By COGwriter
The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church and the Continuing Church of God both have succession lists which involve leaders in Jerusalem.
We agree on 15 of them through Judas Kyriakos.
But after a certain point, they differ.
The Eastern Orthodox point to Marcus, also known as Mark or Mahali as a true apostolic successor. The Orthodox assert that Marcus/Mark was the sixteenth bishop of Jerusalem with apostolic succession. It has been alleged that he reigned from c. 135 until he died, perhaps as late as c. 185.
1. James the brother of God +62 2. Symeon +106-107 3. Justus 1st or Judas to 111 4. Zacheos 111-134 5. Tobias “” 6. Benjamin I “” 7. John I “” 8. Matthias I “” 9. Philip “” 10. Seneca “” 11. Justus II “” 12. Levi “” 13. Ephraim “” 14. Joseph I “” 15. Judas “” 16. Mark 134-185 https://en.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/patriarch/apostolic-succession/ viewed 1 May 2026
The Continuing Church of God (CCOG), while acknowledging the existence of this Mark/Marcus, disputes the view he was an apostolic successor. The CCOG considers him to have been an apostate.
Additionally, the CCOG points to the 15th listed bishop of Jerusalem, known as Judah/Judas Kyraiki/Kyriakos as continuing to have succession after 135 until his death.
Could the Eastern Orthodox Church be correct?
Or instead, the Continuing Church of God?
What is apostolic succession?
What is an apostate?
What are scriptures that help define who would be either?
This article intends to address those issues and more.
The term apostolic succession can have several possible meanings. But for the purpose of this article, the following definition from a Roman Catholic priest and scholar will be used:
Apostolic Succession ... In its strict sense, apostolic succession refers to the doctrine by which the validity and authority of the Christian ministry is derived from the Apostles. The outward sign by which this connection is both symbolized and effected is the laying on of hands by the Bishop at ordination.
In its broader sense, apostolic succession refers to the relationship between the Christian church today and the apostolic church of New Testament times. Thus, apostolic succession refers to the whole church insofar as it is faithful to the word, the witness, and the service of the apostolic communities. Understood in this way, the church is not simply a collectivity of individual churches; instead, it is a communion of churches whose validity is derived from the apostolic message that it professes and from the apostolic witness that it lives (McBrien R.P. Apostolic Succession. http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/apossucc.htm 01/30/17).
In other words, according to the above priest, apostolic succession is actually related to the acceptance of the succession of biblical truth, as taught by the original apostles--spiritual apostolic succession is the most important factor to consider when it comes to the subject of apostolic succession. Yet the 'laying on of hands' is also an essential factor as that is how one is ordained (note: an overseer or overseeing pastor is the same spiritual position as bishop according to what the Bible teaches and most Church of God and Greco-Roman Catholic scholars realize).
So, what happened in Jerusalem?
Eusebius was the Greco-Roman Bishop of Caesaria in the fourth century, who also functioned as a church historian.
Eusebius states this about the faithful succession in Jerusalem:
2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, ... 3. Peter and James and John ... chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem ... 4. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded. (Eusebius. History Of the Church, Book II, Chapter 1, verses 2,3,4 p. 24)
3. But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of Jerusalem and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men ... (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book III, Chapter V, Verse 3. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Digireads, 2005, p. 45)
1. The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived.
2. But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.
3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.
4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision. (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book IV, Chapter V. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Digireads, 2005, p. 71).
It was during the Jewish rebellion of 67-70 A.D. that the Christian leaders fled Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D.
That said, notice that these early bishops "received the knowledge of Christ in purity," hence their teachings should have continued. However, this did not last as this faithful church was eliminated from Jerusalem.
Those leaders are all considered to be saints by the Church of God as well as by the Greco-Roman Catholic and Protestant churches.
Consider then that all those “early fathers” kept the Sabbath as that was the practice of the original Christian church. Understand that since the 1st and early 2nd century Christian leaders in Jerusalem “received the knowledge of Christ in purity,” their teachings should have been continued.
So the 1st and early 2nd century Christian leaders in Jerusalem were all circumcized Jews.
The fifteenth listed bishop/overseer, Judah of Jerusalem, would have been a Church of God Christian that held apostolic succession, kept the seventh day Sabbath, kept the Holy Days, avoided unclean meat, etc.
We in the Continuing Church of God hold to those original teachings--see also the free ebook: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?
Those bishops/pastors were keeping the Sabbath until after Judas'Judah of Jerusalem (who was the last one) left (c. 134-135 A.D.) and Emperor Hadrian took over Jerusalem. These Jewish Christian leaders obviously did not believe that the Sabbath was done away over a century since Jesus was resurrected.
Notice also something that the Apostle Paul wrote to the Gentile Christians in Thessalonica:
13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. 14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, (1 Thessalonians 2:13-14)
So imitating, not changing, the practices in Judea was commended.
Yet, because of the Jewish revolt, Emperor Hadrian outlawed many practices considered to be Jewish, including the Sabbath (as well as Passover on the 14th).
Notice something related to Jesus' half-brother Jude and one of his claimed descendants.
Jude died and was buried at ... Edessa. ...
Jude also had a grandson named Judah Kyriakos, who despite the Greek name became the last Jewish Bishop of Jerusalem. ... He is regarded as the great grandnephew of Jesus. He is said to have lived at least beyond the Bar Kochba's revolt ... (Cheney DH. Jesus, His Brother, and Paul Their Lives and Archaeological Evidence. Gatekeeper Press, 2022)
Some sources point to Jude's burial in what is now Lebanon. That said, notice that it is claimed that the last Jewish bishop of Jerusalem was a relative of Jesus. The identification of this Judas with ‘Judah Kyriakos’ is not explicit in Eusebius, but comes from later tradition.
What about Judah Kyriakos? The earliest historical reference is simply a name—‘Judas’—in a succession list preserved by Eusebius. Later sources, especially Epiphanius, identify Judas as a descendant of Jude, placing him among the desposyni—though this identification is not known to have been confirmed by earlier sources. Like several other early Jerusalem bishops, Judas is known primarily as a name in succession lists, with little independent biographical detail preserved.
Epiphanius of Salamis records that descendants of Jude, the brother of Jesus, continued into later generations and “ruled the churches” (Panarion 78.7–8). He also states that Jerusalem was governed by bishops “of the circumcision” until the time of Hadrian (Panarion 66.20). When this is compared with the succession list preserved by Eusebius, which ends with Judas, it has been inferred that this final bishop may have been among those descendants.
Kyriakos (Κυριακός) means "belonging to the Lord" or "of the Lord." It comes from the root "Kyrios" (Κύριος), which means "Lord," often referring to God or Jesus in religious contexts.
Let's consider some reports related to Judah Kyriakos.
He is listed as last of the 15th Jewish bishops of Jerusalem.
In a pseudepigraphal document called the Letter of James to Quadratus, he is also listed, but it provides no additional identifying details, but does suggest movement:
After these things, and after the martyrdom of James, the brother of our Lord, who was bishop in Jerusalem, there were appointed over the church in Jerusalem the following:
Simeon, Justus, Zacchaeus, Tobias, Benjamin, John, Matthias, Philip, Seneca, Justus, Levi, Ephres, Joseph, and Judas.
And after these things had been done, and the people were scattered because of the afflictions which came upon them, the word of God increased and was proclaimed in every place, and many believed and turned to the Lord.
