It has been a pleasure over the last 40 years of my life (as I
enter this I am 65 years old - 2007) to have found certain books
that I consider are "gems" in one way or another. It is a
pleasure to bring you one of those books - "The Search for the
Twelve Apostles" by William Steuart McBirnie, Ph.D
The book is "old" - finished in 1973. It is fasinating and took
much time and effort to compile and put into print.
Jesus told His 12 desciples to "Go not into the way of the
Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter you not: BUT
GO unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Mat.10:6,7;
15:24).
What the following book does is show you WHERE much of the so-
called "lost" house of Israel was dwelling in the first century
A.D.
It is fitting I enter this book on the Website AFTER the New
Testament Bible Story - it is in many ways the continuation of
the first century Church of God, via the 12 apostles, in obeying
Jesus' command to go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel,
which James said were "scattered abroad" (James 1:1).
The combined PREFACE and INTRODUCTION to this book is LONG and
LENGTHY, but I find it is important to bring you the WHOLE book
by McBirnie - Keith Hunt
The High Adventure of Some Kinds of Research
(A Preface)
In seeking the information contained in this book, my search
for the stories of the Twelve Apostles took me to many famous
libraries such as those in Jerusalem, Rome, and that of the
British Museum in London. For years I have borrowed or purchased
every book I could find on the subject of the Twelve Apostles. A
five-foot shelf cannot hold them all.
Three times I have journeyed to the island of Patmos and to
the locations of the Seven Churches of the Book of the
Revelation. One whole (and fruitless) day was given to a
backroads journey into the high, snowy mountains of Lebanon, up
among the famous Cedars and elsewhere, to check out a rumor that
St. Jude had originally been buried in some small Lebanese
village nearby. He was not.
I have personally viewed the many sepulchres which reputedly
contain the bones of the Twelve; not that I consider them as
having spiritual value, but because I wanted to learn, as an
historian, how they came to be where they are, hoping that local
tradition could be found in the places where the bones are
interred that had escaped the history books. This search took me
from Trier, Germany, to Rome, Greece, and to almost every Middle
Eastern country.
The Vatican very graciously granted me special permission to
photograph in all the churches in Rome and elsewhere in Italy.
Some of the bodies or fragments of the bodies of the Apostles are
preserved in that historic land.
Particularly memorable was the awesome descent far beneath
St. Peter's Basilica to photograph the bones of the Apostle Peter
where they rest in an ancient Roman pagan cemetery. One simply
cannot imagine, without seeing it, so vast and heavy a church
building as St. Peter's sitting squarely over a cemetery filled
with beautifully preserved family tombs dating back to the first
century before Christ!
Seven times I went to Petra in Jordan, and three times to
Antioch in Turkey. I also visited Babylon and made four journeys
to Iran in search of the history of the Apostles' missions there.
Of course, there were some disappointments. For example, the body
of St. John is today nowbere to be found. I entered his tomb in
Ephesui long ago. Recently after many centuries of neglect, the
authorities have sealed it and covered it with a marble floor.
Though St. John's body has disappeared some parts of the bones of
all the other Apostles are believed to exist, and I have seen
them.
Travelers to the "Bible Lands" so often pass within a few
yards of genuine relics of the Apostles and never know it. I had
made twenty-six journeys to Jerusalem before learning that the
head of St. James the Elder, several arm bones of James the just,
and part of the skull of John the Baptist are held in veneration
in two churches therel And, I might add, with some strong
historical records as to their authenticity.
This is not, however, a book about bones! It is about living
people who were described by St. Paul as the Founders of the
churches (See Ephesians 2:19, 20). We are interested in Apostolic
bones because they are possible clues as to the whereabouts of
the ministry and places of martyrdom of the Twelve.
Now let me face head-on a typically Protestant attitude of
skepticism concerning Apostolic remains in churches and shrines.
I used to suppose that these so called "relics" were pious
frauds, the result of the fervid and superstitious piety of the
Middle Ages. Perhaps some are, but after one approaches the whole
question with a skeptical mind, and then, somewhat reluctantly,
is forced to admit to the strong possibility of their
genuineness, it is an unnerving but moving experience.
I suppose the practice of venerating Apostolic bones
is repugnant to one who, as an evangelical Christian, sees no
heavenly merit in praying before the sarcophagi in which they
rest. Besides, it does no good to a literal mind to see the gaudy
and tasteless trappings with which the shrines are usually
festooned.
But the more one reads o£ the history of the Apostles, and
what became of their relics, and the more steeped one becomes in
the history and strange (to us) behavior of our Christian
ancestors in the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene eras, the more the
careful preservation of Apostolic relics seems to be perfectly in
character. To many of those who lived in those times who could
not read, an Apostolic relic was a visual encouragement to faith!
Let it be clearly understood, this book is an adventure in
scholarship, not dogmatism. I am keenly aware that absolute proof
of every detail recorded here is not possible. But when a
researcher checks many sources against each other, when he visits
the places mentioned for himself, and when he finds many new
documents which are not in books, or not commonly found, then he
develops a "feel" for the probable or possible.
This book has been an ever growing labor of love. I became
more emotionally committed to the task as the years progressed.
On several occasions during the laborious research, arduous
journeys, and interminable writing and rewriting, I have had
occasion to compare notes with scholars who have written about
some of the Apostles, and have found not only a gracious
willingness to discuss my conclusions but to accept some of them
instead of those they had hitherto held.
How does one express an adequate word of appreciation to the
many who were so kind in their cooperation, without whom this
study could not have been completed? My secretary, Mrs. Fred
Pitzer, made this project her own and has saved it from worse
faults than those it still may have. My students at the
California Graduate School of Theology in Glendale have assisted,
and quotations from their research appear often. The same is true
of Mr.and Mrs.Robert Schonborn, and of Dr.Miriam Lamb, who is
head of research for our Center for American Studies. Mrs.
Florence Stonebraker, Betty Davids and Richard Chase assisted,
with Italian translations by Mrs. Marie Placido.
In Jerusalem the libraries of the American School of
Oriental Research, the Coptic Church, the Patriarchate of the
Armenians (Church of St. James), the Ecole Biblique of the
Dominicans, were most helpful in opening their archives for
research. In Rome the full cooperation of Monsignor Falani opened
many otherwise closed doors. How kind they all were, and many
others as well!
Naturally, any errors are not theirs, but mine. Hopefully,
if there are any egregious mistakes, some kind correspondent will
write to me so that any future editions may be corrected.
A final word about the style of this book: At first I thought to
write it for scholars, tearing apart the documentation of every
source quoted. But that makes for so dull a book that I was
afraid few would read it. I found to my dismay that most
"critical" scholars could hardly care less about the
post-Biblical story of the Apostles.
Then, I thought to write it as a narrative with few
quotations and little attention to my sources. But in that case
scholars would ignore the book as having no proper foundation and
being without concern for crittcal and historical problems.
As the Senior Minister of a busy church, I considered writing for
pastors. These ministers might appreciate a homiletical boost for
a series of sermons on the Apostles that might attract the people
we are all trying to persuade to attend the church. I have not
abandoned this approach altogether, but I did not do much
sermonizing in this book.
It even occurred to me that the historical novel might also
provide a viable format. But I tend to think as a historian and
as a preacher, I lack the imagination to write a novel. Besides,
what this book has to offer is analysis, fact and hopefully,
truth.
So the book is in the form of an interpretation or critical
analysis of every bit of knowledge I can find on the subject of
the Twelve Apostles. Mostly I wrote it to become more familiar
myself with the Apostles and to share that knowledge, and some
conclusions drawn from it, with as many people as I can;
scholars, church members, young people, historians, ministers,
and all those who feel as I do, that we need to find ways to make
the Apostolic age become more alive for us today.
I earnestly hope the reader will find it as interesting and
enlightening to read as I found it to write.
William STEUART McBirnie
INTRODUCTION
What follows in this book is that which can be known from an
exhaustive and critical study of the Biblical, historical and
traditional records of the Apostles. The author has tried to
reduce the legendary to the probable or likely, justifying it
with the known historical facts concerning the state of the world
in the first century and the documents of subsequent church
history, local history, and relevant secular writings.
There is a great deal more information about the Apostles
available than the casual student might guess. Ten years ago this
writer produced a mono graph called What Became of the Twelve
Apostles? Ten thousand copies were distributed. In that
publication I made the following observations:
"Someday a critical scholar needs to take a good look at the mass
of legend which has come to us from early medieval times, and
even from the last days of Roman power. He needs to try to
separate the historical germ from the great over-growth of pure
fantasy which one finds in those stories. in a word, a higher
criticism of medieval legends needs to be made, and that
criticism needs to be carried over into early church history.
"I find myself disappointed in the writings of recent church
historians who seem to pass over the era of the early church and
say only what has been said in a hundred other books on church
history written during the past four centuries. It has been so
long since I have seen a new fact in a book of church history
about the Apostolic Age and the Age of the Church Fathers, that I
would be mightily surprised if I saw one! But perhaps someday
someone will find the probable basis of truth amidst the
legendary; and upon this, with perhaps the discovery of new
manuscripts, we shall be able to piece together a better history
than we now possess."
Since no one else seems to have done the work of producing a
critical study of the Twelve, it has become a challenge to me to
do so, for the sake of a renewed interest in the Apostolic church
to which I hope this study can contribute.
The source of our material in that earlier publication was
mostly that obtainable by anyone who would take the trouble to
look into the standard books on the subject, such as church
histories, sermonic literature, encyclopedias, etc., plus the
observations of a few journeys to Rome, Athens and the Holy Land.
But that book was frustratingly limited and incomplete, not
to mention its obvious lack of original research.
Recently, the writer completed his twenty-seventh journey to
the Middle East. Ten years of further study and research have
revealed much light on the lives of the Twelve Apostles. Most of
these insights have come in very small packages, a bit here, a
bit there. Ten years ago I had not even considered writing a
subsequent book to the former monograph, but the importance and
volume of the material since gleaned from the many personal
visits to the places of the ministries and deaths of the
Apostles, plus their burial sites or tombs, has increased the
conviction that this enlarged study must be offered.
Here for the first time in any one volume the preponderance
of information concerning the histories of the Apostles is now
assembled.
No scholar would dare suggest that anything he has written
is the last word on any subject, nor indeed that his writings are
the complete story. Yet these ideals have been the goals toward
which we have moved.
INSIGHTS INTO THE APOSTOLIC AGE
There are several insights which the reader should have
firmly and constantly in mind as the following chapters unfold.
The early Christians did not write history as such.
(1) Interest in the Apostles has waxed and waned in various
periods of Christian history. For that reason at certain times
more information has been available than at others. New
discoveries of historical information are made, then lie dormant
in out of print books until a reawakening of interest at a later
time brings them to light.
At first, in the Apostolic Age, the Apostles themselves and
their converts were too busy making history to bother writing it.
Hence, their records are fragmentary. Further, until the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, history as such was not written at all. Even
The Acts by St.Luke was not a general history but a polemic
written to show the emergence of a Gentile Christian movement
from its Jewish matrix, with divine authority and approval.
Surely St.Luke wanted to defend and validate the ministry of St.
Paul, his mentor. His themes, the Acts of the Holy Spirit, the
inclusion in God's redemption of the Gentiles, the gradually
diminishing role of Jews in the churches, the universality of
Christianity, were all the concerns of Luke. It probably did not
occur to him that he was writing the prime source of church
historyl Hence, to a historian of the early church, Luke is both
the welcome source of his main knowledge and of his despair at
its fragmentary nature.
There were periods of silence in early Christian history.
(2) After Luke and the other Biblical writers (such as St.
Paul who left us a considerable knowledge of early Apostolic
activities) there is for a time, silence. It is as if the
Christian movement were in a tunnel, active, but out of sight for
a period.
This is not as strange as it may seem. First, the early
Christians did not really have a sense of building a movement for
the ages. To them the Return of Christ might well be expected
during their generation. They certainly spoke of it often, so
they must have looked for the Return of Christ daily - at first.
To see this, study carefully the difference in tone between
First and Second Thessalonians. In his First Epistle to the
Thessalonians, Paul seemed to dwell at great length upon the
imminence of the Second Coming. In the Second Epistle he rebukes
those who are over-eager by reminding big readers of certain
events which must precede or accompany the Second Coming.
It was as if he had looked again at the enormous task of
world evangelism and had seen that it would take more than one
generation. It was not that St.Paul last his faith in the Second
Coming, but that he balanced his faith with practicality. In any
case, the early Christian movement was in a tunnel and out of
sight as far as the recording of history is concerned. They were
doing not writing.
The Apostles were not considered prime subjects for
biography by the early Christians.
(3) The Twelve Apostles were important in the thinking of
the early Christians, but were not considered to be more than
leaders, brothers and dearly beloved friends at first. We look
upon them as the founders of churches. It took some time for
their spiritual descendents to see them as the Fathers of the
whole church movement. Their authority at first was in the
anointing of the Holy Spirit, not in ex cathedra pronouncements
on doctrine.
True, the first council of Apostles in Jerusalem gave
authoritarian pronouncements concerning the admittance of the
Gentile converts into the Christian move ment. Yet this did not
seem to have the ecclesiastical authority then that we attach to
it now. We could, in fact, wish there had been more such
pronouncements; say, concerning heresy, forms of church
government, social matters, etc. But there was nothing much that
came collectively from the Apostles. They simply proclaimed
individually what they had heard from Jesus Christ.
As they went forth into various parts of the world they
carried, no doubt, the authority of their Apostolate, but they
were not the church. They founded congregations which were
churches. Ecclesiasticism in the highly organized and
authoritarian forms it later took was almost unknown to them. The
Apostles were evangelists and pastors, not ecclesiastics. Their
histories, then, are the histories of evangelists, not of
preates. History does not deal as much with evangelists as with
rulers. Hence, we have little knowledge about their careers
before or subsequent to the dispersion of the Jerusalem Church in
A.D.69, and by this time most of them had left Jerusalem to go on
their various missions and many had died.
Secular history largely ignored Christianity in the early
centuries.
(4) Almost all history in the first few centuries of the
Christian era which has survived is secular, military or
political. Josephus did not pay much attention to Christianity
though he mentions the death of St.James. Roman history, except
for the writings of Pliny the Younger, hardly notices
Christianity until long after the Apostolic Age. It remains for
churchmen such as Hegesippus and Eusebius to give us further
details of the travels and history of the Twelve.
The early Christians were humble folk, with some exceptions.
Who writes a history of the meek? Therefore we are left with
little information about Christianity in general secular history,
except for valuable insights as to the world in which the
Apostles lived. The average reader, however, would be amazed at
how very much knowledge we do have on that portion of the human
story. Roman history is already well known and more knowledge is
daily pouring in from the archeologists who dig into the
artifacts of that great epic.
To the avid student of Roman affairs the world of the
Apostles is as familiar as the world of a hundred years ago. This
does not itself tell us about the actual story of each Apostle
but it certainly tells us what was possible or even likely, as
well as what was unlikely or impossible.
The Roman world was, during the Apostolic Age, a relatively
safe world in which its citizens traveled widely and often. Read
in the book of Romans, written by Paul in Corinth, the many names
of people whom he knew in Rome, a city which at that time he had
not visited. Read the travels of Cicero, sixty years before
Christ. Recall the Roman invasions of Britain by Caesar, five
decades before the birth of Jesus, and of Claudius in A.D.42.
The Roman Empire was a family of nations with a common
language under the protection of one government, with roads
leading everywhere, from Britain to Africa, from what is now
Russia to France, from India to Spain. St.Paul himself, in the
book of Romans, expressed a desire to evangelize Spain which had
been conquered by Rome long before Caesar took it over in 44 B.C.
In the era of the Apostles there was a wide area of
civilization awaiting them, civilized, united, and tied together
by transportation and tongue. On that vast stage, and beyond it,
we can easily visualize the farflung Apostolic labors. But Roman
historians pretty well ignored Christianity in its early days.
The "Search for the Twelve" was at first political or
ecclesiastical.
(5) Long after the Apostolic Age there arose a conflict
between the Greek and Roman divisions of Christianity as to what
they called "Primacy". The Pope claimed it and so did the leader
of the Eastern churches. An issue, for example, was one of
Christian art. One group, the Romans, used images in the round as
the objects of religious veneration. The Eastern Greeks preferred
ikons; images-on-the-flat. There were other differences,
including the removal of the capital of the Roman Empire from
Rome to Byzantium, but mainly it was a political power struggle
which led to the great schism that divided eastern and western
Christianity, as the Roman Empire itself was divided.
At this time, and even before, as the schism was building,
both sides sought Apostolic identification with their own
religious institutions.
So a great search was made for the relics of the Apostles.
Emperor Constantine wanted to construct what he called, "The
Church of the Twelve Apostles" in Constantinople. In this
structure he intended to house the remains (such as bones or
parts of bodies) of the Apostles. He succeeded in securing the
remains of St.Andrew, and also St.Luke and St.Timothy. (The
latter two, while not of the Twelve, were close to them.)
Apparently Constantine felt he must leave the bones of St.Paul
and St.Peter in Rome though he may have had designs on the bones
of St.Peter."
(The teaching that Peter's bones were in and are in Rome is a
false teaching from the Roman Catholic church. It is not true -
Keith Hunt).
He gladly built a basilica to honor the bones of St.Paul in
Rome. But, one may speculate, the Roman church was also reluctant
to part with the bones of St.Peter. Constantine apparently did
not press the matter, but he built a church over St.Peter's
resting place, hoping perhaps to later move his body to
Constantinople. In any case, he did not live long enough to
collect all the relics of the Apostles for his Church of the
Twelve Apostles. That church building remained
(Constantine celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of his
accession in the summer of 335. Probably the most significant
ceremonies at Rome that year were those accompanying the solemn
translation of the bones venerated as relics of the Apostles St
Peter and St.Paul from the catacombs of St.Sebastian, where they
had been venerated since 258, to the basilicas built to honour
them at the traditional sites of their martyrdoms, at the Vatican
and on the Ostian Way." (Constantine The Great, John Holland
Smith, p 288; also cf. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, vol. 1,
pp.172ff.)
unfurnished except for his own tomb. (Some evidence exists that
he sought to place the Apostles' bodies around him in twelve
niches while his own body would he in the midst as "The 13th
Apostle"!) Eusebius tells the story in "The Last Days of
Constantine."
"All these edifices the emperor consecrated with the desire of
perpetuating the memory of the Apostles of our Saviour before all
men. He had, however, another object in erecting this building
(i.e., the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople): an object
at first unknown, but which afterwards became evident to all. He
had, in fact, made a choice of this spot in the prospect of his
own death, anticipating with extraordinary fervour of faith that
his body would share their title with the Apostles themselves,
and that he should thus even after death become the subject, with
them, of the devotions which should be performed to their honour
in this place, and for this reason he bade men assemble for
worship there at the altar which he placed in the midst. He
accordingly caused twelve coffins to be set up in this church,
like sacred pillars in honour and memory of the apostolic band,
in the centre of which his own was placed, having six of theirs
on either side of it. Thus, as I said, he had provided with
prudent foresight an honourable resting-place for his body after
death, and, having long before secretly formed this resolution,
he now consecrated this church to the Apostles, believing that
this tribute to their memory would be of no small advantage to
his own soul. Nor did God disappoint him of that which he so
ardently expected and desired." (A New Eusebius, J. Stevenson, p.
395)
"Planning the Church of the Apostles, Constantine had dreamed of
resting there forever in the midst of the Twelve, not merely one
of them, but a symbol of, if not a substitute for, their Leader.
During the months of the church's construction, his agents had
been busy in Palestine collecting alleged relies of the apostles
and their companions, to be laid up in the church with his body,
awaiting the general resurrection." (Constantine the Great, John
Holland Smith, pp. 301-302).
"At Easter in A.D.337 the emperor dedicated the Church of the
Holy Apostles in Constantinople, but soon thereafter he was
overcome by a fatal ailment. He visited the baths at Helenopolis
in vain, and then proceeded to confess his sins in the Church of
the Martyrs. At Ancyrona near Nicomedia, he prepared his will,
leaving the empire to his three sons, and in the presence of a
group of local bishops he was baptized by the bishop with whom he
had fought so often, Eusebius of Nicomedia. To this prelate was
entrusted the will, with instructions to deliver it to
Constantius, Caesar of the east. Wearing the white robe of a
neophyte, Constantine died on Pentecost, May 22.
"... Upon Constantius's arrival the coffin was carried to the
Church of the Holy Apostles and placed among the sarcophagi
dedicated to the Twelve. In the presence of a vast throng the
bishops conducted an elaborate funeral with a requiem eucharist.
... His body rested, however, not in any Flavian mausoleum or
with any of the great pagan emperors before him but, by his own
choice, among the memori als of the twelve apostles." (Augustus
to Constantine, Robert M. Grant, p.277).
The project was started but not completed. However, an
official search was made for the locations of the bodies of the
Apostles, and this official search was possibly the precipitating
cause for the inventory which was made for the Apostolic remains
or relics.
After this time there arose the practice of the veneration
of relics. The superstitious awe which these relics evoked was
carried to extremes. The bodies of the Apostles, the bodies of
other "saints", and the various holy relics such as fragments of
"the true cross" came into great demand. Healings were claimed by
merely touching or kissing these relics and naturally they came
to be considered of great value by both the churches and
governments of the Middle Ages.
As for a knowledge of the lives of the Apostles, this
search for relics both helped and harmed a true history. The
major relics, including the bodies or portions of bodies of the
Apostles, give us some hints of the places of the death and
burial and hence by tradition or association, the locale of their
ministries. We perhaps have successfully traced the history of
some of these Apostolic remains or relics in the following
chapters, up to their locations today.
On the other hand we must recognize that some of these
Apostolic relics may not be genuine, since wishful thinking or
simple mistakes may have led the devout of other, less critical
ages than ours, to go astray. This was especially so since there
was great church prestige, political preferment, and often much
money involved in securing what were believed to be genuine
Apostolic relics.
Partisans in the great church schism between the east and
west undoubtedly sought to associate their possession of
Apostolic relics as proof of the blessing of the Apostles and God
upon them, as witness the fact that they had the original and
often miracle-working relics in their exclusive possession.
Fortunately that competition has ebbed with the centuries. In
quite recent times Pope Paul VI has returned to Greece the head
of St.Andrew, to be housed in a new church in the place of his
martyrdom in Patras, Greece, under the care of the Greek Orthodox
Church. This was a highly conciliatory gesture on the part of the
Pope since St.Andrew, having been martyred in Greece, is
meaningful to the Greek Orthodox Church. It reduces by one the
Apostolic relics in Rome, but increases the chances of unity
between Rome and Athens very markedly, for whatever that may
prove to be worth to those involved.
If one can cut through the maze of the history of relics and
trace the presence of fact back to the genuine tradition of
Apostolic associations in the places of their original martyrdoms
and burials, then there is great hope that this may open up the
way to confirm or even discover more light on the histories of
Apostolic labors. This we have here attempted to do where
possible. Admittedly this task and its results are open to
scholarly criticism and interpretation.
The motivations of the Apostles are now more clearly
understood.
(6) One great truth about the Apostles is unassailable. It
has been strengthened by every bit of tradition and history we
have studied. That is, most of the Apostles took seriously the
great commission of Jesus (as recorded in Matthew 28) and went
forth to "Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the world"
to evangelize the nations with the Christian gospel. The story of
the Apostles is thus mainly the story of evangelism in the early
church. They set an example for all subsequent Christians that is
clear, unmistakable and unswerving. They challenged commoners and
kings alike. They did not become salaried ecclesiastics but often
worked with their hands to support themselves, so that by any and
all means they might share the good news in Jesus. Most, like St.
Paul, sought to preach Christ, "not building upon other men's
foundations, but going to the regions beyond."
There was an Apostolic strategy of missions.
(7) The lives of the Apostles, especially that of St.Paul,
reveal an unusual and brilliant concept of missionary strategy.
They always went first to the great cities located on the trade
routes. From these centers their disciples and converts then
traveled out to the towns beyond and there established churches
which in turn established still others. The Apostles knew the
secret of strategic locations and of delegating responsibility to
others, thus multiplying themselves more rapidly than is the case
in many modern missionary enterprises.
THE APOSTLES WERE CHURCHMEN
Above all, they founded congregations. Some modem day
evangelism is so apart from the churches that the churches must
feed the evangelistic effort, rather than for the evangelistic
effort to build the converts firmly into the churches or to give
impetus to new churches. This was never the Apostolic principle,
which is why Apostolic evangelism lasted and some modem
"populist" evangelism soon passes away.
The Apostles enjoined upon their converts the responsibility
to become the church. Surely this is one lesson that needs to be
re-learned today. It was St. Paul who wrote, Jesus loved the
church and gave himself for it (Ephesians 5:25).
WHY THE TWELVE?
The Apostles of Jesus Christ are heroes whose portraits, as
Christians have come to know them, are "larger than life." The
Roman and Greek Catholic bestowal of the title, "Saint", upon
each of the Twelve (and thereafter upon a flood of others) was
partly responsible for making them into demigods. But long before
the time the New Testament was collected into one volume (the
Canon) the figures of the Twelve had assumed commanding respect.
John, in The Revelation of Jesus Christ, speaks of the New
Jerusalem which is to have the names of the Twelve inscribed in
its foundations. (Incidentally, that inclusion settles the issue
of whether Matthias was, after the defection of Judas Iscariot,
truly considered by the other Apostles as one of the Twelve.)
Why did Jesus choose only twelve chief Apostles? Obviously
to correspond to the twelve tribes of Israel. He, Himself, as the
new and eternal high priest, would stand for the priestly
thirteenth tribe, Levi. The function of the Apostles was to bear
witness to the resurrection of Jesus and of His teachings. For
this reason, as the election of Matthias to replace Judas
confirms, an Apostle had to have been long with Jesus and a
witness to his teachings.
Paul stoutly maintained that he also was an Apostle, since
his conversion, call, and instruction came directly from Jesus,
and the signs of an Apostle were his in abundance. Yet there is
no evidence that he was ever admitted to that inner circle of the
original Twelve. Some of the original Twelve probably never did
fully trust him, and even Peter confessed that he did not always
understand "our beloved brother, Paul" (2 Peter 3:15).
THE BOOK OF ACTS AND THE TWELVE
In a most important sense, the book of The Acts of the
Apostles, the earliest Christian book of history, is the story of
how Christianity, at first a sect within Judaism, was opened to
the Gentiles, and how in a short time it became mainly a faith of
the Gentiles. From start to finish, The Acts shows Christianity
as a minority movement among the Jews, soon rejected by most
Jews, becoming Gentilized as the illustrious Paul became the
European leader of the Christian movement. Peter remained for a
time as the most prominent Jewish-Christian leader, but
Christianity after the first century gradually died down among
the Jews.
The Acts carefully records how Peter, obviously at first
against his will, became a grudging Apostle to some Gentiles, yet
all the while endeavoring to keep Christianity as Jewish as
possible. The plan of the book of The Acts is as logically and
carefully laid out as a lawyer's brief. It proves conclusively
that Cluistianity was intended to, and slid, lose its exclusively
Jewish character. It was to be much more than a sect or another
party within Judaism, such as were the Pharisees, Sadducees, or
Essenes.
Those who expect The Acts to be the complete early history
of Christianity are doomed to disappointment. It is that only
incidentally and in a fragmentary way.
Its main argument is that God, Himself, tore Christianity
loose from its Jewish foundations and made it universal. To do
this He used Peter at first, then Paul. The other Apostles played
only incidental roles in the story of The Acts, since it is not a
history of the Apostles but a history of the emergence of Gentile
Christianity.
As valuable and as liberating as this emphasis is, the Bible
student is soon, and perhaps unconsciously, caught up in the
personal ministry of Paul. Peter, though prominent at first, is
later ignored, as The Acts unfolds for the reader the story of
Paul and his friends, Timothy, Luke, Barnabas, Silas and others.
The Acts, having shown Peter and the rest of the Twelve as
having launched the Christian movement, and as having blessed the
admission of believing Gentiles into the churches, then portrays
again and again the fact that only some Jews around the Roman
world accepted Christ. As others rejected Christ, in each
instance Paul is shown as turning to the Gentiles who seemed much
more willing to receive the gospel than the majority of the Jews.
This historical insight is necessary to know if we are to
understand why we have a great deal of information about John and
Peter, and even more about Paul, but know really very little of
the other Apostles.
Roman and Greek Christianity early became dominant over
Judaistic Christianity. Western Christians of the Roman Empire,
treasured and preserved the writings of these three Apostles who
worked among the Gentiles. The other Apostles did not write much,
with the exception of Matthew. But Matthew's personality does not
come through clearly in his gospel. The writings, if any, of the
remainder of the Twelve are lost.
Mark was the helper and writer for Peter, but Mark was not
considered an Apostle but an Apostolic assisttint, as were
Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, Luke, Barnabas, Silas, Acquilla,
Priscilla and Erastus. Luke wrote about Paul in The Acts, and
about the Apostles and Jesus in his gospel. But Luke was not
himself an original Apostle. Hence, the New Testament as we have
it is the product of Matthew, an Apostle, Peter, an Apostle,
John, an Apostle, and Paul, an Apostle. Other New Testament
authors such as Mark and Luke, were not Apostles, but assistants,
and Jude and James were not of the original followers of Jesus,
but brothers of the Lord, who did not believe until after the
Resurrection of Christ.
As for the history of the Apostles after the first few years
in Jerusalem, except for brief references to them in The Acts, we
must look into the Epistles, the book of The Revelation of Jesus
Christ, the histories and traditions or legends of the early,
post-Apostolic Christian writers, and to the local traditions of
the Christian movement in the places where the Apostles labored
or died. It is this latter research than has had the least
historic treatment and which we will attempt to explore, along
with those early Christian traditions and Scriptural accounts
which are fairly well (but not universally) known.
LEGEND, MYTH AND TRADITION
The word legend is today in better standing than it was a
short time ago. 'Legendary' has often been a word of ill repute
for it has meant "mythical" to most people. The word "tradition"
stands far higher in the estimation of historians. Scholars
today, thanks to literary criticism, historical research, and
archeological observations, have more confidence in the existence
of a residue of fact amongst the legends and traditions about
well-known historical or Biblical figures. Blown up and fanciful
they may be, but legends and traditions are often the
enlargements of reality, and traditions may not be exaggerations
at all, but actual fact We have attempted to squeeze some of the
water out of those legends which exist about the Apostles and
find the elements of the reasonable and possible which are in
traditions. Dogmatism is impossible in our subject, but surely a
fuller knowledge of the lives of all the Apostles can now be
acquired than has hitherto been generally known.
THE RELEVANCE TODAY
But why should the Christian reader, or the reading public,
be interested in the histories of the first Apostles of Jesus
Christ?
For one thing, any increase of knowledge about the Apostles
will greatly illumine the power-filled early days of
Christianity, and perhaps help to recover the secret of the
primitive dynamic of the early Christians.
Christians today know, or can know, more about many things
than any other generation of believers. Archeology is a
relatively modem science. Textual criticism has secured a clearer
Biblical text than was ever available before. Yet, unfortunately,
much of the power and spirit of New Testament era Christianity is
obviously missing in today's churches.
The general public needs to see afresh the dedication of the
earliest Christian leaders, and to feel the modern relevance of
their timeless methods and ideals. Christianity needs a
self-renewal, as do all institutions. From where will this
renewal come? That dynamic momentum which early Christians
bequeathed, and which has still not entirely run down, was
surely, in part, the personal and direct heritage of the Twelve
Apostles and their Christian contemporaries.
The least that a study of this kind should contribute to all
Christians is to direct our attention back to the days of a
purer, unencrusted, tradition-free Christianity. There is much
about the lives of the Twelve Apostles that can speak to us
existentially today. Indeed, to discover what the Apostles did,
or what it is claimed that they did, is to rediscover their
motivation and the life-strategy which they followed.
HOW THIS STUDY BEGAN
In a sense this book has taken thirty years of comprehensive
and intensive study to write. In 1944 the author finished a
Bachelor of Divinity at Bethel Theological Seminary, St.Paul,
Minnesota, with a major in church history which included over
sixty semester credit-hours and a thesis on the same subject. In
1952 the author submitted another dissertation on the same
subject and was graduated with a Doctorate in Religious Education
from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth,
Texas.
Since that time, he has read continually in the subject of
ecclesiastical history and has traveled repeatedly to Europe (39
times) and the Middle East (27 journeys) in search of Biblical
and ecclesiastical information. This rich experience has been a
labor of love and has been highly rewarding in terms of the
discovery of new facts and fresh insights. It is a false
supposition that all useful historic knowledge is to be found
only in books, though many hundreds have been read by this writer
about the Twelve Apostles. There is much additional information
about them to, be gleaned only by travel to places the Apostles
once knew, and by conversation with people who now live there,
who know of traditions not widely found in the books which are
readily available to scholars. No one book, to my knowledge, has
ever been written that includes all known facts about the
Apostles until now.
For example: in October, 1971, the writer was an official
guest in Iran for the celebration of the 2,500 year memorial to
Cyrus the Great. Upon this occasion the opportunity arose to
interview the leaders of several of the very ancient Christian
movements of Iran who trace their spiritual descent back to the
visits to Persia in the first century of at least five of the
Apostles of Jesus! Not only was new information obtained, but a
wider understanding of the Eastern thrust of early Christianity
beyond the borders of the Roman world about which we Christians
of the Western tradition know very little. This has been our
great loss. The following observations are an illustration of an
area of Christian history about which few American Christians
know:
"...Iran had known Christianity from the earliest times of
Apostolic preaching. When Christianity was first preached in this
part of the world, that is to say, beyond the frontiers of East
Roman Empire, namely in the easternmost regions of Asia Minor,
north-eastern regions of Ancient Syria and Mesopotamia, the
Apostles and their immediate successors did not know any boundary
between East Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia and Persia. In fact, the
peoples of these countries lived in such a state of close
association that the first Christians all belonged to the same
stream of evangelization, they shared the same Christian
traditions handed down to them by the first Apostles and their
disciples.
"Thus, beginning from the first century, the Christian faith had
been preached in Edessa, in the kingdom of Osrohene. It
penetrated also Armenia and Persia in the same century. As
Tournebize has said: 'From Osrohene the faith undoubtedly had
shown forth quite early to the East; between Edessa and Armenia
the distance was not big.' Long before Bar Hebraus, the alliances
and frequent interpenetrations between Parthians, Persians,
Edessenians and Armenians bad justified the following remark of
the famous monophysite patriarch: Parthians or Persians,
Parthians or Edessenians, Parthians or Armenians, all are one."
