexandria in 55, 58 and 61
A.D. Whatever the right date of Mark's appearance in the city,
the consensus is that he was martyred in 68 A.D. Between those
two dates he was able to fulfill his mission and to win many
converts.
"The story runs that on entering the city by the eastern gate, he
broke the strap of his shoe. So he went to a cobbler to mend it.
When the cobbler took an awl to work on it, he accidentally
pierced his hand and cried aloud: 'Heis ho Theos' (God is one).
Mark rejoiced at this utterance and, after miraculously healing
the man's wound, took courage and gave the lesson to the hungry
ears of his first convert. This happened to be Anianus, Mark's
successor as the second patriarch of Alexandria. The spark was
fired, and the cobbler took the Apostle home with him. He and his
family were baptized, and many others followed. So successful was
the movement that the word spread that a Galilean was in the city
preparing to overthrow the idols. Popular feeling began to rise,
and men sought him everywhere. Scenting danger, the Apostle
ordained Anianus bishop, with three priests and seven deacons to
watch over the congregation in case anything befell him.
Afterwards, he seems to have undertaken two voyages. First he
sallied into Rome where he met Peter and Paul, and he left the
capital only after their martyrdom in 64 A.D. He then stayed at
Aquiiea, near Venice, before his return to Alexandria. On finding
his flock firm in the faith, he decided to visit the Pentapolis,
where he spent two years performing miracles, ordaining bishops
and priests, and winning more converts. When at last he reached
Alexandria, he was overjoyed to find that the brethren had so
multiplied that they were able to build a considerable church in
the suburban district of Baucalis, where cattle grazed by the
seashore.
"Spreading rumours that the Christians threatened to overthrow
the pagan deities infuriated the idolatrous populace. The end was
approaching, and the saint was unremittingly hunted by the enemy.
In the year 68 A.D., Easter fell on the same day as the Serapis
festival. The furious mob had gathered in the Serapion and then
descended on the Christians while they were celebrating Easter at
Baucalis. St.Mark was seized, dragged with a rope around his neck
in the streets, and then incarcerated for the night. In the
following morning the same ordeal was repeated until he gave up
the ghost. His flesh was torn and bloody, and it was their intent
to cremate his remains. But the wind blew and the rain fell in
torrents, and the populace dispersed. Thus the Christians
stealthily carried off his body and secretly buried it in a grave
which they had carved in the rock under the altar of the church."
(A History of Eastern Christianity, Aziz S. Atiya, pp.25-28)
Eusebius and other early church writers were not always
accurate as to dates. But the tradition of St.Mark's ministry and
martyrdom in Alexandria has much historical justification as
Atiya shows:
"In subsequent centuries the body of St.Mark did not remain
intact. During the later times of schism between the Copts and
the Melkites, who were in authority, the church where the body
was kept remained in the hands of the latter. At the time of the
Arab storming of Alexandria in 642, the church was pillaged and
the vestments and the head of the Apostle were stolen. With the
establishment of peace in the city, that church, together with
the body, remained in Melkite hands. But the head somehow was
returned to the Arab governor, who ceded it to the Coptic
Patriarch Benjamin, the only ecclesiastical leader left after the
departure of the Greeks. According to their own story, Venetian
merchants stole the headless body of St.Mark in 828. They
smuggled it [to Venice, ED.] in a tub of pickled pork to evade
Muslim inspection. In this wise, Venice earned its other title of
the 'Republic of St.Mark,'" (op. cit., Ibid. p.28)
Mary Sharp confirms the story of what befell St.Mark's
relics:
"His remains were buried in Alexandria, but in 828 Venetian
merchants took the remains to Venice, where the church of St.
Mark was built to receive them. Beneath the church of St.
Pudentiana in Rome are the ruins of a first-century house where
it is said that Mark may have written his Gospel." (A Traveller's
Guide to Saints in Europe, Mary Sharp, pp.148,149)
There is a final note. Recently Pope Paul VI restored parts
of the body of St.Mark which had been in Venice at St.Mark's
Cathedral, to the Coptic church in Alexandria. Like his similar
gesture to the Greek Orthodox Church in Patras, when he restored
the head of their patron St.Andrew to that place, so this act too
was an act of reconciliation between two very old branches of
organized Christianity.
Mark was perhaps younger than the Apostles whom he served.
He seems to have lived a life of great usefulness, remarkable
travel, and to have accompanied or known many of the giants of
the early years of Christianity. Among them were Peter, Paul and
Barnabas, not to mention others such as Timothy.
It is believed that the discovery of the actual foundations
of the house of Mary, the mother of Mark, has recently been made
in the basement of the church of St.Mark in Jerusalem. An ancient
inscription discovered and displayed there tells that the
original church was built on the site of the house of Mary and
Mark, and that it was the place of the "upper room" which was the
gathering place of the first Christians and was also the site of
the Pentecostal baptism of the Holy Spirit. If this all be true,
then the experience of St.Mark is one of the richest of all the
New Testament characters. Of course, his authorship of the Gospel
of Mark immortalizes him for all Christians.
...................
To be continued with "Barnabas."
Searching for the Apostles
Barnabas - John the Baptist - Luke
SEARCH FOR THE APOSTLES
THOSE NOT OF THE TWELVE
by the late McBirnie Ph.D.
THE APOSTLE BARNABAS
William Smith provides us, with the following:
"HIS NAME SIGNIFIES son of prophecy, or exhortation (or, but not
so probably, consolation, as A.V.), given by the Apostles (Acts
4:36) to Joseph (or Joses), a Levite of the island of Cyprus, who
was only a disciple of Christ. In Acts 9:27, we find him
introducing the newly converted Saul to the Apostles in
Jerusalem, in a way which seems to indicate a previous
acquaintance between the two. On tidings coming to the church at
Jerusalem that men of Cyprus and Cyrene had been preaching to
Gentiles at Antioch, Barnabas was sent thither (Acts 11:19-26 ),
and went to Tarsus to seek Saul, as one specially raised up to
preach to the Gentiles. (Acts 26:17) Having brought Saul to
Antioch, he was sent with him to Jerusalem, with relief for the
brethren in Judaea. (Acts 11:30) On their return to Antioch they
(Acts 13:2) were ordained by the Church for the missionary work,
and sent forth (A.D.45). From this time Barnabas and Paul enjoy
the title and dignity of Apostles. Their first missionary journey
is related in Acts 13. It was confined to Cyprus and Asia Minor.
Some time after their return to Antioch (A.D.47 or 48), they were
sent (A.D.50), with some others, to Jerusalem, to determine with
the Apostles and elders the difficult question respecting the
necessity of circumcision for the Gentile converts. (Acts 15:1)
On that occasion Paul and Barnabas were recognized as the
Apostles of the Uncircumcision. After another stay in Antioch, on
their return, a variance took place between Barnabas and Paul on
the question of taking with them, on a second missionary journey,
John Mark, sister's son to Barnabas. (Acts 15:36) 'The contention
was so sharp that they parted asunder,' and Barnabas took Mark,
and sailed to Cyprus, his native island. Here the Scripture
notices of him cease. As to his further labors and death,
traditions differ. Some say he went to Milan, and became first
bishop of the church there. There is extant an apocryphal work,
probably of the fifth century, 'Acta et Passio Barnabae' in
Cypro, and still later an Encomium of Barnabas, by a Cyprian man,
Alexander. We have an Epistle in twenty-one chapters called by
the name of Barnabas. Its authenticity has been defended by some
great writers; but it is very generally given up now, and the
Epistle is believed to have been written early in the second
century." (Dictionary of the Bible, William Smith, pp.98-99).
