Apostolic succession (, ) is a doctrine, held by some Christian denominations, which asserts that the chosen successors (properly ordained bishops) of the Twelve Apostles, from the first century to the present day, have inherited the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon them by the Apostles, who in turn received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion and some Lutheran churches are the predominant proponents of this doctrine. To them, present-day bishops, as the successors of previous bishops, going back to the early days of Christianity, have spiritual and ecclesiastical power by this unbroken chain of ordinations stemming from the Apostles. This link with the Apostles guarantees for them their authority in matters of faith, morals and the valid administration of sacraments. This is reaffirmed every Sunday in the reciting of the Nicene Creed by priests and congregants, with the words, "We believe in one holy and catholic and apostolic Church..." All adherents view proper consecration of bishops as essential to maintaining apostolic succession.

The Catholic Church additionally believes that a bishop's authority on matters of faith and morals is infallible when what he teaches is universally taught by all the college of bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), who in turn is seen as the successor of Saint Peter the Apostle and the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Nevertheless, Apostolic succession is to be distinguished from the Petrine supremacy (see Papacy and Coptic Pope).

Most Protestants consider the authority given to the apostles as unique, proper to them alone. They reject any doctrine of a succession of their power. The Protestant view of ecclesiastical authority differs accordingly.

Defining features

Adherents maintain that apostolic succession "is one of four elements which define the true Church of Jesus Christ" and legitimizes the sacramental offices, as it is considered necessary for a bishop to perform legitimate or "valid" ordinations of priests, deacons and other bishops. Apostolic succession is transmitted during episcopal consecrations (the ordination of bishops) by the laying on of hands of bishops previously consecrated within the apostolic succession. This lineage of ordination is traceable, according to "Apostolic" churches, to the original Twelve Apostles, thus making the Church the continuation of the early Apostolic Christian community.

Within the sacramental theology of these churches, only bishops and presbyters (priests) ordained by bishops in the apostolic succession can validly celebrate or "confect" several of the other sacraments, including the Eucharist, reconciliation of penitents, confirmation and anointing of the sick. To those who claim it, apostolic succession is an important dividing line: the lack of it is the primary basis on which Protestant communities are not considered ''churches'' by the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church.

While the Anglican claim of apostolic succession is recognized by some Eastern Orthodox churches, it is not officially recognized by the Catholic Church, based on Pope Leo XIII's papal bull ''Apostolicae Curae''. However, since the promulgation of ''Apostolicae Curae'', Anglican bishops have acquired Old Catholic lines of apostolic succession recognized by Rome.

Eastern Orthodox theology and ecclesiology teach that each bishop is equal to the other bishops, even the Ecumenical Patriarch, who is ''first amongst equals.'' The Roman Catholic Church and many early Christian writers teach that Jesus gave Saint Peter a unique primacy among the apostles. Roman Catholics teach that this primacy has been passed on in the office of the Papacy.

Apostolicity as doctrinal continuity

|Tertullian}}

While many of the more ancient Churches within the historical episcopate state that Holy Orders are valid only through apostolic succession, most of the various Protestant denominations would deny the need of maintaining episcopal continuity with the early Church. Such Protestants generally hold that one important qualification of the Apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of the twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures of the Bible. To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is to them the only meaningful "continuity" with what such Protestants hold the early Christians to have believed, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth (an extension of the new Reformation-era doctrines of ''sola fide'' and ''sola scriptura''). The most meaningful ''apostolic succession'' for most Protestants, then, is a "faithful succession" of apostolic teaching. There is, of course, much disagreement among various Protestant denominations about the exact content of apostolic teaching, ranging from fundamental doctrinal disagreements to lesser side-issues.

It is worth noting, however, that the First Epistle of Clement which is commonly dated to the 1st century and claims to be written by the Roman Church (the chair of St. Peter and the center of the unity of the Church, according to Catholic doctrine) which was established by the Apostles, suggests a belief in apostolic succession, as does also the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, who was a personal disciple of the Apostles John and Paul. Also worth noting is the fact that others besides the twelve Apostles and Saint Paul are called "Apostles" in the New Testament. Also noteworthy is that the Apostle Paul, though given spiritual authority directly by Christ, did not embark on his apostleship without conferring with those who were apostles before him as he notes in his Epistle to the Galatians. By contrast, some Protestant groups such as the charismatic and the British New Church Movement include "apostles" among the offices that should be evident into modern times in "a true church", though they never trace a historical line of succession or attempt to confer, like Paul, with those who were "apostles" before them. The founders or senior leaders of a church grouping may be referred to as the apostles, and they may have been ordained by self-ordination, or appointed by a congregation. "Church planting" is seen as a key role of these present-day apostles.

Those who hold to the importance of episcopal apostolic succession would counter the above by appealing to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example) and which states that Jesus gave the Apostles a "blank check" to lead the Church as they saw fit under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They appeal as well to other documents of the early Church, especially the Epistle of St. Clement to the Church at Corinth, written around 96 AD. In it, Clement defends the authority and prerogatives of a group of "elders" or "bishops" in the Corinthian Church which had, apparently, been deposed and replaced by the congregation on its own initiative. In this context, Clement explicitly states that the apostles appointed bishops as successors and had directed that these bishops should in turn appoint their own successors; given this, such leaders of the Church were not to be removed without cause and not in this way. Further, proponents of the necessity of the personal apostolic succession of bishops within the Church point to the universal practice of the undivided early Church (up to 431 AD), from which, as organizations, the Latin Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (at that point in time one Church until 1054, see Great Schism), as well as Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches have all directly descended.

At the same time, no defender of the personal apostolic succession of bishops would deny the importance of doctrinal continuity in the Church.

These churches hold that Christ entrusted the leadership of the community of believers, and the obligation to transmit and preserve the "deposit of faith" (the experience of Christ and his teachings contained in the doctrinal "tradition" handed down from the time of the apostles, the written portion of which is Scripture) to the apostles, and the apostles passed on this role by ordaining bishops after them.

Catholic and Orthodox theology additionally holds that the power and authority to confect the sacraments, or at least all the sacraments aside from baptism and matrimony (the first of which may be administered by anyone, the second of which is administered by the couple to each other) are passed on only through the sacrament of Holy Orders, and an unbroken line of ordination of bishops to the Apostles is necessary for the valid celebration of the sacraments today. Roman Catholics recognize the validity of the apostolic successions of the bishops, and therefore the rest of the clergy, of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic (Union of Utrecht only). Since 1896, Rome has not fully recognized all Anglican orders as valid. The Eastern Orthodox generally recognize Roman Catholic orders, but have a different concept of the apostolic succession as it exists outside of Eastern Orthodoxy. This is also the case with Anglicans or other groups having apostolic succession. The validity of a priest's ordination is decided by each autocephalic Orthodox church.[4] Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox churches recognizes the validity of the apostolic succession of the clergy of the Protestant denominations, in large measure because of their theology of the Eucharist and the abandonment of more traditional views of the sacraments and sacramentalism.

Traditional doctrine

|Irenaeus}}

The early Nicene Creed of the Church, in the form given to it by the First Council of Constantinople, affirms that the Church is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic". Of these "four marks" of the true Church, the "apostolic" mark has historically been understood principally as a reference to apostolic succession. Even so, the practice of the ancient church has also been to designate churches as apostolic, even without a succession of bishops, simply for holding to the doctrines professed by the twelve apostles.

The literature on this traditional doctrine is substantial. Many inferences have been drawn from it. For example, the unbrokenness of apostolic succession is seen as significant because of the promise made by Jesus Christ that the "gates of hell" () would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he would be with the apostles to "the end of the age". According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept. The same would be true if an intact apostolic succession should completely abandon the teachings of the apostles and their immediate successors. An abandonment hypothetical example might imagine all the bishops of the world agreeing to abrogate the Nicene Creed or to repudiate the Bible.

Some Eastern Christians hold that the Western papal Catholic Church lost all claim to apostolic succession by an illegitimate addition of the Filioque clause to the Nicene Creed incorporated by the Western church, which began with the teachings of Augustine. They see the rift as resulting in the loss of apostolic succession in the western churches. This is a minority view, however.

Papal primacy is different though related to apostolic succession as described here. The Catholic Church has traditionally claimed a unique leadership role for the Apostle Peter, believed to have been named by Jesus as head of the Apostles and as a focus of their unity, who became the first Bishop of Rome, and whose successors accordingly became the leaders of the worldwide Church as well. Even so, Catholicism acknowledges the papacy is built on apostolic succession, not the other way around. As such, apostolic succession is a foundational doctrine of authority in the Catholic Church.

