CHAPTER V. THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS. § 70. CALLING OF THE FIKST COMPANIONS OF JESUS--DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EVANGELISTS AND THE FOURTH. THE first two evangelists agree in stating that Jesus, when walk- ing by tlie sea of Gralilcc, called, first, the two brothers Andrew and Peter, and immediately after, James and John, to forsake their fish- ing nets, and to follow him (Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i. 16-20). Tlic fourth evangelist also narrates (i. 35-51,) how tlie first dis- ciples came to attach themselves to Jesus, and among them we find Peter and Andrew, and, in all probability, John, for it is generally agreed tliat the nameless companion of Andrew was that ultimately favourite apostle. James is absent from tills account, and instead of liis vocation, we have that of Pliilip and Nathaa-iael. But even when tlie persons arc tlie same, all tlie particulars of their meeting with Jesus are variously detailed. In the two synoptical gospels, the scene is the coast of the G-alilean sea: in tlie fourth, Andrew, Peter, and their anonymous friend, unite themselves to Jesus in the vicinity of tlie Jordan; Pliilip and Nathanael, on tlie way from thence into G-alilee. In tlie former, again, Jesus in two instances calls a pair of brothers ; in tlie latter, it is first Andrew and liis com- panion, then Peter, and anon Pliilip and Nathanael, who meet with Jesus. But tlie most important difference is this: wliile, in Mat- thew and Mark, the brethren are called from their fishing immedi- ately by Jesus ; in John, nothing more is said of tlie respective sit- uations of tliose wlio were summoned, than tliat they come, and are found, and Jesus himself calls only Pliilip ; Andrew and liis name- less companion being directed to Ilim by the Baptist, Peter brought by Andrew, and Nathanael by Philip. Thus tlie two narratives appear to refer to separate events; and if it be asked wliicli of tliose events was prior to the other, we must reply tliat John seems to assign the earlier date to his incidents, for he represents them as taking place before tlie return of Jesus from tlie scene of liis baptism into Galilee; while the synoptists place theirs alter that journey, especially if, according to a calculation of- ten adopted, we regard tlie return into Galilee, wliicli tlicy make so important an epocli, as being that from tlie first passovcr, not from the baptism. It is evident, too, from the intrinsic nature of the oc- currences reyorted bv the fourth evangelist, that they could not have 328 TfiE LIFE OF JESUS. 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 tlie train of the Baptist, as we see them in tlie fourth gospel, nor would it have been necessary for that teacher to have directed their attention to Jesus; neither if Peter liad 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 mas- ter. Nevertheless, expositors witli one voice declare tliat tlie two narratives are equally adapted to precede, or follow, eacli other. Tlie fourth gospel, say they,* recounts merely tlie first introduction of tliese men to Jesus ; tlicy did not forthwith become his constant followers, but were first installed by Jesus in their proper disciple- ship on tlie occasion which tlie synoptists have preserved. Let us test tlie justness of their view. In tlie synoptical narra- tive Jesus says to his future disciples, Come after me, Smrc, wiaw pov, and tlie result is that they follow him ^I'l/toA.oiOipa.v ai-ru). If we understand from tills tliat tlie disciples thenceforth constantly followed Jesus, how can we give a different interpretation to tlie similar expression in tlie fourth gospel, Follow me, ano^ovOu pot ? It is therefore a laudable consistency in Paulus, to see, in both in- stances, merely an invitation to a temporary companionship during a walk in tlie immediate neighbourhood.f But tills interpretation is incompatible with the synoptical history. How could Peter, at a later period, say so emphatically to Jesus, We have left all, and followed thee : what s/uill ws have therefore, ?-how could Jesus promise to him and to every one wlio had forsaken houses, &c. a hundredfold recompense (Matt. xix. 27 ff.), if tins forsaking and fol- lowing had been so transient and interrupted ? From tliese consid- erations alone it is probable tliat the dno\ov0ei fwi in John also de- notes the commencement of a permanent connexion; but there are besides the plainest indications tliat this is tlie case in tlie context to the narrative. Precisely as in the synoptical gospels, Jesus ap- pears alone before tlie scene of tlie vocation, but after this on every fit occasion tlie attendance of his disciples is mentioned: so in tlie. fourtli gospel, from tlie time of the occurrence in question, tlie pre- viously solitary Jesus appears in the company of Ins disciples (n. '2; xii. 17; iii. 22; iv. 8, 27, &c.). To say tliat tliese disciples, ac- quired in Peraia, again dispersed themselves after tlie return ot Je- sus into Gralilce,t is to do violence to tlie gospels out of liarmonistic zeal. But even supposing such a dispersion, they could not, in tlie short time which it is possible to allow for their separation from Je- sus, liave become so completely strangers to him, tliat lie ^ would have been obliged to re-open an acquaintance witli them after tlie manner narrated by the synoptical writers. Still less probable, is it that Jesus, after having distinguished Simon in tlie most individual * Kuinul, Comm. in Matth. S. 100 ; Liicke, Comm. zum Joli. 1, S. 388 ; Olshauseii bililisclier Coiuin., 1, S. 197; Hase, Leben Jesu, ^ r>6, 61. t Leben Jesu, 1, a, S. 212. THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS. 329 manner by tlie surname Cephas on their first interview, would on a later occasion address to him the summons to be a fisher of men- a destination wliich was common to all the disciples. The rationalistic commentators perceive a special advantage in their position of the two narratives. It accounts, say they, for wliat must otherwise be in the highest degree surprising, namely, tliat Je- sus merely in passing, and at tlie first glance, should clioose four fishermen for his disciples, and that among them he sliould have aliglited on tlie two most distinguished apostles ; that, moreover, these four men, actively employed in their business, sliould leave it on tlie instant of their receiving an enigmatical summons from a man witli whom they had no intimate acquaintance, and devote them- selves to him as Ills followers. Now on comparing tlie fourth gos- pel, we see tliat Jesus had learned to know tliese men long before, and tliat they, too, liad liad demonstration of his excellence, whence it is easy to understand the felicity of his choice, and their readiness to follow him. But this apparent advantage is the condemning cir- cumstance in tlie above position; for nothing can more directly counteract tlie intention of tlie first two evangelists, than to suppose a previous acquaintance between Jesus and the brethren whom lie 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: tlie writers must therefore have deemed this something ex- traordinary, wliich it certainly was not, if tliese men liad previously been in his train. In relation to Jesus also, tlie point of tlie nar- rative lies in his having, with a prophetic spirit, and at tlie first glance, selected tlie right individuals, not needing that any should testify of man, for he knew what was in man, according to John ii. 25, and tlius presenting one of the characteristics which the Jews expected in their Messiah. If, then, each of these two diverse narratives professes to des- cribe the first acquaintance of Jesus with. his most distinguished disciples, it, follows tliat one only can be correct, wliilc tlie other is necessarily erroneous.* It, is our task to inquire wliicli has the more intrinsic proofs of veracity. With respect to tlie synoptical repre- sentation, Vi-e share the difficulty wliich is felt by Paulus, in regard- ing 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 liave been evinced by Jesus, transcends all that is naturally possible to the most fortunate and practised knowledge oi mankind. Tlie nature of man is only revealed by Ills words and actions ; tlie gift of discerning it without tliese means, belongs to the visionary, or to tliat species of intuition for which tlie rabbinical de- signation of this messianic attribute, odorando judicare,^ is not at all too monstrous. Scarcely less improbable is tlie unhesitating obedience of the disciples, for Jesus had not yet acquired his Gali- lean. fame; and to account for this promptitude we must suppose 330 THE LIFE OF JESUS. that the voice and will of Jesus had a coercive influence over minds, independently of preparation and motives,* which would be to com- plete the incredibility of the narrative by adding a magical trait to the visionary one already exposed. If tliese negative arguments are deemed strong enough to annul the pretensions oftlie narrative to an historical character, the alterna- tive is to assign to it a mythical interpretation, if we can show on positive grounds that it might have been constructed in a tra- ditional manner without historical foundation. As adequate in- ducements to the formation of such a legend, we may point, not only to tlie above cited Jewish notion of tlie 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 tlie mode in wliicli the prophet Elijah summoned Elislia to become Ills follower. Here Jesus calls tlie brethren from their nets and their fishing; there tlie prophet calls his future disciple from tlie oxen and tlie plougli; in botli cases there is a transition from simple, physical labour, to tlie liiglicst spiritual office-a contrast wliicli, as is