THE LATER LIFE OF ST. BARNABAS
In a pamphlet published at the monastery of St.Barnabas in
Salamis, Cyprus, written by M. Koumas, the following information
appears:
"St.Barnabas, a Cypriot by origin, was the first of the 70
disciples of Our Lord. (Acts o f the Apostles 13:1-34) After that
he visited many countries for the promulgation of the Holy Gospel
but when he returned to Cyprus he was killed this time by the
Jews. Mark secretly buried his holy body in an empty sepulchre
cut from the rock outside Salamis. The tomb was forgotten and
remained unknown up to 477 A.D. In that year St.Barnabas appeared
in a dream to the Archbishop of Constania (Salamis), Anthemios,
and revealed to him the place of his sepulchre beneath a
carob-tree. The following day Anthemios found the tomb and inside
it the remains of St.Barnabas with a manuscript of St.Marks
Gospel on his breast. Anthemios presented the Gospel to the
Byzantine Emperor Zeno at Constantinople and received from him
the privileges of the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus, that is,
the purple cloak which the Greek Archbishop of Cyprus wears at
the festivals of the church, the imperial sceptre and the red ink
with which he affixes his signature. Anthemios then placed the
venerable remains of St.Barnabas in a magnificent church which he
founded at a distance of about 3 donums to the west of the tomb
which he had found. Part of this first church was discovered as a
result of excavations to the east of the existing church. In one
of its corners a sarcophagus with a hole in the stone slab is
preserved. Anthemios must have placed the remains of St.Barnabas
in this sarcophagus. Next to it, towards the wall, there is
another tomb, in which Anthemios was probably buried after his
death. Both tombs are now empty and no one knows what became of
the body of St.Barnabas." (St.Barnabas, M. Koumas, pamphlet)
(The whole is a false myth, or a false story by the Archbishop of
Constania. Barnabas could not appear to him, as the truth about
death makes that impossible. The Greek and Latin Catholic
churches have many such stories of fantacy within the false
"immortal soul" doctrine - Keith Hunt)
An apocryphal document, perhaps dating from the second
century, called "The Recognitions of Clement" mentions that St.
Clement (supposedly the same as the Clement mentioned by St.Paul
in Phil.4:3) claims his first acquaintance with Christianity was
through the preaching of St.Barnabas in Rome. There is no further
confirmation of this fact however. Of this tradition the Church
of Cyprus (Greek Orthodox) stoutly maintains that it was on the
island of Cyprus that Barnabas lived and died. Robin Parker, in
his excellent guidebook, "Aphrodite's Realm," records this rather
well documented historical tradition:
"The Church of Cyprus was founded by the Apostles Paul and
Barnabas in A.D.45. The latter suffered death in his native town
of Salamis during his second mission to the island and was buried
secretly outside the town by his kinsman and companion, St.Mark.
His relics, with a copy of St.Matthew''s Gospel in Barnabas'
handwriting, were discovered by the Archbishop of Cyprus,
Anthemios, during the reign of the Emperor Zeno (474-491).
This discovery helped to secure the independence of the Church of
Cyprus from the assailings of the Church of Antioch which was
then trying to bring it under its jurisdiction. At a specially
convened meeting in Constantinople the Church of Cyprus was
declared 'autocephalous' (self-governing) on account of its
Apostolic foundation, and certain privileges were bestowed on it
by the Emperor himself, among which was the right of the
Archbishop of Cyprus to sign in red ink." ("Aphrodite's Realm,"
Robin Parker, p.13)
According to Roman Catholic tradition the relics of St.
Barnabas have been widely scattered. His head is said to be in
the church of St.Sernin, Toulouse, France:
"....His body is said to have been buried near the place of his
martyrdom; but in the seventh century, during the Saracen
invasion, his head was taken to Milan and later to Toulouse." ("A
Traveller's Guide to Saints in Europe," Mary Sharp. p.28)
(If it was indeed Barnabas in the first place - Keith Hunt)
The noted authorities, Conybeare and Howson, make a strong
argument that Barnabas, rather than Paul, was the author of the
book of Hebrews. Taking into account his background in Judaism,
his long Christian ministry, and his association with St.Paul,
this is a very respectable theory. If it is true, then for a time
after Paul's death in Rome, Barnabas may have gone to Rome until
Timothy's release. This would not preclude Barnabas from
returning to Cyprus to die. For a fuller development of this
theory see "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," Conybeare and
Howson, T. Y. Crowell and Co. 1895, p.718.
(The knowledge and writing of Hebrews is more like Paul, and Paul
was one of the top men in the Judaism religion, making him well
qualified to write such a document as the book of Hebrews. That
book would also make Paul the author of 14 epistles preserved for
us. The number 14 denotes "salvation" and so is fitting that Paul
would have 14 epistles in the New Testament - Keith Hunt)
JOHN THE BAPTIST
Josephus attributes the death of John the Baptist to Herod's
jealousy of his great influence with the people. He says also
that the destruction of Herod's army in the war with Aretas,
which occurred soon after, was generally considered a divine
judgment on the tetrarch for the murder of John. Josephus makes
the place of the Baptist's imprisonment and death the fortress of
Marchaerus (Jos. Antiq. xviii. 5,2). Marchaerus, now called
Mekaur (Mukawer), is situated in the mountains on the east side
of the Dead Sea, about five miles north of the Arnon, and on the
top of a conical hill 3,800 feet above the Dead Sea. The wall of
circumvallation of the old stronghold still remains clearly
traceable, while inside are a deep well and two dungeons. One of
the latter may have been the prison in which John was confined.
John was buried by his disciples.
An old English poem, author unknown, tells graphically of
the way the sacred relics of John the Baptist were divided and
scattered. The poem is historically quite correct:
"For John the Baptist's head, they say,
Was broken up in Julian's day.
One bit is in Samaria's town
And two beneath Byzantium's dome,
And Genoa has half the crown,
The nose and forehead rest in Rome. (St.John the Baptist's
scattered dust, Bring me to kingdoms of the just.)"
(Quoted in "The Coming o f the Saints," J. W. Taylor, p.184.)
This author has personally seen the top of the skull and the
arm and hand of St.John the Baptist mentioned in the prayer-poem
above. They are kept in golden reliquaries in the Topkapi Museum
in Istanbul. Above the guarded glass case is an inscription,
"Christendom's Most Precious Relics." They are not that of
course, but they are valuable indeed, and from historical records
there is some evidence that they may be genuine, incredible as
that assertion may seem.
(Well I'll take it all with a large grain of salt; it could all
well be false, someone's bones here and there, but they may not
be the bones of any apostle - the Greek and Latin Catholic
churches claim all kinds of relics - relics they may be, but of
any of the apostles - a mighty big question mark I would put over
them - Keith Hunt)
In the Topkapi Museum are kept the crown jewels of the
Turkish royal families of the past, plus other priceless national
treasures. The reliquaries of St.John the Baptist are prominent
among them. The authoritative guidebook to Istanbul contains the
following notation:
"The Treasury (12)
"Here are exhibited two Byzantine reliquaries, the hand and skull
of St.John the Baptist. These are considered the most valuable
relics of Christendom." ("Tourist's Guide to Istanbul," Hayreddin
Lokmanoglu, p.174)
Apparently "the bit that is in Samaria's town" (see the poem
already quoted) was later transferred to Jerusalem, or at least
has disappeared from Samaria, though one traditional grave of St.
John is still to be seen there.
(All very doubtfull I would say. I do not believe God would have
any parts of the apostles remaining for people to gaze at. More
likely it is a cleaver deception to keep people believing that
the true "church" is the Catholic Greek or Latin churches - Keith
Hunt)
The Monastery of St.John in Jerusalem may have the portion
of his head that was originally in Samaria. The Superior of the
Monastery has published a guide which tells their claim:
"The Monastery of John the Baptist in Jerusalem has a great
significance from the historical and archaeological points of
view. It contains the most important underground Church dedicated
to the memory of the beheading of St.John the Baptist. The said
Church is cross-shaped and is of Byzantine art (Dickie, The Lower
Church of St.John, Jerusalem, Palestine Exploration Fund,
Quarterly Statement in 1899, pp.43-45).
(Very Roman Catholic sounding hoop-ha and deception to blind the
minds of millions as to their being the true Church of God -
Keith Hunt)
"Certain Archaeologists are of the opinion that the Monastery may
date back to the 5th century, and that it was built by Empress
Evdokia, who established many institutions in this country and
therefore they used to call Her 2nd St.Helena. Others believe
that it was erected by Patriarch Ioannis (516-524). This testi-
mony is contained in the 'Kanonarion of Jerusalem' where it is
stated that on the 29th August the memory of the beheading of St.
John the Baptist (prodromos) is celebrated in the Chapel of
Patriarch Ioannis, which was restored by Empress Evdokia and used
to be a Patriarchal Church of Saints Constantine and Helena.
