12/11/2018 12 Disciples of Jesus: Alleged Contradictions Debunked. (Part 3)
Dave Armstrong
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/12/12-disciples-of-jesus-alleged-contradictions-debunked.html https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/author/davearmstrong Wow!
How can we ignorant Christians ever recover from that??!!
The KJV manuscripts are considered as outdated by the vast majority of biblical scholars today, but we see, in any event, that the two are equated in the variant text (the KJV reading), and the KJV uses Thaddeus in the parallel list.
Mark 3:18.
The similarity in both is made more plain when it is understood that Thaddeus is derived from the Aramaic tadda, or breast, while Lebbaeus comes from the Hebrew leb, or heart.
(Aramaic being the language actually spoken in first-century Palestine, and a development of Hebrew).
Much ado about nothing . . .
As another note in passing, other skeptics have tried to make hay of the “contradiction” of Simon the Cananaean of.
Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18,
Compared with Simon who was called the Zealot of Luke 3:15.
But Cananaean (from the Greek Kananaios, in turn from Hebrew quannai or Aramaic quanan) is simply the equivalent term for zealot (Gk., Zelotes).
Note: this is a different word than Canaanite (Kananites) which is derived from the Hebrew Kena’an.
That seems to clear up the so-called “contradictions” thus far. Unless the atheist can “prove” that more than one name couldn’t have been used for one person, then he really hasn’t conclusively proved contradiction or discrepancy in the lists of disciples.
But wait!
DagoodS wouldn’t be worth his salt as an atheist and biblical skeptic if he didn’t bring up Nathanael from the book of John:
**Good old Gospel of John throws a wrench in the works. . . . who is Nathanael? (John 1:49, 21:1)
Here is a disciple that does not correlate with anyone in any other Gospel!
You could plug his name in with anybody – may I recommend Bartholomew?
His name is apparently open for some “double-naming.”**
Yes; thanks for the solution!
Why would anyone equate Nathanael
Jn 1:45-49; 21:2
With Bartholomew? What connection do the two have?
Is this more Christian special pleading and sophistry and using any desperate explanation, no matter how week, to shore up biblical inspiration and accuracy, or does it actually make any sense, from a reasoned perspective?
Well, let’s see, shall we?
We’ve already seen above how Bartholomew is a surname, meaning “son of Tolmai”
cf. Bar-Jesus: Acts 13:6
It’s a patronymic (meaning, literally “name of the father”).
Of this there can be little question; it’s the nature of the linguistics.
That already explains a lot, because it could simply be the surname of Nathanael (the latter being a first name). In fact, we see Jesus doing this exact thing in referring to Peter, whose original name was Simon; he was given a new name or nickname by Jesus: Peter, or Rock):
Matthew 16:17 Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah!
For (no doubt) the atheists and biblical skeptics who have a hard time comprehending the Bible, God made sure to have Jesus say this in “English” elsewhere:
John 1:42 “So you are Simon the son of John?
You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).
This is delightful, because it shows all the different languages in play and how names were used.
John is the Greek form of the Hebrew Jona or Jonah (remember, the Gospel manuscripts are in Greek; some believe Matthew was originally in Hebrew or Aramaic; but in any event, specifically directed towards Jews; hence his use of bar).
Cephas is the Aramaic equivalent of rock; Peter is the Greek word.
The author, writing in Greek, translates Cephas for the Greek reader.
The fact, therefore, of Bartholomew being a surname, is abundantly clear.
But how does one tie it together with Nathanael?
Again, it is simple deduction and comparison of texts (something the atheist — for some inexplicable reason — seems to have great difficulty doing, while they are great at surmising Hebrew-Babylonian or Jewish-astrological affinities all over the place).
Bartholomew is always listed after Philip
(Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Luke 6:14)
Or shortly thereafter (Acts 1:13; Thomas in-between), many biblical scholars believe that he is the same as Nathanael, because the latter is said to have been led to Jesus by Philip
Jn 1:45-51; cf. 2:12
Also, mutual exclusivity lends itself to the conclusion that the same person is being talked about: Nathanael is never mentioned in the synoptic Gospels and Bartholomew isn’t mentioned in the Gospel of John.
If they both appeared in one list, then obviously one could not argue that the two names may be referring to one person.
Most of the other disciples have two names as well.
The argument from affinity in lists of disciples is not at all frivolous or altogether weak, as it might first appear (especially to the skeptic).
There is strong internal evidence that these lists were specifically ordered to show certain things.
For example, Judas Iscariot is invariably listed last:
cf. Mt 10:4, Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16.;
Whereas Simon Peter (considered the leader of the disciples by most scholars) is always mentioned first (Matthew even uses the word “first”).
Peter, James, and John are presented as a sort of “inner circle” among the twelve disciples, and Peter is again always listed first when these three are mentioned:
Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37.
Half the time John is mentioned, Peter is also.
Let’s look at the lists of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and see if other patterns can be detected:
Matthew 10:2-4 (“twelve”: 10:1-2):
Simon, who is called Peter [1]
Andrew his brother [2]
James the son of Zebedee [3]
John his [James’] brother [4]
Philip [5]
Bartholomew [6]
Thomas [7]
Matthew the tax collector [8]
James the Son of Alphaeus [9]
Thaddeus [10]
Simon the Cananaean [11]
Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him [12].
Mark 3:16-19 (“twelve”: 3:14):
Simon, whom he surnamed Peter [1]
James the son of Zebedee [2]
John the brother of James [3]
Andrew [4]
Philip [5]
Bartholomew [6]
Matthew [7]
Thomas [8]
James the son of Alphaeus [9]
Thaddaeus [10]
Simon the Cananaean [11]
Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him [12]
Luke 6:14-16 (“twelve”: 6:13):
Simon, whom he named Peter [1]
Andrew his brother [2]
James [3]
John [4]
Philip [5]
Bartholomew [6]
Matthew [7]
Thomas [8]
James the son of Alphaeus [9]
Simon who was called the Zealot [10]
Judas the son of James [11]
Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor [12]
Patterns (A = Matthew / B = Mark / C = Luke):
1) Peter first: ABC
2) Judas Iscariot last: ABC
3) Simon and Andrew (brothers) listed next to each other: AC
4) James and John (brothers) together: ABC
5) Philip and Bartholomew together: ABC
6) Philip and Bartholomew listed 5th and 6th: ABC
7) James and John listed 3rd and 4th : AC, and 2nd and 3rd: B
8) Matthew and Thomas together: ABC
9) Matthew and Thomas listed 7th and 8th: BC; order reversed (Thomas, Matthew): A
10) James listed 9th: ABC
11) James and Thaddeus listed together, 9th and 10th: AB
12) Assuming for the sake of argument that the second Judas = Thaddeus, then this person and Simon the Zealot or Cananaean appear together 10th and 11th: ABC
13) Again, making the same assumption, James, Simon, and Judas/Thaddeus appear 9th through 11th: ABC
14) The conjunction of Andrew-James-John-Philip-Bartholomew occurs in the 2nd-6th position: ABC (identical order in AC)
Repetitious patterns like these make it more plausible (or at least possible) that Nathanael = Bartholomew, since both are presented as being associated with Philip, the names are used with mutual exclusivity in the synoptic Gospels and John, and since Bartholomew is indisputably a surname, and every surname has a first name to go with it.
The atheist may scoff and smirk at this attempted explanation but what can we say?
There is no knock-down argument against it, and it makes perfect sense of the data, as a proposed explanation.
In any event, no definitive contradiction in these lists has been proven.
DagoodS has some more fun in his conclusion:
**Using the method of “any possible explanation” we have two readily available resolutions:
1) Either individuals had different names, and one author called them by one name, another author by their other name, **
(End Part 3)