(Letter of James to Quadratus, translation from the Syriac edition published by Ignatius Rahmani, 1904, Studia Syriaca)
The Letter of James to Quadratus was possibly first written in Greek and translated into Syriac, or first written in Syriac and translated into Latin. I asked ChatGPT to translate the Latin at: https://digitale-sammlungen.ulb.uni-bonn.de/content/pageview/4353967 into English, which it did as follows:
James, the bishop of Jerusalem, to Quadratus, in Italy.
Greeting.
When I learned of your zeal for knowledge and your devotion to the truth, I rejoiced greatly in you, beloved. Therefore I judged it right to make known to you those things which have been done among us, so that you may know what has taken place concerning the Jews who crucified Christ.
For Tiberius Caesar, having heard of the deeds of Christ and of His resurrection from the dead—which many among the Jews deny—was moved with anger against them. And he issued decrees against those who had acted lawlessly in these matters, so that they should be punished for their wickedness.
But the leaders among the Jews, hardened in heart, not only refused to acknowledge the resurrection of our Lord, but also persisted in their unbelief and led many others astray.
After these things, James, the brother of our Lord, who was bishop in Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom at their hands.
And after him there were appointed over the church in Jerusalem the following:
Simeon, Justus, Zacchaeus, Tobias, Benjamin, John, Matthias, Philip, Seneca, Justus, Levi, Ephres, Joseph, and Judas.
And after these things had been accomplished, and the people were scattered because of the afflictions that came upon them, the word of God increased and was proclaimed everywhere, and many believed and turned to the Lord.
The report about people being scattered is consistent with what looks to have happened when Judas Kyriakos fled and left Jerusalem. He reportedly went north and east to Pella and perhaps Edessa in Mesopotamia.
Judas Kyriakos should not be confused with the later legendary figure Judas Cyriacus supposed associated with the discovery of the "True Cross," a tradition dating centuries later.
Eusebius reported the following about what happened after the faithful like Judah Kyriakos left:
4. And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Ælia, in honor of the emperor Ælius Adrian. And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus. (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book IV, Chapter VI. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Digireads, 2005, p. 72).
We have shown that from that time first the church in Jerusalem was composed of Gentiles, after those of the circumcision, and that Marcus was the first Gentile bishop that presided over them. 2. After him the succession in the episcopate was: first Cassianus; after him Publius; then Maximus; following them Julian; then Gaius; after him Symmachus and another Gaius, and again another Julian; after these Capito and Valens and Dolichianus; and after all of them Narcissus, the thirtieth... (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book V, Chapter XII. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Digireads, 2005, p. 105).
So, we see that someone who was not of the Jewish nation 'assumed governance' in the newly renamed city of Ælia Capitolina (it stopped being officially called Jerusalem right after Hadrian's troops conquered it) and had others who followed after him. How he assumed governance is not mentioned, but it should be obvious he was not ordained by Judah Kyriakos to do so.
Actually the Orthodox Wiki claims those who stayed in Jerusalam "elected Mark, a Gentile, their bishop" (Mark of Jerusalem. Orthodox Wiki, accessed 05/01/26). But members are not supposed to elect church leaders (see The Bible, Peter, Paul, John, Polycarp, Herbert W. Armstrong, Roderick C. Meredith, and Bob Thiel on Church Government and Should a Christian Vote?).
Notice also:
During the nineteenth year of Hadrian's reign (a.d. 117-138) the first uncircumcised Greek Gentile Bishop of Ælia Capitolina was Marcus, c. a.d. 135. (Dowling TE. The orthodox Greek patriarchate of Jerusalem, 3rd ed. Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1913. Original from Princeton University. Digitized Dec 21, 2010, p. 48)
How did this happen to come to pass?
Here is a version of what occurred according to the noted historian E. Gibbon:
The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the law of Moses with the doctrine of Christ. It was natural that the primitive tradition of a church which was founded only forty days after the death of Christ, and was governed almost as many years under the immediate inspection of his apostle, should be received as the standard of orthodoxy. The distant churches very frequently appealed to the authority of their venerable Parent, and relieved her distresses by a liberal contribution of alms...
The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity. They still enjoyed the comfort of making frequent and devout visits to the Holy City, and the hope of being one day restored to those seats which both nature and religion taught them to love as well as to revere. But at length, under the reign of Hadrian, the desperate fanaticism of the Jews filled up the measure of their calamities; and the Romans, exasperated by their repeated rebellions, exercised the rights of victory with unusual rigour. The emperor founded, under the name of Alia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, to which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages.
They elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian ...
When the name and honours of the church of Jerusalem had been restored to Mount Sion, the crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes which refused to accompany their Latin bishop. They still preserved their former habitation of Pella, spread themselves into the villages adjacent to Damascus, and formed an inconsiderable church in the city of Bercea, or, as it is now called, of Aleppo, in Syria. The name of Nazarenes was deemed too honourable for those Christian Jews, and they soon received, from the supposed poverty of their understanding, as well as of their condition, the contemptuous epithet of Ebionites ... The unfortunate Ebionites, rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics, found themselves compelled to assume a more decided character; and although some traces of that obsolete sect may be discovered as late as the fourth century, they insensibly melted away either into the church or the synagogue ...
It has been remarked with more ingenuity than truth that the virgin purity of the church was never violated by schism or heresy before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about one hundred years after the death of Christ (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I, Chapter XV, Section I. ca. 1776-1788).
Notice that it is understood that the early Jewish bishops of Jerusalem had the STANDARD OF ORTHODOXY. That should not have been changed by any who accept Jude’s admonition to contend earnestly for the original faith (Jude 3); see also the free ebook: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Notice also that it says the faithful went to Pella, like they had over 60 years earlier --like 68-70 A.D. Judah Kyriakos would seemingly have gone there at that time.
Notice also the following:
The measures of Hadrian, after its suppression, led to an impotant change in the Church of Jerusalem. Wishing visibly to disconnect themselves from the Jews, the majority of its members abandoned the Mosaic usages which they had until then retained. They chose for the first time a bishop of Gentile race, and conformed to the practice of Gentile Churches. On these conditions they were allowed to reside in Ælia, while such of their brethren as still adhered to the distinctively Jewish Christianity retired to Pella and other places beyond the Jordan, where their fathers had found a refuge during the siege of Jerusalem by Titus. (Robertson JC. History of the Christian Church, Volume 1. Publisher: J. Murray, 1854, p. 20)
Notice that the MAJORITY compromised. Their form of 'democracy' was wrong--the Bible teaches "You shall not follow a crowd to do evil" ( Exodus 23:2). Then, like Jesus warned before in Matthew 10:23, the persecuted faithful fled.
Because of the Jewish Bar Kocha revolt, Emperor Hadrian outlawed many practices considered to be Jewish. The 20th century historian Salo W. Barron wrote:
Hadrian . . . According to rabbinic sources, he prohibited public gatherings for instruction in Jewish law, forbade the proper observance of the Sabbath and holidays and outlawed many important rituals (Barron SW. Social and Religious History of the Jews, Volume 2: Christian Era: the First Five Centuries. Columbia University Press, 1952, p. 107).
The Christians in Judea had been forced to make a decision. They either could continue to keep the Sabbath and the rest of God's law and flee, or they could compromise and support a religious leader (Marcus) who would not keep the Sabbath, etc.
Sadly, many who claimed Christ made the wrong choice and followed the direction of Marcus. Something similar happened in the 20th century when many in the old Worldwide Church of God acceptance that worldly Protestant changes that were implemented in the Tkach Administrations.
Those who accepted the changes in the 2nd and 20th centuries discounted or overlooked Jude's admonishment:
3 ... to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)
Those who followed Markus did not do that.