When the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was restored by the
Byzantine Emperors and especially by Constantine Monomachos
(1048) the old underground Church was repaired and the upper
Church was erected. Both Churches were occupied by the Greek
Monks until the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders (1099) who
occupied these two Churches as many similar Churches. After the
expulsion of the legal owners of the Monastery of St.John the
Baptist, the Crusaders turned it to a Hospital and established
therein the Order of St.John the Merciful (Hospitalliers, Freres
de Saint Jean de Jerusalem). When later the Crusaders were driven
out by Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, (1187), the said Monastery was
delivered again to the Greek Monks.
In 1890 the ancient underground Church was discovered by the late
Archimandrite Efthymois, Guardian of the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, when he built the Hostel of St.John. On the Holy Altar
was found a reliquary containing a piece of the Holy Cross and
relies of St.John, Apostle Peter, and other Apostles." ("Short
History o f the Monastery of Saint John the Baptist," Greek
Orthodox Patriarchate, [pamphlet] Jerusalem)
(Again, the deceptive claims of the Catholic church. They have
all kinds of this or that belonging to this or that apostle or
even Christ Himself, i.e bits of the cross etc. - Keith Hunt)
While the relics are not described in this leaflet, it is
evident from this writer's personal observation that a portion of
the skull has been acquired. It is on display in the chapel and
was declared, to this writer, to have been found about 100 years
ago, according to the presiding Greek Orthodox priest who
graciously allowed it to be photographed.
(A bunch of Catholic hog-wash I would say. It helps to keep the
deceived blinded as to the falsehoods of the Greek and Roman
Catholic churches - Keith Hunt)
There are also other claims in Jerusalem by the Armenian
Patriarchate relative to their possession of a reliquary
containing another arm of St.John besides the one in Istanbul. It
is a listing in the catalogue of their valuables:
"60. Reliquary--arm of St. John the Baptist
Restored in 1704; origin: Monastery of Kdouts.
Silver, gilt; ancient piece of work. According
to tradition this part of the relic was brought
from Caesarea in Cappodocia by St.Gregory
the Enlightener.
Height: 40 cm
In the Treasury of St.James."
("Treasures of the Armenian Patriarchate o f Jerusalem," p.37)
(More false fairy-fluff, to my mind, from the Greek and/or Roman
Catholic churches. God would not have the true remains of His
apostles looked after by the Babylon Woman Whore church of
Revelation - Keith Hunt)
LUKE
We are indebted to the late Dr.A.T.Robertson for the
following succinct biography of Luke:
"The legend that Luke was one of the Seventy sent out by Jesus
(Epiphanies, Haer., ii. 51,11) is pure conjecture, as is the
story that Luke was one of the Greeks who came to Philip for an
introduction to Jesus (John 12:20f), or the companion of Cleopas
in the walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13). The clear implication of Luke
1:2 is that Luke himself was not an eyewitness of the ministry of
Jesus.
In Col.4:14 Luke is distinguished by Paul from those 'of the
circumcision' (Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus Justus). Epaphras, Luke,
Demas from the Gentile group. He was believed by the early
Christian writers to have come directly from heathendom to
Christianity. He may or may not have been a Jewish proselyte. His
first appearance with Paul at Troas (cf the 'we' - sections, Acts
16:10-12) is in harmony with this idea. The classic introduction
to the Gospel (1:1-4) shows that he was a man of culture (cf
Apollos and Paul). He was a man of the schools, and his Greek had
a literary flavor only approached in the New Testament by Paul's
writings and by the Epistle to the Hebrews.
His home is very uncertain. The text of D (Cordex Bezae) and
several Latin authorities have a 'we-passage' in Acts 11:27. If
this reading, the so-called B text of Blass, is the original,
then Luke was at Antioch and may have been present at the great
event recorded in Acts 12:1f. But it is possible that the Western
text is an interpolation. At any rate, it is not likely that Luke
is the same person as Lucius of Acts 13:1. Ramsay ("St.Paul the
Traveller," 389f) thinks that Eusebius (HE, III, iv, 6) does not
mean to say that Luke was a native of Antioch, but only that he
had Antiochian family connections. Jerome calls him Lucas medicus
Antichensis. He certainly shows an interest in Antioch (cf Acts
11:19-27; 13:1; 14:26; 14:22,23,30,35; 18:22). Antioch, of
course, played a great part in the early work of Paul. Other
stories make Luke live in Alexandria and Achaia and narrate that
he died in Achaia or Bithynia. But we know that he lived in
Philippi for a considerable period. He first meets Paul at Troas
just before the vision of the Man from Macedonia (Acts 16:10-12),
and a conversation with Paul about the work in Macedonia may well
have been the human occasion of that vision and call. Luke
remains in Philippi when Paul and Silas leave (Acts 16:40, 'They
... departed'). He is here when Paul comes back on his 3d tour
bound for Jerusalem (Acts 20:3-5). He shows also a natural pride
in the claims of Philippi to the primacy in the province, as
against Amphipolis and Thessalonica (Acts 16:12, 'the first of
the district'). On the whole, then, we may consider Philippi as
the home of Luke, though he was probably a man who had traveled a
great deal, and may have been with Paul in Galatia before coming
to Troas. He may have ministered to Paul in his sickness there.
(Gal.4:14). His later years were spent chiefly with Paul away
from Philippi (cf Acts 20:3-28.31, on the way to Jerusalem at
Caesarea, the voyage to Rome and in Rome).
Paul (Col.4:14) expressly calls him 'the beloved physician.' He
was Paul's medical adviser, and doubtless prolonged his life and
rescued him from many a serious illness. He was a medical
missionary, and probably kept up his general practice of medicine
in connection with his work in Rome (cf Zahn, Intro., III, 1). He
probably practised medicine in Malta (Acts 28:9f ). He naturally
shows his fondness for medical terms in his books (cf Hobart,
"The Medical Language of St.Luke" Harnack, NT Studies: Luke the
Physician, 175-98).
It is possible, even probable (see Souter's article in DCG ),
that in 2 Cor.8:18 'the brother' is equivalent to 'the brother'
of Titus just mentioned, that is, 'his brother.' If so we should
know that Paul came into contact with Luke at Philippi on his way
to Corinth during his 2nd tour (cf also 2 Cor.12:18). It would
thus be explained why in Acts the name of Titus does not occur,
since he is the brother of Luke the author of the book.
If the reading of D in Acts 11:27f is correct, Luke met Paul at
Antioch before the 1st missionary tour. Otherwise it may not have
been till Troas on the 2d tour. But he is the more or less
constant companion of Paul, from Philippi on the return to
Jerusalem on the 3d tour till the 2 years in Rome at the close of
the Acts. He apparently was not with Paul when Phil.(2:20) was
written, though, as we have seen, he was with Paul in Rome when
he wrote Col. and Philem. He was Paul's sole companion for a
while during the 2d Rome imprisonment (2 Tim.4:11). His devotion
to Paul in this time of peril is beautiful.
One legend regarding Luke is that he was a painter. Plummer
(Comm. on Luke, xxif) thinks that the legend is older than is
sometimes supposed and that it has a strong element of truth. It
is true that he has drawn vivid scenes with his pen. The early
artists were especially fond of painting scenes from the Gospel
of Luke. The allegorical figure of the ox or calf in Ezk.1 and
Rev.4 has been applied to Luke's Gospel.
Literature. - Bible diets., comms., lives of Paul, intros. See
also Harnack, 'Lukas, der Arzt, der Verfasser' (1906); NT
Studies: Luke the Physician (1907); Ramsay, Luke the Physician
(1908); Selwyn, St.Luke the Prophet (1901); Hobart, The Medical
Language of St.Luke (1882); Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?
A Study in the Credibility of St.Luke (1898); Maclachlan, St.
John, Evangelist and Historian (1912)." (International Standard
Bible Encyclopaedia, Dr.A.T.Robertson, p.1936)
The Catholic scholar, Rev. J. A. Fitzmyer illuminates the
style of the writings of St.Luke:
"A tradition that can be traced back to Irenaeus (c.185) regards
Luke as the author of the third Gospel. This attribution was
probably also known to Justin in the middle of the 2nd century.
