Andrew, brother of Simon Peter (Cephas), was a former disciple of John the Baptist.
John 1:35-51New International Version (NIV)
John’s Disciples Follow Jesus
35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!”
37 When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38 Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?”
They said, “Rabbi” (which means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?”
39 “Come,” he replied, “and you will see.”
So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. It was about four in the afternoon.
40 Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).
# # #
They were in Bethany when this happened (when Jn the Baptist was in Bethany, the transfer happened);
but,
Andrew, Peter, and Philip were from Bethsaida, north of Bethany.
# # #
So far:
Andrew and an un-named disciple of John the Baptist
Peter, brother of Andrew may have been a disciple of John since his brother was a disciple of John
Next:
Jesus finds Philip (who presumably was working w/ John the Baptist.
Philip finds Nathaniel
Five disciples of John the Baptist:
Andrew, Un-named, Peter, Philip, Nathaniel
Philip, Andrew, and Peter were from Bethsaida.
Currently, we do not know where Nathaniel and Un-named are from.
# # #
Which disciples had Greek names?
here is a list of the names of Jesus’ disciples.
Andrew
Bartholomew / Nathanael
James, the Elder
James, the Lesser or Younger
John
Judas
Jude / Thaddeus
Matthew / Levi
Peter or Simon Peter
Philip
Simon the Zealot
Thomas
I think you’re asking the wrong question since by the time the names get to us in English they aren’t exactly translations to English (or another language) from Greek. For example, the Greek for Andrew is Andrean or Andreas. After having worked for German companies for nearly 2 decades I can tell you both of those are personal names today in Germany, but I don’t think I’ve heard them used in America.
Anyway, here’s a list of the ones that I can remember/looked up:
Judas, Greek is Iuodas (form of Judah)
Andrew, from the Greek Andrean/Andreas
James, Greek is Iakabos (this is one that’s gone through some weird changes to get to “James”)
Philip, Greek is Philopos
John, Greek is Iohnnanes (sp?), a familiar name to Germans.
Peter, Greek is Petros
Bartholomew, can’t remember the spelling, but this is Greek
Simon, not Greek
Thomas, Greek
Matthew, Greek is Matthias (sometimes used in America, very common in Germany)
I don’t agree with Prof. Ehrman (based on what I’ve read) that there were really 12 in the inner circle though.
Jesus should be Yeshua or Joshua, certainly we was not Imannuel as the OT prophised a big deal that obviously didn’t apply to Jesus. But modern translations are now lying through their teeth to say that he was called…Jesus!
Why would anyone be expected to change their names anyway? 40 years maybe being called Simon and Jesus wants to change it? Cephas? Peter? Simon Peter? Maybe Jesus started the first quasi internet and social media user name? 
Its a great pity we can’t know what Jesus was up to before he started his ministry as we may find that he was a disciple of John the Baptist and that Jesus started a breakway movement with some of John’s followers as well. Secondly lets take Peter as one example. He was a fisherman who no doubt supported himself and his family by selling off his catch as others did. So when he was called by Jesus, did he just abandon his family and leave them to forage or starve? What about the others? Did they do something similar? Its what Jesus apparently preached to people to leave anything and everything they had to follow him..
Who was going to empty the trash bins, clean the sewers and lavatories and provide all the essentials of life back then and now, whilst not working on the Sabbath either? Where did Jesus and his disciples get the money to buy food and clothes if nobody was actually working? Simple men? Simple minds more like!
MikeyS said
Jesus should be Yeshua or Joshua, certainly we was not Imannuel as the OT prophised a big deal that obviously didn’t apply to Jesus. But modern translations are now lying through their teeth to say that he was called…Jesus!Why would anyone be expected to change their names anyway? 40 years maybe being called Simon and Jesus wants to change it? Cephas? Peter? Simon Peter? Maybe Jesus started the first quasi internet and social media user name?
At the time Jesus called Simon “Peter” it was simply a Greek word for rock, ie. “Petros” was not a personal name (Simon Peter is the first time it is found as a personal name or nickname). Due to my curiosity over how Mark treats the disciples for most of his gospel I’ve been reading about the disciples in a couple of commentaries recently. From what I’ve read it was not uncommon to give people nicknames in this time period and Petros as a nickname literally meaning solid as a rock, “Rocky” or any other such stony association (as I’m sure we all know by now).
All the names in the gospels are in Greek, since the gospels are written in Greek. Most of the disciples, however, had names with Hebrew or Aramaic equivalents. Richard Bauckham has a couple interesting chapters in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
Simon = Simeon (but this is also an independent Greek name)
John = Yehohanan, Yohanan
Levi = Levi
Matthew = Mattai
Matthias = Mattiya or Mattiyah
Thadeus = Taddai (or possibly Greek Theodosios, Theodotus, or Theodoros)
Judas = Yehudah
James = Ya’aqov
Bartholomew = bar Ptolemaios (Bauckham – “popular because it was a royal name of the Hellenistic rulers of Egypt”)
Nathanael = Netan’el
Thomas = Teoma (Bauckham – “there is little indication that Thomas was used as a name by Palestinian Jews.”)
Disciples with Greek names in the Gospels: Andrew and Philip.
Bauckham argues that use of popular names of Palestinian Jews in the gospels makes it more likely that they trace their tradition back to Palestine. He also argues (by citation, not evidence) that diaspora naming was different. However, a quick review of the more recently published volumes of Tal Ilan’s Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity shows that Biblical and Hasmonean names (like those listed above) are also represented in the Eastern and Western diaspora, although the frequency of Hasmonean names (i.e. Simon, John, Matthias) is somewhat reduced. It seems to me that the name data (of the disciples, not of all characters in the gospels) fits reasonably well with first century Palestine, but does not rule out diaspora.
While there may not have been a fixed, inner circle numbering exactly 12, the evidence for a group called the twelve is early — Paul mentions an appearance by the risen Jesus to the twelve in 1 Corinthians. (Even counting 12 tribes of Israel requires reckoning two peoples as half-tribes in order to reach the magic number.)
As for the name Thomas/Teoma not being used as a name by Palestinian Jews the situtation is analogous to that gmatthews described for Simon Peter. The disciple’s proper name was Judah, and he was given the nickname “the Twin” which was carried into Greek as Didymus from Aramaic Toma (Peter/Cephas).
Speaking of Thomas it is just a little surprising that the Gospel of Thomas makes no mention of the twelve anywhere. While sayings simply introduced by “Jesus said” or “He said” predominate, there are a significant number of sayings where the disciples question Jesus or vice versa. Why never a “He said to the twelve…”?
I’m not 100% adamant in not believing that there were 12 main/inner core disciples, I just think that “12” is conveniently the number of tribes of Israel. The main argument (that I can think of) for 12 being factual is that I can’t discount 12 simply because it’s conveniently the number of the tribes of Israel. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
That said, the point about Thomas not mentioning the 12 is, in my opinion, not really a good point to make because there’s a LOT that this gospel doesn’t mention. I do however believe it is very indicative of what Jesus was all about. With scholars believing it to be so early I think it can be viewed as presenting a clearer picture of the original Jesus movement, ie. he wasn’t divine in reality, he was an apocalyptic preacher, etc. What we call Christianity came later.
Mark was also quite early, but by the time he wrote the religion and legend was starting to take shape. By the time John was written Christianity had apparently metastasized to levels recognizable to us today as the religion known by billions.
Regardless, with Mark I think we get the best view amongst the canonical gospels of the earliest “orthodox” view of Christianity so let’s see how Mark presents the disciples. Starting in Mark 3:13 Jesus forms his supposed inner core of 12. He first calls his followers up a mountain as a neo-Mosaic figure (cf. Moses going up the mountain to get the 10 commandments). This calling is for ALL of his followers so who knows how many there actually were. From these followers he appoints 12 (verse 14) to be his inner circle. First and foremost he includes Peter, James and John (the sons of thunder, eg., another nickname like “Petros”). These three are the only ones to be given nicknames. Afterwards the rest of the 12 are named. The remaining nine, with the exception of Judas, are never again mentioned in Mark. For an inner core of disciples it would seem like they would be important enough to mention again in Mark’s gospel, but on the other hand the gospel is about Jesus and not his disciples.
My personal belief is that Jesus obviously had followers and like anyone with a following of people he almost certainly had an inner core. But, can we believe that the number was conveniently 12? To play devil’s advocate perhaps Jesus himself saw the value in hearkening back to the OT and having the number of his inner core reflect the number of the tribes of Israel. For me though, I think that oral tradition started this belief and that this is how it wound up in the gospels. I think the inner core was 3 (Peter, James and John) with some other number of outliers being closer than the typical “camp folowers”. Perhaps this number was close to 9 or exactly 9, but however you count those other “close followers” the Big 3 of Peter, James and John seem to me to be the actual inner core.
Rev. Marcum at Highland Park UMC taught us that 4 names were of Greek origin and 8 names were not.
The disciples with the Greek names would not fall into the category of uneducated/illiterate Jews of Galilee.
How many of John the Baptist disciples were uneducated/illiterate?
How many of John the Baptist disciples wrote gospels about John the Baptist? …
Bart is against Mark being one of the 70 sent out by Jesus, thereby being an eyewitness of Jesus to a certain extent.
(The 12 had more eyewitness time than the 70.)
I would like to disagree. Jesus was able to get support from Nicodemus, educated and literate.
There is a possibility that Jesus who had become famous not only in Israel but in Syria also, could have been known in Sepphoris.
If any of the 70 were from the educated upper class, then we can have literate gospel writers prior to 70 AD with the prophecy of Temple destruction edited into original folios later.
12 disciples + 70 sent out by Jesus = 82 people
At least 1 out of 82 (or 1 out of the 70) people could have had enough of the education of a Josephus or a Nicodemus to write down eyewitness accounts.
SECOND
I think Stephen, the martyr was an eyewitness of Jesus. So there ARE educated and literate fans of Jesus who could have written the first drafts of the Gospel of Mark.
THIRD
We know storing your treasures in heaven comes from King Monobaz who was one of the wisest men Augustus Caesar ever knew.
King Monobaz had a son Izates, son of Queen Helena. THAT sentence in the Bible DOES come from Parthian royalty in Jerusalem. So, not only do we have educated and literate, but we have royal in put into the gospels.
So, if Jesus could get the support of a Nicodemus, men of his age group could have advised there sons to follow Jesus for a while and be numbered in his 70.
Same thing w/ John the Baptist. Even the king and queen respected him.
We know Josephus had a religious mentor, just as Paul was mentored by Barnabas?
Jesus had earned the respect to be followed (eyewitnesses) by the literate class.
John the Baptist had earned the respect to be followed by the literate class.
Look at the War Scroll: with Jesus’ association with the Essenes, they were literate, they could write.
There were literate people in Jesus’ circle. No, I do not think the War Scroll was written in Greek.
Wait a second: 1 Enoch. Those who followed that piece of writing were literate. With Jesus manifesting a 1 Enoch movement, he probably brought in literate fans of 1 Enoch.
Resolved: we cannot say Jesus could not count literate followers or fans of his.
My understanding is that Thomas is only “Judas Thomas” in the later Syrian traditions and the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas is never called “Judas” in the New Testament. It’s possible that he had another name, given the likely etymology of his name, but the canonical gospels just call him Thomas.
achase79 said
My understanding is that Thomas is only “Judas Thomas” in the later Syrian traditions and the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas is never called “Judas” in the New Testament. It’s possible that he had another name, given the likely etymology of his name, but the canonical gospels just call him Thomas.
While it’s certainly true that the name Judas Thomas never occurs in the New Testament, the Fourth Gospel uses Didymus Thomas, so the Aramaic nickname Greek translation seen with Cephas/Peter does appear to hold with the apostle Thomas as well. Whether or not the proper name Judas only appears in “later Syrian traditions” is at least partly dependent on when one dates the Gospel of Thomas, but even if we had only later Syriac literary works such as the Acts of Thomas to judge by, an early, authentic oral tradition for the name is possible, and perhaps even likely.
Steefen – I’m not sure where you’re getting Jesus’ association with the Essenes. They’re not mentioned in the NT, and although the War Scroll has similarities with Jesus’ Apocalyptic thought, it certainly doesn’t reference him. I don’t see any reason to connect them.
Also, I think Nicodemus is likely a fictional character introduced by John. His absence in the synoptic gospels, and historical difficulties with his dialog in John 3 suggest to me that John introduced him as a narrative foil.
I agree that it is not impossible that Jesus had ‘literate followers or fans’ (much more likely literate in Aramaic than Greek), but I think it is unlikely that those people wrote the Gospels. And if Jesus did have literate followers or fans, it would only be a handful given the literacy rate of < 3% in all of first century Palestine.
While my comment above about the twelve in relation to the Gospel of Thomas was made in a rather off-hand way and somewhat intended to support gmatthews earlier remark “I don’t agree with Prof. Ehrman (based on what I’ve read) that there were really 12 in the inner circle though, ” I think it deserves some defense. If I understand correctly gmatthews seems to be saying by “because there’s a LOT that this gospel doesn’t mention,” since the Gospel of Thomas isn’t a narrative gospel with a passion story like the synoptics, we cannot draw any conclusions based on what is or isn’t mentioned in it. What is relevant here is whether or not the Gospel of Thomas mentions followers of Jesus either as a group or individually. And the answer in both cases is yes. “The disciples” are mentioned in a number of sayings. Followers of Jesus specifically mentioned by name include Peter, Thomas, Matthew, Mary, and Salome. The twelve weren’t important enough in this tradition to even deserve an offhand mention, again something like “Jesus said to the twelve…”
@gmatthews I think you’re suggestion that the inner core of disciples consisted of Peter, James, and John is simply to say the orthodox tradition won in different terms. What about the women followers of Jesus? It’s been argued that the Fourth Gospel’s account of the resurrection is explicitly intended to subordinate Mary’s importance vis a vis the Beloved Disciple. What about the Fourth Gospel and the Beloved Disciple? Even within the New Testamanent itself the idea that Peter, James, and John are Jesus’ closest disciples is challenged. According to the Fourth Gospel the Beloved Disciple is closer to Jesus than Peter, Mary, and others — including Thomas to whom some traditions have Jesus’ secret sayings committed. Also of note (relevant to achase79) is that the author of the Fourth Gospel claims that the Beloved Disciple not only witnessed Jesus’ ministry but committed his witness of the ministry to writing. I’m certainly arguing that the Fourth Gospel is an eyewitness account, but only that the some author in a first century Christian Community claims to have access to written traditions about Jesus that go back to eyewitness testimony independent of Peter, James, John, Mary, Thomas, etc.
James the Just probably also deserves mention here. It’s not clear whether this brother of Jesus became a follower during Jesus’ lifetime or only after his death. It is clear he became a leader of the Jerusalem church after Jesus’ death and was considered a key apostle by some early Christian traditions (and yet another follower of Jesus mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas).
Steefen said
Rev. Marcum at Highland Park UMC taught us that 4 names were of Greek origin and 8 names were not.The disciples with the Greek names would not fall into the category of uneducated/illiterate Jews of Galilee.
Andrew was Peter’s brother and a fisherman who’s father was living in Palestine fishing as well so there’s no way he was a Greek Jew. That leaves only Philip and personally I can’t see a civilized Greek Jew wandering in the desert with a bunch of hippies 
. As noted Thomas simply means “the twin” so it’s not a real name.
Also, just because someone was a Greek Jew doesn’t automatically mean they were literate.
sharding4 said
@gmatthews I think you’re suggestion that the inner core of disciples consisted of Peter, James, and John is simply to say the orthodox tradition won in different terms. What about the women followers of Jesus? It’s been argued that the Fourth Gospel’s account of the resurrection is explicitly intended to subordinate Mary’s importance vis a vis the Beloved Disciple. What about the Fourth Gospel and the Beloved Disciple? Even within the New Testamanent itself the idea that Peter, James, and John are Jesus’ closest disciples is challenged. According to the Fourth Gospel the Beloved Disciple is closer to Jesus than Peter, Mary, and others — including Thomas to whom some traditions have Jesus’ secret sayings committed. Also of note (relevant to achase79) is that the author of the Fourth Gospel claims that the Beloved Disciple not only witnessed Jesus’ ministry but committed his witness of the ministry to writing. I’m certainly arguing that the Fourth Gospel is an eyewitness account, but only that the some author in a first century Christian Community claims to have access to written traditions about Jesus that go back to eyewitness testimony independent of Peter, James, John, Mary, Thomas, etc.
