The apostle Andrew, probably best known as Peter’s brother (Mark 1:16), was a fisherman like his brother. Both Andrew and Peter became disciples of Jesus after he said, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” (4:19b). Andrew first brought Peter to Jesus, making a remarkable Christological confession (John 1:41). This essential material regarding Andrew, that he was a fisherman in Galilee who followed the call of Jesus, seems to reflect an authentic Jesus tradition.1
The name Andrew is Greek for “manly.” He was originally from Bethsaida, a city about twenty-five miles east of Nazareth on the Sea of Galilee (John 1:44), but he moved to Capernaum with his family. Before becoming one of the Twelve, he was a disciple of John the Baptist (John 1:3–42). Jesus undoubtedly made a powerful impression upon him. Andrew must have been utterly convinced that Jesus was the Messiah. While not all of John’s disciples followed Jesus (John 3:25–27), Andrew did. And he immediately brought Peter to him, saying: “We have found the Messiah” (John 1:41b). Andrew likely received a similar education to his brother, but because he lived with Peter and his family at the beginning of his ministry, he may not have been married.
The Synoptics provide little information about Andrew. Mark reports one instance where Andrew joins Peter, James, and John in hearing Jesus’s teaching on the Mount of Olives (13:3–37), where Jesus proclaims the destruction of the temple and its precincts. While most scholars conclude that Andrew was not among the inner circle, he may have been on the fringes of the group. Interestingly, there is an early tradition that Andrew was a member of the inner circle, perhaps even more prominent than his brother Peter. This finds support from a quote by Papias in his The Sayings of the Lord Interpreted, in which he lists Andrew as the first apostle he sought to learn about the words of Jesus (Ecclesiastical History 3.39). The Muratorian Canon also links Andrew to the origin of the Gospel of John. James Patrick believes these traditions, along with internal evidence from the Gospel of John, reveal that Andrew was in fact the closest disciple to Jesus, and was the Beloved Disciple.2 While Patrick believes the presbyter John wrote the fourth Gospel, he credits Andrew and the rest of the Johannine circle as being the source behind the stories.3 While this hypothesis has not met with widespread approval in the scholarly community, it does raise interesting questions about the role and significance of Andrew in the early church.
Andrew is mentioned three times in the Gospel of John. On two of these occasions, he is mentioned along with Philip (6:8; 12:12). And the third time, he is mentioned right before Philip (cf. 1:40, 1:44). Clearly, there was some special connection between these two.
Every time Andrew appears in John, he is bringing someone to Jesus. The first time, he brings Peter to Jesus (1:41–42). In the second instance, Andrew brings to Jesus a small boy who has five small loaves of bread and two fish (6:8). The third time involves some Greeks who want to worship Jesus. They first approach Philip, who tells Andrew about their request, and Andrew decides the two of them should tell Jesus together (12:20–22). It may seem that Philip went to Andrew because he was closer to Jesus, but Colin Kruse suggests he approached Andrew with the request because he was the only other member of the Twelve who had a Greek name.4 Philip may have been unsure whether Jesus would accept Gentiles, so together they approached Jesus.
Some have even speculated that Andrew first brought Philip to Jesus.5 If so, then Andrew would be indirectly responsible for Nathanael hearing about Jesus as well (John 1:45). Whether or not this is true, Andrew is unmistakably characterized as having a missionary mindset from the moment he meets Jesus.
Ronald Brownrigg captures what can seemingly be known about the character of Andrew:
Compared with his bombastic brother, Andrew emerges as a sensitive and approachable man who always had time and patience to listen to enquiries, even from children and foreigners. He was a selfless and considerate man, who did not resent the leadership of his brother. If his brother, Peter, was the skipper of the crew, Andrew was indeed the “ferry man” always willing to take people to Jesus. He was a kindly and faithful disciple, not fearful of ridicule even though he offered a picnic basket to feed five thousand. Although himself a Jew, he enabled Greeks to meet Jesus and he has been called the first “home missionary” as well as the first “foreign” missionary of the Christian church.6
Beginning in the second century, Andrew became a popular figure in apocryphal writings such as the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, the Acts of Peter and Andrew, the Acts of Andrew and Bartholomew, and the Pistis Sophia.
As with the other disciples, Andrew was an eyewitness of the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:5; Matt 28:9–10; Luke 24:36–53; John 20:19–23). He is one of the chief disciples mentioned in John, and witnessed the events the Gospel records, as well as many more that were not recorded (John 20:30, 21:25). He was willing to suffer for his conviction that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 5:17–42). And many ancient traditions state that Andrew was in fact persecuted for his faith.7 Despite a substantial record of his travels and persecutions, there is no record he ever wavered in his commitment to Jesus Christ.
The earliest information about the missionary travels of Andrew comes from Origen, who states that he went to Scythia, in southern Russia.8 Eucherius of Lyons (d. c. 450) and Hippolytus on the Twelve also mention Andrew preaching in Scythia. There were Jews in the surrounding area of Scythia from the time of the first century BC, and given the easy route of access to Scythia from Jerusalem, it was a logical place for Andrew to missionize. In their heyday, the nomadic Scythians were a vital political and economic force.9 They were polytheistic and deeply superstitious.10 Tertullian includes Scythia in his list of nations the Gospel has reached by the time he writes at the end of the second century.11 Given the date of the tradition, as well as the plausibility of travel to Scythia in the first century AD, Francis Dvornik concludes that this tradition by Origen “seems to be well founded.”12
While many scholars agree Andrew traveled to Scythia, substantial disagreement exists regarding the remaining traditions, including his martyrdom. Stewart Lamont believes evidence is lacking for the martyrdom tradition.13 On the other hand, William Barclay concludes: “Even if we doubt the details, we cannot doubt that Andrew died a martyr for his Master.”14 Yet, as will be seen, the truth is likely somewhere between these two perspectives.
Greek scholar George Alexandrou wrote a 1,000-page book on the missionary travels of Andrew called He Raised the Cross on the Ice.15 His goal was not to critique the traditions, but to begin with the assumption that all the evidence is at least possible.16 He then lined up all the traditions of Andrew to see if he could trace his missionary travels with any level of probability. Alexandrou concluded: “It was like a train, one car after another, until I had only twenty years missing from St. Andrew’s return to the Black Sea from Valaamo until he went to Sinope—and from there to Patras in Achaia, to his martyrdom.”17 Alexandrou eventually found a tradition of Andrew living in a cave in Romania for twenty years that fit the gap in his timeline exactly. Perhaps the most interesting finding from his studies is how smoothly the traditions fit together when they are lined up chronologically and geographically.18
According to Alexandrou, ancient traditions reveal four missionary journeys of Andrew that include locations such as Constantinople, Pontus, central Asia, Ethiopia, Georgia,19 southern Russia, and more. Given the travel conditions of the first century, Alexandrou concludes that there is nothing intrinsically impossible about each of these missionary journeys. Given the current state of information, it is impossible to determine the validity of every single account, yet it seems overly skeptical to dismiss them entirely as legendary.
The first tradition that Andrew was in Patrae (Greece), the traditional site of his martyrdom, is found in the Acts of Andrew, which is typically dated between the middle of the second century and the beginning of the third. Four other sources mention his sojourn in Greece before the dawn of the sixth century.20 Thus, the tradition that Andrew ministered in Greece is consistent, widespread, and relatively early. Ursula Hall finds the tradition of Andrew visiting Greece doubtful, because it was the missionary field of other men, in particular Paul.21 It is not clear, however, why it is implausible for a number of men to minister in the same region. Paul often visited cities such as Corinth that already had an established community of believers. Peter and Paul both went to Rome. Some claim that both Thomas and Bartholomew visited India. Whether this tradition is true or not is irrelevant. The point is that there is nothing implausible about two or more apostles ministering in the same place, as Hall suggests was the case for Andrew and Greece.
According to the Syriac Teaching of the Apostles,22 Andrew ministered in Nicaea, Nicomedia, Bithynia, and inner Galatia. This is similar to where Peter ministered (1 Pet 1:1). Given that the disciples often went out in twos (Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1), some scholars have suggested that Andrew may have ministered for a period with his brother Peter.23 Lamont questions this tradition, since earlier traditions place him in the region of the Black Sea.24 There is nothing chronologically or geographically impossible about Andrew ministering in both regions. As for the apostles, the Teaching of the Apostles also cites that James wrote in Jerusalem, Simon [Peter] in Rome, John from Ephesus, and Judas Thomas from India. Given that the author got these ascriptions correct, at least according to my assessment, it is at least probable he also got the tradition correct about Andrew.
A few factors make at least some missionary travels of Andrew highly likely, even if we cannot currently ascertain the probability of every individual tradition. First, multiple traditions exist involving Andrew. Unlike the apostle Thomas, who was consistently considered an apostle of the East or greater India, Andrew has multiple traditions throughout Judea, Africa, central Asia, and Europe. The chances that all of them are fictional seem remote. Second, as Alexandrou observes, even though the traditions developed independently, they naturally line up chronologically and geographically. Third, the earliest accounts of Andrew, found in the Gospels, reveal Andrew as having a missionary mindset; it is within the known character of Andrew to engage in missions. Fourth, archaeological evidence has been found to support certain traditions.25 When these four considerations are combined with the commission by Jesus to evangelize the world (Matt 28:19–20; Acts 1:8), and the early textual evidence that the apostles actually carried out this commission, we have convincing reason to believe Andrew was a missionary who advanced the Gospel of Christ.
The earliest known written source reporting the martyrdom of Andrew is the Acts of Andrew (c. AD 150–210), which begins with the summoning of Andrew by Maximilla, the wife of the proconsul Aegeates, to cast a demon out of a servant boy. After seeing Andrew deliver the boy, Stratocles, the brother of Aegeates, joins Maximilla in becoming a disciple of Andrew. With Andrew’s encouragement, Maximilla began to resist the sexual advances of her husband in an attempt to love God alone. Knowing he would be upset, Maximilla devised a plan to have a servant girl named Euclia sleep with Aegeates in her place, which lasted about eight months until Aegeates discovered that Andrew was behind the change in his wife—for which Aegeates had Andrew thrown in prison, promising to release him only if Maximilla would sleep with him and bear his children. But Andrew refused to back down, proclaiming that he would rather be killed. Aegeates had Andrew crucified, but without nails, so he would experience the torment of being eaten by dogs if he were still alive at night. In perhaps the most memorable scene from the Acts of Andrew, Andrew speaks to the cross as he approaches the site of crucifixion, and commands the executioners to carry out their orders. He preaches for four days from the cross until a large crowd demands Aegeates release him. But Andrew refuses to accept the pardon, and dies by crucifixion.26 After the death of Andrew, Maximilla leaves Aegeates, and he commits suicide by leaping from a tall height. Unlike Peter, Paul, and Thomas in their respective Acts, Andrew does not appear again after his death.
There is significant debate about when to date the Acts of Andrew, ranging from the middle of the second century to the beginning of the third. The Acts of Andrew may very well fall within the range of living memory, but we cannot be sure. Many later written accounts exist of the death of Andrew, but they can be traced back only through the Acts of Andrew.27 This is also likely true for ancient calendars as well as liturgical prayers such as the Irish Palimpsest Sacramentary and the Missale Gothicum (c. AD 700).28
One possible independent early source, Hippolytus on the Twelve, attributed to Hippolytus, a third-century bishop,29 says: “Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of Achaia; and there too he was buried.”30 This account confirms the mission to Scythia as reported by Origen, but also the crucifixion in Patras as stated by the Acts of Andrew. Interestingly, it mentions Andrew was crucified “upright on an olive tree,” which may indicate it is an independent tradition.31 Even if Hippolytus did not write this work, it may be early. Nevertheless, given the questions that remain about this text, the matter of the reliability of the martyrdom account of Andrew rests largely upon the trustworthiness of the tradition behind the Acts of Andrew.
Between the third and ninth centuries, the Acts of Andrew was widely read and diffused in such diverse places as Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Armenia, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, Gaul, and Spain.32 Its original form has not survived, but scholars have reconstructed a version that likely comes close to the earliest version.33 Judging from the various versions of the Acts of Andrew, the original text consisted of the missionary travels of Andrew and his journey to Patras, where he was executed. Fernando Lanzilotta observes that “the textual witnesses for the martyrdom are more numerous and their testimony somewhat more homogeneous” when compared with the travels of Andrew.34 And yet he notes that some of the early texts contain a few quick notes about his death, rather than a developed martyrdom account. Nevertheless, even though we have seen a variety of adaptations, the activity and death of Andrew in Patras was the goal of his voyage, and likely part of the original text.35 All the recensions of the Acts of Andrew share his conflict with pagan authorities which leads to his death.36
Eusebius provides the earliest reference to the Acts of Andrew. He suggests the Acts of Andrew, as well as the Acts of John and other Apocryphal Acts, should be “cast aside as absurd and impious.”37 It should be noted that in rejecting the Acts of Andrew, Eusebius was not rejecting that it had any claim to historicity; he rejected it theologically. In the same section, Eusebius discusses the Acts of Andrew, he also rejects the Gospel of Peter as heretical. Yet he clearly believes the Gospel of Peter was correct to affirm the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact, even though it also contained other material Eusebius rejected. The same may be true for the historical kernel in the Acts of Andrew. As a whole, the Acts of Andrew received a mixed reception in the early church—ranging from condemnation (Pope Innocent I) to adaptation and use for popular piety (Gregory of Tours).
Like the rest of the Apocryphal Acts, the Acts of Andrew contains clear legendary embellishment. Given that the sixth century Bishop Gregory of Tours combines the more legend-filled and fantastic Acts of Andrew and Matthias with the Acts of Andrew, some have concluded that it belonged to the original text.38 But this seems unlikely.39 The key question is whether or not the Acts of Andrew preserves a historical nucleus. Taken at its core, it reports the missionary travels of Andrew and his ministry and execution in Patras. While the Acts of Peter, Paul, Thomas, and John contain legendary accretion, they also preserve the most reliable destination and fate for their respective apostles, including a natural death for John. External corroboration confirms that the various Acts likely got the fate of these apostles correct. Although the writer of the various Apocryphal Acts had creative license, he or she was also bound by known tradition. Is it not reasonable to conclude that the same is likely true for the Acts of Andrew, even though it is not possible to verify the claims externally in the same way as the other Apocryphal Acts?
For all their diversity, the five Apocryphal Acts share at least five structural similarities.40 To these points, it could also be added that each Act builds toward and reaches its climax with the fate of the apostle. These similarities do not imply any special relationship between individual Acts, but they do show the authors followed a similar script and approach in chronicling the activities of each apostle. The authors clearly invent unbelievable stories for their respective apostles, but they are connected by a known historical tradition nonetheless.
The Apocryphal Acts were frequently grouped together because of their theology and genre. For instance, Eusebius condemns the various Apocryphal Acts together as a group, and the Manichaeans lumped them together in a special corpus they used as scripture instead of the biblical book of Acts. Given the similarities in structure and genre, we have no good reason to doubt that the Acts of Andrew—like the other four Apocryphal Acts—is a historical novel that preserved the known fate of the apostle Andrew toward the end of the second century.
Dvornik rejects this tradition because he finds it strange that Eusebius does not report any missionary travels of Andrew beyond Scythia, including his fate in Patras.41 Given that Origen had been to Achaia, Dvornik finds it more likely that Andrew never made it there, and simply died in Scythia. But even if Dvornik is right, Andrew still may have died as a martyr in Scythia. In The Contendings of the Apostles, Budge records that Andrew died by crucifixion in Scythia.42
Dvornik suggests the facts are not quite as straightforward. While Eusebius clearly cites Origen as the source for his information in this section about the journeys of the apostles Thomas, Andrew, John, Peter, and Paul, he does not quote Origen specifically. Since Origen’s Commentary on Genesis is not extant, it is not possible to determine in what manner Eusebius was utilizing his source. Eusebius could have been summarizing Origen, pulling out the information he felt necessary. He may have included all the information Origen wrote about, or merely part of it. It is at least possible Origen included it in his Commentary, but Eusebius left it out for some unknown reason. This may seem strange, but Eusebius does discuss other known martyrs without including their deaths, so it is entirely plausible he would do the same with Andrew.43
Even if Origen did not include further information about Andrew in his original Commentary, it does not follow, as Dvornik suggests, that he knew nothing of the tradition. Maybe he wrote about it elsewhere. It is certainly fair to ask why Origen may not have included it, but it is unreasonable to assume silence here implies a false account and that Origen was completely unaware of such a tradition. The objection thus provides minimal reason to doubt the tradition of Andrew’s death in Patras. Given the agnosticism concerning how Eusebius used his source, Dvornik is unwarranted in concluding definitively that the tradition regarding the martyrdom of Andrew did not exist in Achaia during the time of Origen.
Following Dvornik’s lead, Lamont finds it strange that Luke, who likely wrote his Gospel in Achaia, never mentions the tradition that Andrew died in Patras, so Lamont and Dvornik conclude that Andrew likely never visited there.44 However, this is also an argument from silence. As we have already seen, Luke leaves out seemingly important details such as the fate of Peter, Paul and James the brother of Jesus, because he had a different purpose for his writings from merely tracing the lives of the individual apostles. As interesting and important as the question of the fate of Andrew is to this investigation, it was not the primary or even a secondary matter for Luke. It is not surprising that Luke would ignore the fate of Andrew in Achaia.
Finally, we ought to consider the persecution of Christians in Greece during the time Andrew was traditionally put to death (c. AD 65–69). No record exists of formal state-directed persecution against Christians in Greece during this period. Yet the date falls directly during the time of the Neronian persecution in Rome. As noted previously, Christians were specifically targeted as scapegoats, starting with the fire in Rome in AD 64. Given the precedent set by Caesar at the capital of Rome, it is entirely plausible that a local governor used Christians as a scapegoat for some political reason as well. Or, if there was some local religious disturbance, such as the kind that lead to the persecution of Paul or the death of Jesus, a provincial governor may have put Andrew to death.
Determining the likelihood of the fate of Andrew is a difficult task. The evidence is clearly not as demonstrative as for Peter, Paul, and James. Although she considers the traditional fate for Andrew in Patras “not impossible,” Ursula Hall believes there is “no positive evidence to support it.”45 Her conclusion is understandable, and is certainly a reasonable inference from the evidence. Yet, while the evidence is admittedly weaker than for other apostles, there is at least some evidence that cannot be simply dismissed. I cannot believe that the earliest traditions of the works and fate of the apostle Andrew, an important and well-known figure in the first and second centuries, were entirely fabricated, unconnected to a reliable tradition.
We cannot dismiss the consistent and relatively early account of his fate by crucifixion. Some accounts differ as to where he was crucified, but there is broad agreement that he died in this manner.46 There is no early contrary tradition claiming a natural death, which for an apostle as prominent as Andrew is not insignificant. Minimally, it must be deemed at least plausible that Andrew died as a martyr. While some scholars may be inclined to take a more critical view, the evidence seems to point ever so slightly towards the following conclusions:
1. Andrew engaged in missions—very probably true (Acts of Andrew; Origen, Commentary on Genesis vol. 3, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.1; Teachings of the Apostles; Andrew had a missionary mindset [John 1:41, 6:8–9, 12:22]; geographical and chronological fit of various traditions; archaeological support; evidence the apostles generally engaged in missions).
2. Andrew went to Greece—more probable than not (Acts of Andrew; Philastrius, de Haeresibus liber 88; Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 33.11; Jerome Ad Marcellum; Evodius, de Fide contra Manichaeos; Theodoretus, Commentary on Psalm 116).
3. Andrew experienced martyrdom—more plausible than not (Acts of Andrew; Hippolytus on the Twelve Apostles 2; Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna, Sermon 133: “Saint Andrew the Apostle”; lack of competing narrative; acceptance of tradition in the East and West).
1 Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 148–50.
2 James Patrick, Andrew of Bethsaida and the Johannine Circle (New York: Peter Lang, 2013), 58–59.
3 Patrick, Andrew of Bethsaida and the Johannine Circle, 68.
4 Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 264.
5 William LaSor, Great Personalities of the New Testament (Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1952), 58.
6 Ronald Brownrigg, The Twelve Apostles (New York: Macmillan, 1974), 46–47.
7 See George Alexandrou and Nun Nectaria McLees, “The Astonishing Missionary Journeys of the Apostle Andrew,” Road to Emmaus 4 (2010): 48.
8 “Commentary on Genesis,” in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:1.
9 Tamara Rice, The Scythians (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1957), 23.
10 Rice, The Scythians, 85–86.
11 Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews VII.
12 Francis Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958), 199.
13 Stewart Lamont, The Life of Saint Andrew (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1997), 41.
14 William Barclay, The Master’s Men (London: SCM Press, 1960), 43.
15 At the time of this writing, Alexandrou had not yet published his book. He has worked with over fifty different languages to chronicle all the traditions surrounding the travels of the apostle Andrew and to see if they could plausibly fit together. He revealed some of his preliminary findings in his article. See Alexandrou and McLees, “The Astonishing Missionary Journeys,” 3–55.
16 Ibid., 13.
17 Ibid.
18 The one exception Alexandrou notes is the tradition that Andrew went to Scotland, which likely originated in the seventh century. See Marinell Ash and Dauvit Brown, “The Adoption of Saint Andrew as Patron Saint of Scotland,” in Medieval Art and Architecture in the Diocese of St Andrews, ed. John Higgit (London: British Archaeological Association, 1994), 16–24. Also, see Peter Ross, Saint Andrew: The Disciple, the Missionary, the Patron Saint (New York: The Scottish American, 1886).
19 According to tradition, Andrew visited Georgia three times. On his third journey, he was joined by Simon the Zealot and Matthias. See Giuli Alasania, “Twenty Centuries of Christianity in Georgia,” IBSU International Refereed Multi-Disciplinary Scientific Journal 1 (2006): 117–18.
20 Philastrius, de Haeresibus liber 88; Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 33.11; Jerome, Ad Marcellum; Evodius, de Fide contra Manichaeos; Theodoretus, Interpretatio in Psalmos 116.
21 Ursula Hall, The Cross of St. Andrew (Edinburgh, Scotland: Birlinn, 2006), 13.
22 William Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents (London: Williams & Norgate, 1864), 34.
23 Thomas E. Schmidt, The Apostles After Acts: A Sequel (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013), 154.
24 Lamont, The Life of Saint Andrew, 43.
25 See Vakhtang Licheli, “St. Andrew in Samtskhe—Archaeological Proof?”, in Ancient Christianity in the Caucasus, ed. Tamila Mgaloblishvili (New York: Curzon Press, 1998), 37.
26 The Acts of Andrew does not mention the “St. Andrew’s cross,” which is shaped like an X. That was first associated with him in the fourteenth century. See Frederick W. Norris, “Acts of Andrew,” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York: Garland, 1997), 1:11.
27 Peter M. Peterson, Andrew, Brother of Simon Peter: His History and His Legends (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1958), 14–23, 40–43.
28 Els Rose, “Apocryphal Tradition in Medieval Latin Liturgy: A New Research Project Illustrated with the Case of the Apostle Andrew,” Apocrypha 15 (2004): 115–38.
29 Hippolytus is often considered one of the most important church figures of the third century, but there is substantial debate about what texts are genuinely his and which are spurious. See David Dunbar, “The Problem of Hippolytus of Rome: A Study in Historical-Critical Reconstruction,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982): 63–74. Also see Ulrich Volp, “Hippolytus,” Expository Times 120 (2009): 521–29.
30 Pseudo-Hippolytus, Hippolytus on the Twelve, as cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325: Fathers of the Third Century, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Co., 1885), 5:255.
31 There are different traditions that report Andrew died “on an olive tree,” or “on a tree,” or simply by crucifixion. There are even some later traditions that Andrew was crucified upside-down.
32 Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R.M. Wilson (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 2:104.
33 The most reliable translation is by Dennis MacDonald. While MacDonald concedes that some parts of his reconstruction are conjectural, the martyrdom text is secure. Dennis R. MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of Cannibals (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), ix.
34 Fernando Lautaro Roig Lanzilotta, “The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew: A New Approach to the Character, Thought and Meaning of the Primitive Text” (PhD. diss., Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2004), 348.
35 Hans Josef Klauck, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, trans. Brian McNeil (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 114.
36 Johannes Quasten, The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, Patrology, vol. 1 (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1950), 1:138.
37 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.25.6, as cited in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1890), 1:157.
38 MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew, 22–47.
39 Hilhorst and Lalleman provide 11 substantial differences between the two documents. They argue the Acts of Andrew and Matthias was likely written two centuries later than the Acts of Andrew (A. Hilhorst and Pieter J. Lalleman, “The Acts of Andrew: Is it Part of the Original Acts of Andrew?”, in The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew, ed. Jan N. Bremmer [Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000], 13).
40 Pieter J. Lalleman, “The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of John,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew, ed. Jan N. Bremmer (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000), 141.
41 Ibid., 211.
42 E.A. Wallis Budge, The Contendings of the Apostles: Being the Histories and the Lives and Martyrdoms and Deaths of the Twelve Apostles and Evangelists (London: Oxford University Press, 1935), 181–85.
43 As an example, Eusebius mentions Hippolytus of Rome (Ecclesiastical History 6.20, 22, 39) without mentioning the traditions of his martyrdom. Hippolytus was probably a disciple of Irenaeus, and thus may have been linked back to the apostles through Polycarp and John.
44 Lamont, The Life of Saint Andrew, 42.
45 Hall, The Cross of Saint Andrew, 14.
46 It is difficult to assess the merits of Andrew’s death specifically by crucifixion. In one sense, it could have been invented to make his fate similar to both Jesus and his brother Andrew. There was certainly a tendency in the third and fourth centuries to give the apostles “fitting” deaths. On the other hand, there are multiple accounts of his crucifixion, even if they differ as to the location and whether or not he was executed on a cross or a tree. Death by crucifixion shows up in the earliest account, the Acts of Andrew. Crucifixion was a common penalty for criminals and other enemies of the state and so it is entirely believable Andrew was crucified for either creating disturbances or upsetting the proconsul, as the Acts of Andrew reports. Yet the tradition Andrew was crucified on an X-shaped cross is almost certainly false. It plays no role in the Acts of Andrew. There is no evidence the Romans crucified with such a cross, and the earliest record of the X-shaped cross being used for his death comes from the twelfth century. See Hall, The Cross of St. Andrew, 31, 73, 101.