Apostles to Britain
By Liaf
In the previous message, we’ve entertained the idea that Jesus visited Britain along with his great uncle Joseph of Arimathea who engaged in the metals trade there. But did you know that even after that time that stories abound regarding other apostles going there too? One thing I’ve mentioned in a previous message was that the apostle Paul visited Britain according to the apocryphal chapter of Acts 29. One basis for his visit there according to the document was because he had heard that some of the children of Israel escaped to the "isles afar off" (alias Britain) during the time of the Assyrian captivity. In short, the lost tribes were there. In addition, the document mentioned the fact that Paul encountered the Druids--- something I’ve already mentioned pertaining to the location of Glastonbury.
Likewise, legend tells that Joseph of Arimathea along with other disciples and even the mother of Jesus were cast adrift without oars and sails as a punishment during the time of the persecution of the church in Jerusalem. You may ask, "Do you believe all this?" I’m not sure of the precise details, but what did I say about so-called rumors before? I tend to listen very carefully to rumors (or legends) because there is often truth behind them. One must factor out the fiction, of course. I want my dear readers to know that I am not dogmatically stating that every detail happened precisely as told in the stories, but I do not believe people randomly dream things up either. This is why I am just presenting generalizations in these messages. Supposedly, the Sanhedrin exiled them and they were cast adrift from Caesarea. In spite of this, the story goes on to say that they arrived safely in Cyrene (Northern Africa) where they could obtain oars and sails. From there they could follow the known trade routes and sailed to Europe. Again, details such as these are what honestly bother me. If they were sent out without oars and sails, I would imagine that they were not given a luxury boat either. No doubt this was a small and uncomfortable one. I would suppose that they might have obtained a better boat if they decided to travel on. This is all just my conjecture--- take it for what it is worth. However, this does not affect the basic meat of the story.
Anyway, (so it goes), they sailed up to Marseilles (France). There is not an absence of annals and recordings that agree on the general facts here. And among the disciples were also the Bethany sisters Mary and Martha and their brother Lazarus. Lazarus amongst others preached the gospel there and Lazarus became the first bishop of that location. For about a millennium the Roman Church (supported by various records) accepted that these saints were present in France. You may get denials to this effect today, but again I must stress that if cardinals believed this (and even recorded it) at one time, I fail to see where so many sources would "pull this out of the air". I am not quoting specific sources. You can read Capt’s book for yourself. But the fact that there are several sources of this information is not disputable. Maybe some would argue with the interpretation or validity, but the more sources there are, the more it looks like things happened here.
The story goes on to say that Joseph of Arimathea, Mary and several other companions traveled across land and then sailed onward until they reached Britain. Again, different sources tell of different routes, seemingly two possible ones, that they took. But they agree that they reached Britain. Once there, the King (Arviragus) allotted Joseph and the disciples twelve "hides" of land to live on tax free (if only the IRS was so generous J ). This was about 1900 acres of marshy area called "Yniswitrin" later known as none other than the "Isle of Avalon". Keep in mind that Joseph may have been well acquainted with the King if he was a prominent metal trader. (Likewise, stories about Paul in Britain show powerful connections he had between British and Roman kings and authorities.) This would later became the site of the famous wattle church, along with "wattle" type living structures for the disciples and even Mary. (Wattle huts were circular buildings made from mud and interlaced sticks.) These were renovated over the years to evolve into magnificent stone structures (now in ruins) as they marked this site as a sacred place. Earlier when Jesus and Joseph visited Britain, it is speculated that they would have lived in wattle huts. When Joseph and his companions returned, they would have again reconstructed such structures perhaps after finding Jesus’ old home in ruins and designated the area as sacred grounds. Likewise, the sites of the later ruins are also the locations where these early saints (including Mary the mother of Jesus) were buried according to legend. A list of the saints buried there as such still exists today whether or not it is subject to historical dispute.
These possibilities (and I believe there is truth to these legends despite some varying details) again suggest that the early church in Britain and the Isles had its origins from apostles straight from Jerusalem (to the lost house of Israel) independent of any hierarchical system. Perhaps that explains Britain’s historical tendency to be Protestant-like in manners and attitudes. I’m not trying to elevate the Protestant faith per se, but to merely point out that Jesus wanted the gospel to go to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" and indeed these people heard the gospel "straight from the horse’s mouth" so-to-speak. Britain and the Isles did not get a second, third or even forth generation message from any established church’s missionary program. Indeed, the ecclesiastical orders may have changed over the years, but the foundation was laid by the original presence of our Lord whose visit "sank in" with its fullest meaning when the gospel message was brought from his first generation apostles, indeed even his own blood relatives.
He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
Isaiah 42:4