(The Armenian Christian Tradition in Iran, A Lecture, Interchurch
Centenary Committee, p.1).
Later, in November of 1971, the writer led a group of people
from all over America on a historic journey which was entitled,
"The Search For the Twelve Apostles." On this expedition, through
Europe and the Middle East, many more of the recorded facts in
this book emerged. It can possibly be said that no other group in
modern or ancient times has hitherto made so comprehensive a
study into the lives and burial places of the Apostles in the
actual locations indicated by history or tradition as have been
associated with the Apostles.
Possibly there is yet more light to be thrown on the subject
of the Twelve Apostles. One thinks, for instance, of the vast
archives of ancient and as yet untranslated documents in the
Greek Orthodox monasteries, or the Vatican Library in Rome. We do
not pretend to the scholarship, linguistic ability, or the sheer
time which would be necessary to dig for the needles in these
huge haystacks. We must await the happy day when others more able
will accomplish these tasks.
But within the limits of present scholarship, original
research, and the critical examination of history and traditions,
we have, we hope, amassed all that is known, or which reasonably
can now be learned about the Apostles. We can anticipate with joy
that further scholarship which will add to the body of
information here presented.
...................
To be continued
Search for the TWELVE Apostles
The World of the Apostles
by the late McBirnie Ph.D.
CHAPTER ONE
The World of the Apostles
A STRONG TIDE of optimism had begun to well up throughout
the vast reaches of the Roman Empire as the year 30 A.D. dawned.
Tiberius Caesar in his palace on Capri did not know it, but a new
force was being born that would one day inherit the empire.
(Rome was inherited by the force of the false Christianity that
would rise to power after the first century - Keith Hunt)
Under the iron grip of Augustus, the successor to Julius
Caesar, peace, even if the oppressive peace of a total conquest,
had come to be an accepted way of life for the people of the
Roman Empire.
The "Pax Romana"
There were spots of local rebellion which grew hot from time
to time, but there was absolutely no doubt that Rome was the
saddle that was securely strapped on to Europe, North Africa and
Asia Minor. Augustus and his successor, Tiberius, sat long and
firmly in that saddle. Any client king who doubted it, or
rebellious province which had the temerity to challenge Caesar,
soon found out with bloodshed, just who rode the world. Further,
no one doubted that these affairs would continue, as indeed the
future state of the empire of the next three hundred years
confirmed. The prolongation of the Paz Romana brought prosperity,
trade, education, cultural and language homogeneity, and safe
travel; an ideal preparation for Christian apostles and
missionaries.
(Yes, ideal for a short time, per se. But enough time for the 12
apostles to reach the bulk of Israelites scattered and those
Israelites in Britain - Keith Hunt)
There was one perpetually troublesome exception to the Pax
Romana, the land of Judea. There the Roman legions, as occupation
troops, constantly had to be on guard against an implacably
hostile population. The Herodian monarchs had ruled since the
days of the first Caesar only by the imposed power of Rome. They
all understood, if their people did not, that Rome was there to
stay and that the Pax Romana was undoubtedly the best of all
realistically possible conditions. The various Herods, one after
another, had sailed to Rome to visit the dazzling center of
power. There they saw the larger picture of the empire and could
more easily fit Judea into its small place. But the people they
ruled in Rome's name were provincial in the extreme and were able
to see no farther than their own borders. To the Israelites,
however just and fair they often tried to be, the Romans were
hated oppressors, idol-worshipping inferiors, outside the
covenant of God, and the proper objects of unceasing attempts at
rebellion and assassination. The Roman's haughty contempt for
Jewish pride created a resentment that would inevitably lead to
slaughter and dispersion for the Jews. In the end only Rome could
win. But rationally or not, in no people in the world of that
time did the passion for independence burn so fiercely as it did
among the Jews. Most Jews cared little for the safety and
prosperity they admittedly gained by being a part of a great
cohesive empire.
Their resentment, being nationalistic and ideological, grew
primarily as a reaction to the infernal pride of the Romans. To
the Jews, nothing Rome could do could possibly be right. To the
Romans, granted the right of empire, (which we moderns cannot of
course grant) the choice was clear; keep Judea pacified or risk
the brush-fires of rebellion breaking out everywhere else. The
Romans sought to be as just as possible to make their empire
viable. But, just or not, Rome would rule whatever the people of
Israel did or however they felt. The clash of wills between
Jerusalem and Rome was the most troublesome political fact of the
first century. Eventually it could have but one tragic outcome
for Judea.
The peace of Rome, disastrous and painful for the Jews,
nevertheless opened up a great share of the world to easy
penetration by the newly risen movement of Christianity. In every
Roman city godly Jews were already dwelling. All Israelites,
whether from the tribe of Judah proper, or of the remnants of the
thirteen tribes, now came to be called "Jews." Judah was the
Royal tribe of David, and "Jew" is simply an abbreviation for
Judah. It had spearheaded the Return of the Exiles from Babylon,
and now again possessed the capital, Jerusalem. It was the
strongest and most persistent of the tribes and it was the keeper
of the Temple in Jerusalem which was the proper geographical
focal point of prayer, wherever in the world Israelites were
themselves located. So gradually the Israelites of all the tribes
who cared about preserving their own national identity, and their
ancient Mosaic traditions and religious faith, came to be called
"Jews."
(The "Jewish" Israelites yes, but the other Israelites [those of
the Ten tribes or House of Israel, taken captive by the Assyrian
empire - 745-718 B.C.] became so-called "lost" - in time they
even forgot themselves that they were Israelites. But we know
James knew they were scattered abroad, all TWELVE tribes. See
James 1:1 - Keith Hunt)
Intermarriage between the people of the various tribes of
Israel in the Diaspora doubtless helped bind all dispersed Israel
toward identification with Judah. Those who did not join this
spiritual and nationalistic movement were soon lost, not as whole
tribes, but as individuals, as intermarriage with Gentiles or the
attrition of death gradually exterminated or eliminated those who
were indifferent to their Israelitish heritage.
(McBirnie is very WRONG on this point, the Ten tribe House of
Israel was by-and-large in EUROPE and BRITAIN by the time the
apostles came on the scene - Keith Hunt)
There was not just one single dispersion of the tribes of
Israel, though the process began in 725 B.C.
(actually in 745 B.C. and ended 718 B.C. for the house of Israel
- Keith Hunt)
when Assyria carried off many people out of the Northern tribes.
Instead, there were successive waves of removal from Palestine
which scattered the Israelites everywhere. (Recently a colony of
Jews which has lived in Cochin, India, since 70 A.D. has come to
world attention, as emigration to the modern state of Israel has
finally depleted that section of Indian Jewry. This event reminds
us that people travelled much more widely in the first century
A.D. than is commonly realized, a fact that has a bearing on the
genuineness of the apostolate of St.Thomas in India during the
first century.)
(Yes SOME Israelites, probably from the Judah captivity by the
Babylon Empire - 604-586 B.c., were indeed over in the India area
of the world - Keith Hunt)
The Biblical Research Handbook (Vol.2) provides a reminder
of the dispersion of the Jews in the pre-Christian era. As the
Apostles always went first to the Jews in their missions, this
passage is very illuminating:
"... Armenian and Georgian historians record that after the
destruction of the First Temple ... Nebuchadnezzar deported
numbers of Jewish captives to Armenia and the Caucasus. These
exiles were joined later by co-religionists from Medes and Judea
... at the end of the fourth century there were Armenian cities
possessing Jewish populations ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 ...
Monuments consisting of marble slabs bearing Greek inscriptions
and preserved in the Hermitage St.Petersburg, and in the museum
at Feodosia (Kaffa), show that Jews lived in the Crimea and along
the entire eastern coast of the Black Sea at the beginning of the
common era, and that they possessed well-organised communities
with synagogues. They were then already Hellenized, bearing such
Greek names as Hermis, Dionisiodorus and Heracles. In the reign
of Julius the Isaurian (175-210) the name 'Volamiros' was common
among the Jews of the Crimea. This was the origin of the Russian
name 'Vladimir' ... " (Bible Research Handbook, Vol.2, pages
unnumbered)
(Exactly! Proves what I just said above. The "Jewish" Israelites
were also scattered. But the MAIN part of the house of Israel
Israelites were in Europe and even Britain by the first century
A.D. - Keith Hunt)
Greek culture had penetrated as far as France, then called
the land of the Gauls, by the middle of the first century B.C.
The various languages of each country were used locally of
course, but throughout the Roman Empire both Greek and Latin were
widely and universally employed. This fact made it possible for
Greek philosophy and culture to affect the Roman world
profoundly.
Later it would provide common literary and linguistic
vehicles for the Christian gospel.
The splendid Roman roads, many of which can still be seen
today, related the cities of all countries to each other. Over
those safe and straight highways and the increasingly viable sea
lanes came a busy interchange of goods and customs. These same
highways would soon be the paths of the propagation of the faith.
Thus in the first century the Roman world, with all its
initial cruelties and harsh conditions, was changing and uniting
into the largest and most continually ruled empire the world has
ever known. In the Middle Ages the Mongol Empire briefly ruled a
larger area, and perhaps more people, but it left no enduring
civilization since it was an empire of destruction which soon
faded back into the vast emptiness of Asia from which it had
come. Rome brought a culture which remained. Indeed, that culture
still remains today and its influence is as strong as ever.
(Yes, indeed, so much so that it gave rise to the MYSTERY BABYLON
RELIGION of the Roman Catholic church which has planted its
theology and customs, practices, traditions, all over the world,
especially the Western world. The nations of Israel are today IN
Babylon, deceived by a false Babylon/Roman Christianity - Keith
Hunt)
Rome had drawn much of her civilization from others; at
first from the mysterious Etruscans. But by the first century,
the Etruscans had been so completely swallowed up as to have
disappeared into history. We cannot read their language even now.
Egypt also had given much and would give more. But Egypt had lost
the civilization of the Pharaohs and had become Hellenized.
Greece itself was still the cultural and medical center of the
Roman Empire, but it had become little more than a province which
fed its influence into the bloodstream of the empire. Greece was
of course eventually to triumph over Rome and rise again, not in
Athens but in Constantinople. During the first century, however,
Rome was the greatest political fact in the world.
(And Rome was to be the MOST false influence on the world over
the next 2,000 years to today and still counting - Keith Hunt)
This, then, was the world of Jesus and His Apostles. On the
narrow land bridge between three continents the people of Israel
had come and gone, and come again. The Greeks, and afterwards the
Romans, had conquered Palestine, but had never really subdued her
people. Rebellion continuously simmered. It frequently flared
with little provocation into revolution against Rome. If the
Herods could not put the rebellion down, the Romans could and
would. And when this happened, the Herodians lost face and paid
severe penalties to Caesar. For this reason the Herodians were
zealous to stamp out any sedition before it could be embarrassing
to them. It was on a charge of sedition that Jesus was tried and
in an illegal trial, which soon got out of hand, was falsely
condemned to death for blasphemy and treason, though the Roman
governor Pilate had declared Him innocent.
Of course, sedition was only the ostensible reason why Jesus
was condemned. As the Apostles saw clearly then, and history's
long judgment has since con firmed, the greatest reason for his
condemnation was the fact that Jesus had lanced through the
swollen hypocrisy of the Jewish political and ceremonial religion
and the religious bureaucracy of professional priests, Pharisees
and Sadducees. So all the main Jewish leaders, including the
official party of the Herodians called by that name, consented to
or sought his death.
When men gain high places and hold them precariously, they
often stoop to fatal compromises. When they do so in a
semi-religious state they also have a bad conscience. When they
are exposed and their real motives are laid bare, they tend to
strike back with fangs bared and venom dripping. Jesus aptly
called them, "A generation of vipers", and for this most of all
they lay in wait, coiled, and then struck Him down. Their charges
against Him were blasphemy and sedition. Thus Rome was induced to
join with Jerusalem to crucify the Son of God.
His Apostles, after the resurrection, enjoyed a great
resurgence of popularity in Judea. The guilt for the death of
Jesus lay on the public conscience and the Apostles assured those
who would repent that this guilt, and all other sinful guilt, had
been atoned for by the true Lamb of God. Thousands professed
conversion to Christ soon after the resurrection, and day after
day were added to the growing Jerusalem church.
Soon no public or private building could contain their
assembly. Steps were taken by the authorities to discourage the
Apostles lest again Israel be troubled. But this time there was
no stopping them.
Despite martyrdoms, such as those of Stephen and James the
brother of John, and the imprisonment of Peter, the church grew,
spilled out over Judea, Samaria and the whole of Palestine. Then
it leaped to Antioch in Syria which, during the first century,
was the third city of the Roman Empire and the true crossroads of
east and west.
From Antioch the newly named "Christians" sent forth as
missionaries, Barnabas, who had come from Jerusalem to shepherd
the vigorous church in Antioch, and Saul of Tarsus, whom Barnabas
had befriended in Jerusalem and had called from Tarsus to aid him
in Antioch. Their missionary destination was Barnabas nearby
island home of Cyprus, and their targets were first the Jews, and
then the Gentiles. They journeyed, after notable triumphs on
Cyprus, to the mainland of Asia Minor which Saul (now called
Paul) apparently felt was ripe for the Christian message. The
experience of these two eager Apostles, first at Antioch and now
in Cyprus and Asia Minor, had confirmed that the gospel had
indeed been intended for all and could be well received by the
Gentiles as well as the Jews. Thus a milestone in Christian
history was passed. The process had begun which would tear
Christianity loose from its Jewish exclusiveness and make it an
universal movement for all men.
Paul and Barnabas did not break the first ground to extend
Christianity to the Gentiles. That had been done on the day of
Pentecost when people from many parts of the Roman world had
heard the message, shortly after the ascension of Jesus. But in
the Jerusalem church, conversions of the Gentiles were rare and
incidental.
The Twelve Apostles, now reduced by the death of James to
eleven, had remained in Jerusalem or at least in Palestine. It
seemed they could not bring themselves to the world apostolate
which Jesus had commanded. Soon however, Jewish persecution would
force some of them out. The nation of Israel was still not
willing to accept Jesus as the Christ. Soon the Twelve would also
have to turn to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had successfully
shown the way. From this time forth the Apostles would go first
to the Jews and then, if rejected, turn to the Gentiles. The book
of Acts is the record of how Christianity was thus moved by both
example and persecution, out of Jerusalem into the rest of the
Roman world with a universal message to both Jews and Gentiles.
While Rome herself was even more hostile to Christianity than was
Jerusalem, many Jews and Gentiles everywhere received the new
faith.
Within the life time of the Apostles the gospel of Christ
had spread over the long Roman roads, as well as by the sea, to
such far o$ places as Gaul and Britain to the northwest,
Alexandria and Carthage on the coast of Africa to the south,
Scythia and Armenia (now the Soviet Union) to the north and
Persia and India to the east. In the course of this initial
outburst of Christian fervor, the Twelve Apostles, and many
others also called apostles, carried the Christian message to
great extremes of distance and into perilous lands both near and
far, even beyond the Roman Empire. There they died, but their
message and the churches they founded survived them.
Early in its progress Christianity recorded histories and
legends which tell of the high adventures the Apostles had in the
initial years of Christian expansion. The Apostles themselves
apparently did not seem aware that their mission was historic so
they kept few records which have remained. Such records as we
have, apart from the Scriptures, are not without flaw and often
lean towards the fanciful. Yet so much more is to be learned
about the Apostles than the general Christian public knows, or
has ever been written by the scholars in a single history, to
this end this account of the lives of the Twelve Apostles will
serve to illuminate the earliest days of the Christian mission.
Hopefully it may help to recover the Apostles as real
people.
..................
(Actually there is more written records, and traditions
[traditions are often based on the ground of fact] of the 12
apostles and their travels than McBirnie realized, or certainly
the popular so-called "scholarship" of the Catholic and
Protestant world of Christian religion - Keith Hunt)
To be continued
The Apostles leave Jerusalem?
The amount of Facts we have
by the late McBirnie Ph.D.
When Did The Apostles Leave Jerusalem?
St.Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, selected as his thesis
the emergence of Christianity as an universal faith, not to be
held for long in the matrix of Judaism, but liberated, mainly
under the pioneering of St.Paul, so that the gospel might be
presented also to the Gentiles. From first to last in The Acts,
Luke expresses this theme. Christianity, he wrote, began with God
and Jesus Christ, His Son. Upon the rejection of Jesus by the
Jewish national and religious leadership, the gospel was
presented as was always intended by God to the Gentiles. That
methodology is reported many times in The Acts.
First, Pentecost was an international experience. Jews from
many nations were in Jerusalem, but surely, so were many
Gentiles. "Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers
in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and
Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya
about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes
and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful
works of God." (Acts 2:911) Then Acts records how St.Philip
witnessed to the Ethiopian treasurer, under the direct leadership
of the Holy Spirit. The implication of divine approval and
authentication upon Gentile evangelism is explicit. St. Luke is
making a point which misses most modern readers.
Next, Peter was directly commanded o f God to witness to and
baptize Cornelius, the Roman centurion, at Joppa. Paul was
meanwhile shown as the persecutor of the Church motivated by his
zeal for keeping the Law of Moses and the Jews themselves from
adulteration. He haled into prison those Jewish Christians who
would forsake Moses for Christ. No one can accuse Paul of not
being initially a faithful Jew, though his critics certainly
tried.
After Paul's conversion, Luke records, often as an
eyewitness, the growing missionary triumphs of St.Paul, but
carefully notes that St.Paul nowhere broke the Mosaic Law, but
always in each city went first to the Jewish synagogue to try to
win those Jews who would believe. Only then did he go to the
Gentiles after the inevitable persecution in the synagogue. As
Luke concluded his story in The Acts, Paul was in Rome, having
first witnessed to the Jewish religion's leaders. He was rejected
by most, as usual, so he turned to the Gentiles. There the book
of Acts ends the story.
The book of Acts is a limited, but rich slice of Apostolic
Christian history. It is the record of only some of the Apostles
and their deeds. It is the story of the mighty acts of the Holy
Spirit in the establishment of the early churches. It is a
shining vindication of Paul and of his decision to carry the
gospel "to the Jews first and afterwards to the Gentiles." To
these purposes, all Biblical commentaries abundantly agree. But
if we stop here, perhaps we have missed the most compelling o£
all effects which Luke may have been trying to achieve by writing
The Acts. This was to encourage all Jewish Christians to
consciously go forth to the Gentile world and, like Paul, bear
witness directly to it in full confidence of success, believing
confidently that this was the Holy Spirit's intention and that
God would bless their efforts in this mission and crown them with
suceess!
In a word, Acts is a book of successful procedures in
international evangelism. The truths contained in it were aimed
to stir up those early Jewish Christians who for too long were
bound to Jerusalem and Judea or at least to Judaism.
Biblical scholars have long been troubled by the lengthy
time after the Resurrection which some of the Apostles spent in
Jerusalem. It was as if some of them clung to the Temple and
Judaism for perhaps a quarter of a century, despite the clear
commandment of Jesus to discipline all nations.
Even when the Apostles occasionally were able, or forced, to
lead a Gentile to Christ, they themselves soon returned to
Jerusalem. Even when the believers were scattered abroad by
persecution and sent everywhere preaching, Luke notes that the
Apostles were expected to remain in Jerusalem, which they did.
Why? Possibly because they were reluctant to go forth officially
to win Gentiles and start organizing Gentile churches. Who knows
the agony or timidity these Jewish men had in breaking with
Judaism?
The date of the writing of The Acts seems certain to have
been about the year 66 A.D. By then the Apostles, for the most
part, would surely have already left Jerusalem on their world
missions.
But The Acts covers a considerable period of time, at least
thirty-five years. Perhaps the experiences of St.Paul provided a
direct challenge to the early Christians and even to some of the
Apostles, to get on with the task which belonged to them from the
beginning; opening the whole world and all nations to the gospel.
The Apostolic council in Jerusalem told Paul, "You go to the
Gentiles and we will go to the Jews." The Acts may well have been
later used as an historical handbook of methods Paul had
triumphantly used, how he fared, and the clear proof that the
Holy Spirit was visibly willing, despite all obstacles, to bless
a mission to the Gentiles. But though we do not suggest that the
Apostles were shamed into their task of world evangelism by The
Acts, for the date of writing precludes this conclusion, it might
still be possible that some early portions of the book, or at
least the experiences of St. Paul that were later recorded in the
book, might have had this effect.
We know nothing of the "Theophilus" to whom Luke addressed
The Acts. Theophilus is a Greek name to be sure but it simply
means "Lover of God." Perhaps, with infinite tact, Paul sought to
teach some of the "Teachers" a lesson they somehow had not yet
all learned. If it had been couched as a frontal attack or
criticism they could not have accepted it at the hands of Paul,
since they were disciples and Apostles before he had ever
encountered Christ, and were therefore probably reluctant to
accept new light on their duties from this "latecomer" to the
faith.
If these conclusions are sound, that means the early parts
of the book of The Acts were perhaps intended for some Apostles
(James having been martyred) as a virtual handbook on "successful
methods of witnessing to Gentiles", with due credit carefully
given to the anointing of the Holy Spirit in all instances. This
possibility is strengthened in the various epistles of St.Paul,
particularly in his reference to St. Peter's reluctance to even
eat with Gentile Christians in Antioch when Jewish Christian
emissaries from James in Jerusalem arrived on the scene. "I
withstood him to the face," said Paul, "because he was to be
blamed." (Galatians 2:11)
St.Paul, in fact, had experienced the reluctance of the
Apostles to go to the Gentiles in any systematic way and pointed
out their strategy as follows: "And when James, Cephas, and John,
who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto
me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship;
that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the
circumcision" (Galatians 2:9).
Whether or not one of the purposes of the recording of St.
Paul's experiences, which later grew into what is now called the
book of The Acts, was to encourage and instruct the Apostles and
other early Christian workers in their duty to the Gentiles, that
was what in fact eventually resulted. Somewhere, sometime,
formally or naturally, the Apostles one day apparently decided on
a world strategy of evangelism, and each went his separate way.
Eusebius tells us the Apostles "divided the world and set forth
to all points of the compass. Was this decision prompted or
influenced by the experiences of St.Paul later recorded in the
book of The Acts? We cannot know with certainty, but it seems
likely, at least, that Paul's success could not possibly have
been unnoticed, ignored, or uncopied. There is a fragment of
early Christian history which indicates there may be some
substance to this idea.
"At the beginning of Book 3 of his History of the Church, after
having described the Fall of Jerusalem, Eusebius says that 'the
inhabited world' was divided into zones of influence among the
Apostles: Thomas in the region of the Parthians, John in Asia,
Peter in Pontes and Rome, Andrew in Scythia. This statement
contains a certain measure of historical truth, particularly for
John, but it is difficult to verify for the others. One fact,
however, gives support to it. The apocryphal writings of the New
Testament are divided into cycles: the cycle of Peter, the cycle
of Thomas, the cycle of Philip, the cycle of john. These cycles
seem to refer to definite geographical areas, and it seems, in
particular, that the Judaeo-Christian mission at the beginning of
the second century took several different forms: the
Mesopotamian, linked to James and Thomas; Asiatic Christianity,
which depends on Philip and John; the Petrine group comprising
Phoenicia, Pontes, Achaea and Rome." (The Christian Centuries, J.
Danielou, p.39).
A study of what became of the Apostles, then, must take into
account the possibility that the experience of Paul later
recorded in The Acts may have served as a catalyst to hasten the
decision of the Apostles to go into all the world and preach the
gospel. A study of the date of the book of First Peter certainly
allows time for the book of Acts to have been completed by A.D.
64. This is mentioned because it is clear from I Peter 1:1 that
Peter made missionary journeys to Asia Minor before the
conclusion of Paul's first Roman imprisonment in A.D.64. But even
if Peter became an earlier witness to the Gentiles (despite
Galatians 2:9) this does not mean all the other Apostles had also
left Jerusalem by A.D.64, which is the earliest possible date of
the writing of The Acts. Nor does it imply that, even if all the
Apostles had left Jerusalem itself long before A.D.64, that they
had necessarily engaged in a ministry to the Gentiles wherever
they may have gone, for Jews were found everywhere. To have
achieved this, even among some of the Apostles would be a
worthwhile purpose for the experiences of St.Paul to be told and
later incorporated in The Acts.
In any case, once they had been launched into the far
reaches of the Roman Empire, the Apostles lighted a fire that
shines in most of the world to this day.
..................
NOTE:
It is true that the first century Apostles "turned the world up-
side down" (Acts 17:6). The "true" Gospel and the truth of God
was established near and far. But when McBirnie says, "the
Apostles lighted a fire that shines in most of the world to this
day" the light that he is talking about (which he would not admit
being a Protestant) is the dark light of Roman Catholicism and
Protestantism, both of which are Babylon Mystery Religion of the
book of Revelation - not the truth of God's word (though of
course SOME truth is mixed in with error - the Devil works that
way) as proclaimed by the Apostles. Even in the days of Jude, he
had to tell his readers to hold on to the "faith which was once
delivered to the saints." Over the centuries as the Roman
Catholic religion gain POWER throguh the rise of the Holy Roman
Empire, true Christianity as a large and bright light was
overcome and exchanged for the false light of Catholicism and
Protestantism.
There are a number of studies on this Websight showing you HOW
and WHEN the the true LIGHT was extinguished. The last books of
the Bible in "The New Testament Bible Story" also show you that
before the end of the first century A.D. there was a movement
from WITHIN the very true Church of God to depart from the faith
once delivered to the saints. That movement that started from
WITHIN the Church of Christ gained more and more influence and
power through the Empire of Rome, until it became the HOLY Roman
Empire. God calls it Babylon Mystery Religion, the woman whore
that rides the Beast, in the last chapters of Revelation. That
power is the working whereby all the world is deceived, and being
deceived more and more each week, month, and year. It is the
power that is responsible for the killing of true saints, down
through many of the centuries of the last 2,000 years. She is
truly drunk with the blood of the saints.
The 12 Apostles may have not left Jerusalem in the early years
after Pentecost of 30 A.D. but SOME of the true children of God
did, and some of them came into the British Isles, before 40 A.D.
But that's another history story for another book and another
time - although SOME of that history is in some of the studies on
this Website (i.e. "When did Christianity come to Britain") -
Keith Hunt
To be continued
The Search for the TWELVE Apostles
All about Peter - part one
by the late McBirnie Ph.D.
SIMON PETER
OF ALL ME HUMAN personalities whom Jesus remade, Simon Peter
is the one (next to Paul) about whom we know the most, and the
man who seems most like ourselves. As Dr.Stalker has said, "He
[Christ] managed the tumultuous and fluctuating elements of his
[Peter's] character as a perfect rider does a high mettled horse.
He transformed a nature as unstable as water into the consistency
of a rock."
The first meeting Jesus had with Simon, He addressed him
thus:
"Thou art Simon, the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas,
which is by interpretation 'a stone'" (John 1:42).
A great deal of misunderstanding has arisen from the
disputes over the real meaning of this word "stone." Dr.
Schofield's footnotes are correct when he comments as follows:
"There is in the Greek, a play upon the words Thou art Peter
(Peters-literally, 'a little rock' or 'pebble') and upon this
Rock (Petea) I will build my church. He does not promise to build
His church upon Peter, but upon Himself, as Peter himself is
careful to tell us." (I Peter 2:49) That there may be no
misunderstanding at this point, let the Apostle Paul settle the
issue once and for all as to what the Foundation of Christianity
is:
'For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid,
which is Jesus Christ' (I Cor.3:11)'
Had Paul ever understood that Peter was the foundation of the
church which Christ organized in Jerusalem, he would not have
said there is no other foundation but Christ Himself."
PETER'S HOME IN CAPERNAUM
The discovery of the house of St.Peter is a triumph of
modern archeology. For most of the 20th century, with some
interruptions, Italian archeologists have been digging and
restoring the town of Capemaum. The site is one of the most
visited spots in Galilee and yet many tourists who go there do
not recognize even yet the real link to the lives of the Apostles
which has been found there in St.Peter's actual home. Ancient
church history tells the story and has provided the vital clues
for the discovery of the history of St.Peter's house.
"In his Panarion - a treatise on heresies - St.Epiphanies
mentions the difficulties encountered in establishing a Christian
community in Kfar-Nachum which was still wholly Jewish till the
middle of the fourth century. Only when Count Joseph - a convert
to Christianity and Governor of Tiberias - managed to obtain from
the Emperor Constantine The Great [just a few years before his
death in 337] an Imperial decree to build a church on the
traditional site of St.Peter's house in Kfar-Nachum-could
preparations for this building start. And even then the actual
work on site did not begin until 352. In the came of time this
modest church was superseded by a splendid basilica frequently
mentioned in texts of the Pilgrims who visited it and appreciated
its beauty." (Capernaum, Baruch Sapir, Dav Ne'eman, p.22).
In his New Memoirs of St.Peter by the Sea of Galilee Virgil
Corbo reports:
"From the very first day Jesus visited Capernaum, the building
was marked out as 'the home of Simon and Andrew' (Mark 1:29).
Here, on the morrow, Jesus healed the mother-in-law of Peter.
Here, near the door, he cured a great number of other sick people
(Mark 1:33). Subsequently, it is made clear that he passed the
night under this roof (Mark 1:35). The house of hospitality is
next described as surrounded by such a crush of people seeking
Jesus that there was no room even outside (Mark 2:2). To this
home Jesus returned after his journeys round the Lake, and after
the official election of the twelve apostles (Mark 3:19). It was
here that he imparted his more intimate teaching (Mark 7:17).
There, one day, his mother appeared, together with his 'brethren'
(Mark 3:31).
It was in this very home that Jesus embraced a little child, to
give the Twelve a lesson in humility (Mark 9:33-37). Here
occurred the mirade of the healing of the paralytic (Mark
2:1-12). The last time the house is mentioned in Mark is when
Jesus came back from a tour of preaching (Mark 10:10).
In this list of events in Jesus life at Capernaum, we make
mention only of those involving the house of Simon Peter and
Andrew. It has been our good fortune to bring to light this very
building, so specially blessed by the presence of Christ. (p.10,
11).
"The octagonal basilica was erected as a place of worship, not
for any ordinary needs of a Christian community, but as a
memorial. It stood over the ruins of a house which, from very
ancient times, bore proofs of veneration on the part of the
Christian community of Capernaum which was of Jewish origin. All
this had been long attested by tradition and was proven true by
our excavations.
The latter show most dearly that, beneath the octagonal basilica,
there lay buried a complex of small buildings of great antiquity.
The architect of the basilica took care to site the central
octagon directly above a room which was held in great reverence,
and even to follow its very dimensions. At the same time, while
removing the upper parts of the ancient buildings, he took care
to preserve the latter substantially when he filled in earth
round about them. In this respect, one discovery was most
striking. To preserve a doorstep which would normally have been
built into the foundations, the architect placed a little bridge
over it. Thus, we owe this unknown planner a deep debt of
gratitude. Designing his octagonal basilica, and placing its
floors a metre and a half above those of the ancient dwelling, he
could have obliterated the previous structure completely.
Instead, he providentially preserved for all posterity its
venerated remains" (p.21,22).
The archaeologists who have long and painstakingly excavated
the house of St.Peter in Capernaum have unearthed a great deal of
interesting and vital information which is not generally known.
Father Corbo continues his description:
"The archaeological excavation beneath the pavements of the
Byzantine church has not only brought to light a network of
habitations of the first century of our era, but has demonstrated
with the same evidence also the evolution of a cultic character
which made itself known in these habitations around the largest
room of the complex. The sacred character of this hall is known
from ancient Christian tradition, which has reached us through
the testimony of pilgrims; today we know this independently of
the testimonies, also from the testimonies of the archaeological
excavations, which we will present in a complete manner to
scholars in the final publication of these researches.
Peter the Deacon reports an ancient text ascribed to Egeria. In
Capharnaum, however, a church has been made out of the house of
the prince of the Apostles; its walls are standing until today as
they were. There the Lord cured the paralytic. A writer known as
'Anonymous of Piacenza' (570 A.D.) writes, 'We likewise came into
Capharnaum into the house of blessed Peter, which is now a
basilica.' (Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum, Baldi, O.F.M, p.299,
293)" (p.53).
Father Corbo describes the rooms of St.Peter's house:
"The principal and largest room of a very poor habitation was
venerated by the Jewish Christians of the first generation and in
the following centuries by adapting some dependencies into a
place of reunion and of prayer it order to preserve in this place
the sacred character which it derived both from the person of the
proprietor Peter and also from the consecration given to it by
the long stay of the Lord. So whilst around this hall the cult of
the primitive Jewish Christians of the community of Capharnaum
was centered, the other surrounding rooms continued to throb with
the ordinary life of men. The house of Peter, in the following
centuries, continued to be indeed the house of the Lord and the
house of men (p.54).
"Among the objects found on the floor of the house church I
mention two fishhooks and behind the east wall of the central
octagon a small axe for cutting stones" (p.70).
Father Corbo sums up the conclusions of the findings at
Capernaum:
"Having reached the end of this report we consider it useful to
sum up in a few points the principal discoveries which we made in
these first two campaigns of excavation in the area of the
Christian church at Capharnaum, constructed over the house of St.
Peter.
1) A complex of habitations of the first century of our era has
been found in the entire area of the excavation.
2) In this complex of very poor habitations one hall was
venerated in a special way from the first century onwards by the
local community of Jewish Christians, who transformed this area
into a place of cult, whilst they continued to live in the other
rooms next to this one.
3) From the late Roman period (about the fourth century onwards)
the community of Jewish Christians of Capharnaum enlarged the
primitive house church by adding to the venerated hall an atrium
on the east and dependencies on the north by enclosing the entire
small 'insula' of the house of Peter within a sacred precinct.
4) The belief of the community of Jewish Christians of Capharnaum
and of pilgrims in the sanctity of the place, indicated as the
house of St.Peter by tradition, finds expression in incisions of
symbols and graffiti on the walls of this venerated hall.
5) A church with a central plan (two concentric octagons with a
portico on five sides and sacristies and subordinate loci on
three other sides) was constructed at Capharnaum towards the
middle of the fifth century over the venerated house of St.
