While knowledge of the final four apostles is undoubtedly limited, information about Matthias may be the most scarce. He appears only once in the New Testament, when he is chosen to replace Judas among the 12 apostles (Acts 1:12–25). The name Matthias is a shortened version of Mattathias, which means “Gift of God.” He has been suggested as a possible candidate for the Beloved Disciple.1 According to Eusebius, Matthias was a member of the Seventy before being chosen as an apostle.2 Many of the earliest extra-biblical citations simply refer to his replacing Judas without providing further information about his life and ministry.3 Some early accounts where the apostles are assigned places of ministry do not even include Matthias.4
According to Clement of Alexandria, Matthias taught the importance of fighting against the flesh, not yielding to pleasure, and building up the soul through faith and knowledge.5 Another interesting account comes from Hippolytus of Rome, who claims that Matthias gave secret teachings from the Lord to Basilides and Isidore. Hippolytus does not mention the content of the discourses, but twice mentions that Matthias was the source of the secret teachings of Jesus.6
Origen and Eusebius both mention a Gospel of Matthias, likely composed some time before the third century.7 Scholars debate whether this is the same document referred to by Clement of Alexandria as Traditions of Matthias. No traces of its contents remain, but Eusebius considered it to be heretical,8 and in the early fifth century it was repudiated and condemned by Pope Innocent I.9 Even though the Gospel of Matthias was pseudepigraphal, its existence reveals, in the first two centuries of the church, a significant interest in the life of Matthias compared to some of the other lesser-known apostles. While it is not impossible early traditions existed regarding Matthias, it is equally probable that little was known about him, inviting hagiographers to invent stories about his escapades without fear of reprisal. Arie Zwiep concludes that these accounts are historical fictions and provide no reliable data about Matthias.10
One of the difficulties in tracing traditions of Matthias is that he was often confused with the apostle Matthew. For instance, in the Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, a Coptic text attributed to Bartholomew, Matthias is referred to as the rich man who left everything to follow Jesus. This is likely a conflation with Levi-Matthew, the tax collector (cf. Matt 9:9). According to Clement of Alexandria, Zaccheus and Matthias refer to the same person, the chief tax collector,11 yet this is incredible, since Zaccheus was not with Jesus from the baptism of John, and we have no record he was a witness of the resurrection (cf. Acts 1:21–22). According to the early third-century Nag Hammadi text The Book of Thomas the Contender, a man named “Mathaias,” which could be Matthias or Matthew, wrote down the secret words of the resurrected Lord Jesus to his brother Jude Thomas.
As noted previously, Matthias appears in the New Testament only when he replaces Judas as the twelfth apostle. There were three criteria for consideration as an apostle.12 This standard serves to ensure the teachings and traditions of Jesus are passed on faithfully (cf. 1:1–3). First, an apostle must be one who continually followed Jesus. Second, he must have begun following Jesus at the baptism of John and stayed with him until the ascension. Third, he must be a witness of his resurrection (1:21–22).
The apostles narrow potential apostolic replacements down to two: Justus (Joseph) Barsabbas and Matthias. The disciples cast lots, and they fall to Matthias, but he is never mentioned again in the New Testament. Some have suggested there was a mistake in the election of Matthias, and that Paul should have been selected.13 However, John Stott notes: “But Luke gives no hint at all that a mistake was made, in spite of the fact that Paul was obviously his hero. Besides, Paul did not have the fuller qualification which Peter laid down.”14 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf argues that the names of both apostolic candidates belong to the old pre-Lukan stock of tradition. Given that Acts does not show personal interest in Matthias, and his quick rise to a particular dignity, Rengstorf concludes that the Lukan account of the selection of Matthias has the ring of authenticity.15
Even though he was not mentioned in the Gospels, Matthias saw the life and ministry of Jesus just as closely as the other apostles. He traveled with Jesus, saw him preach, watched him heal the sick and demon-possessed, and was a witness of his resurrection (Acts 1:22). Origen even surmised that the appearance to the Twelve in 1 Corinthians 15:5 included Matthias.16 Regardless, as with the other apostles, he was arrested and thrown in prison for preaching about Jesus. As a member of the Twelve, Matthias was beaten for his faith, but continued to proclaim the risen Christ. He was clearly willing to suffer for his belief that Jesus was the expected Messiah, who had risen on the third day.
One of the earliest accounts of the travels of Matthias is found in the Acts of Andrew and Matthias (AD fifth century).17 Some believe this was likely part of the original Acts of Andrew, but this is unlikely.18 Yet the Acts of Andrew and Matthias is not meant to replace the Acts of Andrew; it offers an additional story containing a missionary episode of Andrew and Matthias. There is uncertainty, however, whether the story is about Matthias or Matthew.
The story begins with Matthias (Matthew) being assigned to preach in the city of Myrmidonia, the city of cannibals. The word Anthropophagi comes from a combination of the Greek words anthropos (man) and phagein (eat). It can be broadly defined as human beings eating the flesh of fellow humans.19 When Matthias came to the city, they drugged him and threw him in prison, intending to eat him in three days’ time. But Jesus restored his sight and assured him that Andrew would come and rescue him. Andrew arrived and together they healed other blind men in prison. Although Andrew stayed to preach in Myrmidonia, a cloud took Matthias and his disciples to a city in the east where they met Peter.
This story clearly has fanciful elements that may have been invented for a theological purpose. Schneemelcher suggests the stigmatization of cannibalism may be interpreted as a renunciation of any consumption of meat.20 Nevertheless, it is not entirely impossible that Andrew and Matthias journeyed together to a land known for cannibalism. Cannibalism was not uncommon in the ancient world. There are records of cannibalistic practices in distant lands hundreds of years before the time of Christ and for hundreds of years after. In the fifth century BC, Herodotus describes how the Issedonians serve the dead body of a man’s father at a banquet along with the flesh from a sacrificed sheep.21 In his Natural History, Pliny the Elder later wrote that the Scythians fed on human flesh.22
Another Eastern tradition claims that Simon the Zealot and Matthias joined Andrew on his third missionary trip to Georgia. According to this tradition, Matthias died in the town-fortress of Asparos.23 Given the existence of two separate traditions pairing Andrew and Matthias, there may in fact be a historical core to their ministry partnership.
In the apocryphal traditions of the fate of Matthias, he is consistently confused with Matthew, yet one tradition is uniquely for Matthias, which involves a tomb of the apostle at a church in the Benedictine abbey in Trier, Germany. According to the tradition, the remains of Matthias were sent by Constantine to Treves, but were lost under debris during the Norman onslaught. They were later rediscovered, and now lie in Germany, except the skull, which is in Italy.24
Another tradition reports the preaching and death of Matthias in Judea. Hippolytus on the Twelve 12 says: “And Matthias, who was one of the seventy, was numbered along with the eleven apostles, and preached in Jerusalem, and fell asleep and was buried there.”25 Pseudo-Hippolytus does not mention that Matthias died peacefully, but this is the natural interpretation of the term “fell asleep.” Budge reports the tradition that Matthias preached in Damascus, but died peacefully in Judea after the “men of the city” seized him and tried to burn him alive.26 Schmidt believes Matthias and James, son of Alphaeus, likely died early, either in Jerusalem or nearby.27 He concludes that Matthias may have died by stoning at the hands of the chief priests and Pharisees. In Sacred and Legendary Art, Anna Jameson records a similar tradition that Matthias preached the Gospel in Judea and was killed at the hands of the Jews. But rather than dying by stoning, she reports that he was killed either by an axe or a lance.28
One popular tradition reports that Matthias journeyed to Ethiopia, where he preached and then died as a martyr, which Byzantine Church historian Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos (Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos) first recorded in his fourteenth-century Ecclesiastical Historiae (2.40).29 Nicephorus depends largely upon early church historians such as Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomenos, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Evagrios Scholastikos.30 Since none of these writers mentions the fate of Matthias in Ethiopia, Nicephorus probably did not transmit an unknown but reliable tradition of his fate. In his Ecclesiastical History (1.19), Socrates mentions that Matthew was assigned Ethiopia, but he makes no mention of Matthias. It seems more probable that Nicephorus conflated the traditions of Matthias and Matthew than that he somehow retained an independent, reliable tradition of the fate of the apostle Matthias in Ethiopia.
One final source must be evaluated concerning the fate of Matthias, from the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a (c. AD fourth/fifth century):
Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God? Thereupon they retorted: Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish.31
This particular passage follows a section about Jesus. While there is some debate among scholars whether or not certain rabbinical passages refer to Jesus, there is almost universal agreement that Sanhedrin 43a refers to Jesus of Nazareth. The context reveals that “Yeshu” was charged with practicing sorcery and leading Israel astray, witnesses were called, and he was hanged on the eve of Passover. Still, the historical value of this passage is questionable. While it is not entirely impossible that it retains at least the fossils of an older tradition about Jesus and his disciples, even conservative scholars consider it a “dubious source” and “unlikely” to contain independent testimony related to the historical Jesus.32 At best, it is a late Jewish account that affirms the existence of Jesus.33
While some scholars have suggested this passage may provide evidence for the fate of Matthias, we have serious reasons to question its applicability. First, it is a late source. No rabbinic writings from the first or second century AD exist during the period of living memory. Second, historical questions were not the primary concern in early rabbinic literature such as the Mishnah and Talmud.34 Third, this particular passage is more concerned with polemic against Christianity than providing an objective account of history.35
Even if this passage were historically reliable, there would still be reason to question its relevance to the fate of Matthias. For one thing, it is not clear that “Matthai” refers to the apostle Matthias. It could be a reference to the apostle Matthew. Or since “Matthew” was a common name,36 it could be a reference to an entirely unknown follower of Jesus. This is made more likely since four other unknown disciples of Jesus are mentioned along with Matthai: Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah. This passage simply cannot provide any confident information as to the fate of the apostle Matthias.
Even though we know very little about Matthias, some important observations can be made about his life and fate. First, as the twelfth apostle, he was a witness of Jesus during his entire ministry as well as of his resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). Second, along with the other apostles, he proclaimed the Gospel publicly and was willing to suffer for his faith (Acts 5:17–42). Third, we have a variety of historically questionable stories about Matthias, appearing in late traditions of the church fathers and in Gnostic sources such as The Gospel of Matthias. Fourth, some traditions report Matthias died as a martyr, while others report he died peacefully. Methods of his execution include burning, stoning, and stabbing with either an axe or a lance. And yet none of them are even close to the period of living memory.
The tentative nature of the evidence does not mean Matthias died peacefully. After all, Jesus made it clear that his disciples would be persecuted for their faith (Matt 21:33–40; 22:6; 23:30–31, 34, 37; Mark 12:1–11; Luke 6:22–23; 11:47–50; 13:34; 20:9–18). He was fully aware that his public proclamation of the risen Christ might cost him his life, and he embraced it willingly. In addition, early traditions maintain that many of the apostles were martyred, which could have included Matthias.37 With all the evidence in mind, the following conclusions seem most reasonable:
1. Matthias engaged in missionary work outside Jerusalem—very probably true (Matt 28:18–20; Acts 1:8; general evidence for the Twelve engaging in missionary work; variety of traditions that Matthias ministered in Judea, Damascus, Georgia, Scythia, and Ethiopia).
2. Matthias experienced martyrdom—as plausible as not (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a; Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos, Ecclesiastical Historiae II.40; later traditions that he was stoned or killed with an axe or a sword; non-martyr traditions Hippolytus on the Twelve 12; E.A. Wallis Budge, The Martyrdom of Saint Matthias; later traditions that he died naturally).
1 Eric L. Titus, “The Identity of the Beloved Disciple,” Journal of Biblical Literature 69 (1950): 323–28.
2 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.12.3. Pseudo-Hippolytus also affirms that Matthias was one of the Seventy. See Hippolytus on the Twelve 12.
3 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.20.2; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.13; Origen, Contra Celsus 2.65.
4 Diatessaron 8.11; Acts of Thomas 1.1.
5 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 3.24.25–26.
6 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Book VII, chap. 8.
7 Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R.M. Wilson (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 2:19.
8 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25.
9 Els Rose, Ritual Memory: The Apocryphal Acts and Liturgical Commemoration in the Early Medieval West (c. 500–1251) (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2009), 47.
10 Arie W. Zwiep, Judas and the Choice of Matthias (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 163.
11 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4.6.35.2.
12 James D.G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles, Narrative Commentaries, ed. Ivor H. Jones (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 20.
13 Morgan G. Campbell, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell, 1924), 19–20.
14 John R.W. Stott, The Message of Acts (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 58.
15 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “The Election of Matthias: Acts 1.15ff,” in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, ed. William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 182. Reginald Fuller makes the case why there is no good reason that the choice of Matthias cannot be used as evidence for the historicity of the Twelve. See Reginald Fuller, “The Choice of Matthias,” in Studia Evangelica, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingston (Berlin, Germany: Akademie-Verlag, 1973), 6:140–46.
16 Origen, Contra Celsus 2.65.
17 Also known as Andrew and Matthias among the Anthropophagi.
18 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.
19 Lewis Petrinovich, The Cannibal Within (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 2000), 4.
20 Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:445.
21 Herodotus, The History of Herodotus 4.26; cf. 1.217.
22 Pliny the Elder, Natural History 7.2.
23 Giuli Alasania, “Twenty Centuries of Christianity in Georgia,” IBSU International Refereed Multi-Disciplinary Scientific Journal 1 (2006): 117–18.
24 Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell: 1971), 162 n. 5.
25 Pseudo-Hippolytus, Hippolytus on the Twelve 12, 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.
26 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), 241–45.
27 Thomas E. Schmidt, The Apostles After Acts: A Sequel (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013), 115.
28 Anna Brownell Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art (New York: Longmans, Green, 1891), 1:254.
29 Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos, Ecclesiastical Historiae 2.40.
30 Alexander Kazhdan, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), s.v. “Xanthopoulos, Nikephoros Kallistos,” by Alice-Mary Talbot.
31 Rabbi I. Epstein, trans., The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin in Four Volumes (London: Soncino, 1935), 3:282.
32 Craig Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig Evans (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1998), 443–50.
33 John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1:96.
34 Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 104.
35 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:95.
36 Margaret Williams, “Palestinian Jewish Personal Names in Acts,” in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 91.
37 Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 3.1–2; Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians 9; Aphrahat, Demonstration XXI: Of Persecution, §23.