Chapter 2 - Andrew the Disciple

The first curious thing about Andrew is his name. A Jew by birth and upbringing, he has a Greek name. Andreas is entirely Greek in origin. It can be found as early as Herodotus (485-425 BC) and means 'manly'. The fact that a number of the Galilean group who became Jesus's inner core of disciples had Greek names (e.g., Peter and Philip) derives from the cultural background of Galilee. It was Hellenistic as well as Jewish.

Galilee has been called the 'fifth Gospel' because its people, its society and its geography were so central to the message of Jesus of Nazareth, whose own home was a short journey from the shores of the Sea of Galilee (or Gennaseret, as it was also known). For that reason it is worth making a swift summary of the history and culture of the region.

A thousand years before the Christian era, Galilee had been part of a Jewish state in the golden time of David and Solomon. The northern part of that kingdom had always been subject to foreign influences, and David had managed to paper over the cracks in creating a unified kingdom. As soon as Solomon, his son, was dead the northerners went their own way and the kingdom was split into Judah in the south (centred on Jerusalem) and Israel in the north. Both - as the Old Testament relates - fell prey to the great empires of the Middle East, Assyria and Babylonia. Galilee was then annexed by the Persian empire until the rise of Alexander the Great, who by the time of his death at the age of thirty-three in 323 BC had created an empire which stretched from the Aegean Sea in the west to the Indus River in the east, and from the Danube River in the north to the Sahara Desert in the south. His zeal to create a civilisation based on Hellenistic culture inevitably found resistance in the conquered lands, but resulted in the international acceptance of the Greek language.

Alexander's empire was split by his successors into three areas. The Seleucids of Syria ruled the area around Galilee. Although Jewish nationalism flared in the second century BC, when the Hasmonaean (Maccabbean) revolt took place, the Hellenistic period of history lasted until 31 BC, when Augustus incorporated the last of Alexander's former kingdom into the Roman empire. In the previous generation Pompey had brought the area under Roman reorganisation by setting up the Deca-polis (a free league of cities to the east of the Jordan); and in 57 BC the provincial governor, Gabininius, divided Palestine into five administrative areas.

To combat Jewish nationalism, the Romans installed Herod the Great as a client king. After his death in 4 BC, the nucleus of the Jewish nation (centred on Jerusalem) was enrolled as a Roman province named Judea and allowed a certain amount of devolved power under a high priest and council (the Sanhedrin). To the east and north-east the territory was given to a puppet king, Herod Antipas, one of Herod's sons. His half-brother, Philip Herod, the 'Tetrarch', ruled the Trans-Jordan area further to the north, residing in Caesarea Philippi. The territories of Herod Antipas and Philip met at the north end of the Sea of Galilee, and there was a customs post in Capernaum.

It therefore contained what today we would call a clerical middle class, some of whom were the 'tax gatherers' mentioned in the Gospels.

A little further along the northern end of the lake (on Philip's side of the frontier formed by the River Jordan) was the town of Bethsaida (whose name means, literally, the 'house offish'). It was here that Andrew and his brother Peter operated their fishing business. Bethsaida, which was raised to city status by Philip, stood on one of the main trade routes with the Far East, the Via Maris, and had its posh quarter, named Julias after the daughter of Emperor Augustus.

While many parts of the Roman empire suffered from dire poverty, with a huge gap between rich and poor, the area around the north end of the lake was modestly prosperous for the locals as well as for the colonial officials and the traders.

The fertile land enabled wheat to be grown as well as crops of olives and figs. The sea yielded fish - a cod-like variety (which has acquired the name 'Peter's fish') - and silver sprats that presumably formed the shoals that feature in the Gospel stories. They in turn brought silver in the form of currency. Salted and exported to cities like Jerusalem or sold to the passing population, fish provided a decent living. The idea of the disciples as barefoot Huckleberry Finns, who did a little idle fishing, does not square with reality. The fact that the families of Andrew and Peter, and Zebedee's sons James and John, apparently had their own boats and hired assistants makes them nearer to being small businessmen than horny-handed sons of toil.

