The first two evangelists agree in stating that Jesus, when walking by the sea of Gralilec, called, first, the two brothers Andrew and Peter, and immediately after, James and John, to forsake their fishing nets, and to follow him (Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i. 16-20).

This fourth evangelist also narrates (i. 35-51,) how the first disciples came to attach themselves to Jesus, and among them we find Peter and Andrew, and, in all probability, John, for it is generally agreed that the nameless companion of Andrew was that ultimately favourite apostle. James is absent from this account, and instead of his vocation, we have that of Philip and Nathaniel. But even when the persons are the same, all the particulars of their meeting with Jesus are variously detailed. In the two synoptic Gospels, the scene is the coast of the Galilean sea: in the fourth, Andrew, Peter, and their anonymous friend, unite themselves to Jesus in the vicinity of the Jordan; Philip and Nathanael, on the way from thence into Galilee. In the former, again, Jesus in two instances calls a pair of brothers; in the latter, it is first Andrew and his companion, then Peter, and anon Philip and Nathanael, who meet with Jesus. But the most important difference is this: while, in Matthew and Mark, the brethren are called from their fishing immediately by Jesus; in John, nothing more is said of the respective situations of those who were summoned, than that they come, and are found, and Jesus himself calls only Philip; Andrew and his nameless companion being directed to Ilim by the Baptist, Peter brought by Andrew, and Nathanael by Philip.

Thus the two narratives appear to refer to separate events; and if it be asked which of those events was prior to the other, we must reply that John seems to assign the earlier date to his incidents, for he represents them as taking place before the return of Jesus from the scene of his baptism into Galilee; while the Synoptics place theirs alter that journey, especially if, according to a calculation often adopted, we regard the return into Galilee, which they make so important an epocli, as being that from the first Passover, not from the baptism. It is evident, too, from the intrinsic nature of the occurrences reyorted by the fourth evangelist, that they could not have ^{P.328} succeeded those in Matthew and Mark. For if, as these writers tell us, Andrew and John had already followed Jesus, they could not again be in the train of the Baptist, as we see them in the fourth gospel, nor would it have been necessary for that teacher to have directed their attention to Jesus; neither if Peter had already been called by Jesus himself to become a fisher of men, was there any need for his brother Andrew to bring him to his already elected master. Nevertheless, expositors with one voice declare that the two narratives are equally adapted to precede, or follow, each other.

The fourth gospel, say they, recounts merely the first introduction of these men to Jesus; they did not forthwith become his constant followers, but were first installed by Jesus in their proper discipleship on the occasion which the Synoptics have preserved.

Let us test the justness of their view. In the synoptic narrative Jesus says to his future disciples, "Come after me," and the result is that they follow him. If we understand from this that the disciples thenceforth constantly followed Jesus, how can we give a different interpretation to the similar expression in the fourth gospel, Follow me, a)kolouqe moi?

It is therefore a laudable consistency in Paulus, to see, in both instances, merely an invitation to a temporary companionship during a walk in the immediate neighbourhood. But this interpretation is incompatible with the synoptic history. How could Peter, at a later period, say so emphatically to Jesus, We have left all, and followed you: what will we have therefore,? how could Jesus promise to him and to every one who had forsaken houses, etc. a hundredfold recompense (Matt. xix.27ff.), if this forsaking and following had been so transient and interrupted? From these considerations alone it is probable that the dnoov0ei fwi in John also denotes the beginning of a permanent connection; but there are besides the plainest indications that this is the case in the context to the narrative. Precisely as in the synoptic Gospels, Jesus appears alone before the scene of the vocation, but after this on every fit occasion the attendance of his disciples is mentioned: so in the fourth gospel, from the time of the occurrence in question, the previously solitary Jesus appears in the company of his disciples (n. '2; xii. 17; iii. 22; iv. 8, 27, etc.). To say that these disciples, acquired in Perea, again dispersed themselves after the return of Jesus into Gralilee, is to do violence to the Gospels out of harmonistic zeal. But even supposing such a dispersion, they could not, in the short time which it is possible to allow for their separation from Jesus, have become so completely strangers to him, that he would have been obliged to re-open an acquaintance with them after the manner narrated by the synoptic writers. Still less probable, is it that Jesus, after having distinguished Simon in the most individual ^{P.329} manner by the surname Cephas on their first interview, would on a later occasion address to him the summons to be a fisher of mena destination which was common to all the disciples.

The rationalist commentators perceive a special advantage in their position of the two narratives. It accounts, say they, for what must otherwise be in the highest degree surprising, namely, that Jesus merely in passing, and at the first glance, should choose four fishermen for his disciples, and that among them he should have alighted on the two most distinguished apostles; that, moreover, these four men, actively employed in their business, should leave it on the instant of their receiving an enigmatical summons from a man with whom they had no intimate acquaintance, and devote themselves to him as his followers. Now on comparing the fourth gospel, we see that Jesus had learned to know these men long before, and that they, too, had had demonstration of his excellence, from which it is easy to understand the felicity of his choice, and their readiness to follow him. But this apparent advantage is the condemning circumstance in the above position; for nothing can more directly counteract the intention of the first two evangelists, than to suppose a previous acquaintance between Jesus and the brethren whom he summons to follow him. In both Gospels, great stress is laid on the fact that they immediately evOwg left their nets, resolved to follow Jesus: the writers must therefore have deemed this something extraordinary, which it certainly was not, if these men had previously been in his train. In relation to Jesus also, the point of the narrative lies in his having, with a prophetic spirit, and at the first glance, selected the right individuals, not needing that any should testify of man, for he knew what was in man, according to John ii. 25, and thus presenting one of the characteristics which the Jews expected in their Messiah.

If, then, each of these two diverse narratives professes to describe the first acquaintance of Jesus with. his most distinguished disciples, it, follows that one only can be correct, while the other is necessarily erroneous. It, is our task to inquire which has the more intrinsic proofs of veracity. With respect to the synoptic representation, Vi-e share the difficulty which is felt by Paulus, in regarding it as a true account of the first interview between the parties.

A penetration into the character of men at the first glance, such as is here supposed to have been evinced by Jesus, transcends all that is naturally possible to the most fortunate and practised knowledge oi mankind. The nature of man is only revealed by his words and actions; the gift of discerning it without these means, belongs to the visionary, or to that species of intuition for which the rabbinical designation of this Messianic attribute, odorando judicare, is not at all too monstrous. Scarcely less improbable is the unhesitating obedience of the disciples, for Jesus had not yet acquired his Galilean. fame; and to account for this promptitude we must suppose ^{P.330} that the voice and will of Jesus had a coercive influence over minds, independently of preparation and motives, which would be to complete the incredibility of the narrative by adding a magical trait to the visionary one already exposed.

If these negative arguments are deemed strong enough to annul the pretensions ofthe narrative to an historical character, the alternative is to assign to it a mythical interpretation, if we can show on positive grounds that it might have been constructed in a traditional manner without historical foundation. As adequate inducements to the formation of such a legend, we may point, not only to the above cited Jewish notion of the Messiah as the searcher of hearts, but to a specific type of this vocation of the apostles, contained in the narrative (1 Kings xix. 19-21.) of the mode in which the prophet Elijah summoned Elisha to become his follower.

Here Jesus calls the brethren from their nets and their fishing; there the prophet calls his future disciple from the oxen and the plougli; in both cases there is a transition from simple, physical labour, to the highest spiritual office-a contrast which, as is exemplified in the Roman history, tradition is apt either to cherish or to create. Further, the fishermen, at the call of Jesus, forsake their nets and follow him; so Elisha, when Elijah cast his mantle over him, left the oxen, and ran after Elijah. this is one apparent divergency, which is a yet more striking proof of the relation between the two narratives, than is their general similarity. The prophet's disciple entreated that before he attached himself entirely to Elijah, he might be permitted to take leave of his father and mother; and the prophet does not liesitate to grant him this request, on the understood condition that Elisha should return to him.

