The See of Constantinople

Claude Delaval Cobham, “The Patriarchs of Constantinople,” pp. 21 – 33

The rise of the see of Constantinople, the ' Great Church of Christ,' is the most curious development in the history of Eastern Christendom. For many centuries the patriarchs of New Rome have been the first bishops in the East. Though they never succeeded in the claim to universal jurisdiction over the whole Ortho dox Church that they have at various times advanced, though, during the last century especially, the limits of their once enormous patriarchate have been ruthlessly driven back, nevertheless since the fifth century and still at the present time the Patriarch of New Rome fills a place in the great Christian body whose importance makes it second only to that of the Pope of Old Rome. To be an orthodox Christian one must accept the orthodox faith. That is the first criterion. And then as a second and visible bond of union all Greeks at any rate, and probably most Arabs and Slavs, would add that one must be in communion with the ecumenical patriarch. The Bulgars are entirely orthodox in faith, but are excommunicate from the see of Constantinople; a rather less acute form of the same state was until lately the misfortune of the Church of Antioch. And the great number of orthodox Christians would deny a share in their name to Bulgars and Antiochenes for this reason only. Since, then, these patriarchs are now and have so long been the centre of unity to the hundred millions of Christians who make up the great Orthodox Church, one might be tempted to think that their position is an essential element of its constitution, and to imagine that, since the days of the first general councils New Rome has been as much the leading Church of the East as Old Rome of the West. One might be tempted to conceive the Orthodox as the subjects of the ecumenical patriarch, just as Roman Catholics are the subjects of the pope. This would be a mistake. The advance of the see of Constantinople is the latest development in the history of the hierarchy. The Byzantine patriarch is the youngest of the five. His see evolved from the smallest of local dioceses at the end of the fourth and during the fifth centuries. And now his jurisdiction, that at one time grew into something like that of his old rival the pope, has steadily retreated till he finds himself back not very far from the point at which his predecessors began their career of gradual advance. And the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox, although they still insist on communion with him, indignantly deny that he has any rights over them. Though they still give him a place of honor as the first bishop of their Church, the other orthodox patriarchs and still more the synods of national churches show a steadily growing jealousy of his assumption and a defiant insistence on their equality with him. An outline of the story of what may perhaps be called the rise and fall of the see of Constantinople will form the natural introduction to the list of its bishops.