Today the region's biggest industry is tourism - and the visitors are not simply the pilgrims who come to view the places in which most of the Gospel incidents took place. Modern Israelis who don't want to leave Israel for holidays (and pay the penalty of being taxed if they do) can now choose from several luxury hotels in resorts on the Sea of Galilee, such as Tiberias. The city itself was built by Herod Antipas and named in honour of the Emperor Tiberias (who reigned AD 14-37). It still sports the hot-spring baths that delighted its Roman clientele and, on one occasion, me when on Christmas Day I luxuriated in the hot water of the outdoor spa, with the cool drizzle on my face, as I looked across to the green hills of the east side of the lake. However, the Jews of the time boycotted the city because it was built on the sacred site of a former graveyard and was therefore unclean. Jesus, in keeping with the radical attitude he took towards social lepers and outcasts, does not seem to have shared this inhibition (cf. John 6:1,23 and 21:1).

Herod Antipas does not get a good press in the Gospels or the histories of the time. His first wife was the daughter of the king of Nabatea, and he forsook her for Herodias who, as well as being his half-brother's wife, seems to have been cast in the Delilah/Jezebel mould. Their relationship was incestuous, according to Jewish Levitical law (Lev. 18:16 and 20:21), and was therefore a source of scandal among his subjects. Chief among his outspoken critics was a charismatic preacher operating in and around the desert wastes to the south of the Sea of Galilee - John the Baptist.

The thrust of his message was that a new kingdom was soon to be inaugurated under God's kingship. That itself was enough to make people sit up and take notice: at long last a return to the golden era, an end to colonial rule, foreign cultural imperialism and taxation without representation. The manifesto fell on receptive ears. Nationalism lurked close to the surface among Rome's Jewish subjects, and anything that might signify the end of occupation was welcome. It also made Herod Antipas prick up his ears, since it would mean the end of his reign. If the seditious nature of John's message was not enough for Herod Antipas, the other part of his teaching was even less designed to curry favour with the prince. John advocated that those who did not repent of their sins and become (through the once-and-for-all act of baptism) utterly changed persons would not participate in this kingdom. No doubt Herod was indifferent to the theological thrust of this message, which implied the worthlessness of a system of sacrifices and indulgences that could be used by the unscrupulous to salve their consciences or wipe the slate clean by buying pardon. However, the moral cutting edge of John's preaching encouraged people to think of Herod Antipas as a reprobate.

John the Baptist was one of a kind. Those who belong to this kind usually appear in times of decadence to challenge the flabbiness and oppressiveness of the system. They are a direct threat to the ruler, and they .often pay the price. John was arrested - and thereby silenced. But Herodias wanted revenge - his head on a platter - and she got it, literally, as the incident described in Mark 6:14-29 reveals. The execution of John did not enhance Herod's popularity. Not long after, when the Nabatean king declared war on Herod to satisfy his daughter's honour and inflicted a humiliating defeat, it was widely seen as retribution by Herod's far from adoring subjects. Herod's career ended ignominiously in exile in Gaul when he tried to persuade the maniacal and dissolute emperor Caligula (AD 37-41) to make him a proper king.

Before his arrest John had baptised two people who would be central to subsequent events. The first was Jesus, who was to develop John's teaching about the kingdom of God from the promise of a future event to a reality centred on his own person. Jesus was told that he too was on the death list of Herod Antipas, whom he called 'that fox' (Luke 13:31), and avoided an inevitable clash by going back to his local area at the north end of the lake to begin his ministry there.

The other person whom John baptised has so far had little mention -Andrew. Despite the fact that the Gospels are sparing in their references to Jesus's first disciple, from what has been outlined so far we can begin to form a sketchy portrait of his background and the factors that shaped his life. Sherlock Holmes would have been able to tell us a great deal about Andrew before he even opened the Gospels.
Jesus - and Andrew - spoke a version of Hebrew called Aramaic. (Some of the sayings of Jesus make even more sense, or develop rhythm or rhyme, when they are translated back into this tongue, which has, I am told, much the same relationship to ancient Hebrew as Scots has to English.)

As a Galilean, Andrew's accent would have been as distinctive as that of his brother, Peter, whose manner of speech gave him away as he waited in the courtyard while Jesus was on trial before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:73).

However, we should not conclude that Andrew would have lacked knowledge of other languages apart from Aramaic. Although the synagogue school at Bethsaida that Andrew most probably attended would have had a curriculum limited to moral and religious content, he would have encountered in his daily life a variety of different languages. Latin-speaking agents of the Roman empire and traders passing through Bethsaida on the Via Maris (perhaps buying fish from the family business) would all have brought a cosmopolitan atmosphere to the town. Andrew inhabited a multicultural society on which Greek/ Hellenistic ideas had left their stamp, not least the Greek language (with which, it is reasonable to assume, he was also familiar).

Notwithstanding Andrew's familiarity with the Gentile world, it is improbable that he was literate. Paul appears to have been the only literate one among the apostles. The fact that Andrew's brother Peter is credited with two letters written in Greek in the New Testament is neither here nor there. Most biblical scholars would agree that it is unlikely that he wrote them and that they were attributed to him as a revered leader within the early Church. This not uncommon practice was intended not to deceive but to pay homage to the fictitious author. It is not dissimilar to the practice in later centuries of attributing paintings to the 'school of Rembrandt' or of giving musical compositions the name of a prominent person (e.g., the Brandenburg Concertos or the Bonaparte Symphony, renamed the Eroica).

We do not treat these creations as frauds or forgeries on this account and similarly have not undermined the content of the Petrine epistles by learning that they were written by anonymous authors.

As we have seen, Jewish nationalism had always been a significant factor in the area. Galilee had been a hotbed of Maccabbean revolt, and there still was wide support for the idea of i throwing off the Roman yoke and going it alone, not simply among groups of rebellious fanatics. Although Jesus's teaching of the kingdom of God did not involve taking direct political action (and he suggested rendering unto Caesar whatever was the Roman emperor's due), he was inevitably seen by many as the messiah figure who might, just might, provide the longed-for deliverance. An example of a person being drawn into Jesus's circle holding such views is Simon the Zealot (as his name makes clear, a member of one group of self-styled freedom fighters).

What we must now consider is how far Andrew's own sympathies lay in this direction. The eminent biblical scholar Oscar Cullmann, in his book Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, draws attention to the title Jesus gives Peter in Matthew 16:17, when he calls him 'Simon Baryona'. The older writers take this to mean 'bar-Yona' which means literally 'son of Jonah'. John, in his Gospel (1:42), changes this to 'son of John' (huios loannou), which gave rise to Greek legends about the parents of Peter and Andrew, who were given the names Johannes and Johanna respectively. However, as Cullmann points out, the word Baryona, written without the hyphen, means 'extremist or terrorist'.

Was Peter (and by implication his family) part of the patriotic front? Or did Matthew (writing in Greek from several sources) simply mix up the two Simons and tar Simon Peter with the brush of the Zealots?
John the Baptist's radical message of solidarity with the poor clearly found favour with Andrew. Amplified by Jesus, it also found favour with the heavily taxed Galileans, who laboured under the burden of three taxes - one levied by the Romans, one by the king and another by the temple authorities in Jerusalem. It was driving many smallholders into debt or ruin and creating an underclass. Such factors made the political climate heavy with the threat of insurrection.