I’ve always had a hard time articulating what I feel about John’s gospel. I think it is the most polished of the gospels reflecting the beliefs held by a community of Christians. I don’t think the author was an eyewitness to the events he narrates, but I think he had a vested interest in the “beloved disciple” who he may or may not have been implying was himself and as such the gospel is slanted towards this disciple sacrificing historicity. With anything in history the further in time you get from the events described the less history you actually get. Mark wasn’t an eyewitness either, but he was writing closer to when the events happened (roughly 20 years or about 1 generation closer) so I think he’s more believable. By the time the author of John wrote Jesus is fully revealed as the divine son of God who works miracles and who rose from the dead. Mark doesn’t describe a Jesus who is so all-powerful as he appears in John. In Mark there is the implication at the baptism of Jesus that he might have sinned (why else the need for baptism?) or be somewhat less than John the Baptist (because he went to John for baptism). By the time of John’s gospel this pericope has been cleaned up to get rid of the possibility of weakness or deference. In Mark when Jesus heals the blind man in Mark 8:22-26 he first leads the man out of town to heal him (what??? no audience??) then Jesus has to take two stabs at it before the man is healed! The first time when Jesus puts spit in his eyes the man says the people look blurry like walking trees. On the second attempt the man is miraculously healed. In John he find no such hesitant son of God.
I think John is a wonderful book with some great moral lessons not found in the other gospels, but in the end I strongly believe it is the least reliable of the gospels and the one that is most vested in slanting the story in a certain direction.
Greg
Hi GM. As usual we see eye to eye! And your remarks about John’s Gospel are my thoughts as well. It is a wonderful book that has encourged many to become Christians and many that have backslid or become skeptical to return to the fold as it were. It has happened to me. It is a very profound for the first century and arguably hasn’t been bettered by any modern writer who has written about Jesus.
The problem as usual is how much of it is myth and allergorical and how much is fact and literal? I observed a debate between Bart and a Canadian Christian Apologetic/Historian and its online somewhere where the Christian chap agreed that it was highly unlikely that Jesus spoke many of the words attributed to him including the I’m’s…I am the way, I am the door, I am the bread etc. but thought it was a book describing what Jesus was about. Also the Jesus Seminar made similar remarks. Bart replied that if that’s the case and its all not literally true, then lets ‘toss it out’.
The real issue though and it comes back to Christians believing the bible was/is the literal word and hand of God and this Gospel by John above all others really that was and is used to defend the doctrine that Jesus was God and with God from the beginning and so as I have said before, its no different than Muhammed and his followers claiming that the Quran was given by God and so all these beliefs are fixed in stone and cannot be destroyed or misinterpreted and MUST be followed at ALL costs. Even unto death!
That is where dangerous fundamentalism comes in with all religious beliefs as we know to our cost over the last 2000 years. It would make some sense that the beloved disciple was Mary Magdelene who because of her soiled reputation as a Prostitute and of course a woman, was denied most of the credit for knowing what Jesus really believed as it was said that Jesus trusted her and even loved her more than the others. It even makes sense that the text where Jesus said to Peter, “do you love me, more than the others, was not Peter, but Mary! And we all know who Jesus spoke to first after the resurrection.
I never thought about Jesus as a sinner who was baptized by John though…That is an excellent point that maybe confirms he indeed was a sinful man who thought he needed to do that and not God or the eternal Son, as he surely would have said something about not needing to do that. Didn’t someone say this Gospel was almost discarded by the early Church as it was so different from the synoptics? That would be a pity as it does read the best and all was needed was the words..
The Gospel Allergory according to John and that would have been fine. Indeed along with most other religious text.
achase79 said
Steefen – I’m not sure where you’re getting Jesus’ association with the Essenes. They’re not mentioned in the NT, and although the War Scroll has similarities with Jesus’ Apocalyptic thought, it certainly doesn’t reference him. I don’t see any reason to connect them.Also, I think Nicodemus is likely a fictional character introduced by John. His absence in the synoptic gospels, and historical difficulties with his dialog in John 3 suggest to me that John introduced him as a narrative foil.
I agree that it is not impossible that Jesus had ‘literate followers or fans’ (much more likely literate in Aramaic than Greek), but I think it is unlikely that those people wrote the Gospels. And if Jesus did have literate followers or fans, it would only be a handful given the literacy rate of < 3% in all of first century Palestine.
We know Josephus spent time with the Essenes before he was 25.
It cannot be ruled out that Jesus did not acquaint himself with the Essenes. Jesus was a Jewish purist. He did not just acquaint himself with John the Baptist and that was it. Whatever sect/group were readers or listeners of Enoch, Jesus acquainted himself with them: he did not just read Daniel.
It does not matter if Nicodemus was fictional or not, Nicodemus represents the minority of Pharisees who had reverence and respect for Jesus. Would you like to make a resolution that Jesus did not get through to one or a larger minority of Pharisees?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert