What’s In a Name?

Some narratives theoretically supplement each other, creating a fuller historical account. However, other narratives in the Gospels literally contradict each other. Since Mather strives to prove that all of the Bible is reliable, he attempts to reconcile these differences by suggesting that every account and therefore every Gospel is equally accurate. For example, Jesus’s calling of the

167 _{An interpretation that could possibly be considered double fulfillment. However, double fulfillment} generally refers to a single prophecy having two fulfillments, not a single speech including two

prophecies. The issues at stake in the notion of double fulfillment are discussed in Chapter Six, Typology. 168 _{Mather summarizes Whiston’s dissertation on this topic appended to the latter’s 1706 commentary on} Revelation, pp 290-302. The full title of Whiston’s dissertation is “The XXIV Chapter of St. Matthew, and Parallel Chapters in St. Mark, and St. Luke contain two distinct Prophecies: The One belonging to the Destruction of Jerusalem: The Other to the Day of Judgment.”

apostles appears differently in each Gospel. In Matthew and Mark, Simon is called first, when Jesus sees him fishing (Matt. 4:18, Mark 1:16). In Luke, Jesus meets Simon at the latter’s house (Luke 4:38). In John, Simon’s brother hears Jesus and brings Simon to him (John 1:41). Mather acknowledges that the calling of the apostles presents many inconsistencies, even though he does not admit that they are problematic. Instead, he highlights the issue by including a table from

Fleming’s Christology that lists the apostles in the order in which they are commissioned by

Jesus in the three Synoptic Gospels and in Acts (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:14-19, Luke 6:13-16, Acts 1:13). By placing the lists side by side, Mather makes the inconsistency obvious. Each list names twelve apostles, yet the order is different in each list and even some of the names are different.

Mather approaches this difficulty by addressing what is the same in each list.

Immediately below his table, he writes: “It is to be observed, That all the Lists agree to sett Peter first” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1). Peter “was mark’d out by our Saviour, to be the First, that should

begin ye Gospel-Church” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1). Likewise, “why Judas Iscariot is mentioned ye

Last, in all ye Lists, the Reason is obvious” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1). Presumably, Mather meant that, because he betrayed Jesus, Judas was the least of the apostles. After noting the similarities,

Mather examines the variations. He argues that “Matthew and Luke, follow ye order of Time,

wherein ye Apostles were made acquainted with our Saviour” while Mark and Acts give

preference to the apostles on whom “our Lord had putt more special marks of Honour” (“BA” 7:

Matt. 10:1). Andrew appears fourth in Mark and Acts, because the sons of Zebedee, who appear before him, were witnesses of the transfiguration. This is how Fleming tries to resolve the

variations of order, though he admits to being stumped: “Why Thomas is putt before him

[Bartholomew] in ye Acts, we do not know” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1). Thomas is written after

ye modesty of ye Writer” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1).169 _{Mather also does not acknowledge or explain} why Luke and Acts would name different apostles in a different order although both books were written by the same author.

The Gospels and Acts list the apostles in pairs. Mather evidently felt perplexed by Matthew and Luke grouping two of the pairs differently. He hypothesizes that Luke put the two men named Judas together to demonstrate the contrast “between ye Honest Judas, and ye Wicked One” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1). Strikingly, Mather suggests that in terms of accuracy, “we may rather follow ye Account of Matthew, who was present at the Action” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1). By elevating Matthew, he privileges empirical evidence and assumes that Luke’s was a symbolic representation. Nevertheless, regarding the variation in names, Mather generalizes: “It was very

customary among the Jewes, to call men by the Name of their Fathers” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1). In

fact, Mather notes, “Among ye Apostles themselves, there are several, at least Five, Instances of

One person having various Names” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1). For Simon, who has several names throughout the Gospels and Acts, Mather offers more convoluted explanations: “He had not ye

Name of Cananite, from ye country or Nation, that of old bore ye Name of Canaan” (“BA” 7:

Matt. 10:1). By refusing to accept the name as a reference to Canaan, Mather dismisses the accuracy of the King James Version, as it spells the name with an additional letter, reading “Simon the Canaanite” (Matt. 10:4, Mark 3:18). Luke calls him “Simon called Zelotes” (Luke 6:15). Acts renders the name “Simon Zelotes” (Acts 1:13). Mather relates that exegetes offered different theories, such as that “Zelotes” was a Jewish nickname meaning “zealot,” or that he

169 _{In a gloss about Matthew as an apostle, Mather notes that Mark and Luke do not label Matthew “the} publican” in their lists of apostles – only Matthew does (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:3). Mather ascribes this label to Matthew’s humility as an author: “His own Humility in branding himself with the Remembrance of his own unhappy circumstances, is very Exemplary” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:3). It did not occur to Mather that the author of the Gospel was not that same apostle.

came from the town of Cana, or that he was alternatively called “Simon the Zelotes” in Luke because he had once been in a sect called the Zelots (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1).

Mather deliberately avoids providing a non-spiritual reason for the pairing of the apostles. He reveals that Fleming tries “to find out ye Rationale of our Saviours choice” in matching together each pair of apostles (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1). But “I rather decline any further

pursuit of that consideration. For I look upon the men, as having been among the most uncapable

and Improbable part of mankind, for ye work in which they were afterwards Employ’d” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1). He does not mean to denigrate them; rather, he feels that “they were miraculously & supernaturally Qualified for their work” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:1). Mather literally chooses a supernatural explanation over a rational one in the same gloss where he privileges empirical evidence over hearsay.

Comparison of lists also allowed exegetes to determine which apostles were supposedly meant by different names. Lightfoot argues that the mysterious Bartholomew, Mather reports, must be Nathaniel, “if you compare the Order, wherein the Disciples are called, in the First

Chapter of John, with the Order, wherein they are for the most part reckoned” (“BA” 7: Matt.

10:3). The extent to which Mather was willing to conjecture for the sake of finding any reasonable explanation is evident in his gloss on Judas’s name. Mather argues that “Iscariot”

might come from the Hebrew word for a leather apron: “Judas Iscariot then may signify, as

much as, Judas with the Apron” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:4). Since “in such Aprons, they had their

purses fastned,” this might refer to Judas having “ye Title of ye Purse-bearer” (“BA” 7: Matt.

10:4). On the other hand, “what if hee used the Art of a Tanner, before hee was chosen into

Discipleship!” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:4). Mather obviously had no idea. Furthermore, “if Judas were

7: Matt. 10:4). That word among the Gemarists meant “the Roughest Death” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:4). It refers literally to strangling, “wherefore, Judas Iscariot, is as much as to say, Judas that perished by strangling” (“BA” 7: Matt. 10:4). Lastly, Mather reports that Grotius “after all”

asserts that the Greek word comes from a Hebrew term meaning “A man of Issachar” (“BA” 7:

Matt. 10:4). He leaves Grotius with that final word and the reader with no clear answer. Simon most famously undergoes a name change, to Cephas, or Peter, meaning “stone”

(John 1:42). Mather dismisses “Ridiculous Roman Catholicks” who claim that Cephas comes

from the Greek word meaning “head” although he does not explain what makes that

interpretation faulty (“BA” 8: John 1:42). His alternative explanation has no more apparent

ground to it except that the church of Gentiles “was to bee founded on a Rock,” a “special work

for this our Simon (or, Simeon)” (“BA” 8: John 1:42, parenthesis his). The name-changing seems

unnecessary and calls into question why the omnipotent God would have had Simon born with the wrong name.