(Mt 10:2; Mk 3:17; Lk 5:10; Jn 21:2), brother of James (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:17). Both brothers were also called Boanerges, «sons of thunder» (Mk 3:17). The fifth or sixth disciple of Jesus (Mt 4:18—22; Mk 1:16—20; Lk 5:1—11). Born in Galilee (Mt 4:18—22; Mk 1:16—20; Lk 5:1—11).
5. Philip (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14; Jn 1:43). The second disciple of Jesus (Jn 1:35—43). Born in Bethsaida (Jn 1:44). Had daughters (Act 21:8—9; Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History, 3.31.3).
6. Nathanael (Jn 1:45—50; 21:2), also known as Bartholomew (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14). Son of Talmai [Tholmai] (Aram. «bar Talamai» = «son of Talmai»). The fourth disciple of Jesus (Jn 1:43—51). Born in Cana of Galilee (Jn 21:2).
7. Thomas (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Jn 11:16), also called the Twin [Hebrew: Thoma; Greek: Didymos] (Jn 11:16). Probably born in Galilee (Jn 21:1—2).
8. Levi (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27) Matthew (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15), formerly a tax collector (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27). Son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14). The seventh disciple of Jesus (Mt 9:9—13; Mk 2:13—17; Lk 5:27—32). Originally from Capernaum (Mt 8—9; Mk 2).
9. James of Alphaeus (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15), also called James the Less (Mk 15:40). Son of «the other» Alphaeus [not to be confused with Levi Matthew’s father] and «the other» Mary; he had a brother named Josiah (Mt 27:56, 61; Mk 15:40, 47). Probably a cousin of Jesus (Mk 6:3; Jm). Born in Galilee (Mt 27:55—56; Mk 15:40—41).
10. Jude (Lk 6:16; Jn 14:22) Levi (Mt 10:3), also called Thaddeus (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18). Son of Jacob [in some translations: brother of Jacob] (Lk 6:16; Act 1:13). Probably a cousin of Jesus (Mk 6:3; Jude). Probably born in Galilee.
11. Simon the Canaanite (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15), named Zealot (Lk 6:15). Probably a cousin of Jesus (Mk 6:3). Probably born in Galilee.
12. Judas Iscariot (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16; Jn 6:71), who became a traitor. Son of Simon (Jn 6:71). Born in the suburbs of Jerusalem (Heb. «ish-keriyot» = «a man from the outskirts of the city»).
Generally, the lists given by the evangelists agree between each other, but we also have to take into account the fact that some of the apostles had double names.
The legion of demons
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain an account of the demon-possessed man healed by Jesus near the Lake of Gennesaret (Mt 8:28—34; Mk 5:1—21; Lk 8:26—39; UG 66). Each Gospel gives different details about this episode. Let us first consider similarities between them.
These events take place after the taming of the storm on the Lake of Gennesaret (Mt 8:18—27; Mk 4:35—41; Lk 8:22—25; UG 65). The episode takes place on the opposite shore from Galilee, in the country of the Gadarenes, or Gergesenes (Mt 8:28; Mk 5:1; Lk 8:26). In this area, there were mountains with cave tombs that were used by the demon possessed men and women as shelters (Mt 8:28, 32; Mk 5:2, 13; Lk 8:27, 33). Jesus healed the man by casting out the demons and sending them into the pigs. The pigs threw themselves into the lake (Mt 8:30—32; Mk 5:11—13; Lk 8:32—33). Obviously, it is one and the same event.
Matthew tells the story in brief, mentioning two demoniacs (Mt 8:28) healed by Jesus. Mark and Luke give more detail but mention only one man possessed by many demons (Mk 5:2; Lk 8:27). According to Mark and Luke, there was a legion of demons (Mk 5:9; Lk 8:30). Mark goes on to say that the number of demons was about two thousand (Mk 5:13). Considering that a Roman legion consisted of 2,000 to 10,000 infantrymen, it is no exaggeration. However, Mark and Luke seem to disagree with Matthew’s statement about the two demoniacs.
The principle of harmonization says that the resulting text should not contradict any of the Gospels. Since Matthew was one of the Twelve and most likely an eyewitness to what happened, we can fully trust his account of the two demoniacs without raising questions. Matthew does not mention the legion of demons or their number. But he says that the exorcised demons were sent into a large herd of pigs (Mt 8:30; compare Lk 8:32). Here he comes close to Mark and Luke.
According to Mark and Luke, there was only one demoniac who approached Jesus. There was a legion of demons speaking through him (Mk 5:12; Lk 8:31). From Matthew’s account, one can infer that the legion of demons spoke to Jesus all at once (Mt 8:29, 31). Again, we see that the accounts come quite close to each other.
Could it be that Mark and Luke mentioned only one demoniac because only one approached Jesus, or maybe because he was more ferocious than the other one or had more demons? Possibly. But it doesn’t seem to be the main reason. The clue seems to appear at the end of Mark and Luke’s accounts where only one of the healed returned to thank Jesus and asked if he could follow him. When Jesus said no, he went off and started talking about what had happened (Mk 5:18—20; Lk 8:38—39).
From this perspective, the differences in the accounts of the evangelists seem negligible.
The withered fig tree
On Monday of Holy Week, Jesus was hungry and, coming up to a fig tree and finding no fruit, cursed it (Mt 21:18—22; Mk 11:12—14, 11:20—26; UG 143, 145). According to Matthew, the fig tree withered immediately (Mt 21:19). Then he says, «And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!» (Mt 21:20). In Mark, the apostles found the fig tree withered only on the following morning (Mk 11:20). Is there an irreconcilable contradiction here?
Since Mark specifies the moment of discovering the withered fig tree precisely (Mk 11:20) and Matthew is vague (Mt 21:20), it would make sense to give preference to Mark’s version here. As to the actual time the fig tree withered, Matthew seems more accurate (Mt 21:19) while Mark only mentions that the disciples heard the curse (Mk 11:14).
We might speculate that the fig tree withered soon after Jesus had cursed it, but the disciples only saw it the next day. In this case, the apparent contradiction is removed.
Generally, the two evangelists present their narratives differently. Mark relates the story in chronological order, capturing Peter’s memories in exact detail. Matthew tells the fig tree story in the form of a parable, alluding to Luke’s parable of the barren fig tree (Lk 13:6—9; UG 113). That is why Matthew presents the episode as a whole, while Mark divides it up into two parts with the story of the temple cleansing stuck in between (Mk 11:15—19; compare Mt 21:12—17; Lk 19:45—46; UG 144). Matthew places the fig tree account after the account of driving out the merchants because the ending of the fig tree story happened after it. This may give the impression that Jesus first drove out the merchants and then cursed the fig tree, but in Mark, the cursing of the fig tree preceded the cleansing of the temple. This «inconsistency» can be explained by Matthew’s desire to present the story in the form of a parable.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного
