The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 408

iii. 15). And to heal. Proba,bly oonneoted, troduction, p. xxi.) and possibly St. Da.rtbo- not with /f,crn, but with il{ovu(uv (of. Luke). lomew and St. Tba<ldreus. Mark expressly Observe th&t nothing ie mid of their receiving says that the term " Boe.nerges" wu ipven authority to convert Thie God himself to the eons of Zebedee; but as there 1s no keeps. But they oa,n remove a,ll hindranoes evidence tha.t either St. Jo.mes or St. John other tha,n those purely eubjective a,nd was afterwards known by this namA, it spiritna,l, whether the objective hindrances need not have been a no.me in the same be intruding evil spirits affecting body and sense in which the others were. Observe mind or only bodily diseases. All m&D.D.er, the formal order of the first words of thia etc. (oh. ix. 35, note). verse ( Ta>v 5~ 5~5,,,,. cl..-o.,..,.&>..,., TU ov&µaTd ltrT,11 TuvTu). Did the author of the Gospel Vera. 2-4.-Tm: N..utES OF THB AGENTS. te.ke them from the heading of e. section that Pe.re.llel passages: Mark iii. U-19; Luke already contained the no.mes in order ? If vi. 13-16 (cf. Acts L IS). Thie Oommen• so the 5, would probably not have existed tary upon St. Luke deals so fully both with there, and it ie worth noting that the original hand of D, the manuscript that is of speoie.l the list e.s a whole and with the separate value for Palestinian tradition, omits it. Of names that it will not be necessary to my the tweln (ver. 1, note) apostles (ver. 5, note) much here. Observe that the general a,gree- are these : The first. This, perhaps, refers ment in arrangement points to some common to the order of call, Luke v. l (Nosgen), but basis underlying all four accounts; also that more probably to the leading position that St. Peter held among the twelve. On this of these tbe one found in the Acts is the leadership, cf. the fragmentary excursus by briefest, giving little more than the bare Bishop Lightfoot, printed in 'Olement of names ; and that that found in our Gospel, on Rome,' ii. 487 (1890). Simon. His Hebrew the contrary, is the fullest, containing, with name was Simeon (j1Jltle>, Acts xv. 14, and two exceptions ("ide infra), the details men- 2 Pet. L 1, in the Received Text and West- tioned in one or other of the parallels, and cott and Hort margin), but his Gentile name (eh. iii. 1, note) wae Simon, this good Greek adding two of its own. It mentions, in one name being chosen as almost identical in instance or more, the parentage (Zebedee, sound. It occurs frequently in the Palestinian Alphmus), the relationship (" his brother Talmud (po•c). Who is called Peter. In ... bis brother"), the birthplace (Kerioth), common Chrietie.n parlance (eh. iv. 18; cf, the earlier occupation and religious stand- eh. xvi. 18). point ("publican . . . Zealot"), and, with a Ver. 8.-Bartholomew. Nathanael (John bare Liut at the beginning (mde infra), but i. 45, equivalent to Theodore) was so common e. name (cC. Numb. i. 8; I Chrou. ii. 14; xv. e. clear statement at the end, the after- 24; xxvi. 4; 2 Chron. xvii. 7; :u:xv. 9: history (" fust . . . who also betrayed Ezra x. 22; Neh. xii. 21, 36), tba.t for him ") of the apostles. The two omissions further identification a patronymic (" son of are the fact that our Lord added the no.mes Tolmai,'' Ptolemy) was used, which in this of Peter (parallels, but really given earlier, case (as in the case of e. Dnrtholomew wen- tioRed in 'Pesikte. Rabbatbi,' § 22, p. 118, John i. 42) nnd Boauerges (Mark). edit. Friedmann ; of. a.lso Levy, u,. p•c1m), Ver. 2.-Now the names. In the parallels superseded the proper no.me. Thomas. " As part of the word " names" is fonnd as a verb, Thomas (.O.l5uµos), • the Twin,' is properly a "whom also be named apostles;" i.e. the surname, and this apostle must have bad naming there refers, not to the individna.l.a, some other name, there seems no reason for but to their office. Is the form found in our doubting this very early tradition [Eusebius, Gospel an "accidental" rearrangement due 'Hii!t. Eccl.,' i. 13, and probably the Old to a reminiscence that the word " name " Syrie.c of John xiv. 22, et al.] that be also occurred in the earliest source, or is it was e. Jude" (Bishop Lightfoot, • Galutie.ns,' possible that the two facts are connected, p. 257, edit. 1869). The • Clem. Hom.,' ii. l, and that tLe individuals received a new give Eliezer as the name of the other brother. na.me when I.hey definitely entered ou e. new Matthew the publican (Introduction, p.xx.), office? That they should have recei.ed e. la.mes the son of Alphmus. (On tbo poesi- new name scems a priori not improbable, bility of the name and the person being but the evidence i8 very blight. "Peter" idontioa,J with the Clopae of John xix. 25, ii! e. clear case, for though the name was of. Bishop Lightfoot, 'Galatians,' p. 260.) given earlier, it would receive a new 0.1,pli- And Lebb111u1, whose surname wu Thad- cation now, and pe1haps was now age.in da!u1; and Thadd1Jl1/,8 (Revised Version): eJ:pressly given (ci parallel passeges); and o.e also l\Jark, while Luke and Acts L IS other C1111es ma7 be St. Matt.hew (vick In- read" J11de[tho brot/ier,Autl,orizod Version, mr. x. 1-42.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BT. MATTHEW.