When Jerusalem fell, the Gentile Church passed without a shudder under the Bethlehem Gate, whereon an image of a swine had been set up in mockery; contemplated the statue of Hadrian on the site of the Temple without despair, and constituted itself under a Gentile bishop, Mark, in Ælia Capitolina.
But the old Nazarene community, the Church of James and Symeon, clinging tightly to its old traditions, crouched in exile at Pella, confounded by the Romans in common banishment with the Jew. The guards thrust back Nazarene and Jew alike with their spears, when they ventured to approach the ruins of their prostrate city, the capital of their nation and of their faith. The Church at Jerusalem under Mark was, to the Nazarene, alien; its bishop an intruder. (Baring-Gould S. The Lost and Hostile Gospels An Essay On the Toledoth Jeschu, and the Petrine and Pauline Gospels of the First Three Centuries of Which Fragments Remain. Williams and Norgate, London, 1874, p. 52)
Notice that the faithful, those called Nazarenes did NOT accept the change.
So, given the expulsion of Jewish Christians after 135 AD, along with previous fleeing to Pella related to the 67-70 revolt of the Jews, it remains historically plausible that members of the Jerusalem church migrated eastward, even if later traditions did not preserve their identities.
The Eastern Orthodox seem to have acknowledged that a change came, but they have been a bit guarded about it. Notice this admission:
In 135 AD the Roman emperor Hadrian builds on the ruins of Jerusalem a new roman city and names it Aelia Capitolina and permits the Christians to come back. However the Jewish are not permitted to come in town (The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem. http://www.holylight.gr/patria/enpatria.html viewed 11/30/07).
The “Jewish are not permitted to come in to town”?
That’s correct in a sense. Those who kept Jewish practices like the seventh-day Sabbath were not permitted to come into Jerusalem after its 135 A.D. takeover. Thus, without admitting it, the Orthodox are acknowledging that changes did take place after 135 A.D. and those changes are proof that there was no faithful apostolic succession in Jerusalem.
How could that have happened? Well, many there lost their first love.
1 "To the angel of the church of Ephesus write,
'These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: 2 "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; 3 and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name's sake and have not become weary. 4 Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place — unless you repent. 6 But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
7 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God."' (Revelation 2:1-7)
2nd century writer Hegessipus wrote that the corruption in Jerusalem began in that century a decade or two prior to Marcus. Hegissipus reported that Jerusalem started off well, but one called Thebuthis had doctrines of Simon (Magus) and Marcion, but that the Jewish Christians and their leaders would not then accept them:
Hegesippus … describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.
But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ. (Eusebius. Church History, Book IV, Chapter 22, verses 1, 4-5).
In time, the influence of Thebuthis and others made it such that many followed Marcus.
The Greek Orthodox recognize Marcus as one they derive succession through and that he differed from the earlier bishops:
According to the testimonies of the historian Eusebios and from other information, Saint Symeon was succeeded by Justus 1 st (107-111). From then until 134 on the Episcopal throne of the Church ascended twelve more Bishops, who were: Zaccheus, Tobias, Benjamen 1 st, John 1 st, Matthias 1 st, Philip, Seneca, Justus 2 nd, Leuis, Ephraim, Joseph 1 st, and Judas, who all served as bishops at Pella and of whom there is no special information. During this period the local Church was being disturbed externally by the Judaic Christians. ...
Most probably it was during this time the last of Hellenic origin Christians who had fled to Pella prior to the destruction of the City, returned to Jerusalem. They settled in Aelia and together with the rest of the Christians they formed a cluster of Christian communities. This resulted in the Church of Jerusalem consisting of Greeks from Pella and elsewhere, and “this Church is retained in the same spot by the nations”. In fact during the disturbed period of Adrian who was rather favourably predisposed towards the Christians, the Episcopal throne was occupied by Markos (134) the first Christian Greek of Aelia. The goodwill of the emperor towards the Greek Christians of Aelia coincided with the acceptance of the justifications for Christianity by the Bishop of Athens Kodratos and of the Athenian philosopher Aristedis. (The First Church. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. http://en.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/history/the-first-church/ accessed 02/05/19)
So, notice that a Greek (or Latin) bishop had the goodwill of the pagan Roman emperor.
There was change--and not a Christian one.
Oddly, one writer online wrote:
The "times of the gentiles" is Jesus anticipating Marcus's own episcopate with no apparent need for apostolic succession. (https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1mcnbek/could_bishop_marcus_of_jerusalem_have_written/ accessed 05/01/26)
No, the arrival of Markus was not what Jesus meant related to the "times of the Gentiles," but I do agree that Marcus did not have apostolic succession.
Notice what the theological historian Johann Lorenz Mosheim wrote (note: I am using modern letter spelling as in his writing the letter "s" for example is normally shown as the letter "f") related to Marcus and the situation in Hadrian's new colony:
Feeling it was the first importance to their well-being, to procure for themselves the liberty of removing their effects into the city of Ælia, and to be admitted in the rights of citizenship there, a considerable number of the Christians came to the resolution of formally renouncing all obedience to the law of Moses. The immediate author of this measure was, in all likelihood, that very Marcus whom they appointed as their bishop: a man whose name evidently speaks him to have been a Roman, and who doubtless was not unknown in his nation that had been the chief command in Palestine and might possibly have been related to some officer of eminence there. Perceiving, therefore, one of their own nation placed at the head of Christendom, the Roman prefects dismissed at once all apprehension of their exciting disturbance in the newly-established colony, and from this time ceased to regard them as Jews.
In consequence in this favourable alteration of the sentiments of the Romans towards them ... Marcus, at whose insistence, they were prevailed on to renounce the law of Moses ... (Mosheim JL. Commentaries on the affairs of the Christians before the time of Constantine the Great: or, An enlarged view of the ecclesiastical history of the first three centuries, Volume 2. Translated by Robert Studley Vidal. Publisher T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1813. Original from Princeton University. Digitized Apr 28, 2010, pp. 196-197)
Was this view towards the law new? Yes, as Johann Lorenz Mosheim also wrote:
Nothing, in fact, can be better attested than that there existed in Palestine two Christian churches, by the one of which an observance of the Mosaic law was retained, and by the other disregarded. This division amongst the Christians of Jewish origins did not take place before the time of Hadrian, for it can be ascertained, that previously to his reign the Christians of Palestine were unanimous in an adherence to the ceremonial observances of their forefathers. There can be no doubt, therefore, that this separation originated in major part of them being prevailed upon by Marcus to renounce Mosaic ritual, by way of getting rid of the numerous inconveniences to which they were exposed, and procuring for themselves a reception, as citizens, in the newly formed colony of Ælia Capitolina. (Mosheim JL. Commentaries on the affairs of the Christians before the time of Constantine the Great: or, An enlarged view of the ecclesiastical history of the first three centuries, Volume 2. Translated by Robert Studley Vidal. Publisher T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1813. Original from Princeton University. Digitized Apr 28, 2010, p. 197)
It was not the elimination of "Mosiac ritual" that Marcus insisted upon, as much of what would be so considered was gone earlier (cf. Hebrews 9:6-28).
It was Christian practices such as the Sabbath (Hebrews 4:9), Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7-8), avoiding unclean Meat (Luke 11:11), and religious separation (2 Corinthians 6:17; Hebrews 7:26) that Marcus renounced. Yet, those had been kept by the actual 15 Jewish bishops that the Eastern Orthodox claim that Marcus succeeded. Marcus, homself, also failed heed Jude's warning "to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).
Yet, the Orthodox Wiki asserts: "A learned and holy man, Mark remained the bishop for over twenty years and is said to have died a martyr in 156" (Mark of Jerusalem. Orthodox Wiki, accessed 05/01/26). Which, is 29 years earlier than the Orthodox of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem asserts. An unverified tradition, says Markus died a martyr under Emperor Antoninus Pius which lasted from 138-161. In the CCOG, while we are not sure of when he died, we assert Marcus/Mark was NOT a holy man.
There is an old Arabic Islamic manuscript that reports about those considered to be Judeao-Christians that seems to provide some additional details. It was published in English in 1966 by Shlomo Pines as The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. It was originally written by an Arabic Muslim around the tenth century named Abd al-Jabbar and called Tathbit Dala'il Nubuwwat Sayyidina Mahammad. One chapter of it is believed to be an Islamic interpretation of a lot of "Judeo-Christian" writings (some probably from true Nazarenes, others from Essenes, etc.). Shlomo Pines translated much of the one chapter of it into English, that discussed Arabic Judeao-Christians (see Arabic Nazarenes May Have Kept Original Christian Practices) who seemed to have practices like other Nazarene Christians (Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes?).
Here is the translation of one section of it that may have additional insight related to Marcus' supporters:
(71a) 'After him', his disciples (axhab) were with the Jews and the Children of Israel in the latter's synagogues and observed the prayers and the feasts of (the Jews) in the same place as the latter. (However) there was a disagreement between them and the Jews with regard to Christ.
The Romans (al-Rum) reigned over them. The Christians (used to) complain to the Romans about the Jews, showed them their own weakness and appealed to their pity. And the Romans did pity them. This (used) to happen frequently. And the Romans said to the Christians: "Between us and the Jews there is a pact which (obliges us) not to change their religious laws (adyan). But if you would abandon their laws and separate yourselves from them, praying as we do (while facing) the East, eating (the things) we eat, and regarding as permissible that which we consider as such, we should help you and make you powerful, and the Jews would find no way (to harm you). On the contrary, you would be more powerful than they."
The Christians answered:"We will do this."
(And the Romans) said: "Go, fetch your companions, and bring your Book (kitab)." (The Christians) went to their companions, informed them of (what had taken place) between them and the Romans and said to them: "Bring the Gospel (al-injil), and stand up so that we should go to them."
But these (companions) said to them: "You have done ill. We are not permitted (to let) the Romans pollute the Gospel. In giving a favourable answer to the Romans, you have accordingly departed from the religion. We are (therefore) no longer permitted to associate with you; on the contrary, we are obliged to declare that there is nothing in common between us and you;" and they prevented their (taking possession of) the Gospel or gaining access to it. In consequence a violent quarrel (broke out) between (the two groups). Those (mentioned in the first place) went back to the Romans and said to them: "Help us against these companions of ours before (helping us) against the Jews, and take away from them on our behalf our Book (kitab)." Thereupon (the companions of whom they had spoken) fled the country. And the Romans wrote concerning them to their governors in the districts of Mosul and in the Jazirat al-'Arab. Accordingly, a search was made for them; some (qawm) were caught and burned, others (qawm) were killed.
(As for) those who had given a favorable answer to the Romans they came together and took counsel as to how to replace the Gospel, seeing it was lost to them. (Thus) the opinion that a Gospel should be composed (yunshi`u) was established among them…a certain number of Gospels were written. (Pines S. The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Volume II, No.13; 1966. Jerusalem, pp. 14-15).
The above would seem to have taken place in the second century (which is consistent with Shlomo Pines' beliefs). It is interesting for a number of reasons. It shows that there were two group that professed Christ then. One called "Christians" above, and the other (the faithful ones) called "companions." The fact that the companions would no longer associate with the compromisers, and had to flee, showed that in whatever area the above occurred in, there were definitely two groups.
One had the true gospels, but another made their own up--this may be why the 'gnostic gospels' started to appear in the early second century (see also The New Testament Canon - From the Bible and History).
It should be noted that, because of this revolt, Emperor Hadrian outlawed many practices considered to be Jewish. The Christians in Judea had a decision to make. They either could continue to keep the Sabbath and the rest of God's law and flee or they could compromise and support a religious leader who would not keep the Sabbath, etc.
Notice that the Romans went after the 'governors' of the companions--in other words, they took steps to eliminate faithful bishops (see also Persecutions by Church and State). But apparently the Roman authorities did NOT go after Marcus as he was not Jewish and had compromised doctrine so much that he and his followers were acceptable.
Sadly as E. Gibbon's reported, most, but not all, made the wrong choice in 135 A.D. Marcus engaged in political compromise to get his position--but this is not a position that the God of the Bible would approve.
The 19th century scholar J.B. Lightfoot wrote:
The Church of Ælia Capitolina was very differently constituted from the Church of Pella and the Church of Jerusalem ... not a few doubtless accepted the conqueror’s terms, content to live henceforth as Gentiles ... in the new city of Hadrian. But there were others who hung to the law of their forefathers ... (Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes and Dissertations. Published by Macmillan, 1881. Original from Harvard University. Digitized Oct 16, 2006, pp. 317, 331)
So, a major change happened once Marcus and his followers were around. Scholars who study into it enough realize this, though most people do not.
Jesus, of course, taught that the true church would be a "little flock" (Luke 12:32). The actions of Marcus clearly led to a separation between the Christian faithful and those who preferred a form of Christianity more acceptable to the Roman world.
The Church of Pella was Sabbath-keeping (cf. Bagatti B. The Church from the Circumcision, p. 202) as had been the original Jerusalem church. It may have made a lot of sense for Judah Kyriakos to go to Pella at first, but since Pella was in the Roman Empire, he may have chosen to later go to Edessa which was not then in the Roman Empire, which would seem to probably have been a safer locale. Remember Hadrian was the Roman Emperor who placed the restrictions on Jerusalem.
This conclusion of where Judah Kyriakos fleeing to Edessa of Mesopotamia also makes sense in light of the following:
We hear that the Jewish Christian Elxai was in Parthia, when he received his special revelation (Hippolytus, Ref: IX, 13). This shows that Jewish Christians were in these regions at a very early date. ...
A second indication that Edessa owed its Christianity to Palestine is the name Nazorees. The Syrian, Aramaic Christians did not call themselves Christians, but Nazorees, naseraja. We remember Christian was an Antiochene invention (Acts 11, 26): this argues against an Antiochene origin of Edessene Christianity. On the other hand we know that the Palestinian Christians were called Nazorees (Acts 24, 5). This was also the name of the later Jewish Christians in Beroea (Aleppo); ...
The Nazorees can be both the Jewish Christians in the Persian Empire and the indigenous Christians of Aramaic tongue. (Quispel G. The Discussion of Judaic Christianity. Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 22, No. 2, Jun., 1968, pp. 81-93)
The above supports the view that Christians came to Edessa from Pella as those in Pella and Syria were called Nazarenes (Epiphanius Panarion 29,7,8).
Although the Eastern Orthodox (also called the Greek Orthodox) claim apostolic succession through Marcus, the Church of Rome, the Continuing Church of God, and documents from church history disagree with that claim.
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 notes:
The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site (Wilhelm J. Transcribed by Donald J. Boon. Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
And while is now believed that Ælia Capitolina was erected in 135 (as opposed to 130 since the Simon Bar Kokhba revolt was from 132-135 A.D.), as the true Christians had to flee from Jerusalem then, it is clear that Roman Catholic scholars have dismissed the idea of unbroken apostolic succession from Jerusalem. Real scholars will admit that whatever came immediately after Bishop Judas as the leader in Ælia Capitolina was not faithful.