We can never know for sure, but the subsequent actions of both Andrew and Peter were to show them to be far from satisfied with the political status quo in Palestine. As fishermen, they would be travelling around the lake, landing at locations within different provinces. Their vessel would have been the ideal vehicle for clandestine activity, out of the reach of Roman soldiers or puppet princes.

To say Andrew was a practising Jew tells us a little more about him. The style of synagogue worship in Galilee was much plainer than in the temple in Jerusalem, rather as a Welsh chapel is not like Brompton Oratory. That would have suited fishermen, whose spirituality tends to a simpler style of faith and worship. However, we can conclude that Andrew was not totally content in his faith. That was what made him such a ready convert.

Whether Andrew was first converted by John the Baptist or by Jesus depends on which Gospel you read. John's Gospel gives Andrew a position of leadership and mentions a number of incidents in which he is a key witness or an enabler.

Mark makes Andrew play second fiddle to Peter. Luke and Matthew edit poor Andrew out of most incidents. Let us therefore review the incidents in the four Gospels which involve Andrew and scan them for further clues about him.

Mark (1:16-18) tells how Jesus 'passing by the Sea of Galilee, saw Simon and Andrew, Simon's brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." And, immediately leaving their nets behind, they followed him.'

Mark mentions Andrew again in the list of the twelve disciples (3:16-19) and in two other incidents. The first occurs on a sabbath in the synagogue at Capernaum where Mark implies that the family of Peter and Andrew (now) live. Jesus's teaching causes a buzz and then we read (1:29-31): 'Immediately having left the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon and of Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon's mother-in-law lay fevered and immediately they told him of her. And coming, having taken her up by the hands he raised her up; and the fever left her, and she served them.'

This incident is retold by both Matthew and Luke, who as well as original material in their Gospels, base many events on Mark's account, which is generally agreed to be the earliest of the four Gospels. They sometimes polish and rearrange the word order in Mark, but in this case they retell the story of Peter's mother-in-law and edit Andrew out completely. Peter Peterson, in his book Andrew, Brother of Simon Peter, concludes: "That both evangelists independently omitted Andrew's name from their rewrites of Mark shows clearly that Andrew as disciple (or for that matter as apostle) was historically a person of no importance whatsoever' (see Matt. 8:14-15, Luke 4:38-9).

The other Markan appearance of Andrew occurs in 13:3-4, when Jesus is sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the Jerusalem temple, and James and John and Andrew ask him, 'Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things will be accomplished?' Jesus then goes on to give an apocalyptic prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and collapse of the existing world order.
Matthew mentions Andrew in his list of twelve disciples (10:2-4) and recounts the calling of the first ones (4:18-22), changing the word order a little but still retaining Andrew. However, as for the rest of his Gospel, all is silence.

Luke is even more dismissive. In the calling of the first disciples (5:1-11), he cuts Andrew out of the story, replacing him with James and John, the sons of Zebedee, 'Simon's partners'. Indeed, Luke (and Acts) continue this indifference, mentioning Andrew only in lists of the twelve disciples (Luke 6:12-16, Acts 1:13).

It is only in the Gospel of John that Andrew plays a significant role. The scene of the first incident takes place at Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John the Baptist was preaching (1:35-44). 'The next day John was standing with two of his disciples and looking at Jesus as he walked, he said, "Behold the lamb of God!" The two disciples heard him speaking and followed Jesus. But Jesus, having turned, saw them following him, and said, "What are you looking for?" They replied, "Rabbi (meaning teacher), where are you staying?" He said to them, "Come and see." They went then and saw where he was staying, and with them they stayed that day, for it was about the tenth hour. Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard John speak and followed him.

He first found his own brother, Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means anointed). He took him to Jesus. Looking at him, Jesus said, "You are Simon, son of John? [See above.] You shall be called Cephas (which means 'rock')." The next day he decided to leave for Galilee and sought out Philip. Jesus said to him, "Come and see." Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Cephas and Andrew.'

This version is rather different from the one we find in Mark/ Matthew/Luke. Andrew and Peter are identified with Bethsaida, not Capernaum, and in this incident are to be found beyond the southern edge of the Sea of Galilee. Furthermore they are clearly identified as disciples of John the Baptist. These apparent contradictions can quite easily be explained. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the fishing boat was plying on the southern side of the lake. The brothers perhaps arranged to go to one of John's 'rallies', much as a Scot from Aberdeen might have arranged to go down to Glasgow for one of the Billy Graham crusades in Glasgow during the Fifties. There they became converted and were ready to respond eagerly to the invitation of the man whom John the Baptist identified as the Lamb of God.

As for Bethsaida/Capernaum, the two towns are close together. It is possible that John (the Gospel writer) lumped them together in error. Even more plausible is the possibility that Andrew and Peter moved from Bethsaida to Capernaum. Two reasons immediately suggest themselves for this. Either Peter married and moved nearer his wife's family home or, more simply, they went there because Capernaum was nearer to the market for their fish in the towns of Galilee and better placed to get the fish quickly to the Jerusalem market. I am tempted to add that crossing the frontier into Galilee meant avoiding the aforementioned customs post and may have been prompted by a shrewd piece of tax avoidance.

John's Gospel features Andrew in two other incidents. The famous feeding of the five thousand is carried by the other evangelists, but they omit the walk-on part assigned to Andrew (John 6:5-14) in which the disciple tells Jesus: 'There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?'

The other incident, arguably more significant, is the story of the Greeks coming to Jesus because it places Andrew in a position of influence (12:20-34): 'The Greeks went to Philip, the one from Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, "Sir we want to see Jesus." Philip went and told Andrew. Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.' (Here, once again, John places Bethsaida in Galilee.)

Why does John restore Andrew to a more significant place than the others? The answer may lie partly in a piece of papyrus called the Muratorian Fragment, thought to date from the end of the second century, which credits Andrew with the commissioning of the Gospel of John. John asked his fellow disciples whether he should undertake the project. They were to fast for three days in order to seek a revelation. The tactic apparently worked, for 'On the same night it was revealed to Andrew of the apostles that John should describe in his own name all the facts and that all should review his writing.' Was this a case of John repaying the compliment by giving greater prominence to the man who got him the commission, or is the fragment an attempt to explain why he was given it?

Although Andrew was present at the Last Supper, we hear nothing of him after that from John. He is not mentioned in the list of those present at the miraculous catch of fish at the end of the Gospel, when a group of disciples led by Peter encounter the Risen Christ as they are fishing (21:1-14).

Peter goes on to play a leading role in the Church after Pentecost, and apart from Paul, the two disciples named James (the brother of Jesus, and Zebedee's son, who was put to death by Agrippa), Stephen and one or two others, no other original disciple was apparently important enough to make an impact on the early Church or on commentators such as Josephus (a Galilean Zealot who became a collaborator and historian of the turbulent events during the first century).

Where did Andrew go while Peter, bearing his keys, went back to Jerusalem, on to Joppa and eventually to Rome to found his church? It is strange that all the literature of the early years of the new movement omits Andrew, even as a close relative of Peter and one who had been a witness to the events of the Gospels. We have already seen that Andrew is conspicuous by his absence from the writings of Luke, who was writing and operating in the very area of Greece in which Andrew was destined to minister and be martyred. Nor does Paul in all his travels come across Andrew.

The mundane explanation is that Andrew was content to let his younger brother take the limelight. If that is so, our quest for Andrew should end here. However, there is another early fragment which may give us a clue to his whereabouts. Origen (c. AD 184-254), as quoted by Eusebius, the greatest church historian of the period, d. AD 340) states that after Pentecost the disciples drew lots for the mission fields, with 'Andrew receiving Scythia' (in modern terms, the area of southern Russia and Ukraine on the north side of the Black Sea). It is here that we next pick up traces of the elusive apostle.

Back

TOC

Next