Similar petitions are offered to Jesus (Luke ix. 59 ft; Matt. vni.21 i.) by some whom he had called, or who had volunteered to follow him; but Jesus does not accede to these requests: on the contrary, he enjoins the one who wished previously to bury his father, to enter on his discipleship without delay; and the other, who had begged permission to bid farewell to his friends, he at once dismisses as unfit for the kingdom of God. In strong contrast with the divided spirit manifested by these feeble proselytes, it is said of the apostles, that they, without asking any delay, immediately forsook their occupation, and, in the case of James and John, their lather. Could any thing betray more clearly than this one feature, that the narrative is an embellished imitation of that in the Old Testament, intended to show that Jesus, in his character of Messiah, exacted a more decided adhesion, accompanied with greater sacrifices, than Elijah, in his character of Prophet merely, required or was authorized to require? The historical germ of the narrative may be this: several of the most eminent disciples of Jesus, particularly Peter, dwelling on the shores of the sea of Galilee, had been fishermen, from which fact Jesus during their subsequent apostolic ^{P.331} agency may have sometimes styled them fishers of men. But without doubt, their relation with Jesus was formed gradually, like other human relations, and is only elevated into a marvel through the obliviousness of tradition.

By removing the synoptic narrative we make room for that of John; but whether we are to receive it as historical, can only be decided by an examination of its matter. At the very outset, it excites no favourable prejudice, that John the Baptist is the one who directs the first two disciples to Jesus; for if there be any truth in the representation given in a former chapter of the relation between Jesus and the Baptist, some disciples of the latter might, indeed, of their own accord attach themselves to Jesus, formerly their fellow-disciple, but nothing could be further from the intention of the Baptist than to resign his own adherents to Jesus. This particular seems indebted for its existence to the apologetic interest of the fourth gospel, which seeks to strengthen the cause of Jesus by the testimony of the Baptist. Further, that Andrew, after one evening's intercourse with Jesus, should announce him to his brother with the words, We have found the Messiah (i. 42.); that Philip too, immediately after his call, should speak of him in a similar manner to Nathanael (v. 46); is an improbability which I know not how to put strongly enough. We gather from the synoptic statement, which we have above decided to be trustworthy, that some time was necessary for the disciples to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and openly confess their belief through their spokesman Peter, whose tardy discernment Jesus would have been incorrect in panegyrizing as a divine revelation, if it amounted to no more than what was communicated to him by his brother Andrew at the beginning of his discipleship. Equally unnatural is the manner in which Jesus is said to have received Simon. He accosts him with the words,"You are Simon, the son of Jona," a mode of salutation which seems, as Bengel has well remarked, to imply that Jesus had a supernatural acquaintance with the name and origin of a man previously unknown to him, analogous to his coo-nizance of the number of the Samaritan woman's husbands, and of Nathanael's presence under the fig-tree. Jesus then proceeds to bestow on Simon the significant surname of Gephas or Peter. If we are not inclined to degrade the speech of Jesus into buffoonery, by referring this appellation to the bodily organization of the disciple, we must suppose that Jesus at the first glance, with the eye of him who knew hearts, penetrated into the inmost nature of Simon, and discovered not only his general fitness for the apostleship, but also the special, individual qualities which rendered him comparable to a rock. According to Matthew, it was not until after long intercourse with Jesus, and after he had given many manifestations of his peculiar character, that this surname was conferred on Simon, accompanied by an explanation of its meaning (xvi. 18); evidently ^{P.332} a much more natural account of the matter than that of the fourth evangelist, who makes Jesus discern at the first glance the future value of Simon to his cause, an "odorando judicare" which transcends the synoptic representation in the same ratio as the declaration "You will be called Cephas" presupposes a more intimate knowledge, than the proposal, "I will make you fishers of men." Even after a more lengthy conversation with Peter, such as L cke supposes, Jesus could not pronounce so decidedly on his character, without being a searcher of hearts, or falling under the imputation of forming too precipitate a judgment. It is indeed, possible that the Christian legend, attracted by the significance of the name, may have represented Jesus as its author, while, in fact, Simon had borne it from his birth.

The entire narrative concerning Nathanael is a tissue of improbabilities. When Philip speaks to him of a Messiah from Nazareth, he makes the celebrated answer, Can any good th'uiq coma out of Nazareth (v. 47.)? There is no historical datum for supposing that Nazareth, when Jesus began his ministry, was the object of particular odium or contempt, and there is every probability that the adversaries of Christianity were the first to cast an aspersion on the native city of the Messiah whom they rejected. In the time of Jesus, Nazareth was only depreciated by the Jews, as being a Galilean city- a stigma which it bore in common with many others: but in this sense it could not be despised by Nathanael, for he was himself a Galilean (xxi. 2.). The only probable explanation is that a derisive question, which, at the time of the composition of the fourth gospel, the Christiana had often to hear from their opponents, was put into the mouth of a contemporary of Jesus, that by the manner in which he was divested of his doubt, others might be induced to comply with the invitation, to come and see. As Nathanael approaches Jesus, the latter pronounces this judgment on his character, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile" (v. 48.)! Paulus is of opinion that Jesus might have previously gathered some intimations concerning Nathanael at Cana, where he had just been attending; a marriao'e of some relations. But if Jesus had becomo acquainted with Nathanael's character in a natural way, he must, in answer to the question "How do you know me?" either have reminded him of the occasion on which they had had an earlier interview, or referred to the favourable report of others. Instead of this he speaks of his knowledge that Nathanael had been tarrying under a iigtree: a knowledge which from its result is evidently intended to appear supernatural. Now to use information, obtained by ordinary means, so as to induce a belief that it has been communicated supernaturally, is charlatanism, if anything deserve the name. As, however, the narrator certainly did not mean to impute such artifice to Jesus, it is undeniably his intention to ascribe to him a supernatural knowledge of Nathanael's character. As little are the words, ^{{P.333} "}When you were under the fig tree, I saw you," explained by the exclamation of Paulus, "How often one sees and observes a man who is unconscious of one's gaze!" L cke and Thol ck are also of opinion, that Jesus observed Nathanael under the fig-tree in a natural manner; they add, however, the conjecture, that the latter was engaged in some occupation, such as prayer or the study of the law, which afforded Jesus a key to his character. But if Jesus meant to imply, "How can I fail to be convinced of your virtue, having watched you during your earnest study of the law, and your fervent prayer under the fig-tree?" he would not have omitted the word proseuxomenoj (praying), or anaginwskwn (reading), for want of which we can extract no other sense from his declaration than this: "You may be assured of my power to penetrate into your inmost soul, from the fact that I beheld you when you wast in a situation from which all merely human observers were excluded."

Here the whole stress is thrown not on any peculiarity in the situation of the person seen, but on the fact that Jesus saw him, from which it is necessarily inferred that he did so by no ordinary, natural, means. To imagine that Jesus possessed such a second sight, is, we grant, not a little extravagant; but for that very reason, it is the more accordant with the then existing notions of a prophet, and of the Messiah. A like power of seeing and hearing beyond the limits assigned to human organs, is attributed to Elisha in the Old Testament. When the king of Syria makes war against Israel, (2 Kings vi. 8, ff.), Elisha indicates to the king of Israel every position of the enemy's camp; and when the king of Syria expresses his suspicion that he is betrayed by deserters, he is told that the Israeli te prophet knows all the words that he, the king of Syria, speaks in his private chamber. Thus also (xxi. 32.) Elisha knows that Joram has sent out messengers to murder him, How could it be endured that the Messiah should fall short of the prophet in his powers of vision? This particular, too, enables our evangelist to form a climax, in which Jesus ascends from the penetration of one immediately present (v. 42), to that of one approaching for the first time (v. 48), and finally, to the perception of one out of the reach of human eyesight. That Jesus goes a step further in the climax, and says, that this proof of his Messianic second sight is a trifle compared with what Nathanael has yet to see, that on him, the bon of man, the angels of God shall descend from the opened heavens (v. 51), in no way shows, as Paulus thinks, that there was nothing miraculous in that first proof, for there is a gradation even in miracles.

Thus in the narrative of John we stumble at every step on difficulties, in some instances greater than those with which the synoptic accounts are encumbered: hence we learn as little from the one as the other, concerning the manner in which the first disciples were called. ^{P.334}

I rather surmise that the idea of their having received their decisive apostolic call while actually engaged with their fishing-nets, was not afloat in the tradition from which the fourth evangelist drew; and that this writer formed his scenes, partly on the probably historical report that some disciples of Jesus had belonged to the school of the Baptist, and partly from the wish to represent in the most favourable light, the relation between Jesus and the Baptist, and the supernatural gifts of the former.

WE Have Hitherto examined only two accounts of the vocation of Peter and his companions; there is a third given by Luke (v.1-11.). I shall not dilate on the minor points of differencef between his narrative and that of the first two evangelists: the essential distinction is, that in Luke the disciples do not, as in Matthew and Mark, unite themselves to Jesus on a. simple invitation, but in consequence of a plentiful draught of fishks, to which Jesus has assisted Simon. If this feature be allowed to constitute Luke's narrative a separate one from that of his predecessors, we have next to inquire, into its intrinsic credibility, and then to ascertain its relation to that of Matthew and Mark.

Jesus, oppressed by the throng of people on the shore of the Galilean sea, enters into a ship, that he may address them with more ease at a little distance from land. Having brought his discourse to a close, he desires Simon, the owner of the boat, to launch out into the deep, and let down his nets for a draught. Simon, although little encouraged by the poor result of the last night's fishing, declares himself willing, and is rewarded by so extraordinary a draught, that Peter and his partners, James and John (Andrew is not here mentioned), are struck with astonishment, the former even with awe, before Jesus, as a superior being. Jesus then says to Simon, Fear not; from henceforth you will catch men," and the result is that the three fishermen forsake all, and follow him.

The rationalist commentators take pains to show that whit is above narrated might occur in a natural way. According to them, the astonishing consequence of letting down the net was the result of an accurate observation on the part of Jesus, assisted by a happy fortuity. Paulus-i: supposes that Jesus at fir.-. wished to launch out further into the deep merely to escape from the crowd, and that it. was not until after sailing to some distance, that, descrying a place ^{P.335} where the fish were abundant, he desired Peter to let down the net.

But he has fallen into a twofold contradiction of the Gospel narrative. In close connection with the command to launch out into the deep, Jesus adds, "Let dowm your nets for a draught," as if this were one of his objects in changing the locality; and if he spoke thus when -at a little distance only from the shore, his hope of a successful draught could not be the effect of his having observed a place abundant in fish on the main sea, which the vessel had not yet readied. Our rationalists must therefore take refuge in the opinion of the author of the Natural History of the Great Prophet of Nazareth, who says, Jesus conjectured on general grounds, that under existing circumstances (indicative probably of an approaching storm), fishing in the middle of the sea would succeed better than it had done in the night.

But, proceeding from the natural point of view, how could Jesus be a better judge in this matter, than the men who had spent half their life on the sea in the employment of fishing? Certainly if the fishermen observed nothing which could give them hope of a plentiful draught, neither in a natural manner could Jesus; and the agreement between his Words and the result, must, adhering to the natural point of view, be put down wholly to the account of chance.

But what senseless audacity, to promise at random a success, which, judging from the occurrences of the past night, was little likely to follow! It is said, however, that Jesus only desires Peter to make another attempt, without, giving any definite promise. But, we must rejoin, in the emphatic injunction, which Peter's remark on the inauspicious aspect of circumstances for fishing does not induce him to revoke, there is a latent promise, and the words, .Let down your nets etc, in the present passage, can hardly have any other meaning than tha't plainly expressed in the similar scene, John xxi. 6., ( Just cast net on the right side of the ship, and you shall find." When, moreover, Peter retracts his objection in the words, "Nevertheless at your word I will let down the 'net" he implies a hope that what Jesus enjoins will not be without result. If Jesus had not intended to excite this. hope, he must immediately have put an end to it, if he would not expose himself to disgrace in the event of failure; and on no account ought he to have accepted the attitude and expressions of Peter as his duo, if he had only merited them by a piece of lucky advice given at a venture.

The drift of the narrative, then, obliges us to admit that the writer intended to signalize a miracle. This miracle may be viewed either as one of power, or of knowledge. If the former, we are to conceive that Jesus, by his supernatural power, caused the fish to congregate in that part of the sea where he commanded Peter to cast in his net. Now that Jesus should be able, by the immediate action of his spir- ^{P.336} itual energy to persuade Peter, may be conceived, without any wide deviation from psychological laws; but that he could thus influence irrational beings, and those net isolated animals immediately present to him, but shoals of fish in the depths of the sea, it is impossible to imagine out of the domain of magic.

Olshausen compares this operation of Jesus to that of the divine omnipotence in the annual migrations of fish and birds; but the comparison is worse than lame, it lacks all parallelism: for the latter is an effect of the divine agency, linked in the closest manner with all the other operations of God in external nature, with the change of seasons, etc; while the former, even presupposing Jesus to be actually God, would be an isolated act, interrupting the chain of natural phenomena; a distinction that removes any semblance of parallelism between the two cases. Allowing the possibility of such a miracle, (and from the supernaturalistic point of view, nothing is in itself impossible,) did it subserve any apparent obiect, adequate to determine Jesus to so extravagant a use of his miraculous powers?

Was it so important that Peter should be inspired by this incident with a superstitious fear, not accordant with the spirit of the New Testament? Was this the only preparation for engrafting the true faith? or did Jesus believe that it was only by such signs that he could win disciples? How little faith must he then have had in the force of mind and of truth, how much too meanly must he have estimated Peter, who, at a later period at least (John vi. 68), clung to his society, not on account of the miracles which he beheld Jesus perform, but for the sake of the words of eternal life, which came from his lips!

Under the pressure of these difficulties, refuge may be sought in the other supposition as the more facile one; namely, that Jesus, by means of his superhuman knowledge, was merely aware that in a certain place there was then to be found a multitude of fishes, and that he communicated this information to Peter. If by this it be meant that Jesus, through the possession of an omniscience such aa is commonly attributed to God, knew at all times, all the fish, in all seas, rivers, and lakes; there is an end to his human consciousness.

If, however, it be merely meant that when he crossed any water he became cognizant of its various tribes of fish, with their relative position; even this would be quite enough to encumber the space in his mind that was due to more weighty thoughts. Lastly, if it be meant that he knew this, not constantly and necessarily, but as often as he wished; it is impossible to understand how, in a mind like that of Jesus, a desire for such knowledge should arise, how he, whose vocation had reference to the depths of the human heart, should be tempted to occupy himself with the fish-frequented depths of the waters.

But before we pronounce on this narrative of Luke, we must consider it in relation to the cognate histories in the first two synoptic Gospels. ^{P.337} The chronological relation ofthe respective events is the first point. The supposition that the miraculous draught of fishes in Luke was prior to the vocation narrated by the two other evangelists, is excluded by the consideration, that the firm attachment which that miracle awakened in the disciples, would render a new call superfluous; or by the still stronger objection, that if an invitation, accompanied by a miracle, had not sufficed to ally the men to Jesus, he could hardly flatter himself that. a subsequent bare summons, unsupported by any miracle, would have a better issue.

The contrary chronological position presents a better climax: but why a second invitation, if the first had succeeded? For to suppose that the brethren who followed him on the first summons, again left him until the second, is to cut the knot, instead of untying it.

Still more complicated is the difficulty, when we take in addition the narrative of the fourth evangelist: for what shall we think of the connection between Jesus and his disciples, if it began in the manner described by John; if, after this, the disciples having from some unknown cause separated from their master, he again called them, as if nothing of the kind had before occurred, on the shore of the Galilean sea; and if, this invitation also producing no permanent adherence, he for the third time summoned thein to follow him, fortifying this final experiment by a miracle? The entire drift of Luke's narrative is such as to exclude, rather than to imply, any earlier and more intimate relation between Jesus and his ultimate disciples.

