The Appointment of the Twelve. That Jesus associated with Himself an inner circle of twelve men is not open to reasonable question. If the number twelve be mythical, it must be suggested by the twelve tribes of Israel. The fact that His own ministry was confined to Israel, makes it natural for Jesus Himself to have acted on the suggestion. To trace the number, with the exponents of the Christ-myth, to the signs of the Zodiac, or the twelve apostles of the Jewish Patriarch of Alexandria (who are not known to have been twelve) is a gratuitous absurdity. The choice of the Twelve was made when Pharisaic hostility and popular enthusiasm increased the burden of the task of evangelization. Mk. emphasizes the choice of Christ. He called whom He would (cf. John 15:16). These men are chosen to be with Jesus, a phrase peculiar to Mk. which discloses the meaning and the secret of disciple-ship. Bousset rightly asks, In which of the OT prophets does personal intercourse with disciples, this gradual outpouring of the wealth of the soul into the souls of others, play such a part as it does in the case of Jesus? (Jesus, p. 17). But the Twelve are also to be sent out to proclaim the nearness of the Kingdom. We may note that Mk.'s phrase suggests repeated tours, not one outstanding expedition such as is presupposed in Schweitzer's theory. Hence the name apostles (mg. in Mark 3:14 is perhaps part of the text; see Swete). In the list that follows, Mk. and Mt. agree in the name Thaddæ us, while Luke has Judas the son of James. The identification of Matthew with Levi rests on Matthew 9:9; Matthew 10:3. The nickname Sons of Thunder, given to James and John has now been shown by Rendel Harris to be connected with the cult of twins. The sons of Zebedee were probably twins. Thomas is also a twin (see John 11:16; John 14:22 *, John 20:24; John 21:2). There is, therefore, some reason for suspecting that the apostolic list has been affected by folklore concerning twins. Simon the Cananæ an (the word has nothing to do with Canaan) is rightly identified by Lk. (Luke 6:15) as a Zealot (cf. mg. here). This is not a reference to his zeal but to his previous political opinions (pp. 609f., Acts 5:37 *). Swete says, This Simon cannot have belonged to the more advanced Zealots, who were associated with sedition and outrage. But why cannot Jesus have converted and chosen an advanced Zealot? If He did, the fact is of some importance. The teaching of Jesus is perhaps more directly aimed at the Zealots than we sometimes suppose (see Windisch, Der Messianische Krieg; also Lake, The Stewardship of Faith, chaps. i. and ii.). [In Harvard Theological Review, Jan. 1917, Lake argues very cogently from Josephus that the use of the name Zealot to describe a Jewish sect or party cannot be earlier than A.D. 66. He thinks Mt. and Lk. may have made an error, or that we have been wrong in translating or explaining, and that Mt. and Lk. simply meant Simon the Zealous, a reference not to party but to personal character. A.J.G.] The meaning of the name Iscariot is still obscure.
Mark 3:16. The Ferrar group of MSS read, And He made first Simon. The text adopted in RV is certainly corrupt, and some previous mention of Simon is required. This reading is perhaps better than mg.