Churches claiming apostolic succession

Churches that claim the historic episcopate include the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Independent Catholic, the Anglican Communion, and several Lutheran Churches (see below). The former churches teach that apostolic succession is maintained through the consecration of their bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles or at least to leaders from the apostolic era. The Anglican and some Lutheran Churches do not specifically teach this but exclusively practice episcopal ordination.

These churches generally hold that Jesus Christ founded a community of believers and selected the apostles to serve, as a group, as the leadership of that community.

Catholic Church

On June 29, 2007 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the prefecture of Cardinal William Levada, explained why apostolic succession is integral to, and indeed, "a constitutive element" of the Catholic Church. The Vatican was asked why the Second Vatican Council and all Catholic statements before and after the Council do not consider Protestant Christian Communities as ''Churches''. The Vatican responded that "according to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy ''apostolic succession'' in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in the proper sense".

In Roman Catholic theology, the doctrine of apostolic succession states that Christ gave the full sacramental authority of the Church to the Twelve Apostles in the sacrament of Holy Orders, making them the first bishops. By conferring the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders on the apostles, they were given the authority to confer the sacrament of Holy Orders on others, thus consecrating more bishops in a direct lineage that can trace its origin back to the Twelve Apostles and Christ. This direct succession of bishops from the apostles to the present day bishops is referred to as apostolic succession. The Catholic Church also holds that within the College of Apostles, Peter was picked out for the unique role of leadership and to serve as the source of unity among the apostles, a role among the bishops and within the church inherited by the pope as Peter's successor today.

Catholicism holds that Christ entrusted the Apostles with the leadership of the community of believers, and the obligation to transmit and preserve the "deposit of faith" (the experience of Christ and his teachings contained in the doctrinal "tradition" handed down from the time of the apostles and the written portion, which is Scripture). The apostles then passed on this office and authority by ordaining bishops to follow after them.

Roman Catholic theology holds that the apostolic succession effects the power and authority to administer the sacraments except for baptism and matrimony. (Baptism may be administered by anyone and matrimony by the couple to each other). Authority to so administer such sacraments is passed on only through the sacrament of Holy Orders, a rite by which a priest is ordained (ordination can be conferred only by a bishop). The bishop, of course, must be from an unbroken line of bishops stemming from the original apostles selected by Jesus Christ. Thus, apostolic succession is necessary for the valid celebration of the sacraments today.

In the early 18th century, Pope Benedict XIII, whose orders were descended from Scipione Rebiba, personally consecrated at least 139 bishops for various important European sees, including German, French, English and New World bishops. These bishops in turn consecrated bishops almost exclusively for their respective countries causing other episcopal lineages to die off.

Roman Catholics recognize the validity of the apostolic successions of the bishops, and therefore the rest of the clergy, of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and some Independent Catholic Churches. Rome does not fully recognize all Anglican orders as valid. This conflict stems over the Anglican Church's revision of its rite of ordination for its bishops during the 16th century. Most of today's Anglican bishops would trace their succession back through a bishop who was ordained with the revised form and thus would be viewed as invalid. However, all Anglican bishops in Europe today can claim a line of succession through bishops who had only been ordained through the old rite. This was achieved through several different means: ordinations by the schismatic Catholic bishops of the Old Catholic and Independent Catholic Churches who converted to Anglicanism.

Debate over 'bishop' role in apostolic succession a church-dividing issue

According to liberal Catholic theologian Richard P. McBrien, debate over the role of "bishop" in apostolic succession is a church-dividing issue. He calls for rejection of what he terms the passing-the-baton theory which he characterizes as "an overly simplistic, mechanistic notion." McBrien says many Catholics accept the commonly-understood definition of the doctrine; specifically, the claim that each validly ordained Catholic bishop can trace his episcopal consecration in an unbroken line back to one of the original apostles or to the apostles, collectively. He quotes Jesuit Professor Francis Sullivan's two reasons for opposing such a view:

The apostles were not bishops in the present-day meaning of the word. They were missionaries and founders of local churches.

Second, while some local churches had pastoral leaders who were called bishops, it remains unclear whether these “bishops” were appointed or ordained by the apostle Paul, or by any other apostle.

McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, has no complaint with the succession doctrine, but with the way it is so often explained. He says that Catholic theologians today would point to Vatican II’s declaration that apostolic succession is “by divine institution” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church). McBrien maintains this interpretation should ''not'' be understood to mean that Christ explicitly determined the episcopal structures of either the local churches or dioceses. Boston College theologian Francis Sullivan says that “apostolic succession in the episcopate remains a church-dividing issue,” a source of debate even within the Catholic Church. There are the differing interpretations offered by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the one side, and by many Catholic theologians on the other. Of course, from a Catholic point of view, the bishops in communion with the Pope (the Church's Magisterium) have the final say in the matter, as they, not theologians, are the successors of the Apostles and have doctrinal authority.

Orthodox Churches

Orthodox Christians view apostolic succession as an important, God-ordained mechanism by which the structure and teaching of the Church are perpetuated. While Eastern Orthodox sources often refer to the bishops as "successors of the apostles" under the influence of Scholastic theology, strict Orthodox ecclesiology and theology hold that all legitimate bishops are properly successors of Peter. This also means that presbyters (or "priests") are successors of the apostles. As a result, Orthodox theology makes a distinction between a geographical or historical succession and proper ontological or ecclesiological succession. Hence, the bishops of Rome and Antioch can be considered successors of Peter in a historical sense on account of Peter's presence in the early community. This does not imply that these bishops are more successors of Peter than all others in an ontological sense.

According to ancient canons still observed with the Orthodox communion, a bishop must be consecrated by at least three other bishops; so-called "single handed ordinations" do not exist. Moreover, bishops are never ordained "at large" but only for a specific Eucharist community, in due historical and sacramental succession.

Traditional Western churches as seen by Eastern churches

The Eastern Orthodox have often permitted non-Orthodox clergy to be rapidly ordained within Orthodoxy as a matter of pastoral necessity and economia. Priests entering Eastern Orthodoxy from Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have usually been received by "vesting" and have been allowed to function immediately within Eastern Orthodoxy as priests. Recognition of Roman Catholic orders by the Russian Orthodox Church was stipulated in 1667 by the Synod of Moscow, but this position is not universal within the Eastern Orthodox communion.

In addition to a line of historic transmission, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches additionally require that a person who holds a high position in a hierarchy maintain Orthodox Church doctrine, which they hold to be that of the apostles and communion with other Orthodox bishops.

The Armenian Apostolic Church, which is one of the Oriental Orthodox churches, recognizes Roman Catholic episcopal consecrations without qualification.

Apostolic Founders

The Patriarchate of Constantinople claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew.

The Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark

The Russian Orthodox Church claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew

The Armenian Apostolic Church claims unbroken succession to the Thrones of Saint Bartholomew and Saint Jude Thaddeus

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark

The Assyrian Church of the East claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Thomas

The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Thomas

The Orthodox Church of Cyprus claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Barnabas

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Philip the Evangelist

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem claims succession to the Throne of Saint James the Just, although this line includes Patriarchs in exile. (see Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem )

The Syriac Orthodox Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Peter

The Roman Papacy of the Catholic Church claims unbroken succession to the Chair of Saint Peter, who is called by them the "Prince of the Apostles".

Anglican Communion

The Anglican Church's claim to apostolic succession is rooted in its evolution as part of the Western Church. Apostolic succession is viewed not so much as conveyed mechanically through an unbroken chain of the laying-on of hands, but as expressing continuity with the unbroken chain of commitment, beliefs and mission starting with the first apostles; and as hence emphasising the enduring yet evolving nature of the Church. The Anglican—Roman Catholic International Commission report expressed broad agreement in the nature of apostolic succession as the ‘effective sign’ of the apostolicity of the whole people of God, living in fidelity to the teaching and mission of the apostles.

When the Church of England declared independence from the Pope in the 16th century, the Church of England retained the episcopal polity and apostolic succession inherent in the Catholic Church. At first the Church of England continued to adhere to the doctrinal and liturgical norms of the Catholic Church. However, in the years following the split, the Church of England was increasingly influenced by the Protestant theology popular on the continent. English Reformers such as Richard Hooker rejected the Catholic position that Apostolic Succession is divinely commanded or necessary for true Christian ministry.

Orthodox judgments

In the 20th century there have been a variety of positions taken by the various Eastern Orthodox Churches on the validity of Anglican orders. In 1922 the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized them as valid. He wrote: "That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders."

