74. The Twelve Considered Individually. The Three Or Four Most Confidential ... (Chapter 5. The Disciples of Jesus.) (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined) (Strauss, David Friedrich)

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.