Thoroughly English is his love of violent action, of war and bloodshed. 
Andrew is a “warrior brave in the battle”; the apostles are
  Thanes of the Lord, whose courage for the fight
  Failed never, e’en when helmets crashed in war.
and their missions are rather military expeditions than peaceful
pilgrimages.

One concrete example will serve well to show in what spirit the author has dealt with his original.  The disciples of Andrew are so terrified by the sea that the Lord (disguised as a shipmaster) suggests that they shall go ashore and await the return of their master.  In the Greek the disciples answer:  “If we leave thee, then shall we be strangers to those good things which the Lord hath promised unto us.  Therefore will we abide with thee, wherever thou go."[1] In the Old English :—­

  O whither shall we turn us, lordless men,
  Mourning in heart, forsaken quite by God,
  Wounded with sin, if we abandon thee? 
  We shall be odious in every land,
  Hated of every folk, when sons of men,
  Courageous warriors, in council sit,
  And question which of them did best stand by
  His lord in battle, when the hand and shield,
  Worn out by broadswords on the battle-plain,
  Suffered sore danger in the sport of war. (405-414.)

[Footnote 1:  Bede, Hist.  Eccl. IV. 2.]

There is in the Greek no trace of the Teutonic idea of loyalty to a lord, which is the ruling motive of the Old English lines.

But did the poet read the legend in the Greek?  The study of that language had, it is true, been introduced into England in the seventh century by Archbishop Theodore[1], but we can hardly assume that this study was very general.  Moreover, there are several important variations between the poem and the Acts of Andrew and Matthew, facts wanting in the Greek, which the poet could not possibly have invented.  For example, the poem states that Andrew was in Achaia when he received the mission to Mermedonia.  In the Greek we find no mention of Achaia, nor is the name “Mermedonia” given at all.  After the conversion of the Mermedonians, the poet says that Andrew appointed a bishop over them, whose name was Platan.  Again the Greek is silent.  There is, however, an Old English homily[1] of unknown authorship and uncertain date, which contains these three facts, (though the name of the bishop is not given).  Still another remarkable coincidence has been pointed out by Zupitza.[2] In line 1189 of the Andreas, Satan is addressed as d[=e]ofles str[=ae]l ("shaft of the devil"), and in the homily also the same word (str[=ae]l) is found.  But in the corresponding passage of the Greek we find [Greek:  O Belia echthrotate] ("O most hateful Belial").  From this correspondence between the poem and the homily, Zupitza argues the existence of a Latin translation of the Greek, from which both the Andreas and the homily were made, assuming that the ignorant Latinist confused [Greek:  Belia] (Belial) with [Greek:  Belos] ("arrow,” “shaft,"), translating it by telum or sagitta.  It is hardly probable that both the poet and the homilest should have made the same mistake.