626
JAMES AND JOHN
JAMES AND JOHN
adds with reference to John and James is that they were partners with Peter, wliicli might have been deduced from the Marcan account. And the more obvious explanation of their prompt obedience is that suggested by the 1st chapter of St. John — previous acquaintance at an earlier stage, probably in connexion with the Baptist's preaching (cf. below, § 5).
In St. Mark's Gospel the four are represented as going with Jesus to Capernaum, and the same Evangelist also notices the presence of the sons of Zebedee in the house of Simon, on the occasion of the healing of his wife's motlier. This detail tinds no place in the other Gospels. Their names ap- pear next in the calling of the Twelve wliere they are found in all three lists among tiie tirst four, the only difference being that St. Mark places them before, the other Synoptists after, Andrew ; and St. Mark also adds the giving of the name Boanerges.
No thoroughly satisfactory explanation of either part of this word has been found, ^oave is hardly' a possible transliteration of ':? ; it can only be accounted for on the supposition that it is due to conflation, either the o or the o being a correction of the other. The second half of the word has been connected with Aram. i^Ji ( = Heb. m-\, tii-muUuatus est; cf. Ps 2i, Ac 425, and for Nv'^l, Jl Sl'l, strepitus, see Payne Smith, Thes. Syr. 1879-1901). But the root never has the meaning of 'thunder.' J^"i has also been suggested ; cf. Job 37^ iVp ina, of thunder, and 3924 tai] E^j^ni. But the meaning of the word is 'raging,' not 'thunder.' 'Burkitt has suggested that the Syriac translator connected the word with Aram, n-^ut (1 K ISU = [iorr ' crowd ') of which he took '2*j-i for the atatus absolutus. Jerome conjectured that the name was originally Dy-i '33 (on Dn 18, ' emendatius legitur bene-reem '), in which case the ex- planatorj' gloss, o ia-nv viol /Spoi/iTJ?, is older than the corrupt transhteration ; but it would be difficult to account for the cor- ruption of a correct transliteration of D]l~i 'J3 into jSoai/epye's. Wellhausen suggests that possibly the name Rajjasbal may point to Reges-' thunder,' a meaning of which he says no other trace is found {Ev. Marcfl, 1909, p. 23).
We have no evidence as to the occasion of the giving of the name. The incident recorded in Lk 9*^ may have suggested it, or the character of the brothers. The later explanations which refer it to the power of their preaching do not give us any further information.*
The next mention of the brothers is in the story of the raising of Jairus' daughter (Mk 5*^, Lk 8^>), where St. Mark and St. Luke record the admission of the three intimate di.sciples alone to the house of Jairus, a detail which does not appear in St. Matthew's account. All three Synoptists record the presence of the same three on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mk 9^, Mt 17^ Lk 928). The next recordetl incident is that of the ambitious request (Mk lO^sff.^ Mt 202»ff-), attributed by St. Mark to the brothers themselves, by St. Matthew to their mother on their behalf. The later character of the Matthaean account is clearly seen in some details (use of irpoa-Kwouaa ; eM for St. Mark's 56s ■fifuv ; the omission of reference to the ' baptism ' [?]), butthe approved critical explanation of the change in the speaker is hardly convincing. To do honour to the sons of Zebedee by making them shield themselves behind their mother is a strange kind of reverence ! The bearing of this incident on the question of the martyrdom of John must be discussed later. The indignation of the other dis- ciples against the brothers is retained in both accounts. St. Luke omits the incident altogether. In Mk 13s (cf. Mt 24''*, Lk 2V) the question which leads to the escliatological discourse is attributed to the four disciples, for which St. Matthew lias ol (iadi)Tal, St. Luke Tives. In connexion with Getli- semane, the three are mentioned by name in Mk 14^ and Mt 26*^. St. Luke only mentions the disciples generally (22^" ; cf. v.^^).
• Cf. Cranier, Catena, 1844, i. p. 297, Jta rb ^eya koX Sia- irpva-iov, ■r\xrt<Ta.i rjj oiKov/xe'|/|) Trjs fleoAoyios rd fioypiaTa, and see Suicer, s.v. /Spoirjj.
To these references, where the Synoptists seem to be almost wholly dependent on the Marcan account, we must add Lk 9^^, the desire of James and John to call down fire from heaven on the in- hospitable Samaritans, a story which may be con- nected with at least the interpretation of the name 'Boanerges.' On two occasions only is John men- tioned without his brother. St. Mark (9=*^) and St. Luke (9''^) record his confession that the disciples had 'forbidden' one who cast out devils in Jesus' name because he followed not with them. And St. Luke (22^) adds the detail that the disciples who were sent forward to prepare for the Passover were Peter and John.
In the Synoptic narrative, then, the sons of Zebedee are represented as forming with Peter, and occasionally Andrew, the most intimate group of the Lord's disciples. No special prominence is given to John ; he almost always appears with his brother ; thrice in St. Mark and once in St. Matthew he is characteristically described as ' the brother of James.' His position is very clearly that of the younger brother, who takes no inde- pendent lead. There is no reason to suppose that ' Q ' contained any additional information about the brothers. The special sources on which St. Luke drew added a few details. It is noticeable that in the Lucan list of apostles the name of John precedes that of James. This corresponds with the history of the Acts, which must next be con- sidered.