Succeeding judgments, however, have been more conflicting. The Eastern Orthodox churches require a totality of common teaching to recognize orders and in this broader view find ambiguities in Anglican teaching and practice problematic. Accordingly, in practice Anglican clergy who convert to Orthodoxy are treated as if they had not been ordained and must be ordained in the Eastern Orthodox communion as would a lay person.

Roman Catholic judgments

In the Catholic Church, Pope Leo XIII stated in his 1896 bull ''Apostolicae Curae'' that the Catholic Church believes specifically that the Anglican Church's consecrations are "absolutely null and utterly void" because of changes made to the rite of consecration under Edward VI, thus denying that Anglicans participate in the apostolic succession. Anglican clergy, then, are ordained as Catholic priests upon entry into the Catholic Church.

A reply from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (1896) was issued to counter Pope Leo's arguments: ''Saepius Officio: Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Bull Apostolicae Curae of H. H. Leo XIII''. It was argued in their reply that if the Anglican orders were invalid, then the Roman orders were as well:

For if the Pope shall by a new decree declare our Fathers of two hundred and fifty years ago wrongly ordained, there is nothing to hinder the inevitable sentence that by the same law all who have been similarly ordained have received no orders. And if our Fathers, who used in 1550 and 1552 forms which as he (the Pope) says are null, were altogether unable to reform them in 1662, (Roman) Fathers come under the self-same law. And if Hippolytus and Victor and Leo and Gelasius and Gregory have some of them said too little in their rites about the priesthood and the high priesthood, and nothing about the power of offering the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Church of Rome herself has an invalid priesthood...

However, Catholics argue, this argument does not consider the sacramental intention involved in validating Holy Orders. In other words, Catholics believe that the ordinands were reworded so as to invalidate the ordinations because the intention behind the word substitution was a fundamental change in Anglican understanding of the priesthood.

It is Roman Catholic doctrine that the teaching of ''Apostolicae Curae'' is a truth to be "held definitively", as evidenced by commentary by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, currently Pope Benedict XVI:

With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations...

"While firmly restating the judgment of ''Apostolicae Curae'' that Anglican ordination is invalid, the Catholic Church takes account of the involvement, in some Anglican episcopal ordinations, of bishops of the Old Catholic Church of the Union of Utrecht who are validly ordained. In particular and probably rare cases the authorities in Rome may judge that there is a 'prudent doubt' concerning the invalidity of priestly ordination received by an individual Anglican minister ordained in this line of succession." This was a statement issued by Cardinal Basil Hume to explain the conditional character of his ordination of Graham Leonard, former Anglican bishop of the Diocese of London, to the priesthood, but is not widely endorsed. Since ''Apostolicae Curae'' was issued many Anglican jurisdictions have revised their ordinals, bringing them more in line with ordinals of the early Church. The Nag's Head Fable discrediting Matthew Parker's ordination was dismissed as an invention long before the issuance of ''Apostolicae Curae''.

Timothy Dufort, writing in The Tablet in 1982, argued that by 1969 all Anglican bishops had acquired apostolic succession fully recognized by Rome, since from the 1930s Old Catholic bishops (whose orders Rome recognizes as valid) have acted as co-consecrators in the ordination of Anglican bishops. This view is not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church itself, which continues to require that Anglican clergy be ordained absolutely (not conditionally) if they are to exercise a ministry in that church.

Porvoo Communion of Churches

Negotiated at Järvenpää, Finland, and inaugurated with a celebration of the eucharist at Porvoo Cathedral in 1992, this agreement of unity includes the mutual recognition of the traditional apostolic succession among the following Churches:

Lutheran Churches: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland, Church of Norway, Church of Sweden, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania, Church of Denmark, observer: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia.

Anglican Communion: Church of Ireland, Scottish Episcopal Church, Church of England, the Church in Wales, the Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church, and the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church.

Of note is the fact that at least one of the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches in the Porvoo Communion of Churches, the Church of Denmark has bishops, but strictly speaking they were not in the historic apostolic succession prior to their entry into the Porvoo Communion, since their Episcopate and Holy Orders derived from Dr. Johannes Bugenhagen, who was a pastor, not a bishop. In 2010, the Church of Denmark joined the Porvoo Communion of Churches.

Lutheran churches

Wide variations exist within Lutheranism on this issue. Most Lutheran churches in Scandinavian countries (see immediately above and below) are favorable to the traditional doctrine of apostolic succession. Others de-emphasize it, e.g., many German Lutheran churches in former Prussian lands, resulting from their state-ordered union with Reformed (Calvinist) churches in 1817.

In recent years a number of Lutheran churches at the most Catholic edge of the Evangelical Catholic High Church Lutheran spectrum in the United States of America have accepted the doctrine of apostolic succession and have successfully recovered it, generally from Independent Catholic Churches.

Claim to Apostolic Succession

In Scandinavia, most Lutheran churches participating in the Porvoo Communion, those of Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, and Lithuania, believe that they ordain their bishops in the apostolic succession in lines stemming from the original apostles. This view is not supported by the Roman Catholic Church, nor by all of Orthodoxy. Two other Lutheran churches of Scandinavia, those of Denmark and Latvia, were observers at Porvoo.

Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church, representing the earliest Lutherans in America, has autonomous and congregationally-oriented ministries and believes it consecrates deacons, priests and bishops in valid and historic apostolic succession. This must be done through the laying on of hands during the celebration of Holy Communion. Only bishops may ordain deacons, priests and other bishops into apostolic succession. The newly consecrated bishop's name is added to the apostolic lineage.

The Lutheran Orthodox Church traces its historic lineage of apostolic succession through established lines. In 2004 it had broken away from the Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church. The two church bodies remain on amicable terms. The Lutheran Orthodox Church maintains its complete book of apostolic lineages in its archives, adding a new bishop's name following consecration.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, North America's largest Lutheran body, became united in the historic episcopate of the Episcopal Church in 2000, upon the signing of ''Called to Common Mission''. By this document the full communion between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Episcopal Church was established. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is headed by a presiding bishop who is elected by the churchwide assembly for a six year term.

The Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church recovered the apostolic succession from Old Catholic and Independent Catholic churches, adopted a strict episcopal polity, and all of its clergy have been ordained (or re-ordained) into the historic apostolic succession. This Church was formed in 1997, with its headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri.

Another North American Lutheran church which has also has successfully recovered the historic apostolic succession is the International Lutheran Fellowship.

Similarly, in the High Church Lutheranism of Germany, some religious brotherhoods like Hochkirchliche St. Johannes-Bruderschaft and Hochkirchlicher Apostolat St. Ansgar have managed to arrange for their own bishop to be re-ordained in apostolic succession. The members of these brotherhoods do not form into separate ecclesia.

Indifferent to issue

Many German Lutherans appear to demur on this issue, which may be sourced in the church governance views of Martin Luther. Luther's reform movement, however, usually did not as a rule abrogate the ecclesiastic office of Bishop.

An important historical context to explicate the wide differences among German Lutheran Churches is the Prussian Union of 1817, whereby the secular government directed the Lutheran Churches in Prussia to merge with non-Lutheran Reformed Churches in Prussia. The Reformed Churches generally oppose on principle the traditional doctrine of ecclesiastic Apostolic Succession, e.g., not usually even recognizing the church office of Bishop. Later in the 19th century, other Lutheran and Reformed congregations merged to form united church bodies in some of the other 39 states of the German Confederation, e.g., in Anhalt, Baden, Bremen, Hesse and Nassau, Hesse-Kassel and Waldeck, and the Palatinate. Yet the partial nature of this list also serves to show that in Germany there remained many Lutherans who never did unite with the Reformed.

Other Lutheran Churches seem indifferent as a matter of understood doctrine regarding this particular issue of ecclesiastical governance. In America, the conservative Missouri Synod places its church authority in the congregation rather than in the bishop, though its founder, C.F.W. Walther, while establishing congregational polity for the Missouri Synod, did consider Polity (a Church's form of government) to be a matter of adiaphora (something indifferent.)

The Missouri Synod is, however, not in what it calls "Pulpit and Altar Fellowship" (full communion) with Churches which are not governed by Congregationalist polity. It has its own international communion structure, the International Lutheran Council, the member Churches of which are all of Congregationalist polity.

Beyond indifference, some conservative Lutherans are in principle outright against the traditional doctrine of Apostolic Succession, e.g., Confessional Lutheranism (see also subsection ''Confessional Lutheranism'' herein below). Other conservative Lutherans, however, may favor High Church Lutheranism which remains generally favorable to the traditional doctrine of Apostolic Succession (see above).