For the indifferent mention of two ships on the shore, whose owners were gone out of them to wash their nets, Simon being unnamed until Jesus chooses to avail himself of his boat, seems, as Schleiermacher has convincingly shown, to convey the idea that the two parties were entire strangers to each other, and that these incidents were preparatory to a relation yet to be formed, not indicative of one already existing: so that the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, previously recounted by Luke, either occurred, like many other cures of Jesus, without producing any intimate connection, or has too early a date assigned to it by that evangelist. The latter conjecture is supported by the fact that Matthew places the miracle later.

Thus, it fares with the narrative of Luke, when viewed in relation to that of Matthew and Mark, as it did with that of John, when placed in the same light; neither will bear the other to precede, or to follow it, in short, they exclude each other. Which then is the correct narrative? Schleiermacher prefers that of the evangelist on whom he has commented, because it is more particular; and Schleiermacher has recently asserted with great emphasis, that no one has ever yet doubted the superiority of Luke's narrative, as a faithful picture of the entire occurrence, the number of its special dramatic, and intrinsically authenticated details, advantageously ^{P.338} distinguishing it from the account in the first (and second) gospel, which by its omission of the critical incident, the turning point in the narrative (the draught of fishes), is characterized as the recital of one who was not an eye-witness. I have already presented myself elsewhere to this critic, as one hardy enough to express the doubt of which he denies the existence, and I here repeat the question: supposing one only of the two narratives to have been modified by oral tradition, which alternative is more in accordance with the nature of that means of transmission, that the tangible fact of a draught of fishes should evaporate into a mere saying respecting fishers of men, or that this figurative expression should bo condensed into a literal history? The answer to this question cannot be dubious; for when was it in the nature of the legend to spiritualize? to change the real, such as the story of a miracle, into the ideal, such as a mere verbal miracle? The level of human culture to which the legend belongs, and the mental faculty in which it originates, demand that it should give a stable body to fleeting thought, that it should counteract the ambiguity and changeableness of words, by affixing them to the permanent and universally understood symbol of action.

It is easy to show how, out of the expression preserved by the first evangelist, the miraculous story of the third might be formed.

If Jesus, in allusion to the former occupation of some of his apostles, had called them fishers of men; if he had compared the kingdom of heaven to a net cast into the sea, in which all kinds of fish were taken (Matt. xiii. 47); it was but a following out of these ideas to represent the apostles as those who, at the word of Jesus, cast out the net, and gathered in the miraculous multitude of fishes.

If we add to this, that the ancient legend was fond of occupying its wonder-workers with affairs of fishing, as we see in the story related of Pythagoras by Jamblichus and Porphyry, it will no longer appear improbable, that Peter's miraculous draught of fishes is but the expression about the fishers of men, transmuted into the story of a miracle, and this view will at once set us free from all the difficulties that attend the natural, as well as the supernatural, interpretation of the narrative.

A similar miraculous draught of fishes is recorded in the appendix to the fourth gospel, as having occurred after the resurrection (ch. xxi.). Here again Peter is fishing on the Galilean sea, in company with the sons of Zebedee and some other disciples, and again he has been toiling all night, and has taken nothing. Early in the ^{P.339} morning, Jesus comes to the shore, and asks, without their recognizing him, if they have any meat? . On their answering in the negative, he directs them to cast the net on the right side. of the ship, whereupon they have an extremely rich draught, and are led by this sign to recognize Jesus. That this history is distinct from the one given by Luke, is, from its great similarity, scarcely conceivable; the same narrative has doubtless been placed by tradition in different periods of the life of Jesus.

Let us now compare these three fishing histories, the two narrated of Jesus, and that narrated of Pythagoras, and their mythical character will be obvious. That which, in Luke, is indubitably intended as a miracle of power, is, in the story of Jamblichus, a miracle of knowledge; for Pythagoras merely tells in a supernatural manner the number of fish already caught by natural means. The narrative of John holds a middle place, for in it also the number of the fish (153) plays a part; but instead of being predetermined by the worker of the miracle, it is simply stated by the narrator. One legendary feature common to all the three narratives, is the manner in whicil the multitude and weight of the fishes are described; especially as this sameness of manner accompanies a diversity in particulars. According to Luke, the multitude is so great that the net is broken, one ship will not hold them, and after they have been divided between the two vessels, both threaten to sink. In the view of the tradition given in the fourth gospel, it was not calculated to magnify the power of the miraculous agent, that the net which he had so marvellously filled should break; but as here also the aim is to exalt the miracle by celebrating the number and weight of the fishes, they are said to be "great," and it is added that the men were not able to draw the net for the multitude of fishes: instead, however, of lapsing out of the miraculous into the common by the breaking of the net, a second miracle is ingeniously added, that "though there were so many, yet the net was not broken." Jamblichus presents a further wonder (the only one he has, besides the knowledge of Pythagoras as to the number of the fish): namely, that while the fish were being counted, a process that must have required a considerable time, not one of them died. If there be a mind that, not perceiving in the narratives we have compared the finger-marks of tradition, and hence the legendary character of these Gospel stories, still leans to the historical interpretation, whether natural or supernatural; that mind must be alike ignorant of the true character both of legend and of history, of the natural and the supernatural. ^{P.340}

The first gospel (ix.9ff.) tells of a mail named Matthew, to whom, when sitting at the receipt of custom, Jesus said, Follow me.

Instead of Matthew, the second and third Gospels have Levi, and Mark adds that he was the son of Alpheus (Mark ii.14ff.; Luke v.27ff.). At the call of Jesus, Luke. says that he left all; Matthew merely states, that he followed Jesus and prepared a meal, of which many publicans and sinners partook, to the great scandal of the Pharisees.

From the difference of the names it has been conjectured that the evangelists refer to two different events; but this difference of the name is more than counterbalanced by the similarity of the circumstances. In all the three cases the call of the publican is preceded and followed by the same occurrences; the subject of the narrative is in the same situation; Jesus addresses him in the same words; and the issue is the same. Hence the opinion is pretty general, that the three Synoptics have in this instance detailed only one event. But did they also understand only one person under different names, and was that person the apostle Matthew?

This is commonly represented as conceivable on the supposition that Lev! was the proper name of the individual, and Matthew merely a surname; or that after he had attached himself to Jesus, he exchanged the former for the latter. To substantiate such an opinion, there should be some indication that the evangelists who name the chosen publican Levi, intend under that designation no other than the Matthew mentioned in their catalogues of the apostles (Mark iii, 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13.). On the contrary, in these catalogues, where many surnames and double names occur, not only do they omit the name of Levi as the earlier or more proper appellation of Matthew, but they leave him undistinguished by the epithet, "publican," added by the first evangelist in his catalogue (x. 3.); thus proving that they do not consider the apostle Matthew to be identical with the Levi summoned from the receipt of custom.

If then the evangelists describe the vocation of two different men in a precisely similar way, it is improbable that there is accuracy on both sides, since an event could hardly be repeated in ita minute particulars. One of the narratives, therefore, is in error; and the burden has been thrown on the first evangelist, because he places the calling of Matthew considerably after the sermon on the mount; while according to Luke (vi. 13. ff.), all the twelve had been chosen before that discourse was delivered. But this would only ^{P.341} prove, at the most, that the first gospel gives a wrong position to the story; not that it narrates that history incorrectly. It is therefore unjust to impute special difficulties to the narrative of the first evangelist: neither are such to be found in that of Mark and Luke, unless it be thought an inconsistency in the latter to attribute a forsaking of all to one whom he does not include among the constant followers of Jesus. The only question is, do they not labour under a common difficulty, sufficient to stamp both accounts as unhistorical?

The close analogy between this call and that of the two pairs of brethren, must excite attention. They were summoned from their nets; he from the custom-house; as in their case, so here, nothing further is needed than a simple Follow me; and this call of the Messiah has so irresistible a power over the mind of the called, that the publican, like the fishermen, leaves all, and follows him. It is not to be denied, that as Jesus had been for a considerable time exercising his ministry in that country, Matthew must Iiave long known him; and this is the argument with which Fritzsche repels the accusation of Julian and Porphyry, who maintain that Matthew here shows himself rash and inconsiderate. But the longer Jesus had observed him, the more easily might he have found opportunity for drawing him gradually and quietly into his train, instead of hurrying him in so tumultuary a manner from the midst of his business. Paulus indeed thinks that no call to discipleship, no sudden forsaking of a previous occupation, is here intended, but that Jesus having brought his teaciiing to a close, merely signified to the friend who had given him an invitation to dinner, that he was now ready to go home with him, and sit down to table, But the meal appears, especially in Luke, to be the consequence, and not the cause, of the summons; moreover, a modest guest would say to the host who had invited him, I -will follow you, duoXovOau aoi, not Follow me, duoAovOsi fioi; and in fine, this interpretation renders the whole story so trivial, that it would have been better omitted. Hence the abruptness and impetuosity of the scene return upon us, and we are compelled to pronounce that such is not the course of real life, nor the procedure of a man who, like Jesus, respects the laws and formalities of human society; it is the procedure of legend and poetry, which love contrasts and effective scenes, which aim to give a graphic conception of a man's exit from an old sphere of life, and his entrance into a new one, by representing him as at once discarding the implements of his former trade, leaving the scene of his daily business, and straightway commencing a new life. The historical germ of the story may be, that Jesus actually had publicans among his disciples, and possibly that, Matthew was one. These men had truly left the custom-house to fol- ^{P.342} low Jesus; but only in the figurative sense of his concise expression, not in the literal one depicted by the legend.

It is not less astonishing that the publican should have a great feast in readiness for Jesus immediately after his call. For that this feast was not, prepared until the following day, is directly opposed to the narratives, the two iirst especially. But it is entirely in the tone of the legend to demonstrate the joy of the publican, and the condescension of Jesus, and to create an occasion for the reproaches cast on the latter on account of his intimacy with sinners, by inventing a great feast, given to the publicans at the house of their late associate immediately after his call.

Another circumstance connected with this narrative merits particular attention. According to the common opinion concerning the author of the first gospel, Matthew therein narrates his own call.

We may consider it granted that there are no positive indications of this in the narrative; but it is not so clear that there are no negative indications which render it impossible or improbable. That the evangelist does not here speak in the first person, nor when describing events in which he had a share in the first person plural, like the author of the Acts of the Apostles, proves nothing; for Josephus and other historians not less classical, write of themselves in the third person, and the we of the pseudo-Matthew in the Lbionitc gospel has a very suspicious sound. The use of the expression, dvOpo-

TTOV, Ma-Oalov Xsyoerov, which the Manicheans made an objection, as they did the above-mentioned cireuin stance, is not without a precedent in the writings of Xcnophon, who in his Anabasis introduces himself as Xenophon, a certain Athenian.

The Greek, however, did not fall into this style from absorption in his subject, nor from unaffected freedom from egotism, causes which Olshausen supposes in the evangelist; but either from a wish not to pass for the author, as an old tradition states, or from considerations of taste, neither of which motives will be attributed to Matthew. Whether we are therefore to consider that expression as a sign that the author of the first gospel was not Matthew, mav be difficult to decide; but it is certain that this history of the publican's call is throughout less clearly narrated in that gospel than in the third. In the former, we are at a loss to understand why it is abruptly said that Jesus sat at meat in the house, if the evangelist were himself the hospitable publican, since it would then seem most natural for him to let his joy on account of his call appear in thie narrative, by telling as Luke does, that he immediately made a great feast in his house. To say that he withlidd this from modesty, is to invest a rude Galilean of that age with the affectation belonging to the most refined self-consciousness of modern days.

To this feast at the publican's, of which many of the same ^{P.343} obnoxious class partook, the evangelists annex the reproaches cast at the disciples by the Pharisees and Scribes, because their master ate with publicans and sinners. Jesus, being within hearing of the censure, repelled it by the well-known text on the destination of the physician for the sick, and the Son of man for sinners (Matt. ix.11ff. parall.). That Jesus should be frequently taunted by his pharisaical enemies with his too great predilection for the despised class of publicans (comp. Matt. xi. 19), accords fully with the nature of his position, and is therefore historical, if anything be so: the answer, too, which is here put into the mouth of Jesus, is from its pithy and concise character well adapted for literal transmission. Further, it is not improbable that the reproach in question may have been especially called forth, by the circumstance that Jesus ate with publicans and sinners, and went under their roofs. But that the cavils of his opponents should have been accompaniments of the publican's dinner, as the Gospel account leads us to infer, especially that of Mark (v. 16), is not so easily conceivable. For as the feast was in the house (e)n th oi)kia), and as the disciples also partook of it, how could the Pharisees utter their reproaches to them, while the meal was going forward, without defiling themselves by becoming the guests of a man that was a sinner, the very act which they reprehended in Jesus? (Luke xix. 7.) It will hardly be supposed that they waited outside until the feast was ended. It is difficult for Schleiermacher to maintain, even on the representation of Luke taken singly, that the Gospel narrative only implies, that the publican's feast was the cause of the Pharisees' censure, and not that they were contemporarv. Their immediate connection might easily originate in a leo-cndary manlier; in fact, one scarcely knows how tradition, in its process of transmuting the abstract into the concrete, could represent the general idea that the Pharisees had taken offence at the friendly intercourse of Jesus with the publicans, otherwise than thus: Jesus once feasted in a publican's house, in company with many publicans; the Pharisees saw this, went to the disciples and expressed their censure, which Jesus also heard, and parried by a laconic answer.

After the Pharisees, Matthew makes the disciples of John approach Jesus with the question, why his disciples did not fast, as they did (v. 14 f.); in Luke (v.33ff.); it is still the Pharisees who vaunt their own fasts and those of John's disciples, as contrasted with the eating and drinking of the disciples of Jesus; Mark's account is not clear (v. 18). According to Schleiermacher, every unprejudiced person must perceive in the statement of Matthew compared with that of Luke, the confusing emendations of a second editor, who could not explain to himself how the Pharisees came to appeal to the disciples of John; whereas Schleiermacher thinks the question would have been puerile in the mouth of the latter; but ^{P.344} it is easy to imagine that the Pharisees might avail themselves of an external resemblance to the disciples of John when opposing Jesus, who had himself received baptism of that teacher. It is certainly surprising that after the Pharisees, who were offended because Jesus ate with publicans, some disciples of John should step forth as if they had been cited for the purpose, to censure generally the unrestricted eating and drinking of Jesus and his disciples. The probable explanation is, that Gospel tradition associated the two circumstances from their intrinsic similarity, and that the first evangelist erroneously gave them the additional connection of time and place. But the manner in which the third evangelist fuses the two particulars, appears a yet more artifical combination, and is certainly not historical, because the reply of Jesus could only be directed to John's disciples, or to friendly inquirers: to Pharisees, he would have given another and a more severe answer.

Another narrative, which is peculiar to Luke (xix. 1-10), treats of the same relation as that concerning Matthew or Levi. When Jesus, on his last journey to the feast, passes through Jericho, a chief among the publicans named Zaccheus, that he might, notwithstanding his short stature, get a sight of Jesus among the crowd, climbed a tree, where Jesus observed him, and immediately held him worthy to entertain the Messiah for the night. Here, again, the favour shown to a publican excites the discontent of the more rigid spectators; and when Zacchasus has made vows of atonement and beneficence, Jesus again justifies himself, on the ground that his office had reference to sinners. The whole scene is very dramatic, and this might be deemed by some an argument for its historical character; but there are certain internal obstacles to its reception. We are not led to infer that Jesus previously knew Zacchasus, or that some one pointed him out to Jesus by name; but, as Olshausen truly says, the knowledge of Zacchaius that Jesus here suddenly evinced, is to be referred to his power of discerning what was in men without the aid of testimony. We have before decided that this power is a legendary attribute; hence the above particular, at least, cannot be historical, and the narrative is possibly a variation on the same theme as that treated of in connection with the account of Matthew's call, namely, the friendly relation of Jesus to the publicans.

The Men Whose Vocation We Have Been Considering, namely, the sons of Jonas and of Zebedee, with Philip and Matthew (Nathanael alone being excepted), form the half of that narrow circle of disciples which appears throughout the New Testament under the name of ^{P.345} the twelve, the twelve disciples or apostles. The fundamental idea of the New Testament writers concerning the twelve, is that Jesus himself chose them (Mark in. 13 f.; Luke vi. 13; John vi. 70; xv. 16.). Matthew does not give us the story of the choice of all the twelve, but he tacitly presupposes it by introducing them as a college already instituted (x. i.). Luke, on the contrary, narrates how, after a night spent on the mountain in vigils and prayer, Jesus selected twelve from the more extensive circle of his adherents, and then descended with them to the plain, to deliver what is called the Sermon on the Mount (vi. 12.). Mark also tells us in the same connection, that Jesus when on a mountain made a voluntary choice of twelve from the mass of his disciples (iii. 13.). According to Luke, Jesus chose the twelve immediately before he delivered the sermon on the mount, and apparently with reference to it: but there is no discoverable motive which can explain this mode of associating the two events, for the discourse was not specially addressed to the apostles, neither had they any office to execute during its delivery. Mark's representation, with the exception of the vague tradition from which he sets out, that Jesus chose the twelve, seems to have been wrought out of his own imagination, and furnishes no distinct notion of the occasion and manner of the choice.. Matthew has adopted the best method in merely presupposing, without describing, the particular vocation of the apostles; and John pursues the same plan, beginning (vi. 67.) to speak of the twelve, without any previous notice of their appointment.

Strictly speaking, therefore, it is merely presupposed in the Gospels, that Jesus himself fixed the number of the apostles. Is this presupposition correct? There certainly is little doubt that this number was fixed during the lifetime of Jesus; for not only does the author of the Acts represent the twelve as so compact a body immediately after the ascension of their master, that they think it incumbent on them to fill up the breach made by the apostacy of Judas by the election of a uev member (i. 15 ff.); but the apostle Paul also notices an appearance of the risen Jesus, specially to the twelve (1 Cor. xv. 5.). Schleiermacher, however, doubts whether Jesus himself chose the twelve, and he thinks it more probable that the peculiar relation ultimately borne to him by twelve from amongst his disciples, gradually and spontaneously formed itself. "We have, indeed, no warrant for supposing that the appointment of the twelve was a single solemn act; on the contrary, the Gospels explicitly narrate, that six of them were called singly, or by pairs, and on separate occasions; but it is still a question whether the number twelve was not determined by Jesus, and whether he did not willingly abide by it as an expedient for checking the multiplication of his familiar companions. The number is the less likely to have been fortuitous, ^{P.348} able from the degree of cultivation they evince, and the preference always expressed by Jesus for the poor and the little ones, vrimovg (Matt. v. 3; xi. 5. 25), that they were of a similar grade.

WE have in the New Testament four catalogues of the apostles; one in each of the synoptic Gospels, and one in the Acts (Matt. x.2-4; Mark iii. 6-10; Luke vi. 14-16; Acts i. 13). Each of these four lists may be divided into three quaternions; in each corresponding quaternion the first member is the same; and in the last, the concluding member also, if we except Acts i. 13, where he is absent; but the intermediate members are differently arranged, and in the concluding quaternions there is a difference of names or of persons.)

At the head of the first quaternion in all the catalogues, and in Matthew with the prefix prwto (the first), stands Simon Peter, the son of Jonas (Matt. xvi. 17); according to the fourth gospel, of Bethsaida (i. 45); according to the Synoptics, resident in Capernaum (Matt. viii. 14 parall.). We hear an echo of the old polemical dispute, when Protestant expositors ascribe this position to mere chance, an assumption which is opposed by the fact that all four of the catalogues agree in giving the precedence to Peter, though they differ in other points of arrangement; or when those expositors allege, in explanation, that Peter was first called, which, according to the fourth gospel, was not the case. That this invariable priority is indicative of a certain pre-eminence of Peter among the twelve, is evident from the part he plays elsewhere in the Gospel history.

Ardent by nature, he is always beforehand with the rest of the apostles, whether in speech (Matt. xv. 15; xvi. 16. 22; xvii. 4; xviii.21; xxvi. 33; John vi. 68), or in action (Matt. xiv. 28; xxvi. 58;John xviii 16); and if it is not seldom the case that the speech and action are faulty, and that his prompt courage quickly evaporates, as his denial shows, yet he is, according to the synoptic statement, the first who expresses a decided conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus (Matt. xvi. 16. parall.). It is true that of the eulogies and prerogatives bestowed on him on that occasion, that which is implied in his surname is the only one that remains peculiarly his; for the authority to bind and to loose., that is, to forbid and to permit, in the newly- founded Messianic kingdom, is soon after extended to all the apostles (xviii. 18). Yet more decidedly does this pre-eminence of Peter among the original apostles appear in the Acts, and in the epistles of Paul.

^{P.349} Next to Peter, the catalogue of the first and third Gospels places his brother Andrew; that of the second gospel and the Acts, James, and after hiin, John. The first and third evangelists are evidently guided by the propriety of uniting' the couples of brethren; Mark, and the author of the Acts, by that of preferring the two apostles next in distinction to Peter to the less conspicuous Andrew, whom they accordingly put last in the quaternion. We have already considered the manner in which these four apostles are signalized in the Christian legend by a special history of their vocation. They appear together in other passages of Mark; first (i. 29.) where Jesus, in company with the sons of Zebedee, enters the house of Simon and Andrew: as, however, the other evangelists only mention Peter on this occasion, Mark may have added the other names inferentially, concluding that the four fishermen, so recently called, would not be apart from Jesus, and that, Andrew had a share in his brother's house, a thing in itself probable. Again, Mark xiii. 3, our four apostles concur in asking Jesus privately (kat' i)dian) concerning the time of the destruction of the temple, and of his second advent.

But the parallel passages in the other Gospels do not thus particularize any of the disciples. Matthew says, The disciples came to him privately (xxiv. 3); hence it is probable that Mark's limitation is an erroneous one. Possibly the words kat' idian, being used in the document to which he referred to denote the separation of the twelve from the multitude, appeared to him, from association, an introductory form, of which there are other examples (Matt. xvii. 1; Mark ix. 2), to a private conference of Jesus with Peter, James and John, to whom he might add Andrew on account of the fraternity. Luke, on the other hand, in his account of the miraculous draught of fishes, and the vocation of the fishermen (v. 10), omits Andrew, though he is included in corresponding narratives, probably because he does not elsewhere appear as one of the select apostles; for except on the occasions already noticedhe is only mentioned by John (vi. 9; xxi.22), and that in no very important connection.

The two sons of Zebedee are the only disciples whose distinction rivals that of Peter. Like him, they evince an ardent and somewhat rash zeal (Luke ix. 55; once John is named alone, Mark ix. 38; Luke ix. 49); and it was to this disposition, apparently, that they owed the surname Sons of Thunder, uioi bronthj (Mark iii.17), conferred on them by Jesus. So high did they stand among the twelve, that either they (Mark xi.35ff.), or their mother for them (Matt. xx.20ff.), thought they might claim the first place in the Messiah's kingdom. It is worthy of notice that not only in the four catalogues, but elsewhere when the two brothers are named, as in Matt. iv. 21; xvii. 1; Mark i. 19, 29; v. 37; ix. 2; x. 35; xiii.3; xiv. 33; Luke v. 10; ix. 54; with the exception of Luke viii.51; ix. 28; James is always mentioned first, and John is appended ^{P.350} to him as his brother. This is surprising; because, while we know nothing remarkable of James, John is memorable as the favourite disciple of Jesus. Hence it is supposed that this precedence cannot possibly denote a superiority of James to John, and an explanation has been sought in his seniority. Nevertheless, it remains a doubt whether so constant a precedence do not intimate a pre-eminence on the part of James; at least, if, in the apprehension of the Synoptics, John had been as decidedly preferred as he is represented to have been in the fourth gospel, we are inclined to think that they would have named him before his brother James, even allowing him to be the younger. This leads us to a difference between the first, three evangelists and the fourth which requires a closer examination.

In the synoptic Gospels, as we have observed, Peter, James, and John, form the select circle of disciples whom Jesus admits to certain scenes, which the rest of the twelve were not spiritually mature enough to comprehend; as the transfiguration, the conflict in Gethsemane, and, according to Mark (v. 37), the raising of the daughter of Jairus. After the death of Jesus, also, a James, Peter and John appear as the pillars of the Church (Gal. ii. 9); this James, however, is not, the son of Zebedee, who had been early put to death (Acts xii. 2), but James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. i.19), who even in the first apostolic council appears to have possessed a predominant authority, and whom many hold to be the second James of the apostolic catalogue given in Acts i. It is observable from the beginning of the Acts, that James the son of Zebedee, is eclipsed by Peter and John. As, then, this James the elder was not enough distinguished or even known in the primitive cliurch, for his early martyrdom to have drawn much lustre on his name, tradition had no inducement from subsequent events, to reflect an unhistorical splendour on his relation to Jesus; there is therefore no reason to doubt the statement as to the prominent position held by James, in conjunction with Peter and John, among the twelve apostles.

So much the more must it excite surprise to find, in the fourth gospel the triumvirate almost converted into a monarchy: James, like another Lepidus, is wholly cast out, while Peter and John are in the position of Antony and Octavius, the latter having nearly stripped his rival of all pretensions to an equal rank with himself, to say nothing- of a higher. James is not even named in the fourth gospel; only in the appendix (xxi. 2) is there any mention of the sons of Zebedee, while several narratives of the vocations of different apostles are given, apparently including that of John himself, ^{P.351} no James appears in them, neither is there any speech of his, as of many other apostles, throughout this gospel.

Quite differently does the fourth evangelist treat Peter. He makes him one of the first who enter the society of. Jesus, and gives him a prominent importance not less often than the Synopticg; he does not conceal that Jesus bestowed on him an honourable surname (i. 43); he puts in his mouth (vi. 68 f.) a confession which seems but a new version of the celebrated one in Matt. xvi. 16; according to him, Peter once throws himself into the sea that he may more quickly reach Jesus (xxi. 7); at the last supper, and in the garden of Gethsemane, he makes Peter more active than even the Synoptics represent him (xiii.6ff.; xviii. 10 f.); he accords him the honour of following Jesus into the high priest's palace (xviii. 15), and of being one of the first to visit the grave of Jesus after the resurrection (xx.3ff.); indeed, he even details a special conversation between the risen Jesus and Peter (xxi.15ff.). But these advantages of Peter are in the fourth gospel invalidated in a peculiar manner, and put into the shade, in favour of John. The Synoptics tell us that Peter and John were called to the apostleship in the same way, and the former somewhat before the latter; the fourth evangelist prefers associating Andrew with the nameless disciple who is taken for John, and makes Peter come to him through the instrumentality of his brother. He also admits the honourable interpretation of the surname Peter, and the panegyric on Peter's confession; but this he does in common with Mark and Luke, while the speeches and the action attributed in the fourth gospel to Peter during the last supper and in the garden, are to be classed as only so many mistakes. The more we approach the catastrophe, the more marked is the subordination of Peter to John. At the last supper indeed, Peter is particularly anxious for the discovery of the traitor: he cannot, however, apply immediately to Jesus (xiii.23ff.), but is obliged to make John, who was leaning on ,7'es'w'1 bosom, his medium of communication. While, according to the Synoptics, Peter alone followed Jesus into the palace of the high priest; according to the fourth evangelist, John accompanied him, and under such circumstances, that without him Peter could not have entered, John, as one known to the high priest, having to obtain admission for him (xviii. 15 f.). In the synoptic Gospels, not one of the disciples is bold enough to venture to the cross; but in the fourth, John is placed under it, and is there established in a new relation to the mother of his dying master: a relation of which we elsewhere find no trace (xix. 26 f.). On the appearance of the risen Jesus at the Galilean sea (xxi), Peter, as the leader, casts himself into the sea; but it is not, until after John, as the "beloved disciple" has recognized the Lord in the person standing on the shore. In the ensuing conversation, Peter is indeed honoured with ^{P.352} the commission, "Feed my sheep;" but this honour is overshadowed by the dubitative question, "Do you love me?" and while the prospect of martyrdom is held up to him, John is promised the distinction of tarrying till Jesus came again, an advantage which Peter is warned not to envy. Lastly, while, according to Luke (xxiv.12), Peter, first among the apostles, and alone, comes to the vacant grave of his risen master, the fourth gospel (xx. 3), gives him a companion in John, who outruns Peter and arrives first at. the grave.

Peter goes into the grave before John, it is true; but it is the latter in whose honour it is recorded, that he saio and believed, almost in contradiction to the statement of Luke, that Peter went home wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. Thus in the fourth gospel, John, both literally and figuratively, outruns Peter, for the entire impression which the attentive reader must receive from the representation there given of the relative position of Peter and John, is that the writer wished a comparison to be drawn in favour of the latter.

But John is moreover especially distinguished in the gospel which bears his name, by the constant epithet, the beloved disciple, the disciple whom Jesus loved (xiii. 23; xix. 26; xx. 2; xxi. 7, 20). It is true that we have no absolute proof from the contents of the fourth gospel, whether intrinsically or comparatively considered, that by the above formula, or the more indeterminate one, the other o( )alloj, or another disciple (x. 15 f.; xx. 3, 4, 8), which, as it appears from xx. 2 f., is its equivalent, we are to understand the apostle John. For neither is the designation in question anywhere used interchangeably with the name of the apostle, nor is there anything narrated in the fourth Gospel of the favourite disciple, which in the three first is ascribed to John.

Because in xxi. 2. the sons of Zebedec are named among the assistants, it does not follow that the disciple mentioned v. 7 as the one whom Jesus loved must be John; James, or one of the two other disciples mentioned in v. 2, might be meant. Nevertheless, it is the immemorial tradition of the Church that the disciple whom Jesus loved was John, nor are all reasons for such a belief extinct even to us; for in the Greek circle from which the fourth gospel sprang, there could scarcely be among the apostles whom it leaves unnamed, one so well known as to be recognized under that description unless it were John, whose residence at Ephesus is hardly to be rejected as a mere fable.

It may appear more doubtful whether the author intended by

This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the first volume of the second ed. of L cke's Comm. zum Johannes, im Lit. Bl. zur allg, Kirchenzeitung, Febr, 1834, no. 18, S. 137 t,, he says; "The Gospel of John has only preserved the less advantageous circumstances connected with Peter (excepting vi, 68), sack as place him in marbd subordination to John (here the passages above considered are cited), An adherent of Peter can hardly have had a hand in the Gospel of John."

We may add that it seems he uses ^{P.353} this title to designate himself, and thus to announce himself as the apostle John. The conclusion of the twenty-first chapter, v. 24, does certainly make the favourite disciple the testifier and writer of the preceding history; but we may assume it as granted that this passage is an addition by a strange hand. When, however, in the genuine text of the gospel, (xix. 35), the writer says of the effect produced by the piercing of the side of Jesus, he that saw bore witness; no other than the favourite disciple can be intended, because he alone among all the disciples (the only parties eligible as witnesses in the case), is supposed to be present at the cross. The probability that the author here speaks of himself is not at all affected by his use of the third person; but the preterite annexed to it may well excite a doubt whether an appeal be not here made to the testimony of John, as one distinct from the writer. This mode of expression, however, may be explained also in accordance with the other supposition, which is supported by the circumstance that the author in i. 14, 16, seems to announce himself as the eye-witness of the story he narrates.

Was that author, then, really the apostle John, as he apparently wishes us to surmise? This is another question, on which we can only pronounce when we shall have completed our investigation.

We will merely allude to the difficulty of supposing that the apostle John could give so unhistorical a sketch of the Baptist as that in the fourth gospel. But we ask, is it at all probable that the real John would so unbecomingly neglect the well-founded claims of his brother James to a special notice? and is not such an omission rather indicative of a late Hellenistic author, who scarcely had heard the name of the brother so early martyred? The designation, the disciple, -whom Jesus loved, which in xxi. 20 has the prolix addition, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, who is he that betrays you? is not to be considered as an offence against modesty. It is certainly far too laboured and embellished for one who, without any ulterior view, wishes to indicate himself, for such an one would, at least sometimes, have simply employed his name: but a venerator of John, issuing perhaps from one of his schools, might very naturally be induced to designate the revered apostle under whose name he wished to write, in this half honourable, half mysterious manner.

The second quaternion in all the four catalogues begins with Philip. The three first Gospels know nothing more of him than his name. The fourth alone gives his birth-place, Bethsaida, and narrates his vocation (i. 44 f.); in this gospel he is more than once ^{P.354} an interlocutor, but his observations are founded on mistakes (vi. 7; xiv. 8); and he perhaps appears with most dignity, when the Greeks, who wish to see Jesus, apply immediately to him (xii. 21).

The next in the three Gospel lists is Bartholomew; a name which is nowhere found out of the catalogues. In the synoptic Gospels Bartholomew is coupled with Philip; in the story of the vocations given by the fourth evangelist (i. 46), Nathanael appears in company with the latter, and (xxi. 2) is again presented in the society of the apostles. Nathanael, however, finds no place among the twelve, unless he be identical with one otherwise named by the synoplists. If so, it is thought that Bartholomew is the most easily adapted to such an alias, as the three first Gospels couple him with Philip, just as the fourth, which has no Bartholomew, does Nathanael; to which it may be added that "bar" is a mere patronymic, which must have been accompanied by a proper name, such as Nathanael. But we have no adequate ground for such an identification, since the juxtaposition of Bartholomew and Philip is shown to be accidental, by our finding the former (Acts i. 13), as well as the latter (John xxi. 2), linked with different names; the absence of Bartholomew from the fourth gospel is not peculiar to him among the twelve; finally, second names as surnames were added to proper as well as to patronymic names, as Simon Peter, Joseph Caiaphas, John Mark, and the like; so that any other apostle not named by John might be equally well identified with Nathanael, and hence the supposed relation between the two appellations is altogether uncertain.

In the catalog-uc given in the Acts, Philip is followed, not by Bartholomew, but by Thomas, who in the list of the first gospel comes after Bartholomew, in that of the others, after Matthew.

Thomas appears in the fourth gospel, on one occassion, in the guise of mournful fidelity (xi. 16): on another, in the more noted one of incredulity (xx. 24. ff.); and once again in the appendix (xxi. 2). Matthew, the next in the series, is found nowhere else except in the story of his vocation.

The third quaternion is uniformly opened by James the son of Alpheus, of whom we have already spoken. After him comes in both Luke's lists, Simon, whom he calls Zelotes, or the zealot, but whom Matthew and Mark (in whose catalogues he is placed one degree lower) distinguish as the Canaanite. This surname seems to mark him as a former adherent of the Jewish sect of zealots for religion, a party which, it is true, did not attain consistence until the latest period of the Jewish state, but which was already in the process of formation. In all the lists that retain the name of Judas Iscariot, he occupies the last place, but of him we. must not speak until we enter on the story of the passion. Luke, in his filling up of the remaining places of this ^{P.355} quaternion, differs from the two other evangelists, and perhaps these also differ from each other; Luke has a second Judas, whom he styles the brother of James; Matthew, Lebbeus; and Mark, Thaddcus. It is true that we now commonly read in Matthew, Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus; but the vacillation in the early readings seems to betray these words to be a later addition intended to reconcile the first two evangelists; an attempt which others have, made by pointing out a similarity of meaning between the two names, though such a similarity does not exist.

But allowing validity to one or other of these harmonizing efforts, there yet remains a discrepancy between Matthew and Mark with their Lebbeus-Thaddeus, and Luke with his Judas, the brother of James. Schleiermacher justly disapproves the expedients, almost all of them constrained and unnatural, which have been resorted to for the sake of proving that here also, we have but one person under two different names.

He seeks to explain the divergency, by supposing, that during the lifetime of Jesus, one of the two men died or left the circle of the apostles, and the other took his place; so that one list gives the earlier, the other the later member. But it is scarcely possible to admit that any one of our catalogues was drawn up during the life of Jesus; and after that period, no writer would think of including a member who had previously retired from the college of apostles; those only would be enumerated who were ultimately attached to Jesus. It is the most reasonable to allow that there is a discrepancy between the lists, since it is easy to account for it by the probability that while the number of the apostles, and the names of the most distinguished among them, were well known, varying traditions supplied the place of more positive data concerning the less conspicuous.

Luke makes us acquainted with a circle of disciples, intermediate to the twelve and the mass of the partisans of Jesus. He tells us (x.1ff.) that besides the twelve, Jesus chose other seventy also, and sent them two and two before him into all the districts which he intended to visit on his last journey, that they might proclaim the approach of the kingdom of heaven. As the other evangelists have no allusion to this event, the most recent critics have not hesitated to make their silence on this head a reproach to them, particularly to the first evangelist, in his supposed character of apostle.

But the disfavour towards Matthew on this score ought to be moderated by the consideration, that neither in the other Gospels, nor in the Acts, nor in any apostolic epistle, is there any -,..'e of the seventy disciples, who could scarcely have passed thus unnoticed, had their mission been as fruitful in consequences, as it is commonly supposed. It is said, however, that the importance of this appointment lay in its significance, rather than in its effects. As the num- ^{P.356} ber of the twelve apostles, by its relation to that of the tribes of Israel, shadowed forth the destination of Jesus for the Jewish people; so the seventy, or as some authorities have it, the seventy-two disciples, were representatives of the seventy or seventy-two peoples, with as many different tongues, which, according to the Jewish and early Christian view, formed the sum of the earth's inhabitants, and hence they denoted the universal destination of Jesus and his kingdom. Moreover, seventy was a sacred number with the Jewish nation; Moses deputed seventy elders (Num. xi. 16, 25); the Sanhedrin had seventy members: the Old Testament, seventy translators.

Had Jesus, then, under the pressing circumstances that mark his public career, nothing more important to do than to cast about for significant numbers, and to surround himself with inner and outer circles of disciples, regulated by these mystic measures? or i'ather, is not this constant preference for sacred numbers, this assiduous development of an idea to which the number of the apostles furnished the suggestion, wholly in the spirit of the primitive Christian legend? This, supposing it imbued with Jewish prepossessions, would infer, that as Jesus had respect to the twelve tribes in fixing the number of his apostles, he would extend the parallel by appointing seventy subordinate disciples, corresponding to the seventy elders; or, supposing the legend animated by the more universal sentiments of Paul, it could not escape the persuasion that to the symbol of the relation of his office to the people of Israel, Jesus would annex another, significative of its destination for all the kindreds of the earth. However agreeable this class of seventy diseiples may have always been to the cliurcli, as a series of niches for the reception of men who, without belonging to the twelve, were yet of importance to her, as Mark, Luke and Matthew; we are compelled to pronounce the decision of our most recent critic precipitate, and to admit that the Gospel of Luke, by its acceptance of such a narrative, destitute as it is of all historical confirmation, and of any other apparent source than dogmatical interests, is placed in disadvantageous comparison with that of Matthew. We gather, indeed, from Acts i. 21 f. that Jesus had more than the twelve as his constant companions; but that these formed a body of exactly seventy, or that that number was selected from them, does not seem adequately warranted. ^{P.357}