Under this title it may be sufficient to supply brief
and essential information. The reader will find at the end of this article
various titles of other articles which contain supplementary information on
subjects connected with the Apostles.
The Name
The
word "Apostle," from the Greek apostello "to send forth," "to dispatch,"
has etymologically a very general sense. Apostolos (Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched
in other words, who is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It
has, however, a stronger sense than the word messenger, and means as
much as a delegate. In the classical writers the word is not frequent.
In the Greek version of the Old Testament it occurs once, in III Kings, 14:6
(cf. ibid, 12:24). In the New Testament, on the contrary, it occurs, according
to Bruder's Concordance, about
eighty times, and denotes often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of
them specially called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic
dialect, gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent
of which was "Apostle." It seems to us that there is no reasonable
doubt about the Aramaic word being seliah, by which also the later Jews, and probably already
the Jews before Christ, denoted "those who were despatched from the mother
city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission, especially such as were
charged with collecting the tribute paid to the temple service"
(Lightfoot, "Galatians," London, 1896, p. 93). The word apostle
would be an exact rendering of the root of the word seliah,= apostello.
Various Meanings
It
is at once evident that in a Christian sense, everyone who had received a
mission from God, or Christ, to man could be called "Apostle." In
fact, however, it was reserved to those of the disciples who received this
title from Christ. At the same time, like other honourable titles, it was
occasionally applied to those who in some way realized the fundamental idea of
the name. The word also has various meanings.
The
name Apostle denotes principally one of the twelve disciples who, on a
solemn occasion, were called by Christ to a special mission. In the Gospels,
however, those disciples are often designated by the expressions of mathetai (the disciples) or dodeka (the Twelve) and, after the treason and death of
Judas, even of hendeka (the Eleven). In the Synoptics the name Apostle occurs but
seldom with this meaning; only once in Matthew and Mark. But in other books of
the New Testament, chiefly in the Epistles of St. Paul and in the Acts this use
of the word is current. Saul of Tarsus, being miraculously converted, and called to preach the Gospel to the heathens,
claimed with much insistency this title and its rights.
In
the Epistle to the Hebrews (3:1) the name is applied even to Christ, in the
original meaning of a delegate sent from God to preach revealed truth to the
world.
The
word Apostle has also in the New Testament a larger meaning, and denotes
some inferior disciples who, under the direction of the Apostles, preached the
Gospel, or contributed to its diffusion; thus Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), probably
Andronicus and Junias
(Rom.16:7), Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25),
two unknown Christians who were delegated for the collection in Corinth (II
Cor. 7:23). We know not why the honourable name of Apostle is not given
to such illustrious missionaries as Timothy, Titus, and others who would
equally merit it.
There
are some passages in which the extension of the word Apostle is
doubtful, as Luke 11:49; John 13:16; II Cor. 13; I Thes. 2:7; Ephes. 3:5;
Jude, 17, and perhaps the well-known expression "Apostles and Prophets." Even in an ironical meaning the word occurs (II Cor.
11:5; 12:11) to denote pseudo-apostles. There is but little to add on the use
of the word in the old Christian literature. The first and third meanings are
the only ones which occur frequently, and even in the oldest literature the
larger meaning is seldom found.
Origin of the Apostolate
The
Gospels point out how, from the beginning of his ministry, Jesus called to him
some Jews, and by a very diligent instruction and formation made them his disciples.
After some time, in the Galilean ministry, he selected twelve whom, as Mark
(3:14) and Luke (6:13) say, "he also named Apostles." The origin of the
Apostolate Iies therefore in a special vocation, a formal appointment of the Lord to a determined office, with connected authority and
duties. The appointment of the twelve Apostles is given by the three Synoptic
Gospels (Mark 3:13-19; Matthew 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16) nearly in the same words,
so that the three narratives are literally dependent. Only on the immediately
connected events is there some difference between them. It seems almost
needless to outline and disprove rationalistic views on this topic. The holders
of these views, at least some of them, contend that our Lord never appointed
twelve Apostles, never thought of establishing disciples to help him in his
ministry, and eventually to carry on his work. These opinions are only
deductions from the rationalistic principles on the credibility of the Gospels,
Christ's doctrine on the Kingdom of Heaven, and the eschatology of the Gospels.
Here it may be sufficient to observe
that the very
clear testimony of the three synoptic Gospels constitutes a strong historical
argument, representing, as it does, a very old and widely spread tradition that
cannot be erroneous;
that the
universally acknowledged authority of the Apostles, even in the most heated
controversies, and from the first years after Christ's death (for instance in
the Jewish controversies), as we read in the oldest Epistles of St. Paul and in
the Acts cannot be explained, or even be understood, unless we recognize some
appointment of the Twelve by Jesus.
Office and Conditions of the
Apostolate
Two
of the synoptic Gospels add to their account of the appointment of the Twelve
brief statements on their office: Mark 3:14-15, "He appointed twelve to be
with him and to send them to herald, and to have power to heal the illnesses
and to cast out demons"; Matthew 10:1, "He gave them power over
unclean spirits so as to expel them, and to heal every disease and every
illness." Luke where he relates the appointment of the Twelve, adds nothing on their office. Afterwards
(Mark 6:7-13; Matthew 10:5-15; Luke 9:1-5). Jesus sends the Twelve to preach the kingdom and to
heal, and gives them very definite instructions. From all this it results that
the Apostles are to be with Jesus and to aid Him by proclaiming the kingdom and
by healing. However, this was not the whole extent of their office, and it is
not difficult to understand that Jesus did not indicate to His Apostles
the whole extent of their mission, while as yet they had such imperfect ideas
of His own person and mission, and of the Messianic kingdom. The nature of the Apostolic mission is made still clearer by the sayings of
Christ after His Resurrection. Here such passages as Matthew, 28:19, 20; Luke
24:46-49; Acts 1:8, 21-22 are fundamental. In the first of these texts we read,
"Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to
observe all I have commanded you." The texts of Luke point to the same
office of preaching and testifying (cf. Mark 16:16). The Acts of the Apostles
and the Epistles written by the
Apostles exhibit them in the constant exercise of this office. Everywhere the
Apostle governs the disciples, preaches the doctrines of Jesus as an authentic
witness, and administers the sacred rites. In order to fill such an office, it
seems necessary to have been instructed by Jesus, to have seen the risen Lord.
And these are, clearly, the conditions required by the Apostles in the
candidate for the place of Judas Iscariot. "Of the men, therefore, who
have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
beginning from the baptism of John unto the day He was received up from us, of
these must one become a witness with us of His Resurrection"
(Acts 1:21-22). This narrative, which seems to come from an Aramaic Palestinian
source like many other details given in the earlier chapter of Acts was ancient
and cannot be set aside. It is further strengthened by an objection made to St.Paul: because he was called in an extraordinary way to the
Apostolate, he was obliged often to vindicate his Apostolic authority and proclaim that he had seen the Lord (I
Cor. 9:1). Instruction and appointment by Jesus were, therefore, the regular
conditions for the Apostolate. By way of exception. an
extraordinary vocation, as in the case of Paul, or a choice by the Apostolic
College, as in the case of Matthias, could suffice. Such an extraordinarily
called or elected Apostle could preach Christ's doctrine and the Resurrection
of the Lord as an authoritative witness.
Authority and Prerogatives of the
Apostles
The
authority of the Apostles proceeds from the office imposed upon them by Our
Lord and is based on the very explicit sayings of Christ Himself. He will be
with them all days to the end of ages (Matthew 28:20), give a sanction to their
preaching (Mark 16:16), send them the "promise of the Father," "virtue
from above" (Luke 24:49). The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the
New Testament show us the exercise of this authority. The Apostle makes laws
(Acts 15:29; I Cor. 7:12 sq.), teaches (Acts 2:37 f.), claims for his teaching
that it should be received as the word of God (I Thes. 2:13), punishes (Acts 5:1-11; I Cor. 5:1-5),
administers the sacred rites (Acts 6:1 sq.; 16:33; 20:11), provides successors
(II Tim. 1:6; Acts 14:22). In the modern theological terms the Apostle, besides
the power of order, has a general power of jurisdiction and magisterium (teaching).
The former embraces the power of making laws, judging on religious matters, and
enforcing obligations by means of suitable penalties. The latter includes the
power of setting forth with authority Christ's doctrine. It is necessary to add
here that an Apostle could receive new revealed truths in order to propose them
to the Church. This, however, is something wholly personal to the Apostles.
Theologians
rightly speak in their treatises of some personal prerogatives of the Apostles;
a brief account of them may not be superfluous.
A
first prerogative, not clearly inferred from the texts of the New Testament nor
demonstrated by solid reasons, is their confirmation in grace. Most modern
theologians admit that the Apostles received so abundant an infusion of grace
that they could avoid any error in their teaching.
Another
personal prerogative is the universality of their jurisdiction. The words of
the Gospel on Apostolic office are very general; for the most part, the
Apostles preached and travelled as if they were not bound by territorial
limits, as we read in the Acts and the Epistles. This did not hinder the
Apostles from taking practical measures to properly organize the preaching of
the Gospel in the various countries they visited.
Apostolate and Episcopate
Since
the authority with which the Lord endowed the Apostles was given them for the
entire Church, it is natural that this authority should endure after their
death, in other words, pass to successors established by the Apostles. In the
oldest Christian documents concerning the primitive Churches we find ministers
established, some of them, at least, by the usual rite of the imposition of
hands. They bear various names: priests (presbytero1: Acts 11:30; 14:22;
15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20, 17; 21:18; I Tim. 5:17, 19; Titus, 1:5); bishops
(episkopo1:Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:2; Titus, 1:7); presidents (proistameno1:I
Thes. 5:12; Rom. 12:etc.); heads (hegoumeno1:Hebrews, 13:7, 17, 24, etc.); shepherds (poimenes, Eph. 4:11); teachers (didaskalo1:Acts 13:1; I
Cor. 12:28 sq. etc.); prophets (propheta1:Acts 13:1; 15:32; I Cor.
12:28, 29, etc.), and some others. Besides them, there are Apostolic delegates,
such as Timothy and Titus. The most frequent terms are priests and bishops;
they were destined to become the technical names for the
"authorities" of the Christian community.
All
other names are less important; the deacons are out of the question, being of
an inferior order. It seems clear that amid so great a variety of terms for
ecclesiastical authorities in Apostolic times several must have expressed only transitory
functions. From the beginning of the second century in Asia Minor, and somewhat
later elsewhere, we find only three titles: bishops, priests, and deacons; the
last changed with inferior duties. The authority of the bishop is different
from the authority of priests, as is evident on every page of the letters of
the martyr Ignatius of Antioch. The bishop and there is but one in each town
governs his church, appoints priests who have a subordinate rank to him, and
are, as it were, his counsellors, presides over the Eucharistic assemblies,
teaches his people, etc. He has, therefore, a general power of governing and
teaching, quite the same as the modern Catholic bishop; this power is
substantially identical with the general authority of the Apostles, without,
however, the personal prerogatives ascribed to the latter. St. Ignatius of
Antioch declares that this ministry holds legitimately its authority from God
through Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians, i). Clement of Rome, in his Letter; to the Church of
Corinth (about 96), defends with energy the legitimacy of the ministry of
bishops and, priests, and proclaims that the Apostles established successors to
govern the churches (xlii-xliv). We may conclude with confidence that, about
the end of the second century, the ministers of the churches were everywhere
regarded as legitimate successors of the Apostles; this common persuasion is of
primary importance.
Another
and more difficult question arises as to the Acts and in the Epistles, the
various above mentioned names, chiefly the presbyteroi and the episkopoi (priests and bishops).
Some
authors (and this is the traditional view) contend that the episkopoi of Apostolic times have the same dignity as the
bishops of later times, and that the episkopoi of the apostolic writings are the same as the priests
of the second century. This opinion, however, must give way before the evident
identity of bishop and priest in Acts 20:17 and 28, Titus, 1:5-7, Clement of
Rome to the Church of Corinth, xliv.
Another
view recognizing this synonymous character estimates that these officers whom
we shall call bishops priests had never the supreme direction of the churches
in Apostolic times; this power, it is maintained, was exercised by the
Apostles, the Prophets who travelled from one church to another, and by certain
Apostolic delegates like Timothy. These alone were the real predecessors of the
bishops of the second century; the bishop priests were the same as our modern
priests.
Mgr.
Batiffol (Rev. bibl. 1895,
and Etudes d'hist. et de thιol. positive, 1, Paris, 1903) expresses the following
opinion: In the primitive churches there were (1) some preparatory functions,
as the dignity of Apostles and Prophets; (2) some presbyteroi had no liturgical function, but only an honourable
title; (3) the episkopo1:several in each community, had a liturgical
function with the office to preach; (4) when the Apostles disappeared, the
bishopric was divided: one of the bishops became sovereign bishop, while the
others were subordinated to him: these were the later priests. This secondary
priesthood is a diminished participation of the one and sole primitive
priesthood; there is, therefore, no strict difference of order between the
bishop and the priest.
Whatever
may be the solution of this difficut question, it remains certain that in the second century the general Apostolic authority belonged, by a succession universally
acknowledged as legitimate, to the bishops of the Christian churches. The
bishops have, therefore, a general power of order, jurisdiction, and magisterium, but not the personal prerogatives of the Apostles.
The Feasts of the Apostles
The
memorable words of Hebrews, 13:7: "Remember your presidents who preached
to you the word of God," have always echoed in the Christian heart. The
primitive churches had a profound veneration for their deceased Apostles
(Clement of Rome, Ep. ad
Corinth. v); its first expression was doubtless the devotional reading of the Apostolic writings, the following of their orders and counsels,
and the imitation of their virtues. It may, however, be reasonably supposed
that some devotion began at the tombs of the Apostles as early as the time of
their death or martyrdom; the ancient documents are silent on this matter.
Feasts of the Apostles do not appear as early as we might expect. Though the
anniversaries of some martyrs were celebrated even in the second century, as
for instance the anniversary of the martyrdom of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (d. 154-156), the Apostles had at
this time no such commemoration; the day of their death was unknown. It is only
from the fourth century that we meet with feasts of the Apostles. In the
Eastern Church the feast of Saint James the Less and Saint John was celebrated
on the 27th of December, and on the next day the feast of Saints Peter and Paul
(according to St. Gregory of Nyssa and a Syriac menology). These commemorations were arbitrarily fixed. In the
Western Church the feast of Saint John alone remained on the same day as in the
Eastern Church. The commemoration of the martyrdom of Saint Peter and Saint
Paul was celebrated 29 June; originally, however, it was the commemoration of
the translation their relics (Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 277). From the sixth century the feast of Saint
Andrew was celebrated on the 30th day of November. We know but little of the
feasts of the other Apostles and of the secondary feasts of the great Apostles.
In the Eastern Churches all these feasts were observed at the beginning of the
ninth century.
The name "Andrew" (Gr. andreia, manhood, or valour), like other Greek names, appears
to have been common among the Jews from the second or third century B.C. St.
Andrew, the Apostle, son of Jonah, or John (Mat.16:17; John 1:42), was born in Bethsaida of Galilee (John 1:44). He was brother of Simon Peter
(Mat.10:2; John 1:40). Both were fishermen (Mat.4:18; Mark 1:16), and at the
beginning of Our Lord's public life occupied the same house at Capharnaum (Mark 1:21, 29). From the fourth Gospel we learn that
Andrew was a disciple of the Baptist, whose testimony first led him and John
the Evangelist to follow Jesus (John 1:35-40). Andrew at once recognized Jesus
as the Messias, and hastened to
introduce Him to his brother, Peter (John 1:41). Thenceforth the two brothers
were disciples of Christ. On a
subsequent occasion, prior to the final call to the apostolate, they were
called to a closer companionship, and then they left all things to follow Jesus
(Luke 5:11; Matt. 4:19-20; Mark 1:17-18). Finally Andrew was chosen to be one
of the Twelve; and in the various lists of Apostles given in the New Testament
(Matt. 10:2-4); Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13) he is always numbered
among the first four. The only other explicit reference to him in the Synoptists occurs in Mark 13:3, where we are told he joined with
Peter, James and John in putting the question that led to Our Lord's great
eschatological discourse. In addition to this scanty information, we learn from
the fourth Gospel that on the occasion of the miraculous feeding of the five
thousand, it was Andrew who said: "There is a boy here who has five barley
loaves and two fishes: but what are these among so many?" (John 6:8-9);
and when, a few days before Our Lord's death, certain Greeks asked Philips that
they might see Jesus, Philip referred the matter to Andrew as to one of greater
authority, and then both told Christ (John 12:20-22). Like the majority of the
Twelve, Andrew is not named in the Acts except in the list of the Apostles,
where the order of the first four is Peter, John, James, Andrew; nor have the
Epistles or the Apocalypse any mention of him.
From
what we know of the Apostles generally, we can, of course, supplement somewhat
these few details. As one of the Twelve, Andrew was admitted to the closest
familiarity with Our Lord during His public life; he was present at the Last
Supper; beheld the risen Lord; witnessed the Ascension; shared in the graces
and gifts of the first Pentecost, and helped, amid threats and persecution, to
establish the Faith in Palestine.
When
the Apostles went forth to preach to the Nations, Andrew seems to have taken an
important part, but unfortunately we have no certainty as to the extent or
place of his labours. Eusebius (H.E. III:1), relying, apparently, upon Origen, assigns Scythia as his mission field: Andras de [eilechen] ten Skythian; while St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 33) mentions Epirus; St. Jerome (Ep. ad Marcell.) Achaia; and Theodoret (on Ps. cxvi) Hellas.
Probably these various accounts are correct, for Nicephorus (H.E. II:39), relying upon early writers, states that
Andrew preached in Cappadocia,
Galatia, and Bithynia, then in the land of the anthropophagi and the Scythian deserts,
afterwards in Byzantium itself, where he appointed St. Stachys as its first bishop, and finally in Thrace,
Macedonia, Thessaly, and Achaia. It is generally agreed that he was crucified
by order of the Roman Governor, Aegeas or Aegeates, at Patrae in
Achaia, and that he was bound, not nailed, to the cross, in order to prolong
his sufferings. The cross on which he suffered is commonly held to have been
the decussate cross, now known as St. Andrew's, though the evidence for this
view seems to be no older than the fourteenth century. His martyrdom took place
during the reign of Nero, on 30 November, A.D. 60); and both the Latin and
Greek Churches keep 30 November as his feast.
St.
Andrew's relics were translated from Patrae to Constantinople, and deposited in the church of the
Apostles there, about A.D. 357. When Constantinople was taken by the French, in
the beginning of the thirteenth century, Cardinal Peter of Capua brought the relics to Italy and placed them in the
cathedral of Amalf1:where
most of them still remain. St. Andrew is honoured as their chief patron by
Russia and Scotland.
Barnabas (originally Joseph), styled an Apostle in Holy
Scripture, and, like St. Paul, ranked by the Church with the Twelve, though not
one of them; b. of Jewish parents in the Island of Cyprus about the beginning
of the Christian Era. A Levite, he naturally spent much time in Jerusalem,
probably even before the Crucifixion of Our Lord, and appears also to have
settled there (where his relatives, the family of Mark the Evangelist, likewise
had their homes, Acts 12:12) and to have owned land in its vicinity (4:36-37).
A rather late tradition recorded by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. II, 20, P.G.
VIII, col. 1060) and Eusebius (H. E. II, 1:P. G. XX, col. 117) says that he was
one of the seventy Disciples; but Acts (4:36-37) favours the opinion that he
was converted to Christianity shortly after Pentecost (about A.D. 29 or 30) and
immediately sold his property and devoted the proceeds to the Church. The
Apostles, probably because of his success as a preacher, for he is later placed
first among the prophets and doctors of Antioch (13:1), surnamed him Barnabas,
a name then interpreted as meaning "son of exhortation" or
"consolation." (The real etymology, however, is disputed. See Encyl. Bibli. I, col. 484.) Though nothing is recorded of Barnabas for some years, he evidently
acquired during this period a high position in the Church.
When
Saul the persecutor, later Paul the Apostle, made his first visit (dated
variously from A.D. 33 to 38) to Jerusalem after his conversion, the Church
there, remembering his former fierce spirit, was slow to believe in the reality
of his conversion. Barnabas stood sponsor for him and had him received by the
Apostles, as the Acts relate (9:27), though he saw only Peter and James, the
brother of the Lord, according to Paul himself (Gal. 1:18, 19). Saul went to
his house at Tarsus to live in obscurity for some years, while Barnabas appears
to have remained at Jerusalem. The event that brought them together again and
opened to both the door to their lifework was an indirect result of Saul's own
persecution. In the dispersion that followed Stephen's death, some Disciples
from Cyprus and Cyrene,
obscure men, inaugurated the real mission of the Christian Church by preaching
to the Gentiles. They met with great success among the Greeks at Antioch in
Syria, reports of which coming o the ears of the Apostles, Barnabas was sent
thither by them to investigate the work of his countrymen. He saw in the conversions
effected the fruit of God's grace and, though a Jew, heartily welcomed these
first Gentile converts. His mind was opened at once to the possibility of this
immense field. It is a proof how deeply impressed Barnabas had been by Paul
that he thought of him immediately for this work, set out without delay for
distant Tarsus, and persuaded Paul to go to Antioch and begin the work of
preaching. This incident, shedding light on the character of each, shows it was
no mere accident that led them to the Gentile field. Together they laboured at
Antioch for a whole year and "taught a great multitude." Then, on the
coming of famine, by which Jerusalem was much afflicted, the offerings of the
Disciples at Antioch were carried (about A.D. 45) to the mother-church by
Barnabas and Saul (Acts xi). Their mission ended, they returned to Antioch,
bringing with them the cousin, or nephew of Barnabas (Col. 4:10), John Mark,
the future Evangelist (Acts 12:25).
The
time was now ripe, it was believed, for more systematic labours, and the Church
of Antioch felt inspired by the Holy Ghost to send out missionaries to the
Gentile world and to designate for the work Barnabas and Paul. They accordingly
departed, after the imposition of hands, with John Mark as helper. Cyprus, the
native land of Barnabas, was first evangelized, and then they crossed over to
Asia Minor. Here, at Perge
in Pamphylia, the first
stopping place, John Mark left them, for what reason his friend St. Luke does
not state, though Paul looked on the act as desertion. The two Apostles,
however, pushing into the interior of a rather wild country, preached at
Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, at Derbe,
and other cities. At every step they met with opposition and even violent
persecution from the Jews, who also incited the Gentiles against them. The most
striking incident of the journey was at Lystra, where the superstitious populace took Paul, who had
just cured a lame man, for Hermes (Mercury) "because he was the chief
speaker," and Barnabas for Jupiter, and were about to sacrifice a bull to
them when prevented by the Apostles. Mob-like, they were soon persuaded by the
Jews to turn and attack the Apostles and wounded St. Paul almost fatally.
Despite opposition and persecution, Paul and Barnabas made many converts on
this journey and returned by the same route to Perge, organizing churches, ordaining presbyters and
placing them over the faithful, so that they felt, on again reaching Antioch in
Syria, that God had "opened a door of faith to the Gentiles" (Acts
13:13-14:27).
Barnabas
and Paul had been "for no small time" at Antioch, when they were
threatened with the undoing of their work and the stopping of its further
progress. Preachers came from Jerusalem with the gospel that circumcision was
necessary for salvation, even for the Gentiles. The Apostles of the Gentiles,
perceiving at once that this doctrine would be fatal to their work, went up to
Jerusalem to combat it; the older Apostles received them kindly and at what is
called the Council of Jerusalem (dated variously from A.D. 47 to 51) granted a
decision in their favour as well as a hearty commendation of their work (Acts
14:27-15:30). On their return to Antioch, they resumed their preaching for a
short time. St. Peter came down and associated freely there with the Gentiles,
eating with them. This displeased some disciples of James; in their opinion,
Peter's act was unlawful, as against the Mosaic law. Upon their remonstrances, Peter yielded apparently
through fear of displeasing them, and refused to eat any longer with the
Gentiles. Barnabas followed his example. Paul considered that they "walked
not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" and upbraided them
before the whole church (Gal. 2:11-15). Paul seems to have carried his point.
Shortly afterwards, he and Barnabas decided to revisit their missions. Barnabas
wished to take John Mark along once more, but on account of the previous
defection Paul objected. A sharp contention ensuing, the Apostles agreed to
separate. Paul was probably somewhat influenced by the attitude recently taken
by Barnabas, which might prove a prejudice to their work. Barnabas sailed with
John Mark to Cypress, while Paul took Silas an revisited the churches of Asia Minor. It is believed
by some that the church of Antioch, by its God-speed to Paul, showed its
approval of his attitude; this inference, however, is not certain (Acts
15:35-41).
Little
is known of the subsequent career of Barnabas. He was still living and
labouring as an Apostle in 56 or 57, when Paul wrote I Cor. (9:5-6). from which we learn that he, too, like Paul, earned his
own living, though on an equality with other Apostles. The reference indicates
also that the friendship between the two was unimpaired. When Paul was a
prisoner in Rome (61-63), John Mark was attached to him as a disciple, which is
regarded as an indication that Barnabas was no longer living (Col. 4:10). This
seems probable. Various traditions represent him as the first Bishop of Milan,
as preaching at Alexandria and at Rome, whose fourth (?) bishop, St. Clement,
he is said to have converted, and as having suffered martyrdom in Cyprus. The
traditions are all late and untrustworthy. With the exception of St. Paul and
certain of the Twelve, Barnabas appears to have been the most esteemed man of
the first Christian generation. St. Luke, breaking his habit of reserve, speaks
of him with affection, "for he was a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and
of Faith." His title to glory comes not only from his kindliness of heart,
his personal sanctity, and his missionary labours, but also from his readiness
to lay aside his Jewish prejudices, in this anticipating certain of the Twelve;
from his large-hearted welcome of the Gentiles, and from his early perception
of Paul's worth, to which the Christian Church is indebted, in large part at
least, for its great Apostle. His tenderness towards John Mark seems to have
had its reward in the valuable services later rendered by him to the Church.
The feast of St. Barnabas is celebrated on 11 June. He is credited by Tertullian (probably falsely) with the authorship of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas is ascribed to him by
many Fathers.
(Heb. Yakob;
Sept. Iakob; N.T. Greek Iakobos;
a favourite name among the later Jews).
The son of Zebedee (q.v.) and Salome (Cf. Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40;
16:1). Zahn asserts that Salome was the daughter of a priest.
James is styled "the Greater" to distinguish him from the Apostle
James "the Less," who was probably shorter of stature. We know
nothing of St. James's early life. He was the brother of John, the beloved
disciple, and probably the elder of the two.
His
parents seem to have been people of means as appears from the following facts.
Zebedee was a fisherman of the Lake of Galilee, who probably
lived in or near Bethsaida
(John 1:44), perhaps in Capharnaum;
and had some boatmen or hired men as his usual attendants (Mark 1:20).
Salome
was one of the pious women who afterwards followed Christ and "ministered
unto him of their substance" (cf. Mat. 27:55, sq.; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke
8:2 sq.; 23:55-24:1).
St.
John was personally known to the high-priest (John 18:16); and must have had
wherewithal to provide for the Mother of Jesus (John 19:27).
It
is probable, according to Acts 4:13, that John (and consequently his brother
James) had not received the technical training of the rabbinical schools; in
this sense they were unlearned and without any official position among the
Jews. But, according to the social rank of their parents, they must have been
men of ordinary education, in the common walks of Jewish life. They had
frequent opportunity of coming in contact with Greek life and language, which
were already widely spread along the shores of the Galilean Sea.
Relation of St. James to Jesus
Some
authors, comparing John 19:25 with Matthew 28:56 and Mark 15:40, identify, and
probably rightly so, Mary the Mother of James the Less and of Joseph in Mark
and Matthew with "Mary of Cleophas" in John. As the name of Mary Magdalen occurs in the three lists, they identify further
Salome in Mark with "the mother of the sons of Zebedee" in Matthew; finally they identify Salome with
"his mother's sister" in John. They suppose, for this last
identification, that four women are designated by John 19:25; the Syriac "Peshito" gives the reading: "His mother and his
mother's sister, and Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalen."
If this last supposition is right, Salome was a sister of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, and James the Greater and John were first cousins of the Lord; this may
explain the discipleship of the two brothers, Salome's request and their own
claim to the first position in His kingdom, and His commendation of the Blessed
Virgin to her own nephew. But it is doubtful whether the Greek admits of this
construction without the addition or the omission of kai (and). Thus the relationship of St. James to Jesus
remains doubtful.
His life and apostolate
The
Galilean origin of St. James in some degree explains the energy of temper and
the vehemence of character which earned for him and St. John the name of Boanerges, "sons of thunder" (Mark 3:17); the
Galilean race was religious, hardy, industrious, brave, and the strongest
defender of the Jewish nation. When John the Baptist proclaimed the kingdom of
the Messias, St. John became a
disciple (John 1:35); he was directed to "the Lamb of God" and
afterwards brought his brother James to the Messias; the obvious meaning of John 1:41, is that St. Andrew
finds his brother (St. Peter) first and that afterwards St. John (who does not
name himself, according to his habitual and characteristic reserve and silence
about himself) finds his brother (St. James). The call of St. James to the
discipleship of the Messias
is reported in a parallel or identical narration by Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:19
sq.; and Luke 5:1-11. The two sons of Zebedee, as well as Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew with
whom they were in partnership (Luke 5:10), were called by the Lord upon the Sea
of Galilee, where all four with Zebedee and his hired servants were engaged in their ordinary
occupation of fishing. The sons of Zebedee "forthwith left their nets and father, and
followed him" (Matthew 4:22), and became "fishers of men." St.
James was afterwards with the other eleven called to the Apostleship (Mat. 10:1-4;
Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13). In all four lists the names of Peter
and Andrew, James and John form the first group, a prominent and chosen group
(cf. Mark 13:3); especially Peter, James, and John. These three Apostles alone
were admitted to be present at the miracle of the raising of Jairus's daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), at the
Transfiguration (Mark 9:1; Mat.17:1; Luke 9:28), and the Agony in Gethsemani (Mat.26:37; Mark 14:33). The fact that the name of
James occurs always (except in Luke 8:51; 9:28; Acts 1:13 Gr. Text) before
that of his brother seems to imply that James was the elder of the two. It is
worthy of notice that James is never mentioned in the Gospel of St. John; this
author observes a humble reserve not only with regard to himself, but also
about the members of his family.
Several
incidents scattered through the Synoptics suggest that James and John had that
particular character indicated by the name "Boanerges," sons of thunder, given to them by the Lord
(Mark 3:17); they were burning and impetuous in their evangelical zeal and
severe in temper. The two brothers showed their fiery temperament against
"a certain man casting out devils" in the name of the Christ; John,
answering, said: "We [James is probably meant] forbade him, because he followeth not with us" (Luke 9:49). When the Samaritans
refused to receive Christ, James and John said: "Lord, wilt thou that we
command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?" (Luke 9:54; cf.
5. 49).
His martyrdom
On
the last journey to Jerusalem, their mother Salome came to the Lord and said to
Him: "Say that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom" (Mat.xx, 21). And the two brothers, still ignorant of the
spiritual nature of the Messianic Kingdom, joined with their mother in this
eager ambition (Mark 10:37). And on their assertion that they are willing to
drink the chalice that He drinks of, and to be baptized with the baptism of His
sufferings, Jesus assured them that they will share His sufferings (Mark
5:38-39).
James
won the crown of martyrdom fourteen years after this prophecy, A.D. 44. Herod
Agrippa 1:son of Aristobulus and grandson of Herod the Great, reigned at that time
as "king" over a wider dominion than that of his grandfather. His
great object was to please the Jews in every way, and he showed great regard
for the Mosaic Law and Jewish customs. In pursuance of this policy, on the
occasion of the Passover of A.D. 44, he perpetrated cruelties upon the Church,
whose rapid growth incensed the Jews. The zealous temper of James and his
leading part in the Jewish Christian communities probably led Agrippa to choose
him as the first victim. "He killed James, the brother of John, with the
sword" (Acts 12:1-2). According to a tradition, which, as we learn from
Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 2:9:2, 3), was received from Clement of Alexandria (in
the seventh book of his lost "Hypotyposes"), the accuser who led the Apostle to judgment,
moved by his confession, became himself a Christian, and they were beheaded
together. As Clement testifies expressly that the account was given him
"by those who were before him," this tradition has a better
foundation than many other traditions and legends respecting the Apostolic
labours and death of St. James, which are related in the Latin "Passio Jacobi Majoris," the Ethiopic "Acts of James," and so on.
St. James in Spain
The tradition asserting that
James the Greater preached the Gospel in Spain, and that his body was
translated to Compostela, claims more serious
consideration.
According
to this tradition St. James the Greater, having preached Christianity in Spain,
returned to Judea and was put to death by order of Herod; his body was
miraculously translated to Iria Flavia in the northwest of
Spain, and later to Compostela,
which town, especially during the Middle Ages, became one of the most famous
places of pilgrimage in the world. The vow of making a pilgrimage to Compostela to honour the sepulchre of St. James is still
reserved to the pope, who alone of his own or ordinary right can dispense from
it. In the twelfth century was founded the Order of Knights of St. James of Compostela.
With
regard to the preaching of the Gospel in Spain by St. James the greater,
several difficulties have been raised:
St.
James suffered martyrdom A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), and, according to the tradition
of the early Church, he had not yet left Jerusalem at this time (cf. Clement of
Alexandria, "Strom." 6:Apollonius, quoted by Euseb. "Hist. Eccl." 6:xviii).
St.
Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 58) expressed the intention to visit
Spain (Romans 15:24) just after he had mentioned (15:20) that he did not
"build upon another man's foundation."
The
argument ex silentio: although the tradition that James founded an
Apostolic see in Spain was current in the year 700, no certain mention of such
tradition is to be found in the genuine writings of early writers nor in the
early councils; the first certain mention we find in the ninth century, in Notker, a monk of St. Gall (Martyrol. 25 July), Walafried Strabo (Poema de XII Apost.), and others.
The
tradition was not unanimously admitted afterwards, while numerous scholars
reject it. The Bollandists however defended it (see Acta Sanctorum, July, VI and 7:where other sources are given).
The
authenticity of the sacred relic of Compostela has been questioned and is still doubted. Even if St.
James the Greater did not preach the Christian religion in Spain, his body may
have been brought to Compostela,
and this was already the opinion of Notker. According to another tradition, the relics of the
Apostle are kept in the church of St-Saturnin at Toulouse (France), but it is not improbable that
such sacred relics should have been divided between two churches. A strong
argument in favour of the authenticity of the sacred relics of Compostela is the Bull of Leo X3:"Omnipotens Deus," of
1 November, 1884.
The Identity of James
The
name "James" in the New Testament is borne by several:
James,
the son of Zebedee Apostle, brother of John, Apostle; also called "James the
Greater."
James,
the son of Alpheus, Apostle Matthew 10:3;
Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13.
James,
the brother of the Lord Matthew
13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19. Without a shadow of doubt, he must be
identified with the James of Galatians 2:2 and 2:9; Acts 12:17, 15:13 sqq. and
21:18; and I Corinthians 15:7.
James,
the son of Mary, brother of Joseph (or Joses) Mark
15:40 (where he is called ς mikros "the little," not the "less," as
in the D.V. nor the "lesser"); Matthew 27:56. Probably the son of Cleophas or Clopas (John 19:25) where "Maria Cleophζ" is generally translated "Mary the wife
of Cleophas," as married
women are commonly distinguished by the addition of their husband's name.
James,
the brother of Jude Jude 1:1. Most
Catholic commentators identify Jude with the "Judas Jacobi," the "brother of James" (Luke 6:16;
Acts 1:13), called thus because his brother James was beter known than himself in the primitive Church.
The
identity of the Apostle James (2), the son of Alpheus and James (3), the brother of the Lord and Bishop of
the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 15, 21), although contested by many critics and,
perhaps, not quite beyond doubt, is at least most highly probable, and by far
the greater number of Catholic interpreters is considered as certain. The
objection moved by Mader (Biblische Zeitschrift, 1908, p. 393 sqq.) against the common statement that
"Apostles" in Galatians 1:19 is to be taken strictly in the sense of
the "Twelve" has been strongly impugned by Steinmann (Der Katholik, 1909, p. 207 sqq.). The James (5) of Jude 1:1 must certainly be
identified with James (3), the brother of the Lord and the Bishop of Jerusalem.
The identification of James (3), the brother of the Lord and James (4), the son
of Mary, and probably of Cleophas
or Clopas offers some
difficulty. This identification requires the identity of Mary, the mother of
James (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40), with Mary the wife of Cleophas (John 19:25), and, consequently, the identity of Alpheus (2) and Clopas (4). As Clopas and Alpheus are probably not two different transcriptions of the same Aramaic name
Halpa1:it must
be admitted that two different names have been borne by one man. Indeed, there
are several examples of the use of two names (a Hebrew and a Greek or Latin
name) to designate the same person (Simon-Petrus; Saulus-Paulus), so that the identity of Alpheus and Cleophas is by no means improbable.
On
the whole, although there is no full evidence for the identity of James (2),
the son of Alpheus, and James (3),
the brother of the Lord, and James (4), the son of Mary of Clopas, the view that one and the same person is described
in the New Testament in these three different ways, is by far the most
probable. There is, at any rate, very good ground (Galatians 1:19, 2:9, 2:12)
for believing that the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus is the same person as James, the brother of the Lord,
the well-known Bishop of Jerusalem of the Acts. As to the nature of the
relationship which the name "brother of the Lord" is intended to
express.
James in the Scriptures
Had
we not identified James, the son of Alpheus with the brother of the Lord, we should only know his
name and his Apostleship. But the identity once admitted, we must consequently
apply to him all the particulars supplied by the books of the New Testament. We
may venture to assert that the training of James (and his brother Jude), had
been that which prevailed in all pious Jewish homes and that it was therefore
based on the knowledge of the Holy Scripture and the rigorous observance of the
Law. Many facts point to the diffusion of the Greek language and culture
throughout Judea and Galilee, as early as the first century B.C.; we may
suppose that the Apostles, at least most of them, read and spoke Greek as well
as Aramaic, from their childhood. James was called to the Apostolate with his
brother Jude; in all the four lists of the Apostles, he stands at the head of
the third group (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Of James
individually we hear no more until after the Resurrection. St. Paul
(I Corinthians 15:5-7) mentions that the Lord appeared to him before the
Ascension.
Then
we lose sight of James till St. Paul, three years after his conversion (A.D.
37), went up to Jerusalem. Of the Twelve Apostles he saw only Peter and James
the brother of the Lord (Galatians 1:19; Acts 9:27). When in the year 44 Peter
escaped from prison, he desired that news of his release might be carried to
James who held already a marked preeminence in the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17). In the
Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 51) he gives his sentence after St. Peter, declaring
as Peter had done, that the Gentile Christians are not bound to circumcision,
nor to the observance of the ceremonial Mosaic Law, but at the same time, he
urged the advisability of conforming to certain ceremonies and of respecting
certain of the scruples of their Jewish fellow-Christians (Acts 15:13 sqq.). On the same occasion, the "pillars" of
the Church, James, Peter, and John "gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the
right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto
the circumcision" (Galatians 2:9). He publicly commended the great charter
of Gentile freedom from the Law, although he still continued the observance in
his own life, no longer as a strict duty, but as an ancient, most venerable and
national custom, trusting to "be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ" (Acts 15:11). When afterwards some came from James to Antioch and
led Peter into dissimulation (Galatians 2:12), his name was used by them,
though he had given them no such commandment to enforce their interpretation of
the concordat which, on his proposal, had been adopted at the Council of
Jerusalem. When St. Paul after his third missionary journey paid a visit to St.
James (A.D. 58), the Bishop of Jerusalem and "the elders"
"glorified the Lord" and advised the Apostle to take part in the
ceremonies of a Nazarite
vow, in order to show how false the charge was that he had spoken of the Law as
no longer to be regarded. Paul consented to the advice of James and the elders
(Acts 21:1 sqq.). The Epistle of St.
James reveals a grave, meek, and calm mind, nourished with the Scriptures of
the Old Testament, given to prayer, devoted to the poor, resigned in persecution,
the type of a just and apostolic man.
James outside of the Scriptures
Traditions
respecting James the Less are to be found in many extra-canonical documents,
especially Josephus (Antiq.
XX, 9:1), the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (St. Jerome, De vir.
ill. II), Hegesippus (Eusebius,
"Hist. eccl." 2:23), the
pseudo-Clementine Homilies (Ep.
of Peter) and Recognitions (1:72-73), Clement of Alexandria (Hypot. 6:quoted by Eusebius, "Hist. eccl." 2:1). The universal testimony of Christian antiquity is
entirely in accordance with the information derived from the canonical books as
to the fact that James was Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, who lived about the middle of
the second century, relates (and his narrative is highly probable) that James
was called the "Just," that he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor
ate animal food, that no razor touched his head, that he did not anoint himself
or make use of the bath, and lastly that he was put to death by the Jews. The
account of his death given by Josephus is somewhat different. Later traditions
deserve less attention.
John was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and the brother of James the Greater. In the Gospels the two
brothers are often called after their father "the sons of Zebedee" and received from Christ the honourable title
of Boanerges, i.e.
"sons of thunder" (Mark 3:17). Originally they were fishermen and
fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth. According to the usual and entirely probable
explanation they became, however, for a time disciples of John the Baptist, and
were called by Christ from the circle of John's followers, together with Peter
and Andrew, to become His disciples (John 1:35-42). The first disciples
returned with their new Master from the Jordan to Galilee and apparently both
John and the others remained for some time with Jesus (cf. John 12:12, 22; 4:2,
8, 27 sqq.). Yet after the
second return from Judea, John and his companions went back again to their
trade of fishing until he and they were called by Christ to definitive
discipleship (Matt. 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20). In the lists of the Apostles John
has the second place (Acts 1:13), the third (Mark 3:17), and the fourth
(Mat.10:3; Luke 6:14), yet always after James with the exception of a few
passages (Luke 8:51; 9:28 in the Greek text; Acts 1:13).
From
James being thus placed first, the conclusion is drawn that John was the
younger of the two brothers. In any case John had a prominent position in the Apostolic body. Peter, James, and he were the only witnesses of
the raising of Jairus's
daughter (Mark 5:37), of the Transfiguration (Mat.17:1), and of the Agony in Gethsemani (Mat.26:37). Only he and Peter were sent into the
city to make the preparation for the Last Supper (Luke 22:8). At the Supper
itself his place was next to Christ on Whose breast he leaned (John 13:23, 25). According to the
general interpretation John was also that "other disciple" who with
Peter followed Christ after the arrest into the palace of the high-priest (John
18:15). John alone remained near his beloved Master at the foot of the Cross on
Calvary with the Mother of Jesus and the pious women, and took the desolate
Mother into his care as the last legacy of Christ (John 19:25-27). After the
Resurrection John with Peter was the first of the disciples to hasten to the
grave (John 20:2-10). When later Christ appeared at the Lake of Genesareth John was also the first of the seven disciples
present who recognized his Master standing on the shore (John 21:7). The Fourth
Evangelist has shown us most clearly how close the relationship was in which he
always stood to his Lord and Master by the title with which he is accustomed to
indicate himself without giving his name: "the disciple whom Jesus
loved." After Christ's Ascension and the Descent of the Holy Spirit, John
took, together with Peter, a prominent part in the founding and guidance of the
Church. We see him in the company of Peter at the healing of the lame man in
the Temple (Acts 3:1 sqq.).
With Peter he is also thrown into prison (Acts 4:3).
We
have no positive information concerning the duration of this activity in
Palestine. Apparently John in common with the other Apostles remained some
twelve years in this first field of labour, until the persecution of Herod
Agrippa I led to the scattering of the Apostles through the various provinces
of the Roman Empire (cf. Acts 12:1-17). Notwithstanding the opinion to the
contrary of many writers, it does not appear improbable that John then went for
the first time to Asia Minor and exercised his Apostolic office in various provinces there. In any case a
Christian community was already in existence at Ephesus before Paul's first
labours there (cf. "the brethren," Acts 18:27, in addition to
Priscilla and Aquila),
and it is easy to connect a sojourn of John in these provinces with the fact
that the Holy Ghost did not permit the Apostle Paul on his second missionary
journey to proclaim the Gospel in Asia, Mysia, and Bithynia (Acts 16:6 sq.).
There is just as little against such an acceptation in the later account in
Acts of St. Paul's third missionary journey. But in any case such a sojourn by
John in Asia in this first period was neither long nor uninterrupted. He
returned with the other disciples to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council (about
A.D. 51). St. Paul in opposing his enemies in Galatia names John explicitly
along with Peter and James the Less as a "pillar of the Church," and
refers to the recognition which his Apostolic preaching of a Gospel free from
the law received from these three, the most prominent men of the old
Mother-Church at Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9). When Paul came again to Jerusalem after
the second and after the third journey (Acts 18:22; 21:17 sq.) he seems no
longer to have met John there. Some wish to draw the conclusion from this that
John left Palestine between the years 52 and 55.
Of
the other New-Testament writings, it is only from the three Epistles of John
and the Apocalypse that anything further is learned concerning the person of
the Apostle. We may be permitted here to take as proven the unity of the author
of these three writings handed down under the name of John and his identity
with the Evangelist. Both the Epistles and the Apocalypse, however, presuppose
that their author John belonged to the multitude of personal eyewitnesses of
the life and work of Christ (cf. especially I John 1:1-5; 4:14), that he had
lived for a long time in Asia Minor, was thoroughly acquainted with the
conditions existing in the various Christian communities there, and that he had
a position of authority recognized by all Christian communities as leader of
this part of the Church. Moreover, the Apocalypse tells us that its author was
on the island of Patmos
"for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus," when he was
honoured with the heavenly Revelation contained in the Apocalypse (Apoc. 1:9).
The author of the Second and Third Epistles of John
designates himself in the superscription of each by the name (ho presbyteros), "the
ancient," "the old." Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, also uses the same
name to designate the "Presbyter John" as in addition to Aristion, his particular authority, directly after
he has named the presbyters Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and
Matthew (in Eusebius, "Hist. eccl." 3:39:4). Eusebius was the first to draw, on account of these
words of Papias, the distinction
between a Presbyter John and the Apostle John, and this distinction was also
spread in Western Europe by St. Jerome on the authority of Eusebius. The
opinion of Eusebius has been frequently revived by modern writers, chiefly to
support the denial of the Apostolic
origin of the Fourth Gospel. The distinction, however, has no historical basis.
First, the testimony of Eusebius in this matter is not worthy of belief. He
contradicts himself, as in his "Chronicle" he expressly calls the
Apostle John the teacher of Papias ("ad annum Abrah
2114"), as does Jerome also in Ep. 75:"Ad Theodoram," 3: and in "De viris illustribus," xviii. Eusebius was also influenced by his
erroneous doctrinal opinions as he denied the Apostolic origin of the Apocalypse and ascribed this writing to
an author differing from St. John but of the same name. St. Irenaeus also positively designates the Apostle and Evangelist
John as the teacher of Papias,
and neither he nor any other writer before Eusebius had any idea of a second
John in Asia (Adv. haer.
5:33:4). In what Papias himself says the connection plainly shows that in this
passage by the word presbyters only Apostles can be understood. If John
is mentioned twice the explanation lies in the peculiar relationship in which Papias stood to this, his most eminent teacher. By inquiring
of others he had learned some things indirectly from John, just as he had from
the other Apostles referred to. In addition he had received information
concerning the teachings and acts of Jesus directly, without the intervention
of others, from the still living "Presbyter John," as he also had
from Aristion. Thus the
teaching of Papias casts absolutely no
doubt upon what the New-Testament writings presuppose and expressly mention
concerning the residence of the Evangelist John in Asia.
III. The Later Accounts of John
The Christian
writers of the second and third centuries testify to us as a tradition
universally recognized and doubted by no one that the Apostle and Evangelist
John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from
Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province. In his "Dialogue with Tryphon" (Chapter 81) St. Justin Martyr refers to
"John, one of the Apostles of Christ" as a witness who had lived
"with us," that is, at Ephesus. St. Irenζus speaks in very many places of the Apostle John and
his residence in Asia and expressly declares that he wrote his Gospel at
Ephesus (Adv. haer.
3:1:1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan (loc. cit. 2:22:5). With Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3:13:1) and others we are obliged to place the
Apostle's banishment to Patmos
in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96). Previous to this, according to Tertullian's testimony (De praescript. 36), John had been thrown into a cauldron of boiling
oil before the Porta Latina at Rome without suffering injury. After Domitian's death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the
reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he
died about A.D. 100 at a great age. Tradition reports many beautiful traits of
the last years of his life: that he refused to remain under the same roof with Cerinthus (Irenaeus "Ad. haer." 3:3:4); his touching anxiety about a youth who
had become a robber (Clemens Alex. "Quis dives salvetur," xiii); his constantly repeated words of
exhortation at the end of his life, "Little children, love one
another" (Jerome, "Comm. in ep. ad.
Gal." 6:10). On the other hand the stories told in the apocryphal Acts of
John, which appeared as early as the second century, are unhistorical
invention.
Early
Christian art usually represents St. John with an eagle, symbolizing the
heights to which he rises in the first chapter of his Gospel. The chalice as
symbolic of St. John, which, according to some authorities, was not adopted
until the thirteenth century, is sometimes interpreted with reference to the
Last Supper, again as connected with the legend according to which St. John was
handed a cup of poisoned wine, from which, at his blessing, the poison rose in
the shape of a serpent. Perhaps the most natural explanation is to be found in
the words of Christ to John and James "My chalice indeed you shall
drink" (Matthew 20:23).
In the address of the Epistle the author styles himself
"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James."
"Servant of Jesus Christ" means "apostolic minister or
labourer." "Brother of James" denotes him as the brother of
James kat exochen who was well-known to the Hebrew Christians to whom
the Epistle of St. Jude was written. This James is to be identified with the
Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 15:13; 21:18), spoken of by St. Paul as
"the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:19), who was the author of the
Catholic Epistle of St. James. and
is regarded amongst Catholic interpreters as the Apostle James the son of Alpheus (St. James the Less). This last identification,
however, is not evident, nor, from a critical point of view, does it seem
beyond all doubt. Most Catholic commentators identify Jude with the "Judas
Jacobi" ("Jude,
the brother of James" in the D.V.) of Luke 6:16, and Acts 1:13 also called Thaddeus (Matt. x, 3:
Mark 3:18) referring the expression to the fact that his brother James was
better known than himself in the primitive Church. This view is strongly
confirmed by the title "the brother of James," by which Jude
designates himself in the address of his Epistle. If this identification is
proved, it is clear that Jude, the author of the Epistle, was reckoned among
the Twelve Apostles. This opinion is most highly probable. Beyond this we find
no further information concerning Jude in the New Testament, except that the
"brethren of the Lord," among whom Jude was included, were known to
the Galatians and the Corinthians; also that several of them were married, and
that they did not fully believe in Christ till after the Resurrection (I Cor.
9:5; Gal. 1:10; John 7:3-5; Acts 1:14). From a fact of Hegesippus told by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. III, 19:xx, xxii) we learn that Jude was "said to have been
the brother of the Lord according to the flesh," and that two of his
grandsons lived till the reign of Trajan.
Tradition as to the Genuineness and the
Canonicity of his Epistle
The
Epistle of Jude is one of the so-called antilegomena; but, although its
canonicity has been questioned in several Churches, its genuineness has never
been denied. The brevity of the Epistle, the coincidences between it and II Peter,
and the supposed quotation from apocryphal books, created a prejudice against
it which was gradually overcome. The history of its acceptance by the Church is
briefly as follows:
Some
coincidences or analogies exist between Jude and the writings of the Apostolic
Fathers between Barnabas, 2:10, and Jude, 3, 4; Clemens Romanus, Ep. 20, 12; 65:2, and Jude, 25; Ep. ad Polyc. iii 2; 4:2, and Jude, 3. 20, Mart. Polyc. xx, and Jude, 24 sq. It is possible, though not certain,
that the passages here noted were suggested by the text of Jude. The similarity
between "Didache"
2:7 and Jude, 22 sq. does not seem to be accidental, whilst in Athenagoras (about A.D. 177), "Leg." 24, and in
Theophilus of Antioch (d. about 183), "Ad Autol." II, 15, there is a clear reference to Jude, 6 and 13
respectively.
The
earliest positive reference to the Epistle occurs in the Muratorian Fragment, "Epistola sane Judζ et superscriptζ Joannis duae in catholica [scil. Ecclesia] habentur." The Epistle was thus recognized as canonical and
Apostolic (for it is Jude the Apostle who is here meant) in the Roman Church
about 170. At the end of the second century it was also accepted as canonical
and Apostolic by the Church of Alexandria (Clement of Alexandria, "Pζd." III, 8:followed by Origen), and by the African Church of Carthage (Tertullian). At the beginning of the third century the Epistle
was universally accepted except in the primitive East Syrian Church, where none
of the Catholic Epistles were recognized, nor the Apocalypse.
This
remarkably wide acceptance, representing as it does the voice of ancient
tradition, testifies to the canonicity and the genuineness of Jude. During the
third and fourth centuries doubt and suspicion, based on internal evidence
(especially on the supposed quotation from the Book of Henoch and the "Assumption of Moses"), arose in
several Churches. However the prejudice created against the deuterocanonical Jude was soon overcome, so that the Epistle was
universally accepted in the Western Church at the very beginning of the fifth
century.
In
the Eastern Church Eusebius of Cζsarea (260-340) placed Jude among the antilegomena
or the "disputed books, which are nevertheless known and accepted by the
greater number" (Hist. Eccl. II xxiii; III, xxv); he incorporated all the
Catholic Epistles in the fifty copies of the Bible which at the command of
Constantine, he wrote for the Church of Constantinople. St. Athanasius (d. 387) and St. Epiphanius (d. 403) placed Jude among the canonical and Apostolic writings. Junilius and Paul of Nisibis in Constantinople (513) held it as mediζ auctoritatis. However,
in the sixth century the Greek Church everywhere considered Jude as canonical.
The
recognition of Jude in the Syriac Church is not clear. In Western Syria we find
no trace of Jude in the fifth century. In Eastern Syria the Epistle is wanting
in the oldest Syriac version, the Peshito, but it is accepted in the Philoxenian (508) and Heracleon (616) versions. Except among the Syriac Nestorians,
there is no trace of any ecclesiastical contradiction from the beginning of the
sixth century till the Council of Trent, which defined the canonicity of both
the proto- and deutero-canonical
books of the New Testament.
The name Lucas (Luke) is probably an
abbreviation from Lucanus,
like Annas from Ananus,
Apollos from Apollonius, Artemas
from Artemidorus, Demas from
Demetrius, etc. (Schanz, "Evang. des heiligen Lucas," 1, 2; Lightfoot on "Col."
4:14; Plummer, "St. Luke," introd.) The word Lucas seems to have been unknown
before the Christian Era;
but Lucanus is common in
inscriptions, and is found at the beginning and end of the Gospel in some Old
Latin manuscripts (ibid.). It is generally held that St. Luke was a native of
Antioch. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3:4:6) has: Loukas de to men genos on ton ap Antiocheias, ten episteuen iatros, ta pleista suggegonos to Paulo, kai rots laipois de ou parergos ton apostolon homilnkos "Lucas vero domo Antiochenus, arte medicus, qui et cum Paulo diu conjunctissime vixit, et cum reliquis
Apostolis studiose versatus est." Eusebius has a clearer statement in his "Quζstiones Evangelicζ," 4:1:270: ho de Loukas to men genos apo tes Boomenes Antiocheias en
"Luke was by birth a native of the renowned Antioch" (Schmiedel, "Encyc. Bib."). Spitta, Schmiedel, and Harnack think this is a quotation from Julius Africanus (first half of the third century). In Codex Bezζ (D) Luke is introduced by a "we" as early
as Acts 11:28; and, though this is not a correct reading, it represents a very
ancient tradition. The writer of Acts took a special interest in Antioch and
was well acquainted with it (Acts 11:19-27; 13:1; 14:18-21, 25, 15:22, 23, 30,
35; 18:22). We are told the locality of only one deacon, "Nicolas, a
proselyte of Antioch," 6:5; and it has been pointed out by Plummer that,
out of eight writers who describe the Russian campaign of 1812, only two, who
were Scottish, mention that the Russian general, Barclay de Tolly, was of Scottish extraction. These considerations
seem to exclude the conjecture of Renan and Ramsay that St. Luke was a native of Philippi.
St.
Luke was not a Jew. He is separated by St. Paul from those of the circumcision
(Col. 4:14), and his style proves that he was a Greek. Hence he cannot be
identified with Lucius
the prophet of Acts 13:1, nor with Lucius of Rom. 16:21, who was cognatus of St. Paul. From this and the prologue of the Gospel
it follows that Epiphanius
errs when he calls him one of the Seventy Disciples; nor was he the companion
of Cleophas in the journey to
Emmaus after the Resurrection (as stated by Theophylact and the Greek Menol.). St. Luke had a great knowledge of the Septuagint
and of things Jewish, which he acquired either as a Jewish proselyte (St.
Jerome) or after he became a Christian, through his close intercourse with the Apostles
and disciples. Besides Greek, he had many opportunities of acquiring Aramaic in
his native Antioch, the capital of Syria. He was a physician by profession, and
St. Paul calls him "the most dear physician" (Col. 4:14). This
avocation implied a liberal education, and his medical training is evidenced by
his choice of medical language. Plummer suggests that he may have studied
medicine at the famous school of Tarsus, the rival of Alexandria and Athens,
and possibly met St. Paul there. From his intimate knowledge of the eastern
Mediterranean, it has been conjectured that he had lengthened experience as a
doctor on board ship. He travailed a good deal, and sends greetings to the
Colossians, which seems to indicate that he had visited them.
St.
Luke first appears in the Acts at Troas (16:8 sqq.), where he meets St. Paul, and, after the vision,
crossed over with him to Europe as an Evangelist, landing at Neapolis and going on to Philipp1:"being assured that God
had called us to preach the Gospel to them" (note especially the
transition into first person plural at verse 10). He was, therefore, already an
Evangelist. He was present at the conversion of Lydia and her companions, and
lodged in her house. He, together with St. Paul and his companions, was recognized
by the pythonical spirit:
"This same following Paul and us, cried out, saying: These men are the
servants of the most high
God, who preach unto you the way of salvation" (verse 17). He beheld Paul
and Silas arrested, dragged before the Roman magistrates, charged with
disturbing the city, "being Jews," beaten with rods and thrown into
prison. Luke and Timothy escaped,
probably because they did not look like Jews (Timothy's father was a gentile).
When Paul departed from Philipp1:Luke was left behind, in all probability to carry on the
work of Evangelist. At Thessalonica the Apostle received highly appreciated
pecuniary aid from Philippi (Phil. 4:15, 16), doubtless through the good
offices of St. Luke. It is not unlikely that the latter remained at Philippi
all the time that St. Paul was preaching at Athens and Corinth, and while he
was travelling to Jerusalem and back to Ephesus, and during the three years
that the Apostle was engaged at Ephesus. When St. Paul revisited Macedonia, he
again met St. Luke at Philipp1:and there wrote his Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
St.
Jerome thinks it is most likely that St. Luke is "the brother, whose
praise is in the gospel through all the churches" (II Cor. 8:18), and that
he was one of the bearers of the letter to Corinth. Shortly afterwards, when
St. Paul returned from Greece, St. Luke accompanied him from Philippi to Troas,
and with him made the long coasting voyage described in Acts 20. He went up to
Jerusalem, was present at the uproar, saw the attack on the Apostle, and heard
him speaking "in the Hebrew tongue" from the steps outside the
fortress Antonia to the silenced crowd. Then he witnessed the infuriated Jews,
in their impotent rage, rending their garments, yelling, and flinging dust into
the air. We may be sure that he was a constant visitor to St. Paul during the
two years of the latter's imprisonment at Cζarea. In that period he might well become acquainted with
the circumstances of the death of Herod Agrippa 1, who had died there eaten up
by worms" (skolekobrotos), and he was likely to be better informed on the
subject than Josephus. Ample opportunities were given him, 'having diligently
attained to all things from the beginning," concerning the Gospel and
early Acts to write in order what had been delivered by those "who from
the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:2-3).
It is held by many writers that the Gospel was written during this time, Ramsay
is of opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was then composed, and that St.
Luke had a considerable share in it. When Paul appealed to Cζsar, Luke and Aristarchus accompanied him from Cζsarea, and were with him during the stormy voyage from
Crete to Malta. Thence they went on to Rome, where, during the two years that
St. Paul was kept in prison, St. Luke was frequently at his side, though not
continuously, as he is not mentioned in the greetings of the Epistle to the
Philippians (Lightfoot, "Phil." 35). He was present when the Epistles
to the Colossians, Ephesians and Philemon were written, and is mentioned in the
salutations given in two of them: "Luke the most dear physician, saluteth you" (Col. 4:14); "There salute thee . . .
Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and
Luke my fellow labourers" (Philem. 24). St. Jerome holds that it was during these two
years Acts was written.
We
have no information about St. Luke during the interval between St. Paul's two
Roman imprisonments, but he must have met several of the Apostles and disciples
during his various journeys. He stood beside St. Paul in his last imprisonment;
for the Apostle, writing for the last time to Timothy, says: "I have
fought a good fight,
I have finished my course. . . . Make haste to come to me quickly. For Demas
hath left me, loving this world. . . . Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:7-11).
It is worthy of note that, in the three places where he is mentioned in the
Epistles (Col. 4:14; Philem.
24; II Tim. 4:11) he is named with St. Mark (cf. Col. 4:10), the other
Evangelist who was not an Apostle (Plummer), and it is clear from his Gospel
that he was well acquainted with the Gospel according to St. Mark; and in the
Acts he knows all the details of St. Peter's delivery what happened at the
house of St. Mark's mother, and the name of the girl who ran to the outer door
when St. Peter knocked. He must have frequently met St. Peter, and may have
assisted him to draw up his First Epistle in Greek, which affords many
reminiscences of Luke's style. After St. Paul's martyrdom practically all that
is known about him is contained in the ancient "Prefatio vel Argumentum Lucζ," dating back to Julius Africanus, who was born about A.D. 165. This states that he was
unmarried, that he wrote the Gospel, in Achaia, and that he died at the age of
seventy-four in Bithynia (probably a copyist's error for Boeotia), filled with the Holy Ghost. Epiphanius has it that he preached in Dalmatia (where there is a tradition to that effect), Gallia
(Galatia?), Italy, and Macedonia. As an Evangelist, he must have suffered much
for the Faith, but it is controverted whether he actually died a martyr's
death. St. Jerome writes of him (De Vir. III. vii). "Sepultus est
Constantinopol1:ad
quam urbem vigesimo Constantii anno, ossa ejus cum reliquiis Andreζ Apostoli translata sunt [de Achaia?]." St. Luke its always represented by the calf or ox, the sacrificial
animal, because his Gospel begins with the account of Zachary, the priest, the
father of John the Baptist. He is called a painter by Nicephorus Callistus (fourteenth century), and by the Menology of Basil 2:A.D. 980. A picture of the Virgin in S.
Maria Maggiore, Rome, is
ascribed to him, and can be traced to A.D. 847 It is probably a copy of that mentioned by Theodore
Lector, in the sixth century. This writer states that the Empress Eudoxia found a picture of the Mother of God at Jerusalem,
which she sent to Constantinople (see "Acta SS." 18 Oct.). As Plummer
observes. it is certain that St. Luke was an artist, at least to
the extent that his graphic descriptions of the Annunciation, Visitation,
Nativity, Shepherds. Presentation, the Shepherd and lost sheep, etc. have
become the inspiring and favourite themes of Christian painters.
St.
Luke is one of the most extensive writers of the New Testament. His Gospel is
considerably longer than St. Matthew's, his two books are about as long as St.
Paul's fourteen Epistles: and Acts exceeds in length the Seven Catholic
Epistles and the Apocalypse. The style of the Gospel is superior to any N. T.
writing except Hebrews. Renan
says (Les Evangiles, xiii) that it
is the most literary of the Gospels. St. Luke is a painter in words. "The
author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts is the most versatile of all New
Testament writers. He can be as Hebraistic as the Septuagint, and as free from Hebraisms as Plutarch. . . He is Hebraistic in describing Hebrew society and Greek when
describing Greek society" (Plummer, introd.). His great command of Greek is shown by the
richness of his vocabulary and the freedom of his constructions.
(Greek Markos,
Latin Marcus)
It
is assumed in this article that the individual referred to in Acts as John Mark
(12:12, 25; 15:37), John (13:5, 13), Mark (15:39), is identical with the Mark
mentioned by St. Paul (Col. 4:10; II Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24) and by St. Peter (I Peter 5:13). Their identity
is not questioned by any ancient writer of note, while it is strongly
suggested, on the one hand by the fact that Mark of the Pauline Epistles was
the cousin (ho anepsios) of Barnabas (Col. 4:10), to whom Mark of Acts seems to have been
bound by some special tie (Acts 15:37, 39); on the other by the probability
that the Mark, whom St. Peter calls his son (I Peter, 5:13), is no other than
the son of Mary, the Apostle's old friend in Jerusalem (Acts 21:12). To the
Jewish name John was added the Roman pronomen Marcus, and by the latter he was commonly known to
the readers of Acts (15:37, ton kaloumenon Markon) and of the Epistles. Mark's mother was a prominent
member of the infant Church at Jerusalem; it was to her house that Peter turned
on his release from prison; the house was approached by a porch (pulon), there was a slave girl (paidiske), probably the portress, to open the door, and the
house was a meeting-place for the brethren, "many" of whom were
praying there the night St. Peter arrived from prison (Acts 12:12-13).
When,
on the occasion of the famine of A.D. 45-46, Barnabas and Saul had completed
their ministration in Jerusalem, they took Mark with them on their return to
Antioch (Acts 12:25). Not long after, when they started on St. Paul's first
Apostolic journey, they had Mark with them as some sort of assistant (hupereten, Acts 13:5); but the vagueness and variety of meaning
of the Greek term makes it uncertain in what precise capacity he acted. Neither
selected by the Holy Spirit, nor delegated by the Church of Antioch, as were
Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:2-4), he was probably taken by the Apostles as one
who could be of general help. The context of Acts 13:5, suggests that he helped
even in preaching the Word. When Paul and Barnabas resolved to push on from Perga into central Asia Minor, Mark, departed from them, if
indeed he had not already done so at Paphos, and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). What his
reasons were for turning back, we cannot say with certainty; Acts 15:38, seems
to suggest that he feared the toil. At any rate, the incident was not forgotten
by St. Paul, who refused on account of it to take Mark with him on the second Apostolic journey. This refusal led to the separation of Paul
and Barnabas, and the latter, taking Mark with him, sailed to Cyprus (Acts
15:37-40). At this point (A.D. 49-50) we lose sight of Mark in Acts and we meet
him no more in the New Testament, till he appears some ten years afterwards as
the fellow-worker of St. Paul, and in the company of St. Peter, at Rome.
St.
Paul, writing to the Colossians during his first Roman imprisonment (A.D.
59-61), says: "Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, touching whom you have received
commandments; if he come
unto you, receive him" (Col. 4:10). At the time this was written, Mark was
evidently in Rome, but had some intention of visiting Asia Minor. About the
same time St. Paul sends greetings to Philemon from Mark, whom he names among
his fellow-workers (sunergo1:Philem. 24). The Evangelist's intention of
visiting Asia Minor was probably carried out, for St. Paul, writing shortly
before his death to Timothy at Ephesus, bids him pick up Mark and bring him
with him to Rome, adding "for he is profitable to me for the
ministry" (II Tim. 4:11). If Mark came to Rome at this time, he was
probably there when St. Paul was martyred. Turning to I Peter, 5:13, we read:
"The Church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you, and (so doth) Mark my son" (Markos, o huios aou). This letter was addressed to various Churches of
Asia Minor (I Peter, 1:1), and we may conclude that Mark was known to them.
Hence, though he had refused to penetrate into Asia Minor with Paul and
Barnabas, St. Paul makes it probable, and St. Peter certain, that he went afterwards,
and the fact that St. Peter sends Mark's greeting to a number of Churches
implies that he must have been widely known there. In calling Mark his
"son," Peter may possibly imply that he had baptized him, though in
that case teknon
might be expected rather than huios (cf. I Cor. 4:17; I Tim. 1:2, 18; II Tim. 1:2; 2:1;
Tit. 1:4; Philem. 10). The term need
not be taken to imply more than affectionate regard for a younger man, who had
long ago sat at Peter's feet in Jerusalem, and whose mother had been the Apostle's
friend (Acts 12:12). As to the Babylon from which Peter writers, and in which
Mark is present with him, there can be no reasonable doubt that it is Rome. The
view of St. Jerome: "St. Peter also mentions this Mark in his First
Epistle, while referring figuratively to Rome under the title of Babylon"
(De vir. Illustr. viii),
is supported by all the early Father who refer to the subject. It may be said
to have been questioned for the first time by Erasmus, whom a number of
Protestant writers then followed, that they might the more readily deny the
Roman connection of St. Peter. Thus, we find Mark in Rome with St. Peter at a
time when he was widely known to the Churches of Asia Minor. If we suppose him,
as we may, to have gone to Asia Minor after the date of the Epistle to the
Colossians, remained there for some time, and returned to Rome before I Peter
was written, the Petrine
and Pauline references to the Evangelist are quite intelligible and consistent.
When we turn to tradition, Papias (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl." 3:xxxix) asserts not later than A.D. 130, on the
authority of an "elder," that Mark had been the interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, and wrote down accurately, though not in
order, the teaching of Peter. A widespread, if somewhat late, tradition
represents St. Mark as the founder of the Church of Alexandria. Though
strangely enough Clement and Origen make no reference to the saint's connection with their city, it is
attested by Eusebius (op. cit. 2:16, xxiv), by St. Jerome ("De Vir. Illust." viii), by the Apostolic Constitutions
(7:44), by Epiphanius ("Hζr."
l1:6) and by many later authorities.
The "Martyrologium Romanum" (25 April) records: "At Alexandria the
anniversary of Blessed Mark the Evangelist . . . at Alexandria of St. Anianus Bishop, the disciple of Blessed Mark and his
successor in the episcopate, who fell asleep in the Lord." The date at
which Mark came to Alexandria is uncertain. The Chronicle of Eusebius assigns
it to the first years of Claudius (A.D. 41-4), and later on states that St.
Mark's first successor, Anianus,
succeeded to the See of Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero (61-2). This
would make Mark Bishop of Alexandria for a period of about twenty years. This
is not impossible, if we might suppose in accordance with some early evidence
that St. Peter came to Rome in A.D. 42, Mark perhaps accompanying him. But Acts
raise considerable difficulties. On the assumption that the founder of the
Church of Alexandria was identical with the companion of Paul and Barnabas, we
find him at Jerusalem and Antioch about A.D. 46 (Acts 12:25), in Salamis about
47 (Acts 13:5), at Antioch again about 49 or 50 (Acts 15:37-9), and when he
quitted Antioch, on the separation of Paul and Barnabas, it was not to
Alexandria but to Cyprus that he turned (Acts 15:39). There is nothing indeed
to prove absolutely that all this is inconsistent with his being Bishop of
Alexandria at the time, but seeing that the chronology of the Apostolic age is
admittedly uncertain, and that we have no earlier authority than Eusebius for
the date of the foundation of the Alexandrian Church, we may perhaps conclude
with more probability that it was founded somewhat later. There is abundance of
time between A.D. 50 and 60, a period during which the New Testament is silent
in regard to St. Mark, for his activity in Egypt.
In
the preface to his Gospel in manuscripts of the Vulgate, Mark is represented as
having been a Jewish priest: "Mark the Evangelist, who exercised the
priestly office in Israel, a Levite by race." Early authorities, however,
are silent upon the point, and it is perhaps only an inference from his
relation to Barnabas the Levite (Acts 4:36). Papias (in
Eusebius, "Hist. eccl." 3:xxxix) says, on the authority of "the elder," that Mark neither
heard the Lord nor followed Him (oute gar ekouse tou kurion oute parekoluthesen auto), and
the same statement is made in the Dialogue of Adamantius (fourth century, Leipzig, 1901, p. 8), by Eusebius
("Demonst. Evang." 3:v), by St. Jerome
("In Matth."), by St.
Augustine ("De Consens.
Evang."), and is
suggested by the Muratorian
Fragment. Later tradition, however, makes Mark one of the seventy-two
disciples, and St. Epiphanius
("Hζr," l1:6) says he
was one of those who withdrew from Christ (John 6:67). The later tradition can
have no weight against the earlier evidence, but the statement that Mark
neither heard the Lord nor followed Him need not be pressed too strictly, nor
force us to believe that he never saw Christ. Many indeed are of opinion that
the young man who fled naked from Gethsemane (Mark 14:51) was Mark himself.
Early in the third century Hippolytus ("Philosophumena," 7:30) refers to Mark as ho kolobodaktulos, i.e. "stump-fingered" or "mutilated
in the finger(s)," and later authorities allude to the same defect.
Various explanations of the epithet have been suggested: that Mark, after he
embraced Christianity, cut off his thumb to unfit himself for the Jewish
priesthood; that his fingers were naturally stumpy; that some defect in his
toes is alluded to; that the epithet is to be regarded as metaphorical, and
means "deserted" (cf. Acts 13:13).
The
date of Mark's death is uncertain. St. Jerome ("De Vir. Illustr." viii) assigns it to the eighth year of Nero
(62-63) (Mortuus est octavo Neronis anno et sepultus Alexandriζ), but this is probably only an inference from the
statement of Eusebius ("Hist. eccl." 2:xxiv), that in that year Anianus succeeded St. Mark in the See of Alexandria.
Certainly, if St. Mark was alive when II Timothy was written (II Tim. 4:11), he
cannot have died in 61-62. Nor does Eusebius say he did; the historian may
merely mean that St. Mark then resigned his see, and left Alexandria to join
Peter and Paul at Rome. As to the manner of his death, the "Acts" of
Mark give the saint the glory of martyrdom, and say that he died while being
dragged through the streets of Alexandria; so too the Paschal Chronicle. But we
have no evidence earlier than the fourth century that the saint was martyred.
This earlier silence, however, is not at all decisive against the truth of the
later traditions. For the saint's alleged connection with Aquileia, see "Acta SS." X1:pp. 346-7, and for the
removal of his body from Alexandria to Venice and his cultus there, ibid. pp.
352-8. In Christian literature and art St. Mark is symbolically represented by
a lion. The Latin and Greek Churches celebrate his feast on 25 April, but the
Greek Church keeps also the feast of John Mark on 27 September.
Apostle and evangelist. The name Matthew is derived from the Hebrew Mattija, being shortened to Mattai in post-Biblical Hebrew. In Greek it is sometimes
spelled Maththaios, B D, and
sometimes Matthaios, CEKL, but grammarians do not agree as to which of the two spellings
is the original. Matthew is spoken of five times in the New Testament; first in
Matthew 9:9, when called by Jesus to follow Him, and then four times in the
list of the Apostles, where he is mentioned in the seventh (Luke 6:15, and Mark
3:18), and again in the eighth place (Matthew 10:3, and Acts 1:13). The man
designated in Matthew 9:9, as "sitting in the custom house," and
"named Matthew" is the same as Le6:recorded in Mark 2:14, and Luke 5:27, as "sitting at the
receipt of custom." The account in the three Synoptics is identical, the
vocation of Matthew-Levi being alluded to in the same terms. Hence Levi was the
original name of the man who was subsequently called Matthew; the Maththaios legomenos of Matthew 9:9, would indicate this. The fact of one man having two
names is of frequent occurrence among the Jews. It is true that the same person
usually bears a Hebrew name such as "Shaoul" and a Greek name, Paulos. However, we have also examples of individuals with
two Hebrew names as, for instance, Joseph-Caiaphas, Simon-Cephas, etc. It is probable that Mattija, "gift of Iaveh," was the name conferred upon the tax-gatherer
by Jesus Christ when He called him to the Apostolate, and by it he was
thenceforth known among his Christian brethren, Levi being his original name.
Matthew, the son of Alpheus
(Mark 2:14) was a Galilean, although Eusebius informs us that he was a Syrian.
As tax-gatherer at Capharnaum,
he collected custom duties for Herod Antipas, and, although a Jew, was despised
by the Pharisees, who hated all publicans. When summoned by Jesus, Matthew
arose and followed Him and tendered Him a feast in his house, where
tax-gatherers and sinners sat at table with Christ and His disciples. This drew
forth a protest from the Pharisees whom Jesus rebuked in these consoling words:
"I came not to call the just, but sinners." No further allusion is
made to Matthew in the Gospels, except in the list of the Apostles. As a
disciple and an Apostle he thenceforth followed Christ, accompanying Him up to
the time of His Passion and, in Galilee, was one of the witnesses of His
Resurrection. He was also amongst the Apostles who were present at the
Ascension, and afterwards withdrew to an upper chamber, in Jerusalem, praying
in union with Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (Acts 1:10 and
1:14).
Of
Matthew's subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data. St. Irenζus tells us that Matthew preached the Gospel among the
Hebrews, St. Clement of Alexandria claiming that he did this for fifteen years,
and Eusebius maintains that, before going into other countries, he gave them
his Gospel in the mother tongue. Ancient writers are not as one as to the
countries evangelized by Matthew, but almost all mention Ethiopia to the south
of the Caspian Sea (not Ethiopia in Africa), and some Persia and the kingdom of
the Parthians, Macedonia, and
Syria. According to Heracleon,
who is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Matthew did not die a martyr, but this
opinion conflicts with all other ancient testimony. Let us add, however, that
the account of his martyrdom in the apocryphal Greek writings entitled "Martyrium S. Matthζi in Ponto" and published
by Bonnet, "Acta apostolorum apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1898), is absolutely devoid of historic
value. Lipsius holds that this
"Martyrium S. Matthζi," which contains traces of Gnosticism, must have
been published in the third century. There is a disagreement as to the place of
St. Matthew's martyrdom and the kind of torture inflicted on him, therefore it
is not known whether he was burned, stoned, or beheaded. The Roman Martyrology
simply says: "S. Matthζ1:qui in Ζthiopia prζdicans martyrium passus est." Various writings that are now
considered apocryphal, have been
attributed to St. Matthew. In the "Evangelia apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1876), Tischendorf reproduced a Latin document entitled: "De Ortu beatζ Mariζ et infantia Salvatoris," supposedly written in Hebrew by St. Matthew
the Evangelist, and translated into Latin by Jerome, the priest. It is an
abridged adaptation of the "Protoevangelium" of St. James, which was a Greek apocryphal of
the second century. This pseudo-Matthew dates from the middle or the end of the
sixth century. The Latin Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthew on 21
September, and the Greek Church on 16 November. St. Matthew is represented
under the symbol of a winged man, carrying in his hand a lance as a
characteristic emblem.
St. Nathanael
One of the first disciples of Jesus, to Whom he was brought by his friend Philip (John 1:43-51).
It is generally held that Nathanael is to be identified with the Apostle Bartholomew of
the Synoptic writers. The latter make no mention of Nathanael, but in their lists of the Twelve, one, Bartholomew,
is always designated by his family Bar-Tolmai (son of Tolmai), and it is assumed that it is he whom the author of
the Fourth Gospel designates by his personal name Nathanael. The main reasons on which this assumption rests are:
that the circumstances under which Nathanael was called do not differ in solemnity from those
connected with the call of Peter, whence it is natural to expect that he as
well as the latter was numbered among the Twelve; Nathanael is mentioned as present with other Apostles after the
Resurrection in the scene described in John 21;
Nathanael was brought to Jesus by Philip (John 1:45), and thus
it seems significant that Bartholomew is always mentioned next to Philip in the
lists of the Twelve given by the Synoptists (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14).
Chronology
If
we admit according to the almost unanimous opinion of exegetes that Acts 15,
and Gal. 2:1-10, relate to the same fact it will be seen that an interval of
seventeen years-or at least sixteen, counting incomplete years as
accomplished-elapsed between the conversion of Paul and the Apostolic council,
for Paul visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18) and
returned after fourteen years for the meeting held with regard to legal
observances (Gal. 2:1: "Epeita dia dekatessaron eton"). It is true that some authors include the
three years prior to the first visit in the total of fourteen, but this explanation
seems forced. On the other hand,
twelve or thirteen years elapsed between the Apostolic council and the end of
the captivity, for the captivity lasted nearly five years (more than two years
at Caesarea, Acts 24:27, six months travelling, including the sojourn at Malta,
and two years at Rome, Acts 28:30); the third mission lasted not less than four
years and a half (three of which were spent at Ephesus, Acts 20:31, and one
between the departure from Ephesus and the arrival at Jerusalem, I Cor. 16:8;
Acts 20:16, and six months at the very least for the journey to Galatia, Acts
18:23); while the second mission lasted not less than three years (eighteen
months for Corinth, Acts 18:11, and the remainder for the evangelization of
Galatia, Macedonia, and Athens, Acts 15:36-17:34). Thus from the conversion to
the end of the first captivity we have a total of about twenty-nine years. Now
if we could find a fixed point that is a synchronism between a fact in the life
of Paul and a certainly dated event in profane history, it would be easy to
reconstruct the Pauline chronology. Unfortunately this much wished-for mark has
not yet been indicated with certainty, despite the numerous attempts made by
scholars, especially in recent times. It is of interest to note even the
abortive attempts, because the discovery of an inscription or of a coin may any
day transform an approximate date into an absolutely fixed point. These are the
meeting of Paul with Sergius
Paulus, Proconsul of
Cyprus, about the year 46 (Acts 13:7), the meeting at Corinth with Aquila and Priscilla, who had been expelled from Rome, about
51 (Acts 18:2), the meeting with Gallio, Proconsul of Achaia, about 53 (Acts 18:12), the
address of Paul before the Governor Felix and his wife Drusilla about 58 (Acts
24:24). All these events, as far as they may be assigned approximate dates,
agree with the Apostle's general chronology but give no precise results. Three
synchronisms, however, appear to afford a firmer basis:
(1)
The occupation of Damascus by the ethnarch of King Aretas and the escape of the Apostle three years after his
conversion (II Cor. 11:32-33; Acts
9:23-26). Damascene coins bearing the effigy of Tiberius to the year
34 are extant, proving that at that time the city belonged to the Romans. It is
impossible to assume that Aretas had received it as a gift from Tiberius, for the latter, especially in
his last years, was hostile to the King of the Nabataeans whom Vitellius, Governor of Syria, was ordered to attack (Joseph.
"Ant." XVIII, 5:13); neither could Aretas have possessed himself of it by force for, besides
the unlikelihood of a direct aggression against the Romans, the expedition of Vitellius was at first directed not against Damascus but
against Petra. It has therefore been somewhat plausibly conjectured that
Caligula, subject as he was to such whims, had ceded it to him at the time of
his accession (10 March, 37). As a matter of fact nothing is known of imperial
coins of Damascus dating from either Caligula or Claudius. According to this hypothesis
St. Paul's conversion was not prior to 34, nor his escape from Damascus and his first visit to
Jerusalem, to 37.
(2)
Death of Agrippa, famine in Judea, mission of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to
bring thither the alms from the Church of Antioch (Acts 11:27-12:25). Agrippa died shortly
after the Pasch (Acts 12:3, 19), when he was celebrating in Caesarea solemn
festivals in honour of Claudius's recent return from Britain, in the third year
of his reign, which had begun in 41 (Josephus, "Ant." XIX, 7:2).
These combined facts bring us to the year 44, and it is precisely in this year
that Orosius (Hist. 7:6) places
the great famine which desolated Judea. Josephus mentions it somewhat later,
under the procurator Tiberius Alexander (about 46), but it is well known that
the whole of Claudius's reign was characterized by poor harvests (Suet.
"Claudius," 18) and a general famine was usually preceded by a more
or less prolonged period of scarcity. It is also possible that the relief sent
in anticipation of the famine foretold by Agabus (Acts 11:28-29) preceded the appearance of the
scourge or coincided with the first symptoms of want. On the other hand, the
synchronism between the death of Herod and the mission of Paul can only be
approximate, for although the two facts are closely connected in the Acts the
account of the death of Agrippa may be a mere episode intended to shed light on
the situation of the Church of Jerusalem about the time of the arrival of the
delegates from Antioch. In any case, 45 seems to be the most satisfactory date.
(3)
Replacing of Felix by Festus two years after the arrest to Paul (Acts 24:27). Until recently chronologists
commonly fixed this important event, in the year 60-61. Harnack, 0. Holtzmann, and McGiffert suggest advancing it four or five years for the
following reasons: (1) In his "Chronicon", Eusebius places the arrival of Festus in the
second year of Nero (October, 55-October, 56, or if, as is asserted, Eusebius
makes the reigns of the emperors begin with the September after their
accession, September, 56-September, 57). But it must be borne in mind that the
chroniclers being always obliged to give definite dates, were likely to guess at them, and it may be that
Eusebius for lack of definite information divided into two equal parts the
entire duration of the government of Felix and Festus. (2) Josephus states
(Ant. XX, 8:9) that Felix having been recalled to Rome and accused by the Jews
to Nero, owed his safety only to his brother Pallas who was then high in
favour. But according to Tacitus (Annal. XIII, xiv-xv), Palles was dismissed shortly before Britannicus celebrated his fourteenth anniversary, that is, in
January, 55. These two statements are irreconcilable; for if Pallas was
dismissed three months after Nero's accession (13 October, 54) he could not
have been at the summit of his power when his brother Fel9:recalled from Palestine at the command of Nero about the time
of Pentecost, arrived at Rome. Possibly Pallas, who after his dismissal
retained his wealth and a portion of his influence, since he stipulated that
his administration should not be subjected to an investigation, was able to be
of assistance to his brother until 62 when Nero, to obtain possession of his
goods, Nero had him poisoned.
The
advocates of a later date bring forward the following reasons: (1) Two years
before the recall of Felix, Paul reminded him that he had been for many years
judge over the Jewish nation (Acts 24:10-27). This can scarcely mean less than
six or seven years, and as, according to Josephus who agrees with Tacitus, Felix was named procurator of Judea in 52, the
beginning of the captivity would fall in 58 or 59. It is true that the argument
loses its strength if it be admitted with several critics that Felix before
being procurator had held a subordinate position in Palestine. (2) Josephus
(Ant. XX, 8:5-8) places under Nero everything that pertains to the government
of Fel9:and although this long
series of events does not necessarily require many years it is evident that
Josephus regarded the government of Felix as coinciding for the most part with
the reign of Nero, which began on 13 October, 54. In fixing as follows the
chief dates in the life of Paul all certain or probable data seem to be
satisfactorily taken into account: Conversion, 35; first visit to Jerusalem,
37; sojourn at Tarsus, 37-43; apostolate at Antioch, 43-44; second visit to
Jerusalem, 44 or 45; first mission, 45-49; third visit to Jerusalem, 49 or 50;
second mission, 50-53; (I and II Thessalonians), 52; fourth visit to Jerusalem,
53; third mission, 53-57; (I and II Corinthians; Galatians), 56; (Romans), 57;
fifth visit to Jerusalem, arrest, 57; arrival of Festus, departure for Rome,
59; captivity at Rome, 60-62; (Philemon; Colossians; Ephesians; Philippians),
61; second period of activity, 62-66; (I Timothy; Titus), second arrest, 66;
(II Timothy), martyrdom, 67. (See Turner, "Chronology of the N. T."
in Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible" Hφnicke, "Die Chronologie des Lebens des Ap. Paulus," Leipzig, 1903.
Life and Work of Paul
A. Birth and Education
From
St. Paul himself we know that he was born at Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts 21:39), of a father who was a Roman citizen
(Acts 22:26-28; cf. 16:37), of a family in which piety was hereditary (II Tim.
1:3) and which was much attached to Pharisaic traditions and observances (Phil.
3:5-6). St. Jerome relates, on what ground is not known, that his parents were
natives of Gischala, a small town of
Galilee and that they brought him to Tarsus when Gischala was captured by the Romans ("De vir. ill."
v; "In epist. ad
Phil." 23). This
last detail is certainly an anachronism, but the Galilean origin of the family
is not at all improbable. As he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin he was given
at the time of his circumcision the name of Saul, which must have been common
in that tribe in memory of the first king of the Jews (Phil. 3:5). As a Roman
citizen he also bore the Latin name of Paul. It was quite usual for the Jews of
that time to have two names, one Hebrew, the other Latin or Greek, between which
there was often a certain assonance and which were joined together exactly in
the manner made use of by St. Luke (Acts 13:9: Saulos ho kai Paulos). See on this point Deissmann, "Bible Studies" (Edinburgh, 1903, 313-17.)
It was natural that in inaugurating his apostolate among the Gentiles Paul
should have adopted his Roman name, especially as the name Saul had a ludicrous
meaning in Greek. As every respectable Jew had to teach his son a trade, young
Saul learned how to make tents (Acts 18:3) or rather to make the mohair of
which tents were made (cf. Lewin, "Life of St. Paul," I, London,
1874, 8-9). He was still very young when sent to Jerusalem to receive his
education at the school of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Possibly some of his family resided in the holy city;
later there is mention of the presence of one of his sisters whose son saved
his life (Acts 23:16). From that time it is absolutely impossible to follow him
until he takes an active part in the martyrdom of St. Stephen (Acts 7:58-60;
22:20). He was then qualified as a young man (neanias), but this was very elastic appellation and might be
applied to a man between twenty and forty.
B. Conversion and early Labours
We
read in the Acts of the Apostles three accounts of the conversion of St. Paul
(9:1-19; 22:3-21; 26:9-23) presenting some slight differences, which it is not
difficult to harmonize and which do not affect the basis of the narrative,
which is perfectly identical in substance. See J. Massie, "The Conversion
of St. Paul" in "The Expositor," 3rd series, X, 1889, 241-62. Sabatier agreeing with most independent critics, has well said
(L'Apotre Paul, 1896, 42):
These differences cannot in any way alter the reality of the fact; their
bearing on the narrative is extremely remote; they do not deal even with the
circumstances accompanying the miracle but with the subjective impressions
which the companions of St. Paul received of these circumstances. . . . To base
a denial of the historical character of the account upon these differences
would seem therefore a violent and arbitrary proceeding." All efforts
hitherto made to explain without a miracle the apparition of Jesus to Paul have
failed. Naturalistic explanations are reduced to two: either Paul believed that
he really saw Christ, but was the victim of an hallucination, or he believed that he saw Him only
through a spiritual vision, which tradition, recorded in the Acts of the
Apostles, later erroneously materialized. Renan explained everything by hallucination due to disease
brought on by a combination of moral causes such as doubt, remorse, fear, and
of physical causes such as ophthalmia, fatigue, fever, the sudden transition
from the torrid desert to the fresh gardens of Damascus, perhaps a sudden storm
accompanied by lightning and thunder. All this combined, according to Renan's theory, to produce a cerebral commotion, a passing
delirium which Paul took in good faith for an apparition of the risen Christ.
The
other partisans of a natural explanation while avoiding the word hallucination,
eventually fall back on the system of Renan which they merely endeavour to render a little less
complicated. Thus Holsten,
for whom the vision of Christ is only the conclusion of a series of syllogisms
by which Paul persuaded himself that Christ was truly risen. So also Pfleiderer, who however, causes the imagination to play a more
influential part: "An excitable, nervous temperament; a soul that had been
violently agitated and torn by the most terrible doubts; a most vivid phantasy, occupied with the awful scenes of persecution on the
one hand and on the other by the ideal image of the celestial Christ; in
addition the nearness of Damascus with the urgency of a decision, the lonely
stillness, the scorching and blinding heat of the desert in fact everything
combined to produce one of those ecstatic states in which the soul believes
that it sees those images and conceptions which violently agitate it as if they
were phenomena proceeding from the outward world" (Lectures on the
influence of the Apostle Paul on the development of Christianity, 1897, 43). We
have quoted Pfleiderer's words at
length because his "psychological" explanation is considered the best
ever devised. It will readily be seen that it is insufficient and as much
opposed to the account in the Acts as to the express testimony of St. Paul
himself. (1) Paul is certain of having "seen" Christ as did the other
Apostles (I Cor. 9:1); he declares that Christ "appeared" to him (I
Cor. 15:8) as He appeared to Peter, to James, to the Twelve, after His
Resurrection. (2) He knows that his conversion is not the fruit of his
reasoning or thoughts, but an unforeseen, sudden, startling change, due to
all-powerful grace (Gal. 1:12-15; I Cor. 15:10). (3) He is wrongly credited
with doubts, perplexities, fears, remorse, before his conversion. He was halted
by Christ when his fury was at its height (Acts 9:1-2); it was "through
zeal" that he persecuted the Church (Phil. 3:6), and he obtained mercy
because he had acted "ignorantly in unbelief" (I Tim. 1:13). All
explanations, psychological or otherwise, are worthless in face of these
definite assertions, for all suppose that it was Paul's faith in Christ which
engendered the vision, whereas according to the concordant testimony of the
Acts and the Epistles it was the actual vision of Christ which engendered
faith.
After
his conversion, his baptism, and his miraculous cure Paul set about preaching
to the Jews (Acts 9:19-20). He afterwards withdrew to Arabia probably to the
region south of Damascus (Gal. i 17), doubtless less to preach than to meditate on the
Scriptures. On his return to Damascus the intrigues of the Jews forced him to
flee by night (II Cor. 11:32-33; Acts 9:23-25). He went to Jerusalem (Gal.
1:18), but remained only fifteen days, for the snares of the Greeks threatened
his life. He then left for Tarsus and is lost to sight for five or six years
(Acts 9:29-30; Gal. 1:21). Barnabas went in search of him and brought him to
Antioch where for a year they worked together and their apostolate was most
fruitful (Acts 11:25-26). Together also they were sent to Jerusalem to carry
alms to the brethren on the occasion of the famine predicted by Agabus (Acts 11:27-30). They do not seem to have found the
Apostles there; these had been scattered by the persecution of Herod.
Apostolic Career of Paul
This
period of twelve years (45-57) was the most active and fruitful of his life. It
comprises three great Apostolic expeditions of which Antioch was in each
instance the starting-point and which invariably ended in a visit to Jerusalem.
(1)
First mission (Acts 13:1-14:27)
Set
apart by command of the Holy Ghost for the special evangelization of the
Gentiles, Barnabas and Saul embark for Cyprus, preach in the synagogue of Salamina, cross the island from east to west doubtless
following the southern coast, and reach Paphos, the residence of the proconsul Sergius Paulus, where a sudden change takes place. After the conversion of the Roman
proconsul, Saul, suddenly become Paul, is invariably mentioned before Barnabas
by St. Luke and manifestly assumes the leadership of the mission which Barnabas
has hitherto directed. The results of this change are soon evident. Paul,
doubtless concluding that Cyprus, the natural dependency of Syria and Cilicia, would embrace the faith of Christ when these two
countries should be Christian, chose Asia Minor as the field of his apostolate
and sailed for Perge
in Pamphylia, eighth miles
above the mouth of the Cestrus.
It was then that John Mark, cousin of Barnabas, dismayed perhaps by the daring
projects of the Apostle, abandoned the expedition and returned to Jerusalem,
while Paul and Barnabas laboured alone among the rough mountains of Pisidia, which were infested by brigands and crossed by
frightful precipices. Their destination was the Roman colony of Antioch,
situated a seven day's journey from Perge. Here Paul spoke on the vocation of Israel and the
providential sending of the Messias, a discourse which St. Luke reproduces in substance as an example of
his preaching in the synagogues (Acts 13:16-41). The sojourn of the two
missionaries in Antioch was long enough for the word of the Lord to be
published throughout the whole country (Acts 13:49). When by their intrigues
the Jews had obtained against them a decree of banishment, they went to Iconium, three or four days distant, where they met with the
same persecution from the Jews and the same eager welcome from the Gentiles.
The hostility of the Jews forced them to take refuge in the Roman colony of Lystra, eighteen miles distant. Here the Jews from Antioch
and Iconium laid snares for
Paul and having stoned him left him for dead, but again he succeeded in
escaping and this time sought refuge in Derbe, situated about forty miles away on the frontier of
the Province of Galatia. Their circuit completed, the missionaries retraced
their steps in order to visit their neophytes, ordained priests in each Church
founded by them at such great cost, and thus reached Perge where they halted to preach the Gospel, perhaps while
awaiting an opportunity to embark for Attalia, a port twelve miles distant. On their return to
Antioch in Syria after an absence of at least three years, they were received
with transports of joy and thanksgiving, for God had opened the door of faith
to the Gentiles.
The
problem of the status of the Gentiles in the Church now made itself felt with
all its acuteness. Some Judeo-Christians coming down from Jerusalem claimed
that the Gentiles must be submitted to circumcision and treated as the Jews
treated proselytes. Against this Paul and Barnabas protested and it was decided
that a meeting should be held at Jerusalem in order to solve the question. At
this assembly Paul and Barnabas represented the community of Antioch. Peter
pleaded the freedom of the Gentiles; James upheld him, at the same time demanding
that the Gentiles should abstain from certain things which especially shocked
the Jews. It was decided, first, that the Gentiles were exempt from the Mosaic law. Secondly, that those of Syria and Cilicia must abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from
blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Thirdly, that this
injunction was laid upon them, not in virtue of the Mosaic law, but in the name of the Holy Ghost. This meant the
complete triumph of Paul's ideas. The restriction imposed on the Gentile
converts of Syria and Cilicia
did not concern his Churches, and Titus, his companion, was not compelled to be
circumcised, despite the loud protests of the Judaizers (Gal. 2:3-4). Here it is to be assumed that Gal. 2:and Acts 15, relate to the same fact, for the actors are
the same, Paul and Barnabas on the one hand, Peter and James on the other; the
discussion is the same, the question of the circumcision of the Gentiles; the
scenes are the same, Antioch and Jerusalem; the date is the same, about A. D. 50;
and the result is the same, Paul's victory over the Judaizers. However, the decision of Jerusalem did not do away
with all difficulties. The question did not concern only the Gentiles, and
while exempting them from the Mosaic law, it was not declared that it would not have been
counted meritorious and more perfect for them to observe it, as the decree
seemed to liken them to Jewish proselytes of the second class. Furthermore the
Judeo-Christians, not having been included in the verdict, were still free to
consider themselves bound to the observance of the law. This was the origin of
the dispute which shortly afterwards arose at Antioch between Peter and Paul.
The latter taught openly that the law was abolished for the Jews themselves.
Peter did not think otherwise, but he considered it wise to avoid giving
offence to the Judaizers
and to refrain from eating with the Gentiles who did not observe all the
prescriptions of the law. As he thus morally influenced the Gentiles to live as
the Jews did, Paul demonstrated to him that this dissimulation or opportuneness
prepared the way for future misunderstandings and conflicts and even then had
regrettable consequences. His manner of relating this incident leaves no room
for doubt that Peter was persuaded by his arguments (Gal. 2:11-20).
(2)
Second mission (Acts 15:36-18:22)
The
beginning of the second mission was marked by a rather sharp discussion
concerning Mark, whom St. Paul this time refused to accept as travelling
companion. Consequently Barnabas set out with Mark for Cyprus and Paul chose
Silas or Silvanus, a Roman citizen
like himself, and an influential member of the Church of Jerusalem, and sent by
it to Antioch to deliver the decrees of the Apostolic council. The two
missionaries first went from Antioch to Tarsus, stopping on the way in order to
promulgate the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem; then they went from
Tarsus to Derbe, through the Cilician Gates, the defiles of Tarsus, and the plains of Lycaonia. The visitation of the Churches founded during his
first mission passed without notable incidents except the choice of Timothy,
whom the Apostle while in Lystra persuaded to accompany him, and whom he caused to be circumcised in
order to facilitate his access to the Jews who were numerous in those places.
It was probably at Antioch of Pisidia, although the Acts do not mention that city, that the itinerary of the
mission was altered by the intervention of the Holy Ghost. Paul thought to
enter the Province of Asia by the valley of Meander which separated it by only
three day's journey, but they passed through Phrygia and the country of
Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word of God in
Asia (Acts 16:6). These words (ten phrygian kai Galatiken choran) are variously interpreted, according as we take them
to mean the Galatians of the north or of the south. Whatever the hypothesis,
the missionaries had to travel northwards in that portion of Galatia properly
so called of which Pessinonte
was the capital, and the only question is as to whether or not they preached
there. They did not intend to do so, but as is known the evangelization of the
Galatians was due to an accident, namely the illness of Paul (Gal. 4:13); this
fits very well for Galatians in the north. In any case the missionaries having
reached the Upper part of Mysia (kata Mysian), attempted to enter the rich Province of Bithynia,
which lay before them, but the Holy Ghost prevented them (Acts 16:7).
Therefore, passing through Mysia without stopping to preach (parelthontes) they reached Alexandria of Troas, where God's will
was again made known to them in the vision of a Macedonian who called them to
come and help his country (Acts 16:9-10).
Paul
continued to follow on European soil the method of preaching he had employed
from the beginning. As far as possible he concentrated his efforts in a
metropolis from which the Faith would spread to cities of second rank and to
the country districts. Wherever there was a synagogue he first took his stand
there and preached to the Jews and proselytes who would consent to listen to
him. When the rupture with the Jews was irreparable which always happened
sooner or later, he founded a new Church with his neophytes as a nucleus. He
remained in the same city until persecution, generally aroused by the intrigues
of the Jews, forced him to retire. There were, however, variations of this
plan. At Philippi, where there was no synagogue, the first preaching took place
in the uncovered oratory called the proseuche, which the Gentiles made a reason for stirring up the
persecution. Paul and Silas, charged with disturbing public order, were beaten
with rods, imprisoned, and finally exiled. But at Thessalonica and Berea,
whither they successively repaired after leaving Philipp1:things turned out almost as they had planned. The apostolate
of Athens was quite exceptional. Here there was no question of Jews or
synagogue, Paul, contrary to his custom, was alone (I Thess. 3:1), and he delivered before the areopagus a
specially framed discourse, a synopsis of which has been preserved by the Acts
(17:23-31) as a specimen of its kind. He seems to have left the city of his own
accord, without being forced to do so by persecution. The mission to Corinth on
the other hand may be considered typical. Paul preached in the synagogue every
Sabbath day, and when the violent opposition of the Jews denied him entrance
there he withdrew to an adjoining house which was the property of a proselyte
named Titus Justus. He carried on his apostolate in this manner for eighteen
months, while the Jews vainly stormed against him; he was able to withstand
them owing to the impartial, if not actually favourable, attitude of the
proconsul, Gallio. Finally he decided
to go to Jerusalem in fulfillment of a vow made perhaps in a moment of danger. From Jerusalem, according
to his custom, he returned to Antioch. The two Epistles to the Thessalonians
were written during the early months of his sojourn at Corinth. For
occasion, circumstances, and analysis of these letters.
(3)
Third mission (Acts 18:23-21:26)
Paul's
destination in his third journey was obviously Ephesus. There Aquila and Priscilla were awaiting him, he had promised the
Ephesians to return and evangelize them if it were the will of God (Acts
18:19-21), and the Holy Ghost no longer opposed his entry into Asia. Therefore,
after a brief rest at Antioch he went through the countries of Galatia and
Phrygia (Acts 18:23) and passing through "the upper regions" of
Central Asia he reached Ephesus (19:1). His method remained the same. In order to
earn his living and not be a burden to the faithful he toiled every day for
many hours at making tents, but this did not prevent him from preaching the
Gospel. As usual he began with the synagogue where he succeeded in remaining
for three months. At the end of this time he taught every day in a classroom
placed at his disposal by a certain Tyrannus "from the fifth hour to the tenth" (from
eleven in the morning till four in the afternoon), according to the interesting
addition of the "Codex Bezae" (Acts xix,9).
This lasted two years, so that all the inhabitants of Asia, Jews and Greeks,
heard the word of the Lord (Acts 19:20).
Naturally
there were trials to be endured and obstacles to be overcome. Some of these
obstacles arose from the jealousy of the Jews, who vainly endeavoured to
imitate Paul's exorcisms, others from the superstition of the pagans, which was
especially rife at Ephesus. So effectually did he triumph over it, however,
that books of superstition were burned to the value of 50,000 pieces of silver
(each piece about a day's wage). This time the persecution was due to the
Gentiles and inspired by a motive of self-interest. The progress of
Christianity having ruined the sale of the little facsimiles of the temple of
Diana and statuettes of the goddess, which devout pilgrims had been wont to
purchase, a certain Demetrius, at the head of the guild of silversmiths,
stirred up the crowd against Paul. The scene which then transpired in the
theatre is described by St. Luke with memorable vividness and pathos (Acts
19:23-40). The Apostle had to yield to the storm. After a stay at Ephesus of
two years and a half, perhaps more (Acts 20:31: trietian), he departed for Macedonia and thence for Corinth,
where he spent the winter. It was his intention in the following spring to go
by sea to Jerusalem, doubtless for the Pasch; but learning that the Jews had
planned his destruction, he did not wish, by going to sea, to afford them an
opportunity to attempt his life. Therefore he returned by way of Macedonia. Numerous
disciples divided into two groups, accompanied him or awaited him at Troas.
These were Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica, Gaius of Derbe, Timothy, Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia, and finally Luke, the historian of the Acts
who gives us minutely all the stages of the voyage: Philipp1:Troas, Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, Miletus, Cos, Rhodes, Patara, Tyre, Ptolemais, Caesarea, Jerusalem. Three more remarkable facts
should be noted in passing. At Troas Paul resuscitated the young Eutychus, who had fallen from a third-story window while Paul
was preaching late into the night. At Miletus he pronounced before the ancients of Ephesus the
touching farewell discourse which drew many tears (Acts 20:18-38). A Caesarea
the Holy Ghost by the mouth of Agabus, predicted his coming arrest, but did not dissuade
him from going to Jerusalem.
St.
Paul's four great Epistles were written during this third mission: the first to
the Corinthians from Ephesus, about the time of the Pasch prior to his departure
from that city; the second to the Corinthians from Macedonia, during the summer
or autumn of the same year; that to the Romans from Corinth, in the following
spring; the date of the Epistle to the Galatians is disputed. On the many
questions occasioned by the despatch and the language of these letters, or the
situation assumed either on the side of the Apostle or his correspondents.
Captivity (Acts 21:27-28:31)
Falsely
accused by the Jews of having brought Gentiles into the Temple, Paul was
ill-treated by the populace and led in chains to the fortress Antonia by the
tribune Lysias. The latter having
learned that the Jews had conspired treacherously to slay the prisoner sent him
under strong escort to Caesarea, which was the residence of the procurator Felix.
Paul had little difficulty in confounding his accusers, but as he refused to
purchase his liberty Felix kept him in chains for two years and even left him
in prison in order to please the Jews, until the arrival of his successor,
Festus. The new governor wished to send the prisoner to Jerusalem there to be
tried in the presence of his accusers; but Paul, who was acquainted with the
snares of his enemies, appealed to Caesar. Thenceforth his cause could be tried
only at Rome. This first period of captivity is characterized by five
discourses of the Apostle: The first was delivered in Hebrew on the steps of
the Antonia before the threatening crowd; herein Paul relates his conversion
and vocation to the Apostolate, but he was interrupted by the hostile shouts of
the multitude (Acts 22:1-22). In the second, delivered the next day, before the
Sanhedrin assembled at the command of Lysias, the Apostle skillfully embroiled the Pharisees with the Sadducees and no
accusation could be brought. In the third, Paul, answering his accuser Tertullus in the presence of the Governor Fel9:makes known the facts which had been distorted and proves
his innocence (Acts 24:10-21). The fourth discourse is merely an explanatory
summary of the Christian Faith delivered before Felix and his wife Drusilla
(Acts 24:24-25). The fifth, pronounced before the Governor Festus, King
Agrippa, and his wife Berenice,
again relates the history of Paul's conversion, and is left unfinished owing to
the sarcastic interruptions of the governor and the embarrassed attitude of the king (Acts xxvi).
The
journey of the captive Paul from Caesarea to Rome is described by St. Luke with
an exactness and vividness of colours which leave nothing to be desired. For
commentaries see Smith, "Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul" (1866);
Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen" (London, 1908).
The centurion Julius had shipped Paul and his fellow-prisoners on a merchant
vessel on board which Luke and Aristarchus were able to take passage. As the season was advanced
the voyage was slow and difficult. They skirted the coasts of Syria, Cilicia, and Pamphylia. At Myra in Lycia the prisoners were transferred to an Alexandrian
vessel bound for Italy, but the winds being persistently contrary a place in
Crete called Goodhavens
was reached with great difficulty and Paul advised that they should spend the
winter there, but his advice was not followed, and the vessel driven by the
tempest drifted aimlessly for fourteen whole days, being finally wrecked on the
coast of Malta. The three months during which navigation was considered most
dangerous were spent there, but with the first days of spring all haste was
made to resume the voyage. Paul must have reached Rome some time in March.
"He remained two whole years in his own hired lodging . . . preaching the
kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ,
with all confidence, without prohibition" (Acts 28:30-31). With these
words the Acts of the Apostles conclude.
There
is no doubt that Paul's trial terminated in a sentence of acquittal, for (1)
the report of the Governor Festus was certainly favourable as well as that of
the centurion. (2) The Jews seem to have abandoned their charge since their
co-religionists in Rome were not informed of it (Acts 28:21). (3) The course of
the proceedings led Paul to hope for a release, of which he sometimes speaks as
of a certainty (Phil. 1:25; 2:24; Philem. 22). (4) The pastorals if they are authentic assume
a period of activity for Paul subsequent to his captivity. The same conclusion
is drawn from the hypothesis that they are not authentic, for all agree that
the author was well acquainted with the life of the Apostle. It is the almost
unanimous opinion that the so-called Epistles of the captivity were sent from
Rome. Some authors have attempted to prove that St. Paul wrote them during his
detention at Caesarea, but they have found few to agree with them. The Epistles
to the Colossians, the Ephesians, and Philemon were despatched together and by
the same messenger, Tychicus.
It is a matter of controversy whether the Epistle to the Philippians was prior
or subsequent to these, and the question has not been answered by decisive
arguments.
Last Years
This
period is wrapped in deep obscurity for, lacking the account of the Acts we have no guide save
an often uncertain tradition and the brief references of the Pastoral epistles.
Paul had long cherished the desire to go to Spain (Rom. 15:24, 28) and there is
no evidence that he was led to change his plan. When towards the end of his
captivity he announces his coming to Philemon (22) and to the Philippians
(2:23-24), he does not seem to regard this visit as immediate since he promises
the Philippians to send them a messenger as soon as he learns the issue of his
trial; he therefore plans another journey before his return to the East.
Finally, not to mention the later testimony of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, the well-known text of St. Clement of Rome, the
witness of the "Muratorian
Canon," and of the "Acta Pauli" render probable Paul's journey to Spain. In any
case he can not have remained there long, for he was in haste to revisit his
Churches in the East. He may have returned from Spain through southern Gaul if
it was thither, as some Fathers have thought, and not to Galatia, that Crescens
was sent later (II Tim. 4:10). We may readily believe that he afterwards kept
the promise made to his friend Philemon and that on this occasion he visited
the churches of the valley of Lycus, Laodicea, Colossus, and Hierapolis.
The
itinerary now becomes very uncertain, but the following facts seem indicated by
the Pastorals: Paul remained in Crete exactly long enough to found there new
churches, the care and organization of which he confided to his fellow-worker
Titus (Tit. 1:5). He then went to Ephesus, and besought Timothy, who was
already there, to remain until his return while he proceeded to Macedonia (I
Tim. i,3). On this occasion he
paid his promised visit to the Philippians (Phil. 2:24), and naturally also saw
the Thessalonians. The letter to Titus and the First Epistle to Timothy must
date from this period; they seem to have been written about the same time and
shortly after the departure from Ephesus. The question is whether they were
sent from Macedonia or, which seems more probable, from Corinth. The Apostle
instructs Titus to join him at Nicopolis of Epirus where he intends to spend the winter
(Titus, 3:12). In the following spring he must have carried out his plan to
return to Asia (I Tim, 3:14-15). Here occurred the obscure episode of his
arrest, which probably took place at Troas; this would explain his having left
with Carpus a cloak and books which he needed (II Tim. 4:13). He was taken from
there to Ephesus, capital of the Province of Asia, where he was deserted by all
those on whom he thought he could rely (II Tim. 1:15). Being sent to Rome for
trial he left Trophimus
sick at Miletus, and Erastus, another of his companions, remained at Corinth, for
what reason is not clear (II Tim. 4:20). When Paul wrote his Second Epistle to
Timothy from Rome he felt that all human hope was lost (4:6).; he begs his disciple to rejoin him as quickly as
possible, for he is alone with Luke. We do not know if Timothy was able to
reach Rome before the death of the Apostle.
Ancient
tradition makes it possible to establish the following points: (1) Paul
suffered martyrdom near Rome at a place called Aquae Salviae (now Tre Fontane), somewhat east of the Ostian Way, about two miles from the splendid Basilica of
San Paolo fuori le mura which marks
his burial place. (2) The martyrdom took place towards the end of the reign of
Nero, in the twelfth year (St. Epiphanius), the thirteenth (Euthalius), or the fourteenth (St. Jerome). (3) According to
the most common opinion, Paul suffered in the same year and on the same day as
Peter; several Latin Fathers contend that it was on the same day but not in the
same year; the oldest witness, St. Dionysius the Corinthian, says only kata ton auton kairon, which may be translated "at the same time"
or "about the same time." (4) From time immemorial the solemnity of
the Apostles Peter and Paul has been celebrated on 29 June, which is the
anniversary either of their death or of the translation of their relics.
Formerly the pope, after having pontificated in the Basilica of St. Peter, went
with his attendants to that of St. Paul, but the distance between the two
basilicas (about five miles) rendered the double ceremony too exhausting,
especially at that season of the year. Thus arose the prevailing custom of transferring to the next day
(30 June) the Commemoration of St. Paul. The feast of the Conversion of St.
Paul (25 January) is of comparatively recent origin. There is reason for
believing that the day was first observed to mark the translation of the relics
of St. Paul at Rome, for so it appears in the Hieronymian Martyrology. It is unknown to the Greek Church.
Physical and Moral Portrait of St. Paul
We
know from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. VII, 18) that even in his time there existed paintings representing Christ and the Apostles Peter
and Paul. Paul's features have been preserved in three ancient monuments: (1) A
diptych which dates from not later than the fourth century (Lewin, "The
Life and Epistles of St. Paul," 1874, frontispiece of Vol. I and Vol.
II, 210). (2) A large medallion
found in the cemetery of Domitilla,
representing the Apostles Peter and Paul (Op. cit. II, 411). (3) A glass dish
in the British Museum, depicting the same Apostles (Farrara, "Life and Work of St. Paul," 1891, 896).
We have also the concordant descriptions of the "Acta Pauli et Theelae," of Pseudo-Lucian in Philopatris, of Malalas (Chronogr. x), and of Nicephorus (Hist. eccl. III, 37). Paul was short of stature; the Pseudo-Chrysostom calls him "the man of three cubits" (anthropos tripechys); he was broad-shouldered, somewhat bald, with
slightly aquiline nose, closely-knit eyebrows, thick, greyish beard, fair
complexion, and a pleasing and affable manner. He was afflicted with a malady
which is difficult to diagnose (cf. Menzies, "St. Paul's Infirmity"
in the Expository Times," July and Sept. 1904), but despite this painful
and humiliating infirmity (II Cor. 12:7-9; Gal. 4:13-14) and although his
bearing was not impressive (II Cor. 1:10), Paul must undoubtedly have been
possessed of great physical strength to have sustained so long such superhuman
labours (II Cor. 11:23-29). Pseudo-Chrysostom,
"In princip. apostol. Petrum et Paulum" (in P. G.
LIX, 494-95), considers that he died at the age of sixty-eight after having
served the Lord for thirty-five years.
The
moral portrait is more difficult to draw because it is full of contrasts. Its
elements will be found: in Lewin, op. cit. II, 11:410-35 (Paul's Person and
Character); in Farrar, Op, cit. Append9, Excursus I; and especially in Newman,
"Sermons preached on Various Occasions," 7,viii.
Until the Ascension of Christ
Bethsaida. St. Peter's true and original name was Simon,
sometimes occurring in the form Symeon. (Acts 15:14; II Peter 1:1). He was the son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth, the position of which cannot be established with
certainty, although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The
Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town.
Capharnaum. Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his
own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of Christ's public
ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement
of Alexandria (Stromata, 3:6:ed. Dindorf, 2:276), had children. The same writer relates the
tradition that Peter's wife suffered martyrdom (ibid. 7:11 ed. cit. 3:306).
Concerning these fActs
adopted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3:31) from Clement, the ancient Christian
literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke 5:3).
Peter
meets Our Lord. Like so many of his Jewish contemporaries, he was attracted by
the Baptist's preaching of penance and was, with his brother Andrew, among
John's associates in Bethania on the eastern bank of the Jordan. When, after
the High Council had sent envoys for the second time to the Baptist, the latter
pointed to Jesus who was passing, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God,"
Andrew and another disciple followed the Saviour to his residence and remained
with Him one day.
Later, meeting his brother. Simon, Andrew said "We have found the Messias," and brought him to Jesus, who, looking upon
him, said: "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." Already, at this
first meeting, the Saviour foretold the change of Simon's name to Cephas (Kephas; Aramaic Kipha, rock), which is translated Petros (Lat. Petrus) a proof that Christ had already special views with
regard to Simon. Later, probably at the time of his definitive call to the
Apostolate with the eleven other Apostles, Jesus actually gave Simon the name
of Cephas (Petrus), after which he was usually called Peter, especially
by Christ on the solemn occasion after Peter's profession of faith (Matthew
16:18; cf. below). The Evangelists often combine the two names, while St. Paul
uses the name Cephas.
Peter
becomes a disciple. After the first meeting Peter with the other early
disciples remained with Jesus for some time, accompanying Him to Galilee
(Marriage at Cana), Judaea, and Jerusalem, and through Samaria back to Galilee
(John 2-4). Here Peter resumed his occupation of fisherman for a short time,
but soon received the definitive call of the Saviour to become one of His
permanent disciples. Peter and Andrew were engaged at their calling when Jesus
met and addressed them: "Come ye after me, and I will make you to be
fishers of men." On the same occasion the sons of Zebedee were called (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; Luke
5:1-11; it is here assumed that Luke refers to the same occasion as the other
Evangelists). Thenceforth Peter remained always in the immediate neighbourhood
of Our Lord. After preaching the Sermon on the Mount and curing the son of the
centurion in Capharnaum,
Jesus came to Peter's house and cured his wife's mother, who was sick of a
fever (Matthew 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31). A little later Christ chose His Twelve
Apostles as His constant associates in preaching the kingdom of God.
Growing prominence among the
Twelve. Among the Twelve Peter
soon became conspicuous. Though of irresolute character, be clings with the
greatest fidelity, firmness of faith, and inward love to the Saviour; rash
alike in word and act, he is full of zeal and enthusiasm, though momentarily
easily accessible to external influences and intimidated by difficulties. The
more prominent the Apostles become in the Evangelical narrative, the more
conspicuous does Peter appear as the first among them. On various occasions
Peter speaks in the name of the other Apostles (Matthew 15:15; 19:27; Luke
12:41, etc.). When Christ's words are addressed to all the
Apostles, Peter answers in their name (e.g. Matthew 16:16). Frequently the Saviour turns specially to Peter (Matthew 26:40; Luke 22:31, etc.).
Very
characteristic is the expression of true fidelity to Jesus, which Peter
addressed to Him in the name of the other Apostles. Christ, after He had spoken
of the mystery of the reception of His Body and Blood (John 6:22 sqq.) and many of His disciples had left Him, asked the
Twelve if they too should leave Him; Peter's answer comes immediately:
"Lord to whom shall we
go? thou hast the words of
eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art
the Holy One of God" (Vulg. "thou art the Christ, the Son of
God"). Christ Himself
unmistakably accords Peter a special precedence and the first place among the
Apostles, and designates him for such on various occasions. Peter was one of
the three Apostles (with James and John) who were with Christ on certain
special occasions the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51); the
Transfiguration of Christ (Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:28), the Agony in the
Garden of Gethsemani (Matthew 26:37;
Mark 14:33). On several occasions also Christ favoured him above all the
others; He enters Peter's boat on Lake Genesareth to preach to the multitude on the shore (Luke 5:3);
when He was miraculously walking upon the waters, He called Peter to come to
Him across the lake (Matthew 14:28 sqq.); He sent him to the lake to catch the fish in whose
mouth Peter found the stater to pay as tribute (Matthew 17:24 sqq.).
His difficulty with Christ's
Passion. In spite of his firm
faith in Jesus, Peter had so far no clear knowledge of the mission and work of
the Saviour. The sufferings of Christ especially, as contradictory to his
worldly conception of the Messias, were inconceivable to him, and his erroneous conception occasionally
elicited a sharp reproof from Jesus (Matthew 16:21-23, Mark 8:31-33). Peter's
irresolute character, which continued notwithstanding his enthusiastic fidelity
to his Master, was clearly revealed in connection with the Passion of Christ.
The Saviour had already told him that Satan had desired him that he might sift
him as wheat. But Christ had prayed for him that his faith fail not, and, being
once converted, he confirms his brethren (Luke 22:31-32). Peter's assurance
that he was ready to accompany his Master to prison and to death, elicited
Christ's prediction that Peter should deny Him (Matthew 26:30-35; Mark
14:26-31; Luke 22:31-34; John 13:33-38). When Christ proceeded to wash the feet
of His disciples before the Last Supper, and came first to Peter, the latter at
first protested, but, on Christ's declaring that otherwise he should have no
part with Him, immediately said: "Lord, not only my feet, but also my
hands and my head" (John 13:1-10). In the Garden of Gethsemani Peter had to submit to the Saviour's reproach that he
had slept like the others, while his Master suffered deadly anguish (Mark
14:37). At the seizing of Jesus, Peter in an outburst of anger wished to defend
his Master by force, but was forbidden to do so. He at first took to flight
with the other Apostles (John 18:10-11; Matthew 26:56); then turning he
followed his captured Lord to the courtyard of the High Priest, and there
denied Christ, asserting explicitly and swearing that he knew Him not (Matthew
26:58-75; Mark 14:54-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-27). This denial was of
course due, not to a lapse of interior faith in Christ, but to exterior fear
and cowardice. His sorrow was thus so much the greater, when, after his Master
had turned His gaze towards him, he clearly recognized what he had done.
In
spite of this weakness, his position as head of the Apostles was later
confirmed by Jesus. The women, who were the first to find Christ's tomb empty,
received from the angel a special message for Peter (Mark 16:7). To him did
Christ appear on the first day after the Resurrection (Luke 24:34; I
Corinthians 15:5). But, most important of all, when He appeared at the Lake of Genesareth, Christ renewed to Peter His commission to feed and
defend His flock, after Peter had thrice affirmed his special love for his
Master (John 21:15-17). In conclusion Christ foretold the violent death Peter
would have to suffer, and thus invited him to follow Him in a special manner
(ibid. 20-23).
St. Peter in Jerusalem and Palestine
after the Ascension
Our
information concerning the earliest Apostolic activity of St. Peter in Jerusalem, Judaea, and the districts stretching northwards as far as
Syria is derived mainly from the first portion of the Acts of the Apostles, and
is confirmed by parallel statements incidentally in the Epistles of St. Paul.
Among
the crowd of Apostles and disciples who, after Christ's Ascension into Heaven
from Mount Olivet, returned to Jerusalem to await the fulfilment of His promise
to send the Holy Ghost. Peter takes the initiative in the appointment to the
Apostolic College of another witness of the life, death and resurrection of
Christ to replace Judas (Acts 1:15-26). After the descent of the Holy Ghost on
the feast of Pentecost, Peter delivers the first public sermon to proclaim the
life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and wins a large number of Jews as
converts to the Christian community (ibid. 2:14-41). First of the Apostles he
worked a public miracle, when with John he went up into the temple and cured
the lame man at the Beautiful Gate. To the people crowding in amazement about
the two Apostles, he preaches a long sermon in the Porch of Solomon, and brings
new increase to the flock of believers (ibid. 3:1-4:4).
In
the subsequent examinations of the two Apostles before the Jewish High Council,
Peter defends in undismayed and impressive fashion the cause of Jesus and the
obligation and liberty of the Apostles to preach the Gospel (ibid. 4:5-21).
When Ananias and Sapphira attempt to deceive the Apostles and the people Peter
appears as judge of their action, and God executes the sentence of punishment
passed by the Apostle by causing the sudden death of the two guilty parties
(ibid. 5:1-11). By numerous miracles God confirms the Apostolic activity of
Christ's confessors, and here also there is special mention of Peter, since it
is recorded that the inhabitants of Jerusalem and neighbouring towns carried
their sick in their beds into the streets so that the shadow of Peter might
fall on them and they might be thereby healed (ibid. 5:12-16). The
ever-increasing number of the faithful caused the Jewish supreme council to
adopt new measures against the Apostles, but "Peter and the Apostles"
answer that they "ought to obey God rather than men" (ibid. 5:29 sqq.). Not only in Jerusalem itself did Peter labour in
fulfilling the mission entrusted to him by his Master. He also retained
connection with the other Christian communities in Palestine, and preached the
Gospel both there and in the lands situated farther north. When Philip the
Deacon had won a large number of believers in Samaria, Peter and John were
deputed to proceed thither from Jerusalem to organize the community and to
invoke the Holy Ghost to descend upon the faithful. Peter appears a second time
as judge, in the case of the magician Simon, who had wished to purchase from
the Apostles the power that he also could invoke the Holy Ghost (ibid.
8:14-25). On their way back to Jerusalem, the two Apostles preached the joyous
tidings of the Kingdom of God. Subsequently, after Paul's departure from
Jerusalem and conversion before Damascus, the Christian communities in
Palestine were left at peace by the Jewish council.
Peter
now undertook an extensive missionary tour, which brought him to the maritime
cities, Lydda Joppe, and Caesarea. In Lydda he cured the palsied Eneas, in Joppe he raised Tabitha (Dorcas) from the dead; and at Caesarea, instructed by a vision which he had
in Joppe, he baptized and
received into the Church the first non-Jewish Christians, the centurion
Cornelius and his kinsmen (ibid. 9:31, 48). On Peter's return to Jerusalem a
little later, the strict Jewish Christians, who regarded the complete
observance of the Jewish law as binding on all, asked him why he had entered
and eaten in the house of the uncircumcised. Peter tells of his vision and
defends his action, which was ratified by the Apostles and the faithful in
Jerusalem (ibid. 11:1-18).
A
confirmation of the position accorded to Peter by Luke, in the Acts is afforded
by the testimony of St. Paul (Gal. 1:18-20). After his conversion and three
years' residence in Arabia, Paul came to Jerusalem "to see Peter."
Peter's long residence in Jerusalem and Palestine soon came to an end. Herod
Agrippa I began (A.D. 42-44) a new persecution of the Church in Jerusalem;
after the execution of James, the son of Zebedee, this ruler had Peter cast into prison, intending to
have him also executed after the Jewish Pasch was over. Peter, however, was
freed in a miraculous manner, and, proceeding to the house of the mother of
John Mark, where many of the faithful were assembled for prayer, informed them
of his liberation from the hands of Herod, commissioned them to communicate the
fact to James and the brethren, and then left Jerusalem to go to "another
place" (Acts 12:1-18). Concerning St. Peter's subsequent activity we
receive no further connected information from the extant sources, although we
possess short notices of certain individual episodes of his later life.
Missionary Journeys in the East;
Council of the Apostles
St.
Luke does not tell us whither Peter went after his liberation from the prison
in Jerusalem. From incidental statements we know that he subsequently made
extensive missionary tours in the East, although we are given no clue to the
chronology of his journeys. It is certain that he remained for a time at
Antioch; he may even have returned thither several times. The Christian
community of Antioch was founded by Christianized Jews who had been driven from
Jerusalem by the persecution (ibid. 11:19 sqq.). Peter's residence among them is proved by the
episode concerning the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law even by
Christianized pagans, related by St. Paul (Gal. 2:11-21). The chief Apostles in
Jerusalem the "pillars," Peter, James, and John had unreservedly
approved St. Paul's Apostolate to the Gentiles, while they themselves intended
to labour principally among the Jews. While Paul was dwelling in Antioch (the
date cannot be accurately determined), St. Peter came thither and mingled
freely with the non-Jewish Christians of the community, frequenting their
houses and sharing their meals. But when the Christianized Jews arrived in
Jerusalem, Peter, fearing lest these rigid observers of the Jewish ceremonial
law should be scandalized thereat, and his influence with the Jewish Christians
be imperiled, avoided thenceforth eating with the uncircumcised.
His
conduct made a great impression on the other Jewish Christians at Antioch, so
that even Barnabas, St. Paul's companion, now avoided eating with the
Christianized pagans. As this action was entirely opposed to the principles and
practice of Paul, and might lead to confusion among the converted pagans, this
Apostle addressed a public reproach to St. Peter, because his conduct seemed to
indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept
circumcision and the Jewish law. Paul did not hesitate to defend the immunity
of converted pagans from the Jewish Law. Concerning Peter's subsequent attitude
on this question St. Paul gives us no explicit information. But it is highly
probable that Peter ratified the contention of the Apostles of the Gentiles,
and thenceforth conducted himself towards the Christianized pagans as at first.
As the principal opponents of his views in this connexion, Paul names and
combats in all his writings only the extreme Jewish Christians coming
"from James" (i.e. from Jerusalem). While the date of this
occurrence, whether before or after the Council of the Apostles, cannot be
determined, it probably took place after the council. The later tradition, which
existed as early as the end of the second century (Origen,
"Hom.
vi in Lucam"; Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." 3:36), that Peter founded the
Church of Antioch, indicates the fact that he laboured a long period there, and also perhaps that he dwelt there towards the end
of his life and then appointed Evodrius, the first of the line of Antiochian bishops, head of the community. This latter view
would best explain the tradition referring the foundation of the Church of
Antioch to St. Peter.
It
is also probable that Peter pursued his Apostolic labours in various districts
of Asia Minor for it can scarcely be supposed that the entire period between
his liberation from prison and the Council of the Apostles was spent
uninterruptedly in one city, whether Antioch, Rome, or elsewhere. And, since he
subsequently addressed the first of his Epistles to the faithful in the
Provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia, one may reasonably assume that he had
laboured personally at least in certain cities of these provinces, devoting
himself chiefly to the Diaspora. The Epistle, however, is of a general
character, and gives little indication of personal relations with the persons
to whom it is addressed. The tradition related by Bishop Dionysius of Corinth
(in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." 2:28) in his letter to the Roman Church
under Pope Soter (165-74), that Peter
had (like Paul) dwelt in Corinth and planted the Church there, cannot be
entirely rejected. Even though the tradition should receive no support from the
existence of the "party of Cephas," which Paul mentions among the other divisions
of the Church of Corinth (I Cor. 1:12; 3:22), still Peter's sojourn in Corinth
(even in connection with the planting and government of the Church by Paul) is
not impossible. That St. Peter undertook various Apostolic journeys (doubtless
about this time, especially when he was no longer permanently residing in
Jerusalem) is clearly established by the general remark of St. Paul in I Corinthians
9:5, concerning the "rest of the apostles, and the brethren [cousins] of
the Lord, and Cephas,"
who were travelling around in the exercise of their Apostleship.
Peter
returned occasionally to the original Christian Church of Jerusalem, the
guidance of which was entrusted to St. James, the relative of Jesus (A.D.
42-44). The last mention of St. Peter in the Acts (15:1-29; cf. Gal. 2:1-10)
occurs in the report of the Council of the Apostles on the occasion of such a
passing visit. In consequence of the trouble caused by extreme Jewish
Christians to Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, the Church of this city sent these
two Apostles with other envoys to Jerusalem to secure a definitive decision
concerning the obligations of the converted pagans. In addition to James, Peter
and John were then (about A.D. 50-51) in Jerusalem. In the discussion and
decision of this important question.
When
a great divergence of views had manifested itself in the assembly. Long before, in accordance with God's testimony, he
had announced the Gospels to the heathen (conversion of Cornelius and his
household); why, therefore, attempt to place the Jewish yoke on the necks of
converted pagans? After Paul and Barnabas had related how God had wrought among
the Gentiles by them, James, the chief representative of the Jewish Christians,
adopted Paul's view and in agreement therewith made proposals which were
expressed in an encyclical to the converted pagans.
The
occurrences in Caesarea and Antioch and the debate at the Council of Jerusalem
show clearly Peter's attitude towards the converts from paganism. Like the
other eleven original Apostles, he regarded himself as called to preach the
Faith in Jesus first among the Jews (Acts 10:42), so that the chosen people of
God might share in the salvation in Christ, promised to them primarily and
issuing from their midst. The vision at Joppe and the effusion of the Holy Ghost over the converted
pagan Cornelius and his kinsmen determined Peter to admit these forthwith into
the community of the faithful, without imposing on them the Jewish Law. During
his Apostolic journeys outside
Palestine, he recognized in practice the equality of Gentile and Jewish
converts, as his original conduct at Antioch proves. His aloofness from the
Gentile converts, out of consideration for the Jewish Christians from
Jerusalem, was by no means an official recognition of the views of the extreme Judaizers, who were so opposed to St. Paul. This is established
clearly and incontestably by his attitude at the Council of Jerusalem. Between
Peter and Paul there was no dogmatic difference in their conception of
salvation for Jewish and Gentile Christians. The recognition of Paul as the
Apostle of the Gentiles (Gal. 2:1-9) was entirely sincere, and excludes all
question of a fundamental divergence of views. St. Peter and the other Apostles
recognized the converts from paganism as Christian brothers on an equal
footing; Jewish and Gentile Christians formed a single Kingdom of Christ. If
therefore Peter devoted the preponderating portion of his Apostolic activity to the Jews, this arose chiefly from
practical considerations.
Activity and Death in Rome
It
is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome
during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by
martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital,
the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of
his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions
are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded.
St.
Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as
historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of
the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.
That
the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in
widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from
the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ's prophecy
that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not "And
this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God" (John
21:18-19). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.
From
Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the
testimony of the old presbyters (i.e. the disciples of the Apostles), we learn
that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who
desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and
his disciples (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." 2:15; 3:11; 6:xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 3:1).
Another
testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of
Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he
says (v): "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous
supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let
us place before our eyes the good Apostles St. Peter, who in consequence of
unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus
given testimony (martyresas),
has entered the merited place of glory." He then mentions Paul and a number
of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among
us" (en hemin, i.e. among the Romans, the meaning that the
expression also bears in chap. Iv).
He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter
and Paul to that epoch.
In
his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while
being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch
endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for
his pardon, remarking: "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they
were Apostles, while I am but a captive" (Ad. Rom. iv). The meaning of this remark must be that the two
Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the
Gospel there.
Bishop
Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says: "You have therefore by your
urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome
and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and
together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy
and at the same time suffered martyrdom" (in Eusebius, "Hist.
Eccl." 2:28).
Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a
considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and
then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman
Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as
"the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized
at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" (Adv. haer. 3:3; cf. 3:1). He thus makes use of the universally
known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a
proof from tradition against the heretics.
In his "Hypotyposes" (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." 4:14), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the
catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the
tradition of the presbyters: "After Peter had announced the Word of God in
Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers
requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write
down what the Apostles had preached to them."
Like
Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the
proof afforded by the Apostolic
labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In
"De Praescriptione," 35:he says: "If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome
where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which
the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter
has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of
John" (scil. the Baptist). In
"Scorpiace," 15, he
also speaks of Peter's crucifixion. "The budding faith Nero first made
bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the
cross." As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism
is administered, he states in his book ("On Baptism," ch. v) that there is "no difference between that
with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in
the Tiber"; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, "to whom
Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood" (Adv.
Marc. 4:5).
The
Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome
in the time of Pope Zephyrinus
(198-217), wrote in his "Dialogue with Proclus" (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." 2:28)
directed against the Montanists:
"But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the
Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have
founded this Church." By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but
his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of
execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct,
as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place
of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was
executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers
to "the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been
preserved to the present day on the burial-places there" (i.e. at Rome).
There
thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of
the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment ("Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat," ed. Preuschen, Tubingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition
concerning Peter's death in Rome.
The
apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise
belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome.
Although
the fact of St. Peter's activity and death in Rome is established, we possess
no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn. The
narratives contained in the apocryphal literature of the second century
concerning the supposed strife between Peter and Simon Magus belong to the domain of legend. From the already mentioned
statements regarding the origin of the Gospel of St. Mark we may conclude that
Peter laboured for a long period in Rome. It is widely held that Peter paid a
first visit to Rome after he had been miraculously liberated from the prison in
Jerusalem; that, by "another place," Luke meant Rome, but omitted the
name for special reasons. It is not impossible that Peter made a missionary
journey to Rome about this time (after 42 A.D.), but such a journey cannot be
established with certainty. At any rate, we cannot appeal in support of this
theory to the chronological notices in Eusebius and Jerome, since, although
these notices extend back to the chronicles of the third century, they are not
old traditions, but the result of calculations on the basis of episcopal lists. Into the Roman list of bishops dating from the
second century, there was introduced in the third century (as we learn from
Eusebius and the "Chronograph of 354") the notice of a twenty-five
years' pontificate for St. Peter, but we are unable to trace its origin. This
entry consequently affords no ground for the hypothesis of a first visit by St.
Peter to Rome after his liberation from prison (about 42). We can therefore
admit only the possibility of such an early visit to the capital.
The
task of determining the year of St. Peter's death is attended with similar
difficulties. In the fourth century, and even in the chronicles of the third,
we find two different entries. In the "Chronicle" of Eusebius the
thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of Peter
and Paul (67-68); this date, accepted by Jerome, is that generally held. The
year 67 is also supported by the statement, also accepted by Eusebius and
Jerome, that Peter came to Rome under the Emperor Claudius (according to
Jerome, in 42), and by the above-mentioned tradition of the twenty-five years'
episcopate of Peter (cf. Bartolin1:"Sopra l'anno 67 se fosse quello del martirio dei gloriosi Apostoli," Rome, 1868). A different statement is furnished by the
"Chronograph of 354" (ed. Duchesne, "Liber Pontificalis," 1:1 sqq.). This refers St. Peter's arrival in Rome to the
year 30, and his death and that of St. Paul to 55.
Duchesne has shown that the dates in the
"Chronograph" were inserted in a list of the popes which contains
only their names and the duration of their pontificates, and then, on the
chronological supposition that the year of Christ's death was 29, the year 30
was inserted as the beginning of Peter's pontificate, and his death referred to
55,(op. cit. introd. vi sqq.).
This date has however been recently defended by Kellner ("Jesus von Nazareth u. seine Apostel im
Rahmen der Zeitgeschichte," Ratisbon, 1908; "Tradition geschichtl. Bearbeitung u. Legende in der
Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters," Bonn, 1909). Other historians have accepted the year 65 (e. g.
Bianchin1:in his edition of the
"Liber Pontilicalis" in P.
L.. CXXVII. 435 sqq.) or 66 (e. g. Foggin1:"De romani
b. Petri itinere et episcopatu,"
Florence, 1741; also Tillemont). Harnack endeavoured to establish the year 64 (i . e .
the beginning of the Neronian
persecution) as that of Peter's death ("Gesch. der
altchristl. Lit. bis
Eusebius," pt. 2:"Die Chronologie," 1:240 sqq.). This date, which had been already supported by
Cave, du Pin, and Wieseler,
has been accepted by Duchesne
(Hist. ancienne de l'eglise, 1:64). Erbes refers St. Peter's death to 22 Feb. 63, St. Paul's to
64 ("Texte u. Untersuchungen," new series, 4:1:Leipzig, 1900, "Die Todestage der Apostel Petrus u. Paulus u. ihre rom. Denkmaeler"). The date of Peter's death is thus not yet
decided; the period between July, 64 (outbreak of the Neronian persecution), and the beginning of 68 (on 9 July Nero
fled from Rome and committed suicide) must be left open for the date of his
death. The day of his martyrdom is also unknown; 29 June, the accepted day of
his feast since the fourth century, cannot be proved to be the day of his
death.
Concerning
the manner of Peter's death, we possess a tradition attested to by Tertullian at the end of the second century and by Origen (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." 2:i) that he suffered crucifixion. Origen says: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head
downwards, as he himself
had desired to suffer." As the place of execution may be accepted with
great probability the Neronian
Gardens on the Vatican, since there, according to Tacitus, were enacted in general the gruesome scenes of the Neronian persecution; and in this district, in the vicinity of
the Via Cornelia and at the foot of the Vatican Hills, Peter found his burial
place. Of this grave (since the word tropaion was, as already remarked, rightly understood of the
tomb) Caius already speaks in
the third century. For a time the remains of Peter lay with those of Paul in a
vault on the Appian
Way at the place ad Catacumbas, where the Church of St. Sebastian (which on its
erection in the fourth century was dedicated to the two Apostles) now stands.
The remains had probably been brought thither at the beginning of the Valerian
persecution in 258, to protect them from the threatened desecration when the
Christian burial-places were confiscated. They were later restored to their
former resting-place, and Constantine the Great had a magnificent basilica
erected over the grave of St. Peter at the foot of the Vatican Hill. This
basilica was replaced by the present St. Peter's in the sixteenth century. The
vault with the altar built above it (confessio) has been since the fourth
century the most highly venerated martyr's shrine in the West. In the
substructure of the altar, over the vault which contained the sarcophagus with
the remains of St. Peter, a cavity was made. This was closed by a small door in
front of the altar. By opening this door the pilgrim could enjoy the great
privilege of kneeling directly over the sarcophagus of the Apostle. Keys of
this door were given as previous souvenirs (cf. Gregory of Tours, "De gloria martyrum," 1:28).
The
memory of St. Peter is also closely associated with the Catacomb of St.
Priscilla on the Via Salaria.
According to a tradition, current in later Christian antiquity, St. Peter here
instructed the faithful and administered baptism. This tradition seems to have
been based on still earlier monumental testimonies. The catacomb is situated
under the garden of a villa of the ancient Christian and senatorial family, the
Acilii Glabriones, and its foundation extends back to the end of the
first century; and since Acilius
Glabrio, consul in 91, was
condemned to death under Domitian
as a Christian, it is quite possible that the Christian faith of the family
extended back to Apostolic times, and that the Peter had been given hospitable
reception in their house during his residence at Rome. The relations between
Peter and Pudens whose house stood
on the site of the present titular church of Pudens (now Santa Pudentiana) seem to rest rather on a legend.
Like the brothers, Peter and Andrew, Philip was a
native of Bethsaida on Lake Genesareth (John 1:44). He also was among those surrounding the
Baptist when the latter first pointed out Jesus as the Lamb of God. On the day
after Peter's call, when about to set out for Galilee, Jesus met Philip and
called him to the Apostolate with the words, "Follow me." Philip
obeyed the call, and a little later brought Nathaniel as a new disciple (John
1:43-45). On the occasion of the selection and sending out of the twelve,
Philip is included among the Apostles proper. His name stands in the fifth
place in the three lists (Mat.10:2-4; Mark 3:14-19; Luke 6:13-16) after the two
pairs of brothers, Peter and Andrew, James and John. The Fourth Gospel records
three episodes concerning Philip which occurred during the epoch of the public
teaching of the Saviour:
Before
the miraculous feeding of the multitude, Christ turns towards Philip with the
question: "Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?" to which the Apostle answers:
"Two hundred penny-worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every
one may take a little" (6:5-7).
When
some heathens in Jerusalem came to Philip and expressed their desire to see
Jesus, Philip reported the fact to Andrew and then both brought the news to the
Saviour (12:21-23).
When
Philip, after Christ had spoken to His Apostles of knowing and seeing the
Father, said to Him: "Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us," he
received the answer: "He that seeth me, seeth the Father also" (14:8-9).
These
three episodes furnish a consistent character-sketch of Philip as a naοve,
somewhat shy, sober-minded man. No additional characteristics are given in the
Gospels or the Acts although he is mentioned in the latter work (1:13) as
belonging to the Apostolic College.
The
second-century tradition concerning him is uncertain, inasmuch as a similar
tradition is recorded concerning Philip the Deacon and Evangelist a
phenomenon which must be the result of confusion caused by the existence of the
two Philips. In his letter to St. Victor, written about 189-98, bishop Polycrates of Ephesus mentions among the "great
lights," whom the Lord will seek on the "last day,"
"Philip, one of the Twelve Apostles, who is buried in Hieropolis with his two daughters, who grew old as
virgins," and a third daughter, who "led a life in the Holy Ghost and
rests in Ephesus." On the other hand, according to the Dialogue of Caius, directed against a Montanist named Proclus, the latter declared that "there were four
prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at Hieropolis in Asia where their and their father's grave is still
situated." The Acts (21:8-9) does indeed mention four prophetesses, the
daughters of the deacon and "Evangelist" Philip, as then living in
Caesarea with their father, and Eusebius who gives the above-mentioned excerpts
(Hist. Eccl. 3:32), refers Proclus' statement to these latter. The statement of Bishop Polycrates carries in itself more authority, but it is
extraordinary that three virgin daughters of the Apostle Philip (two buried in Hieropolis) should be mentioned, and that the deacon Philip
should also have four daughters, said to have been buried in Hieropolis. Here also perhaps we must suppose a confusion of the
two Philips to have taken place, although it is difficult to decide which of
the two, the Apostle or the deacon, was buried in Hieropolis. Many modern historians believe that it was the
deacon; it is, however, possible that the Apostle was buried there and that the
deacon also lived and worked there and was there buried with three of his
daughters and that the latter were afterwards erroneously regarded as the
children of the Apostle. The apocryphal "Acts of Philip," which
are, however purely legendary and a tissue of fables, also refer Philip's death
to Hieropolis. The remains of the Philip who was interred in Hieropolis were later translated (as those of the Apostle) to
Constantinople and thence to the church of the Dodici Apostoli in Rome. The feast of the Apostle is celebrated in the Roman Church on
1 May (together with that of James the Younger), and in the Greek Church on 14
November.
Little is recorded of St. Thomas the Apostle, nevertheless thanks to the fourth Gospel his
personality is clearer to us than that of some others of the Twelve. His name
occurs in all the lists of the Synoptists (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6, cf. Acts 1:13), but
in St. John he plays a distinctive part. First, when Jesus announced His intention
of returning to Judea to visit Lazarus, "Thomas" who is called Didymus [the twin], said to his fellow disciples: "Let
us also go, that we may die with him" (John 11:16). Again it was St.
Thomas who during the discourse before the Last Supper raised an objection:
"Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?" (John 14:5). But
more especially St. Thomas is remembered for his incredulity when the other
Apostles announced Christ's Resurrection to him: "Except I shall see in
his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the
nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe" (John 20:25);
but eight days later he made his act of faith, drawing down the rebuke of
Jesus: "Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed; blessed are
they that have not seen, and have believed" (John 20:29).
This
exhausts all our certain knowledge regarding the Apostle but his name is the
starting point of a considerable apocryphal literature, and there are also
certain historical data which suggest that some of this apocryphal material may
contains germs of truth. The principal document concerning him is the
"Acta Thomae," preserved to
us with some variations both in Greek and in Syriac, and bearing unmistakeable
signs of its Gnostic origin. It may indeed be the work of Bardesanes himself. The story in many of its particulars is
utterly extravagant, but it is the early date, being assigned by Harnack (Chronologie, 2:172) to the beginning of the third century, before
A. D. 220. If the place of its origin is really Edessa, as Harnack and others for sound reasons supposed (ibid. p. 176), this would lend
considerable probability to the statement, explicitly made in "Acta"
(Bonnet, cap. 170, p.286), that the relics of Apostle Thomas, which we know to
have been venerated at Edessa,
had really come from the East. The extravagance of the legend may be judged
from the fact that in more than one place (cap. 31, p. 148) it represents
Thomas (Judas Thomas, as he is called here and elsewhere in Syriac tradition)
as the twin brother of Jesus. The Thomas in Syriac is equivalant to didymos in Greek, and means twin. Rendel Harris who exaggerates very much the cult of the
Dioscur1:wishes to regards this as
a transformation of a pagan worship of Edessa but the point is at best problematical. The story
itself runs briefly as follows: At the division of the Apostles, India fell to
the lot of Thomas, but he declared his inability to go, whereupon his Master
Jesus appeared in a supernatural way to Abban, the envoy of Gundafor, an Indian king, and sold Thomas to him to be his
slave and serve Gundafor
as a carpender. Then Abban and Thomas sailed away until they came to Andrapolis, where they landed and attended the marriage feast of
the ruler's daughter. Strange occurences followed and Christ under the appearence of Thomas exhorted the bride to remain a Virgin.
Coming to India Thomas undertook to build a palace for Gundafor, but spend the money entrusted to him on the poor. Gundafor imprisoned him; but the Apostle escaped miraculously
and Gundafor was converted.
Going about the country to preach, Thomas met with strange adventures from
dragons and wild asses. Then he came to the city of King Misdai (Syriac Mazdai), where he converted Tertia the wife of Misdai and Vazan his son. After this he was condemed to death, led out of city to a hill, and pierced
through with spears by four soldiers. He was buried in the tomb of the ancient
kings but his remains were afterwards removed to the West.
Now
it is certainly a remarkable fact that about the year A.D. 46 a king was
reigning over that part of Asia south of Himalayas now represented by
Afghanistan, Baluchistan, the Punjab, and Sind, who bore the name Gondophernes or Guduphara. This we know both from the discovery of coins, some
of the Parthian type with Greek
legends, others of the Indian types with the legends in an Indian dialect in Kharoshthi characters. Despite sundry minor variations the
identity of the name with the Gundafor of the "Acta Thomae" is unmistakable and is hardly disputed. Further we have the
evidence of the Takht-i-Bahi inscription, which is dated and which the best specialists accept as
establishing the King Gunduphara
probably began to reign about A.D. 20 and was still reigning in 46. Again there
are excellent reasons for believing that Misdai or Mazdai may well be transformation of a Hindu name made on the Iranian soil.
In this case it will probably represent a certain King Vasudeva of Mathura, a successor of Kanishka.
No doubt it can be urged that the Gnostic romancer who wrote the "Acta Thomae" may have adopted a few historical Indian names
to lend verisimilitude to his fabrication, but as Mr. Fleet urges in his
severely critical paper "the names put forward here in connection with St.Thomas are distinctly not such as have lived in Indian story
and tradition" (Joul.
of R. Asiatic Soc.1905, p.235).
On
the other hand, though the tradition that St. Thomas preached in
"India" was widely spread in both East and West and is to be found in
such writers as Ephraem
Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinus, Jerome, and, later Gregory of Tours and others,
still it is difficult to discover any adequate support for the long-accepted
belief that St. Thomas pushed his missionary journeys as far south as Mylapore, not far from Madras, and there suffered martyrdom.
In that region is still to be found a granite bas-relief cross with a Pahlavi (ancient Persian) inscription dating from the seventh
century, and the tradition that it was here that St. Thomas laid down his life
is locally very strong. Certain it is also that on the Malabar or west coast of
southern India a body of Christians still exists using a form of Syriac for its
liturgical language. Whether this Church dates from the time of St. Thomas the
Apostle (there was a Syro-Chaldean
bishop John "from India and Persia" who assisted at the Council of Nicea in 325) or whether the Gospel was first preached
there in 345 owing to the Persian persecution under Shapur (or Sapor), or whether the Syrian missionaries who
accompanied a certain Thomas Cana penetrated to the Malabar coast about the year 745 seems difficult to
determine. We know only that in the sixth century Cosmas Indicopleustes speaks of the existence of Christians at Male (?Malabar) under a bishop who had been consecrated in Persia.
King Alfred the Great is stated in the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" to
have sent an expedition to establish relations with these Christians of the Far
East. On the other hand the reputed relics of St. Thomas were certainly at Edessa in the fourth century, and there they remained until
they were translated to Chios
in 1258 and towards to Ortona.
The improbable suggestion that St. Thomas preached in America (American Eccles.
Rev. 1899, pp.1-18) is based upon a misunderstanding of the text of the Acts of
Apostles (1:8; cf. Berchet
"Fonte italiane per la storia della scoperta del Nuovo Mondo," 2:236, and 1:44).
Besides
the "Acta Thomae"
of which a different and notably shorter redaction exists in Ethiopic and
Latin, we have an abbreviated form of a so-called "Gospel of Thomas"
originally Gnostic, as we know it now merely a fantastical history of the
childhood of Jesus, without any notably heretical colouring. There is also a
"Revelatio Thomae," condemned as apocryphal in the Degree of Pope Gelasius, which has recently been recovered from various
sources in a fragmentary condition.
Sources:/www.holytrinitymission.org