Peter" (The House of Saint Peter at Capharnaum, Father Virgilio
Corbo, p.71).
THE CONVERSION OF PETER
Peter was brought to Christ by his brother Andrew. They were
both fishermen, plying their trade on the sea of Galilee. Peter
was a young man when he first met Christ, and certainly he was
interested in the Messiah. When his brother Andrew announced that
he had found the Messiah, Peter eagerly dropped his nets and went
along to see for himself. Then he returned to his trade.
It was sometime later that Jesus came to the shores of
Galilee and there found Peter who had talked with Him before.
There the invitation of Christ came, 'Follow me and I will make
you to become fishers of men.' (Matt.4:19) Peter and Andrew
straightway left their nets and boats and followed Jesus. He was
married and his mother-in-law apparently lived with him and his
wife.
PETER'S PERSONALITY
Much has been made of Peter's temperament. He was not
particularly modest, but usually was self-assertive. He
frequently stood in the early days at the forefront of the
Apostles and was their spokesman. It remained only for Paul to
outshine him. But Peter always remained firm in the affection of
the early Christians as the first among the great Christians.
Though the record indicates that John and Paul were also highly
regarded, nevertheless, in the lists of Apostles in the
Scriptures, we find the name Peter preceding the rest of the
twelve.
Peter was impulsive. He often acted first and thought
second. He quickly dropped his net at the invitation of Christ.
When Jesus walked across the water Peter stepped over the side of
the boat and walked on the water toward Him. After the
Resurrection, Peter threw himself into the sea and swam
impulsively to shore, not waiting for the slow rowing of the boat
Peter's character was not at fast as firm as it might have been.
He was the loudest in his avowals of loyalty to Christ the night
before Jesus was seized. That night, with all the rest, he
forsook Him and cursed His Name. Then in another impulsive
reversal, after Jesus looked at him, Peter went out and wept
bitterly.
Peter was a rare combination of courage and cowardice, of
great strength and regrettable instability. Christ spoke more
often to Peter than to any other of His disciples, both in blame
and praise. No other disciple is so pointedly reproved by our
Lord as Peter, and no disciple ever ventured to reprove his
Master but Peter! However, by degrees and under the teaching and
example and the training of Christ, Peter's overly tempestuous
character was gradually brought under control, until finally
after Pentecost it became the personification of faithfulness to
Christ.
There was one redeeming factor about Peter's character and
that was his exquisite sense of sin. He was extremely sensitive
and tender in his spirit in this respect. It was Peter who said,
"Depart from me O Lord for I am a sinful man." (Luke 5:8) Peter
sinned as grievously as did Judas. Judas sold Jesus. Peter cursed
Him. There is no essential difference, except that Peter repented
and Judas did not. It is revealing to read from his own epistle
the following words written in the evening of his life.
"Ye, therefore beloved, seeing ye know all these things beware
lest ye also fall from your steadfastness, but grow in grace and
in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom
be glory both now and forever. Amen" (2 Peter 3:17-18).
FACTS THE BOOK OF ACTS REVEALS ABOUT PETER
In the Book of Acts we note that Peter takes a unique and
early position of importance in the church in Jerusalem. In fact
the first division of the Book of Acts is composed largely of the
Acts of Peter, just as the second division of the book contains
the stories of the Acts of Paul. The Book of Acts was originally
written to show the transition of Christianity from a Jewish sect
to a world faith. Therefore, the story of Peter is told us there
that we might see how Peter who had the leadership position in
the early church gradually carried the gospel beyond the
boundaries of the Jewish into the Gentile world. Then the story
is transferred to Paul who became uniquely the Apostle to the
Gentiles.
It was Peter who prompted the choice of the twelfth disciple
to take the place of Judas. It was he who spoke to the assembled
multitude on the day of Pentecost. It was he who performed the
healing miracle on the lame man. In Galatians 2:9 Paul speaks of
Peter with James and John as "pillars" of the church. It was
Peter who defended the cause of the gospel when the authorities
of the Jews took action against the Apostles. He exercised church
discipline in the congregation in the case of Ananias and
Sapphira.
(This was a very usual "church discipline" - and not the norm by
any imagination. Peter had miraculous power and inspiration in
this particualr case. This example does not prove a teaching that
"one" man has power of church discipline, and can cast people out
at his personal wim - Keith Hunt)
He also spoke out against Simon, the magician who sought to
buy the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Book of Acts emphasizes the
faith of the common people in the miraculous power of Peter. They
considered his shadow capable of effecting a healing. Peter was
delegated by the Twelve in Jerusalem to go to Samaria to look
into the genuineness of the spiritual renewal which was going on
there under the direction of Philip. Following this, Peter
appeared in missionary activities in Lydda, Joppa and Caesarea,
where he is especially mentioned as having been led to baptize
the house hold of the Gentile, Cornelius.
Finally Peter appeared at the Apostolic Council where he
defended the inclusion of Gentiles in the Christian movement.
From this point Peter disappears from the narrative in the Book
of Acts. Paul mentions him in his epistles only in regard to
Peter's mistake when in Antioch he feared the Jewish Christians
from Jerusalem who demanded separation from the Gentile
Christians on the part of Jewish Christians. Paul says in his
statement that Peter was to blame and that therefore he, Paul,
had withstood him to the face! Peter apparently backed down
before Paurl's fierce logic.
We are on certain ground in tracing St.Peter to Corinth
after St.Paul had founded the church there and before Paul wrote
his epistles to the Corinthians. Jean Danielou observes:
"In Corinth the memory of Peter was closely associated with that
of Paul by the bishop Dionysius. It is evident from the Letter
that Clement of Rome wrote to the members of the Church at the
beginning of the second century that there were links between
Corinth and Rome, with which Peter and Paul were also associated.
The Letter shows that the town was torn by discord, the
presbyters against another party, perhaps that of the deacons"
(The Christian Centuries, Jean Danielou, p.51).
In the Epistles of Ignatius there is a reference to St.
Peter at Antioch. Eusebius quotes the passage:
"About this time flourished Polycarp in Asia, an intimate
disciple of the Apostles, who received the episcopate of the
church at Smyrna, at the hands of the eyewitnesses and servants
of the Lord. At this time, also, Papias was well known as bishop
of the church at Hierapolis, a man well skilled in all manner of
learning, and well acquainted with the Scriptures. Ignatius,
also, who is celebrated by many even to this day, as the
successor of Peter at Antioch, was the second that obtained the
episcopal office there." (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History,
Eusebius, p.120 ).
The church historian Jean Danielou discusses the presence of
St.Peter at Antioch:
"It remains true that if the Church of Antioch was not typically
Petrine, it had many ties with Peter; we have seen that he had
stayed there at a very early date. The Petrine apocryphal
writings were popular in Antioch, as Theophilus and Serapion
show. The Ascension of Isaiah is the first work to mention
Peter's martyrdom. Antiochene Judaeo-Christianity thus appears as
representing the Petrine position. We have also noticed its links
with the Phoenician sector, which was specially dependent on
Peter. The same links are to be found in the other regions which
came under Peter's influence and which were in communication with
Antioch.
Eusebius tells us that Pontus and the neighbouring regions of
Bithynia, Cappadocia and Galatia were dependent on Peter; other
facts confirm this. The First Epistle of Peter was addressed to
the Christians of these regions. That may be the source of
Eusebius's information, but this hypothesis is far from certain,
since there is other evidence for the link. Pontus and Cappadocia
are geographically an extension of North Syria and it was in that
direction that Syria usually expanded. In a letter of Dionysius,
Bishop of Corinth in the middle of the second century, we see the
links between Corinth and Pontus. Now Corinth was in Peter's
sphere of influence. In the Paschal controversy, the bishops of
Pontus were in agreement with the Bishop of Rome and in
disagreement with the Asiatic bishops." (The Christian Centuries,
Jean Danielou, p.50).
(The "Paschal controversy" in the second century, was the Roman
church adopting the pagan "Easter" over what some called "The
Jewish Passover." It makes no difference as to the geographical
area of the Roman Empire - if those churches agreed with Rome,
they had fallen into leaving the faith once delivered to the
saints, they were moving away from the truth of God - Keith Hunt)
There is widespread confirmation that St.Peter did indeed
make Antioch his headquarters; Hugo Hoever in his "Lives of the
Saints" writes as a Catholic scholar:
"Church historians affirm positively that St.Peter founded the
See of Antioch before he went to Rome. Antioch was then the
capital of the East. St.Gregory the Great states that the Prince
of the Apostles was Bishop of that city for seven years" (p.82).
In the memorial book called "Souvenir-India" in an article
entitled, "The Hoply See of seleucia-Ctestphon" by V. K. George
is recorded the traditions of the church of the East.
"Meanwhile, the Apostles set out to preach the Gospel. The first
missionary field of the Apostles was the Jews. They were their
own racial kinsmen. They were the people who were waiting for the
coming of the Messiah. Hence the work among them was very easy.
The Apostles had only to add a few articles to their existing
faith that the Messiah had come; that he had died for their sins
and risen for their salvation; that he had ascended into heaven
and had sent His Holy Spirit to his disciples; and that he was to
be worshipped as God:
At that time Mesopotamia. was one of the strongest centres of
Jews. It was there that the 'Lost Tribes' were living.
(No, they were not the "lost tribes" per se. They were Jews from
the the House of Judah captivity by the Babylon Empire; 604-586
B.C. The "lost sheep of the House of Israel" captivity; 745-718
B.C by the Assyrian Empire, had moved further west into Europe
and Britain by the first century A.D. - Keith Hunt)
They were very rich and influential and they had commercial
settlements in many places on the coast of India, Ceylon, Malaya
and on the farthest coast of China. We see that Jesus Himself had
sent the seventy apostles to Mesopotamia during his ministry on
earth.
And therefore it was natural that the Apostles chose that area
for their first missionary activity. St.Thaddeus, (Mar Addai)
went to Edessa to fulfil the promise of Our Lord to King Abgar of
Edessa. St.Peter also preached the Gospel in Babylon and the Holy
Bible proves it: "The chosen Church which is in Babylon and Mark,
my son, salute you: (I Peter 5:13). St.Thomas had worked among
the Jews of Mesopotamia and later on went in search of their
small colonies on the coast of India and reached Cranganore in 52
A.D. St.Bartholomew and Mar Mari of the Seventy were also the
founders of this Church.
"As in the Roman Empire, so also in the Persian Empire,
Christianity had the beginning in important cities and spread
into the interior. Thus Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Alexandria,
Rome, etc., in the Roman Empire and Edessa, Arbil,
Seleucia-Ctesiphon, etc., in the Persian Empire became strong
Christian centres."
(The above proves "Jews" from the House of Judah cativity by the
Babylonians were still out in many of those lands to the East.
Yes, Peter went to "Babylon" itself - 1 Peter 5:13. The apostles
did start by going to the Jews first just as Paul started that
way, until he was inspired to mainly go to the Gentiles - Keith
Hunt)
The Coptic church historians agree with the Roman Catholics:
"Moreover, Eusebius asserts that the church of Antioch was
founded by St.Peter, who became its first bishop even before his
translation to the See of Rome. According to tradition, he
presided for seven years over the newly established Antiochene
church, from 33 to 40 A.D., when he nominated St.Euodius as his
vicar before departure to the West. While the circle of preaching
the Gospel was widened towards the East in Edessa, Nisibis and
distant Malabar by the Apostle Thomas and Mar Addaf (St.
Thaddaeus), the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. could only
have increased the number of Christian Jewish emigrants to
Antioch." (A History of Eastern Christianity, Aziz S. Atiya,
p.172).
PETER AND ROME AND BABYLON
Here we must part company with Eusehius. There is no
evidence that St.Peter was in Rome as early as 44 A.D. It is much
more likely that he was in Babylon, as the Eastern churches
claim. In the Epistle to the Romans St.Paul makes no reference to
St.Peter. The First Epistle of Peter comes from Babylon according
to the plain statement of the writer. Peter could hardly have
been in Rome until after the Epistle to the Romans was written
since he apparently stopped over in Corinth after St.Paul was
there, as St.Paul states in his First Epistle to the Corinthians.
There are, as we have noted, references in Paul's First
Epistle to the Corinthians that indicate that Peter had visited
Corinth and preached there for awhile. Apparently Peter took his
wife with him on his journey as we learn in First Corinthians
9:5. Having been in prison twice in the city of Jerusalem, Peter
left Jerusalem and went into other parts of the world. His
epistle notes that it was written in "Babylon". Many have
wondered if this did not mean Rome which was fre-quently called
"Babylon" by the early Christians.
The actual city of Babylon, however, still was of
importance. It was a great center of Jewish colonists and was a
powerful center when Peter ministered there for a time. The
Eastern churches trace their lineage to Babylon, and hence to St.
Peter, to this day.
In Acts 12:17 we are told that Peter "went to another
place". We do not know this was Babylon, nor, if he went, how
long he stayed. But the tradition of the Eastern churches is
united that he did indeed go to Babylon, from which he wrote his
first epistle. There was no need to use "Babylon" as a symbol of
Rome as there was later when St.John wrote the Book of the
Revelation. John was writing literature deliberately designed to
pass the Roman censors (No, I do not think so. He wrote straight
up-front about "prophecy" - no needd to be censored by anyone -
Keith Hunt) but obviously Peter was not.
According to Galatians 2:9, a decision had been reached by
the Apostles in Jerusalem to the effect that Paul and his
fellow-workers were to go to the Gentiles, while the missionaries
from Jerusalem (probably meaning Peter and his workers) went to
the circumcised (that is, the Jews). Thus Peter was identified
from the beginning with the Jewish party within Christianity as
Paul was identified with the Gentile party, though there are many
evidences that both men went over the line and dealt with people
of the other group. One should not imagine, however, that Peter
considered himself the opponent of Paul, despite Paul's arguments
as recorded in Galatians. Peter, himself, no doubt stood nearer
to Paul than did the other members of the Jerusalem church. There
is absolutely no evidence that Paul ever recognized the "primacy"
of Peter in his relationship to Paul. And in Corinth, Paul did
not permit a "Cephas party" any more than be did any other party
whatever.
.....................
To be continued
NOTE:
What we are seeing here is indeed the "going to the Jews" first.
The Jews were scattered all over the old Babylon area and further
East. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah make it very clear that only
a "protion" of Jews RETURNED to Jerusalem and Palestine, or Holy
Land. Most of them were content to stay in the East, even move
further East, and North East.
The work of going to the lost sheep of the House of Israel was
yet ahead for the 12 apostles. Most so-called "scholars" of
secular and "church" history will not see, or admit, that the
BULK of Israelites, and especially the House of Israel
Israelites, had, by the first century A.D. moved into Eastern and
Central Europe, and some even into the British Isles - Keith Hunt
The Search for the TWELVE Apostles
The history on Peter - part two
by the late McBirnie Ph.D.
All ABOUT PETER - part two
DID ST.PETER EVANGELIZE THE AREA TO THE NORTH OF ROME?
WAS HE IN BRITAIN?
In his exhaustive but not generally accepted study of early
Christianity, George F.Jowett outlines the various speculations
and traditions about the Apostle Peter. In his book the "Drama of
the Lost Disciples" he creates a scenario based upon various
apocryphal and doubtful sources:
(Actually Jowett's book [which I have] is extremely good, and
more to the truth of the matter than most "Catholic" and
"Protestant" theologians want to admit. The truth of many things
are buried beneath the falsehoods of the Roman Catholic Babylon
Mystery Religion and her "protestant" daughters - Keith Hunt)
"Peter fled direct to Britain. This is affirmed by Cornelius in
Lapide in his work 'Argumentum Epistolae St.Pauli ad Romanos', in
which he answers the question as to why St.Paul does not salute
St.Peter in his Epistle to the Romans. He replies: 'Peter,
banished with the rest of the Jews from Rome, by the edict of
Claudius, was absent in Britain.'
Peter, acting as a free-lance missionary, stemming from Avalon,
preached in Britain during the Caradoc/Claudian war. While in
Britain he became well acquainted with the members of the two
branches of the Royal Silurian House of Arviragus and Caractacus.
He knew the children of Caractacus years before they went into
Roman captivity. Years after, when the British family became well
established in Rome, he was naturally attracted to the home of
the Pudens at the Palatium Britannicum. The visits of both Peter
and Paul, with the family of the Pudens, is referred to in
Scripture. Other ancient records state that the children of
Claudia and Rufus Pudens were raised at the knees of Peter and
Paul and other disciples, particularly naming St.Paul, for
reasons stated in a former chapter.
There is plenty of evidence to show that Peter visited Britain
and Gaul several times during his lifetime, his last visit to
Britain taking place shortly before his final arrest and
crucifixion in Nerds circus at Rome.
In Gaul, Peter became the Patron Saint of Chartres, by reason of
his preference to preach in the famous Druidic rock temple known
as 'The Grotte des Druides.' This is considered to be the oldest
Druidic site in Gaul, on which is built the oldest cathedral in
France.
Of his visits in Britain we have the corroboration of Eusebius
Pamphilis, A.D.308, whom Simon Metaphrastes quotes as saying:
'St.Peter to have been in Britain as well as in Rome.'
Further proof of Peter's sojourn in Britain was brought to the
light of day in recent times when an ancient, time-worn monument
was excavated at Whithorn. It is a rough hewn stone standing 4
feet high by 15 inches wide. On the face of this tablet is an
inscription that reads: 'Locus Sancti Petri Apvstoli' (The Place
of St.Peter the Apostle).
The eminent Dean Stanley, writing in his works of the beloved
Apostle, claims that the vision that came to St.Peter, foretold
his doom: 'Knowing that shortly I must put off this my
tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hast chewed me (2 Peter
1:14), appeared to St.Peter on his last visit to Britain, on the
very spot where once stood the old British church of Lambedr (St.
Peter's), where stands the present Abbey of St.Peter,
Westminster. Shortly afterwards Peter returned to Rome, where he
was later executed.
The first church dedicated to Peter was founded by King Lucius,
the British King, who was the first by royal decree to proclaim
Christianity the national faith of Britain in Winchester A.D.
158.
The church was erected A.D.179, to the affectionate memory of St.
Peter, in commemoration of his evangelizing labours in Britain.
It is still known as 'St.Peter's of Cornhill' and bears the
legend on its ageworn walls relating the historic fact and dates
by the order of King Lucius, the descendant of Arviragus,
preserved to this day for all to see and read" (p.174,175).
Jowett may be suspected of placing too much reliance on late
or doubtful documentation, but there are some who agree with him,
notably J.W.Taylor who observes:
"Two other traditions of first-century Christian missions, but
belonging to a slightly later period, demand some attention as
also bearing on Western Christianity.
The first is the tradition of 'St.Maternus', and is connected
with all the old country of the Treviri and Tungri beyond the
Alps.
Here, and especially at Trier (or Treves), the Romans had formed
important colonies some fifty years before the coming of Christ;
and although, as in Britain, there were frequent uprisings
against the power of Rome, the Romans maintained their supremacy
for two hundred years or more.
Nowhere so far north are the Roman remains and ruins so rich, so
fine, and so remarkable as they are in Treves today.
And the first Christian mission to Treves is represented as
partly Roman and partly Hebrew, as coming direct from Rome by the
authority of St.Peter, and in the course or channel of Roman
colonization.
In some of these points it differs entirely from those we have
been considering. The tradition also has other points of very
considerable interest. It runs as follows:
Three Saints-Eucharius, Valerius and Maternusall of whom had been
pupils of St.Peter at Rome, were sent by him to Trier to preach
the gospel of Christ.
Eucharius was appointed as bishop, and Valerius and Maternus as
his assistants. Maternus was of Hebrew birth, and came from the
little town of Nain in Palestine, being 'the only son of his
mother', whom Christ had raised from the dead. But no special
honour was at this time accorded him. He was the least of the
three missionary disciples, one of the 'personal witnesses' who,
as long as they lived, accompanied the other evangelists in most
of their distant journeys.
But though ready to take the lowest place among his Greek and
Roman companions, Maternus appears to have been most active in
his apostolic labours. For while all three-Eucharius, Valerius
and Maternus - are associated with the foundation of the church
at Trier and Cologne (the scene of their chief labours at Trier
being a little outside the present city, on the site of the old
St.Matthiaskirche), Maternus alone is represented as pushing
forward and reaching the farthest settlement of Tongres, where he
is said to have built a little church which he dedicated to the
Blessed Virgin - the first church beyond the Alps dedicated to
her name and memory ('Ecclesia Tungrensis prima cis Alpes beatae
Mariae Virgini consecrata')." ("The Coming of the Saints," J.W.
Taylor, p.61).
One could wish that Taylor was on firmer and more widely
confirmed historical ground. But there certainly is no reason why
Peter could not have visited Great Britain. Many believe he did.
Like most other Christians in the world, the British believers of
the early Middle Ages sought to claim a number of Apostles as
having had some association with their forebears. The more one
studies the early history of Britain, the more possible this
claim appears. Those who have a classical education (that is,
studies in the Latin Classics) often apparently tend to draw most
of their impressions from the War Chronicles of Julius Caesar.
They are perhaps forgetting that "The Gallic Wars" is not only
history but also Caesar's personally slanted political
propaganda. The Britons offered stout and intelligent resistance
to the Roman conquest as Caesar found out to his dismay,
something primitives could not have done.
(You bet the Romans had a tremendously hard time fighting the
Britons. One just has to read the Roman historian "Tacitus" to
discover the Romans had met their match when fighting the
British. Maybe one day I will upload the writings of Tacitus -
Keith Hunt)
Archaeological discoveries in Britain confirm that a viable
civilization had developed there as far back as the time of the
Phoenicians whose traces have been found in England. It is Caesar
who has pictured them as painted savages very much like American
Indians before Columbus. This impression is absolutely wrong!!
Perhaps the civilization of Britain was not as far advanced
as Taylor and Jewett would like to believe. (Oh, yes it was ,
very much so, even obviously more than McBirnie wants to believe
- Keith Hunt). But the use of the wheel and the knowledge of
metallurgy which existed in Britain long before the time of
Caesar (circa 60-40 B.C.) clearly indicates a civilization far in
advance, for example, of that of the Aztecs at the time of the
conquest of Cortez (1519 A.D.) who used neither wheels nor iron.
Considering this relatively advanced civilization it is not
difficult to believe that some of the Apostles visited England.
Did they not believe that theirs was the commission to take the
gospel to the ends o f the earth? Whether they did or not go to
England is not provable, but it is not unlikely or impossible.
(Actually is very provable, that Peter, Paul and others preached
in Britain - Keith Hunt)
ST.PETER AND ROME
The common tradition that St.Peter founded the church at
Rome is unverifiable. Paul could hardly have named so many Roman
Christians in the last chapter of Romans if there had not been
churches there long before any possible visit of St.Peter.
Danielou observes however:
"Was Paul's the only mission to the West? The Acts tell us that
in 43, after the death of James, Peter left Jerusalem 'for
another place' (Acts 12:17). He is lost from sight until 49, when
we find him at the Council of Jerusalem. No canonical text has
anything to say about his missionary activity during this time.
But Eusebius writes that he came to Rome about 44, at the
beginning of Claudius's reign (HE II, 14, 81). It seems certain
that Rome was evangelised during the period from 43 to 49.
Suetonius says that Claudius expelled the Jews in 50,
because they were growing agitated 'at the prompting of
Chrestos.' This shows that discussions between Jews and
Judaeo-Christians were taking place, leading to conflicts which
came to the ear of the emperor. In fact at Corinth in 51 Paul met
some converted Jews driven from Rome by Claudius: Aquila and
Priscilla. In 57 Paul addressed the community of Rome, already
considered important. In 60 he found communities established in
Puteoli and in Rome." ("The Christian Centuries," Jean Danielou,
p.28).
However, as we have pointed out, St.Peter was probably in
Babylon from A.D.44 to 49 rather than in Rome. We cannot imagine
the silence of the Acts if St.Peter had been in Rome during that
time. In any case this period (A.D.44-49) seems to be the only
time which St.Peter could have been in Babylon, which was located
on the great Roman highway as the next great city to the east of
Antioch.
PETER DIED IN ROME
There is no serious attempt by any reputable modern scholar
to find the presence of Peter in Rome before Paul wrote the Book
of Romans to the band of Christians that had already grown to
some size in that capital city of the first century world. On the
other hand Peter had to die and be buried somewhere and Christian
tradition has been in agreement from the earliest times that it
was actually in Rome that Peter died. No less a Protestant
theologian and historian than Adolph Harnack wrote that, "to deny
the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every
scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was
once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice." The Protestant
theologian H. Lietzmann, has come to the conclusion that the
testimony from the year 170 concerning the graves of the two
Apostles at Rome must be correct. That is, that the two Apostles
(Peter and Paul) were actually buried in two places in Rome.
Perhaps the latest authoritative word which has been written is
by Oscar Cullmann. In his book, "Peter, Disciple, Apostle,
Martyr," he presents an argument based upon First Clement 5:24,
in which he inferred from this text that the martyrdoms of Peter
and Paul took place in Rome.
RECENT EXCAVATIONS OF ST.PETER'S BASILICA IN ROME
Since the end of the Second World War great interest has
been focused upon the excavations under the church of St.Peter in
Rome. It has now been officially announced by the Pope that the
grave of Peter has been found. Scholars await full publication of
all the results of the excavations before agreeing. Nevertheless,
the general tendency of scholarship today seems to be moving in
the direction of accepting the Roman stay of Peter. It is
possible that Revelation 11:3-13 contains a cryptic account of
the martyrdom of Paul and Peter in Rome. That this passage is
both historic and prophetic is evident. The historical aspect of
it may be a reference to the death of Paul and Peter in Rome,
though this text seems to point primarily to a future
fulfillment.
(That text in Revelation 11 has NOTHING to do with Peter or Paul
- it is as McBirnie says, a "prophecy" for the yet future, during
the last 42 months of this age - Keith Hunt)
Near the close of the gospel of John there is a hint given
as to the manner of Peter's death. It agrees with the tradition
which has been long with us that Nero had Peter crucified
head-downward on the Vatican Hill. It says, "As long as you were
young, you girded yourself and went wherever you chose, but when
you have become old, you will stretch out your hands and another
will gird you and carry you where you do not want to go." It is
universally recognized that these words are intended as a
prediction of the martyrdom of Peter for the following verses
tell us that these words speak of the kind of death that Peter
was going to die to glorify Cod. The phrase "stretching out of
the hands" (John 21:18) may indicate the manner of execution,
which is crucifixion.
(Well it may also have just meant you hold out your hands to be
chained up and led away captive, but the traditions do point to
Peter being crucified - Keith Hunt)
Finally, it would be well to note that in the entire scope
of the very earliest Christian literature there is complete
silence concerning the death of Peter. We certainly do not even
have the slightest reference that points to any other place
besides Rome which could be considered as the scene of his death.
And in favor of Rome, there are important traditions that he did
actually die in Rome. In the second and third centuries when
certain churches were in rivalry with those in Rome it never
occurred to a single one of them to contest the claim of Rome
that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter.
In The Christian Centuries Danielou shares an allusion to
St.Peter's visit to Rome:
"A certain Paron puts his house (aedes) at the disposal of St.
Peter, as well as its inner garden, which could hold five hundred
persons." (p.166 )
Perhaps we can get a realistic impression about St.Peter's
final days in Rome from Jewett:
"Maliciously condemned, Peter was cast into the horrible, fetid
prison of the Mamertine. There, for nine months, in absolute
darkness, he endured monstrous torture manacled to a post. Never
before or since has there been a dungeon of equal horror.
Historians write of it as being the most fearsome on the brutal
agenda of mankind. Over three thousand years old, it is probably
the oldest torture chamber extant, the oldest remaining monument
of bestiality of ancient Rome, a bleak testimony to its barbaric
inhumanity, steeped in Christian tragedy and the agony of
thousands of its murdered victims. It can be seen to this day,
with the dungeon and the pillar to which Peter was bound in
chains.
This dreaded place is known by two names. In classical history it
is referred to as Gemonium or the Tullian Keep. In later secular
history it is best known as the Mamertine. At this time it is not
out of place to pause in our story to describe this awesome pit,
if only to provide us who live so securely today with a slight
reminder of what the soldiers of Christ suffered for our sake, so
we may be quickened the better to appreciate the substance of our
Christian heritage.
The Mamertine is described as a deep cell cut out of solid rock
at the foot of the capitol, consisting of two chambers, one over
the other. The only entrance is through an aperture in the
ceiling. The lower chamber was the death cell. Light never
entered and it was never cleaned. The awful stench and filth
generated a poison fatal to the inmates of the dungeon, the most
awful ever known. Even as early as 50 B.C. the historian Sallust
describes it in the following words:
'In the prison called the Tullian, there is a place about ten
feet deep. It is surrounded on the sides by walls and is closed
above by a vaulted roof of stone. The appearance of it from the
filth, the darkness and the smell is terrible.'
"No one can realize what its horrors must have been a hundred
years later when Peter was imprisoned in its noisome depths.
"n this vile subterranean rock the famed Jugurtha was starved and
went stark raving mad. Vereingitorix, the valorous Druidic
Gaulish chieftain, was murdered by the order of Julius Caesar.
It is said that the number of Christians that perished within
this diabolic cell is beyond computation - such is the glory of
Rome.
One can re-read the denouncing words of the noble Queen Boadicea,
with profit. She branded them for what they were. These people of
the Roman purple, who scorned all their enemies as barbarian,
were the greatest and most cruel barbarians of all time.
"How Peter managed to survive those nine long dreadful months is
beyond human imagination. During his entire incarceration he was
manacled in an upright position, chained to the column, unable to
lay down to rest. Yet, his magnificent spirit remained undaunted.
It flamed with the immortal fervour of his noble soul proclaiming
the Glory of God, through His Son, Jesus Christ. History tells us
the amazing fact that in spite of all the suffering Peter was
subjected to, he converted his gaolers, Processus, Martinianus,
and forty-seven others.
It is a strange and curious circumstance that the chair, or
throne of Pius IX, at the Vatican Council, was erected directly
over the altar of Processus and Marinianus. (sic)
Peter, the Rock, as he predicted, met his death at Rome by the
hands of the murderous Romans, who crucified him, according to
their fiendish manner. He refused to die in the same position as
our Lord, declaring he was unworthy. Peter demanded to be
crucified in the reverse position, with his head hanging
downward. Ironically enougb, this wish was gratified by the
taunting Romans in Nero's circus A.D. 67. ("The Drama of the Lost
Disciples," George F.Jowett, p.176).
THE LEGENDS OF ST.PETER AND ST. PAUL
Legends, unlike traditions, have at best only grains of
truth in them and those grains may be impossible to find.
However, there is a persistent legend regarding St.Peter and
Simon the Sorcerer which, at least has its beginnings in the
historical account in the book of Acts where St.Peter denounced
Simon for trying to purchase the Holy Spirit. The legend about
the aftermath is as follows:
"The magician, vanquished by a superior power, flung his books
into the Dead Sea, broke his wand, and fled to Rome, where he
became a great favorite of the Emperor Claudius, and afterwards
of Nero. Peter, bent on counteracting the wicked sorceries of
Simon, followed him to Rome. About two years after his arrival he
was joined there by the Apostle Paul. Simon Magus having asserted
that he was himself a god, and could raise the dead, Peter and
Paul rebuked his impiety, and challenged him to a trial of skill
in the presence of the emperor. The arts of the magician failed;
Peter and Paul restored the youth to life and on many other
occasions Simon was vanquished and put to shame by the miraculous
power of the Apostles. At length he undertook to fly up to heaven
in sight of the emperor and the people; and, crowned with laurel,
and supported by denons, he flung himself from a tower, and
appeared for a while to float thus in the air, but St.Peter,
falling on his knees commanded the denons to let go their hold,
and Simon, precipitated to the ground, was dashed to pieces."
("Sacred and Legendary Art," Anna Jameson, p.209).
The same book records the early church Father's beliefs in
the stories of St.Peter and Simon the Magician:
"There can be no doubt that there existed in the first century a
Simon, a Samaritan, a pretender to divine authority and
supernatural powers; who, for a time, had many followers; who
stood in a certain relation to Christianity; and who may have
held some opinions more or less similar to those entertained by
the most famous heretics of the early ages, the Gnostics.
Irenaeus calls this Simon the father of all heretics. 'All those;
he says, 'who in any way corrupt the truth, or mar the preaching
of the Church, are disciples and successors of Simon, the
Samaritan magician: Simon gave himself forth as a god, and
carried about with him a beautiful woman named Helena, who he
represented as the first conception of his - that is, of the
divine-mind, the symbol or manifestation of that portion of
spirituality which had become entangled in matter." (Ibid., p.
209).
So notable a figure as St.Peter would of course have more
legends created about him than the Simon the Magician story. For
example:
"The Apostle Peter had a daughter born in lawful wedlock, who
accompanied him in his journey from the East. Being at Rome with
him, she fell sick of a grievous infirmity which deprived her of
the use of her limbs. And it happened that as the disciples were
at meat with him in his house, one said to him, 'Master, how is
it that thou, who healest the infirmities of others, dost not
heal thy daughter Petronilla?' And St.Peter answered, 'It is good
for her to remain sick': but, that they might see the power that
was in the word of God, he commanded her to get up and serve them
at table, which she did; and having done so, she lay down again
helpless as before; but many years afterwards, being perfected by
her suffering, and praying fervently, she was healed. Petronilla
was wonderfully fair; and Valerius Flaccus, a young and noble
Roman, who was a heathen, became enamored of her beauty, and
sought her for his wife; and he being very powerful, she feared
to refuse him; she therefore desired him to return in three days,
and promised that he should then carry her home. But she prayed
earnestly to be delivered from this peril; and when Flaccus
returned in three days with great pomp to celebrate the marriage,
he found her dead. The company of nobles who attended him carried
her to the grave, in which they laid her, crowned with roses; and
Flaccus lamented greatly."
The legend places her death in the year 98, that is thirty-four
years after the death of St.Peter; but it would be in vain to
attempt to reconcile the dates and improbabilities of this
story." (Ibid., p.215).
We are on firmer historical ground in the records of the
church Fathers regarding the death of St.Peter himself:
"Thus Nero publicly announcing himself as the chief enemy of God,
was led on in his fury to slaughter the Apostles. Paul is
therefore said to have been be headed at Rome, and Peter to have
been crucified under him. And this account is confirmed by the
fact, that the names of Peter and Paul still remain in the
cemeteries of that city even to this day. But likewise, a certain
ecclesiastical writer, Caius by name, who was born about the time
of Zephyrinus bishop of Rome,. disputing with Proclus the leader
of the Phrygian sect, gives the following statement respecting
the places where the earthly tabernacles of the aforesaid
Apostles are laid. 'But I can show,' says be, 'the trophies of
the Apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican, or to the Ostian
road, you will find the trophies of those who have laid the
foundation of this church. And that both suffered martyrdom about
the same time.'
Dionysins bishop of Corinth bears the following testimony,
in his discourse addressed to the Romans. "Thus, likewise you, by
means of this admonition, have mingled the flourishing seed that
had been planted by Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both
of these having planted us at Corinth, likewise instructed us;
and having in like manner taught in Italy, they suffered
martyrdom about the same time. This testimony I have superadded,
in order that the truth of the history might be still more
confirmed." ("Ecclesiastical History," Eusebius, p.80).
There is much evidence that St.Peter chose St.Mark as his
secretary or amanuensis.
"Peter's claim to literary fame rests more firmly on his relation
to the Gospel of Mark. Papias of Hierapolis recorded the fact
that 'Mark, the interpreter of Peter, wrote down carefully what
he remembered, both the sayings and the deeds of Christ, but not
in chronological order, for he did not hear the Lord and he did
not accompany him. At a later time, however, be did accompany
Peter, who adapted his instruction to the needs [of his hearers],
but not with the object of making a connected series of
discourses of our Lord. So Mark made no mistake in writing the
individual discourses in the order in which he recalled them.'
"On this authority it is believed that Mark served as translator
for Peter when he preached in Rome. As Peter told and retold his
experiences with Jesus, Mark interpreted them again and again to
Christian groups. This frequent repetition gave Mark an almost
verbatim memory of Peter's recollections. After the death of
Peter, Mark, realizing the value of Peter's first-hand account,
recorded what he remembered so clearly in the document we know as
the first of the Gospel records. Matthew and Luke obviously used
Mark's Gospel in the writing of their lives of Jesus. (Not so,
God can inspire whoever to write however, one fellow copying from
another is human reasoning, and bears no weight - Keith Hunt).
In this manner Peter became the source for our earliest
Gospel and thus to a large extent supplied the material for the
first written record of our Lord. If this reconstruction of
events is accurate, Mark's Gospel can be considered Peter's
personal remembrance of his life with Jesus. As such it remains
one of Peter's greatest contributions to the Christian Church."
("The Twelve Christ Chose," Asbury Smith, p.21,22).
(However Mark came to write his Gospel, the fact remains it was
inspired by God to be written - Keith Hunt)
"Peter was led to the top of the Vatican Mount near the TYBUR and
crucified with his head downwards. His body was embalmed by
Marcellinus the Presbyter after the Jewish manner, then buried in
the Vatican near the Triumphal Way. Over his body a small church
was erected. It was destroyed by Heliogalachis." ("The Lives and
Deaths of the Holy Apostles," Dorman Newman, p.20).
Dorman Newman (1685) apparently had sources unavailable to
us which possibly cast more light on St.Peter's burial:
"His [Peter's] body was removed to the cemetery in the Appian
Way, 2 miles from Rome where it rested obscurely until the Reign
of Constantine [who] rebuilt and enlarged the Vatican to the
honor of St.Peter.
The appearance of St Peter was as follows: His body was slender
of a middle size inclining to tallness. His complexion pail [sic]
and almost white. His beard curled and thick but short. His eyes
black but flecked with red due to frequent weeping. Eye brows
thin or none at all." (Ibid.21).
The Roman history, Augustus to Constantine, (p.188) contains
an interesting insight regarding controversies about the
propriety of the early Christians veneration of Apostolic burial
places.
"The Montanist Proclus argued that the tombs of the four
daughters of Philip, all prophetesses in New Testament times,
were still to be seen at Hierapolis in Asia. Gaius replied that
he could point out the 'trophies' of the Apostles (Peter and
Paul) who founded the Roman church; they were on the Vatican hill
and by the Ostian Way.
This interest in tombs was fairly widespread among Asian
Christians and was certainly present at Rome as early as the
middle of the second century. It did not spring into existence at
that time, for in the New Testament itself we read of the burial
of John the Baptist and of the martyr Stephen. Ignatius of
Antioch expected wild beasts to be his tomb, but this was a
special case. Polycarp of Smyrna was carefully buried, even
though a reference to an annual commemoration in the late second
century may be an interpolation in the story of his martyrdom."
("Augustus to Constantine, The Thrust of the Christian Movement
into the Roman World," Robert M. Grant, p.166 ).
The head of St.Peter is said to be entombed in the Cathedral
of St.John Lateran. The guidebook furnished the pilgrim there
makes the following statement regarding this traditional resting
place, but it gives no explanation of how the head of St.Peter
came to be there
.
"The central Altar is called the Papal Altar, because only the
Pope can celebrate Mass there. Behind the grille, aloft, in bust
of silver gilt, are preserved the relics of the heads of St.
Peter and St.Paul." ("The Cathedral of the Pope," J.B. de Toth,
pp.18,19).
MODERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES OF ST.PETER'S RELICS
The most recent story concerning the burial of St.Peter was
given in the "National Geographic Magazine" (December, 1971, p.
872). This account, which we quote by permission, provides the
latest Catholic archaeological and ecclesiastical conclusions
regarding the burial place of St.Peter. This report is
interesting not only because of its conclusions, but because it
provides an authoritative description of the steps by which those
conclusions were reached.
"Tradition holds that he was crucified upside down in Nero's
Circus near Vatican Hill. His body was given to his friends, and
he was buried close by.
...When Julius II pulled much of it down and began the church
that is there today, the tomb of St.Peter was lost to view.
Historians thought Peters bones were gone, his tomb sacked long
before by Saracens.
...in 1939, while excavations were being made for Pius XI's tomb,
Pius XII gave orders that the digging was to be extended in a
search for the tomb of St.Peter. This 'village' was one of the
great discoveries. The houses and simpler tombs under them dated
from the first to the third centuries A.D. They proved beyond
doubt that Constantine had built St.Peter's over a cemetery.
But an even more exciting discovery was involved. A Roman
presbyter named Gains, who lived in the second and third
centuries, had seen a grave memorial to St.Peter, and had
mentioned it in a letter, a fragment of which has come down to
us. Right under the papal altar, early in the excavations, a
small ruined monument was found. This could well be the memorial
Gains had seen. At its foot was a slab like a gravestone let into
the ground. The excavator: raised it. They found a grave, but it
was quite empty. Some bones were discovered nearby. For several
years they were believed to be the bones of Peter, but
anthropological study established that they were actually the
bones of more than one person.
INSCRIPTION LEADS TO A STARTLING FIND
"That would have been that, except for one obstinate and learned
woman, Margherita Guarducci. She is a professor at the University
of Rome, and she deciphers ancient inscriptions.
She spent six years studying the scribblings made by Christian
pilgrims on two old walls above the empty grave. One graffito on
the older wall, when deciphered, delivered an electrifying
message: 'Peter is within.' In the other wall was a recess lined
with marble. To her it was clearly an ossuary, a niche for
someone's bones. Had any been found?
The professor got hold of a workman who seemed to remember that
something had been found there years ago, but he thought it was a
piece of wall with a graffito. Undaunted, she searched St.Peter's
storage rooms. There in a box marked for graffiti, she found
bones.
The bones, she learned were indeed from the ossuary in the
ancient wall. Ten years before, a monsignor, during his daily
inspection of the excavations had put the bones in a plain wooden
box and deposited it in Storage.
POPE PAUL RESOLVES A SCHOLARLY DISPUTE
"Professor Guarducci had the bones examined by Professor
Venerando Correnti, an anthropologist of the University of Rome,
who, as she puts it, 'entirely bore out what could be expected
for the bones found in the only niche built by Constantine in his
monument to St.Peter.'
It was plain to her what had happened. When Constantine had
erected the first St.Peter's, he had cautiously moved the bones
of the saint from his grave to this biding place, a few feet
away, to protect them from deterioration and grave robbers.
That the bones Professor Guarducci found are those of St Peter,
she has no doubt They are the bones of a man of 60 or 70, and in
a box with them were bits of earth and shreds of purple-and-gold
cloth. The age tallies with Peter's traditional age at the time
of his crucifixion. Tradition says that he was buried in plain
earth. And when Constantine had the bones removed to the niche,
it would have seemed only fitting to have had them wrapped in
precious purple-andgold cloth.
Scholars disputed these conclusions; some still do. But Pope Paul
VI settled the question for the Catholic world. Speaking in St.
Peter's on June 26, 1968, he announced that the bones of the
saint had been found.
Today the bones are back in the niche of the tomb, hidden from
public view." (National Geographic, "St.Peter's" by Aubrey Menen,
Vol.140, No.6, December, 1971, p.872, 873).
It was this writer's privilege to be granted permission late
in November, 1971 to study and photograph the burial place of St.
Peter's bones deep beneath the huge basilica of St Peter's.
Beyond any doubt this huge church building is indeed built
upon a very extensive and well preserved first century A.D. Roman
cemetery, and the photographs reveal the name of Peter clearly
inscribed in ancient Latin in the place where the Apostle's bones
were discovered.
Edgar J. Goodspeed quotes Clement and Eusebius concerning
the last hours of St.Peter's life
.
"Peter's parting words to his wife as she was being led out to
martyrdom are recorded by Clement of Alexandria in his
'Miscellanies' and repeated by Eusebius in his 'Church History':
'They say that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to
die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her
by name, and saying:
O thou, remember the Lord!'" ("The Twelve," Edgar J. Goodspeed,
p.157).
......................
To be continued
NOTE:
The evidenced from many quarters is indeed that Peter did preach
and teach in Rome, but no evidence supports Peter as the founder
of the Christian Church in Rome. He was, as like the apostle
Paul, put to death in Rome. His remains, like those of Paul were
in Rome for a number of centuries. BUT, and there is a large
"but" - just about everyone wants to forget what the historian
BEDE wrote on the matter. I quote from "St.Paul in Britain" by
R.W.Morgan:
"Bede was a very earnest adherent of the novel papal Church,
introduced A.D.596, by Augustine into Britain, but the honesty
and simplicity of his character has rendered his history in many
respects a very inconvenient and obnoxious record to the said
Church. What became of the remains of St.Peter and St.Paul? At
Rome they STILL PRETEND TO EXHIBIT THEM, but Bede - and it must
be remembered he is a CANONIZED saint in the Roman calendar -
EXPRESSLY STATES that the remains of the bodies of the apostles
Peter and Paul, the martyrs St.Lawrence, St.John, St.Gregory, and
St.Pancras, were, at the solicitation of King Oswy to Pope
Vitalian, REMOVED from Rome to ENGLAND, and deposited at
CANTERBURY A.D. 656, Pope Vitalian's letter to Oswy being extant.
(Bedoe History., lib. iii. c. 29). THEIR REMAINS, then, if any,
REPOSE IN BRITISH SOIL."
So much for Papal Rome, then when you think what they tried to do
with the "Shroud of Turin" as the burial cloth of Jesus, you
should not be surprised, they would want you to believe the
physical remains of bones of Peter and Paul are in Rome. But now
you have seen the "rest of the story!"
Keith Hunt
The Apostle Andrew
The NT writings and Secular history
by the Late McBirnie PhD
ANDREW THE APOSTLE
Andrew was a native of Galilee, born in Bethsaida. Later he
lived by the sea in Capernaum. Josephus, toward the end of the
first century, wrote charmingly about this area, which was near
the city which he governed and later surrendered to the Roman
army.
"Alongside Lake Gennesareth is a stretch of country with the same
name, wonderful in its characteristics and in its beauty. Thanks
to the rich soil there is not a plant that does not flourish
there, and the inhabitants grow everything: the air is so
temperate that it suits the most diverse species. Walnuts, most
winter-loving of trees, flourish in abundance, as do palms, which
thrive on heat, side by side with figs and olives, for which a
milder air is indicated. One might deem it nature's crowning
achievement to force together into one spot natural enemies and
to bring the seasons into healthy rivalry, each as it were laying
claim to the region. For not only does it produce the most
surprisingly diverse fruits; it maintains a continuous supply.
Those royal fruits the grape and the fig it furnishes for ten
months on end, the most ripening on the trees all year round; for
apart from the temperate atmosphere it is watered by a spring
with great fertilizing power, known locally as Capharnaum."
(Capernaum, D.Neeman and B.Saip, p.VII).[The Jewish War, Josephus
Flavius, Book 3, Ch.VI,8]
Today the land of Galilee is precisely the same in every
respect as in the days of Josephus and Andrew. One has no trouble
in fitting the Biblical scenes into the lush hillsides and blue
waters that are virtually unchanged in appearance in the long
centuries since Andrew lived there.
Andrew was the first Apostle whom Jesus chose. He was in a
way a successor to John the Baptist. As John the Baptist
introduced Jesus to the nation, so Andrew is noted for having
introduced Jesus to individuals.
Andrew was the son of a woman named Joanna, a fisherman
named John, and had a brother called Simon who was later called
Peter. Actually Andrew's father's name was not "John" as we say
the word today but "Jonah", the same as the famous prophet. It is
not commonly known, but Jonah's native village, GathHepher, was
near Nazareth. Jonah, the prophet, had been the most illustrious
citizen ever to have lived near Nazareth.
Betbsaida, where Andrew was born, was twenty-five miles east
of Nazareth, located on the northern shores of the sea. It was
highly appropriate that the head of a family in which the
tradition of fishing was passed from father to son should be
called "Jonah." Just as the name "Smith" originally referred to a
man's occupation, so the name "Jonah" was apparently often
applied in those days to those who followed the fishing trade.
Another "Jonah" whom we call "John the Apostle" was also at first
a fisherman.
Apparently, Andrew thought more about matters of the soul
than about fishing, for he left his fishing nets to follow John
the Baptist. He walked a long way down the Jordan valley to come
to the place where John was preaching, to Bethany, across the
Jordan River from Jericho. Here Andrew found that voice of
authority in the spiritual matters for which he had been seeking.
He was not content with the spiritual wickedness, compromise and
graft which he had found in the cities of Galilee and Judea. But
John the Baptist was a man after his own heart; an outdoorsman,
rough, homely, who practiced the simple virtues and who lived the
life of a man to whom the flesh mattered little and worldly
acclaim even less. This was a man one could follow!
So Andrew busied himself serving John the Baptist. He
learned from him that some day, soon perhaps, the promised King
would arrive. To Jewish minds this coming king was known as the
"Messiah", which is translated via a Greek word, "Christos",
meaning, "The one anointed to become king, who has not yet come
to rule."
After Andrew had heard John preach, and had seen the throngs
of people flocking out of the cities of Judea seeking spiritual
aid; after he had assisted John in baptizing many because they
wished to die to the old way of life and become alive to a new
one, Andrew was prepared for an event which would shortly change
his life too.
One day, as there was also growing a great antagonism on the
part of Herod toward the popular John the Baptist (which was
eventually to result in John being thrown in prison and finally
executed), there came among the crowd seeking baptism, Jesus of
Nazareth.
When John the Baptist saw his cousin Jesus, he stopped his
preaching and turned the attention of the crowd toward that
lonely, solitary figure and said:
"Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world!
This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is
preferred before me: for he was before me." (John 1:29,30).
Andrew, who heard these words, had been seeking more than
just the message of John, for John's message was delivered within
the framework of the old revelation. John was the last of the
prophets. But now, here was the One whom John had preached would
come. Here was the Christi. So Andrew immediately left John and
attached himself to Jesus. It is likely that John, the future
Apostle, who was also first a follower of John the Baptist, also
at this time followed Jesus. Andrew then found his brother Simon
Peter, and later Philip and introduced them to Jesus.
At this stage Andrew was not yet a disciple of Jesus. He was
merely a follower - that is, an interested onlooker who was
willing to go along to observe. Jesus took Peter, Andrew, Philip
and John back to Nazareth with Him, after the forty days
temptation in the wilderness following His baptism. There they
were permitted to accompany Him to a family feast in honor of a
marriage at Cana of Galilee, just six miles from Nazareth. In
Cana they saw Him perform His first miracle. Then He took them on
a preaching tour up into Galilee, and later down to visit
Jerusalem where they saw Him cleanse the Temple. But not during
any of this time were they yet His disciples. Finally, they
returned to Galilee and went back to their old task of fishing.
We do not know how much time passed, but one day Jesus came
to the coasts of Galilee into Capernaum and there found Andrew
and Peter.
We have often heard Peter referred to as "The big
fisherman." That he was, but so was Andrew. We have often heard
the words of Christ to Peter quoted; "Follow me and I will make
you to become fishers of men." But we must remember that these
words were spoken to Andrew as well as to Peter, for they were
invited to become fishers of men, a plural reference. Andrew
merited this title even more than Peter. Or to be fair to both,
let us say that Peter became the fisherman of men en masse and
Andrew was a fisher for individuals.
Now at last Andrew had been enrolled as a disciple of Christ
and for Andrew there followed approximately two and one half
years of instruction. His name was inscribed upon the original
list of the Twelve Apostles. He was present at the feeding of the
five thousand by the Sea of Galilee, where he is mentioned as
having introduced to Jesus the lad who had the five loaves and
two fishes.
He was also present at the Feast of the Passover and
introduced many to the Master.
On the Mount of Olives Andrew was present with Peter and
inquired diligently about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and
the end of the age. His name is listed as an Apostle in the book
of The Acts. That is the last record we have of him in the New
Testament.
Yet we must realize that Andrew was present and ministered
to the church in Jerusalem. Each time we read a reference to that
church and the Elders or Apostles, we must also read in his name,
for he belongs there.
Just when Andrew left Jerusalem is not known. Perhaps he
went out as a missionary of his own accord, or perhaps he was
driven out by the persecution which arose.
THE LATER MINISTRY OF ANDREW
There are some impressive traditions about the later
ministry of Andrew. One, recorded by Eusebius (HE III,1,1), is
that he went to Scythia, which is southern Russia, in the area
around the Black Sea. St.Andrew was known for a long time
thereafter as the patron saint of Russia, and this adoption of
Andrew as the holy patron was based upon the early tradition that
he had preached the gospel in Russia. Early apocryphal works
agree:
"The Acts of St.Andrew and St.Bartholomew gives an account of
their mission among the Parthians." ("Contendings of the
Apostles," Budge).
According to the Martyrdom of St.Andrew (Budge) he was
stoned and crucified in Scythia.
Another strong tradition places his ministry in Greece.
There, according to tradition he was imprisoned, then crucified
by order of the proconsul Aegeates, whose wife Maximilla had been
estranged from her husband by the preaching of St.Andrew.
Supposedly Andrew was crucified on a cross which instead of
being made like the one upon which Jesus died, was made in the
form of an "X". To this day that type of cross is known as "St.
Andrew's Cross."
There is a third tradition about the ministry of St.Andrew
which describes him as spending time in Ephesus, in Asia Minor,
where St.John is supposed to have written his Gospel in
consequence of a revelation given to Andrew.
Goodspeed declares:
"To Andrew, tradition has assigned Scythia, north of the Black
Sea, as his mission field, but the Acts of Andrew, written
probably about A.D.260, describes his labors as taking place
chiefly in Greece or in Macedonia, where his martyrdom occurs at
Patras as described in his Acts." ("The Twelve," Edgar J. Good-
speed, p.99).
(Many Israelites of the House of Israel - the lost sheep of the
House of Israel, were still in the Black Sea area, after they
started to migrate from the Assyrian captivity of 745-718 B.C.-
Keith Hunt)
Now it would seem, at first glance, that these three
traditions are contradictory. But perhaps they are mutually
complementary. After all, Andrew had to minister somewhere in the
world, and if he did not die in Jerusalem it is very possible
that he went to Asia Minor to be with his old friend, John. Or if
for a while he went on beyond Asia Minor to Scythia, that too is
reasonable. Scythians are mentioned in the New Testament. Then
perhaps he returned to Asia Minor because it is the natural
land-bridge between Russia and Greece. It is entirely possible
that Andrew labored for a while in and around Ephesus and then
finally went to Greece in his later years. There in the southern
part of Greece he may well have, as tradition says, so angered
the governor by winning his wife to faith in Christ that the
governor, in seeking revenge, caused this preacher of the Cross
to die himself upon a cross in Patras. It was not at all unusual
in the first century for noble people, especially the wives of
nobles, to be converted to Christianity. There is nothing in this
tradition that is impossible or incredible.
There are some medieval forgeries, however, about the life
and ministry of the Apostle Andrew which are beyond belief. At
least they probably do not have much truth in them. There is the
story that it was revealed to him that the Apostle Matthias, (the
one chosen to succeed Judas), had been imprisoned by cannibals.
Andrew was commissioned to go and set him free. After a
miraculous voyage, he arrived on the scene and was instrumental
in releasing Matthias and then converting the entire cannibal
population, except for a few incorrigibles, to Christianity, by
means of spectacular miracles. Now such a story is plainly a leg-
end. Nevertheless, there may be indeed a grain of truth in the
fact that Andrew, true to his character as a personal soul
winner, interested in rescuing people, may have actually helped
one or the other of the Apostles, perhaps even Matthias, to be
rescued from some difficult situation. And he might thereby have
won Matthias' captors to Christ. Andrew may actually have had
some sort of adventure with cannibals in Russia, although not in
the fantastic extremes as described by this legend.
At the time of the Emperor Justinian, relics of the Apostle
Andrew were found in Constantinople. This city was a depository
of Christian relics from southern Russia, and Asia Minor, as well
as Greece. For, in fact, the relies of martyrs were often
transported to this chief city of Greek Orthodox Christianity. A
modern authority, Maedagen recounts:
"Constantine began in 338 a shrine to the Holy Apostles. The
edifice was completed by his son and consecrated in about 358. It
contained the relies of St.Timothy, St.Luke and St.Andrew."
("City of Constantinople," Michael Maedagen, Thomas Hudson, p.
50)
A few bones reputed to be those of St.Andrew were
transported to Scotland by a Christian named St.Regulus, in the
fourth or fifth century. There they were buried at a place which
was later called, "St.Andrews." The Apostle is today the patron
saint of Scotland, and "St.Andrews' Cross" is the official symbol
of that great Christian country. He is also claimed as patron
saint by Russian Christians, and Greek Christians.
(Ah, is there something that these historians have missed? Did
St.Andrew go to Britain at one time in his ministry? He is the
patron saint of Scotland - Keith Hunt)
Dorman Newman reports the details of the life and death of
St Andrew as they were known to him in 1885:
"St.Andrew went to Scythia and to Byzantium where he founded
churches. Thence to Greece and finally to Patrae a city of Achaia
where he was martyred. Aaegaas, proconsul of Achaia, after
debate, ordered Andrew to forsake his religion or be tortured
fiercely. Each begged the other to recant. Aaegaas urged Andrew
not to lose his life. Andrew in return urged Aaegaas not to lose
his soul.
"After patiently bearing scourging, Andrew was tied, not nailed,
to a cross that his sufferings might be prolonged. He exhorted
the Christians and prayed, saluted the cross which he had long
desired as the opportunity to show an honorable testimony to his
Master. Andrew hung upon the cross two days, exhorting all who
witnessed. Some people importuned the Proconsul but Andrew
besought the Lord that he might seal the truth with his blood. He
died upon the last day of November though in what year no certain
account may be recovered." ("The Lives and Deaths of the Holy
Apostles," Dorman Newman, p.43-45).
It must be added, despite Newman, that the date of 69 A.D.
is generally accepted as the year of the martyrdom of St.Andrew
in Patras.
Mary Sharp indicates the Roman Catholic tradition of the
fate of Andrew's relics:
"The relics of St.Andrew: Head in St.Peter's, Rome; some are in
Sant' Andrea al Quirinal, Rome, the rest are in Amalfi. They were
stolen from Constantinople in 1210 and taken to the Cathedral of
Amalfi near Naples. In 1482, Pope Pius II transferred the head to
St.Peter's, Rome." ("A Traveller's Guide to Saints in Europe,"
Mary Sharp, p.15) (The head of St.Andrew, in 1984, was given by
the Pope to the Greek Orthodox Church in Patras, Greece, where
Andrew was martyred-Au.)
In November, 1971, this writer journeyed to Patras, Greece,
to photograph the reliquary containing the skull of St.Andrew,
now kept in an old church building covering a well of water said
to have been there at the time of St.Andrew. In a beautiful
silver reliquary, resting in an altar, is the skull the Pope
returned from Rome to Patras. A new Cathedral is being finished
nearby to house the sacred relic. The Greek Orthodox priest in
the church was the soul of kindness and permitted the photographs
to be taken.
The original gold reliquary, which was shaped like the face
of the Apostle by the Roman Catholics while they had custody in
Rome of the relic, had been destroyed by a deranged person in
Patras several years ago. Greek Orthodox doctrine prohibits the
duplication of the human form or visage "in the round",
preferring flat pictures (IKONS) as less likely to resemble pagan
gods. The deranged person was discovered to have removed the
skull of St.Andrew unobserved, and to have smashed the gold
reliquary in which it was delivered from Rome in 1984. The new
silver reliquary now used is a lavishly decorated, round
container, without a likeness of a human face.
In the church of St.Andrews in Patras there is obtainable a
book written in Greek which contains added light on the story of
St.Andrew. I am indebted to the Reverand Mark Beshara, one of my
graduate students at the California Graduate School of Theology
and an Orthodox minister, for his excellent original translation
from which the following is quoted:
"Holy Tradition says that Andrew went to the foothills of the
Caucasus Mountains (present day Georgia in Russia), and he
preached to the race of Scythians as far as the Caspian Sea.
"He finally reached Byzantium (present day Istanbul) and there he
ordained Bishop Stachys.
"Andrew was imprisoned and stoned and suffered much for Christ.
In Sinope he was under the threat of being eaten alive by
cannibals. In spite of this he continued his Apostolic task of
ordaining priests and Bishops and spreading the Gospel of Jesus
Christ the Saviour.
"From Byzantium he continued to Greece for his main Apostolic
journey. He travelled to Thrace and Macedonia down through the
Corinthian Gulf to Patros. It was in Patros that Andrew was to
preach the Gospel of Christ for the last time.
"Aigeatis, the governor of Patios became enraged at Andrew for
his preaching and ordered him to stand before the tribunal in his
attempt to do away with the Christian Faith. When Andrew resisted
the tribunal the governor ordered him crucified. Andrew remained
tied to the cross with thick ropes for three days and his last
words were: 'Accept me, O Christ Jesus, Whom I saw, Whom I love,
and in Whom I am; Accept my spirit in peace in Your Eternal
Realm.'
"A Christian named Maximilla took down Andrew's body from the
cross and buried it. When Constantius, the son of the Emperor
Constantine, himself became the Emperor, he had the body of Saint
Andrew removed to the Church of the Holy Apostles in Byzantium
(Istanbul) where it was placed in the Altar. The head of Saint
Andrew remained in Patros.
"In 1480 A.D. the head of Andrew was taken to Italy and placed in
the Church of Saint Peter for safekeeping after the Turks had
swept through Byzantium (Istanbul). It remained there in Italy
until 1984 when Pope Paul VI had it returned to the Episcopal See
of Patros. Three representatives of the Pope accompanied the head
which was placed in a reliquary and was carried by Cardinal Bea
from the Basilica of Saint Peter. It was returned to Metropolitan
Archbishop Constantine, who still guards it to this day." ("The
First-Called Apostle Andrew," The Very Reverend Archimandrite
Hariton Pneumatikakis).
Some indication of the means by which the relics of St.
Andrew were dispersed is to be found in "Sacred and Legendary
Art":
"...At the time that Constantinople was taken, and the relics of
St.Andrew dispersed in consequence, a lively enthusiasm for this
Apostle was excited throughout all Christendom. He had been
previously honored chiefly as the brother of St.Peter; he
obtained thenceforth a kind of personal interest and
consideration. Philip of Burgundy (A.D.1433), who had obtained at
great cost a portion of the precious relics, consisting chiefly
of some pieces of his cross, placed under the protection of the
Apostle his new order of chivalry, which according to the
preamble, was intended to rvive the honor and the memory of the
Argonauts. His knights wore as their badge the cross of St.
Andrew." (Mrs.Anna Jameson, p.238).
Perhaps the relies of St.Andrew have more evidence for
genuineness than those of any other Apostle. We can trace them
clearly through the centuries and down to the present; in Rome,
Amalfi, and most importantly now in Patras, on the west coast of
Greece, facing Italy. Before long a great cathedral will house
the sacred head of the Apostle, honoring it and his martyrdom in
the very place where he was executed for his faith.
.....................
To be continued with "James the son of Zebedee"
Search for the Twelve Apostles
James the son of Zebedee
by the late McBirnie PhD
JAMES THE SON OF ZEBADEE
Of the three men who comprised the inner-ring of the
disciples, Peter, James and John, we know the least about James.
Despite the relative silence of the Scriptural account of James,
he was noteworthy among the Apostles. Perhaps the most unusual
thing about his life was the manner and time of his death, for he
was the first of the Apostles of Christ to become a martyr. There
are only two of the original twelve disciples about whose death
we have a Scriptural account, Judas, and James.
James was the elder brother of John, the beloved disciple.
With John he was a partner with Andrew and Peter in the fishing
trade along with Zebedee, his father. They owned several boats
and employed hired servants, and therefore, this fishing company
must have been quite affluent. There is also some evidence that
James was a first cousin to Jesus Christ and had been acquainted
with Him since infancy.
James received his call to follow Christ when Jesus was
walking by the Sea of Galilee.
"And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren,
Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into
the sea: for they were fishers.
And going on from thence, He saw other two brethren, James the
son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee
their father, mending their nets; and He called them.
And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed
Him" (Matthew 4:18,21,22).
Now John had been a disciple of John the Baptist and had
forsaken him to follow Jesus. But there is no reference to James
being first a disciple of John the Baptist. After a period of
companionship and probationship with Jesus, James is referred to
as being present at the healing of Peter's mother-in-law at
Capernaum. Following this he was ordained as one of the twelve
disciples of Christ, and from this time forth he occupied a
prominent place among the Apostles. With Peter and John he became
a part of the innermost circle among the disciples. These three,
apart from the other Apostles, were present at the raising of
Jairus' daughter, the transfiguration, and the agony in the
Garden of Gethsemane.
It is interesting to note that these three disciples, who
were to suffer so much for the cause of Christ, should witness
the raising of the dead to give them courage to die; the
transfiguration of Christ that they might know the reality of the
spiritual world; and the agony in the Garden that they might
understand that they, too, must suffer agony for Christ. Note
that it was Peter who should carry the gospel cause so
prominently forward as the first leader of the Apostles. It was
John who should some day out-live the rest of the Apostles and
die a natural death, after having completed five books of the New
Testament, and having fulfilled a great ministry in Asia Minor as
the leading voice of Christianity in the world up almost to the
year 100 A.D.
In contrast to these two who were the greatest leaders among
the Apostles, it is James whose life was cut off while the church
was young. As the first of the Apostles to die a martyr's death,
it is significant that Christ permitted him to share the intimate
secrets of His agony in the Garden and His transfiguration.
Shortly after the transfiguration, when Jesus set His face
to go to Jerusalem, and on the way was passing through Samaria,
the wrath of James and John, his brother, was kindled by the
hostile reception accorded to Him by the people of a small
village through which they went. They requested of Jesus, "Lord,
wilt thou that we bid fire to come down from Heaven and consume
them?" But He turned and rebuked them." It was probably this
hot-headed impetuosity and fanaticism that won for them the
surname, "Boanerges," which is by translation, "Sons of Thunder."
This name was bestowed on them when they were first called to the
discipleship.
It was not long after this when the mother of James and John
requested of Jesus that He guarantee them the privilege of
sitting one on His right hand and one on His left hand when He
came into His glory. The other ten disciples were moved with
indignation and Jesus rebuked this ungodly ambition. The outcome
of this is told in Mark 10:42-45:
"But Jesus called them to Him, and saith unto them, Ye know that
they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise
authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but
whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of
all. For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but
to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."
James was one of the four who questioned the Lord Jesus
concerning the last things when Jesus delivered His address on
the Mount of Olives as they stood overlooking the Temple. He was
also present when the Risen Christ appeared for the third time to
the disciples and the miraculous draught of fishes was made at
the Sea of Tiberias.
James was murdered by King Herod Agrippa I, about the year
44 A.D., shortly before Herod's own death. The account is found
in Acts 12:1,2.
"Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to
vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of
John with the sword."
Thus did James fulfill the prophecy of Christ that he, too,
should drink of the cup of his Master.
"And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye
shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of, and with the
baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized" (Mark
10:39).
LEGENDS OF ST.JAMES THE GREAT
"The Acts of St.James in India" tells of a missionary
journey of James and Peter to India. According to the "Martyrdom
of St.James," he preached to the 12 tribes scattered abroad, and
persuaded them to give their first-fruits to the church instead
of to Herod.
"The Apostolic History" of Abdias connects James with two
magicians called Hermogenes and Philetus. The latter was
converted by James and was on the verge of leaving the former.
Hermogenes cast a spell upon Philetus, who sent word to James for
help. James sent his kerchief and by it Philetus was freed from
the spell. Hermogenes sent devils to fetch James and Philetus,
but they were powerless against them. James sent them back to
bring Hermogenes bound, which they did. James released him from
the devils and he became a Christian and spent the rest of his
years in charity performing miracles for the benefit of his
fellowmen.
One legend about James is related by Eusebius who took it
from the seventh book of the lost "Hypotyposes of Clement" of
Alexandria. It tells of the one who led James to the final
judgment seat in Jerusalem and when he heard his testimony he was
moved and confessed that he also was a Christian. He begged James
to forgive him, and they were both led away and beheaded
together.
The artists of the 14th and 15th centuries adopted the
stories of James as the themes of many of their paintings, thus
the fame of the Apostles spread far and wide. Some interesting
legends developed in the long history of Spain. In "Sacred and
Legendary Art" these are related as follows:
"According to the Spanish legend, the Apostle James was the son
of Zebedee, an illustrious baron of Galilee, who, being the
proprietor of ships, was accustomed to fish along the shores of a
certain lake called Genesareth, but solely for his good pleasure
and recreation: for who can suppose that Spain, that nation of
Hidalgos and Caballeros, would ever have chosen for her patron,
or accepted as the leader and captain-general of her armies, a
poor ignoble fisherman? It remains, therefore, indisputable, that
this glorious Apostle, who was our Lord's cousin-german, was of
noble lineage, and worthy of his spurs as a knight and a
gentleman;-so in Dante.
"But it pleased him, in his great humility, to follow, while on
earth, the example of his divine Lord, and reserve his warlike
prowess till called upon to slaughter, by thousands and tens of
thousands, those wicked Moors, the perpetual enemies of Christ
and his servants. Now as James and his brother John were one day
in their father's ship with his hired servants, and were employed
in mending the nets, the Lord, who was walking on the shores of
the lake, called them; and they left all and followed Him; and
became thenceforward His most favored disciples, and the
witnesses of His miracles while on earth. After the ascension of
Christ, James preached the Gospel in Judaea; then he travelled
over the whole world, and came at last to Spain, where he made
very few converts by reason of the ignorance and darkness of the
people. One day, as he stood with his disciples on the banks of
the Ebro, the blessed Virgin appeared to him seated on the top of
a pillar of jasper, and surrounded by a choir of angels; and the
Apostle having thrown himself on his face, she commanded him to
build on that spot a chapel for her worship, assuring him that
all this province of Saragossa, though now in the darkness of
paganism, would at a future time be distinguished by devotion to
her. He did as the holy Virgin had commanded, and this was the
origin of a famous church afterwards known as that of Our Lady of
the Pillar ('Nuestra Senora del Pillar'). Then St.James, having
founded the Christian faith in Spain, returned to Judaea, where
he preached for many years, and performed many wonders and
miracles in the sight of the people: and it happened that a
certain sorcerer, whose name was Hermogenes, set himself against
the Apostle, just as Simon Magus had wickedly and vainly opposed
St.Peter, and with the like result. Hermogenes sent his scholar
Philetus to dispute with James, and to compete with him in
wondrous works; but, as you will easily believe, he had no chance
against the Apostle, and, confessing himself vanquished, he
returned to his master, to whom he announced his intention to
follow henceforth James and his doctrine. Then Hermogenes, in a
rage, bound Philetus by his diabolical spells so that he could
not move hand or foot, saying, 'Let us now see if thy new master
can deliver thee': and Philetus sent his servant to St.James,
praying for aid. Then the Apostle took off his cloak, and gave it
to the servant to give his master; and no sooner had Philetus
touched it, than he became free, and hastened to throw himself at
the feet of his deliverer. Hermogenes, more furious than ever,
called to the demons who served him, and commanded that they
should bring to him James and Philetus, bound in fetters; but on
their way the demons met with a company of angels, who seized
upon them, and punished them for their wicked intentions, till
they cried for mercy. Then St.James said to them, 'Go back to him
who sent ye, and bring him hither bound.' And they did so; and
having laid the sorcerer down at the feet of St.James, they
besought him, saying, 'Now give us power to be avenged of our
enemy and thine!' But St.James rebuked them, saying, 'Christ hath
commanded us to do good for evil. So he delivered Hermogenes from
their hands; and the magician, being utterly confounded, cast his
books into the sea, and desired of St.James that he would protect
him against the demons, his former servants. Then St.James gave
him his staff, as the most effectual means of defence [sic]
against the infernal spirits; and Hermogenes became a faithful
disciple and preacher of the word from that day. But the
evil-minded Jews, being more and more incensed, took James and
bound him, and brought him before the tribunal of Herod Agrippa;
and one of those who dragged him along, touched by the gentleness
of his demeanor, and by his miracles of mercy, was converted, and
supplicated to die with him; and the Apostle gave him the kiss of
peace, saying, 'Tax vobisl' and the kiss and the words together
have remained as a form of benediction in the Church to this day.
Then they were both beheaded, and so died.
And the disciples of St.James came and took away his body; and,
not daring to bury it, for fear of the Jews, they carried it to
Joppa, and placed it on board of a ship: some say that the ship
was of marble, but this is not authenticated; however, it is most
certain that angels conducted the ship miraculously to the coast
of Spain, where they arrived in seven days; and, sailing through
the straits called the Pillars of Hercules, they landed at length
in Galicia, at a port called Iria Flavia, now Padron.
In those days there reigned over the country a certain queen
whose name was Lupa, and she and all her people were plunged in
wickedness and idolatry. Now, having come to shore, they laid the
body of the Apostle upon a great stone, which became like wax,
and, receiving the body, closed around it: this was a sign that
the saint willed to remain there; but the wicked queen Lupa was
displeased, and she commanded that they should harness some wild
bulls to a car, and place on it the body, with the self-formed
tomb, hoping that they would drag it to destruction.. But in this
she was mistaken; for the wild bulls, when signed by the cross,
became as docile as sheep, and they drew the body of the Apostle
straight into the court of her palace. When Queen Lupa beheld
this mirade, she was confounded, and she and all her people
became Christians. She built a magnificent church to receive the
sacred remains, and died in the odor of sanctity.
But then came the darkness and ruin which during the invasion of
the Barbarians overshadowed all Spain; and the body of the
Apostle was lost, and no one knew where to find it, till, in the
year 800, the place of sepulcher was revealed to a certain holy
friar.
Then they caused the body of the saint to be transported to
Compostela; and, in consequence of the surprising miracles which
graced his shrine, he was honored not merely in Galicia, but
throughout all Spain. He became the patron saint of the
Spaniards, and Compostela, as a place of pilgrimage, was renowned
throughout Europe. From all countries bands of pilgrims resorted
there, so that sometimes there were no less than a hundred
thousand in one year. The military Order of Saint Jago, enrolled
by Don Alphonso for their protection, became one of the greatest
and richest in Spain." ("Sacred and Legendary Art," Anna Jameson,
p.238, ff )
(Do not take this too seriously. Maybe James preached in Spain
before his death, but the above quote sounds a lot like Roman
Catholic propagander and fair tales - Keith Hunt)
HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT JAMES OF ZEBEDEE WENT TO SPAIN?
It is most unlikely that James would have visited Spain
during his lifetime though a bit better case can be made for the
possibility that some of his body relics or bones may have been
transported there in the 7th century. In the introduction to the
notable book, "The Great Pilgrimage of the Middle Ages" by
Hellmut Nell, Sir Thomas Kendrick relates the historical
traditions:
"In the early ninth century, perhaps somewhere about the year
810, three bodies, believed to be those of the Apostle, St. James
the Greater, and two of his disciples, were found in the far
north-westem corner of Spain by Theodomir, Bishop of Iria Flavia
(Padron); they lay in a long-forgotten tomb in wild country about
twelve miles from the Bishop's seat. At the time of the discovery
the reconquest of Spain from the Moors had begun, and the kingdom
of the Asturias, in which the find had been made, was an outpost
of Christendom, bravely giving hope to the rest of Europe that
the advance of Islam had been successfully stopped on the south
side of the Pyrenees. Then came the announcement. It was made
first by the Bishop and then by the King of the Asturias, Alfonso
II (791-842'), and they let it be known that the discovery had
been made as a result of heavenly guidance. In other words, at
this time when danger threatened western Europe, St.James had
suddenly offered the potent encouragement of his bones (no small
thing in that relic-obsessed age) to sustain the courage of
Christians fighting on the battle-front against Islam.
If was certainly an astounding thing to have happened, and it is
said that Alfonso II informed the Pope, Leo III, and Charlemagne,
of the wonderful event; but, be that as it may, some will think
that the sequel to the discovery was even more astounding. Over
the deserted necropolis where St. James lay rose the town of
Santiago de Compostela, which by the twelfth century was
bracketed with Rome and Jerusalem as a necessary place for
far-travelling pilgrims to visit (p.13).
We want to know why it was so easy to believe that the body of
St.James had been found in that tomb. The Apostle had no
long-established hold on the affections of the Spaniards. It was
not until the seventh century that they had any reason to suppose
that St.James had preached in Spain during his lifetime, and
even then the reason was no more than a one-word scribal error in
an apocryphal list of the Apostles' mission-fields. At first,
very little notice indeed was taken of this (p.14).
The subsequent honour paid to St. James throughout Europe and
the crowds of Pilgrims journeying to his tomb can, fortunately,
be studied without answering the question whether it really was
the Apostle whom Bishop Theodomire of Iria Flavia found in a
forgotten Galician grave. Argument on that point continues to
this day, and is, indeed, ingeniously carried a stage farther by
the authors of this book Real bones assumed to be those of St.
James and his two disciples were found in a real tomb, and all we
have to do is to marvel at the result of the discovery. Let it be
noted, however, that even as early as the twelfth century there
were pilgrims who were not quite sure that the bout du pelerinage
was all that it claimed to be (p.18).
For the Bollandists accepted as a fact that the Apostle had
conducted a mission to Spain during his lifetime. It was a matter
that had been doubted and St. James's prestige had suffered....
But the Bollandists had come to the rescue (after agonizing
inquiry by William Cuypers), and Spain's renowned ecclesiastical
historian, Enrique Florez, agreed with their verdict, and
Benedict XIV endorsed it (p.28).
It was not until 1879 that they were found again behind the High
Altar, a sensational discovery causing one of the workmen to
faint and become temporarily blind. Elaborate tests were applied
to the mingled remains of St James and his two disciples, and the
skeleton of the apostle was identified with the help of a missing
portion preserved in a reliquary in the cathedral of Pistoya. In
a bull that bears the date of 'All Saints' Day in 1884, Pope Leo
XIII declared that Santiago [St.James] in person had been found
in that cathedral at Compostela where for over a thousand years
the faithful had known the glorious Apostle lay in his grave"
(p.29).
(This again is all Roman Catholic goobadi-goo and hogwash, made
up so over a BILLION people today, as of 2007, believe the RC
church is God's true church - Keith Hunt)
In the same magnificent book the authors have traced a
history of the relics of St.James.
"We can assume with reasonable certainty that St James died in
the year 44, since he was executed in Jerusalem during the rule
of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). Thus his original grave must
have been situated near Jerusalem. In the year 814 the Persians
occupied the Byzantine territories in Syria and Palestine, and
some scholars (Tillemont) believe that the body of James was
brought to Galicia at that time. Another suggestion (Gams) is
that the body was transferred rather earlier, in the sixth
century, in the time of the Emperor Justinian, who presented the
relics to the monastery of Raithiu in the Sinai peninsula.
Alternatively, a number of chroniclers between the eighth and
The Search for the Twelve Apostles twelfth centuries (e.g. the
Breviarium Apostolorum) say that he was buried at 'Achaia
Marmorica' (spelt in several different ways). So far this name
has not been identified conclusively with any known town or place
(p.31).
The miraculous discovery of the relics of St.James in Santiago
occurred in the first quarter of the ninth century (during the
reign of Alphonso II, 791-842, and before the year 842), that is
before the first destruction of the shrine of St.Menas, but at a
time when there must already have been some concern for its
security. Thus it may be assumed that the relics of St. James
were conveyed to Galicia in the early part of the ninth century
at the very latest. It is also possible that the transfer was
made before 711 (the Arab invasion of Spain), but it is unlikely
to have occurred during the Arab occupation of the Iberian
peninsula. It was not until the early part of the ninth century
that the Asturian kingdom in the north of Spain attained
sufficient stability to have any hope of reconquering the
remainder of the country. The first alternative is supported by
the fact that the references to Achaia Marmarica as the burial
place of the saint date from the eighth century (p.34).
If these conjectures are correct, then it is possible that the
route by which the relics were taken from Jerusalem to Santiago
could have passed through Sinai and the town of Menas. In this
case the most likely time for them to have crossed over to Spain
would have been early in the ninth century, that is, shortly
before the construction of the first church in Santiago under the
reign of Alfonso II" (p.35).
A modem authority, William Barclay, in his book, The
"Master's Men" states the most telling argument against the visit
of James to Spain.
"Considering the early date of his martyrdom the connection of
James with Spain is impossible, however much we would wish it to
be true; and the whole story is one of the unexplained mysteries
of legend. In art James is depicted with a copy of the Gospels in
one band, and a pilgrim staff and script in the other, to show
symbolically how far-travelled an evangelist he was" (p.100).
(Barclay is probably closer to the truth - Keith Hunt)
However, Asbury Smith in his study of the Apostles, "The
Twelve Christ Chose," opens the door to the remote possibility
that James might have visited Spain.
"James is not mentioned in the Gospel of John, a fact of especial
interest if we accept John, the brother of James, as its author.
The Gospel of John is the only source. of information about
Philip, Andrew, and Nathanael Bartholomew. Yet strangely enough,
John tells nothing of James, his brother, and conceals his own
identity under the cloak of 'the beloved disciple': The usual
explanation of these omissions is the reticence of John; but,
even so, they seem unnatural and difficult to understand. This is
one of many portions of the Bible record about which more
knowledge is needed (p.40).
The process by which the country was Christianized is not clear.
Paul in his letter to the Romans spoke of his desire to carry the
Gospel to Spain. Most scholars believe that his martyrdom
prevented him from fulfilling this desire, but there are some who
think that he did go to Spain. The Spanish tradition, however, is
that the Apostle James founded the Christian Church there.
Although his early death makes this conclusion almost untenable,
the legend has exercised great influence on the Spanish people.
Historians generally assign the beginning of Christianity in
Spain to the second or third century. But no one can be sure
about this early period, for there are no trustworthy sources of
information (p.41).
To account for the miraculous presence of the bones of James in
Spain, legends grew up relating his adventures prior to the
discovery of his body. The story has it that after the day of
Pentecost he went to Spain to carry the Gospel. At Saragossa,
weary with his effort to win converts he fell asleep, and as he
slept the Virgin Mary appeared to him and told him to build a
chapel in her honor on that very spot. Another night, while
conversing with some disciples, James saw lights and heard
singing. Looking to heaven, he saw the Virgin Mary on a throne
sustained by a host of angels. By her side was a column of jasper
and a wooden image of herself. She ordered a chapel erected in
her honor. 'For,' she said, 'this place is to be my house, my
right inheritance and possession. This image and column of mine
shall be the title and altar of the temple you will build'"
(p.45).
(Now we know it is all fantasy. Mary is not alive in heaven. the
demons were most likely playing around and coming as angels of
light to deceive. The RC church has over ONE BILLION deceived
members today, as of 2007 - Keith Hunt)
J.W.Taylor, in "The Coming of the Saints," seems eager to
accept the theory of James being a missionary pioneer to Spain.
"St.Peter and St.John were together at Jerusalem during the
years immediately following, but nowhere do we read of the
presence of St.James with them. This is remarkable, because he
had been constantly with them before this. Sole sharer with them
of the special revelation on the Mount of Transfiguration, sole
sharer with them, again, of the final conversation in the Garden
of Gethsemane, his absence from their company afterwards, and
especially when 'Peter and John went up together into the Temple
at the hour of prays'{Acts 3:1), needs emphatically some
explanation. The only possible conclusion is, that their constant
companion in the older days must have been absent from Jerusalem.
Now, there are some very old traditions, reaching back to the
earliest centuries, which, if accepted, thoroughly explain this
phenomenal silence regarding one of the chief of the Apostles.
In these St.James is represented as a distant traveller in the
West in the very earliest years after Christ, and as a missionary
pioneer in Sardinia and in Spain.
These traditions about St.James are so old and so definite,
however improbable they may appear to be, that I make no apology
for reproducing their more prominent features. They represent the
Apostle as coming from the East and preaching the Gospel both in
Sardinia and in Spain; as then returning to Jerusalem for the
keeping of the Passover Festival or Easter at Jerusalem, and as
suffering martyrdom during this visit to the Church and to his
friends in Palestine.
His body is reputed to have been taken care of and brought from
Palestine to Spain by loving disciples, who buried him in Spanish
ground among the people to whom he had first preached the Gospel
of the Kingdom.
A fact mentioned by contemporaneous historians - both Tacitus and
Josephus - makes this mission antecedently more probable than it
appears to be at first sight.
About A.D.19 we are told by Tacitus (Annals, vol. ii, c. 85)
that 4,000 youths, 'affected by the Jewish and Egyptian
superstitions' were transported from Italy to Sardinia. These are
spoken of as '4,000 Jews' by Josephus (Antiquities, bk. xviii,
cap. 3), and it is evident that their banishment and forcible
enlistment (for they were used as soldiers in Sardinia) made a
profound impression on the Jews in Palestine.
Some have supposed that these banished Jews were already
believers in Christ or followers of the teaching of St.John the
Baptist. This is hardly probable; but it is quite possible that
many of them may have been old followers of Judas the Galilean
(Acts 5:37), who had been living as prisoners in Rome during all
the succeeding years. If so, they, or the families from which
they came, would be personally known to 'James and John'. They
would indeed be 'lost sheep of the House of Israel', and would
have a special and urgent claim on the sympathy of the great
Apostle.
The active belief in the legend or tradition of the Spanish
mission of St.James appears to date from about A.D.820 when the
body of the Saint was 'discovered' by Theodosius, bishop of Tira.
Around the reputed body of St.James there gradually grew the
shrine, the cathedral, the city, and finally the pilgrimages of
'Santiago di Compostela'. The original cathedral was consecrated
in A.D.899, and this was destroyed by the Moors under El Mansui
in 997. The later cathedral was founded in 1078 on the site of
the one which had been destroyed. But long before the supposed
discovery - or rediscovery - of the body of St.James, we have
evidence that the essentials of the tradition were held by
Spanish inhabitants and Spanish writers. From immemorial times,
or at least from A.D.400, we find references to the tradition in
old Spanish Offices. In the latter part of the next century or
beginning of the seventh (about A.D.800) there are three
distinct references confirming the tradition of the preaching of
St.James in Spain in the writing of Isidorus Hispalensis (vii,
390, 392 and v, 183), but this author writes of his body as
having been buried in 'Marmarica' (Achaia). The tradition is
again confirmed by St.Julian, who ruled the Church of Toledo in
the seventh century (Acta Sanctorum, vol. 33, p. 88), and by
Freculphus, who wrote about A.D.850 (bk. ii, cap. 4). The
summing-up of the Bollandists in the Acta Sanctorum appears to be
decidedly in favour of the thesis that the reputed Spanish
mission of St.James is reliable and historica." (p.57,58).
No one seems to have done a more thorough job of research
than J.W.Taylor on the Apostolic Age, but it seems obvious that
this scholarly writer is a bit too anxiuos to prove a case.
However tempting this may also be to us, we simply dare not share
all of Mr.Taylor's enthusiasms. Neither, on the other hand, has
honest scholarship the right to reject them out of hand.
The best of the Bible encyclopaedias (ISBE ) indicates James
was slain by Herod Agrippa I about 44 A.D. The editors make this
theological comment: "Thus did James fulfill the prophecy of our
Lord, that he too should drink of the cup of his Master." Mark
10:39. The same source quotes apocryphal literature:
"According to the Genealogies of the Twelve Apostles (cf. Budge,
Contendings of the Apostles, II, 49). Zebedee was of the house of
Levi, and his wife of the house of Judah. Now, because the father
of James loved him greatly he counted him among the family of his
father Levi, and similarly because the mother of John loved him
greatly, she counted him among the family of her father Judah.
And they were surnamed 'Children of Thunder,' for they were of
both the priestly house and of the royal house. The "Acts of St.
John," a heretical work of the second century, referred to by
Clement of Alexandria in his "Hypotyposis" and also by Eusebius
(HE, III, 25), gives an account of the call of James and his
presence at the Transfiguration, similar in part to that of the
Gospels, but giving fantastic details concerning the supernatural
nature of Christ's body, and how its appearances brought
confusion to James and other disciples (cf. Hennecke, "Handbuch
zu den neutestamentlichen Apokryphen," (423-59). The Acts of St.
James in India (cf. Budge, 11, 295-303) tells of the missionary
journey of James and Peter to India, of the appearance of Christ
to them in the form of a beautiful young man, of their healing a
blind man, and of their imprisonment, miraculous release, and
their conversion of the people."
Hugo Hoever, almost three hundred years ago, summed up the
beliefs of Christian scholarship during his era:
"... On account of early zeal of James and John, Our Lord styled
them Boanerges, or sons of thunder.... St.James preached the
Gospel in Spain and then returned to Jerusalem, where he was the
first of the Apostles to suffer martyrdom. By order of Herod
Agrippa he was beheaded at Jerusalem about the feast of Easter,
44 A.D." ("The Lives of the Saints," Hugo Hoover, p.282).
The very authoritative, "A Traveller's Guide to Saints in
Europe" offers this conjecture, "Most scholars think its unlikely
that he visited Spain, but state that this does not dispose of
the claim that the relics at Santiago are his." (Mary Sharp, p.
120)
The "Encyclopaedia Brittanica" does not reject utterly the
claim of an association of James with Spain, but affirms James'
official martyrdom about 14 years after the death of Christ,
(Acts 12:2) under Herod Agrippa 1, the grandson of Herod the
Great. It adds, "There is a tradition open to serious
difficulties and not unanimously admitted, that James preached
the gospel in Spain and that after his death his body was
transported to Compostela" (Volume 11, p.120 ).
A rival tradition is held by the writer of the "Armenian
Patriarchate of Jerusalem." This authority affirms that the
Cathedral of St.James in Jerusalem, the seat of the Armenian
Patriarchate, now stands upon the site of the house of James the
Less. [Elsewhere in this volume we have demonstrated that
whatever historfcity there may be to this claim, it is unlikely
to be the burial place of James the Less, but rather the burial
place of James the brother of Jesus.] However, the following
affirmation is interesting as a contrary claim regarding the
present location of the body of James the Great, "The Cathedral
contains the Shrine of St.James the Major (the Apostle and
brother of St.John). The head of the Apostle is buried in this
Shrine" (p.10).
In another volume, The "Treasures of the Armenian
Patriarchate of Jerusalem;" the claim is made, "The St.James
Cathedral stands on the spot where according to tradition the
head of St.James the Major, brother of John, who was beheaded by
Herod Agrippa in 44 A.D. was buried (under the northern wall of
the present church). At present the grave is within the
Cathedral. According to tradition a chapel was built on the spot
of the decapitation of St.James the Major as early as the first
century. However, there are many evidences that the foundations
of the first church built upon these sacred spots were laid in
the fourth century" (p.9).
The same authority adds, "According to Armenian tradition,
after the destruction of the monastery in which the body of the
matryred Apostle, James the Younger, was originally buried, his
relics were removed to the Cathedral of St.James and placed on
the spot where the principle altar now stands. This Cathedral is
believed to be the site on which the head of the Apostle James
the Great, brother of John the Evangelist was interred. These
traditions were usually adduced to underscore the Armenian
institution's historic association with the two Apostles whose
relics they have jealously guarded for many centuries." (Arpag
Mekhitarian, p.5).
WHAT THEN HAPPENED TO THE BODY OF JAMES?
The answer to this can be deduced from the evidence in hand
as to the life, martyrdom and subsequent fate of the body of St.
James:
Admittedly the story of St.James the Great is a mixture of
certainty and conflicting traditions. We suggest the following
hypothesis to harmonize the information while scholarship awaits
further discoveries.
James lived for 14 years after the resurrection of Jesus.
Considering the ease with which inhabitants of the Mediterranean
basin could travel from one end of the sea to the other, as far
back as the time of Hannibal of Carthage, and considering the
even greater facility of travel at the time of Julius Caesar
(Circa, 60-40 B.C.) who visited Spain at least three times, we
can see no formidable difficulties against the possibility of St.
James visiting the Jewish colonies in Spain. It is not unlikely
that James would preach to the Gentiles except for those who had
become proselytes in the Jewish synagogues in Spain. One
important branch of Judaism, the Sephardim, has been more closely
identified with Spain than with any other European country.
St.James would hardly have considered his missionary
responsibility to have included a mission to Gentiles since, if
he went to Spain at all, it is likely that the brevity of his
preaching career (14 years) would have taken him only to the
far-flung Jewish colonies in Spain.
St.Paul had not yet broken the Christian movement loose from
official Judaism at the time St.James would have had to have
left Judea, if indeed be went to Spain. However, the absence of
the name or the record of activities of so prominent an Apostle
as James the Great in the book of Acts, after the first listing
of the Apostles in Chapter 1, could have some significance. We
can hardly accept the notion that James traveled to India and to
Spain as well. Since we cannot utterly rule out a visit to Spain
during the 14 silent years of the history of this Apostle and
since it is reasonable to believe that James was a special target
of the Herodian persecutors of the church, there is no formidable
historical obstacle to a possible visit by St.James to Spain.
Thus James might have gone to Spain to preach to the Jewish
colonists and slaves there. We do not know why he should have
chosen to go to the Jews in Spain.
(Simple, when you understand Israelites, not just Jews were in
Spain at this time in history - lost Israelites of the House of
Israel - Keith Hunt)
Upon his return to Jerusalem from Spain, it might well be
possible that James could have been accused by Herod Agrippa I of
spreading sedition among the Jewish slaves in Spain. Doubtless,
Herod was unpopular in Judea because he had sent those Jewish
captives into slavery. Or it could have been that he did not seem
to raise enough objection against Rome for having enslaved them.
Most probably however, the Jewish slaves in Spain were enemies of
both Herod and Rome. Anyone from Judea who made the long journey
to Spain and who was observed or overheard speaking to the slaves
might very well, upon his return, have been considered by Herod
as a potential enemy of his throne.
With the rapid growth of the Christian movement in Jerusalem
itself, Herod might have seen all or some Christian leaders as
potential insurrectionists. He might well have thus accused James
of spreading sedition and had him beheaded as a manifest enemy of
the state. He would not have been without sympathizers among the
priesthood or ruling groups of the Jews by his act against James.
By 44 A.D. Jewish religious and political leadership was no
longer tolerant of Christianity, even if during its earliest
years it might have been considered too small to be potentially
dangerous.
This writer can see no reason why James could not have
indeed fallen victim to Herod's fears and wrath on just such a
charge as sedition. If Herod was determined to stamp out
Christianity, or at least immobilize it to please the Jewish
ruling circles, it would not have been untypical of him to
suborn various "witnesses." Or it may be entirely possible that
the preaching about a Messiah who had come, and who would return
won for James many followers and believers among the Jewish
slaves in Spain. If so, this would have resulted in the Romans
having trouble with those Jewish slaves and this disturbance
might have been laid primarily at the feet of James. One need not
even theorize that false witnesses would be necessary. The
resultant death of James due to a mere suspicion of illegal
activities was a hallmark of all the Herods.
Admittedly, we cannot go beyond postulation to prove this
theory. But it is entirely possible that a number of Jewish
slaves in Spain were indeed converted to Christ by James, and
have based on this their miraculous tales concerning the visit of
St.James which might well have been the foundation of a later
association of St.James with Spain. Such a visit was entirely in
character with what we know of the personality of James. He was a
zealous Jew who could have been filled with compassion for the
salvation of those doubly unfortunate Jewish slaves in Spain. He
would have wanted them for Christ and have felt keenly their
separation from the main body of Israel.
THE DEATH OF JAMES
Upon the death of James it is certain that his friends and
fellow Apostles buried his body somewhere in Jerusalem. A family
tomb near the present location of the Armenian Patriarchate might
well have been the depository of his body and severed head. It is
not impossible that the head might have been preserved in that
location and, when a later church was built, have been interred
there. It is certainly not impossible that with the increase in
the early medieval practice of the veneration of Apostolic
relics, some of the bones of the Apostle, perhaps the
body, might have been taken to Spain to escape the invading
Persians. The head might well have been kept in Jerusalem,
because a reliquary containing the skull could have been quite
easily hidden regardless of invading and pillaging Persian
soldiers. The body, apart from the head, could well have been
sent to Spain for safekeeping. One can easily imagine the
Armenian Christians long ago prudently deciding to separate the
relics of the Apostle James so that at least some of them might
be preserved regardless of the possibility of some being lost in
the process. Even to this day such places in Spain as the
Escorial claim fragments of the bodies of almost all of the
Apostles. The fragmentation of relics was an almost universal
practice in the early Middle Ages and there is no sound reason
for denying the possibility that some major portions of the
relics might be in St.James at Compostela in Spain to this day.
As we have stressed, this possibility must be labeled as a
postulation because we posses no facts which can either confirm
or seriously challenge it. It is not likely that any shall be
found, so we must be content with theory. This writer, for one,
having confirmed the fact of the practice of the fragmentation of
Apostolic relics, and having visited both Spain and Jerusalem,
sees no reason to doubt the possibility that the bones of James
the son of Zebedee are located partly in Spain and partly in
Jerusalem to this day.
..................
NOTE:
Well this writer of me, thinks it's VERY UNLIKELY that any bone
fragments remain ANYWHERE in any town or church or Cathedral
ANYWHERE in the world of ANY of the 12 apostles. The Roman
Catholic church claims it may have some, that Mary as been seen
by people, that statutes weep, that blood comes from this or
that. But Satan can work miracles, and he can come as an angel of
light, to DECEIVE! And he HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OF IT! He deceives
the WHOLE WORLD - Revelation 12:9!
It is true that James MAY HAVE preached in Spain. One thing we do
know about him was that he was willing to die for his faith, the
first of the 12 it is believed who died a martyrs death.
Keith Hunt
Search for the Twelve Apostles
John, the apostle
by the late McBirnie, Ph.D.
APOSTLE JOHN
Like all other Biblical biographies, that of John is
fragmentary. We do, however, know considerable about him.
He was one of the sons of Zebedee, a fisherman of Galilee, and of
Salome who was probably a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. He
grew up in Galilee and was a partner with his brother and with
Andrew and Peter in the fishing business. He was a disciple of
John the Baptist, and the companion of Andrew in following that
noted prophet. (John 1:34-40) He accompanied Jesus on His first
tour in Galilee and later, with his partners, quit the fishing
industry to become a disciple of Christ. He was with Jesus at the
wedding in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11) and was also present in
Jerusalem during Jesus' early Judean ministry.
We are told he owned a home in Jerusalem and probably the
interview with Nicodemus was held at his home. He was sent out as
one of the twelve on a preaching mission.
With Peter and James, he was present at the raising of
Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:37), and at the transfiguration (Matt.
17). They were nearest to the Lord at the agony of Gethsemane.
John was, therefore, one of the most intimate of the disciples.
He and his brother were called "Sons of Thunder" when they sought
to call down fire from heaven on a Samaritan village whose
inhabitants had refused them hospitality. (Mark 3:17) On another
occasion, John exhibited his zeal, intolerance and exclusiveness
when he exclaimed: "Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in Thy
name; and we forbade him, because he followed not us." (Mark
9:38) Their mother expressed the ambition of her sons when she
requested for them the chief places in the kingdom. (Mark 10:35)
At the Last Supper he occupied the privileged place of intimacy
next to Jesus. (John 13:23) At the trial of Jesus he was present
in the court because he was known to the family of the high
priests. He probably had been a business representative in
Jerusalem of his father's fishing industry and thus had become
acquainted with prominent people in the area. He was present at
the Cross and there was given by Christ the responsibility for
Mary. (John 19:26) He was with Peter during the time of Jesus
burial in the tomb and came with him as one of the first visitors
to see the empty tomb. His greatest act of faith was when he saw
the empty grave clothes, for as he testifies, "He saw and
believed" (John 20:8).
John was with Peter at the gate of the Temple when a lame
man was healed (Act 3:10). He was also with Peter on the mission
to Samaria to impart the Holy Spirit to the new converts (Acts
8:12). He, along with Peter and James, the Lord's brother, are
called "pillars" in the Jerusalem church.
Many have identified John as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"
(John 12:23; 19:26: 20:2; 21:7, 20).
We learn from the beginning of his gospel that he lived for
a long time after the beginning of the Christian era. His
epistles reveal that he rose to a position of influence within
world-wide Christianity, and shortly before the destruction of
Jerusalem moved to Ephesus in Asia Minor. At this strategic
location he became the pastor of the church in Ephesus and had a
special relationship to other churches in the area, as we know
from his letters to the Seven Churches in Asia. His brother,
James, was the first of the Apostles to die. John, on the other
hand, was the last to die. Almost all the other Apostles met
violent deaths, but John died peacefully in Ephesus at an
advanced age, around the year 100 A.D.
THE LATER LIFE OF JOHN
While living in Ephesus it is believed that John had with
him Mary, the mother of Jesus, for a few years. Nicephorus in the
"Ecclesiastical History," 2, 2, says John stayed in Jerusalem and
cared for Mary like a son until the day of her death. However,
this is a tradition which has less weight than the one which says
that Mary was taken to Ephesus and died there. The matter would
not be important except that there are two places of her death
shown to this day. There is a tomb in Jerusalem, and in Ephesus
the "House of St.Mary." Though the tomb in Ephesus has not been
found, the weight of archaeology seems to indicate that it was
once there. Several guide books obtainable at the ruins of
ancient Ephesus indicate that this is the case. (See Ephesus by
Naci Keskin and Ephesus by Dr.Cemil Toksoz, p.16).
St.Irenaeus, himself a native of Asia, who knew Polycarp, a
disciple of John, several times recalls the teaching of John in
Ephesus and says he lived there until the time of Trajan. (See
his Adv. Haer., II, 22,59).
While in Ephesus John was exiled to Patmos, a penal colony
off the coast of Turkey. This is confirmed by Eusebius, Chapter
XVIII, i.
"According to early tradition, the sacred text of the book of
Revelation was given to St.John and set down while he was in the
cave that is now known as the cave of the Apocalypse, which cave
is now hidden within, and below, the buildings of the Monastery
of the Apocalypse. This monastery was built in the 17th century
to house the Patmias - a theological school that was established
at that date, and its structures have been very little altered
since then. The buildings constitute an ensemble of cells,
class-rooms, flowered courtyards and stairways, with chapels
dedicated to St.Nicholas, St. Artemios and St.Anne - this last
one being built in front of the open side of the cave. The
holy cave, or grotto, itself has long since been transformed into
a small church dedicated to St.John the Theologian. In the
grotto, signs remain that long tradition holds bear witness to
St.Johns presence - in one corner there is the place where he
laid his head to rest; near it the place where he rested his hand
to raise himself from the rocky floor on which he slept; not far
away the place where he spread his parchment; and, in the roof of
the cave, the triple fissure in the rock through which he heard
'the great voice as of a trumpet.' The cave is small, and the
light is dim; it is a place that draws one to meditation, prayer,
worship, contemplation ... a place of which a man might say, 'How
fearful is this place! This is none other than the house of God,
and this is the gate of Heaven'
An apocryphal writing of considerably later date than the book of
Revelation, attributed to the hand of Prochoros, a 'disciple of
St.John,' offers us some details on St.John's sojourn on Patmos.
This document bears the title 'Travels and Miracles of St.John
the Theologian, Apostle and Evangelist, set down by his disciple
Prochoros.' It probably dates from the 5th century. Some scholars
place it in the 4th, however, while others place it as late as
the 13th century. All the local island traditions are derived
from this text, which provides a lengthy account of how St.John
wrote his Gospel on Patmos. This tradition was disseminated
widely from the 11th century onwards, but today we can only treat
it with the greatest scepticism. The same text also recounts the
miracles of St.John performed before coming to Patmos, the
difficulties he encountered on the island, and the final success
of his apostolate; and there is in particular an account of how
he came into conflict with a pagan magician called Kynops, whom
in due course he overcame. And still today there are Patmians
willing to point out the various places mentioned in the account.
Fishermen - will point out Kynops petrified in rock from beneath
the calm waters of the bay of Scala, and monks will show you the
frescoes illustrating this same scene in the outer narthex of the
big monastery of St.John the Theologian at Chora.
From the 4th Century A.D. onwards, Patmos came to be one of the
chief centres of pilgrimage in the Christian world. There are
many columns and capitals now built into the main church and
other parts of the big Monastery, and into other churches on the
island as well, that originally came from churches built in the
5th and 6th centuries. But from the 7th century onwards Patmos
came to be abandoned like the majority of the Aegean islands, for
this was the period of the upsurge of Islam and of great naval
battles between Arabs and Byzantines." (The Monastery of St.John
the Theologian, S.Papadopoulos, p.3,4).
Eusebius records that John was released from Patmos and
returned to Ephesus:
"But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva
succeeded to the government, the Roman senate decreed that the
honours of Domitian should be revoked, and that those who had
been unjustly expelled should return to their homes, and have
their goods restored. This is the statement of the historians of
the day. It was then also, that the Apostle John returned from
his banishment in Patmos, and took up his abode at Ephesus,
according to an ancient tradition of the church." (Ecclesiastical
History, Eusebius, Chapter 20, p.103).
One of the most interesting stories of John is also recorded
by Eusebius:
"About this time also, the beloved disciple of Jesus, John the
Apostle and evangelist, still surviving, governed the churches in
Asia, after his return from exile on the island, and the death of
Domitian. But that he was still living until this time, it may
suffice to prove, by the testimony of two witnesses. These, as
maintaining sound doctrine in the church, may surely be re-
garded as worthy of all credit: and such were Irenaeus and
Clement of Alexandria. Of these, the former, in the second book
against heresies, writes in the following manner: 'And all the
presbyters of Asia, that had conferred with John the disciple of
our Lord, testify that John had delivered it to them; for he
continued with them until the times of Trajan.' And in the third
book of the same work, he shows the same thing in the following
words: 'But the church in Ephesus also, which had been founded by
Paul, and where John continued to abide until the times of
Trajan, is a faithful witness of the Apostolic tradition.'
Clement also, indicating the time, subjoins a narrative most
acceptable to those who delight to hear what is excellent and
profitable, in that discourse to which he gave the title, 'What
Rich Man is Saved?' Taking therefore the book, read it where it
contains a narrative like the following: "Listen to a story that
is no fiction, but a real history, handed down and carefully
preserved, respecting the Apostle John. For after the tyrant was
dead, coming from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went also,
when called, to the neighbouring regions of the Gentiles; in some
to appoint bishops, in some to institute entire new churches, in
others to appoint to the ministry some one of those that were
pointed out by the Holy Ghost. When he came, therefore, to one of
those cities, at no great distance, of which some also give the
name, and had in other respects consoled his brethren, he at
least turned towards the bishop ordained, (appointed), and seeing
a youth of fine stature, graceful countenance, and ardent mind,
he said, Him I commend to you with all earnestness, in the
presence of the church and of Christ. The bishop having taken him
and promised all, he repeated and testified the same thing, and
then returned to Ephesus. The presbyter taking the youth home
that was committed to him, educated, restrained, and cherished
him, and at length baptized him. After this he relaxed exercising
his former care and vigilance, as if he had now committed him to
a perfect safeguard in the seal of the Lord. But certain idle,
dissolute fellows, familiar with every kind of wickedness,
unhappily attach themselves to him, thus prematurely freed from
restraint. At first they lead him on by expensive entertainments.
Then going out at night to plunder, they take him with them.
Next, they encourage him to something greater, and gradually
becoming accustomed to their ways in his enterprising spirit,
like an unbridled and powerful steed that has struck out of the
right way, biting the curb, he rushed with so much the greater
impetuosity towards the precipice. At length, renouncing the
salvation of God, he contemplated no trifling offence, but having
committed some great crime, since he was now once ruined, he
expected to suffer equally with the rest. Taking, therefore,
these same associates, and forming them into a band of robbers,
be became their captain, surpassing them all in violence, blood,
and cruelty. Time elapsed, and on a certain occasion they sent
for John. The Apostle, after appointing those other matters for
which he came, said, 'Come, bishop, return me my deposit, which I
and Christ committed to thee, in the presence of the church over
which thou dost preside.' The bishop at first, indeed, was
confounded, thinking that he was insidiously charged for money
which be had not received; and yet he could neither give credit
respecting that which he had not, nor yet disbelieve John. But
when be said, 'I demand the young man, and the soul of a
brother,' the old man, groaning heavily and also weeping, said,
'He is dead.' 'How, and what death?' 'He is dead to God,' said
he. 'He has turned out wicked and abandoned, and at last a
robber; and now, instead of the church, he has beset the mountain
with a band like himself.' The Apostle, on hearing this, tore his
garment, and beating his head with great lamentation, said, 'I
left a fine keeper of a brother's soul! But let a horse now be
got ready, and some one to guide me on my way.' He rode as he
was, away from the church, and coming to the country, was taken
prisoner by the outguard of the banditti. He neither attempted,
however, to flee, nor refused to be taken; but cried out, 'For
this very purpose am I come; conduct me to your captain.' He, in
the meantime stood waiting, armed as he was. But as he recognised
John advancing towards him, overcome with shame he turned about
to flee. The Apostle, however, pursued him with all his might,
forgetful of his age, and crying out, 'Why dost thou fly, my son,
from me, thy father; thy defenceless, aged father? Have
compassion on me, my son; fear not. Thou still hast hope of life.
I will intercede with Christ for thee. Should it be necessary, I
will cheerfully suffer death for thee, as Christ for us. I will
give my life for thine. Stay; believe Christ had sent me.'
Hearing this, he at first stopped with downcast looks. Then threw
away his arms; then trembling, lamented bitterly, and embracing
the old man as he came up, attempted to plead for himself with
his lamentations, as much as he was able; as if baptized a second
time with his own tears, and only concealing his right hand. But
the Apostle pledging himself, and solemnly assuring him; that he
had found pardon for him in his prayers at the hands of Christ,
praying, on his bended knees, and kissing his right hand as
cleansed from all iniquity, conducted him back again to the
church. Then supplicating with frequent prayers, contending with
constant fastings, and softening down his mind with various
consolatory declarations, he did not leave him as it is said,
until he had restored him to the church. Affording a powerful
example of true repentance, and a great evidence of a
regeneration, a trophy of a visible resurrection."
(Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, Chapter 23, p.104-107 ).
The Scripture record of John ends with the "Seven Letters to
the Seven Churches" mentioned in the first two chapters of the
book of the Revelation. St.Augustine states that John preached to
the Parthians. These were the people who lived on the borders of
what is now Russia and Iran, and is near the eastern regions of
Turkey.
Tertullian (De Praescriptione, 36) says that John was with
Peter in Rome and for a time was in danger of his life. The
legend is that he was submitted to the torture of being boiled in
oil but was delivered miraculously. This story does not seem to
have much foundation in historical fact but the Church of San
Giovanni in Olio seems to have been built on the spot in Rome to
honor the Apostles escape.
Also there is a tradition that in Rome an attempt was made
to poison John, but that when he took the cup the poison
disappeared in the form of a serpent. Thus the Roman Catholic
symbol for this Apostle is a cup with a serpent issuing from it.
(See "The Twelve Christ Chose," Asbury Smith, p.58-60).
While in Ephesus John wrote his gospel. Eusebius tells the
circumstances:
"The fourth of the Gospels was written by John, one of the
disciples. When exhorted by his fellow-disciples and bishops, he
said, 'Fast with me this day for three days; and what may be
revealed to any of us, let us relate it to one another:' The same
night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John
was to write all things in his own name, and they were all to
certify." (A New Eusebius, J.Stevenson, p.145).
Church history records few moments of humor but surely one
must be the picture that Eusebius gives in Chapter 28. This is a
passage concerning one Cerinthus, a noted heretic in the days of
John. Eusebius quotes as his authority, Irenaeus, and relates
that he said that "John, the Apostle, once entered a bath to
wash: but ascertaining Cerinthus was within, he leapt out of the
place and fled from the door, not enduring to remain under the
same roof with him. John exhorted those within to do the same,
'Let us flee lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that
enemy of the truth, is within.'" (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical
History, p.114).
In dealing with that same Cerinthus, St.Jerome wrote several
paragraphs about John, indicating that John wrote the Gospel
against the heresy of Cerinthus. The entire selection from St.
Jerome is worth reading:
"John, the Apostle whom Jesus most loved, the son of Zebedee and
brother of James, the Apostle whom Herod, after our Lord's
passion, beheaded, most certainly of all the Evangelists wrote a
'Gospel,' at the request of the bishops of Asia, against
Cerinthus and other heretics and especially against the then
growing dogma of the Ebionites, who assert that Christ did not
exist before Mary.
(Oh, this idea has sprung up again in these end times, the idea
being that Jesus did not exist before being born of Mary. A
fellow by the name of Anthony Buzzard, a former WCGer proclaims
this false heretic teaching - Keith Hunt)
On this account he was compelled to maintain His divine nativity.
But there is said to be yet another reason for this work, in that
when he had read Matthew, Mark and Luke, he approved indeed the
substance of the history and declared that the things they said
were true, but that they had given the history of only one year,
the one, that is, which follows the imprisonment of John and in
which he was put to death. So passing by this year, the events of
which had been set forth by these, he related the events of the
earlier period before John was shut up in prison, so that it
might be manifest to those who should diligently read the volumes
of the four Evangelists. This also takes away the discrepancy
which there seems to be between John and the others. He wrote
also one Epistle which begins as follows 'That which was from the
beginning, that we declare unto you.'
In the fourteenth year then after Nero, Domitian having raised a
second persecution, he was banished to the island of Patmos, and
wrote the Apocalapse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to
death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having
been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Nerva
Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the emperor
Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn
out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's
passion and was buried near the same city." (The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, Jerome, p.364-5).
Another tradition concerning John is also handed down by
Jerome. It says that when John was evidently an old man in
Ephesus he had to be carried to the church in the arms of his
disciples. At these meetings he was accustomed to say no more
than, "Little children, love one anotherl" After a time the
disciples wearied at always hearing the same words and they
asked, "Master, why do you always say this?" "It is the Lord's
command," was his reply. "And if this alone be done, it is
enough!"
We are aided to catch the spirit of the aged Apostle in a
poem by the poet Eastwood in which he describes the last hours of
St.John's life.
"... What say you, friends?
That this is Ephesus and Christ has gone Back to His kingdom?
Ay, 'tis so, 'tis so; I know it all: and yet, just now I seemed
To stand once more upon my native hills
And touch my Master ...
Up! Bear me to my church once more
There let me tell them of a Saviour's love:
For by the sweetness of my Master's voice I think he must be very
near.
... So, raise up, my head:
How dark it isl I cannot seem to see.
The faces of my flock
Is that the sea
That murmurs so, or is it weeping? Hush!
'My little children! God so loved the world
He gave His son: so love ye one another,
Love God and men. Amen"' (What Became of The Twelve Apostles,
McBirnie, p.30,31).
There is a firm tradition that John lived until the reign of
Nerva, 68 years after the resurrection of Jesus. (See "The
Contendings of the Apostles," Budge, p.213; also see "The Twelve
Christ Chose," Asbury Smith, p.58).
"During his last days John appointed bishops in the new Christian
community." (Quisdives, Clement of Alexandria, 42).
"Polycarp and Papias were his disciples." (Against Heresies V,
Irenaeus, 33,4) (The Christian Centuries, J.Danielou, p.41).
VISITING THE TOMB OF ST.JOHN
The local guide books available to the visitor to Ephesus
have been written with scholarship. They tell of the history of
the tomb of St.John.
"The disciples of St.John built a chapel over the tomb of the
Evangelist which became a centre of Christian worship. So many
pilgrims visited the chapel that by the sixth century the Emperor
Justinian and his wife Theodora agreed to build a monument worthy
of St.John in place of the previous construction which was of
little artistic value. Justinian's church, 130 metres long, with
three naves, was built in the shape of a cross. The wide central
nave was covered with six large domes: the narthex was covered
with five smaller ones. The main dome and central section of the
church was supported by four square pillars. The tomb of the
Apostle was in a room under the part of the floor immediately
beneath the large dome. According to tradition the dust from this
room had healing powers, which brought many sick people to the
tomb during the Middle Ages.
The floor of the church was covered with mosaics. The monograms
of Justinian and Theodora can be clearly distinguished on the
capitals of some of the columns. On the 28th of September, the
probable date of the Evangelist's death, commemorative ceremonies
were held. Illuminations and processions attracted large crowds
from the surrounding districts. Second century coins found at the
Saint's tomb prove that already, in the earliest times, it was a
place of pilgrimage." (Ephesus, Dr.Cemil Toksoz, p.16).
"North of the ruins of the Basilica of St.John we see opposite
us, like a crown on the highest point of the Seljuk Hill, the
Citadel with its fifteen towers. This castle is a Byzantine
building but a large part was repaired during the time of the
Aydinogullari. A tower and the walls in the southern part of the
building are characteristic of that period. The Citadel may be
entered on the western side. It contains a church, a mosque and
cisterns. According to tradition, the Gospel of St.John, he who
saw so well the world about him, was written on this hillside."
(Ibid., p.18 ).
More or less the same story is told in another book by the
same title:
"From the very beginning of Christianity the communities of
Christians accepted this place [Ephesus] as a spot of pilgrimage
and performed their homage. Later on this church was destroyed by
the acts of God and was built again enlarging the old one by
Emperor Justinian. This doomed church had a fine yard surrounded
with pillars. It was 100 m.in length, had two storeys and
consisted of six big and five small domes. The domes were covered
with mosaics. In excavations some coins were found belonging to
the second half of the 1st century B.C. This proves that the tomb
of St.John used to he visited by many a man at that time. Holy
wells, the places of which hymns used to be sung, and ashes which
cured every kind of illness, were under the roof of these domes.
The curing water flourishing near the tomb of St.John had a
special value for the pilgrims of that period. For about four or
five years St.John lived together with his rival Artems! Though
the temple of Artemis was plundered more often than not, nobody
touched St.John, because St.John was the great messenger of human
and of holy loves and a follower of Christ and of His Holy
Mother. His tomb, just like the Temple of St.Mary on the hill,
was erected to fit a disciple. His memory will never be neglected
by the western believers of the faith." ( Ephesus, Naci Keskin,
pages not numbered).
Describing the inside of the Church of St.John, Keskin
explains, "Its reconstructions show us that this church was just
in the middle of the walls of Ayasuluk Hill and used to control
around it. The grave of St.John is the place barred. Since the
Middle Ages it was believed that, just like the holy water of St.
Mary's Fountain, a kind of cure-all, ashy-like dust issued hare.
For this reason this place was a focus of pilgrimage for the
Christian world in that period. Over the grave of St.John, at
first, a small church, and then a large one, were constructed by
Justinian in the 4th Century A.D. - (Ibid.).
Eusebius confirms the location of the tomb of St.John by
this quotation from Polycrates:
"The place of his burial is shown from the Epistle of Polycrates
who is Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, which Epistle he wrote to
Victor, Bishop of Rome ... thus ... 'John, that rested on the
bosom of our Lord ... he also rests at Ephesus.'" (Ecclesiastical
History, Eusebius, p.31).
In 1953 when the author first visited the ruins of Ephesus
he found them in great disrepair. The floor of the Basilica of
St.John was then missing but the entrance to the tomb could be
entered. In 1971, the occasion of the author's last visit, the
floor of the church had been restored and wrought iron railings
had been placed around the entrance to the tomb. Apparently the
bones of the Apostle have disappeared. An English speaking
Turkish guide said that they had been removed to the British
Museum.
Certainly a large number of marble carvings from the nearby
Temple of Diana had indeed been removed to the British Museum by
the English archaeologist, Wood, when he made the notable
discovery of that famous building. Evidently the Turks are not
very happy about its removal and they tend to blame the
disappearance of anything they cannot find on the British. But a
personal visit to the British Museum and a conference with the
authorities there indicate that they have no record of any such
find by Mr.Wood, nor do they have the relics of St.John.
This is a strange denouement. Some relics of all other
Apostles still exist, but the grave of John, which is perhaps the
best attested of any Apostolic tomb by history and archaeology,
contains no relics, nor are there any historical traces or
traditions of what may have become of them!
....................
Entered on this Website December 2007
NOTE:
Reading between the lines of Roman Catholic added fancies, it is
probably quite true, in an overall way, some of the things
written about John. We certainly do know he lived to be a ripe
old age. We know also that Polycarp of the middle second century
was a disciple of John, and Polycrates was a disciple of
Polycarp.
Both contended with the bishop of Rome over the contention of the
Passover or Easter observance. Rome was adopting the Easter,
while the churches in Asia Minor, under Polycarp and Polycrates,
were still observing the Passover, as they claimed that was the
teaching of the apostle John.
John it is clear from his letters was contending with a departing
from the truths of God, held by all the apostles, and had to
fight an insiduous and clandestine movement from within the
Church of God towards a perversion of the Gospel, and a departing
from some of the basic teachings and practices of the true Church
of God as founded by Christ and His apostles. We read that Jude
had to tell his reading to contend for the "faith once delivered
to the saints."
How much MORE TODAY has the Christianity of the world departed
from the original faith once delivered. It is indeed so very true
that God's people are the "little flock" as Jesus said they would
be. And in the Greek it is a double diminutive - so Jesus
actaully said His disciples would be the "little little flock" or
"very little flock" we may say it in English.
But the positive is that Jesus said He would build His church and
the gates of hell - death - would never kill it. God does have
His true people on this earth today, though they be the salt of
the earth, they are still there. I pray YOU will be counted as
one of them.
Keith Hunt
Philip the Apostle
Preached to Israelites
SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES
by the late McBirnie Ph.D.
PHILIP
How DID A JEW get such a name as the Greek, '"hilip"? The
name means "Lover of horses." The Philip best known to history is
that of Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great.
Alexander conquered Palestine and left behind him a lasting Greek
influence, especially in northern Galilee. Besides, in the first
century there was a local King in the province of Ituraea, (named
after the original Philip, no doubt) called, "Philip the
Tetrarch," who raised the status of Bethsaida to be the capital
of the province. Philip the Apostle was probably named in honor
of the Tetrarch, who had, some ten years before the future
Apostle's birth, done so much for that region and Bethsaida where
he was born. The Greek influence in Philip's life and ministry is
most significant. Budge says Philip was of the tribe of Zebulon.
Jesus found Philip and said to him, "Follow me!" (John 1:43) This
young, liberal Jew, certainly with some Greek influence in his
background, could be useful to the Master who would command His
gospel to be taken to the Greeks as well as the Jews.
Philip went out immediately to find his friend Nathaniel.
"We have found Him of Whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets,
wrote; Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph," he said (John
1:45).
It was Philip who later introduced certain Greeks to Christ.
(See John 12:20-33) He was mentioned at the feeding of the five
thousand, and again at the Last Supper (John 8:5-7). It is
impressive that all the references to Philip are in John's
gospel. John was a fellow Galilean, who lived in the neighboring
village of Capernaum on the shore of the sea. He was, no doubt, a
close friend to Philip.
According to "Sacred and Legendary Art" (p.249):
"After the ascension, he travelled into Scythia, and remained
there preaching the Gospel for twenty years; he then preached at
Hierapolis in Phrygia, where he found the people addicted to the
worship of a monstrous serpent or dragon, or of the god Mars
under that form. Taking compassion on their blindness, the
Apostle commanded the serpent, in the name of the cross he held
in his hand, to disappear, and immediately the reptile glided out
from beneath the altar, at the same time emitting such a hideous
stench that many people died, and among them the king's son fell
dead in the arms of his attendants: but the Apostle, by Divine
power, restored him to life. Then the priests of the dragon were
incensed against him, and they took him, and crucified him, and
being bound on the cross they stoned him; thus be yielded up his
spirit to God, praying, like his Divine Master, for his enemies
and tormentors." (by Mrs.Anna Jameson).
(Some Roman Catholic additions, using the cross, but could well
have basic foundation of truth - Keith Hunt)
Jean Danielou affirms: "Papias had written some 'Expositions
of the Oracles of the Lord,' in which he had collected traditions
about the Apostles from people who had known them, and he tells
us, in particular, that he has heard the daughters of the Apostle
Philip speaking in Hierapolis; so we can believe as certain the
information he gives us that the Apostle Philip lived in
Hierapolis. Later the 'Montanist Proclus' declared that it was
not the Apostle Philip but the deacon of the same name, the
person described in the Acts as having stayed in Caesarea, whose
four daughters remained virgins and uttered prophecies. (HE 111,
31,4).
But Polycrates of Ephesus, at the end of the second century,
confirms what Papias says, and it is certainly the Apostle Philip
who died at Hierapolis (HE III,31,3). Two of his daughters had
remained virgins and also died at Hierapolis; the others married
(HE 111,29,1) and one died at Ephesus (111,31,3).
Other facts seem to confirm this link between Philip and
Phrygia. This region is close to that of the Apostle John. It is
remarkable that Philip plays a specially important part of the
Gospel of John, written at this time, toward the end of the first
century. "Moreover a Gospel of Philip has been found at Nag-
Hammadi. It is Gnostic in Character and certainly of later date,
but its contacts with the Asiatic theology of Irenaeus and the
Asiatic Gnosticism of Mark the Magus are very remarkable. There
also exist apocryphal 'Acts of Philip' which praise virginity.
Finally it should be noted that Hierapolis received no letter
either from Paul or John, whereas the neighbouring cities of
Colossae and Laodicea received letters; perhaps this is because
Hierapolis was Philips fief." ("The Christian Centuries," Jean
Danielou, p.40).
On five occasions this writer has visited the amazing
remains of the Turkish city of Hierapolis, the former health
resort where Philip's tomb is still to be found. A great
chemically impregnated spring of lukewarm water still sparkles
out of the rocks and forms an enormous crystalized falls over the
side of a mountain, almost as large as Niagara. In Biblical days
this was a spa, visited by sick people from all over the world of
that time. It no doubt served as a strategic mission spot from
which to spread the gospel to many visitors, and thence many
lands. There is no reason whatever to doubt that Philip was able
to minister effectively in this Roman-Greek city, nor that he
did, indeed, die here. He was ideally suited for a ministry to
those who spoke Greek, and died in an area that was at that time
still largely Greek in culture, though ruled by Rome.
"The Montanist Proclus argued that the tombs of the four
daughters of Philip, all prophetesses in New Testament times,
were still to be seen at Hierapolis in Asia" ("Augustus to
Constantine," R.Grant, p 166).
TRADITIONS CONCERNING THE MINISTRY AND BURIAL OF ST.PHILIP
There have been some spirited arguments as to whether or not
St.Philip ever visited France. There is little doubt that Philip
died at Hierapolis which is close to Laodicea and Colossae, both
Biblical cities. The church history of the Byzantine era
indicates a great deal of Christian activity in these three
towns.
As Christianity spread throughout Asia Minor (now Turkey) it
is evident that much missionary work soon made Asia Minor a
nominally Christian country. Since Colossae and Laodicea are both
important cities of the New Testament, it is evident that the
gospel got an early start in this area. Colossae, which is 16
miles from Hierapolis, was the location of a highly developed
church during the lifetime of the Apostle Paul and the location
of the church to which St.Paul wrote his letter to the
Colossians.
By the time St.John wrote the book of the Revelation, nearby
Laodicea was the site of a church which doubtless had been
founded by St.Paul and which had, by St.John's time, matured to a
position of great wealth and influence. If the tradition of St.
Philip's preaching in Scythia (south Russia) is true, it
certainly is not unreasonable to believe that he may have
eventually returned to Asia Minor, where he would have been in
proximity to his old friend, St.John, who was located in Ephesus.
Since John, in the book of the Revelation, refers to the church
of the Laodicians, which was just six miles from Philip's place
of ministry in Hierapolis, there can be no historical reason for
doubting that St.Philip indeed ministered and died in Hierapolis.
It is in the stories of St.Philip that history and tradition
come so close together as to validate and illuminate each other.
There are some strong later traditions also that St.Philip
visited France. Before we look at the documentation, we should
understand that the Gauls of France first emigrated from Galatia
in Turkey. Since the ministry of St.Philip most definitely took
him to Galatia, of which Hierapolis was a city, we are on rather
firm ground in supposing that this was the area of most of his
ministry. Traditions regarding a visit of St.Philip to France
(Gaul) seem to be based upon a mistake which confuses Gaul with
Galatia, since the two names are related.
But it would seem the argument would work the other way as
well. If the Gauls of France are to be traced to an emigration
from Galatia, why would it not be completely reasonable for St.
Philip, as a missionary to the Galatians, to also have traveled
to France to be a missionary to their kinsmen, the Gauls? The
burden of proof is, of course, upon those who contend that this
is what happened. But as to its reasonableness and possibility
there can be little doubt.
(The Gaul's were Israelite people from the lost House of Israel -
Keith Hunt)
As every school boy knows, Gaul was conquered by Julius
Caesar who killed more than a million men in the process. Gaul,
in Caesar's time, had large cities and was evidently civilized
enough for Caesar to enjoy living there for almost ten years.
This conquest took place about 80 years before the ministry of
St.Philip. During that time Roman civilization and culture were
fully established. It was from Gaul that Caesar attempted to
conquer England twice, and it was from Gaul that Claudius did
accomplish this task.
(Not so, England and Britain were never conquered as such. The
British ALLOWED the Romans to live there, but Rome never
conquered Britain. The Scottish Pics never even allowed Roman
armies to live in Scotland. Hence the famous Adian's Wall was
built in the North of England to keep the Sottish pics from
coming down and vanquishing the Roman armies. It's all in studies
on this Website. And before that, as McBirnie says, Caesar
attempted to conquer England TWICE and failed! - Keith Hunt)
It would have been incredible if the Gospel had not
penetrated Gaul rather thoroughly by the climax of the Apostolic
Age.
The only Apostle whom tradition associates with France is
St.Philip. Although there are sub-apostolic figures such as Mary
Magdalene, the sisters Mary and Martha, and Lazarus their
brother, who are identified with Marseilles in France. In fact,
their tombs are shown there to this day.
With the realization, therefore, that the confusion between
Gaul and Galatia may have led some early church writers astray,
let us look at the traditions of St.Philip in France.
"(I) Isidore, Archbishop of Seville, A.D.600-636, whom Dr.William
Smith (Dictionary of Christian Biography) calls 'undoubtedly the
greatest man of his time in the Church of Spain ... a voluminous
writer of great learning ... He had also a trained and cultivated
mind' wrote thus: 'Philip of the city Bethsaida, whence also came
Peter, preached Christ to the Gauls, and brought barbarous and
neighbouring nations, seated in darkness and close to the
swelling ocean, to the light of knowledge and port of faith.
Afterwards he was stoned and crucified, and died in Hierapolis, a
city of Phrygia, and having been buried with his corpse upright
along with his daughters rests there.'" (De ortu et obitu Patrum,
Cap.LXXIII 131).
"(2) Cardinal Baronius. (Annales: Tom 1, Ann. Christi Claudii
Imp.2, Sec.32) narrates, 'Philip the fifth in order is said to
have adorned Upper Asia with the Gospel, and at length at
Hierapolis at the age of 87 to have undergone martyrdom, which
also John Chrysostom hands down, and they say that the same man
travelled over part of Scythia, and for some time preached the
Gospel along with Bartholomew. In Isidore one reads that Philip
even imbued the Gauls with the Christian faith, which also in the
Breviary of Toledo of the School of Isidore is read. But we have
said in our notes to the Roman Martyrology that 'to the
Galatians' must be corrected in the place of 'to the Gaols.' But
the learned Archbishop Ussher says, 'I am not at all satisfied
here with the conjecture of Baronius in transferring the
statements of Isidore from our Gauls to the Galatians of Asia;
much less with the temerity of a recent Editor of the works of
Isidore, Jacobus Breulius, in substituting Galatians for the
Gauls in the text itself, without any reference to the ancient
reading.'" (Brit.Ecc.Antiq, Cap.11).
"(3) Bede, born about A.D.673. Archbishop Ussher also tells
(Antiquities, Cap.2) that 'Bede (or whoever was the author of
'Collections and Flowers') also assigned Gaul to Philip at the
foot of the 3rd tome of his works."
"(4) Freculphus, Bishop of Lisieux in France, A.D.825-851, wrote
('Tom posterior Chronicorum,' Lib.II, Cap.IV), 'Philip of the
City of Bethsaida whence also came Peter, of whom in the Gospels
and Acts of the Apostles praiseworthy mention is often made,
whose daughters also were outstanding prophetesses, and of
wonderful sanctity and perpetual virginity, as ecclesiastical
history narrates, preached Christ to the Gauls.'" He then
proceeds to quote Isidore.
"(5) St.Epiphanius, A.D.315-407, Bishop of Salamins, 'one of the
most zealous champions of orthodox faith and monastic piety'
(Smith's Dict.of Christ. Biog. ), wrote: 'The ministry of the
divine word having been entrusted to St.Luke, he exercised it by
passing into Dalmatia, into Gaul, into Italy, into Macedonia, but
principally into Gaul, so that St.Paul assures him in his
epistles about some of his disciples - 'Czescens,' said he, 'is
in Gaul.' In it must not be read, 'in Galatia' as some have
falsely thought, but 'in Gaul.' Pere Longueval remarks that this
sentiment was so general in the East, that Theodoret who read 'in
Galatia' did not fail to understand 'Gaul' because as a matter of
fact the Greeks gave this name to Gaul, and the Galatians had
only thus been named because they were a colony of Gauls
('Memoire de P Apostolat de St.Mansuet' (vide p.83) par 1'Abbe
Guillaume, p.II)." ('St.Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury,' Rev.
Lionel Smithett Lewis, p.112-114) Mr.Lewis is incorrect in
supposing Galatia to have been colonized by the Gauls. It was the
other way around.
Polycrates (194 A.D.) wrote, as we have said, a synodical
letter against Victor Bishop of Rome in which he says that he
"follows the authority of the Apostle John and of the ancients."
Also he adds, "Philip, one of the twelve Apostles, sleeps at
Hierapolis" ('The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,' Jerome, Second
Series p.372). Thus we may look with confidence upon Hierapolis
as the place of the death and original entombment of St.Philip.
Whether Philip visited France and returned to Galatia where
he died or whether he never went to France at all cannot, of
course, be absolutely proven in the light of the late date of the
writers we have quoted above.
However, this much we know, that Pope John the Third
(560-572) acquired the body of St.Philip from Hierapolis and
interred it in a church in Rome. He called it, "The Church of the
Holy Apostles Philip and James." A current guide book published
by that church and written by Emma Zocca, ("la Basilica," p.8,
9,23) traces the history of the church building back to the 8th
century. The church is now known as "The Church of the Holy
Apostles," but that name is traced to only the 10th century. The
longer-named "Church of the Holy Apostles Philip and James" was
the earlier title. Today one can see the bones of the Apostles in
a large marble sarcophagus under the altar and in a reliquary
room behind it. There are to be seen also the fragments of bones
of other Apostles in the same room.
(A big "maybe" here is in order. Maybe the church of Rome has
some fragments of bones of some apostles. The church of Rome does
go back to the first century A.D. - they CAME OUT OF the true
apostolic Church of God. But I'll still say it is a BIG "maybe"
just as they thought they had the "shroud" of Jesus, see the
study on that called "The Shroud of Turin" - Keith Hunt)
..................
Bartholomew
SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES
by the late McBirnie PhD
BARTHOLOMEW
This NAME LITERALLY means "son of Tolmai " He is mentioned
as one of the Twelve Apostles (Matt.10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 8:14;
Acts 1:13). There is no further reference to him in the New
Testament. According to the "Genealogies of The Twelve Apostles,"
he was of the house of Naphtali. Elias of Damascus, a Nestorian
of the ninth century was the first man to identify Bartholomew
with Nathanael. In the lists of the Twelve in the first Three
Gospels and in Acts, the names of Philip and Bartholomew always
occur together. In the Fourth Gospel we learn that it was Philip
who brought Nathanael to Jesus (John 1:45). This has led many to
believe that Bartholomew and Nathanael are the same person.
In the apocryphal "Gospel o f Bartholomew" is the tradition
that he preached the gospel in India, and that he brought a copy
of Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew to that place. In the "Preaching of
St.Bartholomew in the Oasis" he is said to have preached in the
oasis of Al Bahnasa. According to "The Preaching of St.Andrew and
St.Bartholomew" he labored among the Parthians. Another tradition
has him preaching in Phrygia in Asia Minor.
The Acts of Philip tells how Philip and Bartholomew preached
in Hierapolis, and how Philip was martyred by being pierced
through the thighs and hung upside down. Bartholomew, however,
escaped martyrdom at that place. He is further said to have
preached in Armenia, and the Armenian Church claims him as its
founder. Another tradition has him martyred at Albana, which now
is modern Derbend, in the Soviet Union. However, this is near or
in Ancient Armenia, so there is no contradiction involved in
these traditions.
"The Martyrdom of St.Bartholomew" states that he was placed in a
sack and cast into the sea. There is, however, a contrary account
of his martyrdom in the city of Albana. This tradition is found
in the "Apostolic History of Abdias." Bartholomew is there
described as having healed the king's daughter, and exposed the
emptiness of the king's idol. The king and many others were
baptized, but the priests and the king's brother, Astyages,
remained hostile. They arrested Bartholomew, beat him and
eventually crucified him.
THE HISTORICAL AND TRADITIONAL ACCOUNTS OF BARTHOLOMEW
Apparently the traditions of St.Bartholomew have been long
and widely known, as the following accounts prove.
Dorman Newman in 1885 tells an astonishingly complete story:
"Bartholomew for the Enlargement of the Christian Church, went as
far as India for this purpose; he there found a Hebrew Gospel of
St.Matthew, amongst some who still retained the knowledge of
Christ, who assured him from the Tradition of the Ancestors, that
it had been left them by St.Bartholomew, when he preached the
Gospel in those Parts.
For a farther account of our Apostle, 'tis said, that he returned
from India to the North-West Parts of Africa. At Hierapolis in
Phrygia we find him in company with St.Philip, (as was observed
before in his life) at whose Martyrdom he was likewise fastened
to a Cross, in order to have suffered at the same time; but for
some special reason the Magistrates caused him to be taken down
again, and dismissed. Hence, probably, he went into Lycaonia,
where Chrysostom affirms, Serm. in SS. XII. Apost. that he
instructed the people in the Christian religion. His last Remove
was to Albanople in Armenia the Great, (the same no doubt which
Nicephorus calls Vrbanople, a City of Cilicia) a place miserably
overrun with Idolatry; from which, while he sought to reclaim the
People, he was by the Governour of the place condemned to be
crucified. Some add, that he was crucified with his Head
downwards; others that he was flead alive, which might well
enough consist with his Crucifixion; this Punishment being in
use, not only in Egypt, but amongst the Persians, next Neighbours
to these Armenians, from whom they might easily borrow this piece
of barbarous and brutish Cruelty. Theodorus Lector 1. 2. assures
us, that the Emperor Anastasius having built the City Daras in
Mesopotamia, A.D.508, removed St.Bartholomew's Body thither;
which Gregory of Tours seems to contradict, saying, that the
People of Liparis, near Sicily, translated it from the place
where he suffered into their Isle, and built a stately Church
over it. By what means it was removed from hence to Beneventum in
Italy, and afterwards to the Isle of Tiber at Rome, where another
Church was built to the Honour of this Apostle, is hard to
account for.
The Hereticks (according to their Custom) have forged a Gospel
under St.Bartholomew's Name, which Gelasius Bishop of Rome justly
branded as Apocryphal, altogether unworthy the Name and Patronage
of an Apostle. And perhaps of no better Authority is the Sentence
which Dionysius, the pretended Areopagite, ascribes to him, That
Theology is both copious, and yet very small, and the Gospel
diffuse and large, and yet twithal concise and short."
(The Lives and Deaths of the Holy Apostles, Dorman Newman, 1685).
In modern Iran, Christian leaders agree as to the first
century ministry of St.Bartholomew:
"By commonly accepted tradition the honour of sowing the first
seeds of Christianity in Armenia, and of watering them with their
blood, rests with St.Thaddeus and St.Bartholomew, who are
consequently revered as the First Illuminators of Armenia.
St.Bartholomew's labours and martyrdom in Armenia are generally
acknowledged by all Christian Churches. It is said that after
preaching in Arabia, the South of Persia and the borders of
India, he proceeded to Armenia, where he suffered martyrdom by
being flayed alive and then crucified, head downward, at Albac or
Albanopolis, near Bashkale.
The mission of St.Bartholomew in Armenia lasted sixteen years."
(The Armenian Apostolic Church in Iran, A Lecture Delivered by
John Hananian, Consolata Church, Teheran, 1969)
"The first illuminators of Armenia were St.Thaddaeus, and St.
Bartholomew whose very shrines still stand at Artaz (Macoo) and
Alpac (Bashkale) in southeast Armenia and have always been
venerated by Armenians. A popular tradition amongst them ascribes
the first evangelization of Armenia to the Apostles Judas
Thaddaeus who, according to their chronology, spent the years 43
to 66 A.D. in that country and was joined by St.Bartholomew in
the year 60 A.D. the latter was martyred in 68 A.D. at Albanus
(Derbend). 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 other perished with St.
Bartholomew. On two occasions Eusebius (VI, xlvi) refers to the
Armenians in his "Ecclesiastical History." First, he states that
Dionysius of Alexandria, pupil of Origen, wrote an Epistle 'On
Repentance,' 'to those in Armenia ... whose bishop was
Meruzanes'" (A History of Eastern Christianity, Aziz S. Atiya, p.
316).
Dr.Edgar Goodspeed touches on the location of the ministry
of St. Bartholomew:
"Yet we must also remember that 'India' was a term very loosely
used by the ancients, as the statement that Bartholomew went
there as a missionary and found 'the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew'
shows. Eusebius declares, in his Church History, (v:10:12), that
about the time of the accession of Commodus, A.D.180, Pantanus,
the leading teacher in the church at Alexandria, was sent as
missionary as far as India. He goes on to say that Bartholomew
had preached to them, and left with them the Gospel of Matthew
'in the Hebrew language,' a very perplexing statement. Indeed, it
is sometimes said that 'India in the first century was very
loosely used, being understood to begin on the Bosporus.
Alexander's march to India had done much, three and a half
centuries before the Christian mission began, toward opening the
great Parthian hinterland to the western mind. He had reached the
easternmost of the tributaries of the Indus River before he
turned south to the Indian Ocean, and then west again. His great
march and the seventy cities he had built or founded had in a
measure opened the way to India." (The Twelve, Edgar J.
Goodspeed, p.97,98).
The story of Bartholomew in Persia was known very early:
"Pantaenus, a philosopher of the Stoic school, according to some
old Alexandrian custom, where, from the time of Mark the
evangelist the ecclesiastics were always doctors, was of so great
prudence and erudition both in Scripture and secular literature
that, on the request of the legates of that nation, he was sent
to India by Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, where he found that
Bartholomew, one of the twelve Apostles, had preached the advent
of the Lord Jesus according to the gospel of Matthew. On his
return to Alexandria he brought this with him written in Hebrew
characters." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicene and Post Jerome,
Gennadius, Rufinus, p.370).
William Barclay mentions two legends crediting St.Jerome
with the following:
"By far the most interesting conjecture comes from Jerome. Jerome
passes on the suggestion that Bartholomew was the only one of the
twelve to be of noble birth. As we have seen, his name means 'son
of Tolmai,' or possibly son of Talmai. Now in 2 Sam.3:3 there is
mention of a Talmai who was king of Geshur; this Talmai had a
daughter called Maacah; and this Maacah became the mother of
Absalom, whom she bore to David. The suggestion is that it was
from this Talmai that Bartholomew was descended, and that,
therefore, he was of nothing less than royal lineage. Later still
another story arose. The second part of Bartholomew's name was
connected with Ptolemy, and he was said to be called son of
Ptolemy. The Ptolemies were the kings of Egypt, and it was said
that Bartholomew was connected with the royal house of Egypt It
cannot be said that these suggestions are really likely; but it
would be of the greatest interest, if in the Apostolic band one
who was of royal lineage lived in perfect fellowship with the
humble fishermen of Galilee.
He is said to have preached in Armenia, and the Armenian Church
claims him as its founder; and he is said to have been martyred
at Albana, which is the modern Derbend. There is an account of
the martyrdom of Bartholomew in 'The Apostolic History of
Abdias,' although there the death of Bartholomew seems to be
located in India. The story runs as follows. Bartholomew preached
with such success that the heathen gods were rendered powerless.
A very interesting personal description of him is given. 'He has
black, curly hair, white skin, large eyes, straight nose, his
hair covers his ears, his beard long and grizzled, middle height.
He wears a white robe with a purple stripe, and a white cloak
with four purple gems at the corners. For twenty-six years he has
worn these, and they never grow old. His shoes have lasted
twenty-six years. He prays a hundred times a day and a hundred
times a night His voice is like a trumpet; angels wait upon him;
he is always cheerful, and knows all languages.'
Bartholomew did many wonderful things there, including the
healing of the lunatic daughter of the king, and the exposing of
the emptiness of the king's idol, and the banishing of the demon
who inhabited it. The demon was visibly banished from the idol by
an angel and there is an interesting description of him - 'black,
sharp-faced, with a long beard, hair to the feet, fiery, eyes,
breathing flame, and spiky wings like a hedge-hog.'
The king and many others were baptized; but the priests remained
hostile. The priests went to the king's brother Astyages. The
king's brother had Bartholomew arrested, beaten with clubs,
flayed alive and crucified in agony. And so Bartholomew died a
martyr for his Lord.
There is still extant an apocryphal 'Gospel of Bartholomew' which
Jerome knew. It describes a series of questions which Bartholomew
addressed to Jesus and to Mary in the time between the
Resurrection and the Ascension."
(The Master's Men, Barclay, p.104).
The Armenian tradition concerning Bartholomew is a source of
pride to the Armenian Patriarchate:
"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.Bartholomew. The Church that they
founded converted a greater part of the people during the second
and third centuries. At the beginning of the fourth century, in
301, through the efforts of St.Gregory the Illuminator, the Icing
of Armenia Tiridates the Great and all the members of his family
and the nobility were converted and baptized.
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, 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.
Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem who presided over the discovery and
construction of the Holy Places in and around Jerusalem, was in
communication with the head of the Armenian Church, Bishop
Vertanes. One of the epistles which he wrote to him between the
years 325 and 335 A.D. deals with certain ecclesiastical
questions and conveys greetings to the bishops, priests and
people of Armenia."
(The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, St. James Press, p.3,5).
This tradition is believed universally by the Armenians:
"The traditional founders of the Armenian Church were the
apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew, whose tombs are shown and
venerated in Armenia as sacred shrines."
(Treasures of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Arpag
Mekhitarian, Helen and Edward Mardigian Museum-Catalogue No. 1
Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, 1989).
The Roman Catholic tradition tells of the disposition of the
remains of the Apostle:
"A written account says that after the Emperor Anastasius built
the city of Duras in Mesopotamia in 508, he caused the relies to
be taken there. St.Gregory of Tours assures us that, before the
end of the sixth century, they were carried to the Lipari Islands
near Sicily; and Anastasius, the Librarian, tells us that in 809
they were taken to Benevento and then transported to Rome in 983
by the Emperor Otto III. They now lie in the church of St.
Bartholomew-on-Tiber in a porphryr shrine under the high altar.
An arm was sent by the Bishop of Benevento to St.Edward the
Confessor, who gave it to Canterbury Cathedral."
(A Traveller's Guide to Saints in Europe, Mary Sharp, p.29.).
The above quotation represents the Roman Catholic tradition
in part; however, there is also a Greek Orthodox tradition which
cannot be ignored. John Julius Norwich in his monumental book,
"Mount Athos," tells the story of his travels to the remote Greek
Orthodox Monasteries located in Mt.Athos, Greece.
"As the sun began to sink over the mountain we reached our goal
for the night, 'the cenobitic abbey of Karakallou,' favoured
retreat of Albanians and Epirote.
The sacristan appeared, suitably invested, and exposed the relics
on a trestle table in front of the iconostasis: the skulls of the
Apostle Bartholomew and St.Dionysius the Areopagite, the remains
of a neo-martyr, St.Gideon, a converted Turk."
("Mount Athos," John Julius Norwich, p.142).
It is obvious from the above account that the bones (relics)
of Bartholomew, like those of most of the other Apostles, are
widely scattered today.
Otto Hophan adds a few more details:
"An Armenian tradition maintained that his body was buried in
Albanopolis - also written Urbanopolis - a city of Armenia where
the Apostle is said to have suffered martyrdom. Then his remains
were taken to Nephergerd-Mijafarkin, and later to Daras, in
Mesopotamia."
(The Apostles, Otto Hophan, p.167).
Nevertheless the larger parts of the body of St.Bartholomew
are probably in Rome. It is as Hoever writes:
"The relics of the saint are preserved in the church of St.
Bartholomew on the island in the Tiber River near Rome."
("Lives of the Saints," Rev.Hugo Hoever, p.333).
"Saint Martin, the apostle Bartholomew, and Mary Magdalene were
represented in the arm collection and as for such relics as
fingers, toes, and small joints, this category was so extensive
that only three well-known saints were not represented: Saint
Joseph, Saint John the Baptist, and Saint James (the last being
preserved entire at Santiago de Compostela in northwestern
Spain). Philip's successors added to the collection and there are
now more than 7,000 relics at the Escorial, including 10 bodies,
144 heads, and 306 limbs."
("El Escorial, The Wonders of Man," Mary Cable and the Editors of
the Newsweek Book Division, P.91).
A SUGGESTED BIOGRAPHY OF BARTHOLOMEW
Bartholomew seems to have been the "son of Tolmai." The
suggestion that there was a political movement called the "sons
of Tolmai" seems to be without wide support. Even if such a group
did exist, there is no reason to suppose that Bartholomew was
connected with it. The greater probability is that he was a
patronymic, that is, a person bearing the name of his father.
(Thus, John's son becomes Johnson, etc.).
He was led to Christ in the region of Galilee, possibly by
Philip, and is listed as an Apostle in the final list in Acts
1:9. He would naturally have been present in the company of the
other Apostles during the early years of the Jerusalem church.
His ministry belongs more to the tradition of the eastern
churches than to the western churches. It is, however, evident
that he went to Asia Minor (Turkey), in the company of St.
Philip, where he labored in Hierapolis (near Laodicea and Colosse
in Turkey).
The wife of the Roman proconsul had been healed by the
Apostles and had become a Christian. Her husband ordered Philip
and Bartholomew to be put to death by crucifixion. Philip was
indeed crucified, but Bartholomew escaped and went eastward to
Armenia. Bartholomew carried with him a copy of Matthew's gospel,
(which copy was later found by a converted Stoic philosopher,
Pantaenus, who later brought it to Alexandria). Bartholomew
labored in the area around the south end of the Caspian Sea, in
the section that was then called Armenia, but which today is
divided between Iran and the Soviet Union.
The modern name of the district where he died is Azerbaijan
and the place of his death, called in New Testament times
Albanopolis, is now Derbend. Derbend is the sea gate through
which the wild horsemen of the Steppes (Scythians, Alans, Huns
and Khazars) later rode down upon civilized communities. The city
of Tabriz, which was the chief mart of Iranian Azerbaijan, was
also located in this area. It was visited by Marco Polo in 1294.
The statement that St.Bartholomew was skinned alive before being
beheaded, is contained in the Breberium Apostolorum, prefixed to
certain ancient manuscripts.
In Butler's "Lives of the Saints," which is a notable Roman
Catholic summary of the biographies of Saints, the following
account appears with references:
"The popular traditions concerning St.Batholomew are summed up in
the Roman Martyrology, which says he 'preached the gospel of
Christ in India; thence he went into Greater Armenia, and when he
had converted many people there to the faith he was flayed alive
by the barbarians, and by command of King Astyages fulfilled his
martyrdom by beheading...' The place is said to have been
Albanopolis (Derbend, on the west coast of the Caspian Sea), and
he is represented to have preached also in Mesopotamia, Persia,
Egypt and elsewhere. The earliest reference to India is given by
Eusebius in the early fourth century, where he relates that St.
Pantaenus, about a hundred years, earlier, going into India (St
Jerome adds 'to preach to the Brahmins'), found there some who
still retained the knowledge of Christ and showed him a copy of
St.Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew characters, which they assured him
that St.Bartholomew had brought into those parts when he planted
the faith among them. But 'India' was a name applied
indifferently by Greek and Latin writers to Arabia, Ethiopia,
Libya, Parthia, Persia and the lands of the Medes, and it is most
probable that the India visited by Pantaenus was Ethiopia or
Arabia Felix, or perhaps both. Another eastern legend says the
apostle met St.Philip at Hierapolis in Phrygia, and travelled
into Lycaonia, where St.John Chrysostom affirms that he
instructed the people in the Christian faith. That he preached
and died in Armenia is possible, and is a unanimous tradition
among the later historians of that country; but earlier Armenian
writers make little or no reference to him as connected with
their nation. The journeys attributed to the relics of St.
Bartholomew are - even more bewildering than those of his living
body; alleged relics are venerated at present chiefly at
Benevento and in the church of St.Bartholomew-in-the-Tiber at
Rome.
Although, in comparison with such other apostles as St.Andrew,
St.Thomas and St.John, the name of St.Bartholomew is not
conspicuous in the apocryphal literature of the early centuries,
still we have what professes to be an account of his preaching
and 'passion', preserved to us in Greek and several Latin copies.
Max Bonnet (Analecta Bollandiana, vol. xiv, 1895, pp.353-368)
thinks the Latin was the original; Lipsius less probably argues
for the priority of the Greek; but it may be that both derive
from a lost Syriac archetype. The texts are in the Acta
Sanctorum, August, vol. v; in Tischendorf, Acta Apostolorum
Apocrypha, pp.243-260; and also in Bonnet, Act. Apocryph., vol.
ii, pt.1, pp.128 seq. There are also considerable fragments of an
apocryphal Gospel of Bartholomew (on which see the Revue Biblique
for 1913, 1921 and 1922), and traces of Coptic 'Acts of Andrew
and Bartholomew.' The gospel which bears the name of Bartholomew
is one of the apocryphal writings condemned in the decree of
Pseudo-Gelasius. The statement that St.Bartholomew was flayed
alive before being beheaded, though this is not mentioned in the
passio, is contained in the so-called 'Breviarium Apostolorum'
prefixed to certain manuscripts of the 'Hieronymianum.' It is the
flaying which has probably suggested the knife, often associated
as an emblem with picture of the saint; but on St.Bartholomew in
art see Kunstle, Ikonographie, vol. ii, pp. 116-120. The Indian
question is examined in some detail by Fr.A.C.Perumalil in 'The
Apostles in India' (Patna, 1953)."
(Lives of the Saints, Butler, pp.391,392).
..................
NOTE"
What is not realized by most is that in the areas where the
apostles travelled to proclaim the Gospel, were not only Jews,
but people of the lost Tribes of Israel, people of the 10 tribes
who were known as the House of Israel. Some were still around,
scattered in the areas around Palestine. Some had moved into
Europe, and some centuries earlier, from the tribe of Judah, had
with their leader Brutus (around 1100 B.C.) moved into the
British Isles. The Druid teachings and noble kings and leaders of
the British clans, still containing many Hebrew (Abraham, Moses)
laws, made its transition from Druidism to Christianity, a very
smooth and easy transition. Britain was the first nation in the
world to declare itself a "Christian nation." This is all
recorded in ancient and secular history, as well as Christian
church history, some of which you will find on this Website.
Keith Hunt
The "Doubting" Thomas ApostleHis work in India!IN SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES
by the late William Steuart McBirnie, Ph.D.
THOMAS
ST.Thomas was also known as Didymas. The word means "twin,"
but we do not know anything about the brother or sister who was
his twin. He was a native of Galilee and by trade, a fisherman.
The few Biblical references which single him out from among the
Twelve for special attention seem to indicate that he was a
questioner or doubter. Even to this day he is known as "doubting
Thomas." Thomas possessed a nature which contained within it
certain conflicting elements exceedingly difficult of
reconciliation, possessed little natural buoyancy of spirit, and
was inclined to look often at life with icy coolness or
despondency. Yet, Thomas was a man of indomitable courage and
entire unselfishness. He combined a perpetual faith in the
teaching of Jesus mingled with a sincere love for Jesus the
teacher. He is referred to in detail by the Gospel of John alone,
though his election to the Twelve is recorded in Matthew 10:3,
Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13.
John records that when Jesus, despite immanent danger at the
hands of hostile Jews, declared his intention of going to Bethany
to help Lazarus, Thomas alone opposed the other disciples who
sought to dissuade him, and protested, "Let us also go: that we
may die with him." (John 11:16) Was this courage or a fatalistic
pessimism? Perhaps, in a strange way, it was both.
On the eve of the Passion, Thomas put the question, "Lord,
we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?"
(John 14:5) In this he revealed an insensitivity to what Jesus
had taught which came from an unwillingness to believe.
After the Crucifixion, Thomas was not present when
the Risen Christ first appeared to the disciples. Later he
arrived and upon hearing of the resurrection was stubbornly
unconvinced. Said Thomas, "Except I shall see the print of the
nails ... I will not believe." (John 20:25)
Paradoxically, for one who did not believe in the
resurrection, Thomas remained in the company of the other
Apostles until eight days later when Jesus suddenly appeared in
their midst. Addressing Thomas he invited him to come and examine
his wounds and to "be not faithless, but believing." Whereupon
Thomas prostrated himself and uttered the expression, "My Lord
and my God." He was reproved by Jesus for his previous unbelief:
"Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they
that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:24-29)
John, who has given us the greatest amount of detail about
Thomas and who had probably known him from boyhood, since they
were of the same craft and city, mentions that Thomas was present
when Jesus manifested himself while the disciples were fishing on
the Sea of Tiberias.
The constant picture of Thomas is that of a personality
intent to gloom and doubt, yet a believer just the same. He had
never what the Bible calls "a wicked heart of unbelief." Instead
he was a man who struggled against his doubts and was ready to
abandon them when he could.
It is well for us that we have the picture of "doubting
Thomas" in the Biblical record for, as has been commonly noted by
the commentators, "Thomas doubted that we might have no doubts."
THE MISSIONARY ACTIVITIES OF THOMAS
A great many legends have grown around the far-reaching
ministry of this Apostle. Among those which must be rejected is
the attempt to identify him with Jude, the son of James, and as a
twin brother of the Messiah. Another legend makes a woman named
Lysia, the twin sister of Thomas. (ISBE, p.2973) However, in the
light of traditions, which have a great deal of history to back
them up, we need not worry about the myths, but may rather
confidently reconstruct the actual missionary journeys of St.
Thomas. In fact, it may be said that we really know more about
St.Thomas than we do about almost any other Apostle with the
exception of John and Peter. It is our intention to examine in
detail this traditional history and to note the high quality of
the documentation which stands behind it.
It is evident that Thomas visited Babylon. Because the
tradition of the western churches revolved around Constantinople
and Rome, it is astonishing how little is known, even by many
church historians, about the many other vital Christian movements
which began during Apostolic times. These movements quickly
spread eastward, and therefore owed nothing to westem
Christianity.
Some of the eastern churches boast that their hierarchial
organizations date prior to those established in Constantinople
and Rome. This may be more of a presumption than a historical
fact since the hierarchy was a late development everywhere. But
the traditions are clear; there was an Apostolic movement
eastward and Thomas was a central figure.
THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH OF THE EAST
The official name of the Church of the East is "The Holy
Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East." Its publications
claim, "It was founded by the Apostles, St.Peter, St.Thomas, St.
Thaddeus and St.Mari of the Seventy. In the early centuries of
Christianity there was only one Church. The affairs of the Church
were managed by Bishops in their respective areas. There were
also chief Bishops known as Patriarchs. Writes Mar Yacob Manna, a
Uniate Bishop of the Roman Church, in his book "Margy Peghyany"
"Places where Patriarchates were organized by the holy Apostles
are the following mothers of all cities; the first, Babylon. It
is the metropolis, yea, the mother of all cities, and therefore
was the Head of the Assyrian Kingdom. Then Alexandria, Antioch,
Rome, and Constantinople." Of these only Babylon was at that time
outside the Roman Empire of the West. So the Babylon Patriarch
soon came to be known as Patriarch of the East. In the words of
the Rev.Enoch Jones of the American Episcopal Church, "the
Patriarchate of the East can claim to be the oldest
Patriarchate." His Holiness Maran Mar Eshai Shimun is the 119th
Patriarch in this glorious line. It may also be noted that the
Church of the East is variously called by various historians.
Some of the popular appellations are Assyrian Church, Nestorian
Church, Chaldean Syrian Church, etc." (Souvenir of India, The
Church of the East, p.49)
"....The Church of the East traces its origin directly back to
the original Apostles. One of its chapels founded by the Three
Wise Men on their return from Bethlehem, is still in use today in
the town of Resaieh, in Northern Iran. The Patriarch attended
that chapel as a boy." (Ibid., p.53)
A noted special volume was published to commemorate the
visit to India of the Patriarch of the Church of the East. It
contains many references to the Apostolic tradition of that
church body and St.Thomas.
"....After establishing churches and ordaining clergy in the
Middle East, St.Thomas came to this country as deputed by his
Lord. Here, too, he instructed thousands and thousands of people
in the true faith of our Lord, baptised them in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, set up churches for their worship and
ordained the necessary clergy to cater to their spiritual needs.
Afterwards he endured various persecutions and consequently
martyrdom for the belief and justice of our Lord, by a lance
thrust by miscreants deputed by King Mizdi." (Souvenir - India,
p.19)
"More than one thousand and nine hundred years ago, the holy
Apostle St.Thomas, after establishing the first Christian Church
among his own people in ancient Babylon, turned to India, led by
the Holy Spirit, and with an evangelical zeal traversed this
subcontinent preaching the good news and baptising those who
believed in Him. His words had 'fallen into good ground, bearing
fruit bringing forth a hundredfold' and spreading to countries
all over Asia. But by the vicissitudes of history, through the
centuries, this Church, founded on the blood of martyrs, has
become almost extinct, leaving a scattered remnant" (Ibid.,
Foreword)
Dr.Michael Ramsay, Archbishop of Canterbury, acknowledges in
a letter the above claims, printed in the same volume, in the
following words:
"...Had there been time during my visit to India I would have
greatly welcomed an opportunity of visiting your ancient Church
of the East in India, with your proud claim of having been
founded by the great Apostle St.Thomas himself." (Ibid.,
Messages, p.17)
Traditions of the Syrian Indian Church
Dr.Edgar J. Goodspeed bears witness to the tradition of Syrian
Indian Church as follows:
"It is a striking fact that the so-called 'Acts of Thomas' relate
the mission of Thomas to India, and they were written early in
the third century, as modern authorities (Harnack, M.R.James)
agree. This goes far to confirm the legend of the Syrian Indian
church, that Thomas did indeed not only cross Parthia with his
message but actually penetrated India with it! These Acts have
some links with the first-century Indian history, also." (The
Twelve, Edgar J.Goodspeed, p.97)
Traditions of The Nestorian Church
On the occasion of this writer's visit to Iran in 1971, he
held conferences with a number of noted Christian authorities.
Among them was His Excellency Yohannan S.Issayi, the archivist of
the Chaldean Catholic Library at Teheran. He was furnished a book
by a church historian, John Stewart, Ph.D. (Narsai Press,
Trichur, Kerala, India, 1928, 1961). In the introduction Stewart
writes: "The message must have been carried to the furtherest
confines of the Asiatic continent with almost the rapidity of a
prairie fire. It is evident St.Thomas arrived in India no later
than 49 A.D." (Introduction, p.27)
Speaking of the Nestorians and their Apostolic origins
Stewart says, "The center of this marvelous church was first in
Edessa and then in the Persian province of Abiabene. There was a
large and widespread Christian community throughout the whole of
central Asia in the first centuries of the present era. Countries
such as Afganistan, and Tibet were centers of Christian
activity." (Introduction, p.27)
The Traditions of The Chaldean Catholic Church
The learned and controversial Roman Catholic Cardinal
Tisserot writes: "Speaking of Persia the Chaldean said, The
Apostle Thomas accompanied by Jude were primary Apostles."
(Dictionaire De Theologie Catholique, A. Vacant, E. Mangenot, E.
Amann, p.162. Published 1931, Paris Librarie, Letoueny Et Ave.
87, Boulevard Raspail)
The Traditions of the Mar Thomar Syrian Church of South India
The Metropolitan Juhanon Mar Thomar, the head of the Mar
Thomar Syrian Church of South India, in an interview with
Christian Life Magazine (November 1954, page 20) said, "According
to tradition the history of the Mar Thomar Syrian Church goes
back to the Apostle Thomas who landed, we are told, at Malabar,
South India in A.D.52 and founded several Christian churches.
This is supported only by early and strong traditions and that is
all we can say. Shut off by mountains on one side and the sea on
the other, the Christians at Malabar lived, more or less, a life
of isolation. Doctrinal controversies of the western church did
not concern them. Unaware of these controversies they welcomed
with open arms any Christians from foreign countries and
consequently were influenced by various eastern churches."
The Records of the Coptic Church Historians
While this body of Christians has not taken an official
stand on the life of St.Thomas, the noted historian Aziz S. Atiya
speaks on the St.Thomas tradition:
"The congregations of South Indian Christians have always prided
themselves on a long-standing tradition that their Christianity
is apostolic and that it was introduced into Malabar by the
Apostle Thomas, after whom they call themselves.
The literary origin of this tradition is found in the apocryphal
Acts of Judas-Thomas ascribed to the famous Edessene writer
Bardesanes (154-222) towards the end of the second or the
beginning of the third century. It is said that a certain
Abbanes, a trade envoy to Syria was commissioned by the Indian
King Gondophares to seek an able architect from that country to
build a palace for him. The tradition states that he was directed
by Our Lord Himself in a Jerusalem market to St.Thomas, who
accompanied him back to India. There St.Thomas agreed with the
king to undertake that task in winter instead of during the usual
summer building season. At heart the saint really contemplated a
celestial and not a material palace. As he squandered the royal
funds in giving to the poor, the king seized him and put him in
prison. At that time the king's brother, Gad, died and at his
burial witnessed the untold splendour of the celestial palace
promised by the saint, then miraculously came back to life to
recount his wondrous vision. The king and his brother therefore
released the saint and accepted baptism at his hand. The
remaining parts of the Acts contain even more fabulous miracles
until in the end, the Apostle committed the church to the care of
a deacon named Zenopbus (or Xanthippus) and went away to preach
the Gospel in other parts where he earned the crown of martyrdom.
After his burial, a Syrian co-religionist transported his body
back to Edessa without the knowledge of the local king, who
eventually wanted to try to cure his sick son by means of the
saint's relic. Upon opening the grave, they found the body to be
gone, but earth from the tomb performed the miracle and healed
the ailing prince, and the whole royal family was converted to
Christianity.
Two schools of thought have arisen in regard to this apocryphal
tale. The first impulse of the scholar was to refuse outright the
whole episode as altogether unhistorical. Such was the reaction
of the old school. More recent thought has tended not to discard
the idea of St.Thomas's apostolate to India, though still
repudiating the legendary nature of the Acts. It has already been
pointed out that the sea route to South India was well used in
Roman times for the purpose of the pepper trade, and that Roman
gold and silver coins from the early centuries of our era have
been discovered in Malabarese soil. Syrians had reached India,
which is almost identical in the literature of the East Syrians
with our modern India. Moreover, startling numismatic evidence
has established the existence of both King Gondophares and his
brother Gad as bistoric figures and not simply legendary
characters. Their names have been found on excavated coins and in
a Gandhara inscription fixing their rule as about 19-45 A.D. in
Scytho-India in the Indus valley. Vestiges of St.Thomas
Christians are said to persist in secret parts of northern India,
for example at Tatta near the mouth of the Indus. It is thought
that the Apostle was driven from the Indian Parthian empire by
the descent of the Kushan invaders in the year 50 A.D. and that
he sailed to the island of Socotra, whence he reached South India
on a passing trade ship. Bishop Medlycott contends that the
climatic conditions specified by the Acta Thoma apply more to
South India than to the Punjab, and that the court life of
Gondophares benefits a ma haraja's household more than , Parthian
royal palace.
We may conjecture that St.Thomas the Apostle could have joined an
already existing colony of Jews, Greeks and Syrians at
Muziris-Cranganore on the shore of Malabar.
Whatever the outcome of these arguments, it is clear that
Christianity was planted in Malabar at a very early date,
certainly before the end of the second century, as testified by
Pantaenus." (A History of Eastern Christianity, Aziz S. Atiya, p
361-363)
Modern Historical Confirmation of First Century Travel to India
While the following news item has nothing to do with St.
Thomas, as such, it confirms the fact that there was much
traveling from the Roman Empire to India in the first century. It
consists of a story which appeared in the L.A.Times (August 25,
1971, Part 1A). The story was headlined, "Ancient Jewish Colony
in India Disappearing."
COCHIN, India-The synagogue here celebrated its 400th anniversary
in 1968 and visitors included Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and
Jews from as far away as the United States. Now there is no
rabbi.
The white Jews along the Malabar Coast once numbered tens of
thousands. Now there are only 80.
The Jews of Cochin came to India in AD 72, driven from Jerusalem
by Roman legions. Now many - a critical number - are returning to
Israel.
The Cochin synagogue - others closed when the congregations
returned to Israel - contains many historic treasures. Among them
are the copper plates given by the local ruler in AD 379 to the
Jewish community, conveying a large land grant.
The reader will note several details of the above story which
confirm the likelihood of the historicity of the traditions of
early Christianity in India. The fact that a colony of Jews came
there in A.D.72 proves that the Jews of the first century knew
about this part of the world and that travel of even large groups
was possible. There was no question of an exploration of an
unknown continent. Further, the continuity of the Jewish
community demonstrates how a Christian community could also
continually exist from the first century until the present in the
same area. The references to the copper plates is similar to
several stories about this means of granting and certifying
political and property rights in ancient times.
Modern Scholarship
There is one great work of scholarship which reveals a very
thorough study of the St.Thomas tradition in India, which seems
to confirm, its historicity. We are greatly indebted to the Roman
Catholic scholar, A.M.Mundadan, who wrote his doctoral
dissertation on St.Thomas at a German University in 1980, and
later expanded it into a book which the writer purchased at
the Vatican Bookstore in Rome early in 1971. The book is entitled
"The Traditions of the St.Thomas Christians." It was printed in
India and written in English. It reveals the author's superb
ability at research and presents a truly enormous amount of
documentation. We have excerpted the following information from
this book. One could only wish that we had as much information
about all the other apostles as Dr.Mundadan has provided about
St.Thomas.
Dr.Mundadan deals with arguments regarding the Apostolate of
St.Thomas in India:
Quote:
"The Portuguese arrived in India at the end of the fifteenth
century. When they came they certainly possessed some vague
information concerning the aposto-late of St.Thomas in India. Not
long after their arrival they began to hear reports about the
existence of what was described as the 'house' and 'tomb' of St.
Thomas in Mylapore on the Choromandel Coast. But during the first
decade or two the Portuguese officials were so busy on the
Malabar Coast and in Goa that they could give practically little
attention to matters concerning Choromandel. It was only in the
early twenties of the sixteenth century that they made earnest
efforts to explore Choromandel and Mylapore and the 'house' of
St.Thomas.
For a review of the respective positions taken by different
scholars on this question we may refer the readers to a learned
article by Hambye S.J. in The Clergy Monthly. He classifies these
scholars into four groups: the first of these groups, in which is
included the Bollandist Peeters S.J., denies any kind of Indian
apostolate of St.Thomas; the second group is formed of those who
support the North Indian apostolate of the Apostle but deny or
disregard the South Indian apostolate; those who are strongly for
the North Indian apostolate but keep an open mind, ready to weigh
the pros and cons of the possibility of the South Indian
apostolate belong to the third class; the fourth group of
scholars, while trying to combine both the North Indian and South
Indian apostolates, consider the South Indian apostolate more
reliable.
Our source of knowledge for the Indian apostolate of St.Thomas
is a tradition because we do not possess any written account of
it contemporary to the apostolate as we have in St.Luke's 'Acts
of the Apostles' of St. Paul's activities and of some of St.
Peter's activities. The earliest written record about St. Thomas'
preaching in India is the
romantic apocryphal Acts of St.Thomas, written in Syriac towards
the end of the second century or by the beginning of the third
century. From the third century onwards we find frequent
allusions to the Parthian or Indian apostolate of St.Thomas in
the writings of the Church-Fathers and other ecclesiastical
writers. Beginning with the fourth century the tradition is
constant and unanimous in all the Churches.
The contents of the western tradition, whether it is single or
combined, may be summarised thus: Thomas the Apostle preached the
Gospel in Parthia and India, converted many, including
members of some royal family, suffered martyrdom there, and was
first buried in India itself; later his mortal remains were
transferred to the West (to Edessa) where they were honourably
deposited and venerated. The main source for this tradition is,
no doubt, the Acts of St.Thomas in which India is named the field
of St.Thomas' activity.
The third century writers up to the council of Nicaea assigned
the field to Parthia. But the post-Nicene writers consider it
India. This difference is the main basis for Hambye to
distinguish a double origin for the western tradition.
The Indian tradition is not so clearly uniform; it varies, as we
go from source to source and from place to place. The general
trend may be summarised here as follows: St.Thomas, one of the
twelve Apostles of our Lord came direct from the Near-East and
landed in Cranganore about 52 A.D.; he converted high caste Hindu
families in Cranganore, Palayur, Quilon etc.; consecrated priests
from some of these families; built some seven churches, erected
crosses; then passed over to the eastern coast and suffered
martyrdom there; his tomb is in Mylapore on the coast.
The western tradition is generally taken as based on the Acts of
St.Thomas. Thus the authors who deny any kind of historic value
for this work, deny absolutely the Indian apostolate of St.
Thomas; while those who assert the North Indian apostolate
attribute some historic value to the Acts. We are rather inclined
to think that the Acts cannot be the only source of the western
tradition, which is constant and unanimous from the beginning of
the fourth century, especially since the Acts are acknowledged by
certain Fathers already in the fourth century as apocryphal.
There must have existed already before the composition of the
Acts some element in the oral tradition about the apostolate of
St.Thomas, which probably formed the nucleus or the point of
departure for the romantic Acts. In establishing this historical
nucleus the double trend in the western tradition, suggested by
authors, if well explored, may be a step forward.
Although the Portuguese, from the early years of their arrival
in India, had begun to hear about the tomb of St.Thomas on the
Choromandel Coast, it seems that it was only in 1517 some of them
actually entered Mylapore to visit it.
The entire relics are known to have been removed from India to
Edessa and later to Ortona in Italy where now they rest.
According to the Acts of Thomas already before 200 A.D. the
bones of the Apostle must have been removed to the West: long
after the martyrdom and burial of St.Thomas a son of Mazdai the
ruler of the place where he was martyred falls sick; he then gets
the tomb of the Apostle opened to heal his son with the relics,
but the bones were not found, 'for one of the brethren had taken
them away secretly and conveyed them to the West'. St.Ephrem
recognises the relics, so much venerated at his time in Edessa,
as having been carried there from India by some merchants. To
them a Pontiff assigned a feast and a king built a shrine.
'St.John Chrysostom merely says that the site of St Thomas' tomb
is as much known as the sites of tombs of St.Peter, St.Paul and
St.John but he does not give any definite indication as its
location. The 5th century 'Martyologium Hieronimanum' assigns
July 3 as the commemoration day in Edessa of the translation of
the body of St.Thomas, who suffered in India.
Gregory of Tours (594 A.D.) gives an account of the monastery
of St.Thomas in India based on the report he had heard from a
monk called Theodor who had visited that monastery. The 6th
century Passio Thomae says that the body of St.Thomas after his
martyrdom was buried in honour, and great prodigies took place at
the tomb. At the request of the Syrians, the Roman Emperor
Alexander [sic] who had defeated the Xarse of Persia, ordered the
body to be brought from India to Edessa and kept in 'locello
argenteo quod pendit ex catenis argenteis.'
Mufazzal ibn Abil-Fazail (1358 A.D.), a Mohammedan historian, in
his history of the Mamlouk Sultans wrote: 'From there [Ceylon]
the pilgrims go to visit the monastery of Mar Touma, which
possesses the eternally living hand of one of the disciples of
Our Lord, the Messiah: in the monastery there is a vaulted niche,
in which is found the hand, and an oil flowing from the hand.'
We are quite justified in saying with Figredo that the
Portuguese did not discover the tomb. It was known to exist and
they were informed about it by European travellers, Armenian
merchants and the Christians of Malabar.
Thome Lopes, who accompanied V.da Gama on his second journey to
India in 1503 says that, among other events reported by them, the
Christians who came to meet Gama told the Portuguese how they
were conducting a big pilgrimage to the tomb of St.Thomas who
was buried near their country, and who worked many miracles.
The four Chaldean bishops, who arrived in India in 1503/4 and
who had intimate contacts with the Portuguese, reported to their
Patriarch: '....the House of the holy Apostle Thomas had begun
to be inhabited by some Christians who are thinking of its
restoration. But it lies at a distance of about 25 days' journey
from the said Christians, and it lies on the sea shore in a town
called Mailapur in the province of Silan, which is one of the
provinces of India.'
Another factor to be mentioned in this connection is that the
16th century Portuguese authors lacked the modern techniques of a
critical method of approach to those problems which they had to
deal in connection with the findings. That this is especially
manifested by their somewhat naive and credulous attitude towards
the alleged miracles, legends and pious stories. In spite of all
this we are convinced that what they record deserves credence as
a whole; the general un-desirable influences can be eliminated by
a sound and critical mind.
The House
"According to the unanimous tradition of the natives it was 1460
or 1470 years then after the holy house in Mylapore was built. It
was miraculously built by the Apostle himself. According to
Correa the house was called by the natives 'the house of the holy
man.'
All around the house was a plot of ground well fenced with very
high brushwood. The documents call the house indifferently
'house' or 'church.' It was very big and lay in a ruinous state.
Gomez gives us the following description of the house. 'It is
made in the fashion of our churches and lie East-West; it has
three doors: one at the entrance, another in the middle and the
third in the principal chapel. All the doors are lined with
sheets of iron and diamond-shaped studs of iron; the doors are of
wood worked out with skilful workmanship'. The house was 17 ells
long and 11 broad, according to D.Fernandez. Correa says more
precisely that from the principal doors to the entrance [sic] of
the chapel there was a distance of 12 ells and the chapel itself
was 5 ells. It had two side doors and three naves divided by
wooden pillars of fine workmanship. These pillars supported the
top beam which was also of fine work. Above the wood-work there
were walls of mortar reinforced with stones and reaching the
tiles roof. Outside the doors were kept water troughs for holy
water.
This is the main plan of the house, which, according to all
authors, was made in the fashion of the Portuguese churches
except for the fact that there was nothing but crosses inside the
church, and no images.
According to D.Fernandez the central chapel with its tower was
the one built by the Apostle. From this statement it would appear
that the side chapels and naves were later additions.
The Chapel
"According to what the Portuguese heard from the natives the body
of St.Thomas, who died on a mountain at a distance from the
house, was brought to the house and lay buried at that time in
the chapel on the righthand (on the Gospel side). In the chapel
on the Epistle side lay buried a disciple of the Apostle. Both
these chapels do not seem to have been larger than five and a
half ells, just large enough to enclose the bodies. As to the
identity of the disciple buried in the lefthand chapel (on the
righthand of the person looking), the authors seem to diverge in
opinion. According to Gomez, it was 'St.Mathias, a companion of
the Apostle.' For D.Fernandez and Correa he was the king of the
place, a converted Christian.
The Apostle was wounded in the cave on the Little Mount but in
his death agony, he got out of the cave and dragged himself to
the Big Mount where was the principal oratory, and where also
presumably were his disciples. There, wounded mortally, as he
was, he clasped a stone cross and recommended his soul to his
Master.
The traditions gathered by the Portuguese may be said to be
threefold, according to their sources: 1. the Malabar tradition
(what appears to have been told them by the people of Malabar,
especially the Christians of St.Thomas); 2. the Chaldean
tradition (what had been gathered from Chaldeans and Chaldean
books); 3. the Mylapore tradition (what the people of the
Choromandel Coast told the Portuguese). But it is often difficult
to distinguish the purely Malabar tradition from the Chaldean
one. Many of the traditions which the Jesuits found among the
Thomas Christians were in books of Chaldean origin. The Abuna who
gives testimony in 1533 openly declared that what he attested was
heard in his own country and in Malabar.
"That the Christians of St.Thomas possessed such folk-songs
commemorating the life, deeds and praises of St.Thomas is
attested to by many authors. In 1578 Francisco Dionysio, S.I.,
writing about the Apostle and the community founded by him,
introduces his narration with these words: 'What is written below
is known from the information supplied by old people; it is the
common and unanimous belief of all; they hold it as a well
handed-down tradition; they have put these things in their books
and their songs.' Maffei, after having described the Apostles
journey, miracles, death etc., says: 'All these were told to the
Portuguese by the Indians not only from oral tradition but also
from written annals. The Malabar children are wont to sing in
folk-songs the praises and the martyrdom of Thomas.'
The Itinerary of the Apostle
"The Apostle St.Thomas was sent by order of Christ to the parts
of India etc. He was accompanied by two other Apostles,
St.Bartholomew and Judas Tadeus. Thomas with J.Tadeus went first
to Babylon, and passing Bacora went over to Qualexquadaqua where
J.Tadeus settled himself, converted many into Christianity and
built houses of prayer. At the time Abuna was giving the
testimony this place belonged to the Muslims and Arabs and there
were no Christians nor any house of prayer there. St.Bartholomew
passed over to Persia and lay buried in Tarao in a monastery in
Tabris, the land of Xequismael; there were still many Christians
and houses of prayer. St.Thomas leaving Judas Tadeus went to
Socotora and then to Mylapore and China, in Cabalia he converted
many and built a house of prayer. From there he returned to
Mylapore and lived on a hill one and a half leages [sic] away
from the place where afterwards was built his house.
Amador Correa who described the 1564 feast of the Thomas
Christians, says that this feast was in commemoration of the day
on which St.Thomas came to the end of his journey in a ship, 2
leagues away from Cranganore. Roz who knew the Chaldean tradition
from the Chaldean books and the local tradition, oral or written,
tells us that St.Thomas sold himself to a lord, ambassador of the
king of Bisnaga in order to come to India and preach the Gospel.
He preached and baptized many in Cambaya and the lands of Mogor,
Socotora, Malavar and Bisnaga reaching even China and great China
according to the Chaldean breviary of St.Thomas. There are
vestiges in those places even today of Christians. The Apostle
also preached to the Cafres.
Apostolate
"St.Thomas preached the gospel and baptized people in all the
places he went and founded churches. According to a stone
inscription which the Christians of St.Thomas read and
interpreted for Roz, the Apostle converted 3 principal kings of
India: that of Bisnaga called by them Xoren Porumal, that of
Pandi called Pandi Perumal and that of all Malabar called Xaran
Perumal. Fr.Guerreiro found in a Chaldean book that the Apostle
had converted six kings and three emperors: the emperors
correspond to Roz's three principal kings. The Pandi kingdom,
according to Guerreiro, corresponded to the then existing kingdom
of Cape Comorin.
The same source further attested that on the Choromandel Coast
there had been many churches in older times, all founded by the
Apostle. He began eight archbishoprics in those parts where he
preached. The names of those archbishoprics, as they were written
in Chaldean, were difficult to be identified. Only the following
could be clearly identified: Hindu, i.e., Malabar, Socotora,
Cambaia, Mogor, China, and Mahachina which should be, according
to the author, Cataio.
The Chaldean Abuna told the inquirers of 1533 that the Apostle
was murdered with a lance by a low caste. Barros has the
following version. The Apostle was murdered while preaching to
the people near a tank. At the instigation of the Brahmins he was
stoned by some people and he fell down. As he lay there almost
dead a Brahmin struck him with a lance and the saint breathed the
last. According to Dionysio the Apostle was martyred with a lance
while praying on a mountain about a league from the town and this
was done at the order of the king of, the place. Roz read from a
stone cross inscription that the Apostle died on the 21st of
December, in the 30th years of the promulgation of the Gospel.
Diego Couto who, as we saw, tried to combine the traditions
about the place of the Apostle's death, gives more details about
the manner of the death of the Apostle. The envious Brahmins who
had been discredited before the king by the virtue of St.Thomas,
went to kill him. Hearing that he was in the cave near the Little
Mount (which at the time of the Apostle was called Antenodur),
they stood near the slope of the mountain, where there was a
narrow opening to let in a little light, and looking through it
they found the Apostle on his knees with eyes closed, in a
rapture so profound that he appeared to be dead. The Brahmins
thrusting the lance through the opening wounded him mortally. It
is not proved where exactly the place was but all authorities are
in accord in saying that it was on the slope of a mountain. The
wound was about half a span deep. When the saint sighed, all the
murderers ran away and he in his death agony got out of the cave
and dragged himself to the Big Mount, and there he died.
"As to the possibility of St.Thomas preaching in India, whether
in North or South India, nobody can have any serious doubt. It is
repugnant to think that Christianity was preached from the
beginning only in the Roman empire and all the twelve Apostles
went westwards to the parts of the Roman empire. At the dawn of
Christianity there were trade routes connecting the West and the
East, routes very well frequented. The land routes reached parts
of N.India while the sea routes reached the coasts of Malabar
and other parts of South India. Hence no one can sensibly deny
the possibility of one or another of the twelve Apostles having
reached India and preached Christianity there.
"The next step is to fix what part of India is meant by this
tradition. The Acts apparently points to the North-West India.
But this does not necessarily mean that the original content of
the tradition, which probably is the historical nucleus of the
Acts, also pointed towards the same direction. For the early
Christianisation of North India we do not possess any actual
evidence as we have for that of South India. The South Indian
claim to the apostolate of St.Thomas is supported by two
monuments. One is the community of Thomas Christians who claim
their origin as Christians from the Apostle Thomas, as had been
demonstrated in the previous pages and also as will be
demonstrated in the next chapter. The second monument is the tomb
of Mylapore concerning which we have seen so much in this first
part of the book. As it had been noted above, almost in every
century (from the time of the Acts of Judas Thomas) there is
groping for the tomb of the Apostle in 'India'. As time went on
there was progress in identifying it first with Calamina and then
with Myluph and so on. The clear 'terminus ad quem' of this
progress is the tomb in Mylapore, which is definitely identified
as the tomb of the Apostle by the thirteenth century. It is
remarkable that no other place inside or outside India ever
claimed so definitely the possession of the tomb.
Whatever be the conclusion from these facts as to certainty, or
high probability, of the South Indian apostolate of St.Thomas,
and as to the origination from the Apostle of the Christians of
St.Thomas, we should think that we are entitled to say at least
this much: in the light of these facts the position of those who
deny the South Indian apostolate of St.Thomas is much more
difficult to demonstrate than that of those who assert it.
As for the relies, it is very probable, as has been suggested
earlier, that the early Portuguese explorers did not know
anything about the alleged translation of the relies to Edessa
and later to Ortona and hence they believed that they discovered
the whole body of the Apostle in the tomb. But it is very clear
that they did not actually discover the whole body from their own
testimony.
However, their belief persisted.
From all this what we may probably conclude is that there
existed at one time or other a community of Christians on the
Choromandel Coast, which owing either to some natural calamities
or to some antagonism of the other inhabitants of the place (this
antagonism need not necessarily be a religious persecution) left
that coast and incorporated themselves with the Christian
community of Malabar.
We have already seen that a certain Syrian merchant named Thomas
of Cana is connected with the origins or rather the early history
of the community of St.Thomas Christians. This man, who
apparently had a very great influence in the community, is one of
the figures which, to some extent, obfuscate the tradition
concerning the Apostle of the same name. However we shall see
that the Malabar tradition either as it is recorded by the
Portuguese or by the local accounts, oral or written, is always
careful to distinguish Thomas, the Apostle from Thomas of Cana.
After the death of Thomas the Apostle, the Malabar Church was
left without a preacher and leader, and after 93 years there were
no priests at all. At that time a pagan magician called
Manikabashar appeared; he went to Mylapore and worked wonders by
his magic; seduced many Christians from the true faith. Those who
remained faithful took refuge in Malabar and were kindly received
by the believing brethren there. After that the 160 Christian
families were for several long periods left without priests and
leaders; divisions also sprang up among them at different times
for various reasons. Some of them left the orthodox faith but
others persevered. 96 families lapsed while 64 persevered.
In a vision one night the Metropolitan of Edessa saw the sad
plight of the Malabar Christians and the next day narrated his
vision to the Catholicos of the East. The latter, on hearing his
dream, sent messengers to all the churches, monasteries and towns
under his jurisdiction and summoned all the Christians before
him. Great multitudes, with their respective bishops and
merchants gathered near the Catholicos who addressed them and
told them of the vision. One of the faithful, a certain
merchant Thomas of Jerusalem told the Catholicos that they had
heard about Malabar and India from strangers. The Catholicos
ordered him to visit Malabar and report to him. Thomas,
accordingly, departed and arrived in Maliamkara, where he saw the
Christians of St.Thomas. They narrated to him everything. After
consoling them he returned home and reported to the Catholicos
everything about themselves. The Catholicos was ready to
sacrifice even his life for the Christians of Malabar. Thomas
returned to Malabar with the bishop who had had the vision,
priests and deacons, men, women and children from Jerusalem,
Bagdad and Nineveh. They all landed at Maliamkara in 345 A.D.
The native Christians joyfully received them and after having
taken council with one another, all proceeded together to
'Sharkun', the king of all Malabar. The latter complied with all
their wishes, gave them as much land as they wanted; and
conferred upon them the royal honours and inscribed the grant and
the honours on copper plates which were still preserved among the
Christians at the time of this writing. Then they returned and
built a church and a town. The church was erected in the land of
Kuramaklur, which was given by the king to them. The newly built
town stretched from East and 472 families dwelt in it with
authority.
From that time onwards Syrian Fathers used to come to the town
by order of the Catholicos of the East, because it was from him
that the Syrians used to go to other parts of the world until
they were superseded. These Syrian Fathers governed the dioceses
of India and Malabar. In 813 the Syrian Fathers Mar Saper and Mar
Parut, accompanied by the illustrious Sabrisho came to India and
reached Kullam. They went to the emperor, the Shaldrbirti, and
obtained land from him on which they erected a church and a town
in the district of Kullam; and to Kullam, Syrian bishops and
Metropolitans used to come by order of the Catholicos who sent
them.
There is evidence that there were specialized people and
educational centres for the training of the clergy, perhaps for
only a select few. Thus Joseph the Indian could tell the
Venetians: They (the Christians of St.Thomas) have excellent
doctors; study of letters; they have the books of the prophets
just as we....
Goes follows suit: Their doctors teach the Old and New Law,
especially the prophets in public schools. Some of them
are well versed in the Law. Dionysio from his own personal
knowledge wrote that the Thomas Christians had many doctors who
interpreted the Sacred Scriptures; that they esteemed St.John
Chrysostom much; that they had many apochryphal histories.
That the Christians had in their possession many books had been
already alluded to. Joseph the Indian said in Venice that the
Christians of Malabar had many books of the doctors besides the
Bible and the Prophets. Goes says, 'They have the same books of
the Old and New Law as in the Canon of the Roman Church, written
in Hebrew and Chaldean ... They have the books of the doctors
which expose the Law...'
Some of the better educated among the priests were specially
trained to preach. Goes says that there were preachers among them
who ordinarily preached to them during the whole year. Dionysio
tells us how the preaching was performed. These Christians love
sermons, and sermons are delivered to them by those cathenars who
know something. Their method of preaching is to narrate stories
one after another without any regard to sequence or to the
suitability of the occasion. They enjoy preaching for two or
three hours at a stretch.
According to Dionysio there were no special vicars or curates in
any church but all cathenars held equal rights in administering
sacraments and burying the dead etc. However, an old priest was
held in greater respect. The income was equally distributed among
them.
Joseph the Indian said in Venice: 'The temples of the Christians
are made in our (the Western) fashion, except for the fact that
they have only crosses in their churches. At the summit of the
church also there is a cross. They have no bells.' All are agreed
as to the fact that in the church there were no images but only
crosses. Penteado wrote to the king in 1518/18: They have crosses
in their churches on the altars as well as engravings, but no
images or engraved outlines of profiles and faces. They are
astonished to hear that we have images because they say that St.
Thomas had prohibited them. Our men have begun to introduce
images (faces) and they see it.
Penteado was told by the Christians that they had only a general
confession and that they confessed to God in a clear voice all
together. What Carneiro and his companions observed was that they
did not go to confession before receiving communion. Further,
confession among them was not frequent, and it appeared that some
who went to confession did so because of their social
communication with the Portuguese. Dionysio wrote in 1578 that
previously confession among them was not considered necessary and
on their death beds they received the sacrament without
confessing; but at the time of his writing, confession and
communion had been introduced among them.
The account of Joseph the Indian and of Goes are identical when
they say that the Christians had no extreme unction but in its
place the sick were blessed by the priest." (Traditions of St.
Thomas Christians, A. M. Mundadan, p.38-173)
End Quote
Comments By Various Scholars on the Life of St.Thomas
In the book "Traditions of the St.Thomas Christians" from
which we have excerpted at great length, there is a foreword
by Georg Schurhammer, S.J., written in Rome, December 1, 1965
which treats the question of the Mylapore tomb of St.Thomas, and
its traditions, and points to a new argument for the authenticity
for the tomb. It was originally reported before a conference at
the University of Freiburg in Breisgau:
"The bricks in the oldest existing portion in the southern wall
of the tomb are about 15.5 inches long, 8 inches wide and 3
inches thick. Mr.A.Longhurst, Superintendent of the
Archaeological Department, Southern Circle, of India, who
inspected the tomb in 1921, declared that these bricks were of
great antiquity, because they were of the kind found in the
Buddhist stupas, only that those were larger: 20 x 10 x 3 Inches.
Twenty-four years later, in 1945, excavations were made south of
Mylapore in Arikamedu near Pondicherry and, for the first time in
India, a Roman trading station was discovered, founded in the
beginning of the first century A.D. In the oldest layer the
buildings were of wood and the ceramics found were of the first
century. In the second layer the buildings, begun about 50 A.D.
and abandoned before the end of the first century, were of
bricks, and the bricks of these buildings were similar to those
of the tomb of St.Thomas in Mylapore, of the average size of 15.5
x 8 x 3 inches( The bricks of the buildings, added in the second
century have all already a different size."
Asbury Smith (op. cit., p.103-107) reports an interesting
insight from the "Acts of St.Thomas the Apostle to India":
"There is an ancient tradition that Thomas carried the Gospel to
India. The Acts of Saint Thomas the Apostle to India, a
manuscript that goes back to the second or third century, is the
oldest written record in support of this tradition.
In 'The Acts of Saint Thomas' the apostles are shown as dividing
the world among themselves for evangelistic activity. When Thomas
was assigned India, he protested, 'I cannot go there because of
the fatigue of the body on the journey, for I am a Hebrew. Jesus
then appeared to Thomas, urging him to go to India, but he
continued to resist, saying, 'I would that Thou wouldst send me
into another country, for unto the country of India I cannot go:
'It was then that our Lord showed himself to Abbanes, a merchant
from India, and sold Thomas to him as a slave. Thomas recognizing
himself as Jesus' slave, yields, and thus came to India as a
slave of Abbanes.
Until a few decades ago no record existed of a king named
Condaforus and this story was considered entirely legendary. But
recent excavations have established that a king by the name of
Gondaforus did reign in North India during the time Thomas might
have lived there. Coins and inscriptions have been unearthed
bearing Gondaforus' name. This leaves to be explained the
presence of Thomas in North India when the Christians who bear
his name seem always to have centered in South India. Dr.J.N.
Farquhar explains this by saying that Thomas remained in North
India until war destroyed Gondaforus and his kingdom, and then he
went to South India. Hazel E. Foster thinks that 'this
reconstruction of what may have happened has a good historical
underpinnings as have the various stories regarding the origin of
other ancient churches.'
Bishop Philipose Mar Chrysostom of Kottayam, a delegate to the
World Council of Churches, expressed the opinion of the Indian
Christians when in September, 1954, he said to a small group in
Washington, D.C.: 'Yes, I feel sure that Saint Thomas founded our
church. Surely Thomas would have preached the Gospel somewhere.
Since India is the only country that claims him; he must have
preached in India and founded the Mar Thoma Church.'
"In 1952 the Syrian Christians celebrated the 1900th anniversary
of the arrival of Thomas in their country. In connection with
this celebration the World Council of Churches held three
important meetings. The Study Committee and the Central Committee
met at Lucknow and the World Council of Christian Youth met at
Kottayam.
Aside from the tradition that Thomas founded the Church in India
little is known of the early history of this ancient Syrian
Church. Unfortunately when the Portuguese arrived in India they
destroyed the church records, hoping thereby to destroy what they
considered a heretical brand of Christianity.
Thomas, tradition says, died a martyr's death on a mountain now
called Mount Thomas in Mylopur, a suburb of Madras. His death was
accomplished by piercing with a lance. A shrine erected by the
Portuguese marks the sacred site.
A hymn of praise recorded in 'The Acts of Thomas' expresses the
great honor given the church by the Syrian Christians:
'The church is she in whom is the splendor of royalty. She is
pleasant of aspect and lovely. Beautiful is she to him that
looketh upon her. Her garments are like unto flowers of every
kind, and the odor thereof cometh forth and anointeth the
head.... Truth is upon her head, and joy with her feet'
"The Acts of Thomas gives a description of the all-night service
used by Thomas to receive Condaforus into the Christian Church:
'They brought oil and lighted many lamps, for it was night.
Then the Apostle rose up, and prayed over them with his voice,
saying, Peace be unto you, O my brethren. Now they heard the
voice only, but they did not see his form, for as yet they had
not received baptism, and the Apostle took the oil and poured it
over their heads, and recited prayers over them, and he answered
and said, Let the name of Christ, which is over all things, come,
Let the name which is holy, and exalted, and perfect in mercy,
come, Let thy mercy come, Let that which is a hidden mystery
come, Let the mother of the seven mansions come, and let thy rest
be in the eighth habitation.'"
End Quote
Mundadan, already quoted, describes the recent history of
the tomb of St.Thomas:
"In the four hundred years between 1523 and 1903 the tomb in
Mylapore was broken open three times for one reason or other: in
1523 the first Portuguese excavation took place; in 1893-1896 the
present Gothic cathedral was built; in 1903 the tomb was widened
westward when the present crypt was built in commemoration of the
tri-centenary of the erection of the Mylapore diocese."
(Mundadan, op. cit, p.11)
Dorman Netmwn, though not a modern scholar, wrote about the
Apostle Thomas in 1685.
Newman was, within his limits, a careful and critical
scholar. As far as we know only one copy of his book exists and
that is in the British Museum Library:
"the Apostolical assigned to St.Thomas was Parthia. Afterwards he
preached the gospel to the Medes, Persians, Carmans, Horcany,
Bactria, and neighboring nations. In Persia he met with the Wise
Men whom he baptized and took along with him. Thence he preached
in and passed through Aethiopia and came to India. Though he was
afraid, a vision assured him of the divine presence to assist
him. The Portugals assure us that St.Thomas came first to
Socotara, an island in the Arabian Sea, thence to Canyanor where
having converted many he travelled further into the east. He
returned to Carmandal where he began to erect a place of
Christian worship until prohibited by the Priest and Prince of
the Country. But upon conviction of several miracles the work
went on and the Sagamo (King) himself embraced the Christian
faith. The Brachmans (sic) [BRAHMANS, i.e. Sacrificial priests,
E.N. BR. v 14, p.396] who perceived that this would spoil their
trade, (i.e. profession) and in time extirpate the religion of
their country, thought it time to put a stop to its growing and
resolved in council to put the Apostle to death.
Thomas habitually met with his followers in a tomb not far from
Carmandal. The Brachmans and their followers pursued him to that
place. While he was intent in prayer, they ran him through with
darts, sontes, and dispatched him with a lance. His body was
buried in the church he had built.
While one of the Viceroys of Portugal resided in these parts
there were brought unto him certain brass tablets, whole
inscriptions that none could read, till at last by help of a Jew
they were found to contain nothing but a donation made to St.
Thomas of a piece of ground for the building of a church. They
tell of a famous cross found in St.Thomas his chapel wherein
there was an unintelligible character which a learned Brahmin
rendered to this effect; That Thomas a Divine person was sent to
whole countries by the Son of God, in the days of King Sagamo, to
instruct them in the things of the true Cod, that he built a
church and performed admirable miracles but while upon his knees
in prayer was thrust through with a spear and that the cross
stained with his blood was left as a memorial of these matters."
("The Lives and Deaths of The Holy Apostles," Dorman Newman, pp.
75-80)
THE BURIAL PLACE OF ST.THOMAS
It has been, it would seem, rather well established that
Thomas was buried in Mylapore, India, now a suburb of Madras. In
her interesting devotional book, "By Post To The Apostles,"
p.62, Helen Homan refers to the history of the treatment of the
remains of St.Thomas, evidently from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
She says it is accepted as fact that some of the bones of St.
Thomas were transported to Edessa in Mesopotamia. She describes
bow the Crusaders evidently carried them to the island of Chios
and tells how later Manfred, Prince of Taranto carried them by
ship to Ortona, in Italy where they were placed in a great
Cathedral. After this the Turks sacked Ortona and rifled the tomb
for suspected treasure, but after this the Italians restored all
they could.
Mary Sharp in "A Traveller's Guide to Saints in Europe," (p.
207) reports the results of her research concerning the relics of
St.Thomas. "They are," she says, "reputed to be at Goa and
Meliapore in India, and at Ortona, Italy. The finger is in the
church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, Rome." She adds, "In the
church of Mylapore (now Meliapore) is a stone cross - The Thomas
Cross of the sixth to eighth century, which is said to mark the
place where his body was buried until taken to Edessa in the
fourth century."
She concludes, "However wild the stories about St.Thomas in
his Acts, the names of Gundaphor and Gad, the Indian rulers he is
said to have encountered, have recently been shown to exist, as
they issued coins which have survived."
A Guide Book published by The Church of the Holy Cross
(Santa Croce) entitled, "The Sessorian Relics of the Passion of
Our Lord" by Bedini, claims that in this church:
"....is preserved the index finger of St.Thomas. Some say that
this relic has been in Santa Croce from the time of St.Helen. In
the basilica there is an altar dedicated to St.Thomas. The
reliquary, which was remade after the French revolution, is
shaped like a chalice at the bottom. Above the knob two palms,
the symbol of the martyrdom of the apostle, entwine in the shape
of a crown surmounted by a cross with rays. In the centre of the
crown is inserted an oval case with both sides of crystal. In the
middle of the case arises a holder in the shape of a finger with
two openings in the side. Through the openings the phalanges of
the venerated Finger can be clearly seen." ("The Sessorian Relics
of the Passion of Our Lord," D. Balduino Bedini, pp.62-3)
It is evident that Thomas, who as a disciple was pessimistic
and filled with doubt, became a vigorous missionary. The weight
of scholarship has grown so great, concerning his mission to
Babylon, Persia and India, that it must be accepted as probable.
The stories of Thomas, like those of several others of the
Apostles, provide a record which throws much light on the world
of the first century beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. In
turn, as the history of the first century in that area is brought
to light by contemporary scholars, it throws much light on the
life of St.Thomas.
Our views of history are entirely too provincial in many
instances. The Romans ruled a great deal of the "known" world,
but we must not conclude that there was no civilization beyond
the borders of that empire. The story of the life of St.Thomas
has proved this. We are forced to the conclusion that there are
many authentic strands of Apostolic Christianity which have
survived to this day that are not traceable to the evangelization
and ecclesiasticism of the Western churches. In studying the
history of the East one gets the feeling somewhat akin to that
visiting a "new" planet and discovering that Christianity has
been there all along.
The one great insight about St.Thomas himself, which comes
to us from the history of "St.Thomas in Babylonia and India," is
that he was a fearless evangelist and a great builder of
churches. Those people in the modern world who would accept
Christianity but who would reject the church (i.e., assembly or
local congregation) as the central human instrument in the
strategy of God have divorced themselves from the Apostolic
tradition. Were the Apostles to return to earth today, they would
have little time for those who imagine there can be a churchless
Christianity. Such "Christianity," if we even dare call it that,
is incapable of survival.
If we would have Christianity survive, our first loyalty
must be to the One whom St.Thomas called "My Lord and my God",
and secondly to the only divinely ordained institution on earth,
the local assembly or congregation of His people. No one can
estimate how many millions of Christians came to believe in
Christ because of St.Thomas. They are beyond counting.
The churches which St.Thomas founded in India have kept
Christianity alive and extended the faith which survives there to
this day.
Both the churches and the Apostolic faith with which St.
Thomas identified himself were, of course, subjected to change,
decay and even corruption. Human beings inevitably produce these
effects. But to this day missionaries in India report that the
pure message of the New Testament is still welcome, and is still
effective among the St.Thomas Christians there.
.....................
TO BE CONTINUED |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment