Thee
Most connuonly it is signifying ' man of Kerioth,'
I Iscario
gc-ographi
104
APOSTLES
APOSTLES
ated is keeiiU ciiua'-^cj soino iiH<in^' it t > tin f i^t of the Dead Sea and oth< i ^ f l (1 r T i f t T \ i i )
Attempts ha^e i' ' i t tli
Apostles were i J \
sought for trai . ^ II
motives very dill, r i i i I i 1 uln
would have been tiu l-\^t jm^nn to illow ili^ '-tit.tion uf an Apostle to he deteruiini.l hi the ties ol hiuud btill there is no reason why relatnes of our Ijord should not ha\e beenaraonu the Apostles But whit e\ idence is there to thiseflect ' It has been conjectured that James and John w ere cousins of our Lord, Mary and Salome heing listers This, is, one possible mterpreta tion and b> no means thp least satisfactor\ of the well known verse in St. John (1!)25) „ hich mentions the w omen at the cross «'hether the sUence of Sinpture rigirding the relationship can outweigh the fitness of this interpretation will be answered variously, .\ et a reader w ill allow for the possibility that James and John w ere our Lord's cousins. But it he tolerate this view he will reject without hesitation the opinion once so common, that several of our Lord's brothers were among the Apostles. Practically nothing can be brought forward in support of this jhypothesis ; for who can attach any value to the fact that three of the Apostles bore the same names as three of our Lord's brothers, when it is known that these names were among the most common in the land? The statement made in Jn "5 that six months before the Crucifixion none of our Lord's brothers believed on Him is wholly inconsistent with the view that two or even three of them were Apostles. Scarcely less decisive is the distinction traced in the Acts between the brothers of Jesus and the Ajxistles (!»). Much ingenuity and labour have been expended in the endeavour to prove that James the son of Alphaeus was a cousin of our Lord, his father being a brother of Joseph. But the steps by which this identification is made are numerous and all open to challenge, so that no gain can arise from an examination of the question. See art. Brethren OF THE Lord.
Four lists of the Apostles are contained in tlie NT, one in each of the Synoptics and one in the Acts (Mt 10=-'', Mk 3i«-i9, Lk 6"'«, Ac 1'^). A care- ful examination of these lists slwws that each of them consists of three groups of quaternions, and that in each group the same person is mentioned first. The first group contains the names of Peter, James, John, and Andrew. The second is made up of Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, and Matthew. The third is formed of James the son of Alplia>us, Simon the Zealot, Judas or Thaddceus, and Judas Iscariot. Is this arrangement due to accident, or does it rest on a perception of the historical im- portance of the disciples at the time at wliich it was drawn up ? The places given to Peter and Judas and the contents uf the different groups suggest that there is here an indication of the view taken of the Apostles in the early Church. By wliom the catalogues were framed is unknown, but their value as historical witnesses is great. Tliey form, as it were, a table of jjrecedence dating from the earliest times, and embodying the verdict it may be of tlie A])ostles themselves, or at least of those of them wIkp MiiviMd wlien they were pre- pared. In all tin li-l> t lir iiMiiie of Peter occupies the first place. St. Miiltlm^' (10=) writes: 'Now the names of the Iwelve apo.stles are these ; the first, Simon.' In what sen.se is this 'first' to l^- understood ? It might refer to the fact that Petri was the first of the Apostles to be chosen. This im- perfectly credible, but the fact that the order oi
the names is not uniform in the list.'-
may
regarded as showing that the memory of the order in which the Twelve were called was not preserved in the Church. But why was Peter tlie ifirst called ? Must not an explanation of this fact be sought ? And is it not to be found in the circum- stance that he Wiis the foremost of the Apostles, their leader, their sjHjkesman? Primacy in the sense of jurisdiction or authority over his fellow. Apostles Peter never received and ntver exercised. His position is that of the foremost among equals ; a position due not to any formal or officialappoin t ment, but to the ardour and force of his nature.
What kind of men were the Apostles? WIkii was their character, education, social rank, ability age? The Apostles were in an eminent sen- religious men. The tie which bound them to Ji->n was a religious tie. It was impossible for any ].. i 6on to become a follower of Jesus who did iiui
liLln'\e m obedience to the will of God as tlie first lit ill iliilii s The Apostles were men who desired t'l lnllil ihr demands of the law of God. Their luii-^wo. lii_;h; their morals were pure ; whatever tlau i^aiii.ince, misconceptions, defects, they were men ot iiiteguty, justice, and mercy ; diligent, candid, honest, pious, God-fearing. None of the Apostles had received more than a common educa- tion. The lange of their knowledge was that of most of their fellow-countrymen. But they were in no sense illiterate. It is probable that all of them could read and write. Most if not all of them spoke Aramaic and Greek. Their minds had been quickened and nourished by the services in the Synagogue. The education that springs from the truest knowledge of God and of man was theirs. And tlie discipline of their daily lives had rendered them alert, considerate, patient, energetic.