It should also be noted that since the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem does not have the same biblical doctrines that the first bishops of Jerusalem held, he and his church cannot truly be considered as an apostolic successor.
The Greek Orthodox saint Irenaeus specifically seems to have eliminated Jerusalem as he wrote:
Further, also, concerning Jerusalem and the Lord, they venture to assert that, if it had been "the city of the great King," it would not have been deserted. This is just as if any one should say, that if straw were a creation of God, it would never part company with the wheat; and that the vine twigs, if made by God, never would be lopped away and deprived of the clusters ... The fruit, therefore, having been sown throughout all the world, she (Jerusalem) was deservedly forsaken, and those things which had formerly brought forth fruit abundantly were taken away; for from these, according to the flesh, were Christ and the apostles enabled to bring forth fruit. But now these are no longer useful for bringing forth fruit. For all things which have a beginning in time must of course have an end in time also (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book IV, Chapter IV, Verse 1).
So while the Orthodox also consider Irenaeus to be a saint and Jerusalem to be one of the five “Apostolic Sees,” Irenaeus basically taught that God was finished using Jerusalem as a type of headquarters in this age. Irenaeus’ “forsaken” statement is probably referring to those that fled Jerusalem prior to its destruction in 70 A.D. or at the latest 135 A.D.
The noted Greco-Roman Catholic historian Tertullian also denied that Jerusalem had succession. He said it was only Smyrna and Rome that could make that claim. By Tertullian's time (circa 195), he concluded that there were only two possible apostolic churches (presumably because the church was split into three groups, the Romans (presumably also including those in Alexandria), the Smyrnaeans (presumably also including those in Antioch and Byzantium), and those he considered to be heretics:
Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this (Tertullian. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum. Circa 200 A.D. as cited in Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
It is probable that Tertullian was aware of elders in Rome prior to Clement (as Irenaeus wrote prior to him), as well as bishops of Smyrna prior to Polycarp, but that Tertullian felt that apostolic succession could only have gone through Polycarp of Smyrna (who he listed first) or Clement.
Now this poses a problem for the Eastern Orthodox Church as none of its 'apostolic sees' were apparently believed to have succession by Tertullian either.
Hegesippus (as preserved in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3.19–20; 3.32; 4.22) attests to the continued leadership of relatives of Jesus (the Desposyni), including descendants of Jude. While Judah Kyriakos is not explicitly identified among them in these sources, later traditions placing him among the early Jewish bishops of Jerusalem have led several scholars to suggest he may have belonged to that lineage. By the time of Hegesippus' writing (mid-2nd century), Jerusalem was no longer considered to be faithful, but he, referring to earlier Jewish bishops of Jerusalem, "records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin" (Eusebius. History Of the Church, Book III, Chapter 32, verse 7).
Furthermore, after 135 the faithful still existed in various places outside of Jerusalem:
After A.D. 135, Judeao-Christians would be encountered anywhere in the Eastern portion of the empire, rather than Palestine itself, from which the war must have driven them forth as refugees.
Hegesippus ... found the Judeao-Christians whom he encountered orthodox by his own standards. And he discovered that they attributed their orthodoxy to the fact that, down to their dispersal, they had a succession of desposyni (kinsmen of Christ) as heads of their church, for most of the time. (Telfer W. The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Apr., 1960), pp. 143-153)
When it comes to Christianity in Mesopotamia and ties to Jerusalem, we see some legends and contradictory reports about it.
Though history is not as clear as we would like, there are reasons to believe that there were Church of God Christians in Mesopotamia before and after Jerusalem changed.
First of all, we know people from the east were preached to as they are listed as hearers of the apostles in Acts 2:
7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs — we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." (Acts 2:7-12)
It is likely that some from the east (Parthians and Medes and Elamites from Mesopotamia) were converted (cf. Acts 2:37-41).
However, we do not hear about them later by name in the New Testament.
Yet, since some of them would have likely traveled back to Mesopotamia from Jerusalem, this would allow for some Christians to be in the east--including Edessa--prior to later missionary trips by the Apostles and others.
The late Roman Catholic priest and researcher Malachi Martin wrote:
Hadrian's ban. After that, Jewish Christian churches were set up all over Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia, (Martin M. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church. Bantam edition, 1983, p. 31)
Related to missionary trips, A.N. Dugger and C. Dodd of CG7 published:
Jude “The brother of James, was commonly called Thaddeus. He was crucified at Edessa A.D. 72. ...
Andrew “Was the brother of Peter. He preached the gospel to many Asiatic nations; but on his arrival at Edessa he was taken and crucified on a cross, the two ends of which were fixed transversely in the ground. Hence the derivation of the term, St. Andrew’s cross. (Dugger AN, Dodd C. A History of the True Religion Traced From 33 A.D. to Date. Originally Copyrighted, 1936. First Electronic Edition July 2003 Re-edited in Portable Document Format (PDF) by Massimo Marino – Italy For “The Andrew N. Dugger Republishing Project”)
The old Worldwide Church of God published:
Thaddeus Lebbeus ministered in upper Mesopotamia, including Assyria proper. (I Will Build My Church, Part 1. Bible Correspondence Course, Lesson 49. Radio/Worldwide Church of God, 1967 Edition)
Basically, there is a belief is that a disciple of Jesus named Thaddeus was one of the 70 that Jesus sent out to witness in Luke 10.
Herbert W. Armstrong wrote:
The Church is "Jerusalem above, the mother of us all" (Gal. 4:26). ... The Original Church of God, under the apostles kept the Sabbath. (Armstrong HW. Where Is The True Church? Worldwide Church of God, 1984)
The Jerusalem Church of God began as the mother church, the headquarters church. In about A.D. 69 that church and others from Judea arrived in the town of Pella, east of the Jordan River. (Armstrong HW. The Church They Couldn't Destroy. Good News, December 1981)
Many Christians came back to Jerusalem from Pella after the Jewish revolt ended and the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.
The original church of the east building was built in Jerusalem after Christians returned from Pella, apparently using some of the ashlar bricks from the destroyed Jewish Temple--see Church of God on Jerusalem's Western Hill.
That said, the Thaddeus/Jude that CG7 and WCG mentioned was the half-brother of Jesus (Matthew 13:55-56)--and reportedly he preached in Pella after the Jewish revolt of 67-70 A.D. (Cheney DH. Jesus, His Brother, and Paul Their Lives and Archaeological Evidence. Gatekeeper Press, ebook, 2022)--he then may have continued to then go to Edessa--particularly as there are reports that he made it to Armenia:
Armenia in the first century was a pagan kingdom ruled by a powerful royal family. It held strongly to its inherited pagan practices —until a man named Thaddeus ventured to Armenia.
He was one of the apostles of Jesus Christ, and preached the Lord’s message in people’s homes, in hidden underground chambers, in the market and the streets. (Dawn of the Christian Faith in Armenia. Diocese of the Armenian Church of America-Eastern. https://armenianchurch.us/dawn-of-the-christian-faith-in-armenia-5/ accessed 05/10/25)
That said, there is some indication of a witness to Edessa in the 1st century A.D.
Here is something related the Edessa from the book Edessa: The Blessed City:
Thomas, sent Thaddaeus to him as an Apostle, being one of the Seventy, and he came and stayed with Tobias the son of Tobias. Now when news of him was heard, it was reported to Abgar, 'An Apostle of Jesus has come here, as he wrote to you'. So Thaddaeus began in the power of God to heal every disease and weakness so that all marvelled. ...
The association of Thomas with Thaddaeus-Addai integrated the evangelization of Edessa within the direct apostolic tradition. ... They kept also the festivals of the Church at their proper season ...
The influence of Jewish learning and tradition upon the early Christianity of north Mesopotamia is apparent from the writings of Aphraates, who lived near Mosul in the first half of the fourth century. There seems little doubt that his fellow-Christians in this area, like early Christians elsewhere, maintained Jewish practices; they avoided, for example, eating meat before the blood had been removed, and at the Passover they ate unleavened bread. (Segal JB. Edessa: The Blessed City. Gorgias Press, 2005. pp. 2, 66, 79, 81, 100) https://ebin.pub/edessa-the-blessed-city-1593331932-9781593331931.html
Now in one report, supposedly near 100 A.D., the Apostle Thomas sent Thaddeus to Edessa (it is doubtful Thomas lived until that year, but it may be possible). Others point to the year 50 A.D. that Thomas sent Thaddeus as that is about the year King Abgar V of Edessa reportedly died.
Yet:
No fewer than ten names appear among those who claim to be the first to carry the Good News to the east. (Baumer C. Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity. I.B.Tauris, 2016, p. 14).
So, that makes putting a succesion list together as quite complicated.
But here is one:
List of Patriarchs of The Church of the East. ...
1 Mar Aggai (c.66-81). First successor to the Apostleship of his spiritual director the Apostle Saint Thaddeus, one of the Seventy disciples. He in turn was the spiritual director of Mar Mari.
2 Palut of Edessa (c.81-87) renamed Mar Mari (c.87 – c.121) Second successor to the Apostleship of Mar Addai of the Seventy disciples. During his days a bishopric was formally established at Seleucia-Ctesiphon.
3 Abris (Abres or Ahrasius) (121–148 AD) Judah Kyriakos relocates Jerusalem Church to Edessa in 136 AD
4 Abraham (Abraham I of Kashker) (148–171 AD)
5 Yaʿqob I (Mar Yacob I) (c. 172–190 AD)
6 Ebid M’shikha (191–203)
7 Ahadabui (Ahha d'Aboui) (204–220 AD) First bishop of the East to get statikon as Catholicos. Ordained in 231 AD in Jerusalem Council.
8 Shahaloopa of Kashker (Shahlufa) (220–266 AD) https://www.easternorthodoxchristian.com/list-of-patriarchs-of-the-east accessed 04/11/25
Related to number 3, the inclusion of Judah Kyriakos, like many of the others, has no attested 2nd-century source. Early authors (Eusebius; Epiphanius) describe Judah (Judas) Kyriakos as the last Jewish bishop of Jerusalem and that he survived after he left there, and because Edessa was not then part of the Roman Empire, him relocating to Edessa is logical, and perhaps even probable because of other family ties.
Some on these lists have been claimed to be relatives of Jesus.
Consider that related to the late first and early second century, Eusebius noted related to some relatives of Jesus:
... they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. (Eusebius. History Of the Church, Book III, Chapter 20, p. 55)
That was the case for some overseers in Jerusalem and also looks to have been the case for some of the leaders in Mesopotamia.
Here is a report on a more distant relative called Abris:
Abris, also called Abres,[1] Abrosius and Abrisius, was a legendary Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in Persia, who is conventionally said to have sat from 121–137. ... Bar Hebraeus ... account ...:
After Mari, his disciple Abrosius. His master Mari had sent him to Antioch, to visit the brethren there and to bring him back news of them. After the death of the blessed Mari the faithful of the East sent to Antioch and asked to be given a bishop. And the disciples of that place laid hands upon Abrosius and sent him back to occupy the throne of his master. There he ruled the faithful for seventeen years until his death. Some say that the place of his burial is unknown, but in fact he was buried in the church of Seleucia. This Abrisius is said to have been from the family of Joseph the carpenter, the father of James and Jesus. (Abris. Wikipedia, accessed 04/17/25)
Let me add that if Abris was consecrated at Antioch by a true successor, he would have been a Church of God Christian leader.
Furthermore, it is claimed that Abris was a relative of Jesus, not by blood, but seemingly a descendant of Mary's sister's husband Clopas --who reportedly was also the brother of His mother's Mary's husband Joseph (Baukham R. The Relatives of Jesus. Volume 21 - Issue 2, January 1995. themelios: an international journal for students of theological and religious studies. pp. 18-21 {themelios means foundation or foundation stone}).
What about Judah Kyriakos? Kyriakos (Κυριακός) means "belonging to the Lord" or "of the Lord." It comes from the root "Kyrios" (Κύριος), which means "Lord," often referring to God or Jesus in religious contexts.
Let's consider some reports related to Judah Kyriakos:
Judah Kyriakos, who despite the Greek name became the last Jewish Bishop of Jerusalem. ... He is regarded as the great grandnephew of Jesus. He is said to have lived at least beyond the Bar Kochba's revolt ... (Cheney DH. Jesus, His Brother, and Paul Their Lives and Archaeological Evidence. Gatekeeper Press, 2022)
The compromisers who followed the lead of ‘Bishop Marcus’ of Jerusalem and did so in order to be able to live in Jerusalem. The faithful, like Judah Kyriakos, did not—they fled to places like Pella and Edessa and did not eat unclean meat. Let me add that IF Judah of Jerusalem relocated to Edessa c. 136, he would have been a Church of God Christian that held apostolic succession, kept the seventh day Sabbath, kept the Holy Days, avoided unclean meat, etc. And likely would also have been "deemed worthy of the episcopate"(Eusebius. The History of the Church, p. 71)--in other words, to have become either the overseer or bishop where he was.
Judah Kyriakos is believed to have lived until about 148 AD:
Judah Kyriakos, also known popularly as Judas of Jerusalem, was the great-grandson of Jude, brother of Jesus, and the fifteenth Bishop of Jerusalem, according to Epiphanius of Salamis and Eusebius of Caesarea. According to those same chroniclers, he was the last Jew to hold the episcopate. He is sometimes regarded as the great-grandnephew of Jesus. Though the start of his period as bishop of Jerusalem is not known, Judas is said to have lived beyond Bar Kokhba's revolt (132–136), up to about the eleventh year of Antoninus Pius' reign (c. AD 148). (Judah Kyriakos. Wikipedia, accessed 04/26/25).
Judah Kyriakos ( from the family of Jesus ? ) lived until the eleventh year of Antonius Pius ( 148/149 ) (Arav R. Jesus and His World An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary. Fortress Press, 1995, p. 117; cf. Epiphanius. Panarion, V. 19.9 - 20.15)
- Judas Quiriacus (d. between 134-148) (Fortescue A. Jerusalem (A.D. 71-1099). Catholic Encyclopedia, Jerusalem A.D. 71-1099)
Note his name has been listed as simply Jude or Juda or Judas or Justus in some sources I have ran across. Note that Quiriacus is a Latinized form of the word Kyriakos.
About the time that Judah Kyriakos reportedly died, we see in some succession lists for the Church of the East (e.g. Baumer C. Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity. I.B.Tauris, 2016, pp. 330-331), Abraham (Abraham I of Kashker, 148–171 AD) and Yaʿqob I (Mar Yacob I, c. 172–193 AD), who were both Jews, hence they likely were faithful to the original faith.
Notice a report about Abraham and Yacob:
Evidence that some of the desposynoi {a term meaning belonging to the sovereign} actually travelled east may be preserved in a list, given in medieval chronicles, of the early bishops of Ctesiphon-Seleucia on the Tigris, in central Mesopotamia. The three names following Mari, the late first-century founder of the church, are Abris, Abraham and Ya’qub (James). Abris is said to have been ‘of the family and race of Joseph’ the husband of Mary, while Abraham was ‘of the kin of James called the brother of the Lord’ and Ya’qub was Abraham’s son. While it may seem hazardous to trust such late sources, the medieval chronicles had access to good older sources. The claim to descent from the family of Jesus should not be regarded as a mark of legend, since claims to descent from the family of Jesus are extremely rare in Christian literature and the very few other such alleged descendants who are to be found in the literature ... are entirely credible. ...
At least it seems a reasonable possibility that some members of the desposynoi travelled as missionaries to the eastern diaspora, where their descendants were important Christian leaders in the early second century. (Baukham R. The Relatives of Jesus. Volume 21 - Issue 2, January 1995. themelios: an international journal for students of theological and religious studies. p. 20).
Yes, it appears from scripture that the brothers of Jesus were missionaries (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5).
It may be that, like Judas Kyriakos was a blood relative of Jesus, he personally and/or the possible Jesus-family bloodline were factors in Abraham and then Yacob being successors in Edessa--as well as Judas Kyriakos possibly ending up there.
It makes logical sense that a faithful relative of Jesus, who fled Jerusalem because of Roman Empire edicts in order to be faithful, could have ended up in Edessa, which was not part of the Roman Empire at that time, and who also had relatives of Jesus in the region.
It may be that the Apostle Thomas and later Jude/Thaddeus were in Edessa.
According to the Greek Orthodox who claim Marcus of Jerusalem as Judah Kyriakos' successor, bishop Judah lived for a time after that (Judas of Jerusalem. Orthodox Wiki, accessed 04/11/25 https://en.orthodoxwiki.org/Judas_of_Jerusalem)--perhaps another decade or so. Judah Kyriakos would not have been in Jerusalem--so he would have had to go somewhere else. Edessa was NOT part of the Roman Empire then--only a client state--so while Edessa was far away (like 600 miles/1000 km) it could have been considered as a safe location to seek refuge in--and one that was too far.
If Judah Kyriakos really did end up in Edessa, then it is reasonable to conclude that there may have been other Christians after Thaddeus in Edessa before and after he arrived.
In the CCOG, we accept the following list, with the proviso that Peter would have been the leader prior to James:
The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.
4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision. (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book IV, Chapter V. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Digireads, 2005, p. 71).
Furthermore, if Judah Kyriakos relocated the Jerusalem Church to Edessa in 136 A.D., he would have had original Christian teachings and practices with him and likely would bave been considered the bishop/overseer of Edessa in Mesopotamia presuming he arrived there.
The following speculative list is highly questionable as we have limited information to prove whether some of these actually lived and in the order they lived, but seems to show what could have been faithful succession in Edessa:
Thomas the Apostle seemingly visited Edessa.
1. Thaddeus (sometimes also known as Addai, possibly Jesus' 1/2 brother Jude) apparently was killed in Edessa c. 65 or 72
2. Mar Aggai (c. 66 – c. 81)
3. Mar Mari (c. 87 – c. 121)
4. Abris (Abres or Ahrasius) (c. 121 – c. 136 AD)
5. Judah Kyriakos (c. 136 - c. 148 AD)
6. Abraham (Abraham I of Kashker) (c. 148 – c. 171 AD)
7. Yaʿqob I (Mar Yacob I) (c. 172 – c. 193 AD)
8. Palut (c. 195 – c. 220)
9. ‘Abshelama (c. 220 – c. 254)
10. Macarius of Edessa (c. 254 – c. 275)
11. Lucian of Antioch (c. 275 – 312)
The above list is quite speculative. However, it is based on parts of numerous reports and put together in a way that would point to consistency of belief of those on the list. For example, Thomas and Thaddeus would have kept the 7th day Sabbath and Holy Days, as would Judah Kyriakos and his Jewish successors (as well as the predecessaors). Macarius taught Lucian, and Lucian also was a Sabbath keeper--and like all early faithful Christian leaders, Lucian was binitarian.
So, the "Jerusalem' succession list from Peter appointing James through the 4th century looks to have been, James, Simeon, Justus, Zacchaeus, Tobias, Benjamin, John, Matthias, Philip, Seneca, Justus, Levi, Ephres, Joseph, and Judah Kyriakos through c. 135 A.D. Then around 136, Judah Kyriakos and others could have ended up in Pella and/or to Mesopotamia.
Eusebius acknowledged that there was a succession of Jewish bishops in Judea existing into his day (Church History, Book 7, chapter XIX, pp. 155-156)--in the 4th century. Eusebius, himself, also acknowledged that the desposyni still existed in Judea (Eusebius. Church History, Book I, Chapter 7, verse 14, p. 16). The “relatives of Jesus” look to have been “descendants of Jude” who reportedly “returned to Nazareth” (Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision, p. 20). This may have started to happen shortly after the death of Emperor Hadrian in 138 A.D. It is also possible that some others returned after the death of Yaʿqob I in 193--which could be as early as the late 2nd century.
Roman Catholic priest and scholar Bargil Pixner wrote:
... after Jerusalem was rebuilt as a Roman city named Aelia Capitolina — to obliterate any associations with the Jews — and Hadrian was succeeded by a much milder emperor named Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.), the Judeo-Christians drifted back to Mt. Zion.
Their adherence to Jewish customs, especially circumcision and observance of Jewish holy days, naturally alienated them from the church of the gentiles. hristians looked with suspicion and almost contempt at the synagogue of the Judeo-Christians on Mt. Zion, considering their way of life outdated...
Jerusalem in 381 A.D. Gregory reported that the very place that was the first to receive the Holy Spirit was now in turmoil, and that a counter-altar had been set up. Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis also declared that Mt. Zion, which was once a privileged he height, had now been "cut off" (as heretical) from the rest of the church. This was the situation during the second half of the fourth century A.D. To fend off gentile influence, both pagan and Byzantine (that is, gentile Christian), the Judeo-Christians of Mt. Zion built a wall around their ancient sanctuary. It was this kind of ghetto wall that the Bordeaux Pilgrim referred to when he visited Mt. Zion in 333 A.D. He entered and exited through a wall, he reported (Pixner B. Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion. Biblical Archaeology Review May/June 1990).
Byzantine chronographic tradition (PG 120, 203–204) explicitly states that Jewish Christians, including members of the Lord’s family, settled in Nazareth and surrounding Galilean villages after the expulsion from Jerusalem. While late, this tradition coheres with the earlier testimony of Julius Africanus (via Eusebius of Caesarea) placing the desposyni in Judean villages, including Nazareth, by the early third century.
While Eusebius of Caesarea records a succession of Jewish bishops of Jerusalem down to the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt, no names of successors to Judas Kyriakos are preserved. Nevertheless, both literary and archaeological indications show that Jewish-Christian groups continued to exist and eventually reappear in Jerusalem, particularly in connection with the Zion/Cenacle site (also known as the Church of God on Jerusalem's Western Hill), by the third or early fourth century. These Judea-Christian communities appear to have maintained their own leadership structures, though outside the recognized episcopal succession of the Gentile Jerusalem church and the rest of the Roman-Eastern Orthodox Catholic alliance.
Roman Catholic scholar Bellarmino Bagatti noted that an ancient source (Demonstrations) says that:
a genealogical list ... "was drawn up by an illustrious scribe who taught in Tiberias". It is assumed that this scribe, who had such an interest, belonged to the Judeao-Christian community. (Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision, p. 22)
So, there may have been a list of other leaders/bishops related to Judea / Jerusalem that was seen in the 4th century, but either has been lost, was destroyed, or still not publicly shown.
For the accepted (though subject to change as some names may be added/changed) succession list of the Continuing Church of God, check out the free ebook: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?
While Marcus was against the Sabbath and laws of God and condoned the consumption of biblically unclean meats, it is unclear how else he and his followers compromised. As it appears that they did not have a complete New Testament, I suspect that they compromised quite a bit. However, they prbably did not have idols/icons like the current Greek Orthodox now promote.
Notice the following teachings of early Christianity--all of which are accepted by the true Church of God (often called Nazarenes in the first four or five centuries) and only a relatively few of which are practiced/taught/still accepted by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants (though early leaders considered as "saints" by the Catholics also held them):
Baptism was by immersion and did not include infants.
The complete Bible with the proper Old Testament and New Testament was relied on by the true Church in Asia Minor.
A Binitarian view, that acknowledged the Holy Spirit, was held by the apostolic and post-apostolic true Christian leaders.
Birthdays were not celebrated by early Christians.
Born-Again meant being born at the resurrection, not at the time of conversion.
Celibacy for Bishops/Presbyters/Elders was not a requirement.
Church Governance was hierarchical.
Christmas was not observed by any professing Christ prior to the third century, or ever by those holding to early teachings.
Circumcision, though not required, was long practiced by original Nazarene Christians.
Confession of sins were not made to priests and did not require penance.
Deification of Christians (which begins after the first resurrection) was taught by the early leaders of the Church.
Duties of Elders/Pastors were pastoral and theological, not predominantly sacramental--nor did they dress as many now do.
Easter per se was not observed by the apostolic church.
The Fall Holy Days were observed by true early Christians.
The Father was considered to be God by all early professing Christians.
The True Gospel included the kingdom of God and obedience to the law of God and was so understood by the faithful.
Heaven was not taught to be the reward of Christians.
Holy Spirit was not referred to as God or as a person by any early true Christians.
Hymns were mainly psalms, not praises to Christ.
Idols were taught against, including adoration of the cross.
Immortality of the soul or humans was not taught.
Jesus was considered to be God by the true Christians.
The Kingdom of God was preached.
Leavened Bread was removed from the homes of early Christians when the Jews did the same.
Lent was not observed by the primitive church.
Limbo was not taught by the original church.
Mary was the mother of Jesus, was blessed (Luke 1:28) and called blessed (Luke 1:48), but was not prayed to, etc. by true early Christians.
Military Service was not allowed for true early Christians.
Millenarianism (a literal thousand year reign of Christ on Earth, often called the millennium) was taught by the early Christians.
Monasticism was unheard of in the early Christian church.
Passover was kept on the 14th of Nisan by apostolic and second century Christians in Asia Minor.
Pentecost was kept on Sunday by certain Jews and was observed then by professing Christians.
Purgatory was not taught by the original apostolic church.
The Resurrection of the dead was taught by all early Christians.
The Sabbath was observed on Saturday by the apostolic and post-apostolic Church.
Salvation was believed to be offered to the chosen now by the early Church, with others being called later, though not all that taught that (or other doctrines) practiced "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).
God's Six Thousand Year Plan for humankind to rule itself was believed by early professors of Christ.
Sunday was not observed by the apostolic and original post-apostolic Christians.
The Ten Commandments were observed by the apostolic and true post-apostolic Christians--and in the order that the Church of God claims they are in.
Tithes and Offerings were given to support the ministry, the churches, the needy, and evangelical travels and gospel proclamation.
Tradition had some impact on the second century Christians, but was never supposed to supercede the Bible.
The Trinity was not a word used to describe the Godhead by the apostolic or second century Christians, though a certain threeness was acknowledged.
Unclean Meats were eaten by the early allegorists, but not by true Christians.
But it took a while for those in Jerusalem to make all the changes that they did.
There are at least 17 claimed "Councils of Jerusalem." After the one in the Book of Acts, the next one was claimed to occur in the late 2nd century. In it, the apostate leaders there, under the direction of Bishop Narcissus (whom the Greeks tend to call Narcissos I), accepted a change to the date of Passover from the date that the apostles and their faithful followers observed to what is now known as Easter Sunday (Dowling TE. The orthodox Greek patriarchate of Jerusalem, 3rd ed. Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1913. Original from Princeton University. Digitized Dec 21, 2010, p. 115).
A fourth claimed council, in 335 A.D., accepted the unitarian Arius and stated that he "had been misunderstood" (ibid, p. 116).
A thirteenth claimed council, in 726, was led by Patriarch/Bishop John V who defended religious idols "sacred images" (ibid, p. 118).
A fourteenth claimed council, in 763, was partially led by Patriarch/Bishop Theodorus who denounced a leader opposed to idols/icons (ibid, p. 118).
It perhaps should be noted that although the Eastern Orthodox embraced the trinitarian view of the Godhead that was forced through the Council of Constantinople in 381, this was not the view of the original 15 bishops of Jerusalem nor at least a couple of Greek Orthodox bishops of Jerusalem. Notice information on one:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem Bishop of Jerusalem and Doctor of the Church, born about 315; died probably 18 March, 386… He appeared at the Council of Seleucia in 359, in which the Semi-Arian party was triumphant… He belonged to the Semi-Arian, or Homoean party, and is content to declare that the Son is "in all things like the Father" (Chapman, John. St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 3 Feb. 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04595b.htm>)
While some have questioned if Cyril was semi-Arian, it is also known that Maximus II (who preceded him as bishop of Jerusalem) had semi-Arian views. It is most likely that Marcus had a semi-arian view of the Godhead himself as the trinitarian view was not known to have been embraced that early in that region.
Thus, even being trinitarian was not a belief that was held even by important Greco-Orthodox leaders of Jerusalem. But now it is.
Is it not clear that the Orthodox in Jerusalem have changed on that and other matters?
Getting back to Marcus himself, he was one of many apostates to rise up in the second century who compromised with the law of God. Marcus got his position through political compromise. He implemented a pattern of disobedience that others have expanded and basically claimed to be 'traditions.' But these were not the position of the original apostles nor their faithful successors.
History is clear that the later successors of Marcus embraced various practices and beliefs that the original 15 bishops of Jerusalem opposed and/or did not embrace.
The following items may be of related interest:
Where is the True Christian Church Today? This free online pdf booklet answers that question and includes 18 proofs, clues, and signs to identify the true vs. false Christian church. Plus 7 proofs, clues, and signs to help identify Laodicean churches. A related sermon is also available: Where is the True Christian Church? Here is a link to the booklet in the Spanish language: ¿Dónde está la verdadera Iglesia cristiana de hoy? Here is a link in the German language: WO IST DIE WAHRE CHRISTLICHE KIRCHE HEUTE? Here is a link in the French language: Où est la vraie Église Chrétienne aujourd’hui?
Continuing History of the Church of God This pdf booklet is a historical overview of the true Church of God and some of its main opponents from Acts 2 in the first century to the 21st century. Two related sermon links would include Continuing History of the Church of God: c. 31 to c. 300 A.D. and Continuing History of the Church of God: 4th-16th Centuries. In Spanish: Marque aquí para ver el pdf folleto: Continuación de la Historia de la Iglesia de Dios.
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Did the original “catholic church” have doctrines held by the Continuing Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term “catholic church” to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy, Early Heresies and Heretics, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more, Saturday or Sunday?, The Godhead, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List, Holy Mother Church and Heresies, and Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language: Creencias de la iglesia Católica original.
Back to Early Christianity page
Thiel B. Judas Kyriakos vs. Marcus of Jerusalem: Which was an apostolic successor and which was an apostate? https://www.cogwriter.com/jerusalem-marcus-judah-kyriakos.htm (c) 2026 0504