Methodist churches

In the beginnings of the Methodist movement, adherents were instructed to receive the sacraments within the Anglican Church; however, the Methodists soon petitioned to receive the sacraments from the local preachers who conducted worship services and revivals. However, the Bishop of London refused to ordain ministers in the British American colonies. Rev. John Wesley, the founder the movement, was not prepared to allow unordained preachers to administer the sacraments: |Rev. John Wesley|A.D. 1745}} In 1763, Greek Orthodox bishop Erasmus of the Diocese of Arcadia, who was visiting London at the time, consecrated Rev. John Wesley a bishop, and ordained several Methodist lay preachers as priests, including John Jones. However, Wesley could not openly announce his episcopal consecration without incurring the penalty of the Præmunire Act. In light of Wesley's episcopal consecration, the Methodist Church can lay a claim on apostolic succession, as understood in the traditional sense. Since the Rt. Rev. John Wesley ordained and sent forth every Methodist preacher in his day, who preached and baptized and ordained, and since every Methodist preacher who has ever been ordained as a Methodist was ordained in this direct "succession" from Wesley, then the Methodist Church teaches that it has all the direct merits coming from apostolic succession, if any such there be. This apostolic succession is recognized by Unity Catholic Church, an autocephalous Catholic Church.

Despite this fact, most Methodists view apostolic succession outside its high church sense. This is because Rev. John Wesley believed that bishops and presbyters constituted one order, citing an ancient opinion from the Church of Alexandria. Since the Bishop of London refused to ordain ministers in the British American colonies, this constituted an emergency, and as a result, on 2 September 1784, Rev. John Wesley, along with a priest from the Anglican Church and two other elders, operating under the ancient Alexandrian habitude, ordained Rev. Thomas Coke a superintendent, although Rt. Rev. Coke embraced the title bishop. Today, Methodism follows this ancient Alexandrian practice as bishops are elected from and by the order of the presbyterate: the ''Discipline of the Methodist Church'', in ¶303, affirms that "ordination to this ministry is a gift from God to the Church. In ordination, the Church affirms and continues the apostolic ministry through persons empowered by the Holy Spirit." It also uses sacred scripture in support of this practice, namely, 1 Timothy 4:12, which states: |Paul of Tarsus|KJV}} Methodism also buttresses this argument with the leg of Sacred Tradition of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral by citing the Church Fathers, many of whom concur with this view.

Protestant denominations against the traditional doctrine of apostolic succession

Contra: Doctrinal continuity important, the Ecclesia not

Institutional background

Almost all Protestants deny the doctrine of apostolic succession, believing that it is neither taught in Scripture nor necessary for Christian teaching, life, and practice. Accordingly, Protestants strip the notion of apostolic succession from the definition of "apostolic" or "apostolicity." For them, to be apostolic is simply to be in submission to the teachings of the original twelve apostles as recorded in Scripture. This doctrinal stance reflects the Protestant view of authority, embodied in the doctrine known as Sola Scriptura.

Among the original champions of Protestantism who rejected the doctrine of apostolic succession were John Calvin, and Martin Luther. They both said that the episcopacy was inadequate to address corruption, doctrinal or otherwise, and that this inadequacy justified the intervention of the church of common people. In part this position was also necessary, as otherwise there would have been no means to elicit or initiate reform of the church.

A Protestant Reformation-era re-definition of apostolic succession

Protestants may hold that one important qualification of the Apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of these twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, as all described in the Scriptures of the Bible, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church during our subsequent history. Such Protestants proclaim that to share with the historic apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in Scripture, to receive the same Holy Spirit: this can be the only sense in which "apostolic succession" is meaningful. It is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth (an extension of the Reformation doctrines of ''sola fide'' and ''sola scriptura''). The most meaningful ''apostolic succession'' for many Protestants, then, is construed as the "faithful succession" of apostolic teaching.

Many Protestants point to episodes described in the Hebrew Bible when the Jewish leadership became disobedient or strayed from the Divine command; God would then bestow that position upon an individual who was more obedient to his will---regardless of any claims that any other person might have sourced in tradition. An example of this would be when King Saul of Israel was removed by God due to his disobedience so that King David could assume the throne. Protestants see apostolic succession in much the same way. In the view of many Protestants apostolic succession is not a matter of tradition, rather it is a matter of God safe-guarding his church by means of bestowing authority on those who best exemplify sound doctrine.

In addition, many Protestant ''contras'' state that the teaching of apostolic succession did not arise until 170-200 AD. Others would differ, pointing out that the doctrine is mentioned and expounded upon by St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John, and Clement of Rome, a disciple of Paul. They became bishops, and were later martyred.

In the centuries following the Protestant Reformation, most debates about apostolic succession in the West concerned the Catholic Church's claim that apostolic succession, as traditionally defined, was essential for orthodox Christian ecclesiae and valid sacramental ministry. Protestants denied this and asserted that the traditional definition of apostolic succession was not revealed in the Bible, but was formulated later by the post-apostolic church.

Doctrines not uniform among the ancient churches

In the 20th century, there has been more contact between Protestants and Christians from Eastern traditions which also claim apostolic succession. These ancient churches of the various Eastern Orthodox may use the doctrine of apostolic succession in their apologetics against Protestantism. Many Protestants now feel that the claims made by advocates of apostolic succession have been proven false by multiple churches' claims to have apostolic succession, and the traditions and doctrines of these churches are, according to Protestants, at odds with each other. According to some Protestant apologists, apostolic succession is a failed theological hypothesis and continued debates about it are no more meaningful than debates about whether the Earth is flat. The following reasons are cited by some Protestant apologists for the doctrine's failure:

Different churches that claim apostolic succession insist that they alone are the true Church, and other churches in apostolic succession are false. Some apostolic churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, do recognize the apostolic succession of other churches, but may consider their holy orders 'illicit' yet essentially valid. Other apostolic churches, however, appear to deny the validity of churches other than themselves.

The doctrines of the various "apostolic" churches are often as different from each other as Protestant doctrines are from Catholic or Orthodox doctrines. For example:

Oriental Orthodox churches define the union of divine and human natures in Christ differently from the dual-nature doctrine held by the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy, and reject Church councils that the other Churches regard as foundational to their religion. The Eastern Orthodox define the relationship of the Holy Spirit to other members of the Trinity differently than Roman Catholics (see Filioque).

* The Catholic Church has dogmatically proclaimed beliefs such as Papal Infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which are rejected with varying degrees of vehemence by other apostolic churches.

The Syriac Orthodox Church, according to one source, rejects the doctrine of transubstantiation, the dogma that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ during Mass, and believes that the bread and wine are only symbolic; but according to other sources it believes that the bread and wine do become the body and blood of Christ.

* Many of the practices of the various churches are mutually contradictory. Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches perform confirmation, which they call chrismation, on infants immediately after baptism, while the Catholic Church delays the rite until adolescence or adulthood, although in some parts of the world confirmation is administered to infants immediately after baptism by Catholic bishops.

The Roman Catholic Church insists (although not as a matter of faith) that in general, for the Latin Rite, priests be taken from the unmarried (though married priests are occasionally allowed if they were originally ordained in other apostolic churches and desire to continue their calling to ministry serving as Catholics). Both the Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic churches (which are another branch of the worldwide Catholic Church) permit married men into the priesthood. Some Oriental Orthodox churches, like the Egyptian Copts, insist that parish priests be married. Universally, monastics, by their vocation, and bishops, by tradition, are chosen from among widowers or the never-married in the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox, and of the Eastern Catholic Church.

Apostolic churches cannot agree on issues as basic as the contents of the Biblical canon. The Eastern Orthodox churches believe that the Septuagint is divinely-inspired and authoritative, while the Roman Catholic Church uses Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament, and to some extent, the Latin Vulgate, as its canon. The Ethiopian Copts include books in the Biblical canon that no other church recognizes, such as the Book of Enoch.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, who have been geographically isolated since the early centuries of the Christian era, also show other doctrinal innovations that no other denomination accepts, except perhaps for some recent Messianic Jews. The Jewish Law is held in high regard by the Ethiopians, the Ark of the Covenant is revered, and Adoptionism is regarded as a valid Christology by this denomination. If apostolic succession gave bishops the power to remain in the true faith, then an isolated line of bishops should have produced virtually the same theological consensus as the general Church. This clearly did not happen in the Ethiopian church.

According to some Protestants, it is evident from these facts that claims regarding the necessity of apostolic succession to preserve Christian orthodoxy are false. Continued debates regarding the doctrine would therefore be meaningless. Catholic apologists may reply that these arguments against apostolic succession overstate the Church's teachings about apostolic succession's effect on Christian unity and downplay the doctrine's sacramental aspects. Nonresponsive, however, some Protestants wonder what meaning such a doctrine might possibly have, if those with legitimate ministry, according to the doctrine, fail to preserve sound Christian teaching. On the other hand the doctrine of succession relates not only to the preservation of doctrine but also to the power to administer the sacraments. As such, those in succession are not infallible (or not necessarily so), but are given the position of administering the sacraments. Since Protestants frequently hold to the priesthood of all believers, they reject the need for a special episcopal class to administer the sacraments.

Yet such arguments may not be persuasive to the apostolic churches. Some favoring the traditional ecclesia see the 'contra' Protestant denominations as vulnerable existentially because of their late origins in the 16th century, a millennium and a half after the ministry of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. Some Protestants dismiss the claims made by Catholics and by Orthodox that their episcopal institutions, in their current forms, date directly back to Christ and are in harmony with the early Christian church. To the contrary, it seems clear that these churches, the Orthodox and the Catholic who share a similar ecclesia, have evolved considerably during the great historical changes of the last two millennia. Several elements of their traditions were instituted by later church leaders, e.g., by Patriarches and by Popes, and sometimes by secular emperors. The dates when the Christian Church became fragmented into different denominations is not truly relevant to an ahistoric discussion of theology. Moreover, apostolic church criticism against ''contra'' Protestants appears to presuppose an approved ecclesiology of the Church that is not plainly stated in the Bible: namely, that the Christian Churches should be identical with authoritarian, episcopal institutions rather than simply indicating the worldwide community of Christians, each church interpreting scripture differently, as many Protestants maintain.

All Christians who have a genuine relationship with God through and in Christ are part of the "True Church," according to exemplary statements of evangelical Protestant theology, notwithstanding condemnation of the Catholic Church by some Protestants. Claims that one or more denominations might be the "True Church" appear as nothing more than propaganda which has evolved over centuries to support authoritarian claims---based on tradition or based on scripture---of merely human institutions. Such claims can be found among the worldwide community of Christians. Yet all appear to treasure the truth that liberates.

It should also be noted that Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox consider both the Oriental Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox churches to have been anathematized in the early ecumenical councils. Therefore, although maintaining that these churches have valid sacramental power in their succession, they would hold that this is distinct from maintaining fully sound doctrine.

A traditionalist response to the redefinition

Broad uniformity among the ancient churches

An apologist for the traditional ecclesiastic form of apostolic succession would suggest taking a long view to survey the ''coherence'' among the ancient churches. That approach will find a ''general agreement'' over the course of two millennia regarding historic practice and church doctrine, e.g., the liturgy, the sacraments, regarding the monasteries, concerning Mary, and in other matters, like church governance (hence their agreement about the necessity of apostolic succession). Yet such ''coherence'' among the ancient churches is not exact; the broad uniformity exists notwithstanding their well-articulated differences. Further, among those Protestant churches claiming traditional apostolic succession (see section above), their doctrines and practices can now generally be seen in light of the ecumenical movement and in the context of the 21st century, and compared with those of the ancient churches: there remain differences but in many areas, following a long process of discussion and prayer, significant reconciliation has been reached.

On the other hand, in the 500 years since the Reformation, the Protestant churches not following ecclesiastic apostolic succession have come to differ markedly in several fundamentals, especially 'contra' churches that derive from the Protestant reformation. Such would include, e.g., the Unitarians whose name reflects their early rejection of the Trinity; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints {LDS Church} (although not Protestant) claim new scripture on par with the Bible and a restored apostolic order by angelic ordination; and the Jehovah's Witnesses who largely reject secular society. Yet many Protestants disavow these three churches as not Protestant for not following sola scriptura, one of the defining principles of Protestantism. Yet the Adventist as well as Dispensationalist doctrines, both based on a new reading of Scripture, are generally considered Protestant. In sum, while all practice many teachings of Christianity, a minority of such 'contra' churches, either Protestant or merely deriving therefrom, have also become---for good or ill---a source of profound innovation.

Common ground

One reason often given for traditional apostolic succession is the need for institutional continuity so that Christian doctrine, not only the written texts (pre-Gutenberg (1397–1468) an important consideration) but also their proper orthodox interpretation, could be better maintained. Many Protestants ''contra'' to traditionalist apostolic succession would not deny the importance of continuity and consistency in the true interpretation of Christian doctrine. At the same time, traditionalists defending apostolic succession would agree that ecclesiastics must remain orthodox in their teaching, or be disciplined or excommunicated.

Charismatic and British New Church Movement new apostles

Some Protestant charismatic and British New Church Movement churches include "apostles" among the offices that should be evident into modern times in a true church, though they never trace an historical line of succession. The founders or senior leaders of a British New Church Movement group will frequently be referred to as the apostles. Church planting is a key role of these present-day apostles.

Confessional Lutheranism

Confessional Lutheranism rejects Apostolic succession, stating that that there's no evidence the Popes have historic succession to Peter other than their own claim that it is so. Furthermore, they claim that in the Bible there's no evidence showing that the office must be conveyed by laying on of hands and no Biblical command that it must be by a special class of bishops (the laying on of hands is repeatedly used to give a commission to some person in scripture, however; for example, it was done to St. Paul before his missions work; St. Paul also instructed St. Timothy to not be hasty in laying on hands). Confessional Lutherans claim that the churches claiming apostolic succession have not preserved apostolic doctrine, therefore their leaders have no meaningful apostolic succession.

See also

Apostle (Latter Day Saints)

Episcopi vagantes

List of Bishops

Mormonism and Christianity

New Apostolic Church

Petrine Primacy

Pope Linus

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)

Valid but illicit

Endnotes and references

Sources and external links

Against Heresies, Online-text, Irenaeus, ''Against Heresies''

Apostolicity in the Catholic Encyclopedia

Christian Cyclopedia article on apostolic succession

Methodist Apostolicity by Gregory S. Neal

Methodist Episcopacy: In Search of Holy Orders (1990) by Gregory S. Neal

Scott Hahn on the Papacy by Scott Hahn. Discusses "the ''chamberlain'' of the royal household of ancient Israel" or "''Prime minister''" of the "''house of David''" (Isaiah 22:22) vis-à-vis ''Dynastic Succession'' .

Views on apostolic succession at WikiChristian

"Was Wesley Ordained By Bishop Erasmus?" ''The Methodist Quarterly Review'' (1878)

Category:Christian group structuring Category:Christian terms Category:Ecclesiology Category:Episcopacy in Anglicanism Category:Episcopacy in Roman Catholicism

cs:Apoštolská posloupnost da:Apostolisk succession de:Apostolische Sukzession et:Apostellik suktsessioon es:Sucesión apostólica eo:Apostola posteuleco fr:Succession apostolique ko:사도전승 id:Suksesi Apostolik ia:Succession apostolic is:Postulleg vígsluröð it:Successione apostolica sw:Mlolongo wa Kitume la:Successio Apostolica ml:അപ്പോസ്തലിക പിന്തുടർച്ച arz:خلافه رسوليه nl:Apostolische successie ja:使徒継承 no:Apostolisk suksesjon pl:Sukcesja apostolska pt:Sucessão apostólica ru:Апостольское преемство sl:Apostolsko nasledstvo sh:Apostolsko nasledstvo sr:Апостолско прејемство fi:Apostolinen suksessio sv:Apostolisk succession

Judas Iscariot (, ''Yehuda'', ) was, according to the New Testament, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. He is best known for his betrayal of Jesus to the hands of the chief priests for 30 pieces of silver.

Etymology

In the Greek New Testament, Judas is called Ιούδας Ισκάριωθ (Ioúdas Iskáriōth) and Ισκαριώτης (). "Judas" (spelled "Ioudas" in ancient Greek and "Iudas" in Latin, pronounced ''yudas'' in both) is the Greek form of the common name Judah (יהודה, Y^ehûdâh, Hebrew for "God is praised"). The Greek spelling underlies other names in the New Testament that are traditionally rendered differently in English: Judah and Jude.

The significance of "Iscariot" is uncertain. There are several major theories on etymology: One popular explanation derives ''Iscariot'' from Hebrew איש־קריות, ''Κ-Qrîyôth'', or "man of Kerioth". The Gospel of John refers to Judas as "son of Simon Iscariot", implying it was not Judas, but his father, who came from there. Some speculate that ''Kerioth'' refers to a region in Judea, but it is also the name of two known Judean towns. A second theory is that "Iscariot" identifies Judas as a member of the ''sicarii''. These were a cadre of assassins among Jewish rebels intent on driving the Romans out of Judea. However, some historians maintain the ''sicarii'' arose in the 40s or 50s of the 1st century, in which case Judas could not have been a member. A third possibility advanced by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg is that Iscariot means "the liar" or "the false one," perhaps from the Hebrew File:HebrewIscariot-1.jpg‎. Fourth, some have proposed that the word derives from an Aramaic word meaning "red color," from the root File:HebrewIscariot-2.jpg. Fifth, the word derives from one of the Aramaic roots File:HebrewIscariot-3.jpg or File:HebrewIscariot-4.jpg. This would mean "to deliver," based on the LXX rendering of Isaiah 19:4a--a theory advanced by J. Alfred Morin. Finally, the epithet could be associated with the manner of Judas' death, i.e., hanging. This would mean Iscariot derives from a kind of Greek-Aramaic hybrid: File:HebrewIscariot-5.jpg, ''Iskarioutha'', "chokiness" or "constriction." This might indicate that the epithet be applied posthumously by the remaining disciples, but Joan E. Taylor has argued that it was a descriptive name given to Judas by Jesus, since other disciples such as Simon Peter/Cephas (''Kephas'' = "rock") were also given such names.

Biblical narrative

Judas is mentioned in the synoptic gospels, the Gospel of John and at the beginning of Acts of the Apostles.

Mark states that the chief priests were looking for a sly way to arrest Jesus. They decided not to do so during the feast since they were afraid that people would riot; instead, they chose the night before the feast to arrest him. In the Gospel of Luke, Satan enters Judas at this time.

According to the account in the Gospel of John, Judas carried the disciples' money bag. He betrayed Jesus for a bribe of "thirty pieces of silver" by identifying him with a kiss — "the kiss of Judas" — to arresting soldiers of the High Priest Caiaphas, who then turned Jesus over to Pontius Pilate's soldiers.

Death

There are several descriptions of the death of Judas, two of which are included in the modern Biblical canon: Matthew 27:3-10 says that Judas returned the money to the priests and committed suicide by hanging himself. They used it to buy the potter's field. The Gospel account presents this as a fulfillment of prophecy. The ''Acts of the Apostles'' says that Judas used the money to buy a field, but fell headfirst, and ''burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out''. This field is called Akeldama or ''Field of Blood''. The non-canonical ''Gospel of Judas'' says Judas had a vision of the disciples stoning and persecuting him. Another account was preserved by the early Christian leader, Papias: "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."

The existence of conflicting accounts of the death of Judas caused problems for scholars who saw them as threatening the reliability of Scripture. This problem was one of the points causing C. S. Lewis, for example, to reject the view "that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth". Various attempts at harmonization have been suggested, such as that of Augustine that Judas hanged himself in the field and the fall burst his body open, or that the accounts of Acts and Matthew refer to two different transactions.

Modern scholars tend to reject these approaches stating that the Matthew account is a midrashic exposition that allows the author to present the event as a fulfillment of prophetic passages from the Old Testament. They argue that the author adds imaginative details such as the thirty pieces of silver, and the fact that Judas hangs himself, to an earlier tradition about Judas's death.

Matthew's reference to the death as fulfilment of a prophecy "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" caused controversy, since it paraphrases a story from the Book of Zechariah which refers to the return of a payment of thirty pieces of silver. Some writers, such as Augustine, Jerome, and John Calvin concluded that this was an obvious error. Some modern writers suggest that the Gospel writer may have had a passage from Jeremiah in mind, such as chapters 18 and 19 , which refers to a potter's jar and a burial place, and chapter 32 which refers to a burial place and an earthenware jar.

Theology

Betrayal of Jesus

There are several explanations as to why Judas betrayed Jesus. A prevalent explanation is that Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver (). One of Judas's main weaknesses seemed to be money (). A possibility is that Judas expected Jesus to overthrow Roman rule of Israel. In this view, Judas is a disillusioned disciple betraying Jesus not so much because he loved money, but because he loved his country and thought Jesus had failed it. According to and , Satan entered into him and called him to do it.

The Gospels suggest that Jesus foresaw (, ) and allowed Judas's betrayal (). An explanation is that Jesus allowed the betrayal because it would allow God's plan to be fulfilled. In April 2006, a Coptic papyrus manuscript titled the Gospel of Judas from 200 AD was translated, suggesting that Jesus told Judas to betray him, although some scholars question the translation.

Origen knew of a tradition according to which the greater circle of disciples betrayed Jesus, but does not attribute this to Judas in particular, and Origen did not deem Judas to be thoroughly corrupt (Matt., tract. xxxv).

Judas is the subject of philosophical writings, including ''The Problem of Natural Evil'' by Bertrand Russell and "Three Versions of Judas", a short story by Jorge Luis Borges. They allege various problematic ideological contradictions with the discrepancy between Judas's actions and his eternal punishment. John S. Feinberg argues that if Jesus foresees Judas's betrayal, then the betrayal is not an act of free will, and therefore should not be punishable. Conversely, it is argued that just because the betrayal was foretold, it does not prevent Judas from exercising his own free will in this matter. Other scholars argue that Judas acted in obedience to God's will. The gospels suggest that Judas is apparently bound up with the fulfillment of God's purposes (, , , , , , ), yet ''woe is upon him'', and he would ''have been better unborn'' (). The difficulty inherent in the saying is its paradoxicality - if Judas had not been born, the Son of Man will apparently no longer go "''as it is written of him''". The consequence of this apologetic approach is that Judas's actions come to be seen as necessary and unavoidable, yet leading to condemnation.

Erasmus believed that Judas was free to change his intention, but Martin Luther argued in rebuttal that Judas's will was immutable. John Calvin states that Judas was predestined to damnation, but writes on the question of Judas's guilt: "''surely in Judas' betrayal, it will be no more right, because God himself willed that his son be delivered up and delivered him up to death, to ascribe the guilt of the crime to God than to transfer the credit for redemption to Judas.''"

It is speculated that Judas's damnation, which seems possible from the Gospels' text, may not stem from his betrayal of Christ, but from the despair which caused him to subsequently commit suicide. This position is not without its problems since Judas was already damned by Jesus even before he committed suicide (see ), but it does avoid the paradox of Judas's predestined act setting in motion both the salvation of all mankind and his own damnation. The damnation of Judas is not a universal conclusion, and some have argued that there is no indication that Judas was condemned with eternal punishment. Adam Clarke writes: "''he [Judas] committed a heinous act of sin...but he repented () and did what he could to undo his wicked act: he had committed the sin unto death, i.e. a sin that involves the death of the body; but who can say, (if mercy was offered to Christ's murderers? ()...) that the same mercy could not be extended to wretched Judas?...''"

Modern interpretations

Most Christians still consider Judas a traitor. Indeed the term ''Judas'' has entered many languages as a synonym for ''betrayer''.

Some scholars have embraced the alternative notion that Judas was merely the negotiator in a prearranged prisoner exchange (following the money-changer riot in the Temple) that gave Jesus to the Roman authorities by mutual agreement, and that Judas's later portrayal as "traitor" was a historical distortion.

In his book ''The Passover Plot'' the British theologian Hugh J. Schonfield argues that the crucifixion of Christ was a conscious re-enactment of Biblical prophecy and Judas acted with Jesus' full knowledge and consent in "betraying" his master to the authorities.

Theologian Aaron Saari contends in his work ''The Many Deaths of Judas Iscariot'' that Judas Iscariot was the literary invention of the Markan community. As Judas does not appear in the Epistles of Paul, nor in the Q Gospel, Saari argues that the language indicates a split between Pauline Christians, who saw no reason for the establishment of an organized Church, and the followers of Peter. Saari contends that the denigration of Judas in Matthew and Luke-Acts has a direct correlation to the elevation of Peter.

Further evidence of the absence of the Judas story in the earliest Christian documents on the basis of and . Here Jesus tells his disciples that they will “sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” No exception is made for Judas even though Jesus was aware of his impending act of betrayal. The answer may lie in the fact that the source of these verses could be the hypothetical Q document (QS 62). Q is thought to predate the gospels and would be one of the earliest Christian documents. Given that possibility, the betrayal story could have been invented by the writer of Mark. The book ''The Sins of the Scripture'', by John Shelby Spong, investigates the possibility that early Christians compiled the Judas story from three Old Testament Jewish betrayal stories. He writes, "...the act of betrayal by a member of the twelve disciples is not found in the earliest Christian writings. Judas is first placed into the Christian story by the Gospel of Mark (3:19), who wrote in the early years of the eighth decade of the Common Era." He points out that some of the Gospels, after the Crucifixion, refer to the number of Disciples as "Twelve", as if Judas were still among them. He compares the three conflicting descriptions of Judas's death - hanging, leaping into a pit, and disemboweling, with three Old Testament betrayals followed by similar suicides.

Spong's conclusion is that early Bible authors, after the First Jewish-Roman War, sought to distance themselves from Rome's enemies. They augmented the Gospels with a story of a disciple, personified in Judas as the Jewish state, who either betrayed or handed-over Jesus to his Roman crucifiers. Spong identifies this augmentation with the origin of modern Anti-Semitism.

Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, espousing a purely mythological view of Jesus, suggests that in the New Testament, the name "Judas" was constructed as an attack on the Judaeans or on the Judaean religious establishment held responsible for executing Christ. The English word "Jew" is derived from the Latin ''Iudaeus'', which, like the Greek Ιουδαίος (''Ioudaios''), could also mean "Judaean".

Role in apocrypha

Judas has been a figure of great interest to esoteric groups, such as many Gnostic sects. Irenaeus records the beliefs of one Gnostic sect, the Cainites, who believed that Judas was an instrument of the Sophia, Divine Wisdom, thus earning the hatred of the Demiurge. In the Hebrew Bible, the book of Zechariah, the one who casts thirty pieces of silver, as Judas does in the Gospels, is a servant of God. His betrayal of Jesus thus was a victory over the materialist world. The Cainites later split into two groups, disagreeing over the ultimate significance of Jesus in their cosmology.

Gospel of Judas

During the 1970s, a Coptic papyrus codex (book) was discovered near Beni Masah, Egypt which appeared to be a 3rd- or 4th-century-AD copy of a 2nd-century original, describing the story of Jesus's death from the viewpoint of Judas. At its conclusion, the text identifies itself as "the Gospel of Judas" (''Euangelion Ioudas'').

The discovery was given dramatic international exposure in April 2006 when the US ''National Geographic'' magazine (for its May edition) published a feature article entitled ''The Gospel of Judas'' with images of the fragile codex and analytical commentary by relevant experts and interested observers (but not a comprehensive translation). The article's introduction stated: "An ancient text lost for 1,700 years says Christ's betrayer was his truest disciple". The article points to some evidence that the original document was extant in the 2nd century: "Around A.D. 180, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in what was then Roman Gaul, wrote a massive treatise called ''Against Heresies'' [in which he attacked] a 'fictitious history,' which 'they style the Gospel of Judas.'"

Before the magazine's edition was circulated, other news media gave exposure to the story, abridging and selectively reporting it.

In December 2007, a ''New York Times'' op-ed article by April DeConick asserted that the ''National Geographic'''s translation is badly flawed: For example, in one instance the ''National Geographic'' transcription refers to Judas as a "daimon", which the society’s experts have translated as "spirit". However, the universally accepted word for "spirit" is "pneuma" — in Gnostic literature "daimon" is always taken to mean "demon". The National Geographic Society responded that "Virtually all issues April D. DeConick raises about translation choices are addressed in footnotes in both the popular and critical editions". In a later review of the issues and relevant publications, critic Joan Acocella questioned whether ulterior intentions had not begun to supersede historical analysis, e.g., whether publication of ''The Gospel of Judas'' could be an attempt to roll back ancient anti-semitic imputations. She concluded that the ongoing clash between scriptural fundamentalism and attempts at revision were childish because of the unreliability of the sources. Therefore, she argued, "People interpret, and cheat. The answer is not to fix the Bible but to fix ourselves." Other scholars such as Louis Painchaud (Laval University, Quebec City) and André Gagné (Concordia University, Montreal) have also questioned the initial translation and interpretation of the ''Gospel of Judas'' by the National Geographic team of experts.

Gospel of Barnabas

According to medieval copies (the earliest copies from the 15th century) of the ''Gospel of Barnabas'' it was Judas, not Jesus, who was crucified on the cross. This work states that Judas's appearance was transformed to that of Jesus', when the former, out of betrayal, led the Roman soldiers to arrest Jesus who by then was ascended to the heavens. This transformation of appearance was so identical that the masses, followers of Christ, and even the Mother of Jesus, Mary, initially thought that the one arrested and crucified was Jesus himself. The gospel then mentions that after three days since burial, Judas's body was stolen from his grave, and then the rumors spread of Jesus being risen from the dead. When Jesus was informed in the third heaven about what happened, he prayed to God to be sent back to the earth, and descended and gathered his mother, disciples, and followers, and told them the truth of what happened. He then ascended back to the heavens, and will come back at the end of times as a just king.

Representations and symbolism

The term ''Judas'' has entered many languages as a synonym for ''betrayer'', and Judas has become the archetype of the traitor in Western art and literature. Judas is given some role in virtually all literature telling the Passion story, and appears in a number of modern novels and movies.

In the Eastern Orthodox hymns of Holy Wednesday (the Wednesday before Pascha), Judas is contrasted with the woman who anointed Jesus with expensive perfume and washed his feet with her tears. According to the Gospel of John, Judas protested at this apparent extravagance, suggesting that the money spent on it should have been given to the poor. After this, Judas went to the chief priests and offered to betray Jesus for money. The hymns of Holy Wednesday contrast these two figures, encouraging believers to avoid the example of the fallen disciple and instead to imitate Mary's example of repentance. Also, Wednesday is observed as a day of fasting from meat, dairy products, and olive oil throughout the year in memory of the betrayal of Judas. The prayers of preparation for receiving the Eucharist also make mention of Judas's betrayal: "I will not reveal your mysteries to your enemies, neither like Judas will I betray you with a kiss, but like the thief on the cross I will confess you."

Judas Iscariot is often represented with red hair in Spanish culture and by William Shakespeare. The practice is comparable to the Renaissance portrayal of Jews with red hair, which was then regarded as a negative trait and which may have been used to correlate Judas Iscariot with contemporary Jews.

Art and literature

Judas has become the archetype of the betrayer in Western culture, with some role in virtually all literature telling the Passion story.

In Dante's ''Inferno'', he is condemned to the lowest circle of Hell, the Ninth Circle for Traitors, also known as Cocytus, where he is one of three sinners deemed evil enough that they are doomed to be chewed for eternity in the mouths of the triple-headed Satan (The others are Brutus and Cassius, who conspired against and assassinated Julius Caesar). He, however, is in the middle mouth, and Satan is also tearing at his back.

Judas is the subject of one of the oldest surviving English ballads, dating from the 13th century, Judas, in which the blame for the betrayal of Christ is placed on his sister.

In art, one of the most famous and most intriguing depictions of Judas Iscariot and his kiss of betrayal of Jesus is The Taking of Christ by Italian Baroque artist, Caravaggio, done in 1602 and now in the National Gallery of Ireland in Dublin.

Edward Elgar's oratorio, ''The Apostles'', depicts Judas as wanting to force Jesus to declare his divinity and establish the kingdom on earth. Eventually he succumbs to the sin of despair.

In Mikhail Bulgakov's novel ''The Master and Margarita'', Judas is paid by the high priest of Judaea to testify against Jesus, who had been inciting trouble among the people of Jerusalem. After authorizing the crucifixion, Pilate suffers an agony of regret and turns his anger on Judas, ordering him assassinated. The story-within-a-story appears as a counter-revolutionary novel in the context of Moscow in the 1920s-1930s.

Michael Moorcock's novel ''Behold the Man'' offers an alternative, sympathetic portrayal of Judas. In the book, Karl Glogauer, the time traveler from the 20th Century who takes on the role of Christ, asks a reluctant Judas to betray him in order to fulfil the biblical account of the crucifixion.

In C. K. Stead's novel ''My Name Was Judas,'' Judas, who was then known as Idas of Sidon, recounts the story of Jesus and recalled by him some forty years later. Judas recalls his childhood friendship with Jesus, their schooldays, their families, their journeys with the disciples and their dealings with the powers of Rome and the Temple.

''Tres versiones de Judas'' (English title: '"Three Versions of Judas"') is a short story by Argentine writer and poet Jorge Luis Borges. It was included in Borges' anthology, ''Ficciones'', published in 1944. It is written in form of a scholarly article and appears on the surface to be a well researched critical analysis.

In Martin Scorsese's film ''The Last Temptation of Christ,'' based on the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, Judas Iscariot's only motivation in betraying Jesus to the Romans was to help him, as Jesus' closest friend, through doing what no other disciple could bring himself to do. It shows Judas obeying Jesus' covert request to help him fulfill his destiny to die on the cross, making Judas the catalyst for the event later interpreted as bringing about humanity's salvation. This view of Judas Iscariot is reflected in the recently discovered ''Gospel of Judas''.

