The mystery of Thaddaeus vs. Judas son of James

[ograabe]

January 11, 2009

The original twelve disciples of the Messiah are named in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-17, Luke 6:13-16, John 1:40, 13.2, etc., and Acts 1:13 [minus Judas Iscariot (Yehuda Skaryota)].

Ten of the names are quite consistent.

Nathaniel in John is referred to as Bartholomew in the other books. He is apparently identifiable as Nathaniel Bar-Tulmay in the Aramaic text.

The mystery for me is Lebbaeus Thaddaeus (Lewi Taddi) in Matthew and Mark who doesn't appear in the other books. In his place is Judas son of James (Yehuda bar Ya'akov) or Judas not Iscariot (Yehuda not Skaryota).

What's going on here?

Otto

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Otto,

Interesting question. I am reasonably certain that the real name is "Yehuda bar Yaqub" but that the nickname of Lewi Tawdi was inserted to make sure there was no confusion between him the other Yehuda, the traitor. That is also why Yochanan deals with this issue by an alternate method of saying simply, "not Skaryota". Lewi would also denote "my heart" (tawdi = thankful???) and may be meant to contrast with the traitor/coward of the other man with the same name. Ironically also the traitor is "the son of Shimon"--"he who hears"--and he obviously did not live up to that.

That's my guess...

[ograabe]

Dear Andrew,

Thanks for your suggestion. It makes complete sense to me.

Also, Matthew was apparently the initiator of the Taddi nickname and Mark just followed Matthew's lead. They are apparently the only New Testament writers that used that name.

Also, Matthew's text seems to have been prepared for a Jewish audience while Mark wrote a shorter version based on Matthew's Gospel directed to an Aramaic-speaking gentile audience. That seems clear from Mark 15:34 where Mark apparently had to explain the Messiah's words by converting from one Aramaic dialect to another (as you note in your AENT).

Sincerely,

Otto

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Otto,

Yes I would agree with your idea as well. Something to think about though. Traditional NT scholarship focuses on something called Q Theory, i.e. that Mark wrote first and was used almost completely but independently by Matthew and Luke. I used to think this was correct, but in the last 7 years came around to the eastern and western religious traditions' viewpoint that Matthew wrote first and the Gospels are in the order they were written. That however is a longer story than I have time to get into here.

But what I wanted to delve into a little are the sources of the NT that we know about FROM tradition, a kind of "retro-Q" for lack of a better term. So we start with the fact that Matthew, as an apostle and eyewitness, wrote FIRST. Then Mark compiles his Gospel, and traditions say his exclusive source is Peter. In fact, and I get into the solid evidence in RQ1, Peter may have even finished Mark's Gospel and promoted it in the assemblies after Mark was murdered in Alexandria in the year 62. What these facts demonstrate to my mind is that Matthew and Peter were eyewitnesses to the nickname. The third eyewitness, John, basically (probably) knew of the Taddi nickname but his writing style took him in another direction. John likes to get to the point of the whole nickname, and is content going, "not THAT Judas, okay?"

That leaves Luke's Gospel and Acts. As you know, Luke is the travelling companion of Paul and Paul was not an eyewitness to these events. Luke says in his prologue that he used several different sources in compiling his Gospel, so it would seem natural for Luke to play it safe with the actual name, and this gets translated into Acts. Paul was no doubt cognizant on some of this source material and passed it on to Luke perhaps while in prison.

But Paul also has a complicated relationship with his sources, having met Peter twice in Galatians, one of these times with James in Jerusalem. Oddly enough though, Paul also goes out of his way to suggest (more than suggest on occasion) that his real info came from Y'shua through direct revelation as opposed to instruction from Peter, and yet Paul elsewhere criticizes others who were not in total unity with the elders and going after individual teachers.

I guess the bottom line is something as intimate as a nickname is more likely to come from an eyewitness like Matthew who, as you say rightly, was copied by Mark (under Peter's eye). But Luke/Paul, not being eyewitnesses or part of that intimate circle, would strive to be accurate with the "historical" name.

Hope this helps! Again just guessing.

[ograabe]

Dear Andrew,

I am quite familiar with the Q source theory, but I have never been impressed by it. Firstly, it relies heavily on Greek primacy and Greek language issues. Secondly, my impression is that the Bible scholars who developed it did not believe in scriptural inspiration.

Matthew wrote as an eye-witness with full knowledge of our Lord. Even Jerome believed that Matthew wrote first and in "Hebrew". Mark must have borrowed from Matthew for his shorter book. Luke clearly states that he did his own research and Matthew's Gospel msut have been a major source of information.

Thanks for your insightful comments.

Otto

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Otto,

Yes I don't believe in Q theory either, as I said. I was only drawing a comparison between that popular paradigm and the NT sources tradition has left us.

Take care!