The idea of apostolicity in Byzantium and the legend of the Apostle Andrew

Francis Dvornik



The Birth of the Andrew Tradition Concerning Byzantium


The transfer of Andrew’s relics and its meaning — No trace of the Andrew tradition in Chrysostom’s writings — St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret and Basil of Seleucia on Andrew — Western writers on Andrew, his cult in the West — The Andrew Legend unknown in the sixth century — The see of Constantinople called "apostolic” from the seventh century onward — This usage not originated by the Andrew Legend — The defenders of image-worship promote the idea of apostolicity in Constantinople — The Narratio key to the dating of writings containing the Andrew and Stachys Legend ? — First codification of the Andrew Legend in Pseudo-Epiphanius’ List of Disciples — Origin of List of Apostles and Disciples ; dating of Pseudo-Epiphanius’ List — Pseudo-Dorotheus’ List later than Pseudo-Epiphanius’ List and the Narratio.



The course of events had made the Byzantines increasingly aware of the importance which the idea of apostolicity was gaining in their relationship with Rome. That the bishopric of Byzantium was not of apostolic foundation must have appeared to many a serious handicap ; so it would hardly have been surprising if some Byzantine zealots had tried to surmount it by showing that the bishopric of Byzantium was also founded by an apostle.


It was not very difficult to connect the beginnings of the Church of Byzantium with a disciple of Christ. The relics of one of the most prominent of them—St. Andrew—reposed in the Church of the Holy Apostles, together with the bodies of the holy Evangelist St. Luke, and Paul’s disciple St. Timothy. St. Andrew was one of Christ's principal disciples. He was Peter’s brother and the first of the apostles to be chosen; it was he who had introduced Peter to Christ, and it was on Peter’s name that all Rome’s pretensions to primacy in the Church rested.





It was on such facts as these that the tradition of Byzantium’s apostolic origin was to be based, but it is important to learn when the tradition appeared for the first time, how it developed and how it came to be taken for granted by all Byzantines.


It would appear, at first, that the transfer of the relics believed to be those of the Apostle Andrew, St. Luke, and Timothy, to the Church of the Holy Apostles in the newly-founded city of Constantine was intended to bolster the prestige of the bishops of the residential city, but this was not the case. The transfer of the relics should be attributed not to Constantine, but to his son Constantius, [1] who intended thereby to stress the sublime position of the emperors and the priestly character of the basileia. [2] That such was Constantius’ intention, is indicated by Socrates, although he ascribes the construction of the Church of the Holy Apostles and the transfer of the relics to Constantine. In his report on Constantine’s death, Socrates says: [3]


"After this, when Constantius arrived from the East [Constantine’s] body was honored with a royal funeral, and was placed in the church named for the apostles, which he [Constantine] had built for this purpose, so that the emperors and priests should not be separated from the relics of the apostles.”


The last words cannot be interpreted as meaning that Constantine intended to reserve the church for the burial of both emperors and bishops. They are, rather, the expression of the priestly character with which the Hellenistic theory of kingship adorned the basileus and which was finding acceptance among the first Christian political thinkers. [4]



1. See G. Downey, “The Builder of the Original Church of the Apostles at Constantinople," Dumbaton Oaks Papers, 6 (1951), pp. 51-80. Cf. also the reviews of this study by the following scholars:

·       F. Halkin in Analecta Bollandiana, 70 (1952), pp. 349-350;

·       R. J. H. Jenkins in Journal of Hellenic Studies, 73 (1953), p. 192;

·       A.E.R. Boak in Speculum, 28 (1953), pp. 155-158;

·       N. H. Baynes in English Historical Review, 68 (1953), pp. 79-82;

·       J. Goubert in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 19 (Rome, 1953), pp. 234-236, and

·       D. Talbot Rice in Antiquaries Journal, 33 (1953), pp. 91 and 92.


2. It is the author's intention to study the political ideas of Constantius in his book Origins of Christian Political Philosophy (chap. 7), now in preparation. In the present work only some essential remarks are made on this subject.


3. Historia ecclesiastica, i, 40; PG, 67, col. 180:

Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐκ τῶν ἀνατολικῶν μερῶν ἐπιστάντος Κωνσταντίου, κηδείας τῆς βασιλικῆς ἠξιοῦτο, ἀποτεθεὶς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ ἐπωνύμῳ τῶν Ἀποστόλων, ἣν δι᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτο πεποιήκει, ὅπως ἂν οἱ βασιλεῖς τε καὶ ἱερεῖς τῶν ἀποστολικῶν λειψάνων μὴ ἀπολιμπάνοιντο.


4. See F. Dvornik “Emperors, Popes and General Councils," in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 6 (1951), pp. 16-22.





The testimony of St. John Chrysostom, who occupied the see of Constantinople from 398 to 404, can also be adduced as a clear indication that the church of the Holy Apostles was regarded only as a burial place of the emperors. In one of his homilies [5] he exclaims :


“In the most imperial city, Rome, emperors and consuls and generals cast all else aside and ran to the tombs of the fisherman and the tentmaker [Peter and Paul], and in Constantinople those who wear the diadem consider it a source of satisfaction to have their bodies buried not close to the apostles, but outside, alongside the vestibule, and so the emperors have become the doorkeepers of the fishermen, and in their death they are not dishonored but are rendered proud, not themselves alone, but their children as well.”


This idea is even more clearly expressed by Chrysostom in another homily: [6]


"For there, too [in Constantinople], his son [Constantius] considered that he was honoring Constantine the Great with a great honor if he laid him in the vestibule of the fisherman ; and what the gatekeepers of palaces are to the sovereign, the emperors are to the fishermen in their place of burial. For the latter [the apostles] are the masters who dwell within the place, and the former [the emperors], like neighbors living nearby, are happy to have the gate of the courtyard entrusted to their care, so that from these places they may show unbelievers that at the time of resurrection the fishermen enjoy greater prominence.”


The fact that the relics of St. Andrew, St. Luke, and St. Timothy were brought to Constantinople in order to increase the prestige of the basileia in the eyes of the Byzantines did not encourage them to associate these apostolic relics with the bishops of the capital, and this must have retarded the growth of the apostolic idea in Constantinople. Actually, it is surprising to note that, in the two centuries that followed the foundation of Constantinople, very little attention was paid to St. Andrew, and no attempt was made to connect with the bishopric of Byzantium the belief that his relics reposed in the residential city.



5. Homilia contra Judaeos et Gentiles, 9, PG, 48, col. 825.


6. Homilia in Epist. 2 ad Corinth. 26, 53, PG, 61, col. 582.





It is again St. John Chrysostom who supplies the most valuable information in this respect. Of course, in his numerous homilies and other writings, he had often to speak of the apostles. However, it is not Andrew who enjoys his full attention, but Andrew's brother Peter. Sometimes in Chrysostom's works praise of Peter may be found such as not even one of Chrysostom's contemporary western ecclesiastical writers could surpass. Peter is called, in addition to the coryphaeus of the apostles, [7] an “immovable foundation, the rock which cannot be broken, the Prince of the Church, the unassailable haven, the unshaken tower..., the column of the Churches, the haven of faith, and the doctor of the universe."


To these glorious epithets, Chrysostom adds other significant titles. Peter was “the mouthpiece of the disciples, column of the Church, basis of the faith, foundation of the confession, the fisherman of the whole world, who brought our race from the depth of error into heaven. .., always mindful of the salvation of others." [8] The love of Christ of this “prefect of the universe" is highly praised, [9] his firmness, meekness, and zeal are stressed, [10] the virtue of his miracles is said to have converted the whole earth, [11] and he is the rock on which Christ would build his Church. [12] Paul, too, earns highest praise, but it is always stressed that he regarded himself inferior to Peter. [13]


Chrysostom, of course, speaks also of Andrew, and in one of his homilies is found a short passage which can be interpreted as an allusion to Andrew as a teacher of Byzantium.



7. Homilia in Petrum Apost. et in Heliam prophetam, PG, 50, cols. 727 seq. The epithet coryphaeus or “Prince of the Apostles” is given to Peter almost every time Chrysostom speaks of him.


8. Homilia De Decem millium talent. debitore, PG, 51, col. 20.


9. Homilia In illud, hoc scitote quod in novissimis diebus (II Tim. 3:1), PG, 56, col. 275.


10. In Matthaeum Hom. 50 (51), PG, 58, col. 535 (Peter again called coryphaeus of all apostles). In Acta Apost. Hom. 4, PG, 60, cols. 63 seq.; Hom. 8, ibid., col. 88. In Joan. Hom. 73 (74), PG, 59, cols. 395 seq.


11. In Matth. Hom. 56(57), PG, 58, cols. 550 seq.


12. In Matth. Hom. 46(47), ibid., 58, col. 535, particularly clearly in Hom. 19 (18) in Joan., PG, 59, col. 122. These are only a few quotations of the numerous references to Peter in Chrysostom’s works.


13. Particularly in Hom. In illud, in faciem ei restiti, PG, 51, col. 378, and Hom. 3 in Epist. 1 ad Cor., PG, 61, col. 24.





Scandalized by the fact that many people preferred on Fridays to go to the hippodrome or to the theater rather than to church, Chrysostom exclaims: [14] “Is this the city of the apostles, the same which possesses such an interpreter?” He evidently has in mind not only the church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, but also the relics of St. Andrew, Luke, and Timothy which reposed there. In this connection the interpreter whom Chrysostom mentions could be Andrew, and B. de Montfaucon, the first editor of the homily, which was reprinted by Migne with his commentary, explained the passage as referring to the Andrew tradition—namely, that this Apostle had preached in Byzantium. On the other hand, it has been suggested that Chrysostom had in mind the relics revered as those of the prophet Samuel, which were transported by the Emperor Arcadius from Judaea to Constantinople. [15] St. Jerome [16] describes this transfer in glowing terms and, judging from his description, the ceremony must have left a great impression on the faithful of the capital. It would seem quite natural, therefore, for Chrysostom to have made an allusion to the presence in the city of the relics of such a great prophet.


There is, however, some difficulty concerning the dating of this transfer. Jerome simply attributes the initiative for it to the Emperor Arcadius, who reigned from 395 to 408, without indicating the exact date. Theodore the Lector [17] and the Chronicon Paschale, [18] however, add that it occurred when Atticus was Patriarch (that is, from 405 or 406 to 425). The Chronicon dates the transfer in the year 406, and since the dating of the Chronicon is generally reliable, there is no reason to reject it in this instance and to place the transfer in the year 397. Thus it is evident that Chrysostom could not have had the relics of the Prophet Samuel in mind.


Neither, however, can the interpretation of Montfaucon be accepted.



14. Hom. contra ludos et theatra i, PG, $6, col. 264: ταῦτα ἡ πόλις τῶν ἀποστόλων; ταῦτα ἡ τοιοῦτον λαβοῦσα ὑποφήτην; the homily was pronounced on Sunday, July 3, 399. See for details P. Batiffol, “De quelques homélies de S. Jean Chrysostome et de la version gothique des écritures," in Revue biblique, 8 (1899), p. 567, and especially J. Pargoire, “Les homélies de S. Jean Chrysostome en Juillet 399,” in Echos d’Orient, 3 (1899-1900), pp. 151-155.


15. Such is the opinion of J. Ch. Baur, Der heilige Johannes Chrysostomus und seine Zeit, 2 (Munich, 1930), p. 77.


16. Contra Vigilantium, 5, PL, 23, col. 358.


17. Hist. eccles. 2, 63; PG, 86, col. 213.


18. Ed. Bonn, ad an. 406, p. 569.





It seems evident that the panegyrist makes an allusion here to Andrew, but the words do not mean that Andrew had preached in Byzantium. Strictly interpreted, Chrysostom's words point to his own time, and indicate that he had in mind only the relics of Andrew, the great interpreter of Christ's words, which had been received by the city and were then in its possession. It cannot therefore be concluded from this passage that Chrysostom knew of the tradition concerning Andrew's preaching in Byzantium.


It is rather significant that neither in this homily nor elsewhere does Chrysostom give special prominence to Andrew. In another passage in the same homily Chrysostom recalls [19] how, a short time before, when torrential rain had threatened to ruin the crops,


"the whole of the populace of our city in a mighty surge hastened toward the place of the apostles. We implored our defenders, Saint Peter and Blessed Andrew, and this apostolic pair, Paul and Timothy. And after that, when the tempest had subsided, we courageously crossed the sea and the waves and we hastened to the coryphaeus, Peter, the foundation of the faith, and Paul, the vessel of election, celebrating a spiritual feast...." [20]


That the Apostle Andrew is not given a more prominent place in these supplications is somewhat surprising. The relics of Peter and Paul were not in Constantinople; nevertheless both Apostles were mentioned and given prominence before Andrew. Perhaps the fact that Chrysostom came from Antioch, whose Christianization was intimately connected with Peter, influenced him.


Even on other occasions Chrysostom has little to say of Peter's brother. When speaking of him in his homily on Matthew's Gospel, he makes the point that Andrew was the first of the apostles to be invited by Christ to join him, but, having done this, he devotes all his attention to Peter, dwelling on the Lord's words with which Peter was greeted when introduced by his brother. [21] When naming the apostles, Chrysostom emphatically places Andrew after Peter, although before all other apostles of course,



19. PG, 56, col. 265.


20. For more details on this pilgrimage see Pargoire, op. cit., pp. 156 seq.


21. In Matth. Hom. 14, PG. 57, cols. 218 seq.; In Joan. Hom. 19 (18), PG, 59, cols. 120 seq.





but that is his only reference to him here. [22] In another instance [23] he counts Andrew among the four coryphaei of the apostles, naming Peter, Andrew, James, and John.


It is significant that when speaking of some deed or virtues of the apostles he does not cite Andrew as an example, but only Peter, James, and John, [24] and his evaluation of the fact that the relics of an apostle repose in a church in Constantinople is also interesting. He does not ignore the fact, but in one of his homilies [25] apostrophizes his listeners as follows :


“We came to the tombs of the apostles. We can see their wounds and stigmata, their blood flowing more precious than gold, the chains, the cudgels, their daily death which they had suffered for the Church. Paul’s disciple who travelled everywhere with him, who is equal to his master, a heifer in the same yoke with the bull ; the brother of the first of the apostles, a fisherman, who had spread out the net, and instead of catching fishes, was claiming men; and the messenger of the Gospel—and let us consider with pleasure their famous deeds. ...”


The homilist was evidently pointing to the relics of Timothy, Andrew, and Luke, but it is surprising that he placed Timothy—for whom he seems to have had a special predilection [26]—before Andrew, although Peter’s brother should have taken precedence over Paul’s disciple.


This is not the only instance of Chrysostom’s relegating Andrew’s relics somewhat to the background. When Chrysostom returned from his first exile he was apparently greeted in the church of the Holy Apostles where he is said to have addressed his faithful extemporaneously. Pointing to the relics deposited in the church, he exclaimed: [27]



22. In Matth. Hom. 32(33), ibid., 57, col. 380.


23. In Matth. Hom. 37(38), ibid., col. 424: Philip and the two pairs of the coryphaei.


24. Ad eas qui scandalizati sunt liber unus, PG, 52, cols. 512 seq. In Matth. Hom. 46 (47), ibid., 58, cols. 479 seq.: In Matth. Hom. 65 (64), ibid., cols. 621 seq. Andrew is mentioned only in Hom. 3 in Acta Apost., PG., 60, cols. 33 seq., as staying in Jerusalem with Peter after Christ’s resurrection. Moreover, in one spurious homily Andrew is said to have preached in Greece: Hom. in 12 Apost., PG, 59, col. 495.


25. Hom. 10, in illud, messis quidem multa, PG, 63, col. 518.


26. Cf. Chrysostom’s homilies on Paul’s letters to Timothy, PG, 62, cols. 503-700.


27. Ibid., 52, col. 440.





“Therefore I called you to come to the Holy Apostles. We, the exiled, came to them who were exiled. We were assailed with intrigues, they were banned. We came to Timothy, the new Paul. We came to the holy bodies which had carried Christ's stigmata."


There is no mention of Andrew in this short speech. The second version of Chrysostom's address contains the following: [28]


"Therefore I invited you to the church of the Holy Apostles in order to come to them who once had suffered persecution. We have been subjected to intrigue, they have been attacked. But the enemies did no damage to them because they have conquered the whole world. Let us go to Timothy, the new Paul, and to Andrew, the other Peter. We believe that we are supported by their merits."


Timothy is again given precedence, although Andrew is mentioned as a second Peter.


To evaluate this indifference to Andrew's relics in Constantinople, we should read Chrysostom's enthusiastic eulogies addressed to Rome because it was the burial place of Peter and Paul. [29]


"Heaven, when the sun is emitting its rays is not as resplendent as the city of the Romans radiating everywhere in the universe the light of these two lamps. Fom there Paul will be taken away, and from there Peter also. Consider and be amazed, what a spectacle Rome will witness when Paul and Peter shall suddenly be resurrected from that tomb and be lifted up to meet Christ. What a gift will Rome present to Christ, with what two crowns is it adorned ! With what golden chains is it girded, what founts it possesses ! I admire this city, not because of its multitude of gold, not because of its columns, not because of its pomp, but because of these two pillars of the Church."


One can detect here a kind of nostalgic envy of Rome's possession of such treasures, but it does not occur to Chrysostom to point out that his city, too, can boast apostles' tombs. Rome was still the venerated source of Roman glory, the first capital of the Empire, and Peter and Paul were the heroes of whom the whole Church and Empire were proud.


In one homily on the epistle to the Hebrews [30] there is a passage which deserves special quotation.



28. Ibid., col. 442.


29. Hom. 36, Encomium in S. Apost. Paulum, PG, 63, cols. 846 seq.


30. Hom. 26, PG, 63, col. 179.





After praising Joseph, who, although living in Egypt, had never lost faith in the Lord's promises to Abraham, and had ordered that his remains be returned finally to the land of promise (Exodus 13:19), Chrysostom goes on :


"What ! tell me, do not even Moses' bones repose in a foreign country ? We do not know where the remains of Aaron, Daniel, Jeremiah, and many of the apostles are resting. The tombs of Peter, Paul, John, and Thomas [31] are known ; [the tombs] of the others who are so many have never become known. But let us not be sad or downhearted, because wdierever we may be buried, The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof' " (Psalms 23:1, 24:1).


This is puzzling. Strictly interpreted, these words would mean that Chrysostom had some doubts as to the authenticity of the relics, supposedly Andrew's, that reposed in the church of the Holy Apostles, for he said rather emphatically that he knew the location of the tombs of only Peter, Paul, John, and Thomas. In any case, the passage shows clearly that in Chrysostom's time little attention was paid to the fact that Constantinople was in possession of apostolic relics, and that no connection had yet been made between the foundation of Byzantine Christianity and St. Andrew.



John Chrysostom was the first of the Greek waiters to devote particular attention to St. Andrew and his relics. Gregory of Nazianzus, who occupied the see of Constantinople from 379 to 381, referred to Andrew only very briefly [32] in his catalogue of apostles, mentioning Greece as his missionary field. Cyril of Jerusalem (362-373) mentioned the twelve apostles in general, and wherever he singled out any of them he named only Peter, Paul, John, Thomas, and Philip. [33]



31. The relics of St. Thomas, who seems to have died near Malaipur in South India, were transported, during the third century, to Edessa. Cf. R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, i, pt. 1 (Brunswick, 1883-1890), p. 226 seq., 2,pt. 2, pp. 418 seq.


32. Oratio 33 contra Arianos et de se ipso, PG, 36, col. 228. In one of his Songs, he gives the names of the twelve apostles, with Andrew (Carminum. lib. 1, Poemata dogmatica, cant. 19, PG, 37, col. 488), and he mentions briefly in another one (Carm. lib. 2, Historica, Poemata de se ipso 4, vers. 59, ibid., col. 1258) the church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. Cf. also Oratio 42 (PG, 36, col. 489). In Oratio 4 (PG, 35, col. 589B) he mentions Andrew too among the Christian heroes whose feast days are celebrated.


33. Catechesis 14, PG, 33, col. 853, Catech. 17, ibid., col. 996 seq.





He mentioned Andrew only once in his seventeenth Catechesis, [34] when he commented on the apostles' speaking various languages on the day of Pentecost, and in this connection he ventured the guess that Peter and Andrew, both of whom were Galileans, probably conversed in Persian or Medic. [34a]


Proclus, who occupied the see of Constantinople from 434 to 447, devoted a short homily to St. Andrew, [35] but the panegyric is written in very general terms, extolling the sublimity of the apostles' vocation, and the merits of their activity. Only in the last part of his sermon did the Patriarch describe how Andrew responded to the invitation of the Lord to join him. Andrew hastened to bring this news to his older brother, Peter. "We have found the Messiah," the panegyrist has Andrew exclaim, and then, forgetting his hero, he addresses Peter, exhorting him to leave his occupation, his country, Jerusalem, and the temple, and to follow Christ. Nothing in the homily suggests any connection between Andrew and the see of Byzantium, and there is no indication that the Patriarch intended to exalt Andrew because of Peter. On the contrary, Peter occupies a more prominent place than Andrew.


It should be noted also that the apostolic idea found no recognition in the correspondence of Proclus with Antioch. Proclus gave the city only the usual epithet, "the great city," [36] although he must have known that the Antiochenes were well aware of the apostolic origin of their see. In a letter addressed to Proclus the synod of Antioch, convoked by Bishop John, recalled the apostolic origin of the see when enumerating the Fathers whose doctrine confirmed its teaching. The name of the great martyr Ignatius, who came "second after Peter the first of the apostles and organized the Church of the see of Antioch," starts the series of Fathers. [37]



34. Ibid., col. 988.


34a. According to the Chronicon Paschale (Bonn), p. 566, Arcadia, daughter of the Emperor Arcadius (395-405), constructed a church in honor of St. Andrew, which shows that the cult of the Apostle was then alive in Byzantium.


35. PG, 65, cols. 821-828.


36. Ibid., col. 881D : τῶν Ἀντιοχέων μεγαλοπόλεως ἡ πόλις. Cf. what E. Caspar (Geschichte der Papsttums, 1, p. 583) says on the origin of this title: “Großkirche scheint geradezu eine früheste eigene Bezeichnung für die Weltkirchen Rom, Alexandria und Antioch gewesen zu sein.”


37. PG, 65, col. 878.





Proclus' contemporary, Theodoret, also knew of the Antiochene tradition, and he termed apostolic not only the see of Antioch, [38] but also that of Alexandria. [39] The apostolic tradition concerning Antioch and Alexandria is most clearly expressed by Theodoret in his letter to Flavian of Constantinople. Complaining about Dioscorus of Alexandria,Theodoret says: [40]


"He will not obey the holy canons, but is exalting the throne of the blessed Mark although he well knows that the great city of the Antiochenes is in possession of the see of the great Peter, who was also the teacher of blessed Mark, and the first and coryphaeus of the apostles."


With regard to Andrew, Theodoret mentioned him only when speaking of the lands where the apostles had preached. He also assigned Greece to Andrew. [41]


There exists another homily on St. Andrew which was once ascribed to St. Athanasius, [42] but which was actually written in the fifth century. Its author is Basil, Metropolitan of Seleucia, who died about the year 459. [43] No trace of tendentious exaltation of Andrew is found in this short oration on Peter. On the contrary, Peter is recognized as the first of the apostles, although Andrew was the first who was called by the Lord. Andrew is said to have preached in Greece and to have suffered martyrdom in Achaea. The homilist seems not at all inclined to bring Andrew into closer connection with Byzantium. Evidently the importance of the claim to apostolicity was not yet felt in Constantinople. The privileged position of the city as the imperial residence was still regarded as sufficient reason for assuring to the patriarch of Constantinople a prominent rank in the Church.



38. Hist. eccles., 3, 14; PG, 82, col. 1109; GCS, 19, ed. L. Parmentier, bk. 3, chap. 17, p. 197. Letter 112 to Domnus of Antioch, PG, 83, col. 1309.


39. Letter 83 to Dioscorus of Alexandria, PG, 83, col. 1272. In his letter to Pope Leo, Theodoret also calls the Roman see "apostolic.'’ PG, ibid., cols. 1313A, 1316D.


40. PG, 83, col. 1280C (Letter 86). On two occasions Theodoret mentions the relics of the apostles, but only in very general terms, without specifying whose relics he had in mind. In Psalm. 46, PG, 80, col. 1208C, and in Psalm. 67, ibid., col. 1381C.


41. Interpretation in Psalm. 116, PG, 80, cols. 1805 seq.


42. PG, 28, cols. 1101-1113. Cf. infra, p. 217.


43. This has been shown by B. Marx in his study “Der homiletische Nachlass des Basileios von Seleukia,” in OCP, 7 (1941), pp. 329-369 (on the homily, pp. 350-352).





There exists also a document of Latin and Western origin which makes it evident that the Andrew Legend was not yet known at the beginning of the fifth century. It is a Latin poem composed by Paulinus, who was born probably in 353 in or near Bordeaux, and who became Bishop of Nola about 409 and died in 431.


In one of his poems Paulinus glorifies the city of Constantinople, comparing it to Rome. [44] He states first that Constantine, when he founded his city and started to build its walls, was invited by God, not only to imitate the city of Romulus by the building of walls, but also to strengthen them with the bodies of apostles. So Constantine brought Andrew from Greece and Timothy from Asia.


“Thus,” Paulinus continues, “Constantinople stands with twin towers of strength, a rival of great Rome, and more truly like the Roman walls in this honor, because God, in an effort to make the honor equal, gave the like of Peter and Paul to the city which was worthy of taking to itself the disciple of Paul and the brother of Peter.”


Paulinus must have been a great admirer of the Apostle Andrew and of Luke, for he congratulates himself on having obtained part of their relics for his basilicas in Nola and Fondi, [45] and he mentions them on two other occasions in his poems. [46]


His attitude as shown in his poems confirms, in the first place, that the transfer of the relics of St. Andrew to Constantinople was in no way regarded in the West and in Rome as an act of rivalry with the old Imperial City which possessed the relics of St. Peter and St. Paul, and, in the second place, that his way of referring to the relics of St. Andrew was an indication that in the West the legend of the foundation of the see of Constantinople by Andrew was still unknown at the beginning of the fifth century. Finally, the comparison between Timothy and Paul, and between Andrew and Peter, brought out by Paulinus, reveals that a compromise between the principle of apostolicity and that of adaptation to the changes of political organization was possible in this period,



44. Paulinus Nolensis, Carmen 19, vss. 329-342, CSEL, 30, ed. G. Hartel, pp. 129, 130.


45. Epist. 32, ibid., 29, p. 292, Carmen 27, vss. 406, 424, ibid., 30, pp. 280, 281.


46. Carmen 19, vss. 73-83, 336 (Andrew and Timothy) ibid., 30, pp. 121, 130. Epist. 29, chap. 7, ibid., 29, p. 252 (Luke).





and it is the more regrettable that the Eastern Fathers in Chalcedon failed to see this possibility, and displayed less comprehension of the Roman principle of apostolicity than did a Latin writer of their principle of adaptation to political organization.


Gaudentius of Brescia, who died about 410, also testifies to the fact that the Apostle Andrew was greatly venerated in the Western Church in his day. In his sermon on the day of dedication of a Concilium Sanctorum [47]—a church that contained all the holy relics of which Brescia could boast—the Bishop proudly points out that the most precious relics in the Church are those of St. John the Baptist, the Apostles Andrew and Thomas, and the Evangelist Luke. He does not mention the last burial place of St. Andrew and Luke in Constantinople. He says only that they are believed to have suffered martyrdom in Patras in Achaea. In any case, Gaudentius seems to have known nothing of the Andrew Legend’s connection with the see of Byzantium. He apparently obtained the relics of the Apostles from St. Ambrose who must have received them as a gift from Constantinople.


Brescia was neither the first nor the only Italian city that could boast possession of relics of St. Andrew at that early period. St. Ambrose constructed in Milan a church dedicated to the Holy Apostles and deposited there some relics of the Apostles Andrew, [47a] John, and Thomas. According to the Martyrium Hieronymianum, the deposition was commemorated yearly in that city on the ninth of May. The same source marks, too, the anniversary on September third of the dedication of a basilica in Aquileia to SS. Andrew, Luke, and John. [47b]



47. Sermo 17 (De diversis capitulis septimus), PL, 2θ cols. 961 seq.

Post hunc [Joannem Baptistam] habemus Andream beatissimum, primum Ioannis ipsius discipulum, deinde Salvatoris, quem priorem Christus apostolum scribitur elegisse. . . . Horum quatuor beatas habemus in praesenti reliquias, qui regnum Dei, et justitiam praedicantes, ab incredulis, et iniquis occisi, Deo semper vivere operationum suarum virtutibus demonstrantur. loannes in Sebastena urbe pvovinciae Palaestinae, Thomas apud Indos, Andreas et Lucas apud Patras Achaiae civitatem, consummati referuntur.


47a. F. Savio, Gli antichi vescovi d’Italia dalle origini al 1300 descritti per regioni, 1 (Florence, 1913), La Lombardia, Milano, p. 822.


47b. Acta Sanctorum Novembris, 2, p. 57: Mediolano. De ingressu reliquiarum apostolorum Ioannis, Andreae et Thomae, in basilica. Ibid., p. 115 : In Aquileia. Dedicatio basilicae Andreae apostoli, Lucae, Ioannis, Eufemie et Aristoni. The city of Concordia in Lombardy also possessed some souvenirs of apostles, including those of Andrew. See P. Paschini, ‘'Note sull' origine della chiesa di Concordia," in Memorie Storiche Forogiuliesi, 7 (1911), pp. 9-24 (unavailable to the present writer). On St. Andrew's relics at Nola and Fondi see supra p. 149. Cf. adso H. Delehaye, “Loca Sanctorum," AnBoll, 48 (1930), pp. 9—13. A church of the Holy Apostles was built in Lodi also. Ambrose may have given part of the apostolic relics to this church too because he was invited by Bishop Bassianus to consecrate the church. Cf. S. Ambrosii epistolae, Epist. 4, i ; PL, 16, col. 927. The iniator of this cult of the apostles in northern Italy was St. Ambrose.





S. Victricius, Bishop of Rouen who died at the be ginning of the fifth century, also mentions with satisfaction the deposition in his cathedral of some relics of SS. Thomas, Andrew, and Luke. [47c]


During the same early period there were in Ravenna also monuments dedicated to St. Andrew. Theodorich constructed a church in the name of the Apostle and dedicated it to the cult of the Goths. [47d] His contemporary, Bishop Peter II (494-519) erected in his residence a chapel of St. Andrew, [47e] and Bishop Maximian (d. 546) restored the church of St. Andrew and deposited there the relics brought from Constantinople. [47f] Maximian must have been in Constantinople soon after 548 when, during the demolition of the old basilica, relics of Sts. Andrew, Luke, and Timothy were rediscovered and placed in the new building constructed by Justinian. [47g] This is indicated in the report of Agnellus, ninth-century author and Church historian of Ravenna, who, on this occasion,



47c. S. Victricius, Liber de laude sanctorum, PL, 20, col. 448C.


47d. W. Ensslin, Theodorich der Grosse (Munich, 1947), pp. 261, 266 (without reference). The church of St. Andrew designated for the Arians was destroyed by the Venetians in 1457. The Goths seem to have had a particular veneration for St. Andrew. His feast is duly commemorated on November 29th in a fifth-century Gothic calendar composed in Thrace. See H. Achelis, “Der älteste deutsche Kalender," in Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, i (1900), pp. 308-335. Cf. PL, 18, col. 880. Petrus Chrysologus of Ravenna, who died in 450, commemorated Andrew’s feast day in a short sermon in which he said that the Saint was crucified on a tree (Oratio, 133, PL, 52, cols. 563, 564).


47e. See for details, G. Gerola, “Il ripristino della cappella di S. Andrea nel palazzo vescovile di Ravenna," Felix Ravenna, N. S., 41 (1932), pp. 71 seq. See Agnellus, Codex pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatensis, ed. A. Testi Raspomini, L. A. Muratori, Rerum Halicarum scriptores, 2, pt. 3 (new ed., Bologna, 1924), pp. 149, 150. On St. Andrew’s relics in Milan, Aquileia, Concordia, and Ravenna cf. also H. Delehaye, Les origines du culte des martyrs (2nd ed., Brussels, 1933), pp. 325, 326, 332, 333, 338.


47f. Agnellus, ibid., pp. 195, 122.


47g. Procopius, De aedificiis Justiniani (Bonn), pp. 188 seq., ed. J. Haury (Teubner, 1913), pp. 24 seq.; Malalas, Chronographia (Bonn), p. 484; Theophanes, Chronographia (Bonn), p. 352.





wrote of an imaginary encounter  between Maximian and Justinian which reveals the intensity of the veneration in which St. Andrew was held throughout Byzantium and the West.


Agnellus reports that Maximian wished to take the body of St. Andrew to Ravenna, but that the Emperor thought it fitting for the New Rome to own the relics of St. Peter's brother, since Old and New Rome were sisters, and Peter and Andrew were brothers. Maximian, however, succeeded, by means of a ruse, in obtaining at least the beard of St. Andrew, which he transported to Ravenna. In closing his fictitious narrative, Agnellus exclaims with an almost audible sigh, “and believe me, brothers, if the body of the blessed Andrew, the brother of Peter the Princeps, had been buried here [in Ravenna], the Roman pontiffs would never have subjugated us.”'


Agnellus' words reflect the echo of Ravenna's struggle for ecclesiastical autonomy against the claims of the Roman popes, a struggle that started under Maximian, was continued by Bishop Maurus who in 666 had obtained from the Emperor Constans II [47h] a decree of autocephaly for Ravenna, and that endured as long as the exarchate of Ravenna existed. The spirit of independence was still alive in the ninth century, as is apparent from Agnellus' words. His remark concerning the relics of St. Andrew reveal in what high esteem the idea of apostolicity was held in the West at that time. [47i] His comment is particularly significant, for the rediscovery, under Justinian, of St. Andrew's relics does not appear to have very greatly stirred Byzantine ecclesiastical circles of that period.


This is not all. Let us not forget that the Feast of St. Andrew was celebrated in Rome in the fourth century, and was preceded by a vigil with fasting. The Sacramentarium Leonianum has a particular Mass formula for the vigil and three other formulas for the Feast of St. Andrew, with special prayers and prefaces. The prefaces of the second and fourth formulas are particularly interesting because they attest to the intimate relationship between Andrew and his brother Peter. [47j]



47h. F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkünden des oströmischen Reiches, i (Munich, Berlin, 1924), p. 27. L. Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, 1 (Paris, 1886), p. 360.


47i. It is doubtful that Justinian ever contemplated the possibility of a transfer of Andrew’s relics to Ravenna, as is suggested by. O. G. von Simson, Sacred Fortress, Byzantine Art and Statecraft in Ravenna (Chicago, 1948), pp. 17 seq.





We read in the preface of the second formula:


"[Andrew] who was verily a brother of the glorious Apostle Peter, through the fate of birth, through the community of faith, through the dignity of belonging to the apostolic college, and through the glory of martyrdom, so that they whom Your Grace had united during the course of this life with so many bonds of piety are joined in the heavenly kingdom with a similar crown.”


The second preface contains a similar passage:


We celebrate the day dedicated to the glorious martyrdom through which the venerable Andrew showed himself a true brother of the blessed Peter, as well in preaching Thy Christ as in confessing him, and at the same time adorned the order of the apostolic dignity with martyrdom and glory, so that they who were struggling for the same cause obtained the same recompense and reward.”


The cult of St. Andrew grew in Rome particularly during the Acacian schism. The first basilica in honor of St. Andrew was erected there on the Esquiline by Pope Simplicius (468-483). Gelasius I (492-496) had also constructed, on the Via Labicana, an oratory in honor of St. Andrew. Symachus (498-514) symbolized the intimate relationship between Peter and Andrew when he built a rotunda dedicated to St. Andrew near the basilica of St. Peter. [47k] It is quite possible that the number of the Mass formulas in honor of St. Andrew corresponded to the number of St. Andrew sanctuaries extant in Rome in the fifth century.


The spread of the cult of St. Andrew in Rome, in Italy, and in Gaul during the fourth and fifth centuries indicates clearly that, contrary to the conviction of some scholars, [47l] the Westerners were not yet aware of any Byzantine attempt to overshadow or to equalize the prestige of Peter with that of his brother, "the first called.”



47j. PL, 55, cols. 144-146. Cf. A. I. Schuster, Liber sacramentorum, 6 (Milan, 1941), pp. 70-75.


47k. See on these churches, L. Duchesne, op. cit., 2, pp. 249, 250, 255, 256, 261, 265. In the writings of Victor, Bishop of Vita, there is some indication that Andrew’s cult penetrated into Africa in the fifth century (De persecutione vandalica, 5, 20: PL, 58, col. 258). In M. Petscheng’s critical edition (CSEL, 7, p. 106) the passage on Andrew was, however, omitted since it did not conform to the tradition of the manuscripts.


47l. For example, B. Kraft, “Andreas,” in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, i, ed. M. Buchberger (Freiburg i. B., 1930), col. 411; J. Beran, “Hat Gregor der Grosse dem Embolismus der römischen Liturgie den Namen des hl. Andreas beigefügt ?”, Ephemerides Liturgicae, 55 (N. S. 15, 1941), pp. 83 seq.; J. A. Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia (Vienna, 1948), p. 345.