The Muratorian canon ascribes both the third Gospel and Acts to
Luke. The Lucian authorship of both books is generally (though
not universally) accepted by modern scholars.
Luke belonged to cultivated Hellenistic circles, where he learned
to write with ease good idiomatic Greek. His writings betray an
acquaintance with the historical method of his day, and the
'Semitisms' that shine through his Greek style of the latter is
at times surprising. He was a perceptive, sensitive writer with a
knack for telling a story and depicting a scene, and his Gospel
has been described as 'the most beautiful book' ever written. His
two books constitute the earliest history of the Christian
church.
The Anti-Marcionite Prologue records that Luke wrote his Gospel
in Greece, was not married and died in Boeotia (or Bithynia?) at
the age of 84. But further details about his life come from
either later traditions or legends." (Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Rev.Joseph Augustine Fitzmyer, S.J., p.475-76)
THE DEATH AND BURIAL OF LUKE
Catholic tradition is summarized by Mary Sharp: "Accounts
differ as to the manner of his death; some say that he died
peacefully in Boeotia and others that he was crucified with St.
Andrew at Patras or at Elaea in Peloponnesus. In 356-357
Constantius II had his relics taken from Thebes in Boeotia to
Constantinople and placed in the Church of the Apostles which was
built soon afterwards. Later his head is said to have been taken
to Rome where it is interred in St.Peter's Basilica." ("A
Traveller's Guide to Saints in Europe," Mary Sharp, p.144)
(Once more, probably Roman Catholic deceptive hog-wash, to
deceive the many into following the RC church as the true Church
of God - Keith Hunt)
In 1685 Dorman Newman spoke with assurance that at that
time:
"Luke is buried in Constantinople in that great and famous church
dedicated to the memory of the Apostles." ("Lives and Deaths of
the Holy Apostles," Dorman Newman,1685)
(Probably more deceptive ideas flowing from the Greek Catholic
church - Keith Hunt)
St.Jerome confirms this:
"He was buried at Constantinople to which city, in the twentieth
year of Constantius, his bones, together with the remains of
Andrew, the Apostle, were transferred." (The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, p.364)
(Jerome was Roman Catholic; I would take nothing about any of the
apostles of Christ as truth from either the Roman or Greek
Catholic churches - Keith Hunt)
The author has visited Thebes in central Greece where,
inside a cemetery church one can still see the original grave of
St.Luke. It is a typical Roman sarcophagus carved in white
pentellic marble from the not too distant marble quarries which
are still being used today. In the church where this sarcophagus
is found there are many signs, inscriptions and mementoes
confirming that it was indeed in this ancient Greek cemetery that
St.Luke was first buried. However, those in charge of the church
do not seem to know about the fact that the body was transported
to Constantinople in the fourth century.
(I guess not, for it is no doubt all fantacy and cunning tales to
deceive the hundreds of millions - Keith Hunt)
In Rome the head of St.Luke is interred in a high altar
facing the central altar which stands over the grave of St.
Peter. Little attention is paid to it since its eminence is
dimmed by the more widely publicized remains of St.Peter and
other Apostles resting nearby.
(All bones and relics of someone other than the apostles of
Christ. The whore Babylon church, drunk with the blood of the
saints, as Revelation paints her, would not be given any relics
from the true apostles and saints of God. Maybe this is all
interesting, but it is still deception at its best, when it comes
to the Roman and Greek Catholic churches - Keith Hunt)
...................
To be continued
Search for the Apostles
Lazarus
SEARCH FOR THE APOSTLES
by the late McBirnie Ph.D.
OTHERS BESIDES THE TWELVE
LAZARUS
Dr.Trever has furnished in ISBE a thorough biography of St.
Lazarus up to the time following his being raised from the dead:
"LAZARUS, laz'a-rus (Lazaros, an abridged form of the Hebrew
name Eleazar, with a Greek termination): Means 'God has helped.'
In the Septuagint and Josephus are found the forms Eleazar, and
Eleazaros. The name was common among the Jews, and is given to
two men in the New Testament who have nothing to do with each
other.
"The home of the Lazarus mentioned in John 11:1 was Bethany. He
was the brother of Martha and Mary (John 11:1,2; see also Luke
10:38-41). All three were especially beloved by Jesus (John
11:5), and at their home He more than once, and probably often,
was entertained (Luke 10:38-41; John 11).
"As intimated by the number of condoling friends from the city,
and perhaps from the costly ointment used by Mary, the family was
probably well-to-do. In the absence of Jesus, Lazarus was taken
sick, died and was buried, but, after having lain in the grave
four days, was brought back to life by the Saviour (John
11:3.14.17.43.44). As a result many Jews believed on Jesus, but
others went and told the Pharisees, and a council was therefore
called to hasten the decree of the Master's death (John
11:45-53).
"Later, six days before the Passover, at a feast in some home in
Bethany where Martha served, Lazarus sat at a table as one of the
guests, when his sister Mary anointed the feet of Jesus (John
12:1-3). Many of the common people came thither, not only to see
Jesus, but also the risen Lazarus, believed in Jesus, and were
enthusiastic in witnessing for Him during the triumphal entry,
and attracted others from the city to meet Him. (John
12:9.11.17.18) ("The Intertional Standard Bible Encyclopaedia,"
G. H. Trever, p.1860)
THE LATER LIFE OF L ZARUS
On the island of Cyprus there is a very firm and ancient
tradition that Lazarus fled from Jerusalem about the year 60 A.D.
It would seem that this is an unnecessarily late date
although we have little more than tradition to go on in
determining it.
A pamphlet published by The Church of St.Lazarus in Larnaca,
Cyprus, written by A.Patsides, records the local tradition:
"We do not know the names of his parents, because the Holy
Scriptures mention nothing on this point. The only thing we know
from them is that Lazarus had two sisters, Martha and Mary. Our
Lord visited many times their home in Bethany and it is known
that true friendship existed between him and his family. The
feelings of Christ towards Lazarus are described in the Gospel of
John, where we learn that, when our Lord was informed about his
illness and the death of his friend, He hastened to Bethany and
raised Lazarus from death, giving by this action joy to the
unfortunate sisters, who received such a severe blow by the death
of their brother.
"On account of this incident the Jews searched for Lazarus in
order to kill him, because many people believed in Christ.
Lazarus, to avoid their revenge, was compelled to visit Cyprus
and Citiurn about 60 or 63 A.D., according to an old tradition,
which can be relied upon.
"In Citium, Lazarus became the spiritual leader of the town,
where he was bishop for thirty years. According to the same
tradition Lazarus died in Citium, where his tomb is preserved up
to the present day.
"When Leo the Wise was emperor of Byzantine, the dead body of St.
Lazarus was found and carried to Constantinople (890 A.D.)."
("St.Lazarus and His Church in Larnaca," Ch.A.Patsides, p.2)
A guidebook about Cyprus, by Robin Parker, which is both
well written and comprehensive, affirms: "According to tradition
St.Lazarus, after he was raised from the dead by Christ, came to
Cyprus where he became the first bishop of the See of Kitium. The
empty tomb, in which the relics of the saint were covered, has
been preserved and may be seen in the floor of the bema."
("Aphrodite's Realm," Robin Parker, p.108 )
When the author visited the tomb of Lazarus in Cyprus, the
Greek priest there explained that the body of Lazarus had
sometime in the past been moved to Marseilles in France. He did
not seem to know the details nor the date. It is probable, as
Patsides said, that the bones of Lazarus were indeed removed from
Constantinople in the 9th century and taken to Marseilles. The
relics have since disappeared from Marseilles, but there is some
documentation that at one time they were there.
So firm indeed is the tradition that it opens a question as
to whether Lazarus might not have traveled from Cyprus to
Marseilles and have ministered there? This is not to say he could
not also have eventually returned to Cyprus and died there, but
there is more than a little indication that Lazarus spent some
time preaching in Marseilles. Knowing the typical moving about of
those who lived in the Apostolic Age, one can scarcely raise a
serious objection to Lazarus having ministered in Cyprus, as did
Paul and Barnabas, and then having gone on to Marseilles. But, it
is also not impossible that he may have returned to Cyprus to
retirement and death.
