Michael Goulder once said that New Testament scholars often substitute counting for thinking, and I confess to enjoying some counting myself. I'm writing about the disciples in John's Gospel at the moment, and found myself writing that John (son of Zebedee) is the disciple mentioned most often in the Synoptics after Peter. So then I had to check to see if that is true, and it is.
It's likely that someone else has done a similar count, but if so, I couldn't find it, and Googling was useless. Anyway, here are the figures. These are numbers of appearances of each disciple (of the "twelve"; more to come on others), and not the number of times their names appear (thus passages in which disciples' names appear multiple times are counted once; "sons of Zebedee" = James and John; the Peter list includes "Simon" and "Simon Peter").
Simon Peter: 40 (Matt: 12; Mark: 14; Luke: 14):
Matt. 4.18, 10.2, 14.28-33, 16.13-20, 16.21-23, 17.1-8, 17.24-27, 18.21-22, 19.27-30, 26.31-35, 26.36-46, 26.58 and 69-75.
Mark 1.16-20, 1.29-31, 1.36, 3.16, 5.37, 8.31-3, 9.2-8, 10.28-31, 11.20-24, 13.3, 14.26-31, 14.32-42, 14.54 and 14.66-72, 16.7.
Luke 4.38-39, 5.1-11, 6.14, 8.45R, 8.51, 9.18-20, 9.28-36, 12.41, 18.28-30, 22.7-13, 22.31-34, 22.54-62, 24.12, 24.34.
James: 18 (Matt: 5; Mark: 8; Luke: 5):
Matt. 4.21, 10.2, 17.1-8, 20.20-28, 26.36-46 (plus one bonus appearance from mum in 27.56).
Mark 1.16-20, 1.29-31, 3.17, 5.37, 9.2-8, 10.35-45, 13.3, 14.32-42.
Luke 5.10, 6.14, 8.51, 9.28-36, 9.51-56.
John: 21 (Matt: 5; Mark: 9; Luke: 7):
Matt. 4.21, 10.2, 17.1-8, 20.20-28, 26.36-46 (plus one bonus appearance from mum in 27.56).
Mark 1.16-20, 1.29-31, 3.17, 5.37, 9.2-8, 9.38-41, 10.35-45, 13.3, 14.32-42.
Luke 5.10, 6.14, 8.51, 9.28-36, 9.49-50, 9.51-56, 22.7-13.
Andrew: 7 (Matt: 2; Mark: 4; Luke: 1):
Matt. 4.18, 10.2.
Mark 1.16-20, 1.29-31, 3.18, 13.3.
Luke 6.14.
Judas: 13 (Matt: 5; Mark: 4; Luke: 4)
Matt. 10.4, 26.14-16, 26.20-25, 26.47-56, 27.3-10.
Mark 3.19, 14.10-11, 14.17-21, 14.43-52.
Luke 6.16, 22.3-6, 22.21-23, 22.47-53.
Matthew: 4 (Matt: 9.9-10; Matt. 10.3 // Mark 3.18 // Luke 6.15)
Everyone else appears only in the disciple lists (Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus / Lebbaeus / Judas son of James, Simon the Cananaean / Zealot, Matt. 10.2-4 // Mark 3.13-19 // Luke 6.12-16).
It should be easy to arrange the data above synoptically too, and then to add figures for John and Acts. I'll do that soon.
Hi Mark. What score does Mary the Magdalene get?
ReplyDeleteIt is also interesting that when a gospel writer gives disciples honorific names/epithets (Peter, Boanerges, Magdalene, Didymus) the same gospel tends to name those disciples first in lists of people, and the same gospel tends to name those disciples frequently. Thus, for example, Mark affords James and John their name "Boanerges", names them ahead of Andrew (and after only Simon-Peter), and names them frequently (more than any other gospel). John's gospel, and only John's gospel names Thomas frequently, affords him the name Didymus, and listed him after only Simon Peter. John's gospel lists the sons of Zebedee last, refers to them only the once, and does not even give their names. Thus, the prominence of a disciple (in the eyes of a writer) can be judged, not only by frequency of mention, but also by name order, and whether an honorific new name is mentioned explicitly (or implied by the meaning of the name, if Greek). This correlation extends beyond the gospels.
Many thanks, Richard. Good thoughts. Another post to come on Mary Magdalene and others.
ReplyDeleteComment from Joel Eidsath via email:
ReplyDelete"It's interesting how both John and Acts (but not Luke) turn so many of these names into main characters.
Paul, in Galatians, much closer to the synoptic pattern, repeats something like the Peter, James, and John formula, though as Jacob (but brother of the Lord), Cephas, and John. To my mind, it's an independent enough use to serve as some sort of historical indication.
Joel Eidsath"
Hi Mark. I would love to get your thoughts on whether the Semitic name of Mark, the evangelist, was "Matthew". The evidence is laid out on my blog here http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.com/2024/08/marcus-matthew-aka-levi-as-author-of.html. If Mark, the evangelist, was indeed Matthew, we can have Markan priority and accept the tradition that Matthew wrote first. I am also thinking that Mark/Matthew's status as one of the 12 would explain why Mark could be the middle term in a scheme without Q. Luke, for example, would respect Mark's gospel because of the credentials of the author. Are there other implications for the synoptic problem?
ReplyDelete