When we take into consideration how slowly the idea of apostolicity progressed in Constantinople, it is no wonder that there was no attempt, up to this period, to connect Andrew with the origins of Christianity in Byzantium.



With time, however, the bishops of the Imperial City must have become increasingly conscious of the disadvantage under which they suffered in their controversies with the apostolic see of St. Peter, and this must have been especially apparent during the Acacian schism (486-519). Its liquidation by Pope Hormisda demonstrated the strength of the Roman argument of apostolicity, and undoubtedly impressed the Byzantines.


In the meantime, two incidents occurred which were potential links between St. Andrew and the bishops of Byzantium. Thanks to a curious intervention of fate, it was John Chrysostom who was chosen, after his death, to modify Constantius' viewT that only emperors could be buried near the relics of the apostles. Chrysostom was sent into exile by order of Emperor Arcadius, who was influenced in this matter by the Empress Eudoxia, but his relics were brought back to Constantinople from Comana, where he had died in 407, by order of another Emperor, Theodosius II, on 27 January 438. [48]


Theodosius II, Pulcheria, and the Patriarch Proclus made an impressive show of reverence for the relics of the Saint and, in order to atone for the great sin committed by his parents, Theodosius II permitted the interment of the relics in the church of Constantinople that was most venerable after the church of Hagia Sophia—the church of the Holy Apostles. Thus, for the first time, the body of a patriarch of Constantinople was placed near the burial-place of the emperors and the relics of the apostles.


This act became the source of another legend that developed fully at a later period, and that attributed to Constantine the intention of making the church of the Holy Apostles a burial-place for both emperors and patriarchs.



48. Theodoret, Hist. eccles. 5, 36; PG, 82, cols. 1265 seq. ; GCS, 19, ed. L. Parmentier, pp. 338 seq.; Theophanes, ad. ann. 5930, ed. Bonn, p. 143 seq; de Boor, pp. 92 seq.





First to interpret the use of the church for this purpose was the Church historian Sozomen, who wrote his Church History about 440. Reporting the funeral of of Constantine, he says: [49]


"When Constantius, who was in the East, learned of the death of his father, which was speedily reported to him, he came quickly to Constantinople; and he gave him an imperial funeral and buried him in the church named for the apostles, where Constantine himself, while still living, prepared his own tomb. And from this the custom took its beginning, and the Christian emperors who died in Constantinople after this were laid there. Likewise bishops were buried there, since the priestly dignity is of the same honor as the imperial dignity; or rather in holy places, the priestly dignity takes first place.”


When we compare this report with that given by Socrates, we detect a certain correlation between the two. Socrates is, however, more moderate and comes nearer the truth than Sozomen. The latter tries to give his own explanation of Socrates' words βασιλεῖς τε καὶ ἱερεῖς. He does not deny the sacerdotal character of the basileia, but gives the emperors equal status with the bishops. However, he stresses the precedence of bishops over emperors in the church, that is, in the liturgy, implying thereby that the sacerdotium is, in this way, more important than the imperium. This seems to have been Sozomen's general attitude towards the basileia, and its relationship with the Church. [50] The deposition of the relics of St. John Chrysostom in the church of the Holy Apostles gave him a welcome opportunity of expressing his ideas.


Another incident which helped to break the "imperial charm” that had thus far surrounded the church of the Holy Apostles, was the burial there of St. Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople. Flavian was deposed in 449 by the "Robber synod” of Ephesus and died shortly afterwards. His death was attributed by his followers to his ill treatment at the hands of the heretics who had deposed him. The Empress Pulcheria ordered the transfer of his relics to the Church of the Holy Apostles in 451. [51]



49. Hist. eccles., 2, 34; PG, 67, col. 1032.


50. Sozomen's political ideas will be treated more fully in the author’s book on the "Origins of Christian Political Philosophy,” now in preparation.


51. Theophanes, ad. ann. 5942, ed. Bonn, p. 158; de Boor, p. 102. It is important to note that Theodosius I did not dare to bury St. Paul, Bishop of Constantinople (340-341, 342-344, 348-350), who had been killed by the Arians, in the church of the Holy Apostles. He transferred his relics to Constantinople, but they were deposited in the church that Paul’s antagonist, Bishop Macedonius had built (Theophanes, ad. ann. 5876, ed. Bonn, p. 109; ed. de Boor, p. 69). In 377 the “imperial charm” surrounding the church of the Holy Apostles was still too strong.





Thus it seems that, because of the transfer of the relics of St. John Chrysostom and St. Flavian to the Church of the Holy Apostles, and particularly because of Sozomen's interpretation of Socrates' report on the burial-place of emperors and priests, the patriarchs of Constantinople were, in the second half of the fifth century, sufficiently linked to the apostles—especially to St. Andrew—to fire the imagination of those who were jealously anxious to promote their prestige even further. It is no wonder, therefore, that the origin of the tradition that the bishopric of Constantinople was founded by the Apostle Andrew is dated by some in the period of the Acacian schism (485-519). [52]


There is actually in existence a document which, if genuine, would indicate that the tradition concerning the founding of the bishopric of Byzantium by St. Andrew must have started at least in the second half of the fifth century, if not much earlier. This is the catalogue of the seventy disciples of Christ, which includes a list of bishops from Andrew to Metrophanes as well as a list of the apostles. This catalogue is ascribed to Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre, who is said to have suffered great persecution during the reign of Diocletian, and to have lived to the reign of Julian. He died a martyr's death under Licinius when he had reached the one hundred and seventh year of his life. [53] In addition to biographical data on the legendary author, the compilation contains a report of an incident supposed to have happened at Constantinople on the occasion of Pope John Fs visit in 525. [54]



52. Cf. S. Vailhé, “Origines de l’Eglise de Constantinople,” Echos d’Orient, 10 (1907), p. 293.


53. On Pseudo-Dorotheus see Th. Schermann, “Propheten und Apostellegenden nebst Jüngerkatalogen des Dorotheus und verwandter Texte," Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 31 (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 174-198. Cf. also infra, p. 178. There is no evidence for the existence of a Bishop of Tyre of this name. Some confusion seems to exist about two men of this name—a priest, Dorotheus of Antioch, who was previously director of a purple dye-house in Tyre, and a courtier of the same name who died a martyr’s death under Diocletian. Both are mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. eccles., 7,32; 8, 1, 6; PG, 20, cols. 721, 740, 753; GCS, 9, ed. E. Schwartz, pp. 716, 736, 748).





Invited by the Patriarch of Constantinople to join him in celebrating the liturgy on Christmas Day, the Pope is said to have declined the invitation and to have insisted on celebrating the liturgy before the Patriarch did, inasmuch as his see was older than that of Constantinople. He was then presented with the document translated for this occasion by Procopius from Dorotheus' description of the activity of the seventy disciples. This contained a story relating that St. Andrew “while navigating in the Sea of Pontus, instituted as Bishop of Byzantium in Argyropolis of Thrace, Stachys—of whom mention is made in the Epistle to the Romans," After studying the document, the Pope acknowledged its authenticity, but continued to claim the right of precedence over the Patriarch, as he was the successor to the Prince of the Apostles. This prerogative was recognized by his colleague in Constantinople, who was satisfied to have had it proved that his see was an older foundation than that of Rome.


The compiler of this' story enumerates twenty other bishops who succeeded Stachys, in an uninterrupted series, down to Metrophanes, the first bishop whose name can be traced with certainty, and who held the see under Constantine the Great. [55] This catalogue forms the basis of numerous lists of patriarchs of Constantinople which sometimes contain many variations. [56]


However, a more thorough examination of the story of John Fs visit contained in the compilation shows that it is completely legendary. The story is contradicted by a contemporary account of the voyage made by Pope Agapetus to Constantinople in 536, [57] eleven years after the incident said to have occurred in Constantinople in 525.



54. PG, 92, col. 1072 (De Septuginta discipulis Domini et duodecim Apostolis, cols. 1060-1073). Th. Schermann, in his collective edition Prophetarum vitae fabulosae, indices apostolorum discipulorumque Domini Dorotheo, Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicata (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 151 seq.


55. This is attested by the Chronicon Paschale, ed. Bonn, p. 522; by Theophanes, ad ann. 5799, ed. Bonn, p. 19; ed. de Boor, p. 13, note 18, and by Photius, Bibliotheca, cods. 88, 256, PG, 103, col. 292; 104, cols. 105 seq.


56. On these catalogues see M. F. Fischer, De patriarcharum Constantinopolitanorum Catalogis et de chronologia primorum patriarcharum, published in Commentarii philologici Jenenses, 3 (Leipzig, 1894), pp. 263-333.


57. The account is quoted in extenso by Cardinal Caesar Baronius in his Annales Ecclesiastici, ad ann. 536, ed. A. Pagi, (Lucca, 1738-1759), nos. 59-63.





The author of this later account has no knowledge of the incident reported in the compilation nor, what is even more important, of the catalogue of bishops who, according to the document ascribed to Dorotheus, had succeeded Stachys in the see of Byzantium. The chronicler enumerates the bishops of Byzantium from Metrophanes onward, and the Patriarch Epiphanius who occupied the see of Constantinople from 520 to 536 is the twentieth in the series. Further on in the account, when speaking of the ordination of Epiphanius' successor, Menas, by the Pope himself, the author distinctly states that Menas was the twenty-first Bishop of Constantinople.


This, surely, is a very important statement. The anonymous author of this account seems to have followed the official diptychs of Constantinople. He evidently leaves out the heretical patriarchs whose names did not appear in the diptychs, which could mean that, in 536, in the patriarcheion of Constantinople, the legendary account of the apostolic origin of the see of Byzantium was not yet known, and that, even if there had been some bishops in Byzantium before Metrophanes, their names were not inscribed in the diptychs which began with the bishop who occupied the see when the little town of Byzantium became Constantinopolis, capital of the Empire.


There are, moreover, strong indications that the legendary account reported by the document ascribed to Dorotheus was unknown, at least in Rome, during the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590-604). This Pope held the Apostle Andrew in particular veneration, and devoted to him a special homily which he preached in the Basilica of St. Andrew in Rome [58] on the day of Andrew's commemoration. In this, of course, he linked Peter with his brother, giving Peter precedence over Andrew, but he nevertheless referred to Andrew with great respect, and urged the Romans to follow Andrew's example.


In another homily, when speaking about the missionary work of the apostles and of Christ's disciples, he singled out only five apostles, presenting them as they bring their converts before the Lord: [59] Peter, who had to do with the people of all Judaea, Paul with those from virtually the whole world, Andrew with those of Achaea, John with those of Asia, and Thomas with those of India.



58. Homiliae in Evangelia, Hom. 5, PL, 76, cols. 1092-1095.


59. Homiliae in Evangelia, Hom. 17, PL, 76, col. 1148.





It was also because of this predilection of Gregory for Andrew that the Apostle's name was added by the Pope to the prayer Liberanos in the canon of the Mass of the Roman rite. [60] The names of only three Apostles are listed in this prayer : Saints Peter, Paul, and Andrew ; and it is certainly very significant that Gregory the Great gave so prominent a place to St. Andrew in the Roman liturgy.


Gregory had testified to this veneration for the Apostle Andrew at the beginning of his ecclesiastical career when, after renouncing the world and devoting the vast fortune inherited from his father to the construction of monasteries, he dedicated to the Apostle the monastery into which he had transformed his family palace about the year 574. [61] There he lived first as a simple monk. His biographer John the Deacon says [62] that he was believed to have administered the affairs of his monastery not alone, but jointly with St. Andrew.


Bearing all this in mind, it is logical to suppose that Gregory had collected, during his stay in Constantinople from 579 to 586, as legate of Pope Pelagius, all the information available on St. Andrew and his relics. He must very often have venerated the supposed relics of the Patron Saint of his monastery in the church of the Holy Apostles. According to a record preserved in the papal archives consulted by Baronius, [63] he was given, for his monastery, two very precious relics by the Emperor—an arm of St. Andrew and the head of St. Luke.



60. H. Grisar, “Der gelasianische Messkanon,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, io (1886), pp. 30 seq. J. Beran, op. cit., pp. 81-87, doubts that this addition was made by Gregory the Great. In view of the fact that the cult of St. Andrew had spread in Rome before Gregory, he thinks that the name of Andrew could already have been added to the prayer in the fifth century. This is possible, but no new argument against the earlier opinion was produced by Beran.


61. Joannes Diaconus, S. Gregorii Magni vita, 1, chap. 6, PL, 75, col. 65.


62. Ibid., chap. 10, col. 66:

tantis est virtutibus publicatus, ut omnibus secum viventibus, et exemplo fuerit, et terrori, quippe qui non solus, sed socialiter cum beato Andrea apostolo, suo monasterio, signis evidentibus, sit praefuisse putatus.


