A British Fable

On the Truth Meetings Message Board in February, 2004, Nathan Barker posted a thread entitled "Apostolic Fathers writings: The Gospel to Britain!!", in which he simply quoted various early Christian writers. His desperate hope is that this "proves" that the apostles traveled to Britain to spread the Gospel in an apostolic succession to modern times.

[Nate]"Writing of Clement of Rome (A.D. 96 W),16 1.6
"Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity... After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousnes to the whole world, and having come to the extreme limit of the west. Britain was the westernmost province of the. Clement of Rome (A.D. 96 W), 16"

Clement knew Paul personally, as Paul referred to him as a co-worker: "Yes, and I ask you also, my true yokemate, to help them, for they have struggled at my side in promoting the gospel, along with Clement and my other co-workers, whose names are in the book of life" (Phil 4:3). Like Paul, Clement wrote two letters to the Corinthians; his 1st Epistle has been translated into English here. The actual passage reads:

"By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance" (1st Epistle, 5)

Paul didn't literally "teach righteousness unto the whole world" - this is what is known as hyperbole, which is an extravagant exaggeration of the truth. The "furthest bounds of the West" does not necessarily mean Britain, nor do any other writers place the Apostle Paul in Britain. Furthermore, even if Paul did establish Christianity in Britain in the 1st Century, there is no evidence of it continuing; therefore, Paul's missionary effectiveness is called into question, in comparison with the churches he established at Corinth, Rome, Philippi, etc, to whom he wrote letters.

Also, the Bible does not place Paul in Britain ever. His first missionary journey took him to Seleucia, Paphos, Salamis, Perga, Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and Attalia. His second trip was to Seleucia, Antioch, Tarsus, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Troas, Neaopolis, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Jerusalem. His third trip included Tarsus, Derbe, Iconium, Antioch, Ephesus, Troas, Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Assos, Mitylene, Miletus, Rhodes, Patara, Tyre, Ptolemais, Caesarea, Antipatris, and Jerusalem.

Also, if Nate wants to think that Clement places Paul in Britain, then Nate must accept that the kind of Gospel being taken there did not resemble the Truth Fellowship very much; for example, Clement talks about bishops (p 44), when there is no such thing in the Truth Fellowship. Also, there is the precursor for papal authority in one of Clement's later statements: "The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." (1,59:1) In answer to the question of whether Paul was in Britain, the Catholic World (volume 35, issue 209; pp 677-683) quotes Protestant historians:

"Anglican theologians, interested in the apostolical origin of their church, have referred this phrase of Clement to Britain, still more remote from Rome. But [Greek word boundary], if ever interpreted geographically, admits also of being taken subjectively, and may possibly denote only what was for Paul the limit of his apostolic labor, or what appeared to the Corinthians, to whom Clement was writing, to be the boundaries of the West. And even aside from this the whole passage is plainly so colored by rhetoric and panegyric that it cannot possibly furnish of itself adequate ground for so important a hypothesis." (Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church, pg 341, New York, 1853) "I think", writes Dr. Lardner, commenting on this same passage, "that Clement only meant Italy or Rome, where Clement was and where Paul suffered...And having come to the borders of the West" L'Enfant and Beausobre, in their general preface to St. Paul's Epistles (p. 33), say: "The bounds of the West signify nothing but the West. It is an expression borrowed from the Scriptures, in which the borders of a country denote the country itself. In like manner, by those words Clement intended Italy." (See Lardner's Works, vol v. p. 531, London, 1838)

It must also be noted that even if it was proven the Paul established Christianity in England in the 1st Century, that church is most certainly not identical to the Truth Fellowship, with enough differences to safely say they are not related at all. This is supported by the fact that other denominations have staked similar claims to British apostolic succession, such as the Church of England and the former World Wide Church of God.