ex- emplified in tlie lloman history, tradition is apt either to cherish or to create. Further, tlie fishermen, at the call of Jesus, forsake their nets and follow him ; so Elislia, when Elijah cast his mantle over him, left the oxen, and ran after Elijah. Tills is one ap- parent divergency, which is a yet more striking proof of tlie relation between the two narratives, than is tlieir general similarity. The prophet's disciple entreated that before he attached himself entirely to Elijah, lie 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 tliat Elislia should return to him. Similar petitions are offered to Jesus (Luke ix. 59 ft.; Matt. vni. 21 i.) by some whom lie liad called, or wlio liad volunteered to follow him; but Jesus docs not accede to these requests: on the contrary, lie enjoins tlie one who wislied previously to bury his father, to enter on his discipleship without delay ; and tlie other, who liad begged permission to bid farewell to his friends, lie 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 tlie apostles, that they, without asking any delay, immediately forsook their occupation, and, in the case of James and John, their lather. Could any tiling betray more clearly than tills one feature, tliat tlie narrative is an embellished imitation of tliat in tlie Old Testament, intended to show tliat Jesus, in his character of Messiah, exacted a more decided adhesion, accompanied witli greater sacri- fices, than Elijah, in his character of Prophet merely, required^ or was authorized to require ?f Tlie historical germ of the narrative may be this: several of tlie most eminent disciples of Jesus, par- ticularly Peter, dwelling on tlie shores of tlie sea of Galilee, liad been fishermen, whence Jesus during their subsequent apostolic THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS. 331 agency may liave 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 throucdi tlie obliviousness of tradition. By removing tlie synoptical narrative we make room for that of Jolm ; 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 tlie one who directs tlie first two disciples to Jesus ; for if there be any truth in tlie representation given in. a former chapter of the relation between Jesus and the Baptist, some disciples of the latter mio-ht, indeed, of their own accord attach themselves to Jesus, formerly their fellow-disciple, but nothing could be farther from tlie intention of tlie Baptist than to resign Ills own adherents to Jesus. This particular seems indebted for its existence to the apologetic interest of the fourth gospel, wliicli seeks to strengthen the cause of Jesus by tlie testimony of tlie Baptist. Further, tliat Andrew, after one evening's intercourse witli Jesus, should announce him to his brother with the words, We have found the Messiah (i. 42.); tliat 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 tlie synoptical statement, which we have above decided to be trustworthy, tliat some time was necessary for tlie disciples to recognize Jesus as the Messiali, and openly confess their belief through their spokesman Peter, whose tardy discernment Jesus would liave 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 commencement of his discipleship. Equally unnatural is tlie manner in which Jesus is said to have received Simon. He accosts him with tlie words, T/iozi art Simon, the son of Jona,-a mode of salutation wliicli seems, as Bengel has well remarked, to imply tliat Jesus liad a supernatural acquaintance witli the name and origin of a man previously unknown to him, analogous to Ills coo-ni- zance 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 Geplias or Peter. If we are not inclined to degrade tlie speecli of Jesus into buffoonery, by referring this appellation to the bodily organization of the disciple,* we must suppose that Jesus at the first glance, witli tlie eye of him who knew hearts, penetrated into the inmost nature of Simon, and discovered not only his general fitness for tlie apostleship, but also the special, individual qualities which rendered him comparable to a rock. According to Mattliew, it was not until after long in- tercourse with Jesus, and after he had given many manifestations of Ins peculiar cliaracter, that tills surname was conferred on Simon, accompanied by an explanation of its meaning (xvi. 18.): evidently THE LIFE OF JESUS. 332 a much more natural account of tlie matter than that of the fourth evangelist, who makes Jesus discern at tlie first glance the future value of Simon to his cause, an odorando j udicare which transcends the synoptical representation in the same ratio as tlie declaration. Tfw'tt shall be called Cephas, presupposes a more intimate knowledge, than the proposal, I will make you fishers of men. Even after a more lengthened conversation witli Peter, such as Lucke 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 Chris- tian legend, attracted by tlie significance of the name, may have represented Jesus as its author, wliile, in fact, Simon liad borne it from his birth. Tlie entire narrative concernina; Natlianael is a tissue of improb- abilities. When Philip speaks to him of a Messiah from Nazareth, lie makes the celebrated answer, Can any good th'uiq coma out of Nazareth (v. 47.) ? There is no historical datum for supposing tliat Nazareth, when Jesus began his ministry, was tlie object of par- ticular odium or contempt,* and there is every probability that tlie adversaries of Christianity were the first to cast an aspersion on tlie native city of tlie Messiah whom they rejected. In tlie time of Je- sus, Nazareth was only depreciated by the Jews, as being a Galllean city- a stigma which it bore in common with many others : but in this sense it eould not be despised by Natlianael, for lie was himself a Galilean (xxi. 2.). Tlie only probable explanation is tliat a de- risive question, wliicli, at tlie time of tlie composition of the fourth gospel, the Christiana liad often to hear from their opponents, was put into the mouth of a cotemporary of Jesus, tliat by the manner in which he was divested of his doubt, others miglit be induced to comply with the invitation, to come and see. As Natlianael ap- proaches Jesus, the latter pronounces this judgment on his character, -Behold an Israelite indeed, in iohom is no guile (v. 48.)! Paulus is of opinion tliat Jesus miglit liave previously gathered some inti- mations concerning Natlianael at Cana, where he liad just been at- tending; a marriao'e of some relations.! But if Jesus liad bccomo 0 C5 ' acquainted witli Natlianael's character in a natural way, lie must, in answer to the question Whence JcnovJCst thou me ? either have re- minded him of tlie occasion on which they had liad an earlier inter- view, or referred to the favourable report of others. Instead of this he speaks of his knowledge that Natlianael liad been tarrying under a iigtree : a knowledge which from its result is evidently intended to appear supernatural. Now to use information, obtained by ordi- nary means, so as to induce a belief tliat it has been communicated supernaturally, is charlatanism, if anything deserve the name. As, however, tlie narrator certainly did not mean to impute such artifice to Jesus, it is undeniably his intention to ascribe to him a super- natural knowledge of Nathanael's character. As little are the words, THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS. 333 When thozi wast under the figtree, I saw thee, explained by tlie exclamation of Paulus, "How often one sees and observes a man who is unconscious of one's gaze!" Lucke and Tholuck are also of opinion, tliat Jesus observed Nathanael under tlie fig-tree in a natural manner; they add, however, tlie conjecture, tliat tlie latter was engaged in some occupation, such as prayer or the study of tlie law, wliicli afforded Jesus a key to Ills character. But if Jesus meant to imply, "How can I fail to be convinced of thy virtue, having watclied thee during thy earnest study of tlie law, and thy fervent prayer under the fig-tree ?" lie would not liavc omitted the word TTpoaev^oiisvov ^praying), or dva-yivaxficnvTa (reading'), for want of which we can extract no other sense from his declaration than this : "Thou mayest be assured of my power to penetrate into thy inmost soul, from tlie fact tliat I belield tliee when thou wast in a situation from which all merely human observers were ex- cluded." Here the whole stress is thrown not on any peculiarity in tlie sit- uation of tlie person seen, but on tlie fact that Jesus saw him, whence it is necessarily inferred that he did so by no ordinary, natural, means. To imagine tliat Jesus possessed such a second sight, is, we grant, not a little extravagant; but for tliat very reason, it is the more accordant witli tlie tlien 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 (2 Kings vi. 8, ft'.) the king of Syria makes war against. Israel, Elisha indicates to tlie king of Israel every po- sition of tlie enemy's camp; and when tlie king of Syria expresses Ilis suspicion tliat he is betrayed by deserters, he is told that the Israeli tisli prophet knows all the words tliat lie, tlie 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 tliat tlie Messiali should fall short of the prophet in Ills powers of vision ? This particular, too, enables our evangelist to form a climax, in wliicli Jesus ascends from the penetration of one immediately present (v. 42), to tliat of one approaching for tlie first time (v. 48), and finally, to tlie perception of one out of the reach of human eyesight. Tliat Jesus goes a step farther in tlie climax, and says, tliat this proof of his messianic second sight is a trifle compared with wliat Nathanael lias yet to see,-tliat on him, tlie bon of man, the angels of God shall descend from tlie opened heavens (v. 51),-in nowise shows, as Paulus thinks, tliat there was nothing miraculous in tliat first proof, for there is a gradation even in miracles. Thus in the narrative of John we stumble at every step on diffi- culties, in some instances greater than those witli wliicli tlie synopti- cal accounts are encumbered: hence we. learn as little from the one as tlie other, concerning the manner in which the first disciples at- tacllefl +1lOT»eol-,roc, +^ 1^.,,.» T .