In the film '' King of Kings'', Judas's betrayal of Jesus is similar to ''The Last Temptation'', but is at least slightly different. In this version, Judas decides to betray Jesus in order to use him as a weapon against the Romans, given his supernatural powers. However, he hangs himself once he realizes that his plan cannot be fulfilled, as Jesus was already expecting his own death on the cross.

In Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical ''Jesus Christ Superstar'', Judas is portrayed as a tragic hero who believed that Jesus was not the son of God, but rather just a man. Since he feared that if Jesus' following grew too large then the Romans would attack and kill the Jews, he betrayed Jesus to Caiaphas and Annas to prevent a bloodbath.

In ''The Last Days of Judas Iscariot'', a critically acclaimed play by Stephen Adly Guirgis, Judas is given a trial in Purgatory.

The Leon Rosselson song "Stand Up for Judas" presents Judas in a positive light, as a revolutionary who wanted justice in this world, not the next. Jesus, on the other hand, is presented as a "conjurer", working miracles and promising happiness in the next world, thus encouraging people to accept their lot in this world. The chorus of the song is "So stand up, stand up for Judas and the cause that Judas served/It was Jesus who betrayed the poor with his word."

In ''Trial of Christ in Seven Stages'' (1909) by John Brayshaw Kaye, the author did not accept the idea that Judas intended to betray Christ, and the poem is a defence of Judas, in which he adds his own vision to the biblical account of the story of the trial before the Sanhedrim and Caiaphas.

In Dracula 2000, it is suggested that the legendary vampire is actually Judas Iscariot, who, after his betrayal of Christ, hung himself to embrace death but was cursed for his actions. This plot also explains some of the vampiric concepts and uses of: crosses (from the crucifixion of Christ), silver (from the pieces of silver that he was paid with for his betrayal), and sunlight (as Judas hanged himself during the day).

In the short story The Way of Cross and Dragon by George R.R. Martin, a cult in the distant future has risen up and made a saint of Judas Iscariot, including the belief that Judas was a tamer of dragons and rule of a kingdom. The story's protagonist, a Knight Inquisitor of a future Church, is sent to overthrow the cult and dispel the heresy.

The American recording artist Lady Gaga explained that her song ''Judas'' (2011) is a metaphor and an analogy about forgiveness and betrayal and things that haunt you in your life. The song was taken from her second studio album ''Born This Way'' (2011). The song was released worldwide on April 15, 2011.

See also

Gospel of Judas

References

External links

The Prophecy of Judas in Psalm 41 Video

Judas Iscariot: Catholic Encyclopedia article published 1910

Jewish Encyclopedia: Judas Iscariot

"Death and Retribution: Medieval Visions of the End of Judas the Traitor" - 1997 lecture by Dr Otfried Lieberknecht

Gospel Truth

Category:Ancient people who committed suicide Category:Christianity and antisemitism Category:Twelve Apostles Category:Religious people who committed suicide Category:1st-century deaths Category:Suicides by hanging Category:Biblical apostles

ar:يهوذا الإسخريوطي an:Chudas Escariot arc:ܝܗܘܕܐ ܣܟܪܝܘܛܐ bo:ཡུ་དཱ་དབྱི་སི་ཀར། br:Judaz Iskariot bg:Юда Искариотски ca:Judes Iscariot cs:Jidáš Iškariotský da:Judas Iskariot de:Judas Ischariot et:Juudas Iskariot el:Ιούδας Ισκαριώτης es:Judas Iscariote eo:Judaso Iskarioto eu:Juda Iskariote fa:یهودا اسخریوطی fr:Judas Iscariote gl:Xudas Iscariote ko:이스가리옷 유다 hy:Հուդա Իսկարիովտացի hi:जूडस इस्कैरियट hr:Juda Iškariotski ilo:Judas Iscariote id:Yudas Iskariot it:Giuda Iscariota he:יהודה איש קריות jv:Yudas Iskariot ka:იუდა ისკარიოტელი sw:Yuda Iskarioti la:Iudas Iscariot lt:Judas Iskariotas hu:Iskarióti Júdás ml:യൂദാസ് സ്കറിയോത്ത ms:Judas Iscariot nl:Judas Iskariot ja:イスカリオテのユダ no:Judas Iskariot nn:Judas Iskariot oc:Judàs Escariòt pl:Judasz Iskariota pt:Judas Iscariotes ro:Iuda Iscarioteanul ru:Иуда Искариот simple:Judas Iscariot sk:Judáš Iškariotský sl:Juda Iškarijot sr:Јуда Искариотски sh:Juda Iskariotski fi:Juudas Iskariot sv:Judas Iskariot tl:Hudas Iskariote te:జుడాస్ ఇస్కారియట్ th:ยูดาส อิสคาริโอท tr:Yehuda (havari) uk:Юда Іскаріот vi:Giuđa Ítcariốt wa:Djuda Iscariote zh:加略人猶大

Coordinates	35°0′41.69″N135°46′5.47″N
name	Darryl Scott
position	Pitcher
birth date	August 06, 1968
birth place	Fresno, California
bats	Right
throws	Right
debutdate	May 31
debutyear	1993
debutteam	California Angels
finaldate	October 1
finalyear	1993
finalteam	California Angels
stat1label	Win-loss record
stat1value	1-2
stat2label	Earned run average
stat2value	5.85
stat3label	Strikeouts
stat3value	13
teams	California Angels (1993) }}

Darryl Nelson Scott (born August 6, 1968 in Fresno, California) is a former Major League Baseball pitcher who played for the California Angels during the 1993 California Angels season.

High school and college

Scott was born in Fresno, California, and took up pitching when he was nine. Scott attended high school at Yuba City High School in Yuba City, California and pitched for their baseball team. He was recruited out of high school by Loyola Marymount University. He pitched for three years for the Loyola Marymount Lions, and during the 1988 season set a school record for saves in a season when he got his 12th in a game against the University of Nevada-Reno. In 1990, his senior season, Scott struck out 90 batters, highest in the conference. Despite this, Scott was not selected in the 1990 Major League Baseball Draft. However, he was signed by the California Angels as an amateur free agent shortly after the draft on June 13, 1990.

Professional career

Scott played his first professional season with the Boise Hawks of the Northwest League. In 27 pitching appearances, he had an earned run average (ERA) of 1.34, and won two games and lost one. He moved up the next season to the Quad Cities Angels of the Midwest League, where he pitched in 47 games, finishing the season with an ERA of 1.55 and 19 saves. The following season he moved up to both the AA and AAA level minor league teams of the Angels, the Midland Angels and the Edmonton Trappers, respectively. He played in 27 games for Midland and again had an ERA under 2 (1.82) though with Edmonton he pitched in 31 games with a 5.20 ERA. After starting the 1993 season with the Vancouver Canadians, the Angels' new AAA affiliate, he was promoted to the Angels' roster, and made his major league debut on May 31, 1993.

Scott made his debut against the Toronto Blue Jays, and pitched a shutout eighth inning in a 10-5 loss. After pitching in five more games in relief, he was at a hospital on June 18 with his wife for the birth of their newborn son, and while at the hospital, received a call from Dan O'Brien, Sr. telling him that he was being sent back down to the minors. After a couple months in Vancouver, Scott was called back up to the majors in September. He pitched in ten more games that season, and notched his only major league win on September 19 against the Texas Rangers. He made his final major league appearance on October 1, 1993 against the Oakland Athletics.

After being released by the Angels on November 16, 1993, he signed a contract with the Yokohama BayStars that same month. After a year, he came back to the minor leagues, and played for the Colorado Springs Sky Sox in the Colorado Rockies farm system in 1995. In 59 games, he went 4–10 with a 4.70 ERA. He spent the next two seasons with the Buffalo Bisons of the Cleveland Indians farm system, where he pitched 98 games in two seasons and had an ERA below three. Scott played for three minor league teams in 1999, and then spent the 2000 season with the Clearwater Phillies of the Philadelphia Phillies farm system, where he played in four games, as well as with three other farm teams. After pitching in 14 games with an ERA over 10 for the Tucson Sidewinders, the AAA affiliate of the Arizona Diamondbacks, he retired.

He is currently the pitching coach for the Modesto Nuts, a minor league team for the Rockies.

References

External links

Category:1968 births Category:Living people Category:Baseball players from California Category:California Angels players Category:Edmonton Trappers players Category:Loyola Marymount University alumni Category:Major League Baseball pitchers

ja:ダリル・スコット