[Nate] Writing of Theophilus (A.D. 180, E) 2.107
"After their languages were divided, men gradually began to multiply and spread over all the earth. And some of them tend towards the east dwell there. And others went to parts of the great continent. Others went northwards so as to go as far as Britian. "

The source of the passage is not made clear by Nate, but it is from Theophilus to Autolycus (Book II, chap. 32). Although Nate has assumed that this proves that the Gospel was spread to Britain, all the unbiased reader needs to to is read the entire context to see that Theophilus was simply talking about the spread of humanity, not Christianity, to Britain:

"Since then the occupation of the world by men was at first in three divisions,--in the east, and south, and west: afterwards, the remaining parts of the earth were inhabited, when men became very numerous. And the writers, not knowing these things, are forward to maintain that the world is shaped like a sphere, and to compare it to a cube. But how can they say what is true regarding these things, when they do not know about the creation of the world and its population? Men gradually increasing in number and multiplying on the earth, as we have already said, the islands also of the sea and the rest of the countries were inhabited."

Nate's superficial reading of the passage (assuming he bothered to read it at all, as opposed from simply copying the quote from someone else) is shown to be false. Theophilus was talking about the development of human populations instead of talking about the apostles traveling to Britain in the 1st Century.

[Nate] Writing of Clement Alexandria (A.D. 195, E) 2.487, 488
The compliers [sic] of narratives say that on the island of Britain there is cave situated under the mountain with the chasm on its summit."

Again Nate does not provide the actual citation, which is from Clement's Stromata Book VI, chapter 3. The question which needs to be asked is - so what? What difference does it make if there exists a cave situated under the mountain with the chasm on its summit? What does this have to do with an apostolic succession theory originating in Britain? The actual quote is as follows:

"Now the compilers of narratives say that in the island of Britain s there is a cave situated under a mountain, and a chasm on its summit; and that, accordingly, when the wind falls into the cave, and rushes into the bosom of the cleft, a sound is heard like cymbals clashing musically. And often in the woods, when the leaves are moved by a sudden gust of wind, a sound is emitted like the song of birds"

[Nate] Writing of Turtullain [sic] (A.D. 197,W) 3.157, 158.
"By this time... The name of Christ has reached various confines of the Moors (Germans), all the limits of Spain, the diverse nations of the Gauls (southern part of France) and the haunts of the Britons---inaccessible to the Romans but subjugated to Christ... Furthermore, there are Germans, scythians [sic], and persons of many remote nations and provinces and islands many to us unknown and which we can scarely enumerate. In all these places, the name of Christ (who is already come) reigns."

Again no proper citation - this is from Tertullian's Adversus Judaeos (chapter 7). This is another example of hyperbole, as Tertullian himself even warned in the same passage that "although there be withal a spiritual sense to be affixed to these expressions". However, since Nate apparently thinks the Moors were German, it is unlikely that he would recognize this. The authors on the page linked say this regarding the passage:

"However it should be said that the sentence is a rhetorical one, and the remoteness of Britain is perhaps a literary commonplace (after all at this date Britannia had been a Roman province for nearly two centuries!) While Britain may be of special interest to us, it was hardly so to Tertullian, forming only a couple of words in a lengthy but vague sentence in a work devoted to something else entirely. It would be unsafe to conclude from this passage that Tertullian had anything more than anecdotal knowledge of Christianity in Britain. But then again, it would equally be unsafe to say that he did not - who knows? Interesting, not improbable, but really suggesting only that at least some Christians thought they could safely say this without risk of dishonesty."

[Nate] Writing of Origen (A.D. 228, E), 9.417
"The next pearls are those taken from the sea at Britain."

This quote is from Origen's Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew, X, 7.. This is the most embarassingly stupid of the quotations by Nate, because Origen was only talking about pearls! You know those little rock-like thingies found inside a mollusk which get used as jewels? This is the kind of pearl Origen was talking about; he wasn't giving some kind of metaphor for the gospel being in Britain:

"We find then in those who write on the subject of stones, with regard to the nature of the pearl, that some pearls are found by land, and some in the sea. The land pearls are produced among the Indians only, being fitted for signet-rings and collets and necklaces; and the sea pearls, which are superior, are found among the same Indians, the best being produced in the Red Sea. The next best pearls are those taken from the sea at Britain; and those of the third quality, which are inferior not only to the first but to the second, are those found at Bosporus off Scythia. Concerning the Indian pearl these things further are said. They are found in mussels, like in nature to very large spiral snail-shells; and these are described as in troops making the sea their pasture-ground, as if under the guidance of some leader, conspicuous in colour and size, and different from those under him, so that he has an analogous position to what is called the queen of the bees. And likewise, in regard to the fishing for the best-that is, those in India-the following is told. The natives surround with nets a large circle of the shore, and dive down, exerting themselves to seize that one of them all which is the leader; for they say that, when this one is captured, the catching of the troop subject to it costs no trouble, as not one of those in the troop remains stationary, but as if bound by a thong follows the leader of the troop. It is said also that the formation of the pearls in India requires periods of time, the creature undergoing many changes and alterations until it is perfected. And it is further reported that the shell-I mean, the shell of the animal which bears the pearl-opens and gapes, as it were, and being opened receives into itself the dew of heaven; when it is filled with dew pure and untroubled, it becomes illumined and brings forth a large and well-formed pearl; but if at any time it receives dew darkened, or uneven, or in winter, it conceives a pearl cloudy and disfigured with spots. And this we also find that if it be intercepted by lightning when it is on the way towards the completion of the stone with which it is pregnant, it closes, and, as it were in terror, scatters and pours forth its offspring, so as to form what are called "physemata." And sometimes, as if premature, they are born small, and are somewhat cloudy though well-formed. As compared with the others the Indian pearl has these features. It is white in colour, like to silver in transparency, and shines through as with a radiance somewhat greenish yellow, and as a rule is round in form; it is also of tender skin, and more delicate than it is the nature of a stone to be; so it is delightful to behold, worthy to be celebrated among the more notable, as he who wrote on the subject of stones used to say. And this is also a mark of the best pearl, to be rounded off on the outer surface, very white in colour, very translucent, and very large in size. So much about the Indian pearl. But that found in Britain, they say, is of a golden tinge, but somewhat cloudy, and duller in sparkle. And that which is formal in the strait of Bosporus is darker than that of Britain, and livid, and perfectly dim, soft and small. And that which is produced in the strait of Bosporus is not found in the "pinna" which is the pearl-bearing species of shells. but in what are called mussels; and their habitat-I mean those at Bosporus-is in the marshes. There is also said to be a fourth class of pearls in Acarnania in the "pinnae "of oysters. These are not greatly sought after, but are irregular in form, and perfectly dark and foul in colour; and there are others also different from these in the same Acarnania which are cast away on every ground."

CONCLUSION
Nate had at least two reasons for trying this approach. First, if he was able to establish an authentic line of succession of the Gospel from the Original Twelve from Britain, this would be able to bypass the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the history of Christianity. Second, this would set the stage for an attempt to harmonize his F&W apostolic succession theory with all the evidence arising out of Ireland. In other words, this would be one step closer to placing the Truth Fellowship in a continuous succession in the British Isles, then he could try to incorporate that into all the late 19th Century Ireland evidence.

Unfortunately for him, his plan backfired on him. What we have here is yet another example of a ludicrous theory unsupported by Nate's pointless examples which he obviously approached in his usual uncritical and careless way. I've given up wondering how far he will go in his futile attempts to establish apostolic succession, even at the cost of his own credibility. That same passage Nate quoted from Clement's Stromata contains a sentence (having to do, appropriately enough, with plagiarism) that could very well apply to himself:

"And we shall ask at them whether those things which they relate are true or false. But they will not say that they are false; for they will not with their will condemn themselves of the very great silliness of composing falsehoods, but of necessity admit them to be true."

|back|