We first hear of a bishop of Byzantium at the time of the first General Council (Nicaea, 325). At that time Metrophanes (315-325) ruled what was only a small local see under the metropolitan of Thrace at Herakleia. Long afterwards his successors claimed St. Andrew the Apostle as the founder of their see. This legend does not begin till about the ninth century, after Constantinople had become a mighty patriarchate. There was always a feeling that the chief sees should be those founded by apostles; the other patriarchates -- Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem -- were apostolic sees (Alexandria claimed St. Peter as her founder too), and now that Constantinople was to be equal of the others, indeed the second see of all, an apostolic founder had to be found for her too. The legend of St. Andrew at Constantinople first occurs in a ninth century forgery attributed to one Dorotheos, bishop of Ture and a martyr under Diocletian. St. Andrew's successor is said to be the Stachys mentioned in Rom. xvi. 9; and then follow Onesimos and twenty-two other mythical bishops, till we come to a real person, Metrophanes I. The reason why St. Andrew was chosen is the tradition that he went to the North and preached in Scythia, Epirus and Thrace. No one now takes this first line of Byzantine bishops seriously. Their names are interesting as one more example of an attempt to connect what afterwards became a great see with an apostle. Before the ninth century one of the commonest charges brought against the growing patriarchate was that it is not an apostolic see (e.g. Leo I. Ep. 104, ad Marcianum), and its defenders never thing of denying the charge; they rather bring the questions quite candidly to its real issue by answering that it is at any rate an imperial one. So the first historical predecessor of the ecumenical patriarch was Metrophanes I. And he was by no means an ecumenical patriarch. He was not even a metropolitan. His city at the time of the first Nicene synod was a place of no sort of importance, and he was the smallest of local bishops who obey the metropolitan of Herakleia. The council recognized as an 'ancient use' the rights of three chief sees only -- Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (Can. 6). The title 'patriarch' (taken, of course, from the Old Testament as 'Levite' for deacon) only gradually became a technical one. It is the case of nearly all ecclesiastical titles. As late as the sixth century we still find and specially venerable bishop called a patriarch (Greg. Naz. Orat. 42, 43, Acta SS. Febr. III. 742, where Celidoius of Besancon is called 'the venerable patriarch'). But the thing itself was there, if not the special name. At the time of Nicaea I there were three and only three bishops who stood above other metropolitans and ruled over vast provinces, the bishops first of Rome, then of Alexandria and thirdly of Antioch. It should be noticed that conservative people, and especially the Western Church, for centuries represented the addition of the two new patriarchates -- Jerusalem and Constantinople -- to these three, and still clung to the ideal of three chief Churches only. Constantinople eventually displaced Alexandria and Antioch to the third and fourth places: they both refused to accept that position for a long time. Alexandria constantly in the fifth and sixth centuries asserts her right as the 'second throne,' and Antioch demands to be recognized as third. The Roman Church especially maintained the older theory; she did not formally recognize Constantinople as a patriarchate at all till the ninth century, when she accepted the 21st Canon of Constantinople IV (869) that established the order of five patriarchates, with Constantinople as the second and Jerusalem as the last. Disocur of Alexandria (44-451) bitterly resented the lowered place given to his see. St. Leo I of Rome (440-461) writes: 'Let the great Churches keep their dignity according to the Canons, that is Alexandria and Antioch' (Ep. ad Rufin. Thess., Le Quien, Or. Christ. I. 18), and he constantly appeals to the sixth Canon of Nicaea against later innovations (Ep. 104, ad Marc.). He says: 'The dignity of the Alexandrine see must not perish' and 'the Antiochene Church should remain in the order arranged by the Fathers, so that having been put in the their place it should never be reduced to a lover one' (Ep. 106, ad Anatolium). St. Gregory I (590-604) still cherished the older ideal of the three patriarchates, and as late as the eleventh century St. Leo IX (1045-1054) writes to Peter III of Antioch that 'Anticoh must keep the third place' (Will, Acta et scripta de constrovesiis eccl. graecae et latinae, Leipzig, 1861, p. 168). However, in spite of all opposition the bishops of Constantinople succeeded, first in being recognized as patriarchs and eventually as taking the second place, after Rome but before Alexandria. It was purely an accident of secular politics that made this possible.  The first general council had not even mentioned the insignificant little diocese of Byzantium. But by the time the second council met (Constantinople I, 381) a great change had happened. Constantine in 330 dedicated his new capital 'amid the nakedness of almost all other cities' (St Jerome, Ckron. a.d. 332). He moved the seat of his government thither, stripped Old Rome and ransacked the Empire to adorn it, and built up what became the most gorgeous city of the world. So the bishop of Byzantium found himself in a sense the special bishop of Caesar. He at once obtained an honored place at court, he had the ear of the emperor, he was always at hand to transact any business between other bishops and the government. Politically and civilly New Rome was to be in every way equal to Old Rome, and since the fourth century there was a strong tendency to imitate civil arrangements in ecclesiastical affairs. Could the prelate whose place had suddenly become so supremely important remain a small local ordinary under a metropolitan? And always the emperors favored the ambition of their court bishops; the greater the importance of their capital in the Church, as well as in the State, the more would the loyalty of their subjects be riveted to the central government. So we find that the advance of the Byzantine see is always as desirable an object to the emperor as to his bishop. The advance came quickly now. But we may notice that at every step there is no sort of concealment as to its motive. No one in those days thought of claiming any other reason for the high place given to the bishop except the fact that the imperial court sat in his city. There was no pretense of an apostolic foundation, no question of St Andrew, no claim to a glorious past, no record of martyrs, doctors nor saints who had adorned the see of this new city; she had taken no part in spreading the faith, had been of no importance to anyone till Constantine noticed what a splendid site the Bosphorus and Golden Horn offer. This little bishop was parvenu of the parvenus; he knew it and everyone knew it. His one argument — and for four centuries he was never tired of repeating it — was that he was the emperor's bishop, his see was New Rome. New Rome was civilly equal to Old Rome, so why should he not be as great, or nearly as great, as that distant patriarch now left alone where the weeds choked ruined gates by the Tiber? Now that the splendor of Caesar and his court have gone to that dim world where linger the ghosts of Pharaoh and Cyrus we realize how weak was the foundation of this claim from the beginning. The Turk has answered the new patriarch's arguments very effectively. And to-day he affects an attitude of conservatism, and in his endless quarrels with the independent Orthodox Churches he talks about ancient rights. He has no ancient rights. The ancient rights are those of his betters at Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. His high place is founded on an accident of politics, and if his argument were carried out consistently he would have had to step down in 1453 and the chief bishops of Christendom would now be those of Paris, London and New York. We must go back to 381 and trace the steps of his progress. The first Council of Constantinople was a small assembly of only 150 eastern bishops. No Latins were present, the Roman Church was not represented. Its third canon ordains that: 'The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor (to irpeafiela t?}? Tt/wj?) after the bishop of Rome, because that city is New Rome.' This does not yet mean a patriarchate. There is no question of extra-diocesan jurisdiction. He is to have an honorary place after the pope because his city has become politically New Rome. The Churches of Rome and Alexandria definitely refused to accept this canon. The popes in accepting the Creed of Constantinople I. always rejected its canons and specially rejected this third canon. Two hundred years later Gregory I. says, 'The Roman Church neither acknowledges nor receives the canons of that synod, she accepts the said synod in what it defined against Macedonius' (the additions to the Nicene Creed, Ep. VII. 34); and when Gratian put the canon into the Roman canon law in the twelfth century the papal correctors added to it a note to the effect that the Roman Church did not acknowledge it. The canon and the note still stand in the Corpus juris (dist. XXII. c. 3), a memory of the opposition with which Old Rome met the first beginning of the advance of New Rome. The third general council did not affect this advance, although during the whole fourth century there are endless cases of bishops of Constantinople, defended by the emperor, usurping rights in other provinces — usurpations that are always indignantly opposed by the lawful primates. Such usurpations, and the indignant oppositions, fill up the history of the Eastern Church down to our own time. It was the fourth general council (Chalcedon in 451) that finally assured the position of the imperial bishops. Its 28th canon is the vital point in all this story. The canon — very long and confused in its form — defines that ' the most holy Church of Constantinople the New Rome ' shall have a primacy next after Old Rome. Of course the invariable reason is given: 'the city honored because of her rule and her Senate shall enjoy a like primacy to that of the elder Imperial Rome and shall be mighty in Church affairs just as she is and shall be second after her." The canon gives authority over Asia (the Roman province, of course — Asia Minor) and Thrace to Constantinople and so builds up a new patriarchate. Older and infinitely more venerable sees, Herakleia, the ancient metropolis, Caesarea in Cappadocia, that had converted all Armenia, Ephesus where the apostle whom our Lord loved had sat — they must all step down, because Constantinople is honored for her rule and her senate. The Roman legates (Lucentius, Paschasius and Boniface) were away at the fifteenth session when this canon was drawn up. When they arrive later and hear what has been done in their absence they are very angry, and a heated discussion takes place in which they appeal to the sixth canon of Nicaea. The council sent an exceptionally respectful letter to Pope Leo I. (440 — 461) asking him to confirm their acts (E/>. Cone. dial, ad Leonem, among St Leo's letters, No. 98). He confirms the others, but rejects the twenty-eighth categorically. ' He who seeks undue honors,' he says, ' loses his real ones. Let it be enough for the said Bishop ' (Anatolios of Constantinople) ' that by the help of your ' (Marcian's) ' piety and by the consent of my favor he has got the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not despise a royal see because he can never make it an apostolic one ' (no one had dreamed of the St Andrew legend then); ' nor should he by any means hope to become greater by offending others.' He also appeals to canon 6 of Nicaea against the proposed arrangement (Ep. 104). So the 28th canon of Chalcedon, too, was never admitted at Rome. The Illyrian and various other bishops had already refused to sign it. Notwithstanding this opposition the new patriarch continued to prosper. The Council of Chalcedon had made the see of Jerusalem into a patriarchate as well, giving it the fifth place. But all the eastern rivals go down in importance at this time. Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were overrun with Monophysites; nearly all Syria and Egypt fell away into that heresy, so that the orthodox patriarchs had scarcely any flocks. Then came Islam and swept away whatever power they still had. Meanwhile Caesar was always the friend of his own bishop. Leo III., the Isaurian (717 — 741), filched his own fatherland, Isauria, from Antioch and gave it to Constantinople; from the seventh to the ninth centuries the emperors continually affect to separate Illyricum from the Roman patriarchate and to add it to that of their own bishop. Since Justinian conquered back Italy (554) they claim Greater Greece (Southern Italy, Calabria, Apulia, Sicily) for their patriarch too, till the Norman Conquest (1060 — 1091) puts an end to any hope of asserting such a claim. It is the patriarch of Constantinople who has the right of crowning the emperor; and the patriarch John IV., the Faster (Ni7<rTeuTJ?<?, 582 — 595), assumes the vaguely splendid title of 'Ecumenical Patriarch.' The new kingdom of the Bulgars forms a source of angry dispute between Rome and Constantinople, till just after the great schism the ecumenical patriarch wins them all to his side, little thinking how much trouble the children of these same Bulgars will some day give to his successors. Photios (857—867, 878 — 886) and Michael Kerularios (Michael I., 1043 — 1058) saw the great schism between East and West. Meanwhile the conversion of the Russians (988) added an enormous territory to what was already the greatest of the Eastern patriarchates.

The Turkish conquest of Constantinople (1453), strangely enough, added still more to the power of its patriarchs. True to their unchanging attitude the Mohammedans accepted each religious communion as a civil body. The Rayahs were grouped according to their Churches. The greatest of these bodies was, and is, the Orthodox Church, with the name ' Roman nation' (rum millet), strange survival of the dead empire. And the recognized civil head of this Roman nation is the ecumenical patriarch. So he now has civil jurisdiction over all orthodox Rayahs in the Turkisk empire, over the other patriarchs and their subjects and over the autocephalous Cypriotes as well as over the faithful of his own patriarchate. No orthodox Christian can approach the Porte except through his court at the Phanar. And the Phanar continually tries to use this civil jurisdiction for ecclesiastical purposes.

We have now come to the height of our patriarch's power. He rules over a vast territory second only to that of the Roman patriarchate. All Turkey in Europe, all Asia Minor, and Russia to the Polish frontier and the White Sea, obey the great lord who rules by the old lighthouse on the Golden Horn. And he is politically and civilly the overlord of Orthodox Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Cyprus as well. So for one short period, from 1453 to 1589, he was not a bad imitation of the real pope. But his glory did not last, and from this point to the present time his power has gone down almost as fast as it went up in the fourth and fifth centuries. The first blow was the independence of Russia. In 1589 the czar, Feodor Ivanovich, made his Church into an autocephalous patriarchate (under Moscow), and in 172 1 Peter the Great changed its government into that of a ' Holy directing Synod.' Both the independence and the synod have been imitated by most Orthodox Churches since. Jeremias II. of Constantinople (1572 — 1579, 1580 — 1584, 1586 — 1595) took money as the price of acknowledging the Russian Holy Synod as his ' sister in Christ' It was all he could do. His protector the Sultan had no power in Russia, and if he had made difficulties he would not have prevented what happened and he would have lost the bribe. Since then the ecumenical patriarch has no kind of jurisdiction in Russia; even the holy chrism is prepared at Petersburg. In two small cases the Phanar gained a point since it lost Russia. Through the unholy alliance with the Turkish government that had become its fixed policy, it succeeded in crushing the independent Servian Church of Ipek in 1765 and the Bulgarian Church of Achrida (Ochrida in Macedonia) in 1767. The little Roumanian Church of Tirnovo had been forced to submit to Constantinople as soon as the Turks conquered that city (1393). In these three cases, then, the Phanar again spread the boundaries of its jurisdiction. Otherwise it steadily retreats. In every case in which a Balkan State has thrown off the authority of the Porte, its Church has at once thrown off the authority of the Phanar. These two powers had been too closely allied for the new independent government to allow its subjects to obey either of them. The process is always the same. One of the first laws of the new constitution is to declare that the national Church is entirely orthodox, that it accepts all canons, decrees and declarations of the Seven Holy Synods, that it remains in communion with the oecumenical throne and with all other Orthodox Churches of Christ; but that it is an entirely autocephalous Church, acknow ledging no head but Christ. A Holy Synod is then set up on the Russian model, by which the theory ' no head but Christ' always works out as unmitigated Erastianism. The patriarch on the other hand is always filled with indignation; he always protests vehemently, generally begins by excommunicating the whole of the new Church, and (except in the Bulgarian case) Russia always makes him eventually withdraw his decree and recognize yet another sister in Christ.

The Martyrdom of St. Andrew

Sean McDowell, “A historical evaluation of the evidence of the death of the apostles as martyrs for their faith,” Chapter 11, pp. 287-303

The Martyrdom of St. Andrew

The apostle Andrew is probably best known as the brother of Peter (Mark 1:16). Like the Zebedee brothers, Andrew and Peter were both fishermen (Matt 4:18).¹

Both Andrew and Peter became disciples of Jesus after he said, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” (4:19b). This was not necessarily their first encounter with Jesus, nor does it contradict the Johannine account.² John reports that Andrew first brought Peter to Jesus, making a remarkable Christological confession (John 1:41). This essential material regarding Andrew, that he was a fisherman in Galilee who followed the call of Jesus, seems to reflect an authentic Jesus tradition.³

The name Andrew is Greek for “manly.” He was originally from Bethsaida, a city about twenty-five miles east of Nazareth on the Sea of Galilee (John 1:44), but he moved to Capernaum with his family. Before becoming one of the twelve apostles, he was a disciple of John the Baptist (John 1:3-42). Jesus undoubtedly made a powerful impression upon him. Andrew must have been utterly convinced that Jesus was the Messiah. While not all of John’s disciples followed Jesus (John 3:25-27), Andrew did. And he immediately brought Peter to him saying, “We have found the Messiah” (John 1:41b).4 Andrew likely received a similar education as his brother, but since he lived with Peter and his family at the beginning of his ministry, some have suggested he was not married.⁵

The Synoptics provide little information about Andrew. Mark reports one instance where Andrew joins Peter, James, and John in hearing Jesus’ teaching on the Mount of Olives (13:3-37), where Jesus proclaims the destruction of the temple and its precincts. While most scholars conclude that Andrew was not among the inner circle, Andrew may have been on the fringes of the group. Interestingly, there is an early tradition that Andrew was a member of the inner circle, perhaps even more prominent than his brother Peter. This finds support from a quote by Papias in his The Sayings of the Lord Interpreted, in which he lists Andrew as the first apostle he sought to learn about the words of Jesus (Ecclesiastical History 3.39). The Muratorian Canon also links Andrew to the origin of the Gospel of John. Emil Kraeling believes this may simply be “a supposition based on the attention he [Andrew] receives in the opening chapter of John.”⁶

On the contrary, Patrick believes these traditions, along with internal evidence from the Gospel of John, reveal that Andrew was in fact the closest disciple to Jesus and was the Beloved Disciple.⁷ While Patrick believes the presbyter John wrote the fourth Gospel, he credits Andrew and the rest of the Johannine circle as being the source behind the stories.⁸ While this hypothesis has not met with widespread approval in the scholarly community, it does raise interesting questions about the role and significance of Andrew in the early church.

Andrew is mentioned three times in the Gospel of John. On two of these occasions he is mentioned along with Philip (6:8; 12:12). And the third time he is mentioned right before Philip (cf. 1:40, 1:44). Clearly there was some special connection between these two.

Every time Andrew appears in John he is bringing someone to Jesus. The first time he brings Peter to Jesus (1:41-42). In the second instance, Andrew brings a small boy to Jesus who had five small loaves of bread and two fish (6:8). The third time involved some Greeks who wanted to worship Jesus. They first approached Philip, who told Andrew about their request, and then Andrew decided the two of them should tell Jesus together (12:20-22). It may seem that Philip went to Andrew because he was closer to Jesus, but Colin Kruse suggests he approached Andrew with the request because he was the only other member of the twelve who had a Greek name.⁹ Philip may have been unsure if Jesus would accept Gentiles, so together they approached Jesus.

Some have even speculated that Andrew first brought Philip to Jesus. After admitting that it is pure speculation, William LaSor notes, “They were both from the same town (Bethsaida: John 1:44); they both had Greek names, whereas the rest of the apostles had Hebrew names; their names are often joined in the New Testament; and on two occasions Philip came to Andrew to get his help or advice on some problem.”¹⁰ If so, then Andrew would be indirectly responsible for Nathanael hearing about Jesus as well (John 1:45). Whether or not this is true, Andrew is unmistakably characterized as having a missionary mindset from the moment he meets Jesus.

Ronald Brownrigg captures what can seemingly be known about the character of Andrew:

Compared with his bombastic brother, Andrew emerges as a sensitive and approachable man who always had time and patience to listen to enquiries, even from children and foreigners. He was a selfless and considerate man, who did not resent the leadership of his brother. If his brother, Peter, was the skipper of the crew, Andrew was indeed the “ferry man” always willing to take people to Jesus. He was a kindly and faithful disciple, not fearful of ridicule even though he offered a picnic basket to feed five thousand. Although himself a Jew, he enabled Greeks to meet Jesus and he has been called the first “home missionary” as well as the first “foreign” missionary of the Christian church.¹¹

Beginning in the second century, Andrew became a popular figure in apocryphal writings such as the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, the Acts of Peter and Andrew, the Acts of Andrew and Bartholomew, and the Pistis Sophia. As with the other disciples, Andrew was an eyewitness of the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:5; Matt 28:9-10; Luke 24:36-53; John 20:19-23) Along with Peter, Thomas, Philip, Nathanael, and the brothers of Zebedee, Andrew is one of the chief disciples mentioned in John. He witnessed the events the Gospel records, as well as many more that were not recorded (John 20:30, 21:25). He was willing to suffer for his conviction that Jesus is the messiah (Acts 5:17-42). And many ancient traditions state that Andrew was in fact persecuted for his faith.¹² Despite a substantial record of his travels and persecutions, there is no record he ever waivered in his commitment to Jesus Christ.

Missionary Endeavors of Andrew

The earliest information about the missionary travels of Andrew comes from Origen, who states that he went to Scythia, which is in southern Russia.¹³ Eucherius of Lyons (d. c. 450) and Hippolytus on the Twelve also mention Andrew preaching in Scythia. There were Jews in the surrounding area of Scythia from the time of the first century BC, and given the easy route of access to Scythia from Jerusalem, it was a logical place for Andrew to missionize. The Scythians were a vital political and economic force during their heyday. They were a nomadic people who lived in southern Russia. According to Tamara Talbot Rice, who studied the Scythians of the first millennium BC, “The Scythians indeed played as active a part in commerce as in war and constituted so important an element in the life of their age that Herodotus found it necessary to devote to them an entire book of his great history.”¹⁴ They were polytheistic and deeply superstitious.¹⁵ Tertullian includes Scythia in his list of nations the gospel has reached by the time he writes at the end of the second century.¹⁶ Given the date of the tradition, as well as the plausibility of travel to Scythia in the first century AD, Francis Dvornik concludes that this tradition by Origen “seems to be well founded.”¹⁷

While many scholars agree Andrew travelled to Scythia, there is substantial disagreement about the remaining traditions, including his martyrdom. When considering the question of the martyrdom of Andrew, Stewart Lamont concludes, “The evidence is not at all supportive that he did [die as a martyr].”¹⁸ On the other hand, William Barclay concludes, “Even if we doubt the details, we cannot doubt that Andrew died a martyr for his Master.”¹⁹ Yet as to be seen, the truth is likely somewhere between these two perspectives.

Greek scholar George Alexandrou has written a 1,000-page book on the missionary travels of Andrew called He Raised the Cross on the Ice.²⁰ His goal was not to critique the traditions, but to begin with the following premise, “I accept all evidence as possible, whether it is a writing of the Holy Fathers, an oral tradition from Uzbekistan, a Coptic text from Ethiopia, a simple dream, or the archaeological excavations of a Chinese scholar.”²¹ He then lined up all the traditions of Andrew to see if he could trace his missionary travels with any level of probability. Alexandrou concluded, “It was like a train, one car after another, until I had only twenty years missing from St. Andrew’s return to the Black Sea from Valaamo until he went to Sinope—and from there to Patras in Achaia, to his martyrdom.”²² Alexandrou eventually found a tradition of Andrew living in a cave in Romania for twenty years that fit the void in his timeline exactly. Perhaps the most interesting finding from his studies is how smoothly the traditions fit together when they are lined up chronologically and geographically.²³

According to Alexandrou, ancient traditions reveal four missionary journeys of Andrew that include locations such as Constantinople, Pontus, central Asia, Ethiopia, Georgia,²⁴ southern Russia, and more. Given the travel conditions of the first century, Alexandrou concludes that there is nothing intrinsically impossible about each of these missionary journeys. Given the current state of information, it is impossible to determine the validity of every single account, yet it seems overly skeptical to dismiss them entirely as legendary.

The first tradition that Andrew was in Patrae (Greece), the traditional site of his martyrdom, is found in the Acts of Andrew, which is typically dated between the middle of the second century and the beginning of the third. Four other sources mention his sojourn in Greece before the dawn of the sixth century.²⁵ Thus, the tradition that Andrew ministered in Greece is consistent, widespread, and relatively early. Ursula Hall finds the tradition of Andrew visiting Greece doubtful, because it was the missionary field of other men, in particular Paul.²⁶ It is not clear, however, why it is implausible for a number of men to minister in the same region. Paul often visited cities (such as Corinth) that already had an established community of believers. Peter and Paul both went to Rome. Some claim that both Thomas and Bartholomew visited India. Whether this tradition is true or not is irrelevant. The point is that there is nothing implausible about two or more apostles ministering in the same place, as Hall suggests was the case for Andrew and Greece.

According to the Syriac Teaching of the Apostles,²⁷ Andrew ministered in Nicaea, Nicomedia, Bithynia, and inner Galatia. This is similar to where Peter ministered (1 Pet 1:1). Given that the disciples often went out in twos (Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1), some scholars have suggested that Andrew may have ministered for a period of time with his brother Peter.²⁸ Lamont finds this tradition questionable since earlier traditions place him in the region of the Black Sea.²⁹ The simple answer is that he may have ministered in both areas. There is nothing chronologically or geographically impossible about Andrew ministering in both regions. As for the apostles, the Teaching of the Apostles also cites that James wrote in Jerusalem, Simon [Peter] in Rome, John from Ephesus, and Judas Thomas from India. Given that the author got these ascriptions correct (at least according to my assessment), is it not at least probable he also got the tradition correct about Andrew?

A few factors make at least some missionary travels of Andrew highly likely, even if one cannot currently ascertain the probability of every individual tradition. First, there is a substantial amount of traditions involving Andrew. Unlike the apostle Thomas, who was consistently considered an apostle of the East (greater India), Andrew has multiple traditions throughout Judea, Africa, central Asia, and Europe. The chances that all of them are fictional seem remote. Second, as Alexandrou observes, even though the traditions developed independently, they naturally line up chronologically and geographically. Third, the earliest accounts of Andrew, found in the Gospels, reveal Andrew as having a missionary mindset. It is within the known character of Andrew to engage in missions. Fourth, archaeological evidence has been found to support certain traditions.³⁰ When these four considerations are combined with the commission by Jesus to evangelize the world (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 1:8), and the early textual evidence that the apostles actually carried out this commission, there is convincing reason to believe Andrew was a missionary who advanced the gospel of Christ.

Evidence of the Martyrdom of Andrew

The earliest known written source reporting the martyrdom of Andrew is the Acts of Andrew (c. AD 150-210). It begins with the summoning of Andrew by Maximilla, the wife of the proconsul Aegeates, to cast a demon out of a servant boy. After seeing Andrew deliver the boy, Stratocles (the brother of Aegeates) joins Maximilla in becoming a disciple of Andrew. With the encouragement of Andrew, Maximilla began to resist the sexual advances of her husband in an attempt to love God alone.³¹ Knowing he would be upset, Maximilla devised a plan to have a servant girl named Euclia sleep with Aegeates in her place. This occurred for about eight months until Aegeates discovered that Andrew was behind the change in his wife and so he had him thrown in prison, promising to have Andrew released only if Maximilla would sleep with him and bear his children. But Andrew refuses to back down, proclaiming that he would rather be killed. Aegeates has Andrew crucified, but without nails so he would experience the torment of being eaten by dogs if he were still alive at night. In perhaps the most memorably scene from the Acts of Andrew, Andrew speaks to the cross as he approaches the site of crucifixion and commands the executioners to carry out their orders. He preaches for four days from the cross until a large crowd demands Aegeates release him. But Andrew refuses to accept the pardon and dies by crucifixion.³² After the death of Andrew, Maximilla leaves Aegeates, and he commits suicide by leaping from a tall height. Unlike Peter, Paul, and Thomas in their respective Acts, Andrew does not appear again after his death.

There is significant debate about when to date the Acts of Andrew, ranging from the middle of the second century to the beginning of the third.³³ The Acts of Andrew may very well fall within the range of living memory, but one cannot be sure. There are many later written accounts of the death of Andrew, but it seems they can be traced back through the Acts of Andrew.³⁴ This is also likely true for ancient calendars as well as liturgical prayers such as the Irish Palimpsest Sacramentary and the Missale Gothicum (c. AD 700).³⁵

One possible independent early source is a work attributed to Hippolytus, a 3rd century bishop.³⁶ Hippolytus on the Twelve says, “Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of Achaia; and there too he was buried.”³⁷ This account confirms the mission to Scythia as reported by Origen, but also the crucifixion in Patras as stated by the Acts of Andrew. Interestingly, it mentions Andrew was crucified “upright on an olive tree,” which may indicate it is an independent tradition.³⁸ Even if Hippolytus did not write this work, it may be early. Nevertheless, given the questions that remain about this text, the matter of the reliability of the martyrdom account of Andrew rests largely upon the trustworthiness of the tradition behind the Acts of Andrew.

Between the third and ninth centuries, the Acts of Andrew was widely read and diffused in such diverse places as Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Armenia, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, Gaul, and Spain.³⁹ It has not survived in its original form, but scholars are able to reconstruct a version that likely comes close to the earliest version.⁴⁰ Judging from the various versions of the Acts of Andrew, the original text consisted of the missionary travels of Andrew and his journey to Patras, where he was executed. Fernando Lanzilotta observes that “the textual witnesses for the martyrdom are more numerous and their testimony somewhat more homogeneous” when compared with the travels of Andrew.⁴¹

And yet he notes that some of the early texts contain a few quick notes about his death rather than a developed martyrdom account.⁴² Nevertheless, even though there are a variety of adaptations, the activity and death of Andrew in Patras was the goal of his voyage and likely part of the original text.⁴³ All the recensions of the Acts of Andrew share his conflict with pagan authorities, which leads to his death.⁴⁴

Eusebius provides the earliest reference to the Acts of Andrew. He suggests the Acts of Andrew, as well as the Acts of John and other apocryphal Acts should be “cast aside as and absurd and impious.”⁴⁵ It should be noted that in rejecting the Acts of Andrew, Eusebius was not rejecting that it had any claim to historicity; he rejected it theologically. In the same section Eusebius discusses the Acts of Andrew, he also rejects the Gospel of Peter as heretical. Yet he clearly believes the Gospel of Peter was correct to affirm the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact, even though it also contained other material Eusebius rejected. The same may be true for the historical kernel in the Acts of Andrew. As a whole, the Acts of Andrew received a mixed reception in the early church— ranging from condemnation (Pope Innocent I) to adaptation and use for popular piety (Gregory of Tours).

Like the rest of the Apocryphal Acts, the Acts of Andrew contains clear legendary embellishment. Given that the sixth century Bishop Gregory of Tours combines the more legend-filled and fantastic Acts of Andrew and Matthias (AAM) with the Acts of Andrew, some have concluded that it was part of the original text.⁴⁶ But this seems unlikely.⁴⁷ The key question is whether or not the Acts of Andrew preserves a historical nucleus. Taken at its core, it reports the missionary travels of Andrew and his ministry and execution in Patras. While the Acts of Peter, Paul, Thomas, and John contain legendary accretion, they also preserve the most reliable destination and fate for their respective apostles (including a natural death for John). External corroboration confirms that the various Acts likely got the fate of these apostles correct. Although the writer of the various Apocryphal Acts had creative license, he (or she) was also bound by known tradition. Is it not reasonable to conclude that the same is likely true for the Acts of Andrew, even though it is not possible to verify the claims externally in the same way as the other Apocryphal Acts?⁴⁸

For all their diversity, the five Apocryphal Acts share at least five structural similarities.⁴⁹ First, they include the activities and travels of an apostle in a certain city. Second, the apostle proclaims Jesus as Lord and preaches repentance. Third, the apostle is the hero who teaches, works miracles, heals, and imitates Christ, but is an otherwise undeveloped character. Fourth, the end of the story contains some version of a retrospective prayer. Fifth, each Act uses the “we-form” in imitation of the canonical Acts. It could also be added that each Act builds toward and reaches its climax with the fate of the apostle. These similarities do not imply any special relationship between individual Acts, but they do show the authors followed a similar script and approach in chronicling the activities of each apostle. The authors clearly invent unbelievable stories for their respective apostles, but they are bound by a known historical tradition nonetheless.

The Apocryphal Acts were frequently grouped together because of their theology and genre. For instance, Eusebius condemns the various Apocryphal Acts together as a group and the Manichaeans lumped them together in a special corpus they used as scripture instead of the biblical book of Acts.⁵⁰ Given the similarities in structure and genre, there is no good reason to doubt that the Acts of Andrew (like the other four Apocryphal Acts) is a historical novel that preserved the known fate of the apostle Andrew toward the end of the second century.

Dvornik does not accept this tradition because he finds it strange that Eusebius does not report any missionary travels of Andrew beyond Scythia, including his fate in Patras: “First of all, it is, strange that Origen, or the transmitter of this old tradition to Eusebius, who knew about Andrew’s missionary activity in Scythia, knew nothing of his work in Achaea, or of his death in Patras.”⁵¹ Given that Origen had been to Achaia, Dvornik finds it more likely that Andrew never made it there and simply died in Scythia. If Dvornik is right, Andrew still may have died as a martyr in Scythia. In The Contendings of the Apostles, Budge records that Andrew died by crucifixion in Scythia.⁵²

Dvornik suggests the facts are not quite as straightforward. While Eusebius clearly cites Origen as the source for his information in this section about the journeys of the apostles Thomas, Andrew, John, Peter, and Paul, he does not quote Origen specifically. Since Origen’s Commentary on Genesis is not extant, it is not possible to determine in what manner Eusebius was utilizing his source. Eusebius could have been summarizing Origen, pulling out the information he felt necessary. He may have included all the information Origen wrote about or merely part of it. It is at least possible Origen included it in his Commentary but Eusebius left it out for some unknown reason. This may seem strange, but Eusebius does discuss other martyrs without including their deaths, so it is entirely plausible he would do the same with Andrew.⁵³

Even if Origen did not include further information about Andrew in his original Commentary, it does not follow, as Dvornik suggests, that he knew nothing of the tradition.⁵⁴ Maybe he wrote about it elsewhere. It is certainly fair to ask why Origen may not have included it, but it is not reasonable to assume that the lack of mention implies the account is false and that Origen was completely unaware of such a tradition. The objection of Dvornik is an argument from silence, and thus provides minimal reason to doubt the tradition of Andrew’s death in Patras. Given the agnosticism concerning how Eusebius used his source, Dvornik is unwarranted in concluding definitively that the tradition regarding the martyrdom of Andrew did not exist in Achaia during the time of Origen.

              

Following the lead of Dvornik, Lamont finds it extremely strange that Luke, who likely wrote his Gospel in Achaia,⁵⁵ never mentions the tradition that Andrew died in Patras. He concludes along with Dvornik that Andrew likely never visited there.⁵⁶

However, this is also an argument from silence. As already seen, Luke leaves out seemingly important details such as the fate of Peter, Paul and James, the brother of Jesus. This is because he had a different purpose for his writings than merely tracing the lives of the individual apostles. As interesting and important as the question of the fate of Andrew is to this investigation, it was not the primary (or even secondary) matter for Luke. It is not surprising that Luke would ignore the fate of Andrew in Achaia.

A final consideration is the matter of the persecution of Christians in Greece during the time Andrew was traditionally put to death (c. AD 65-69). There is no record of formal state-directed persecution against Christians in Greece during this time. Yet the date falls directly during the time of the Neronian persecution in Rome. As noted previously, Christians were specifically targeted as scapegoats, starting with the fire in Rome in AD 64. Given the precedent set by Caesar at the capital of Rome, it is entirely plausible that a local governor used Christians as a scapegoat for some political reason as well. Or, if there was some local religious disturbance, such as the kind that lead to the persecution of Paul or the death of Jesus, a provincial governor may have put Andrew to death.

Determining the likelihood of the fate of Andrew is a difficult task. The evidence is clearly not as demonstrative as for Peter, Paul, and James. Ursula Hall says, “We may conclude that, while it is not impossible that our St Andrew was put to death by the Roman authorities at Patras, there is not much of a context in which to set this event, and no positive evidence to support it.”⁵⁷ Her conclusion is understandable and is certainly a reasonable inference from the evidence. Yet where I disagree is over her conclusion that there is “no positive evidence to support it.” The evidence is admittedly weaker than for other apostles, but there is at least some evidence that cannot be simply dismissed. I cannot get myself to believe that the earliest traditions of the works and fate of the apostle Andrew, an important and well-known figure in the first and second centuries, were entirely fabricated and not linked to a reliable tradition.

The consistent and relatively early account of his fate by crucifixion cannot simply be dismissed. Some accounts differ as to where he was crucified, but there is general agreement that he died in this manner.⁵⁸ There is no early contrary tradition claiming a natural death, which for an apostle as prominent as Andrew, is not insignificant. Minimally, it must be deemed at least plausible that Andrew died as a martyr. While some scholars may be inclined to take a more critical view, the evidence seems to point ever so slightly towards the following conclusions:

1.      Andrew engaged in missions—very probably true (Acts of Andrew; Origen Commentary on Genesis, vol. 3 in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist 3.1; Teachings of the Apostles; Andrew had a missionary mindset (John 1:41, 6:8-9, 12:22); geographical and chronological fit of various traditions; archaeological support; evidence the apostles generally engaged in missions).

2.      Andrew went to Greece—more probable than not (Acts of Andrew; Philastrius, de Haeresibus liber 88; Gregory of Nazianzen Oration 33.11; Jerome Ad Marcellum; Evodius de Fide contra Manichaeos; Theodoretus Commentary on Psalm 116)

3.      Andrew experienced martyrdom—more probable than not (Acts of Andrew; Hippolytus on the Twelve Apostles 2; Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna, Sermon 133: “Saint Andrew the Apostle”; lack of competing narrative; acceptance of tradition in the east and west).

¹ Some have suggested that Andrew and Peter must have been financially poor fisherman, unlike the Zebedee brothers, since Matthew does not mention that they own a boat. This is contradicted by Luke 5:3, and also goes against the intentions of the passage. R. T. France notes, “So to use this difference of terminology to propose a social stratification, with Simon and Andrew belonging to the poorer shore-fishermen while the Zebedee family were more affluent and owned a boat, goes well beyond any clear hint in Matthew’s wording” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 147).

² Andreas Köstenberger, “Apologetics Commentary on the Gospel of John,” The Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible, ed. Jeremy Royal Howard (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2013), 515.

³ Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 148-50.

⁴ Scholars have wondered at how Andrew so quickly came to the assurance that Jesus was the Christ. It is not possible that Jesus did a special miracle for him, because John 2:11 says his first miracle was turning water to wine. Most likely it was the proclamation of John the Baptist along with the unique teachings and personality of Jesus. See Everett Falconer Harrison, “The Son of God among the Sons of Men,” Bibliotheca Sacra 102 (April-June 1945): 170-78.

⁵ C. Bernard Ruffin, The Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles After Calvary (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1997), 61.

⁶ Emil G. Kraeling, The Disciples (Skokie, IL: Rand McNally, 1966), 30.

⁷ Patrick notes that while Andrew is the faithful disciple of John 1-12, he disappears in the rest of the book, which suggests he is the Beloved Disciple. He claims that “when the Gospel text is analyzed apart from the context of Synoptic influence and Irenaean apology, the Beloved Disciple of the Johannine circle is, on the evidence of the text alone, Andrew, Peter’s brother, an identification perhaps too obvious to have merited much attention, but a fact members of the Johannine circle would have assumed” (James Patrick, Andrew of Bethsaida and the Johannine Circle [New York: Peter Lang, 2013], 58-59).

⁸ Ibid., 68.

⁹ Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. Leon Morris (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 264.

¹⁰ William LaSor, Great Personalities of the New Testament (Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1952), 58.

¹¹ Ronald Brownrigg, The Twelve Apostles (New York: Macmillan, 1974), 46-47.

¹² There are Coptic and Arabic traditions stating Andrew was persecuted by the Anthropofagi. There are also traditions he was persecuted in Sinope, Thessalonica, and Patras. See George Alexandrou and Nun Nectaria McLees, “The Astonishing Missionary Journeys of the Apostle Andrew,” Road to Emmaus 4 (2010): 48.

¹³ “Commentary on Genesis,” in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History , Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 3 (New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1890), 1.

¹⁴ Tamara Rice, The Scythians (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1957), 23.

¹⁵ Ibid., 85-86.

¹⁶ Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews VII.

¹⁷ Francis Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958), 199.

¹⁸ Stewart Lamont, The Life of Saint Andrew (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1997), 41.

¹⁹ William Barclay, The Master’s Men (London: SCM, 1960), 43.

²⁰ At the time of this writing, Alexandrou had not yet published his book. He has worked with over fifty different languages to chronicle all the traditions surrounding the travels of the apostle Andrew and to see if they could plausibly fit together. He revealed some of his preliminary findings in his article. See Alexandrou and McLees, “The Astonishing Missionary Journeys,” 3-55.

²¹ Ibid., 13.

²² Ibid.

²³ The one exception Alexandrou noted is the tradition that Andrew went to Scotland. While he observes that it is not physically impossible, the cult of Saint Andrew likely originated in the seventh century. See Marinell Ash and Dauvit Brown, “The Adoption of Saint Andrew as Patron Saint of Scotland,” Medieval Art and Architecture in the Diocese of St Andrews, ed. John Higgit (London: The British Archaeological Association, 1994), 16-24. For a dated but still insightful analysis of the traditions surrounding Andrew in Scotland, see Peter Ross, Saint Andrew: The Disciple, the Missionary, the Patron Saint (New York: The Scottish American, 1886).

²⁴ According to tradition, Andrew visited Georgia three times. On his third journey, he was joined by Simon the Zealot and Matthias. See Giuli Alasania, “Twenty Centuries of Christianity in Georgia,” IBSU International Refereed Multi-Disciplinary Scientific Journal 1 (2006): 117-18.

²⁵ Besides the Acts of Andrew, four other sources mention the sojourn of Andrew in Greece before the dawn of the fourth century, including Philastrius, de Haeresibus liber 88; Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 33.11; Jerome, Ad Marcellum; Evodius de Fide contra Manichaeos; Theodoretus, Interpretatio in Psalmos 116. See Peter M. Peterson, Andrew, Brother of Simon Peter: His History and His Legends (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1958), 8-13.

²⁶ Ursula Hall, The Cross of St. Andrew (Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2006), 13.

²⁷ William Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents (London: Williams and Norgate, 1864), 34.

²⁸ Thomas E. Schmidt, The Apostles after Acts: A Sequel (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013), 154.

²⁹ Lamont, The Life of Saint Andrew, 43.

³⁰ There is an ancient tradition that Andrew arrived in Samtskhe (Georgia), performed a number of miracles, converted many of the population, and left behind the icon of the Holy Virgin in Atskuri. After considering the archaeological evidence lying behind this tradition, Vakhtang Licheli concludes, “The possibility of the arrival of the Apostle Andrew to Samtskhe wholly supported archaeologically” (Vakhtang Licheli, “St. Andrew in Samtskhe—Archaeological Proof?” in Ancient Christianity in the Caucasus, ed. Tamila Mgaloblishvili [New York: Curzon, 1998], 37).

³¹ François Bovon has noted that in encouraging Maximilla to resist the sexual advances of her husband, Aegeates would reverse Eve’s fault and allow Andrew to reverse Adam’s sin. Thus, sex is directly tied to original sin. The ActAndr thus has the same encratic tendencies common among the Apocryphal Acts. See François Bovon, “The Words of Life in the Acts of the Apostle Andrew,” Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994): 142.

³² The ActAndr does not mention the “St. Andrew’s cross,” which is shaped as an x. That was first associated with him in the fourteenth century. See Frederick W. Norris, “Acts of Andrew,” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York: Garland, 1997), 1:11.

³³ Schneemelcher prefers a date closer to AD 150. Elliott says an early third century date is “probable.” See Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, ed. and trans. R. McL. Wilson (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 2:115; and J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 236.

³⁴ Peterson traces the Egyptian, Byzantine, Latin, and Syriac traditions of Andrew and argues they all stem from some version of the ActAndr. Before AD 500, there is also a record of the death of Andrew in the writings of Gregory of Nazianzen (d. c. AD 389) and St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna (c. AD 380-450) in his sermon 133: “Peter mounted a tree and Andrew a cross. In this way they who longed to suffer with Christ showed forth in themselves the kind and manner of his suffering; redeemed upon a cross, they were made perfect for their palms. Thus, even if Andrew is second in dignity, he is not inferior in regard to the reward or the suffering” (Peter M. Peterson, The Fathers of the Church: St. Peter Chrysologus Sermons, St. Valerian Homilies, trans. George E. Ganss [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004], 220). After AD 500, there are a significant number of sources in the West and East that attest to Andrew’s death by crucifixion in Patras. See Peterson, Andrew, Brother of Simon Peter, 14-23, 40-43.

³⁵ The author of the Missale Gothicum provides specific details regarding the tradition that Andrew preached and died as a martyr in Achaia. And yet it is likely dependent upon a Latin version of the ActAndr that predates the Book of Miracles (Miracula sancti Andreae apostoli) by Gregory of Tours, written in the second half of the sixth century. See Els Rose, “Apocryphal Tradition in Medieval Latin Liturgy: A New Research Project Illustrated with the Case of the Apostle Andrew,” Apocrypha 15 (2004): 115-38.

³⁶ Hippolytus is often considered one of the most important church figures of the third century, but there is substantial debate about what texts are genuinely his and which are spurious. See David Dunbar, “The Problem of Hippolytus of Rome: A Study in Historical-Critical Reconstruction,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982): 63-74. Also see Ulrich Volp, “Hippolytus,” Expository Times 120 (2009): 521-29.

³⁷ Pseudo-Hippolytus, Hippolytus on the Twelve, as cited in Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325: Fathers of the Third Century, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 5 (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Company, 1885), 255.

³⁸ There are different traditions that report Andrew died “on an olive tree,” or “one a tree” or simply by crucifixion. There are even some later traditions that Andrew was crucified upside down.

³⁹ Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:104.

⁴⁰ The most reliable translation is The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of Cannibals by Dennis MacDonald. While he is confident that his reconstruction is largely accurate, he admits it is “a conjectural reconstruction based on literary debris.” But he does provide an important qualification: “At some points the text is secure—as in the case of Andrew’s martyrdom—but most materials printed here are textual offspring, more or less resembling their parents but not to be mistaken for them” (Dennis R. MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of Cannibals [Atlanta: Scholars, 1990], ix).

⁴¹ Fernando Lautaro Roig Lanzilotta, “The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew: A New Approach to the Character, Thought and Meaning of the Primitive Text” (PhD. diss., Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2004), 348.

⁴² The early texts that contain a few quick notes about the death of Andrew include the Epitome, Vita, VitaEsc and VitaParis.

⁴³ Hans Josef Klauck, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, trans. Brian McNeil (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 114.

⁴⁴ Johannes Quasten, Patrology: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1950), 1:138.

⁴⁵ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25.6, as cited in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 1 (New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1890), 157.

⁴⁶ MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew, 22-47.

⁴⁷ After noting similarities between the ActAndr and the AAM, Hilhorst and Lalleman provide eleven substantial differences between the two documents. They argue the AAM was likely written two centuries later and conclude, “Thus, there is no obstacle to come to the only possible conclusion: that the AAM was not part of the original AA ” (A. Hilhorst and Pieter J. Lalleman, “The Acts of Andrew: Is It Part of the Original Acts of Andrew?” in The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew, ed. Jan N. Bremmer [Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000], 13).

⁴⁸ It is true that the key figures in the ActAndr are unverifiable historically. But does the lack of evidence for the historicity of any of the key figures in the ActAndr imply they are entirely fictitious and that the ActAndr is without any historical merit? Key figures in ActAndr may indeed be fictitious, but it seems an overreach to affirm that the book is entirely indifferent to historical considerations because of the lack of verification for Aegeates, Maximilla, Stratocles, and other key figures. Skeptics dismissed the Acts of Thomas (which was likely written even later) with similar derision, but it turns out Gondophares (and possibly other figures in the narrative) really existed. The same may be true for the ActAndr.

⁴⁹ Pieter J. Lalleman, “The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of John,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew, 141.

⁵⁰ Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity, 196.

⁵¹ Ibid., 211.

⁵² E. A. Wallis Budge, The Contendings of the Apostles: Being the Histories and the Lives and Martyrdoms and Deaths of the Twelve Apostles and Evangelists (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935), 181-85. There is also an Arabic version of a Coptic original stating Andrew died in the East in Lydda, Israel. While there are a few different traditions about where he died, it is interesting that there is nearly unanimous agreement that he died as a martyr by crucifixion.

⁵³ My thanks to Paul Maier for drawing this to my attention in a personal email on January 22, 2014. As an example, Eusebius mentions Hippolytus of Rome (Ecclesiastical History 6.20, 22, 39) without mentioning the traditions of his martyrdom. Hippolytus was probably a disciple of Irenaeus, and thus may have been linked back to the apostles through Polycarp and John. Justin Martyr is an interesting example as well. He was executed during the reign of Antoninus Pius. While Eusebius recognizes Justin as a martyr he gives no details of his death in the Ecclesiastical History.

⁵⁴ Although speculative, it is certainly possible Origen heard of the tradition regarding Andrew from Hippolytus (d. AD 235). Origen heard Hippolytus preach on at least one occasion during his visit to Rome in AD 212. Hippolytus on the Twelve, a work that is attributed to Hippolytus, although many consider it spurious, says, “Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of Achaia; and there too he was buried” Pseudo-Hippolytus, Hippolytus on the Twelve, as cited in Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325: Fathers of the Third Century, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 5 (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Company, 1885), 255. Interestingly, Hippolytus also mentions that Peter was crucified upside down by Nero (1). Origen is typically considered the first theologian who mentions this as a historical fact (outside the Acts of Peter). This may indicate some early connection between Hippolytus and Origen regarding the fate of the apostles.

⁵⁵ The evidence Lamont provides to support his claim that Luke wrote his Gospel in Achaia is the ancient Lukan prologue, which claims the gospel was written in the regions of Achaia.

⁵⁶ Lamont, The Life of Saint Andrew, 42.

⁵⁷ Hall, The Cross of Saint Andrew, 14.

⁵⁸ It is difficult to assess the merits of Andrew’s death specifically by crucifixion. In one sense, it could have been invented so as to make his fate similar to both Jesus and his brother Andrew. There was certainly a tendency in the third and fourth centuries to give the apostles “fitting” deaths. On the other hand, there are multiple accounts of his crucifixion, even if they differ as to the location and of whether or not he was executed on a cross or a tree. Death by crucifixion shows up in the earliest account, the ActAndr. Crucifixion was a common penalty for criminals and other enemies of the state and so it is entirely believable Andrew was crucified for either creating disturbances or upsetting the proconsul, as the ActAndr reports. Yet the tradition Andrew was crucified on a X-shaped cross is almost certainly false. It plays no role in the ActAndr. There is no evidence the Romans crucified with such a cross, and the earliest record of the X-shaped cross being used for his death comes from the twelfth century. Ibid., 31, 73, 101.