70. Calling of the first Companions of Jesus. Difference between the Evangel... (Chapter 5. The Disciples of Jesus.) (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined) (Strauss, David Friedrich)

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.