Later his bones were most surely removed to Constantinople,
and still later returned, not to Cyprus but to Marseilles, with
which he had an early association. J.W.Taylor, who is a
fascinating writer, describes the story of Lazarus in Marseilles
as follows:
"If you land at Marseilles and go by the Quai de Ia Joliette to
the bottom of the Rue do la Cannaiere, and then take any of the
lower turnings on the right, you will find that you are skirting
the older quay of Marseilles, and that as you bear again to the
right and follow the Rue Saints at some little height above the
sea, directly in front of you, on an eminence, is the old church
of St.Victor.
"It has rather the appearance of some old dungeon or fortress
than that of a church, but the church you enter is only of
secondary importance. It conceals something far more interesting
underneath it. A door on the south side of the nave leads down to
a subterranean church, large and lofty, which dates from the
fourth Century. This was built by the Cassianite monks, and from
its position has been untouched and could not well be destroyed
through all the centuries since.
"All this vast fourth-century church has been visibly built
around a still older natural cave or grotto known as the original
first-century church or refuge of St.Lazarus.
"Near the entrance to this is a carving of vine-leaves dating
from the fourth century, and grouped near are old chapels
dedicated to St. ssian, St.Victor and other saints. The bodies of
the saints, however, have been removed. Two sarcophagi stones,
said to date from the second century, were too solid to be rifled
of their contents and still remain.
"The great height of this underground abbey church, its darkness,
its stillness, the few scattered but perfect round pillars
supporting the roof, and the first-centiury chapel which is
enshrined by it, all combine to produce a picture of early
Christian life and architecture, striking and irresistible.
"No explanation that I know of has been, or can be, offered other
than that offered by tradition - that here was the place where
Lazarus of Bethany lived preached and ministered and died, and
that therefore within some two hundred or three hundred years
afterwards this church was built in honour of his menory and to
enshrine his body which was then present here.
"And all through the ages ever since this faith has been firmly
held, and lives as strong today as ever. If we come back from the
crypt or subterranean church into the (upper) church of St.
Victor, at the west end of the nave, under the organ-loft, we
find a life-sized statue of St.Lazarus, his left hand holding
the crosier, his face upturned to heaven, and underneath the
statue two pieces of stone removed from the old sepulchre at
Bethany out of which our Saviour raised him." ("The Coming of the
Saints," J.W.Taylor, p.188-189)
"Some further reference may be needed to St.Lazarus and to
Restitutus - the man born blind, of St.John's Gospel (John 9).
There was at one time (as we are told by Rabanus) a Life of St.
Lazarus very analogous to that of St.Mary and St.Martha, but
no complete copy of it exists, some fragments only of his "Life"
(which were formerly incorporated in the Office for St.
Lazarus' Day at Marseilles and Autun) Wing been preserved.
"These appear to have been taken from a "Life" which, was written
by the monks of the Abbey at Bethany, a church and monastery
having been erected at Bethany before the ravages of the
Saracens, to guard the tomb from which our Lord was said to have
raised St.Lazarus.
"The extracts, according to Faillon ("Monuments Inedits," vol.
ii, p.114, etc.), read as follows:
"'Tradition states flat St.Lazarus, after the ascension of Jesus
Christ, remained for a time in the company of the Apostles, with
whom he took charge of the Church which was at Jerusalem. After
this he went to the Island of Cyprus in order to escape from the
persecution which arose about Stephen. [This would indicate an
earlier date for Lazarus having come to Cyprus than A.D.60. -
ED.]
"'Having filled there for several years the office of a
missionary priest, he entered into a ship, and traversing the
sea, by the grace of God arrived at Marseilles, the most
celebrated town of Provence. Here, exercising the functions of
his priesthood, he served God, to whom he had entirely
consecrated his life, in righteousness and true holiness. He
preached the work of Life to those who had not yet received it,
and gained many converts to Jesus Christ ... We, who occupy his
old house at Bethany--that is to say, his former tomb - and
perform our religious duties at the place of his first
interment, humbly pray to Jesus Christ, by the merit of St.
Lazarus, our patron and His own especial friend, that He would
deign to lead us by His goodness, so that we may rejoice in His
help during this present life and be associated with Him in the
joys of eternal life hereafter.'" (Ibid., p.121-22)
"There is no doubt that this tradition, much as it is given in
the Life of Rabanus, was accepted by the whole Latin Church for
over a thousand years. For proof of this we have only to turn to
the Breviary of St.Martha's Day, July 29th. There we find a
lection for the second nocturne which tells how Mary, Martha and
Lazarus, with their servant Marcella, and Maximin, one of the
seventy-two disciples, were seized by the Jews, placed in a boat
without sails or oars, and carried safely to the port of
Marseilles. Moved by this remarkable fact, the people of the
neighbouring lands were speedily converted to Christianity;
Lazarus became bishop of Marseilles, Maziminus of Aix, Mary lived
and died an anchoress on a high mountain of those parts, while
Martha founded a convent of women, died on the fourth day before
the kalends of August, and was buried with great honour at Tara-
scon. [The date of this tradition is not the first or second
century since a reference to an elder as a "priest", or to Mary
as an "Anchoress" is at the earliest, 3rd century. - ED.]
"The oratory and cathedral at Arles (1152), which commemorates
St.Trophimus - the Church of St.Martha at Tarascon (1187-1192),
and the crypt of the old Abbey of St.Victor at Marseilles,
dating from the fourth century, which forms a lasting memorial to
St.Lazarus, all hear witness to the faith and devotion of those
who built them. (Ibid., p.106-107)
"Roger de Hovedon (730-1200) in his third volume dealing with
events which happened between 1170 and 1192, gives a good
description of Marseilles, and writes:
"'Marseilles is an episcopal city under the dominion of the King
of Arragon. Here are the relics of St.Lazarus, the brother of
St.Mary Magdalene and Martha, who held the bishopric here for
seven years after Jesus had restored him from the dead.' ("Roger
de Hovedon," edited by W.Stubbs:, Longmans, 1868, vol. iii, p.
51)
"Another is from old Church literature. In 1040, in the bull of
Benedict IX (relative to the establishment of the Abbey of St.
Victor, at Marseilles, after the expulsion of the Saracens), we
find the history of the foundation of the Abbey of St.Victor in
the time of the Emperor Antonine, of its building by St.Cassien,
and of its enshrining the sufferings and relies of St.Victor, his
companions, Hermes and Adrian, and St.Lazarus, who was restored
from the dead by Jesus Christ.'" (Ibid., p.108)
"The ancient church records and Lyons confirm the same facts:
"'Lazarus returned to Gaul from Britain to Marseilles, taking
with him Mary Magdalene and Martha. He was the first appointed
Bishop. He died there seven years later.'
"He was the first Bishop of Marseilles and built the first
church, on the site where the present cathedral stands. In the
few years, he lived to teach at Marseilles he founded other
churches. His zealous preaching and kindly disposition left a
deep impress in Gaul, to such an extent that he is better
remembered in France than is Philip, regardless of the
latter's long sojourn in Gaul. In many quarters he is regarded as
the Apostle of Gaul and his relics are greatly treasured to this
day. At Marseilles, Lyons, Aix, St.Maximin, La Sainte Baume and
other places there still remain numerous monuments, liturgries,
relies and traditions to his immortal memory. He was the first of
the original Bethany band associated with Joseph to die. As the
records state, he died a natural death seven years after
returning to Marseilles ... which would place the date of his
death between A.D.44 and 45." ("The Drama of the Lost Disciples,'
George F. Jowett, p.163,164)
The dates suggested above are not compatible with the other
traditions, which have greater acceptance among students of
tradition.
The information furnished by Taylor and Jowett is not
generally accepted by church historians but since it contains
some valuable documentation not to be easily found elsewhere, the
above is quoted for what it may be worth.
Whatever else may be true, the very least of what may be
said about Lazarus is that he is firmly associated with both
Cyprus and Marseilles, France.
...................
To be continued
Search for the Apostles
The Apostle Paul
by the late illiam Steuart McBirnie Ph.D.
OTHER THAN THE TWELVE
PAUL
This NOTED Apostle, while he was not one of the Twelve, nor
could he possibly be described as a sub-Apostle, is in a specail
class and both deserves and has received adequate coverage in
terms of his biography. Almost all theological libraries have
full and complete biographies of St.Paul and there is no reason
to repeat here what is so readily available elsewhere.