-.-..--^ -.--. •.-> .1 ' " •• THE LIFE OF JESUS. 334 Probabilla,* in deriving the divergency of the fourth evangelist from his predecessors, from the wish to avoid mentioning tlic derided •fishing-trade of the most distinguished apostles : since in chap. xxi., which Brctschncider allows to be by the same hand as the rest of the gospel, he unhesitatingly introduces tlie obnoxious employment. I rather surmise tliat the idea of their having received their decisive apostolic call while actually engaged with their fishing-nets, was not afloat in tlie tradition from which the fourth evangelist drew; and that tills writer formed his scenes, partly on the probably historical report tliat some disciples of Jesus liad belonged to tlic school of the Baptist, and partly from tlie wisli to represent in the most favour- able light, tlie relation between Jesus and the Baptist, and tlie su- pernatural gifts of tlic former. § 71. PETER'S DRAUGHT OF FISHES. WE have hitherto examined only two accounts of tlie, vocation of Peter and his companions; there is a third given by Luke (v. 1-11.). I sliall not dilate on the minor points of diffcrcnccf be- tween liis narrative and tliat of tlie first two evangelists: the es- sential distinction is, tliat in Luke tlie disciples do not, as in Mat- thew and Mark, unite themselves to Jesus on a. simple invitation, but in consequence of a plentiful draught of fishks, to which Jesus lias assisted Simon. If this feature be allowed to constitute Luke's narrative a separate one from tliat of his predecessors, we have next to inquire, into its intrinsic credibility, and then to ascertain its re- lation to tliat of Mattliew and Mark. Jesus, oppressed by tlie throng of people on the shore of the Galilean sc;i, enters into a ship, tliat he may address them with more case at ;i little distance from land. Having brought liis dis- course to a close, he desires Simon, tlic owner of tlie boat, to launch out into tlie deep, and let down his nets for a draught. Simon, although little encouraged by tlie poor result of tlie last night's fish- ing, declares himself willing, and is rewarded by so extraordinary a draught, tliat Peter and liis partners, James and Jolin (Andrew is not here mentioned), are struck with astonishment, the former even witli awe, before Jesus, as a superior being. Jesus then says to Simon, Fear not; from henceforth tlum shaft catch mc.'i, and the issue is that the three fishermen forsake all, and follow him. The rationalistic commentators take pains to show that whit is above narrated might occur in a natural way. According to them, tlie astonishing consequence of letting down tlie .net was tlic result of an accurate observation on the part of Jesus, assisted by a happy fortuity. Paulus-i: supposes that Jesus at fir.-.t wished to launch out farther into tlic deep merely to escape from tlie crowd, and tliat it. was not until after sailing to some distance, tliat, descrying a place ' ~ "' '- T--I- -ici. »vnnir. Gcscli. und dcr Briefe Job, S. 350. THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS. 8SS where the fish were abundant, he desired Peter to let down the net. But he has fallen into a twofold contradiction of tlie evangelical nar- rative. In close connexion with tlie command to launch out into the deep, Jesus adds, .Let dovm your nets for a draught (K^avdyaye eic; TO /3a0oc, not ^a^daars TU 6iit-va, it. T. A.), as if this were one of his objects in changing tlic locality ; and if he spoke thus when -at a little distance only from tlie shore, his liope of a successful draught could not be tlie effect of liis 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 tlie Natural History of tlie Great Prophet of Nazareth, wlio says, Jesus conjectured on general grounds, tliat under existing circum- stances (indicative probably of an approaching storm), fishing in the middle of tlie sea would succeed better than it had done in tlic night. But, proceeding from tlie natural point of view, how could Jesus be a better judge in tills matter, than tlie men who had spent half their life on the sea in the employment of fishing? Certainly if tlie fisher- men observed nothing which could give them liope of a plentiful draught, neitlier in a natural manner could Jesus; and tlie agree- ment between his Words and tlie result, must, adhering to the natural point of view, be put down wholly to the account of chance. But wliat senseless audacity, to promise at random a success, which, judging from tlie occurrences of tlie past niglit, was little likely to follow! It is said, however, tliat 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 in- auspicious aspect of circumstances for fishing does not induce him to revoke, there is a latent promise, and tlie words, .Let down your nets, &c., in the present passage, can hardly have any oilier meaning than tha't plainly expressed in tlie similar scene, Jolin xxi. 6., (Just ike net on, the riy/d side of the ship, and ye shall find. When, moreover, Peter retracts liis objection in the words, Nevertheless at thy word I will let down tlie 'net, em SK TO) prfiMri aov ^aXaw TO SLK-VOV, though prii.ia may be translated by command rather than by promise, in cither case lie implies a hope tliat wdiat Jesus enjoins will not be without result. If Jesus liad not intended to excite this. liope, lie must immediately have put an end to it, if lie would not expose himself to disgrace in the event of failure; and on no ac- count ouglit lie to have accepted tlie attitude and expressions of Peter as liis duo, if he liad only merited them by a piece of lucky advice given at a venture. Tlie drift of tlie narrative, tlien, obliges us to admit that the writer intended to signalize a miracle. Tills miracle may be viewed cither as one of power, or of knowledge. If tlie former, we are to conceive tliat Jesus, by liis supernatural power, caused the fish to congregate in tliat part of tlie sea where he commanded Peter to cast in Ins net. Now tliat Jesus sliould be able, by the. immediate action ^x' r--n..-t •i - • .... THE LIFE OF JESUS. S36 itual energy might find a fulcrum, may to a certain extent be con- ceived, without any wide deviation from psychological laws; but that lie could thus influence irrational beings, and those net isolated ani- mals immediately present to him, but shoals of fish in tlic deptlis of the sea, it is impossible to imagine out of the domain of magic. Olshansen compares this operation of Jesus to tliat of the divine omnipotence in the annual migrations of fish and birds;* but the comparison is worse tlian lame,-it lacks all parallelism: for tlie latter is an effect of the divine agency, linked in tlie closest manner with all the other operations of God in external nature, with the cliange of seasons, &c.'. while the former, even presupposing Jesus to be actually God, would be an isolated act, interrupting tlie chain of natural phenomena; a distinction that removes any semblance of parallelism between the two cases. Allowing tlie possibility of such a miracle, (and from the supranaturalistic point of view, nothing is in itself impossible,) did it subserve any apparent obicct, adequate to determine Jesus to so extravagant a use of his miraculous powers? Was it so important tliat Peter should be inspired by this incident witli a superstitious fear, not accordant witli 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 tlien have liad in the force of mind and of truth', how much too meanly must lie have estimated Peter, who, at a later period at least (John vi. 68), clung to Ills society, not on account of the miracles which lie belield Jesus perform, but for tlic sake of the words of eternal life, which came from Ills lips! Under tlie pressure of these difficulties, refuge may be sought in tlie other supposition as tlic more facile one; namely, tliat Jesus, by means of his superhuman knowledge, was merely aware tliat in a certain place there was tlien to be found a multitude of fishes, and tliat he communicated this information to Peter. If by this it be meant tliat 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 tliat when he crossed any water he became cognizant of its various tribes of fish, with their relative po- sition; even this would be quite enough to encumber tlie space in Ills mind tliat was due to more weighty thoughts. Lastly, if it be meant tliat lie 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, wliose vocation had reference to the depths of tlic human heart, should be tempted to occupy himself witli tlic fish-frcqucnted depths of the waters. But before we pronounce on this narrative of Luke, we must consider it in relation to the cognate histories in tlie first two synop- THE DISCIPLES OP JESCS. 337 tical gospels. Tlic chronological relation oftlie respective events is the first point. The supposition that tlic miraculous draught of fishes in Luke was prior to the vocation narrated bv tlie two other evangelists, is excluded by tlie consideration, tliat tlie firm attach- ment which tliat 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, liad not sufficed to ally the men to Jesus, lie could hardly flatter himself tliat. a subsequent bare summons, unsupported by any miracle, would have a better issue. Tlie contrary chronological position presents a better climax: but why a second invitation, if the first liad succeeded? For to sup- pose tliat tlic brethren who followed him on tlic first summons, again left him until tlie second, is to cut tlie knot, instead of untying it. Still more complicated is tlie difficulty, when we take in addition the narrative of tlic fourth evangelist: for wliat sliall we think of the connexion between Jesus and his disciples, if it began in tlie 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 tlio kind had before occurred, on tlie shore of the Galilean sea; and if, this invitation also producing no permanent adherence, he for tlie third time summoned tliein to follow him, for- tifying this final experiment by a miracle ? Tlie 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 tlie indifferent mention of two ships on the shore, wliose owners were gone out of them to wash their nets, Simon being unnamed until Jesus chooses to avail himself of his boat, seems, as Schleier- maclier has convincingly shewn,* to convey tlie idea tliat the two parties were entire strangers to eacli other, and tliat these incidents were preparatory to a relation yet to be formed, not indicative of one already existing: so that tlie healing of Peter's mother-in-law, pre- viously recounted by Luke, cither occurred, like many other cures of Jesus, without producing any intimate connexion, or lias too early a date assigned to it by tliat evangelist. The latter conjecture is supported by tlie fact tliat Matthew places tlie miracle later. Thus, it fares witli tlie narrative of Luke, wlicn viewed in rela- tion to tliat of Matthew and Mark, as it did witli tliat of John, when placed in the same liglit; neither will bear tlie other to precede, or to follow it,-in short, they exclude each othcr.t Which then is the correct narrative ? Schleiermachcr prefers tliat of tlie evange- list on whom he lias commented, because it is more particular;^ and Sicffcrt§ lias recently asserted with great emphasis, that no one lias ever yet doubted tlie superiority of Luke's narrative, as a faithful picture of tlie entire occurrence, tlie number of its special dramatic, and intrinsically authenticated details, advantageously * Ucl'rr den Lukas, S. 70. •}• This with the legendary character of both narratives, ia acknowlpdo-ii/l hip i-t/.-u-,.**- --- " ,, - - - ----- THE LIFE OF JESUS. 338 distinguishing it from the account in tlie first (and second) gospel, which by its omission of the critical incident, tlie turning point in the narrative (tlie draught of fishes), is characterized as the recital of one who was not an eye-witness. I have already presented my- self elsewhere"' to this critic, as one hardly enough to express the doubt of which lie denies tlie existence, and I here repeat the question: supposing one only of tlie two narratives to liave been • modified by oral tradition, which alternative is more in accordance with tlie nature of tliat means of transmission,-that the tangible fact of a draught of fishes should evaporate into a mere saying re- specting fishers of men, or that this figurative expression should bo condensed into a literal history? The answer to tins question can- not be dubious; for when was it in tlie nature of tlie legend to spiritualize? to cliange the real, such as tlie story of a miracle, into tlie ideal, such as a mere verbal iniao-e? The stao'c of human cul- ' 0 0 ture to wliicli tlie legend belongs, and tlie mental faculty in wliicli it originates, demand that it should give a stable body to fleeting thought, that it should counteract tlie ambiguity and changeable- ness of words, by affixing them to tlie permanent and universally understood symbol of action. It is easy to show how, out of the expression preserved by tlie first evangelist, tlie miraculous story of tlie third might be formed. If Jesus, in allusion to tlie former occupation of some of his apostles, had called them fishers of men; if lie had compared tlie kingdom of heaven to a net cast into tlie sea, in wliicli all kinds of fish were taken (Matt. xiii. 47); it was but a following out of tliesc ideas to represent tlie apostles as tliose wlio, at tlie word of Jesus, cast out the net, and gathered in the miraculous multitude of fishes.t If we add to tills, that tlie ancient legend was fond of occupying its w^on- der-workcrs with affairs of fishing, as we sec in tlie story related of Pythagoras by Jamblichus and Porphyry:} it will no longer ap- pear improbable, that Peter's miraculous draught of fishes is but the expression about the fishers of men, transmuted into the his- tory of a miracle, and this view will at once set us free from all the difficulties that attend the natural, as well as tlie supranatural, inter- pretation of the narrative. A similar miraculous draught of fishes is recorded in tlie appen- dix to the fourth gospel, as having occurred after tlie resurrection •(ch. xxi.). Here again Peter is fishing on tlie G-alilcan sea, in com- pany with the sons of Zcbedee and some other disciples, and again he has been toiling all night, and has taken nothing. § Early in the * Berliner Jahrbucher fur wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834:, Nov.; now in the Cha- rakteristiken u. Kritikcn, 8. 2ti4: f. -t- According to Dii Wette, tlie copious draught of fishes was a symbolical miracle, typifying the rich fruits ol' tlie apostolic ministry. ^ 1'or- •. T."-.,....-.„.., „„ «)-,„,] K';,,sslini;: Jamblieh. v. I', no. ;!(;. ders. Aus^ phyr. vita I'ythagor.e, no. a,> ea. iMessuuy , uanmi.^... ..... It la fair to adduce this history, because, being less marvellous than tlie gospel narrative, it mn hardly be an imitation, but must have arisen independently, and hi^neo it evinces a " r' ' "• - -'-• "-,.,.-^.\/- rn-it't^n.vrf.c ou6lv hes "was a symbolical miracie, i,^pii^in^ i«^ ..^. ,.„. iyr. vita I'ythagor.e, no. 23 ed. Kiessling; Jamblieh. v. I', no. ;i(I. ders. Ausg. 1 ----- i-;«^ laoa marvellous than file gospel uan'a THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS. 339 morning, Jesus comes to the shore, and asks, without their recog- nizing him, if they have any meat ? . On their answering in the ne- gative, lie directs them to cast the net on tlie right side. of tlie ship, whereupon they have an extremely rich draught, and are led by this sign to recognize Jesus. That tills history is distinct from tlie one given by Luke, is, from its great similarity, scarcely conceivable; tlie same narrative lias doubtless been placed by tradition in different periods of the life of Jesus.* Let us now compare tliese three fishing histories,-tlie two nar- rated of Jesus, and that narrated of Pythagoras,-and their mythi- cal character will be obvious. That which, in Luke, is indubitably intended as a miracle of power, is, in tlie history of Jamblichus, a miracle of knowledge; for Pythagoras merely tells in a supernatural manner tlie number of fish already caught by natural means. The narrative of John liolds a middle place, for in it also tlie number of the fish (153) plays a part; but instead of being predetermined by the worker of the miracle, it is simply stated by tlie narrator. One legendary feature common to all tlie three narratives, is tlie manner in whicil tlie multitude and weight of tlie fishes are described; especially as this sameness of manner accompanies a diversity in particulars. According to Luke, tlie multitude is so great tliat the net is broken, one ship will not hold them, and after they liave been divided between tlie two vessels, both threaten to sink. In tlie view of tlie tradition given in tlie fourth gospel, it was not calcu- lated to magnify tlie power of tlie miraculous agent, tliat tlie 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 jueya/lot (great), and it is added tliat the men zmre not able to draw the net for the multitude of fishes: instead, however, of lapsing out of the miraculous into tlie common by tlie breaking of tlie net, a second miracle is ingeniously made,- that for ali there were so many, yet was not the net broken. Jam- blichus presents a further wonder (tlie only one lie has, besides the knowledge of Pythagoras as to tlio number of tlie fish): namely, tliat wliilo 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 tlie narratives we liave compared tlie finger-marks of tradition, and hence tlie legendary character of tliese evangelical anecdotes, still leans to tlie historical interpretation, whether natural or supernatural; that mind must be alike ignorant of the true character both of legend and of history, of tlie natural and tlie supernatural. * Comp. d', Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 3, S. 213. THE LIFE OF JESUS. 340 § 72. CALLING OF MATTHEW--CONNEXION OF JESUS WITH THE PUBLICANS. THE first gospel (ix. 9 ff.) tells of a mail na-nwd Matthew, to whom, when sitting at the receipt of custom, Jesus said, Follow me. Instead of Matthew, the second and third gospels liavc Le,m, and Mark adds that lie was the son of Alplieus (Mark ii. 14 ff.; Luke v. 27 ff.). At the call of Jesus, Luke. says tliat lie left all; Matthew merely states, tliat he followed Jesus and prepared a meal, of which many publicans and sinners partook, to tlic great scandal of tlie Pharisees. From the difference of the names it has been conjectured tliat the evangelists refer to two different events ;* but tills difference of tlie name is more tlian counterbalanced by tlie similarity of tlie cir- cumstances. In all the three cases tlie call of tlie publican is pre- ceded and followed by tlie same occurrences; tlic subject of tlie narrative is in tlie same situation.; Jesus addresses him in tlie same words; and the issue is tlie same.f Hence the opinion is pretty general, tliat tlic three synoptists 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 Mattlicw ? Tills is commonly represented as conceivable on tlie supposition tliat Lev! was tlie proper name of tlic individual, and Matthew merely a surname ;% or tliat after lie liad attaclied himself to Jesus, lie exchanged the former for the latter.§ To substantiate such an opinion, there sliould be some indication tliat tlie evangelists who name tlie chosen publican Levi, intend under that designation no other than the Mattliew mentioned in their catalogues of tlic apostles (Mark ill, 18 ; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13.). On tlie contrary, in tliese catalogues, where many surnames and double names occur, not only do they omit tlie name of Levi as tlie earlier or more proper appel- lation of Mattliew, but tlicy leave him undistinguished by the epi- thet, 6 re/lt.5 vi]^ (the publican), added by the first evangelist in his catalogue (x. 3.); thus proving that they do not consider the apostle Matthew to be identical witli tlie Levi summoned from tlie receipt of cu.stom.ll If then the evangelists describe tlie vocation of two different men in a precisely similar way, it is improbable that there is ac- curacy on both sides, since an event could hardly be repeated in ita minute particulars. One of the narratives, therefore, is in error; and tlie burthen has been thrown on the first evangelist, because he places the calling of Mattliew considerably after tlie sermon on the mount; while according to Luke (vi. 13. ff.), all tlie twelve liad been chosen before that discourse was delivered.^ But tills would only * Vid. Kuinol, in Matth. p. 255. •)• Sieffert, lit sup. p. 5;">. \ Kuincil, ut sup. Pau- lus, exeg. Handb., 1. B. S. BIS. L. J., 1, a, 240. § Bertholdt, Einleitung y, S. 1255 f. ^•..--..i-, a "10 ii a;»ffo,t s r.fi. Dp. Wette. exee. Handb., 1, 1, S. 91. T[ Siefiert. THE DISCIPI.ES OF JESUS. 341 prove, at the most, that the first gospel gives a wrong position to the history; not tliat it narrates that history incorrectly. It is there- fore unjust to impute special difficulties to tlie narrative of the first evangelist: neither are such to be found in that of Mark and Luke, unless it be thought an inconsistency in tlie latter to attribute a forsaking of all, KUTaXnrwv airavra, to one whom lie does not in- clude among tlie constant followers of Jesus.* Tlie only question is, do they not labour under a common difficulty, sufficient to stamp botli accounts as unhistorical ? Tlie close analogy between this call and tliat of tlic two pairs of brethren, must excite attention. Tlicy were summoned from their nets; lie from tlie custom-house; as in their case, so here, nothing further is needed than a simple Follow me; and tins call of the Messiah lias so irresistible a power over tlie mind of the called, that the publican, like the fishermen, leaves all, and follows him. It is not to be denied, tliat as Jesus had been for a considerable time exercising Ills ministry in that country, Mattliew must Iiave long known him; and tills is tlie argument with which Fritzsche repels tlie accusation of Julian and Porphyry, wlio maintain tliat Matthew here shows himself rash and inconsiderate. But tlic longer Jesus liad observed him, tlie more easily might lie have found opportunity for drawing him gradually and quietly into Ins train, instead of hurrying him in so tumultuary a manner from tlie midst of his busi- ness. Paulus indeed thinks that no call to discipleship, no sud- den forsaking of a previous occupation, is here intended, but tliat Jesus having brought Ills tcaciiing to a close, merely signified to tlie friend wlio liad given him an invitation to dinner, that lie was now ready to go home with him, and sit down to table, f But tlie meal appears, especially in Luke, to be tlie consequence, and not the cause, of tlie summons ; moreover, a modest guest would say to the liost wlio liad invited him, I -will follow thee, duoXovO^au aoi, not Follow me, duoAovOsi fioi; and in fine, tins interpretation renders tlie wliole anecdote so trivial, that it would have been better omit- ted.:}: Hence tlie abruptness and impetuosity of tlie scene return upon us, and we are compelled to pronounce tliat sucli is not the course of real life, nor tlie procedure of a man wlio, like Jesus, respects tlie laws and formalities of human society; it is tlie pro- cedure 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 represent- ing him as at once discarding tlie implements of his former trade, leaving tlie scene of his daily business, and straightway commencing a new life. Tlie liistorical germ of tlie story may be, tliat Jesus actually had publicans among his disciples, and possibly tliat, Mat- thew was one. These men liad truly left tlie custom-house to fol- * De Wette, ut sup. + Exes. IIanilb. 1. B. S. 610. L. J. 1, a, 240 342 THE LIFE OF JESUS. low Jesus; Lut only in the figurative sense of his concise expression, not in the literal one depicted Ly the legend. It is not less astonishing tliat tlie publican slipuld have a great feast in readiness for Jesus immediately after hia call. For that this feast was not, prepared until tlie following day,* is directly opposed to tlie narratives, tlie two iirst especially. But it is entirely in the tone of the legend to demonstrate tlie joy of the publican, and the condescension of Jesus, and to create an occasion for tlie reproaches cast on the latter on account of his intimacy with sinners, by invent- ing a great feast, given to the publicans at tlie house of their late associate immediately after his call. Another circumstance connected witli this narrative merits par- ticular attention. According to tlie common opinion concerning tlie author of tlie first gospel, Matthew therein narrates Ills own call. We may consider it granted that there are no positive indications of this in tlie narrative; but it is not so clear tliat there are no ne- gative indications which render it impossible or improbable. That the evangelist docs not here speak in tlie first person, nor when des- cribing events in wliicli lie liad a share in tlie first person plural, like tlie author of tlie Acts of tlie Apostles, proves nothing; for Joseplius and other historians not less classical, write of themselves in tlie third person, and tlie we of tlie pseudo-Matthew in the Lbionitc gos- pel lias a very suspicious sound. Tlie use of the expression, dvOpo- TTOV, Ma-Oalov Xsyo^erov, which tlie Manichcans made an objection,! as they did the above-mentioned cireuin stance, is not without a pre- cedent in tlie writings of Xcnophon, wlio in his Anabasis introduces himself as Xenophon, a certain At/^nian, 'S,EVO(J)O)V T((; 'AOi-ji'aloc;.^ The Greek, however, did not fall into tins stylo from absorption in his subject, nor from unaffected freedom from egotism,-causes wliicli Olsliauscn supposes in (lie evangelist; but either from a wish not to pass for tlie author, as an old tradition states,§ or from con- siderations of taste, neither of which motives will be attributed to Mattliew. Whether we are therefore to consider tliat expression as a sign tliat tlie author of the first gospel was not Mattliew, mav be difficult to decide :i| but it is certain tliat this history of tlie publican's call is throughout less clearly narrated in tliat gospel than in tlie third. In tlie former, we are at a loss to understand why it is ab- ruptly said tliat Jesus sat at meat in tlio house, if tlie evangelist were himself tlie hospitable publican, since it would then seem most natural for him to let Ills joy on account of his call appear in llie narrative, by telling as Luke docs, tliat lie immediately made a great feast in his house. To say tliat lie witlilidd this from modesty, is to invest a rude Galilcan of tliat age with tlie affectation belonging to tlie most refined self-consciousness of modern days. To this feast at tlie publican's, of which many of tlie same ob- * Gratz, Cninin. zum Matth. 1, S. 470. f Augustin, c. Faust. M.inicli. xvii. ]. t iii. i. 4. ^ Plutarch. (Ie glum Atheniens,, at the beginning. || Schuiz, Ueber din THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS. 343 noxious class partook, the evangelists annex the reproaches cast at the disciples by tlie Pharisees and Scribes, because their master ate with publicans and sinners. Jesus, being within hearing of the cen- sure, repelled it by tlie well-known text on the destination of the physician for the sick, and tlie Son of man for sinners (Matt. ix. 11 ff. parall.). Tliat Jesus should be frequently taunted by his phari- saical enemies witli 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 an- swer, too, which is liere put into tlie mouth of Jesus, is from its pitliy and concise character well adapted for literal transmission. Further, it is not improbable tliat tlie reproach in question may have been especially called forth, by the circumstance tliat Jesus ate with pub- licans and sinners, and went under their roofs. But tliat tlie cavils of Ills opponents should have been accompaniments of tlie publican's din- ner, as tlie evangelical account leads us to infer, especially tliat of Mark (v. 1G), is not so easily conceivable.* For as tlie feast was in the /imse (av ry olnia), and as tlio disciples also partook of it, how could the Pharisees utter their reproaches to them, wliile the meal was going forward, without defiling themselves by becoming the guests of a man that v;as a sinner,-tlie very act wliicli they repre- hended in Jesus ? (Luke xix. 7.) It will hardly be supposed tliat they waited outside until the feast was ended. It is difficult for Schlcicrmacher to maintain, even on the representation of Luke taken singly, tliat tlie evangelical narrative only implies, tliat the pub- lican's feast was tlie cause of tlie Pharisees' censure, and not tliat they were cotcmporarv.f Their immediate connexion might easily originate in a leo-cndary manlier; in fact, one scarcely knows how tradition, in its process of transmuting the abstract into tlie concrete, could represent tlie general idea tliat tlie Pharisees had taken offence at tlie friendly intercourse of Jesus witli tlie publicans, otherwise than thus: Jesus once feasted in a publican's house, in company with many publicans; tlie Pharisees saw this, went to the disciples and expressed their censure, which Jesus also heard, and parried by a laconic answer. After tlie Pharisees, Matthew makes tlie disciples of John ap- proach Jesus witli tlie question, wliy his disciples did not fast, as they did (v. 14 f.); in Luke (v. 33 ff.); it is still tlie Pharisees wlio vaunt their own fasts and tliose of John's disciples, as contrasted with tlie eating and drinking of the disciples of Jesus; Mark's ac- count is not clear (v. 18). According to i'schleicrmachcr, every un- prejudiced person must perceive in the statement of Mattliew com- pared witli tliat of Luke, the confusing emendations of a second editor, wlio could not explain to himself how the Pharisees came to appeal to tlie disciples of John; whereas, thinks Sclileicrmachcr, tlie question would liavc been puerile in tlie mouth of tlie latter; but * Comp De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, '2, p. 131. 344 THE LIFE OF JESUS. it is easy to imagine that the Pharisees might avail themselves of an external resemblance to the disciples of Jolm when opposing Je- sus, who had himself received baptism of that teacher. It is cer- tainly surprising tliat after the Pharisees, wlio were offended because Jesus ate with publicans, some disciples of Jolin should step forth as if they had been cited for the purpose, to censure generally tlie unrestricted eating and drinking of Jesus and his disciples. The probable explanation is, that evangelical tradition associated the two circumstances from their intrinsic similarity, and tliat tlie first evangelist erroneously gave them the additional connexion of time and place. But tlie manner in wliicli tlie third evangelist fuses the two particulars, appears a yet more artifical combination, and is cer- tainly not historical, because the reply of Jesus could only be di- rected 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 Lcvi. When Jesus, on his last journey to the feast, passes through Jericho, a chief among the publicans dp^i~EAwrj(;, named Zacclucus, tliat he might, notwithstanding his short stature, get a siglit of Jesus among the crowd, climbed a tree, where Jesus observed him, and immedi- ately held him worthy to entertain tlie Messiah for tlie niglit. Here, again, tlie favour shown to a publican excites tlie discontent of the more rigid spectators ; and when Zacchasus lias made vows of atone- ment and beneficence, Jesus again justifies himself, on tlie ground that his office liad reference to sinners. Tlie wliole scene is very dramatic, and this might be deemed by some an argument for its historical character; but there arc certain internal obstacles to its reception. We are not led to infer tliat Jesus previously knew Zacchasus, or that some one pointed him out to Jesus by name ;f but, as Olshausen truly says, tlie knowledge of Zacchaius tliat Jesus liere suddenly evinced, is to be referred to Ills power of discerning what was in men without the aid of testimony. We have before decided that this power is a legendary attribute ; hence tlie above particular, at least, cannot be historical, and tlie narrative is possibly a varia- tion on the same theme as tliat treated of in connexion with the ac- count of Matthew's call, namely, tlie friendly relation of Jesus to tlie publicans. § 73. THE TWELVE APOSTLES. THE men whose vocation we have been considering, namely, the sons of Jonas and of Zebedee, witli Pliilip and Matthew (Nathanael alone being exccptcd), form the half of tliat narrow circle of disciples which appears throughout the New Testament under tlie name of * De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1,1, p. 93. + Paulus, exe?. Handb., 3, a, S. 48. KuinoL THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS. 345 the twelve, ol SuSeso, the twelve disciples or apostles, 01 6wShK.a paOrj- rw. or B7r0(n-o^o(. The fundamental idea of the New Testament writ- ers concerning the twelve, is that Jesus himself chose tliem (Mark in. 13 f.; Luke vi. 13; John vi. 70; xv. 16.). Matthew does not give us tlie history of the choice of all tlie twelve, but he tacitly presupposes it by introducing them as a college already instituted (x. i.). Luke, on tlie contrary, narrates how, after a night spent on tlie mountain in vigils and prayer, Jesus selected twelve from tlie more extensive circle of his adherents, and then descended with them to the plain, to deliver what is called tlie Sermon on the Mount (vi. 12.). Mark also tells us in the same connexion, that Jesus wlien on a mountain made a voluntary clioice of twelve from the mass of his disciples (iii. 13.). According to Luke, Jesus chose the twelve immediately before he delivered tlie sermon on the mount, and ap- parently with reference to it: but there is no discoverable motive which can explain tills mode of associating tlie two events, for tlie discourse was not specially addressed to the apostles,* neither had they any office to execute during its delivery. Mark's representa- tion, with the exception of the vague tradition from which lie sets out, that Jesus chose the twelve, seems to liave been wrouglit out of Ills own imagination, and furnishes no distinct notion of the oc- casion and manner of tlie choice.f. Mattliew lias adopted tlie best method in merely presupposing, without describing, the particular vocation of tlie apostles; and John pursues tlie same plan, begin- ning (vi. 67.) to speak of the twelve, without any previous notice of their appointment. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is merely presupposed in the gos- pels, tliat Jesus himself fixed tlie number of the apostles. Is tills presupposition correct ? There certainly is little doubt that this num- ber was fixed during tlie lifetime of Jesus; for not only does tlie author of the Acts represent tlie twelve as so compact a body im- mediately after tlie ascension of tlieir master, that they think it in- cumbent on them to fill up tlie breach made by the apostacy of Ju- das by tlie election of a ue\v member (i. 15 ft.); but the apostle Paul also notices an appearance of tlie risen Jesus, specially to the twelve (1 Cor. xv. 5.). Schleiermacher, however, doubts whether Jesus himself chose tlie twelve, and he thinks it more probable tliat tlie 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 tlie appointment of the twelve was a single solemn act; on tlie contrary, tlie gospels explicitly nar- rate, that six of them were called singly, or by pairs, and on sepa- rate occasions; but it is still a question whether tlie number twelve was not determined by Jesus, and whether lie did not willingly abide by it as an expedient for checking tlie multiplication of his familiar companions. Tlie number is the less likely to have been fortuitous, * Schleiermacher, ilber den Lukas, S. 85. THE LIFE OP JESUS. 348 able from tlie degree of cultivation they evince, and the preference always expressed by Jesus for fhe_poor TTTU^OVC, and the little ones, vrimovg (Matt. v. 3; xi. 5. 25), that they were of a similar grade. § 74. THE TWELVE CONSIDEEED INDIVIDUALLY-THE THREE OR FOUR MOST CONFIDENTIAL DISCIPLES OF JESUS. WE have in tlie New Testament four catalogues of tlie apostles; one in each of the synoptical gospels, and one in tlie Acts (Matt. x. 2-4; Mark iii. 6-10; Luke vi. 14-16; Acts i. 13). Each of tliese four lists may be divided into three quaternions; in each cor- responding quaternion tlie first member is tlie 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 tlie catalogues, and in Mattliew with the prefix Trpfi-o^ (the first), stands Simon Peter, the son of Jonas (Matt. xvi. 17); according to the fourth gospel, of Beth- saida (i. 45); according to the synoptists, resident in Capernaum* (Matt. viii. 14 parall.). We hear an cclio of tlie old polemical dis- pute, when Protestant expositors ascribe this position to mere chance,-an assumption which is opposed by the fact that all four of tlie catalogues agree in giving the precedence to Peter, though they differ in other points of arrangement; or when those expositors allege, in explanation, tliat Peter was first called,! which, according to the fourth gospel, was not tlie case. That this invariable priority is indicative of a certain pre-eminence of Peter among the twelve, is evident from tlie part lie plays elsewhere in tlie evangelical history. Ardent by nature, lie is always beforehand witli the rest of the apos- tles, 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 speecli and action are faulty, and that his prompt courage quickly evaporates, as his denial sliows, yet he is, according to the synoptical statement, tlie first who expresses a decided conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus (Matt. xvi. 16. parall.). It is true tliat of tlie eulogies and prerogatives bestowed on him on tliat occasion, that which is implied in his surname is the only one that remains peculiarly his; for tlie authority to bind and to loose., that is, to .forbid and to permit,:}: in tlie newly- founded Messianic kingdom, is soon after extended to all the apostles (xviii. 18). Yet more decidedly does tills pre-eminence of Peter among tlie original apostles appear in the Acts, and in the epistles of Paul. * If^ TTO?^ 'Ai^pfou nal IIerpov, John i. 45, mec.a the same as ^ It^ici Tro^s'i Matth. ix. 1, that is, the place where they were resident, there exists a contradiction on this point between Jolm and the svnoDtita. ^ Comp. Fritzsehe, in Math. p. 358. ^ Coinp. Light- THE DISCIPLES OF JE8I78. 349 Next to Peter, the catalogue of the first and third gospels places his brother Andrew; that of tlie second gospel and tlie Acts, James, and after liiin, Jolin. Tlie 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 tlie two apostles next in distinction to Peter to the less conspicuous Andrew, whom they accordingly put last in the quaternion. We have already con- sidered the manner in wliicli these four apostles are signalized in the Christian legend by a special liistory of their vocation. They ap- pear 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, tlie 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 tliat, 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 (nar' l6iav) concerning the time of tlie destruction of tlie temple, and of his second advent. But the parallel passages in tlie other gospels do not thus particular- ize. any of tlie disciples. Matthew says, T/ie disciples came to him privately (xxiv. 3); hence it is probable that Mark's limitation is an erroneous one. Possibly the words na-' ISiav, being used in the document to wliicli he referred to denote tlie separation of the twelve from the multitude, appeared to him, from association, an introduc- tory 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 tlie fraternity. Luke, on tlie 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 tlie select apostles; for except on the occasions already noticed^he is only mentioned by Jolin (vi. 9 ; xxi. 22), and tliat in no very important connexion. The two sons of Zebedee are the only disciples wliose distinction rivals tliat 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, ^^-i i;Q viol jSpov^c (Mark iii. 17),f conferred on them by Jesus. So high did they stand among the twelve, that either they (Mark xi. 35 ff.), or tlicir mother for them (Matt. xx. 20 ff.), tliought they might claim tlie first place in the Messiah's kingdom. It is worthy of notice tliat not only in the four catalogues, but elsewhere wlien 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 * Pninn Sn rinn TW.1,.1.-,,. S SS f + r'nr, i\a Wptt.p. in THE LIFE OF JESUS. 350 to him as his brother (6 dde/l^&c avro'v). 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 Ills seniority.* Nevertheless, it remains a doubt whether so constant a precedence do not intimate a pre-eminence on tlie part of James; at least, if, in the apprehension of the synoptists, John liad been as decidedly preferred as he is re- presented 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 be- tween the first, three evangelists and. the fourth which requires a closer examination. In the synoptical gospels, as we have observed, Peter, James, and Jolm, 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.f After tlie death of Jesus, also, a James, Peter and John appear as the pillars of the church (Gal. ii. 9); tins 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 tlie second James of the apostolic catalogue given in Acts i.^ It is observable from tlie beginning of the Acts, that James the son of Zebedee, is eclipsed by Peter and Jolm. 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 Ids 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 tlie 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, wliile Peter and Jolm are in tlie position of Antony and Octavius, the latter having nearly stripped Ills rival of all pretensions to an equal rank witli himself, to say nothing- of a higher. James is not even named in the fourth gospel; only in tlie appendix (xxi. 2) is there any mention of the sons of Zebedee ,' wliile several narratives of the vocations of differ- ent apostles are given, apparently including that of John himself, * Paulus, exeg. Handli. 1. B. S. 5GG. •)• This is probably a mere inference of Mark. Because Jesus excluded the multitude, and forbade the publication of the evangelist saw in it one of those secret scenes, to which Jesus was accustomed to admit only the three fnvnnvpd anostles. t In the ancient church is was thought that Jesus had communicated 851 THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS. 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 synoptistg; he does not conceal that Jesus bestowed on him an honourable sur- name (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 tlie last supper, and in the garden of Getlisemane, he makes Peter more active than even the synoptists represent him (xiii. 6 ff. ; xviii. 10 f.); lie accords him the honour of following Jesus into tlie high priest's palace (xviii. 15), and of being one of the first to visit the grave of Jesus after the resurrection (xx. 3 ff.); nay, he even details a special con- versation between the risen Jesus and Peter (xxi. 15 ff.). 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 synoptists tell us that Peter and John were called to tlie apostleship in the same way, and the former somewhat before the latter; the fourth evangelist prefers associating Andrew with tlie nameless disciple wlio 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 tlie speeclies and the action attributed in the fourth gospel to Peter during tlie last supper and in the garden, are to be classed as only so many mistakes. The more we approach the catastrophe, tlie more marked is the subordination of Peter to John. At the last supper indeed, Peter is particularly anxious for the discovery of the traitor: lie cannot, however, apply immediately to Jesus (xiii. 23 ff.), but is obliged to make John, who was leaning on ,7'es'w'1 bosom, his medium of communication. While, according to the synoptists, Peter alone followed Jesus into the palace of tlie high priest; ac- cording to tlie fourth evangelist, John accompanied him, and under such circumstances, that without him Peter could not have enter- ed,-John, as one known to the high priest, having to obtain admis- sion for him (xviii. 15 f.). In tlie synoptical gospels, not one of tlie disciples is bold enough to venture to the cross ; but in tlie fourth, John is placed under it, and is there established in a new relation to tlie mother of his dying master: a relation of which we elsewhere find no trace (xix. 26 f.). On tlie appearance of the risen Jesus at the Galilcan sea (xxi.), Peter, as tlie Oepizorepo?, casts himself into the sea; but it is not, until after John, as the 6t,opa.riK.u-epo<; (Eu- thymius), has recognized the Lord in tlie person standing on the shore. In tlie ensuing conversation, Peter is indeed honoured with * Even Piulus. L. J. 1, a. S. 1C7 f., remarks that the fourth evangelist seem* to hava 352 THE LIFE OP JESUS. the commission, Feed my sheep ; but this honour is overshadowed by tlie dubitative question, Lovest thou ins ? and while tlie pros- pect of martyrdom is lield up to him, John is promised the dis- tinction of tarrying till Jesus came again, an advantage which Peter is warned not to''envy. Lastly, wliile, according to Luke (xxiv. 12), Peter, first among the apostles, and alone, comes to tlie vacant grave of Ills risen master, the fourth gospel (xx. 3), gives him a companion in John, wlio outruns Peter and arrives first at. tlie grave. Peter goes into the grave before John, it is true; but it is the latter in wliose honour it is recorded, that he saio and believed, almost in contradiction to the statement of Luke, that Peter went home zcondermg in himself at that which was come to pass. Thus in tlie 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 wislied a comparison to be drawn in favour of the latter.* But John is moreover especially distinguished in the gospel which bears his name, by tlie constant epithet, the beloved disciple, the, disciple whom Jesus loved, o paO?]-^ 6v ^yo-ra, or e^t/Let o 'IT/OTVC, (xiii. 23; xix. 26; xx. 2 ; xxi. 7, 20). It is true that we have no absolute proof from the contents of tlie fourth gospel, whether intrinsically or comparatively considered, that by tlie above formula, or the more indeterminate one, the other b a/l/lo?, or another disciple, d'/l/Lo? fi,a.6rj-q(; (x. 15 f.; xx. 3, 4, 8), which, as it appears from xx. 2 f., is its equivalent, we are to understand tlie apostle John. For neither is tlie designation in question anywhere used interchangeably w^ith tlie name of tlie apostle, nor is there anything narrated in tlie fourth gospel of the favourite disciple, which in the three first is ascribed to John. Because in xxi. 2. the sons of Zebcdec are named among tlie 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 tlie church tliat 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 tlie fourth gospel sprang, there could scarcely be among the apostles whom it leaves unnamed, one so well known as to be recognized under tliat description unless it were John, whose residence at Ephesus is hardly to be rejected as a mere fable. It may appear more doubtful whether tlie author intended by • This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the first volume of the second ed. of Lucke'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 THE DISCIPLES OP JESUS. 353 this title to designate himself, and thus to announce himself as tlie apostle John. Tlie conclusion of the twenty-first chapter, v. 24, does certainly make tlie favourite disciple the testifier and writer of tlie preceding history; but we may assume it as granted tliat 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 bare record, 6 eupait^ fis{iap-vp->]K.s; no other than the favourite disciple can be intended, because lie alone among all tlie disciples (the only parties eligible as witnesses in the case), is supposed to be present at the cross. The probability that tlie author here speaks of himself is not at all affected by his use of the tliird 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. f This mode of expression, however, may be ex- plained also in accordance wdth the oilier supposition,:}: which is supported by tlie circumstance that the author in i. 14, 16, seems to announce liimself as the eye-witness of tlie history he narrates. Was tliat author, then, really tlie apostle John, as he apparently wishes us to surmise ? This is another question, on whicli we can only pronounce when we shall have completed our investigation. We will merely allude to the difficulty of supposing tliat the apostle John could give so unhistorical a sketch of the Baptist as that in the fourth gospel. But we ask, is it at aJl 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, wlio scarcely had heard tlie name of the brother so early martyred ? The designation, the. disciple, -whom Jesus loved, which in xxi. 20 has tlie prolix ad- dition, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, T^ord, whzch is he that betray eth thee? is not to be considered as an offence against modesty. § It is certainly far too laboured and em- bellished for one who, without any ulterior view, wislies to indicate liimself, for such an one would, at least sometimes, have simply em- ployed his name: but a venerator of John, issuing perhaps from one ot Ins schools, miglit very naturally be induced to designate the revered apostle under whose name lie wished to write, in this half honourable, half mysterious manner. || § 75. THE EEST OF THE TWELVE, AND THE SEVENTY DISCIPLES. THE second quaternion in all the four catalogues begins -with Philip. The three first gospels know notliing 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 * Vid, Liicke, Comm. zum Joh, 2, S. 708. f Paulus in his review of Bretschneider'a Probabilien, in the Heidelberc-er Jahrbuchern. 1821. no. 9. S, 138. t Lucke, ut sap. S, 354 THE LIFE OF JESUS. an interlocutor, but his observations are founded on mistakes (vi. 7; xiv. 8); and lie perhaps appears with most dignity, when thc"E/l/l»y- vec, wlio wish to sec Jesus, apply immediately to him (xii. 21). The next in the three evangelical lists is Bartholomew; a name which is nowhere found out of tlie catalogues. In tile synoptical gospels Bartholomew7 is coupled witli Pliilip ; in the history of the vocations given by tlic fourth evangelist (i. 46), Nathanael ap- pears in company witli tlie latter, and (xxi. 2) is again presented in tlie society of the apostles. Nathanael, however, finds no place among the twelve, unless he be identical witli one otherwise named by tlie synoplists. If so, it is thought tliat Bartholomew is tlie most easily adapted to such an alias, as tlie three first gospels couple him witli Pliilip, ]'ust as the fourth, wliicli lias no Bartholomew, does Nathanael; to which it may be added tliat ''a^r ^a is a mere pat- ronymic, which must liavc been accompanied by a proper name, such as NathanaeL* But we have no adequate ground for such an iden- tification, since the juxtaposition of Bartholomew and Philip is shown to be accidental, by our finding tlie former (Acts i. 13), as well as tlic latter (John xxi. 2), linked with different names; tlie ab- sence 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 Caiaplias, John Mark, and tlie 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 alto- gether uncertain. In tlic catalog-uc given in the Acts, Pliilip is followed, not by Bartholomew, but by Thomas, who in tlie list of tlic first gospel comes after Bartholomew, in that of tlie others, after Matthew. Thomas, in Greek Atdr/zoc, appears in tlie fourth gospel, on one oc- cassion, in the guise of mournful fidelity (xi. 16): on another, in tlie more noted one of incredulity (xx. 24. ft'.); and once again in tlie appendix (xxi. 2). Matthew, the next in tlic series, is found no- where else except in the liistory of his vocation. Tlie third quaternion is uniformly opened by James the son of Alphcus, of whom we have already spoken. After him comes in both Luke's lists, Simon, whom he calls Zeiotcs, or the zealot, but whom Matthew7 and Mark (in whose catalogues he is placed one degree lower) distinguish as the Canaanitc 6 iiavavl-i]<; (from tt;^, to be zealous). This surname seems to mark him as a former adherent of tlie 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 wliicli was already in tlie process of formation. In all tlie lists that retain the name of Judas Iscariot, lie occupies the last place, but of him we. must not speak until we enter on tlie history of tlie passion. Luke, in his filling up of tlie remaining places of this * Thus most of the expositor;), Fritzsche, Matth., S. 359; Winer Eealworterlmcb THE DISCIPLES OF JESL'S. 355 quaternion, differs from the two other evangelists, and perhaps tliese also differ from each oilier; Luke has a second Judas, whom he styles tlie brother of James ; Mattlicw, Lebbcus ; and Mark, Thad- dcus. It is true tliat we now commonly read in Matthew, .Lebbe'us, tuhose surname zcas Thaddeus ; but the vacillation in tlie early reading's 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 dis- crepancy between Matthew and Mark with tlicir Lebbeus-Tliaddeus, and Luke witli his Judas, tlie brother of James. Schleiermacher justly disapproves the expedients, almost all of them constrained and unnatural, which have been resorted to for tlie sake of proving that here also, we have but one person under two different names. Fie seeks to explain tlie divergency, by supposing, tliat during the lifetime of Jesus, one of the two men died or left tlie circle of tlie apostles, and tlie other took his place ; so that one list gives tlic 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 wlio had previously retired from the college of apostles ; those only would be enumerated wdio w^ere ultimately attached to Jesus. It is tlie most reasonable to allow that there is a discre- pancy between tlie lists, since it is easy to account for it by the probability tliat while tlic number of tlie apostles, and the names of the most distino-uished amono- them, were well known, varying tra- o 0 ' •/ o ditions supplied the place of more positive data concerning tlie less conspicuous. Luke makes us acquainted witli a circle of disciples, intermediate to tlie twelve and the mass of tlie partisans of Jesus. He tells us (x. 1 ff.) tliat besides tlie twelve, Jesus cliose other seventy also, and sent them two and two before him into all tlie districts which he intended to visit on his last journey, that they miglit proclaim tlie approach of the kingdom of heaven. As tlie oilier evangelists have no allusion to tills event, tlie most recent critics have not he- sitated to make their silence on this liead a reproach to them, par- ticularly to the first evangelist, in his supposed character of apostle.§ But tlic disfavour towards Mattlicw on this score ought to be moder- ated by tlie consideration, that neither in the other gospels, nor in tlie Acts, nor in any apostolic epistle, is there any -,..'e of the sev- enty disciples, wlio could scarcely have passed thus unnoticed, had their mission been as fruitful in consequences, as it is commonly supposed. It is said, however, tliat tlie importance of this appoint- ment lay in its significance, rather tlian in its effects. As the num- * Comp. Crenner, Einleit., 1, S. 64; De Wette, excg. Handb. 1, 1, S. 98 f. _ + D« 356 THE LIFE 01''' JESUS. ber of the twelve apostles, by its relation to that of the tribes of Is- rael, shadowed forth tlie destination of Jesus for tlie Jewish people; so the seventy, or as some authorities have it, the seventy-two dis- ciples, were representatives of the seventy or seventy-two peoples, with as many different tongues, which, according to tlie Jewish and early Christian view, formed tlie sum of tlie earth's inhabitants,* and hence they denoted tlie universal destination of Jesus and his kingdom.! Moreover, seventy was a sacred number with tlie Jew- ish nation; Moses deputed seventy elders (Num. xi. 16, 25); the Sanhedrim had seventy members :f the Old Testament, seventy translators. Had Jesus, then, under tlie pressing circumstances tliat 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 as- siduous development of an idea to which tlie number of the apostles furnished the suggestion, wholly in the spirit of the primitive Chris- tian 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, lie would extend the parallel by appoint- ing seventy subordinate disciples, corresponding to the seventy elders; or, supposing the legend animated by the more universal sentiments of Paul, it could not escape tlie persuasion tliat to the symbol of the relation of Ids office to the Israelitish people, Jesus would annex another, significative of its destination for all the kin- dreds of the earth. However agreeable this class of seventy dis- eiples may have always been to the cliurcli, as a series of niches for the reception of men wlio, witliout belonging to the twelve, were yet of importance to her, as Mark, Luke and Mattliew; we are compel- led to pronounce tlie decision of our most recent critic precipitate, and to admit tliat 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 disad- vantageous comparison witli tliat of Matthew. We gather, indeed, from Acts i. 21 f. tliat Jesus liad more than the twelve as his con- stant companions ; but tliat these formed a body of exactly seventy, or that that number was selected from them, does not seem ade- quately warranted.§ piph liicr, i. 5, •t- Schneckenburger, ut sup. ; Gieseler, uber Entstehung der schrit'tliche.1 Evangelien, S, 127 f. t Lightfoot, p, 786, § De Wette, exeg, Handb., 1,.I, & 99 f. 1, 2, S. 61. 1, 3, S. 220; Theile, zur Biogr. J., ^ 24, For the contrary opinion, see Ne- ander, L, J. Chr., S, 498 f. * Tuf haarez, f. xix. Ci iii.; Clem, horn. xviii, 4 ; Eecognit, Clement, iii 42, Epiphan. •i i. 5, -t- Schneckenburger, ut sup. ; Gieseler, uber Entstehung der schrit'tliche.1 ino-Blifin. S. 127 f. t Lie-htfoot. n. 786. S De Wette. exes. Handb., 1. I. & 99 f. 1,