63. C. Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, ad ann. 586, 10, ed. A. Theiner (Bar-le-Duc, 1867), chap. 25, p. 391 :

Gregorius igitur tempore Tiberii eo bene functus munere, illo defuncto, Romam reversus est et quidem magnis donatus muneribus, nempe sacrosanctis reliquiis Andreae Apostoli, et Lucae Evangelistae, quas nuper tempore Justiniani refossas et honorificentiori loco reconditas vidimus. Ouod enim (ut dictum est) erexisset in Urbe in Caelii montis regione ad clivum Scauri monasterium Gregorius sub titulo S. Andreae, ejusdem sancti reliquias sibi dari petiit ab imperatore ; quas et accepit insignes quidem nempe brachium S. Andreae cum capite S. Lucae. Et de his in Vaticanis monumentis vetus nassertio in priori pagina Codicis signati numero centesimo quinquagesimo tertio. Extat adhuc in eodem monasterio S. Andreae ipsum ejusdem Apostoli brachium argentea theca ornatum. . ., caput vero sancti Lucae in Basilica Vaticana reconditum, ibi hactenus honorifice asservatur.

Cf. F. H. Dudden, Gregory the Great, His Place in History and Thought, i (London, 1905), pp. 119, 157.





As has been seen, Gregory the Great, when he became Pope, was careful to keep himself well-informed about the situation in Constantinople. Would this Pope, the valiant defender of Roman primacy who, at every opportunity, stressed so strongly the apostolicity of his see, have been such a fervent admirer of St. Andrew if he had known that the prestige of this Apostle had been debased—as it would have been in his eyes—to provide the see of Constantinople with the privilege of an apostolic foundation ? It is in fact quite safe to conclude, on the basis of Gregory's attitude, that, until the beginning of the seventh century, the account of the apostolic origin of Byzantium, contained in the writing ascribed to Dorotheus, was not known either in Rome or in Constantinople. [64]


All of these considerations point to the end of the sixth and the beginning of the seventh centuries as the possible terminus a quo for the definitive formation of the legendary Andrew tradition concerning Byzantium. [65] The new controversy as to the title of the oecumenical patriarch, which aroused ecclesiastics in Rome and Constantinople,



64. The cult of the apostles and of Christ’s disciples spread in the West during the sixth century. That the interest in apocryphal stories concerning their lives also increased is clear from the popularity of the writings of Gregory of Tours on the apostles—particularly on Andrew—and by the eagerness with which the relics of Andrew were sought for some western churches. Cf. Gregory’s Liber in gloria martyrum, 1, chaps. 25-32 (on the apostles); MGH, Ss. Rer. Merov. 1, pp. 503-508. In chapter 30 (pp. 505 seq.) Gregory reports some miracles ascribed to Andrew, and mentions also (pp. 506, 540) that the churches of Neuvy-le-Roi, near Tours, and of Agde were privileged to possess some of Andrew’s relics. Cf. ibid., pp. 826, Gregory’s Liber de miraculis S. Andreae Apostoli, about which more will be found on pp. 183 seq. In his Historia Francorum, 4, chap. 31, ibid., p. 167, Gregory mentions the church of St. Andrew at Clermont Ferrand.


65. This is also the opinion of L. Duchesne in his book, L’Eglise au VIe siècle (Paris, 1925), p. 76.





might have suggested to some anonymous zealot in Constantinople the idea of enhancing the prestige of the see of the residential city by promoting it to an apostolic foundation. In this way the only great prerogative held by Rome over Constantinople would be levelled, and the two cities would be equal in every respect.


Actually, insofar as can be determined, the first documents attributing an apostolic character to the see of Constantinople also date from the beginning of the seventh century. Of special interest among these is a composition of Arcadius, Archbishop of Cyprus, who lived under the reign of Phocas (602-610) and Heraclius (610-641). In his biography of St. Symeon of the Marvelous Mountain (ὁ θαυμαστοορείτης), who lived from 521 to 596, he calls the see of the Imperial City apostolic on two occasions. [66] He reports the prophecy of the Saint that John Scholasticos would become Patriarch of Constantinople, and this came to pass after the death of Eutychius (582). The case is especially interesting because the new Patriarch in question is John IV, called "the Faster.” This did not mean that John IV regarded his see as of apostolic character, although such seems, to have been Arcadius' conviction when he wrote this biography.


Another hagiographer of the same period, Eleusios, also called George, expresses the same high opinion of the character of the see of Constantinople. He is the author of the Life of St. Theodore, who died, according to his hagiographer, in the third year of Heraclius' reign (613). The Life was written soon after the Saint's death, and it is worth-while reading for anyone interested in the reigns of Maurikios, Phocas, and Heraclius. It is written in a very lively style and provides useful information on the Patriarchs of this period—Cyriacus, Thomas I, and Sergius. In two instances the hagiographer calls the see of Constantinople apostolic, first when he announces that the monastery of St. Theodore was placed directly under the patriarch of Constantinople, and again when he describes how Sergius, the new holder of the see,



66. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Περί τινος συγγραφῆς Ἀρκαδίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κύπρου. Vizantijskij Vremennik, i (1894), p. 608 : καὶ γὰρ τῷ ἀποστολικῷ θρόνῳ τῆς βασιλευούσης πόλεως ἀπεκλήρωσέ σε ὁ Θεός. p. 609: ἐξεβλήθη τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ θρόνου τῆς βασιλευούσης πόλεως Εὐτύχιος ὁ ἁγιώτατος πατριάρχης.





asked the Saint to pray that “the Lord may make him worthy of the episcopal dignity and of the apostolic throne.” [67]


At the same time the title “apostolic” is applied to Constantinople in an official document, a novel issued by the Emperor Heraclius (sometime between 620 and 629), and addressed to the Patriarch Sergius (610-638). [68] This novel specified regulations regarding the reception of clerics who came to Constantinople uninvited by the patriarch, and it seems to have been an isolated instance, at least insofar as can be judged since the official documents of the following period are only very unsatisfactorily preserved.


Moreover, two other Patriarchs had been buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles. St. Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople from 552-565 and again from 577 to about 582, was interred there. [69] This honor may be explained by the fact that Eutychius died with a reputation of sanctity. Theophanes [70] also reports the burial of Domitian, Bishop of Melitene, in the same Church in the year A.D. 602. The Bishop was a relative of the Emperor which may explain why he was so honored. Thus, the link connecting the see of Byzantium with the Apostle Andrew became stronger.


The Acts of the Sixth Oecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 680 also clearly show how the use of the title “apostolic see” had spread in Byzantium during the seventh century. In these Rome is called the “apostolic see” more often than in the acts of previous councils, and when the names of its legates are mentioned they are almost always introduced as representatives of the apostolic see of Old Rome, [71]



67. Theophilos Joannou, Μνημεῖα ἁγιολογικά (Venice, 1884), Βίος ὁσίου Θεοδόρου, chap. 82, p. 437: ὑπὸ τὸν ἀποστολικὸν θρόνον τῆς ἁγιωτάτης τοῦ Θεοῦ μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας, chap. 135? p. 484: ἄξιον αὐτὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς καὶ τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ θρόνου ποιήσασα.


68. J. Zepos, Ρ. Zepos, Novellae et aureae bullae imperatorum post Justinianum (Athens, 1931), Nov. 24, Jus Graeco-romanum, i, p. 33: τοῦ τὸν ἀποστολικὸν ταύτης διέποντος θρόνου οἰκουμενικοῦ πατριάρχου. This title is used only in the introduction to the novel, not in the novel itself.


69. H. Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae (Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris), (Brussels, 1902), cols. 587 seq.


70. Chronographia, ad ann. 6094 ; ed. Bonn, p. 438 ; ed. de Boor, p. 284.


71. Mansi, ix, cols. 200D, 201E, 212D, 213B, 216C, 220E, 225A, 297E, 320C, 325C, 329D, 332A, 368C, 388A, 392D, 509B, 528E, 588B, 625C, 640E, 641A, 644E, 660C, 665C, D, 669Β, C.





although the bishops still frequently contented themselves with referring to Agathon simply as the Pope of Old Rome. [72]


It should be noted that the Emperor Constantine IV showed greater logic than the bishops, both in his letters and when mentioning the see of Rome during the debates. [73] In his letter to Agathon, announcing the convocation of the Council, the Emperor gave to the Pope the title of "Oecumenical Pope," as he did also to the Patriarch of Constantinople. [74]


In the same letter [75] he spoke in general, of "God's most holy catholic and apostolic Churches," meaning, evidently, the five patriarchates. That such was his intention is indicated by the Emperor's order, pronounced at the end of the eighteenth meeting, that the decisions of the Synod be sent to the five patriarchal sees. The sees were enumerated as follows : [76]


"To the see of the holy Peter, Coryphaeus of the Apostles, namely, to the most holy Agatho, Pope of Old Rome. To the see of the most holy, catholic, and apostolic great Church of Constantinople, namely to George, the most holy and most blessed Patriarch. To the apostolic see of the holy Evangelist, Mark, who is honored in the great city of the Alexandrians through Peter, the most beloved by God, priest, monk, and legate. To the see of the Antiochenes or Theopolitans, the great city, through Theophanes the most holy and blessed Patriarch. To the see of the Holy Resurrection of our Lord Christ, God, namely to Jerusalem... ."


Here, then, is found the beginning of the pentarchic idea, namely that the whole Church should be governed by the five patriarchs. Because the patriarchs represented the apostles, all patriarchal sees were to be regarded as apostolic. This idea was particularly defined in the Acts of the Ignatian Council of 869-870. [77]



72. Ibid., Actio 8 (cols. 336 seq.), the bishops’ opinions on Agathon’s letter. 684 seq., letter of the Council to the Pope.


73. Ibid., cols. 197A, 360C, 392D, 509E, 716B, 7i9A,D.


74. Ibid., col. 196: τῷ ἁγιωτάτω καὶ μακαριωτάτῳ ἀρχιεπισκόπῳ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης, καὶ οἰκουμενικῷ πάπᾳ. The letter starts with a eulogy of Rome, the basis of Constantine IV’s imperial dignity. Cf. col. 201 seq., letter to the Patriarch, and col. 713, letter to Pope Leo. See also col. 737, letter to Pope John. When signing the decrees of the Council, at the end of the eighteenth session, the legates call the Pope also “oecumenical,” ibid., cols. 640, 668.


75. Ibid., col. 200C.            76. Ibid., cols. 681 seq.            77. See infra, pp. 268.





In the imperial letter of Constantine IV the apostolic designation is given especially to the three main sees, i.e. Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria, but this was not the only time that the see of Constantinople was called apostolic. It was so called frequently during the Synod, especially when the deacons of the patriarcheion— Constantine and Theodore—who acted as secretaries or readers at the Council, were mentioned. [78] They were given almost the same titles as the Roman legates when their intervention in the debates was announced. This was the first time, in an official ecclesiastical document, that the title of apostolic see had been given categorically to Constantinople.


It raises, however, another problem. Was Andrew's connection with the Church of Constantinople responsible for this promotion of the Constantinopolitan see ? If so, it would mean that the document, attributed to Dorotheus, cataloguing the bishops of Byzantium from Andrew and Stachys onward, was perhaps already known in Constantinople in the sixth century, and that its authenticity was generally accepted in the seventh century. It seems very doubtful, however, that this was so. A very important source may be quoted which completely ignores the Stachys Legend and the Pseudo-Dorotheus catalogue of Byzantine bishops, in spite of its having been written in the first half of the seventh century during the reign of the Emperor Heraclius (610-641). This is the Chronicon Paschale. Its anonymous author lists Metrophanes as the first Bishop of Constantinople, [79] ignoring the long list of his supposed predecessors presented by Pseudo-Dorotheus.


It might be argued that the anonymous Church historian was here simply copying his predecessor, the Church historian, Socrates, a native of Constantinople. [80] Of course Socrates could have known nothing about the legendary tradition, for, as had already been shown, it was not in existence in the fifth century when he wrote his history.



78. Mansi, 11, cols. 389E, 460D (in the Latin translation the title “apostolic” is often omitted), 521D, 553B, 585D, 616E, 624B, 629D. Of other eastern apostolic sees, only Jerusalem eagerly seeks this title, ibid., col. 640E, 669A.


79. Ed. Bonn, p. 522, PG, 92, col. 700: τῆς ἐν τῷ Βυζαντίῳ ἐκκλησίας ἡγεῖται πρῶτος Μητροφάνης ἔτη ι᾿. Bonn, p. 524; PG, ibid., col. 701 : Alexander is said to have been the second Bishop of Constantinople.


80. Hist. eccles. 1, 37; PG, 67, col. 173: τότε τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει προεστὼς Ἀλέξανδρος ἐκκλησίας, Μητροφάνην πάλαι διαδεξάμενος.





Socrates was not emphatic in declaring Metrophanes first Bishop of Constantinople, and this might explain why the Socrates tradition was ignored after the Andrew Legend became known.


However, when the Chronicon Paschale is more thoroughly perused, it must be concluded that its anonymous author could not have known of the list of apostles and disciples contained in the compilation attributed to Pseudo-Dorotheus, for his own list of the apostles and of the seventy disciples is a much simpler one. [81] In it he quotes Andrew second after Peter. He also mentions Stachys, but says nothing of Andrew's supposed connection with the foundation of the bishopric of Byzantium. This is the more noteworthy in that he speaks of the sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria as apostolic foundations, and is well acquainted with their relationship to Peter. [82]


All of this is important. It is logical to conclude that the anonymous Church historian of the seventh century knew nothing of the Andrew and Stachys Legend concerning Byzantium, and that, in the first half of the seventh century, the Pseudo-Dorotheus lists of apostles and disciples were not in circulation in Constantinople. Such a conclusion is further confirmed by the fact that the author of the Chronicon Paschale quotes, as the source of his information on the apostles and disciples, the Hypotyposis written by Clement of Alexandria. This work, now lost, was known also to the first Church historian Eusebius, [83] who, when numbering Cephas, whom he distinguishes from Peter, among the seventy disciples, quotes the same source as the anonymous Chronicon—the fifth book of Clement's Hypotyposis. This is somewhat surprising because this same Eusebius writes, in another passage, [84] that at this time a complete list of the seventy disciples did not exist. Apparently, therefore, the list given by Clement was incomplete,



81. Chronicon Paschale, ed. Bonn, pp. 399, 401; PG, 92, cols. 520, 521, Cf. infra, p. 176.


82. Chron. Paschale, ibid., pp. 416, 421, 431, 432; PG, ibid., cols. 540, 545, 557, 560.


83. Hist. eccles. 1, 12, 2; ed. E. Schwartz, 1, p. 82, PG, 20, col. 117.


84. Hist. eccles. 1, 12, 1; ed. E. Schwartz, ibid., p. 80, PG, ibid. Cf. R. A. Lipsius, Die apokr. Apost., 1, pt. 1, p. 201.





and the story of Stachys was not known to Clement, to Eusebius, or to the anonymous author of the Chronicon Paschale.


This indicates that the new idea of terming the see of Constantinople apostolic, could hardly have been put into circulation by the statements of the Pseudo-Dorotheus document attributing the foundation of the see of Byzantium to St. Andrew. How, therefore, could such an innovation have been introduced? The anonymous author of the Chronicon Paschale may be of help in supplying an answer to this question. On several occasions, when speaking of liturgical feasts introduced into the Church calendar, he stresses that they are celebrated annually on fixed dates by “ God's catholic and apostolic Church." [85] It is obvious from the text that he had in mind not so much the universal Church in general as the Church to which he belonged, the Eastern Church including that of Byzantium, which he calls catholic and apostolic.


It is reasonable to see in this the influence of the Roman emphasis on the apostolic character of the Church in general and of the Roman see in particular. Under this strong influence the idea of the apostolicity of the Church found more appreciation in Byzantium also, and the custom of calling the see of Constantinople apostolic should in a sense, therefore, be attributed to the Roman influence.


There may be, however, an additional explanation of the origin of this usage insofar as it concerns Byzantium. It has been seen [86] that, when the Byzantines started referring to their patriarch as “oecumenical” they intended not to reserve the designation exclusively for the holder of the see of the capital city, but to give it also to the patriarch of Rome. This can easily be explained. According to the Byzantine conception, since Constantinople was called the New Rome, the holder of its see should enjoy the same titles as the holder of the see of the Old Rome—as is suggested in the cannons confirming Constantinople's rank in the Church—and this should also apply in reverse. Because the holder of the see of the Old Rome called his Church apostolic, there was no reason to refuse to the holder of the see of New Rome the same privilege.



85. Ed. Bonn, pp. 373: the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25: ἑορτάζει τὸν εὐαγγελισμὸν τῆς ἁγίας δεσποίνης ἡμῶν ἐνδόξου Θεοτόκου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία. 393 (Epiphany), 417 (feasts in general), 429 (Easter). PG, 92, cols. 488, 512, 540, 553.


86. See supra, p. 163. Cf. also pp. 77, 79.





If it is true that the Andrew Legend was unknown in Byzantium in the seventh century, there can be no other reason for the origin of this practice in Constantinople.



For the following period at least, one document may be quoted to indicate that the see of Constantinople continued to be called apostolic. Written in 713 by Agatho, chartophylac of the church of Hagia Sophia, [87] it describes the reign, as well as the fall, of the usurper Basiliscus, and records the proclamation of the new Emperor Anastasius II. In his account of the election of Anastasius II, he reports that the new Emperor was first proclaimed "in God's most holy catholic and apostolic great church, and crowned by the Archpriest and Patriarch John in the holy and most venerable thysiasterion [sanctuary]." The deacon refers, of course, to the church of the Patriarch, the Hagia Sophia.


The title was, however, not yet used officially by the patriarchs themselves, as can be inferred from the letter sent by the Patriarch John to Pope Constantine I. In its address the writer does not give this title either to himself or to the Pope, but within the letter he twice calls the Roman see "apostolic." [88]


The approach of the iconoclastic period brought new developments. Although it would have seemed natural for the iconoclasts to have favored this idea as giving more prestige to the see of Constantinople, it appears, on the contrary, that the iconoclastic emperors preferred to hark back to the old Hellenistic definition of imperial power, stressing the priestly character of the basileia. [89]



87. Mansi, 12, col. 193C:

ἀναγορευθεὶς πρῶτον ἐν τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθολικῇ καὶ ἀποστολικῇ μεγάλῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ στεφθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως καὶ πατριάρχου Ἰωάννου ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ πανσέπτῳ θυσιαστηρίῳ.


88. Ibid., cols. 200Α, 205D.


89. Μ. Anastos will deal more fully with this problem in his study, Ἐκκλησία καὶ πολιτεία εἰς τὴν πρώτην εἰκονομαχικὴν περίοδον, to be published in Athens in 1958 (?) in a Festschrift honoring Hamilcar Alivizatos. As far as Andrew himself is concerned, his prestige seems to have been respected also by the iconoclasts, as indicated by the confirmation of privileges given to the metropolitan of Patras by Nicephorus II (802-811) and by Leo V (813-820). Leo V is said by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De administrando imperio, chap. 49 ; ed. Bonn, pp. 217-220; ed. Moravczik-Jenkins, pp. 231 seq.) to have fixed the tributes which the Slavs were to render to the metropolitan after their defeat in 805 by the citizens of Patras, whose victory had been won with the help of St. Andrew who had been seen leading his worshipers in battle.





Because of this they were inclined to exalt the position of the emperors in religious matters, at the expense of the priests, particularly since the patriarchs of the truly apostolic sees did not favor the iconoclastic doctrine.


So it came about that the apostolic idea became a weapon for the defenders of the image cult against the intervention of emperors in the doctrinal field. It can thus be said that the iconoclastic struggles contributed in great measure to the definitive acceptance of the principle of apostolicity by the Byzantine Church. As a logical consequence, the principle that Church affairs should be decided by the five patriarchs—the so-called pentarchic idea—was also considerably strengthened during the iconoclastic period by the defenders of images.


This is especially clear in the writings of St. Theodore of Studios, one of the most prominent defenders of the cult of images. He was anxious to deny to emperors the right of intervention in matters of faith; [90] so he stressed the thesis that decisions in dogmatic affairs wrere the exclusive concern of the Church, represented not by the emperor, but by the five patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria. Antioch, and Jerusalem, who were the successors of the apostles. He pointed out, too, that the decision of one of the patriarchs was not sufficient, but that the consent of all five was necessary, and that the iconoclastic council which was approved only by the Emperor and his heretical Patriarch, and condemned by the other four patriarchal sees, was therefore without value.


Theodore emphasized above all the apostolicity of the see of Old Rome because the popes were the most valiant defenders of the cult of images. On some occasions he gave the Pope the title of apostolicus, [91] but this did not mean that he endowed only the first patriarch with apostolicity. In his letter to Thomas, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, whom he called in one instance the first of the patriarchs,



90. In this respect Theodore follows St. John of Damascus whose plea for the cult of images contains a very outspoken condemnation of imperial interventions in religious matters. (De Imaginibus, orationes tres, 2, PG, 94, cols. 1296 seq.)


91. Letter to Pope Leo (Theodori Studitae Epistolae, i, Epist. 34, PG, 99, cols. 1021A, 1025D); Letter to Epiphanius (ibid., 2, Epist., 35, col. 1209D); Letter to the Patriarch Thomas of Jerusalem, (ibid., Epist. 121, col. 1397A). Cf. also Letter to Naucratius (ibid., Epist. 63, col. 1281B).





although he was the fifth of the series, [92] Theodore also stressed the apostolicity of the see of Jerusalem [93] and called the Pope the apostolicus of the West. [94] which implies that there were also apostolici of the East.


An important passage from Theodore's letter to Leo the Sacellarius [95] shows clearly that this is what Theodore had in mind. He says in the text:


"There is no discussion about secular things. To judge them is the right of the emperor and the secular tribunal. But [there is discussion] about divine and celestial decisions, and these are not committed to others than those to whom God the Word himself said, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven' [Matt. 16:19]. Who are the men to whom this order was given? The apostles and their successors. And who are their successors ? He who holds the throne of Rome, which is the first ; he who holds the throne of Constantinople, the second; and after them they who hold those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. This is the pentarchic authority of the Church; these have jurisprudence over divine dogmas. To the emperor and to the secular authority belong the giving of assistance and the confirming of what has been decided."


It is clear from Theodore's words that he likewise counted the patriarch of Constantinople among the successors of the apostles ; so he must have regarded the see of Constantinople as an apostolic see, similar to the others. He argued further that when one of the five patriarchs deviates from the truth, he must be judged, not by the emperor, but by the other patriarchs. The passage is important, too, from another point of view. Theodore recognized the emperor's right to convoke a council, but insisted also on the prominent position of the pope in general councils. If the convocation of a council was not desired by the emperor, he recommended that the case be submitted to the Roman patriarch for decision.



92. Ibid., Epist. 15, col. 1161A.


93. Ibid., Epist. 121, col. 1396C: οἴγε τῷ ἀποστολικῷ βαθμῷ ὑπερανεστῶτες, καὶ τὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοθέου δι᾿ ἐννόμου διαδοχῆς ἐπέχοντες πρόσωπον ....


94. Ibid., Epist. 121, col. 1397Α: ὁ τῆς Δύσεως ἀποστολικός.


95. Ibid., Epist. 124, col. 1417C.





The content of the letter as a whole indicates that Theodore opposed the secular power of the emperors as against the sacerdotal power of the patriarchs, which they inherited from the apostles. This strengthens the assumption that he regarded the see of Constantinople as an apostolic see.


Theodore's giving of the title apostolicus to the popes finds a supplementary explanation in the fact that this was the West's official title for the Pope at that time. [96] Theodore of Studios must have known that. He was in constant touch with the Greek monasteries in Rome, [97] and it is not unreasonable to suppose that he learned from his Greek correspondents [98] how to address the Pope in his letters. He was surely quite ready to adopt this title for it expressed his own belief that dogmatic questions could be decided only by the five patriarchs, the successors of the supreme teachers of the faith—the apostles—among whom the successor to St. Peter was the foremost.


Theodore's attitude is certainly important, and it illustrates particularly clearly the growth of the idea of apostolicity in Byzantium. In official documents, however, no clear evidence of this new tradition can be found. In the Acts of the Seventh Oecumenical Council the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople are given the usual titles—“most holy Pope of Old Rome, most holy Patriarch of Constantinople, that is New Rome." Rome is called “apostolic see"; so also are the sees of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. [99] Only once does Tarasius seem to raise his voice as an apostle, and that is when he addresses the Eastern patriarchs, inviting them to send legates to the Council: “I beseech you as brethren, and in the language of the Apostle, as though God did beseech you by us, I entreat you ..." Another allusion to the apostolicity of the patriarchal sees can be found in the same letter when he apostrophizes as his “allies, fellow-warriors, fellow combatants" [100] the Eastern patriarchs whose sees have been built upon



96. The author has discussed the problem in detail in his book Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode, vues de Byzance, (Prague, 1933), pp. 297 seq.


97. On Greek monasteries in Rome see ibid., pp. 285 seq.


98. See Theodore's letter to Basil, Abbot of one of the monasteries in Rome (Epist. i, 35, PG, 99, cols. 1028 seq.) Cf. also Theodore's letter to Epiphanius (ibid., 2, Epist. 35, col. 1209).


99. Mansi, 12, 13, especially at the beginning of each session.


100. Ibid., 12, col. 1126C, D.





the foundation of prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20).


This is, of course, slight testimony, but the Eastern patriarchs in their reply to Tarasius, while laying great stress on the apostolicity of their sees and calling Hadrian I “Holy and Apostolic Pope,” do not seem to deny the title to the Patriarch of Constantinople. They address their letter “to the most holy and most blessed Lord and Master, Archbishop of Constantinople and Oecumenical Patriarch,” but they praise also “the most holy and divinely inspired epistle of your Paternal and Apostlic Holiness.” [101]


A very faint echo of Theodore's teaching as to the supreme role that the five patriarchs should play in the Church can be discovered in the refutation of the iconoclastic council by the Deacon John, read at the beginning of the sixth session. This declared that that council could not be called oecumenical because the patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were not represented and had not accepted its decisions. [102]



Thus it appears that the importance of apostolic origins in Church organization was fully grasped in Constantinople at the end of the seventh and the beginning of the eighth centuries. Thanks to the defenders of image worship, the idea of apostolicity in Constantinople had considerably advanced. It would, therefore, seem quite logical to look for some kind of codification of the Andrew tradition in this period, and this problem deserves a more thorough examination.


The key to the dating of the writings containing the Andrew and Stachys stories is probably to be found in the Martyrium sancti Apostoli Andreae, published by Max Bonnet in 1894 and called by him Narratio. [103] In it the anonymous author states (chap. 8) that Andrew,



101. Ibid., cols. 1127C, 1134B,D,E.


102. Ibid., 13, cols. 208E, 209A.


103. In Analecta Bollandiana, 13 (1894), pp. 253-372, reprinted in his Supplementum codicis apocryphi (Paris, 1895), pp. 45-64. Cf. also R. A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, 2 (Leipzig, 1898), p. xvi. The text in AnBoll., p. 358, in Supplementum, chap. 8, p. 50:

Ἐκεῖθεν τε αὖθις ἐξελθὼν διὰ τοῦ κατάπλου τοῦ αὐτοῦ Εὐξείνου πόντου τοῦ εἰσρέοντος πρὸς τὸ Βυζάντιον δεξιοῖς μέρεσιν ἐχώρει. Καὶ πρός τινα χώραν καλουμένην Ἀργυρόπολιν καταλαβὼν καὶ ἐκεῖσε ἐκκλησίαν δειμάμενος τὸν ἕνα τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα μαθητῶν Στάχυν ὀνόματι, οὗ καὶ Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος, τὸ στόμα Χριστοῦ, τὸ σκεῦος τῆς ἐκλογῆς, ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους μέμνηται ἐπιστολῇ ἀγαπητὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα χειροτονήσας τοῦ Βυζαντίου ἐπίσκοπον καὶ καταλιπὼν διαγγέλειν τὸν σωτήριον λόγον, διὰ τὴν ἐκεῖσε ἐπικρατοῦσαν τότε εἰδωλικὴν ἀθεότητα καὶ τὴν τοῦ τυράννου καὶ εἰδωλομανοῦς Ζευξίππου ὠμότητα τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ προκαθεζομενού αὐτὸς πρὸς τοῖς δυτικοῖς μέρεσιν ἀπῄει, καταφωτίζων ταῖς ἐνθέοις αὐτοῦ διδαχαῖς καὶ τὴν δυτικήν ἀμαυρότητα.

Chap. 9: Διελθών τε τὴν Θεσσαλίαν καὶ Ελλάδα καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐταῖς ταῖς πόλεσιν τὸ τῆς οἰκονομίας Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ μυστήριον ἐκθέμενος αὐτόθεν μέτεισιν πρὸς τὴν Ἀχαΐαν.





"after having sailed down through the same Pontus Euxeinus [Black Sea] which flows toward Byzantium, landed on the right bank, and after arriving at a place called Argyropolis, and having constructed there a church, he ordained one of the seventy disciples called Stachys whom also Paul the Apostle, the mouthpiece of Christ, the vessel of election, mentions in the Epistle to the Romans [Rom. 16:9] as beloved [by him], Bishop of Byzantium, and left him to preach the word of salvation. He, because of the pagan godlessness that prevailed in that region, and the cruelty of the tyrant Zeuxippus, a worshipper of idols, who held sway there, turned toward western parts (αὐτὸς πρὸς τοὶς δυτικοῖς μέρεσιν ἀπῄει), illuminating with his divine teaching the darkness of the West (τὴν δυτικὴν ἀμαυρότητα) [chap. 9]. After wandering through Thessaly and Hellas and after affirming in their cities the mystery of Christ's salvation, he came to Achaea."


It seems clear from this description that, according to the author of the Narratio, Thessaly, Hellas, and Achaea belonged to the western parts illuminated by the preaching of Andrew. Actually, with Macedonia and Epirus, they formed part of Illyricum which was subject to the western patriarchate of Rome, and thus could be termed “western parts"—τὰ δυτικὰ μέρη. This indicates that this description of Andrew's activity must have been compiled at a time when Illyricum was not subject to the patriarchs of Constantinople. Some think [104] that the date of this transformation—attributed to Leo III—should be moved from 733 to about 752-757.



104. See V. Grumel, “L'annexion de Illyricum oriental, de la Sicile et de la Calabre an patriarcat de Constantinople," Recherches de science religieuse (Mélanges Lebreton), 40 (1952), pp. 191-200. Grumel's arguments are, however, far from convincing, as was shown by M. Anastos in his study: “The Transfer of Illyricum to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 732," Silloge Bizantina in honore di S. G. Mercati (Studi bizantini e neoellenici, 9 [1957]).





If this interpretation is justified, [105] the composition of this document should be allocated before the year 733, perhaps in 757 or, at the latest, very soon after this date, when the new situation had not yet been fully accepted. In any case, it can hardly be supposed that these provinces would have been called “western” at the beginning of the ninth century. In fact the decree of the iconoclastic Emperor was very welcome to all Byzantines, iconoclastic and orthodox alike, and the Tacticon, dating from the patriarchate of St. Nicephorus—about the year 810—included the metropolitan of Illyricum among the ecclesiastical provinces under the jurisdiction of Byzantium. So also did another list of sees compiled by Basil the Armenian about the year 829, at the end of the reign of Michael II or at the beginning of the reign of Theophilus. [106]



The Narratio is probably not the first document to have codified the Andrew tradition concerning Byzantium. There is a work which apparently preceded all others of this kind: the Index apostolorum discipulorumque Domini Epiphanio attributus. [107] This text was erroneously regarded by R. A. Lipsius [108] as the first re-edition of Pseudo-Dorotheus. Th. Schermannhas convincingly shown, however, that it is an independent work, attributed, in the best manuscript containing it (Parisinus Graecus 1115), to Epiphanius of Cyprus.


Here a very short and simple version of the story of Byzantium's apostolic foundation is given. In his description of Andrew’s missionary activities, the compiler says nothing of the Apostle's stay in Thrace.



105. This date was also tentatively suggested and rejected by J. Flamion in his study Les Actes apocryphes de l'Apôtre André (Louvain, Paris, Brussels, 1911), pp. 68, 69, because he was under the influence of M. Schermann’s dating of Pseudo-Dorotheus at the beginning of the ninth century, and thought that the author of the Narratio had used the text of Pseudo-Dorotheus.


106. See G. Parthey, Hieroclis synecdomus et notitiae episcopatnum (Berlin, 1866), notitia 8, pp. 162-180, notitiae 6 and 9, pp. 145-149, 181-197, and H. Gelzer, Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis romani (Leipzig, 1890), pp. xiii-xv, 1-27. Cf. also J. Pargoire, L'Eglise byzantine de 527 à 847 (2nd ed., Paris, 1923), p. 298.


107. Prophetarum vitae fabulosae, indices apostolorum discipulorumque Domini, Dorotheo, Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicata, ed. Th. Schermann, Teubner series (Leipzig, 1907), pp. xxxiv seq., 107-126.


108. Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, i (Brunswick, 1883), pp. 23, 194 seq.





He merely reports: [109]


“Andrew, his [Peter's] brother, as our ancestors have transmitted to us, preached to the Scythians and Sogdianians and Gorsinians, and in Sebastopolis the Great, where are the encampment of Apsarus [110] and the Bay of Hyssus and the River Phasis, beyond which live the Ethiopians; [111] he is buried in Patras of Achaea after having been put on the cross by Aegeus the King of Patras."


If this statement is compared to that of the Narratio, it will be seen that the two documents give identical descriptions of Andrew's preaching in Scythia, in Sebastopolis, and at the mouth of the rivers Apsarus and Phasis.



109. Prophetarum Vitae, ed. Th. Schermann, pp. 108 seq.


110. R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen, 2, pt. 2, p. 430, proposed the following translation: “Der Garnisonsort Apsaros.'' On these nations see pp. 208 seq.


111. The mention of Ethiopians, designated sometimes as “Ethiopians of the interior,“ in these geographical regions is puzzling. Perhaps we could see in this the fusion of two traditions; that of Andrew whose activity was generally primarily limited to Pontus Euxeinus from where he had reached Byzantium and Achaea, and that of Matthew who, according to the Martyrium Matthaei, of Ethiopian origin, originally in Greek and preserved in Latin translation in the so-called Abdias Collection (J.A. Fabricius, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, sive historia certaminis apostolici, adscripta Abdiae, Babyloniae episcopo, 2, pp. 636 seq.), had preached in Ethiopia.


This Martyrium was composed in Ethiopia after 524 (R. A. Lipsius, op. cit., 1, pp. 168, 223, pt. 2y pp. 135-141), and so was certainly known in Byzantium in the seventh and eighth centuries. Matthew was often confounded with Matthias (cf. R.A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet, loc. cit., 1, pt. 1, p. xxxiv). Because the Acts of Andrew and Matthias which spoke about the common activity of both Apostles in the city of the cannibals were read also in Byzantium (they were composed, as we shall see, at the end of the fourth century—probably in Egypt), it may be permissible to suppose that the author of the catalogue of the apostles and disciples, anxious to reconcile the two traditions, had invented the existence of Ethiopians in the Hinterland of the Colchis. In reality the monk Epiphanius, of the ninth century (Vita S. Andreae, PG, 120, cols. 225 seq.), speaks of Matthias' and Andrew's preaching there. It is possible that this operation was facilitated by the stories which could be read in Herodotus. In his History (2, chaps. 103, 104; ed. A. D. Godley, 1 [Loeb Classical Library, 1931], pp. 390 seq.) Herodotus describes the military success of the Egyptian King Sesostris who is said to have extended his rule through Asia Minor over the Scythians and Thracians. When returning home from his expedition he is said to have left part of his army in Colchis, on the river Phasis. The Colchians, therefore, affirms Herodotus, are Egyptians. Further (2, chap. 110, ed. cit., I, p. 398), Herodotus says that Sesostris was the only Egyptian ruler who had succeeded in subduing Ethiopia, which suggests that Ethiopians were among the Egyptian soldiers who had settled on the Phasis. In reality, Herodotus speaks of Ethiopians of Asia (3, chap. 94, ed. cit., 2, p. 122) when enumerating the nations paying tribute to Darius, but he places them in the seventeenth province, together with the Paricanii, on the coast of the Erythrean Sea, in or near Beluchistan. They are also enumerated by Herodotus among the nations whose soldiers composed the army of Xerxes (7, chap. 70, ed. cit., 3, p. 382), and are called Ethiopians of the East, or of Asia.





The author of the Narratio adds a description of how Andrew reached Scythia : He started preaching in Bithynia, visited Nicaea, went from there to Thrace and thence to Scythia. In his account of the Apostle's return journey from Scythia to Thrace, he neglects to mention the Sogdianians and the Gorsinians, and contents himself with calling the people beyond these places Ethiopians. [112] He has Andrew proceed from the land of the Ethiopians to Sinope, and from Sinope to Byzantium.


Pseudo-Epiphanius is also brief in speaking of the apostolic foundation of the see of Constantinople. In his list of the disciples the following statement is made concerning Stachys:

“Stachys, whom Paul also mentions in the same Epistle [Rom. 6:9], was instituted first Bishop of Byzantium by Andrew the Apostle, in Argyropolis of Thrace."

The conciseness of this information indicates that the Pseudo-Epiphanius contains the first known version, in its simplest and earliest form, of the Andrew and Stachys Legend concerning Byzantium. The Narratio gives a more elaborate account of Andrew's travels. It is thus possible to regard the writing of Pseudo-Epiphanius as earlier than the Narratio.


Next arises the question of the possible date of the composition of Pseudo-Epiphanius' catalogue. The attribution of this catalogue to Epiphanius of Cyprus, who died in 402, is, of course, incorrect. He is believed, however, to have composed a catalogue of prophets, [113] and this may explain why other similar writings—the catalogues of apostles and of disciples—were attributed to him. It seems probable that these two catalogues circulated anonymously at first, were added later to the catalogue of prophets composed by Epiphanius, and so were finally attributed to him. [114]


Such an attribution was certainly accepted at the beginning of the ninth century. The monk Epiphanius who wrote [115] a Life of Andrew during the first half of the ninth century,



112. Ed. M. Bonnet, op. cit., chaps. 4, 5, pp. 48 seq.


113. On Epiphanius of Cyprus' authorship of a catalogue of prophets see Th. Schermann, Prophet. und Apostel., pp. 2-6. Moreover, in his Adversus Haereses (chaps. 20, 4; 51, 6; PG, 41, cols. 277D, 897 seq.) Epiphanius quotes some names of disciples. This may be another reason why an anonymous catalogue of disciples was attributed to him.


114. Cf. Th. Schermann, ibid., p. 350.


115. For further details see infra, p. 178.





discloses that, in collecting material for his work, he had at hand a composition by Epiphanius of Cyprus on the apostles and the seventy disciples, including the story of Andrew's travels and stay in Byzantium.


But it is possible to reach a more precise conclusion. The two catalogues—or at least the list of disciples—could not have existed in the middle of the seventh century. This is indicated by the way in which the anonymous author of the Chronicon Paschale treats the problem of the fate of Christ's disciples. Instead of availing himself of the generous amount of data concerning the disciples supplied by Pseudo-Epiphanius, he refers his readers to a work of Clement of Alexandria, the Hypotyposis, shown above to have been very fragmentary and incomplete. [116]


The author of the Chronicon knew only a very simple list of apostles and disciples, which must have been circulating at that time in Byzantium and which he copied. [117] This catalogue was probably founded on Clement's Hypotyposis and Eusebius' Church History, for it begins with the same names mentioned in these writings. [118] In the catalogue of the Chronicon Paschale the names of Christ's remaining disciples are compiled from names of persons contained in Paul's letter (Rom. 16, I Cor., Col., II Tim., Titus, Philemon., II Cor.) and in the Acts of the Apostles. [119]


All of this calls for a short recapitulation of what is known on the origins of detailed lists of Christ's disciples. It is agreed among specialists that the origin of the catalogues of apostles should be sought in Egypt and Syria. [120] The more or less legendary accounts of the apostles' missionary activities, based on short notices preserved in early Christian writings, also originated in these countries, and from there were introduced into Byzantine ecclesiastical circles where they were often adapted to local traditions.



116. Chron. Paschale, ed. Bonn., p. 421. Cf. supra, p. 165.


117. Ibid., pp. 400-403.


118. The catalogue starts with the names of Matthias, Sosthenes, and Cephas, all three of these disciples being mentioned in Eusebius’ Church History (1, chap. 12, PG, 20, col. 117; GCS, 9, pt. 1, ed. E. Schwartz [1903], p. 80).


119. For a detailed description see Th. Schermann, op. cit., pp. 299 seq.


120. Cf. R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen, 1, p. 200, and especially Th. Schermann, op. cit., pp. 204-216.





The first attempts to compile a list of Christ's disciples (Luke 10:1) were made by Clement of Alexandria in his lost Hypotyposis and by Eusebius in his Church History. They served as a basis for further speculation on the fate of Christ's disciples, and for the composition of more complete lists. Epiphanius of Cyprus (d. 402) quotes the names of only some of Christ's disciples, though he seems to have known the names of all seventy-two. [121]


While the apostles were being listed, further progress was being made in Syria in the compilation of lists of Christ's disciples. This is indicated by the list preserved in the Apostolic Constitutions. [122] Although this catalogue is incomplete, it not only contains the names of the disciples, but reveals a growing interest in their fate. It presents them as bishops instituted in different cities by the apostles.


Such a Syriac list translated into Greek must have been introduced into Byzantium in the second half of the seventh century. It is preserved in two manuscripts. The older manuscript (Cod. Vat. gr. 2001, twelfth century) of this " Syriac" catalogue does not contain the stories of Stachys' ordination by Andrew [123] or of Andrew's journey through Byzantium; neither do these stories appear in the later manuscript (Cod. Vat. gr. 1506, thirteenth century). This catalogue presents the original Syriac tradition, and it must have begun to circulate in Byzantium after the publication of the Chronicon Paschale, for the author of the Chronicon does not appear to know of the "Syriac" catalogue.



121. Adversus Haereses, chaps. 20, 4; 51, 6; PG, 41, cols. 277D, 897 seq.


122. Didascalia et Constitutiones apostolorum, I, vii, chap. 46; ed. F. X. Funk, i (Paderborn, 1905), pp. 452 seq.


123. For more details see Th. Schermann, op. cit., pp. 301 seq. The author rightly stresses the fact that in Vaticanus Graecus 1506 some names were already listed not according to the Syriac, but according to the Byzantine tradition. Thus it is especially interesting to note that Stachys’ story was not added by the translator. In both manuscripts Stachys seems to be listed among the successors to the twelve apostates. Unfortunately folio 8ov of Vat. gr. 1506, where Stachys ’ name should be read, is almost illegible. Vaticanus graecus 2001 remarks as follows on Andrew, who is listed after Peter and Paul (fol. 3θ2ν): Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς Σίμωνος Πέτρου, κηρύξας ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι. Εἰς Πάτρας τελειοῦται ὑπὸ τοῦ Αἰγεάτῃ. In manuscript Vat. gr. 1506 (fol. 78) Andrew is listed after Peter, and Hellas is not mentioned: Ἀνδρέας Σκύθαις, Ὀγδοανοῖς καὶ Σάκαις. Cf. Th. Schermann, Prophet. vitae, pp. 171-177. Ibid., p. 218, a short Syriac list of apostles in Latin translation, probably from the sixth century, which reports merely that Andrew died in Patras.





Because this catalogue ignores the story of Stachys' ordination by Andrew, it must be anterior to the composition of the list erroneously ascribed to Epiphanius of Cyprus.


All of which indicates that the composition of the Pseudo-Epiphanius list should be dated, at the earliest, around the very end of the seventh century, or, more probably, at the beginning of the eighth. Its author simply adapted a Graeco-Syriac list to Byzantine use, often following in his account of the activity of the apostles an older tradition than that he had found in his prototype. [124] It can be supposed that this catalogue, because of its many details about the further destinies of the disciples, achieved greater popularity than the list of names given by the author of the Chronicon Paschale.


Regarding the list of disciples contained in the compilation attributed to Dorotheus of Tyre, it is possible to see in it the final elaboration of a legendary tradition that for some time had been gradually developing in Byzantium. This development was similar to that of the lists attributed to Epiphanius of Cyprus, for here, too, the only part of the compilation that is original is the list of prophets, probably first written in Aramaic and translated or adapted into Greek by the priest Dorotheus. The forger who added to this list of prophets the list of apostles and disciples, and the catalogue of pre-Nicene bishops of Byzantium, promoted the priest Dorotheus to Bishop of Tyre, and had him die a martyr's death under Julian. To add authority to his list of apostles and disciples, the forger inserted a special notice on Dorotheus, [125] lauding his erudition and attributing to him the translation of Hebrew books into Greek.


It may be that the lists contained in the collection attributed to Dorotheus of Tyre did not appear, at that time, under his name. As to the catalogue of pre-Nicene bishops of Byzantium, the possibility that it was unknown in the Capital City in the eighth century seems confirmed by the oldest Menologion of Constantinople, composed in the eighth century,



124. Cf. L. Duchesne, “Les anciens recueils de légendes apostoliques," Compte vendu du troisième congrès scientifique international des catholiques, 1894 (Brussels, 1895), section 5, Sciences historiques, p. 77.


125. See Th. Schermann, op. cit., pp. 351, 353. Cf. supra, p. 156.





in which there is no mention of Stachys or of the twenty-one bishops who are said to have preceded Metrophanes, and who are commemorated on the fourth of June. [126]


Thus the list of bishops of Byzantium was apparently compiled at the end of the eighth century, or at the very beginning of the ninth. This appears to be attested by Theophanes who wrote his Chronicle about 810-811, and who spoke even then of Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre, mentioning, among his numerous writings, lists of “bishops of Byzantium and of many other places.” [127]


Theophanes, however, does not yet seem to know of a catalogue of apostles and disciples, also ascribed to Dorotheus. This catalogue could, therefore, have been compiled only after 811, and could not have been added to the list of Byzantine bishops until an even later period. This catalogue is, in fact, based on the text of Pseudo-Epiphanius' list, and betrays a further elaboration brought about by the plagiarist. There exists a certain interdependence between the Narratio and Pseudo-Dorotheus. J. Flamion [128] analyzed the similar statements contained in both documents, and concluded that the Narratio is later than Pseudo-Dorotheus. The reverse is, however, shown to be probable. The Narratio apparently preserves the tradition of Andrew's travels in a purer form than Pseudo-Dorotheus, and its author seems to have used greater logic in his description of Andrew's travels. He has the Apostle go to Byzantium from Sinope and then travel through the “western parts''—Macedonia, Thessaly, and Hellas—to Achaea; whereas Pseudo-Dorotheus writes that Andrew went from Byzantium to Sinope. This makes it difficult to understand how the Apostle reached Achaea which, according to the tradition—also recorded briefly by Pseudo-Dorotheus in his list of apostles—should have been his last missionary territory.



126. S. A. Morcelli, Kalendarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, II (Rome, 1788), pp. 119 seq. Cf. K. A. H. Kellner, Heortologie (Freiburg i. Br., 1901), p. 220 (2nd ed., [1906], p. 272).


127. Theophanes, Chronographia, ad. ann. 5816, ed. Bonn, p. 35; ed. de Boor p. 24 : οὗτος ἀκριβῶς καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐπισκόπων τοῦ Βυζαντίου καὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν τόπων διεξῆλθεν. Cf. Th. Schermann, op. cit., pp. 175 seq., who rightly supposes that Theophanes is using here the same source as Pseudo-Dorotheus, but is more accurate in describing the legendary career of Dorotheus as based on Eusebius’ report of the two men with the same name (see supra, p. 156).


128. Op. cit., pp. 64 seq.





It is, of course, curious to note that the monk Epiphanius, who wrote his Life of Andrew after 815, did not know the Narratio, but it can perhaps be explained by the outbreak, soon after the Narratio's composition, of the iconoclastic struggles. The violent reaction, under Leo the Armenian, against image-worship hardly favored the spread of hagiographical literature, and so it came about that the Narratio fell into oblivion. The iconoclastic troubles may also explain the Byzantines' need to import lists of apostles and disciples from Syria in order to revive their own interest in the fate of Christ's disciples.


The composition of the lists of apostles and disciples contained in Pseudo-Dorotheus should, thus, be dated, at the earliest, around the very end of the eighth century. If, however, the statements of the monk Epiphanius, the author of Andrew's Life, concerning his principal source are taken into consideration, this date should be placed even later. To Epiphanius, who wrote his Life after 815, [129] Pseudo-Dorotheus' list was unknown, for he quotes Pseudo-Epiphanius as the main source for his composition. This permits the conclusion that all portions of Pseudo-Dorotheus, as they are now kown, were not brought together under the name of that author and circulated throughout Byzantium until about the middle of the ninth century.


Where could the above-mentioned writers have found the basis for their legendary account of Andrew and Stachys? Their main source could only have been a report on Andrew's apostolic activity that must ultimately be traced to the apocrypha generally regarded as of heretical—mostly Gnostic—origin, and which, from the fourth century onward, were often mentioned and rejected by the Church Fathers. [130]



129. See infra, p. 225.


130. Namely by Eusebius, Epiphanius, Philastrius of Brescia, Timotheus of Constantinople, Turibius of Astorga, St. Augustine, Euodius of Uzala. For details and precise quotations see R. A. Lipsius, op. cit., pp. 543 seq.


[Previous] [Next]

[Back to Index]