We shall, present only those traditions about St.Paul which
are not commonly known, or which are not dealt with adequately in
the standard biographies.
ST.PAUL IN PETRA
The fact that St.Paul went to Arabia after his escape from
Damascus is attested in Galatians 1:17. There is a very real
possibility that the "Arabia" mentioned is that area far to the
south of Amman, Jordan, that had as its chief city, Petra. This
was the capitol city of King Aretus who significantly is
mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:32. It is difficult to
imagine St.Paul spending time in Arabia Petrea (as it was known)
without staying in the glorious city of Petra itself. It was the
only city worthy of the name at that time in an otherwise barren
desert area. Here he re-ceived from Jesus Christ, he said, those
special revelations of the gospel of grace which gave such
freedom and power to the churhes he organized.
PAUL IN SPAIN
In his letter to the Romans, St.Paul indicated an intention
to visit Rome "on his way to Spain," (Romans 15:28), but his
first imprisonment prevented that. If he was released after his
first trial he may well have gone there and beyond. Why should he
have wanted to go to Spain? Because it was the westernmost
portion of Europe and there were colonies of Jews there. Some
were slaves, imprisoned as political prisoners by Herod Antipas.
The Epistle of Clement and the Muratori Fragment both imply
this possibility and assert that St.Paul visited Spain. Eusebius
mentions, as Sir William Ramsey also points out, a gap in the
life of St.Paul between A.D.61 and 65. In this time he could have
gone to Spain and elsewhere as well.
"The Acts, however, of all the Apostles are written in one book,
Luke, to the most excellent Theophilus, includes events because
they were done in his own presence, as he also plainly shows by
leaving out the passion of Peter, and also the departure of Paul
from the City on his journey to Spain." ("A New Eusebius," J.
Stevenson, p.145
One great authoritative biography, "The Life and Epistles of
the Apostle Paul," by Conybeare and Howson, which is as widely
accepted a biography of St.Paul as any, emphatically asserts that
St.Paul did indeed go to Spain, spending at least two years
there, (p.679).
ST. PAUL IN ROME
The Apostle's first imprisonment was really not a stay in a
prison as such. Rather, Acts 28 tells that Paul lived two years
in his own house, ministering to all who came to see him, of whom
there must have been many. After his release, travels and second
arrest he was placed in the Mamertine Prison, a grim building
which still exists, that was constructed for political prisoners
a hundred years before St.Paul's incarceration there.
"St.Paul was sent to Rome in the second year of Nero, [i.e. A.D.
56], in which date agree Bede, Ivo, Freculphus Platina, Saliger,
Capellus, Cave., Stillingfleet, Alford, Godwin De Proesulibus,
Rapin, Bingham, Stanhope, Warner, Trapp. We believe this to be
the true date. ("St.Paul in Britain, Rev.R.W.Morgan, p.60)
"The evidence on this subject, though (as we have said) not
copious, is yet conclusive so far as it goes; and it is all way.
"The most important portion of it is supplied by Clement, the
disciple of Paul mentioned in Phil.iv.3, who was afterward bishop
of Rome. This author, writing from Rome to Corinth, expressly
asserts that Paul had preached the gospel IN THE EAST AND IN THE
WEST, that he had instructed the whole world [i.e. the Roman
empire, which was commonly so called] in righteousness,' and that
he 'had gone to THE EXTREMITY OF THE WEST before his martyrdom.
"Now, in a Roman author the 'extremity of the' West could mean
nothing short of Spain, and the expression is often used by Roman
writers to denote Spain. Here, then, we have the express
testimony of Paul's own disciple that he fulfilled his original
intention (mentioned Rom.xv.24-28) of visiting the Spanish
peninsula, and consequently that he was liberated from his first
imprisonment at Rome.
"The next piece of evidence which we possess on the subject is
contained in the canon of the New Testament, compiled by an
unknown Christian about the year A.D.170, which is known as
Muratori's Canon. In this document it is said in the account of
the Acts o f the Apostles that 'Luke relates to Theophilus events
of which he was an eye-witness, as also, in a separate, place
(semote) [viz. Luke xxii. 31-33], he evidently declares the
martyrdom of Peter, but (omits) THE JOURNEY OF PAUL FROM ROME TO
SPAIN.
"In the next place, Eusebius tells us, 'After defending himself
successfully, it is currently reported that the Apostle again
went forth to proclaim the gospel, and afterward came to Rome a
second time, and was martyred under Nero.'
"Next we have the statement of Chrysostom, who mentions it as an
udoubted historical fact that 'Paul after his residence in Rome
departed to Spain.'
"About the same fime Jerome bears the same testimony, saying that
'Paul was dismissed by Nero, that he might preach Christ's gospel
in the West.'
"Against this unanimous testimony of the primitive Church there
is no external evidence whatever to oppose. Those who doubt the
liberation of Paul from his imprisonment are obliged to resort to
a gratuitous hythesis or to inconclusive arguments from
probability." ("Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul,"
Conybeare and Howson, p.679-680)
One great authoritative biography, "The Life and Epistles of
the Apastle Paul," by Conybeare and Howson, which is as widely
accepted a biography of St.Paul as any, emphatically asserts that
St.Paul did indeed go to Spain, spending at least two years
there:
"St. Jerome tells us:
"It ought to be said that at the first defence, the power of Nero
having not yet been confirmed, nor his wickedness broken forth to
such a degree as the histories relate concerning him, Paul was
dismissed by Nero, that the gospel of Christ might be preached
also in the West. As he himself writes in the second epistle to
Timothy, at the time when he was about to be put to death,
dictating his epistle as he did while in chains; 'At my first
defence no one took my part, but all forsook me: may it not be
laid to their account. But the Lord stood by me and strengthened
me; that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and
that all the Gentiles might hear, and I was delivered out of the
mouth of the lion'--clearly indicating Nero as a lion
account of his cruelty .... He then, in the fourteenth year of
Nero on the same day with Peter, was beheaded at Rome for
Christ's sake and was buried in the Ostian Way, the
twenty-seventh year after our Lord's passion." ("The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers" Jerome, p.363)
Some details may be available regarding the place of
residence of St.Paul in Rome during his first visit: "Baronius
has the following note upon the Titulus: -- 'It is delivered to
us by the firm tradition of our forefathers that the house of
Pudens was the first that entertained St.Peter in Rome, and that
there the Christians assembling formed the Church, and that of
all our churches the oldest is that which is called after the
name of Pudens.'" ("St.Paul in Britain," Rev.R.W. Morgan, p.59)
"That the palace of Claudia was the home of the Apostles in Rome
appears agreed upon by all ecclesiastical historians - even
Robert Parsons, the Jesuit, admits. 'Claudia was the first
hostess or harbourer both of St.Peter and St.Paul at the time of
their coming to Rome.' See Parsons' T"hree Conversions of
England,' vol. i. p.16." (Ibid.)
George F.Jowett broadens our knowledge of the historically
based traditions of St.Paul in Rome when he writes:
"Yet we can still turn to the pages of the Martyrologies of Rome,
The Greek Menologies and the Martyrologies of Ado, Usuard and
Esquilinus, and therein read their glorious stories, noting the
Natal Days of each, therein described.
"They are as follows:
"May 17. Natal Day of the Blessed Pudens, father of Praxedes and
Pudentiana. He was clothed with Baptism by the Apostles, and
watched and kept his robe pure and without wrinkle to the crown
of a lameless life.
"May 17. Natal Day of St. Pudentiana, the virgin, of the most
illustrious descent, daughter of Pudens, and Disciple of the Holy
Apostle St.Paul.
"June 20. Natal Day of St. Novatus, son of the Blessed Pudens,
brother of St.Timotheus the Elder and the Virgins of Christ,
Pudentiana and Praxedes. All these were instructed in the faith
by the Apostles." ("The Drama of the Lost Disciples," George F.
Jowett, p.130)
"The most authentic record of which can still be seen and read is
on the wall of the ancient former Palace of the British, the
sanctified church of St.Pudentiana. The Memorial was carved on
its walls following the execution of Praxedes in the second
century, the last surviving member of the original Christian band
and the youngest daughter of Claudia and Pudens.
"Inscribed in these few words is told the noble, tragic story:
"'In this sacred and most ancient of churches, known as that of
Pastor (Hermas), dedicated by Sanetus Pius Papa (St.Paul),
formerly the house of Sanctus Pudens, the Senator, and the home
of the holy Apostles, repose the remains of three thousand
blessed martyrs which Pudentiana and Praxedes, virgins of Christ,
with their own hands interred.'" (Ibid., p.128 )
"The Martyrologies inform us that the Pudens, after retrieving
the body of Paul, interred it on their estate on the Via Ostiensa
road. We know from the historic records of the Emperor
Constantine, first Christian Emperor of Rome, that he, knowing
where the mutilated body of Paul lay, caused it to be excavated.
He had it placed in a stone coffin, and over the spot built a
church, still known as St.Paul's without-the-walls, meaning the
church and his body are outside the city walls of Rome. The
original church perished and a larger one was built on the site.
Fire destroyed this in 1823. In the present church built after
the fire, but still bearing its ancient name, a Benedictine
priest is ever on guard before a grille on the floor of the High
Altar. On occasion, for the benefit of special visitors, the
priest moves the grille, lowering a light through the floor into
a cell beneath, revealing to the eyes a crude slabstone on the
floor bearing the name 'Pauli.'"
Ibid., p.179,180)
There are no competing traditions for another place of
martyrdom for St.Paul than Rome. The book of Acts certainly
leaves St.Paul in Rome. An interval between his first and final
imprisonments there is clearly indicated and attested by the
early Church fathers.
It is equally clear that Constantine erected a church
building over the place where he reburied St.Paul, and the relics
of the body of the Apostle seem certainly to have been placed in
the crypt under the altar of St.Paul's outside-the-Walls on the
Ostian Way, not too far from the place of his martyrdom at Tre
Fontana.
"According to tradition, St. Paul, who suffered mardom on a site
known as the Aquae Salviae, now the Abbey of the Three Fountains,
was buried in praedio Lucanae, that is to say, in a little
cemetery beside the Ostian Way, about one thousand paces from the
gate of the same name. A 'cella memoriae' was probably erected
over his tomb. Constantine transformed these 'cellae memoriae'
of the Apostles Peter and Paul into basilicas; the Liber
Pontificalis, in fact, records that the emperor 'fecit basilicam
S ancto Paulo Apostolo cuius corpus recondidit et conclusit in
arca sicut Sancti Petri.'
"Pope Sylvester I is said to have consecrated the church on the
same day on which the basilica of St.Peter was consecrated, on
November 18th, 324. In the Acts of St.Sylvester rich donations
made to the church by Constantine are also recorded; the first
church was probably quite small and faced on to the Ostian Way.
"In 386 an imperial edict of Valentinianus II, Theodosius and
Arcadius to the prefect of Rome stated that the church was to be
enlarged, in accordance with the sanctity of the site, the
concourse of pilgrims and their devotion. It added that the new
church 'si placuerit tam populo quam Senatui' was to be extended
towards the plain rather than towards the nearby slope. The
construction was entrusted to a certain Ciriades known as the
'mechanicus' or 'Professor of mechanicus,' who built a church
with five aisles, eighty columns and a huge porch, probably
similar to that of the ancient basilica of St.Peter. The church
was consecrated by Pope Siricius in 390. It was finished,
according to the inscription on the triumphal arch, whose mosaic
ornament was commissioned and paid for by Galla Placidia, under
Honorius in 395 and restored by Pope Leo the Great, after it had
been damaged either by an earthquake or by fire. An incription
mentiones the restorations carried out under Pope Leo the Great
by the priest Felix and the deacon Adeodatus, and another records
important works commissioned by a certain Eusebius." ("St.Paul's
Outside the Walls of Rome," Cecilia Pericoli Ridolfini, p.3)
Mary Sharp presents the Catholic version of the death of St.
Paul:
"The history of St.Paul is fully recorded in the New Testament
(except for his visit to Spain which is implied by the Epistle of
Clement and asserted in the Muratori fragment and legend has
added little to it. It is believed that he was martyred outside
the Ostian Gate on the same day that St.Peter was crucified, and
that when his head was struck off it bounced three times on the
ground and at each place a fountain of water sprang up, the first
hot, the second warm and the third cold. The spot is still
venerated as the 'Tre Fontane,' and the fountains remain, though
there is little difference in temperature. He was originally
buried on the Via Ostian where the basilica of St.Paul-outside-
the-Walls nnow stands. When the Christian tombs were threatened
with desecration in the Valerian persecution, it is said that the
bodies of SS Paul and Peter were taken, on 29th June 258, to a
place called 'Ad Catacumbtas' on the Appian Way. If this was so,
the body of St.Paul was later returned to its original place, but
but his head, along with that of St.Peter, was taken to the
basilica of St.John Lateran." ("A Traveller's Guide to Europe,"
Mary Sharp, p.173 )
ST. PAUL IN ENGLAND?
The idea that St.Paul and other Apostles may have visited
and ministered in England does not find much serious
consideration or even interest among most church historians. They
may be quite right, but there is too much evidence of at least
the bare possibility of Apostolic journeys there for serious
scholars to dismiss the whole question out of hand.
(A whole lot of evidence there is that Israel Britain DID receive
the Gospel only early after the start of the NT Church of God in
30 A.D. - Keith Hunt)
The least the questing mind of the scholar can do is to
examine what evidence, tradition and legends do exist and
determine how much, if any validity they might have.
As has been noted before (see the Chapter on St.Simon
Zelotes) Britain was a relatively bighly developed country by the
time the first Phoenicians visited it more than a millennium
before the Apostolic age. Recent discoveries on the Greek
mainland reveal British importance firmly dated 1500 B.C. (see
National Geographic, May 1972, p.707)
(But Briatin was not settled until king Brutus from Troy came
with his people to dwell in Britain. The Trojan people were from
a branch of the House of Judah. Brutus and his people were Jews -
Keith Hunt)
By the Roman period Britain was a land of mines, cities,
roads, schools, government, armies with advanced technology, etc.
Seneca, the mentor of Nero, made large investments in Britain
during the early Apostolic age. Why should some of the Apostles
not have traveled there? They certainly went to many other
equally distant and strange places, such as Russia, India and the
Balkan countries,
This writer while in Bath, England, purchased in 1971 a
silver coin of Nero found in the Roman baths, at Bath. The
existence of such firm evidence assures us that Roman
civilization, as evidenced by its coinage, had spread widely in
Britain well before the climax of the age of Apostolic labours.
Such a find does not prove that the Apostles, or even Christians,
were in England at that time, but it is beyond cavil that such a
thing was entirely possible.
"'From, India to Britain,' writes St. Jerome (A.D.378), 'all
nations resound with the death and resurrection of Christ'."
(Jerome, "In Isaiam," c. liv.: also, "Epistol.," xiii. ad
Paulinum.)
"In A.D.320, Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, speaks of Apostolic
missions to Britain as a matter of notoriety: 'The Apostles
passed beyond the ocean to the isles called the Brittanic
Isles'." (Eusebius, "De Demon-stratione Evangelii," lib. iii, as
quoted in "St.Paul in Britain," Rev. R.W.Morgan, p.108)
The Rev.R.W.Morgan also writes:
"'There are six years of St.Paul's life to be accounted for,
between his liberation from his first imprisonment and his
martyrdom at Aquae Salviae in the Ostian Road, near Rome. Part
certainly, the greater part perhaps, of this period was spent in
Britain, in Siluria or Cambria, beyond the bounds of the Roman
Empire; and hence the silence of the Greek and Latin writers upon
it.'" ("St.Paul in Britain," Morgan, p.175)
Perhaps the enthusiasts for this interpretation of history
go too far.
(Not at all too far, it's just that so-called "scholars" do not
want to know the truth about Britain, and why some of the
apostles were swift to go there and preach the Gospel. Britain
was part of the "Lost House of Israel" - Keith Hunt)
Their supporting quotations range from the early church
fathers to the lesser known modern writers in Christian history.
These are examples of both:
"Eloquently St.Clement sums up the magnitude of the achievements
of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Being one of the original Bethany
band that dwelt at Avalon with Joseph, he knew St.Paul
intimately, and long before he followed in the office of his
beloved friend Linus, as Bishop of Rome. He writes:
" To leave the examples of antiquity, and to come to the most
recent, let us take the noble examples of our own times. Let us
place before our eyes the good Apostle, Peter, through unjust
odium, underwent not one or two, but many sufferings; and having
undergone his martyrdom, he went to the place of glory to which
he was entitled. Paul, also, having seven times worn chains, and
been hunted and stoned, received the prize of such endurance. For
he was the herald (of the Gospel in the West as well as in the
East), and enjoyed the illustrious reputation of the faith in
teaching the whole world to be righteous. And after he had been
in the extremity of the West, he suffered martyrdom before the
sovereigns of mankind; and thus delivered from this world, he
went to his holy place, the most brilliant example of
steadfastness that we possess.'"
'Extremity of the West' was the term used to indicate Britain.
"Capellus, in 'History of the Apostles,' writes:
"'I know scarcely of one author from the time of the Fathers
downward who does not maintain that St.Paul, after his
liberation, preached in every country of the West, in Europe,
Britain included.'" ("The Drama o f the Lost Disciples," George
F. Jawett, p.196)
However there is more solid evidence for an early Christian
tradition of Apostolic evangelism in Britain -- possibly that of
St.Paul.
"TERTULLIAN, A.D. 155-222, the Early Father, the first great
genius after the Apostles among Christian writers, writing in
A.D.192, said: 'The extremities of Spain, the various parts of
Gaul, the regions of Britain, which have never been penetrated by
the Roman Arms, have received the religion of Christ.'"
(Tertullian, :Def. Fidei," p.179)" ("St.Joseph of Arimathea at
Glastonbury," Rev. Lionel Smithett Lewis, pp.129,130)
"ORIGEN, another Early Father (A.D.185-254), wrote:
"'The divine goodness of Our Lord and Saviour is equally diffused
among the Britons, the Africans, and other nations of the world."
(Ibid)
"ST. CLEMENT speaks of Paul going to 'the extremity of the West,
then returning to Rome and suffering martyrdom before the
sovereigns of mankind.'
"Jerome and Chrysostom refer to Paul travelling to the extreme
West and Theodore, the Syrian bishop of the fifth century, tells
us that he 'preached Christ's Gospel to the Britons and others in
the West'
"Even the Pope, wishing to please some important British
visitors, in 1931, 'Advanced the theory that if was St.Paul
himself, and not Pope Gregory, who first introduced Christianity
into Britain'. We hailed that piece of news reported in The
Morning Post, of March 27, with delight. We knew the truth, but
here was the Pope voicing it too, an unprecedented event" ("Our
Neglected Heritage, The Early Church," Gladys Taylor, p.67)
(The truth of the matter concerning the introduction of
Christianity into Britain can be found in-depth in various other
studies on this Website - Keith Hunt)
WHAT WAS THE APPEARANCE OF ST. PAUL?
There is absolutely no proof of how any Biblical
personalities looked in their person except for a few Caesars
whose coins and statues survive. However, a study of St.Paul has
been made and some interesting concepts have developed. For
example, Boyce W. Blackwelder has penned the following:
"The apocryphal 'Acts of Paul and Thecla,' written in the third
century, has a portraiture of Paul which describes him as 'of a
low stature, bald (or shaved on the head, crooked thighs,
handsome legs, hollow eyed; had a crooked nose; full of grace;
for sometimes he appeared as a man, sometimes he had the
countenance of an angel.' (1:7)
"This is the earliest description of Paul's features which we
have in Christian literature. Callan says, 'In the fourth century
Paul is ridiculed in the Philopatris of the Pseudo-Lucian as the
bald-headed, hooknosed Galilean who trod the air into the third
heaven and learned the most beautiful things.' (Philopat. 12)
Cone notes that John of Antioch, writing in the sixth
century, preserves the tradition that Paul was 'round shouldered,
with a sprinkling of gray on his head and beard, with an aquiline
nose, grayish eyes, meeting eyebrows, with a mixture of pale and
red in his complexion ...'
"Scholars generally agree that the traditional view regarding
Paul's personal appearance is correct. HoIzner speaks of 'the
small, emaciated figure of the man from Tarsus! Giordani
describes Paul as 'small of stature and all nerves;' a man
'infirm in health' with 'a miserable physique.' He depicts Paul
'with his sore eyes' as a sight 'repulsive! Shaw, as quoted by
Callan, speaks of Paul's 'insignificant stature, his marred vi-
lion, his weak and often distorted frame.' Stalker observes that
Paul appears to have been small of stature, and that his bodily
presence was weak. He says 'This weakness seems to have been
sometimes aggravated by disfiguring disease.'
"Callan writes:
'St.Paul, according to the persistent tradition of the Church,
was anything but commanding and beautiful in his physical
appearance. Glimpses, doubtless, of the great soul within could
be caught now and then, or frequently by his friends, as sunbeams
are seen through openings in prison walls; but for all that the
bodily make-up of the man was homely and poor.'
"The idea that Paul was of inferior stature may, in some
respects, be confirmed in references gleaned from his own
writings. In Second Corinthians 10:10, Paid quotes what his
opponents said of him to the effect that 'his letters ... are
weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his
speech contemptible.' Probably this was not a groundless
statement, for even Paul's opponents would hardly dare to speak
thus of him in one of his congregations without a basis in fact.
"What about Paul's health? Scholars hold opposite opinions with
regard to this question. Some biographers are sure that Paul must
have been exceptionally robust or he could not have endured the
rigors of missionary work over a vast area for a period of
approximately thirty years. Craig says, 'A man who could trudge
mountain and valley day after day, endure shipwreck and
imprisonment, hardship and persecution, was no weakling.'
"Other authorities, on the contrary, are convinced that Paid was
physically weak and frail throughout his life. Callan, following
Hayes, thinks Paul was a chronic invalid, but that God's grace
was upon the Apostle in such measure that physical deficiencies
were overcome.
"If Paul did not have a hardy appearance, this must have been a
difficult problem for him when he worked among peoples of the
Greek tradition which held that a vigorous body was essential to
a normal personality.
"There is no question but what the painful bodily sufferings
which Paul endured (cf. 2 Cor.11:23-27) left lasting physical
effects (Gal.6:17; 2 Cor.4:10). There must have been terrible
scarmarks remaining from the scourgings, and from the stoning at
Lystra which was so severe that the perpetrators thought Paul had
been killed (Acts 14:19)." ("Toward Understanding Paul," Boyce W.
Blackwelder, p.15-17)
(Well brethren, friends, and "scholars" I've got news for you. It
makes NO DIFFERENCE what Paul looked like from whatever
weaknesses of the flesh, or physical trials he went through, the
Eternal Holy One used him to do a work few ever did, and further
more, used him to write 14 whole books of the New Testament. And
further to that, he will one day, in the resurrection, have a
PERFECT HOLY GLORIFIED BODY, as all the children of God will -
Keith Hunt)
ST. PAUL AND THE WRITINGS OF ST. LUKE
Eusebius has an interesting observation about the
relationship of these two great Apostolic figures:
"....But at some he was present, and so he set them down.
The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, was
compiled in his own name on Paul's authority by Luke the
physician, when, after Christ's ascension, Paul had taken him to
be with him like a legal expert. Yet neither did he see the Lord
in the flesh; and he too, as he was able to ascertain events,
begins his story from the birth of John." ("A New Eusebius," J.
Stevenson, p.144)
......................
NOTE:
So we end the book by McBirnie, who spent years in researching
where the Twelve Apostles and others like Paul, went to, in
preaching and teaching the Gospel of Christ to Israelites and the
Gentiles.
They did indeed go forth and did as it was written of them, "turn
the world upside down."
So it is for us, in this last age (as for them in the first age)
to go forth and turn the world upside down and inside out, with
the truths of our Lord.
It's time, to be ZEALOUS in doing the work of God, while it is
day, for the night comes when no person can work. The Eternal has
said His Word will go forth and not return until Him void. That
time is NOW, for it is also written, that the day will come when
people will look for the Word of God, and will not find it.
YOU, need to APPRECIATE and LOVE and HUNGER for TRUTH and
RIGHTEOUSNESS, for to you it is at present made freely available.
That WEALTH of the Word of Truth and Light is on this BLOG.
Keith Hunt
June 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment