{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_64037/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_64037","id":"gutenberg_64037","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64037","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jesus Christ -- Biography","Jesus Christ -- History of doctrines"],"text":"THE\n LIFE OF JESUS\n CRITICALLY EXAMINED\n\n BY\n DR. DAVID FRIEDRICH STRAUSS\n\n Translated from the Fourth German Edition\n By GEORGE ELIOT\n\n\n FOURTH EDITION. IN ONE VOLUME.\n\n\n London\n SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO. Lim.\n 1902\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION TO THE PRESENT EDITION,\n\nBY PROFESSOR OTTO PFLEIDERER, D.D.\n\n\nThe Leben Jesu of David Friedrich Strauss, which was published in the\nyear 1835, marked an epoch in the history of theology. On the one hand,\nthis book represents the crisis in theology at which the doubts and\ncritical objections of centuries as to the credibility of the Bible\nnarratives had accumulated in such overwhelming volume as to break\nthrough and sweep away all the defences of orthodox apologetics. On the\nother hand, in the very completeness of the destructive criticism of\npast tradition lay the germs of a new science of constructive critical\ninquiry, the work of which was to bring to light the truth of history.\nIt is quite true that the Life of Jesus of 1835 was far from perfect,\nas judged by the present standard of scientific criticism, and Biblical\nscience has long since advanced beyond it. Nevertheless, it cannot be\ndisputed that it takes rank amongst the standard works which are secure\nof a permanent place in literature for all time, for the reason that\nthey give final expression to the spirit of their age, and represent\ntypically one of its characteristic tendencies. The liberating and\npurifying influence which such works exert on their own time, as well\nas the service they render in opening out new lines of thought, lends\nto them, for all coming generations, a peculiar value as admirable\nweapons in the great fight for truth and freedom. Indeed, if our\nscientists are to be believed, when they tell us that the development\nof the individual is only an abbreviated repetition of the similar but\nmuch slower phases of the development of the species, it is hardly too\nmuch to maintain, that in the present and in the future every\nindividual who determines to make his way from the bondage of a na\u00efve\ntrust in authority and tradition into the freedom and light of mature\nthought must pass through precisely that stage of thorough-going\nlogical negative criticism which is represented by Strauss\u2019s work in a\nunique manner. As, according to Christian ethics, the formation of a\npure moral character is possible only by the death of the old Adam, the\nrise of true religious convictions is by a similar Stirb und werde, die\nand come to life. The imaginary lights of mythological tradition must\nbe put out, that the eye may distinguish the false from the true in the\ntwilight of the Biblical origins of our religion. The ancient\nstructures of belief, which the childish fancy of men had constructed\nof truth and poetry, Wahrheit und Dichtung, must be taken down and\ncleared away, in order that a new erection of more durable materials\nmay be raised. To all earnest seekers after truth, the Leben Jesu of\nStrauss may be helpful, not as supplying the truth ready to hand, but\nas stripping the bandages of prejudice from the eyes, and so enabling\nthem clearly to see and rightly to seek it.\n\nFor these reasons it is obvious that the publication of a new edition\nof the English translation of this work needs no justification. It is\nonly those who consider the first appearance of the book inexcusable\nand unfortunate that can call in question the desirability of its\nrepublication. But no one can hold such an opinion who is able to\nfollow the course of the history of the religious thought of\nProtestantism. The critical process which reached its conclusion in\nStrauss\u2019s book, with its negative or revolutionary results, was latent\nfrom the beginning in the life-blood of Protestantism. The theologians\nof the Reformed Churches of the sixteenth century subjected the\ntraditions of Catholic Church history to keen historical criticism; and\nif they did not then think of extending its operations to Biblical\ntradition, we are justified in recognising in the well-known\ndeclarations of Luther, as to the inferior value of certain books of\nthe Bible, and as to the unimportance of physical in comparison with\nspiritual miracles, plain predictions of the line of development which\nProtestant theology was destined ultimately to take.\n\nIt is intelligible enough that the criticism of the Bible could not\narise amongst the orthodox theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth\ncenturies. They were restrained by a rigid doctrine of inspiration from\nan unprejudiced treatment of the Bible, and were moreover too much\nabsorbed in dogmatic controversies and the defence of their confessions\nof faith, to feel the need of more searching Biblical studies. It was\namongst English Free-thinkers and Deists that the credibility of the\nBiblical narratives was first seriously assailed, and with so much\ntemper as to greatly detract from the scientific value of the result.\nThomas Woolston\u2019s Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour (six in\nnumber, 1727\u20131729) are specially noteworthy. They attack the literal\ninterpretation of the miracles as ludicrous and offensive, and advocate\nthe allegorical interpretation of them as figures and parables of\nspiritual truths. It is possible to find in Woolston\u2019s theory an\nanticipation of the mythical principle of interpretation which Strauss\nopposes to the rationalistic one. Reimarus, the author of the\nWolfenb\u00fcttel Fragments, by the publication of which Lessing threw\nGerman theology into a ferment, occupies the same position as the\nEnglish Deists, and indeed owed much to their influence. But at the\nsame time a noteworthy difference is observable from the very first\nbetween the way in which Lessing treated these questions and their\ntreatment by the earlier Free-thinkers; and the difference is\ncharacteristic of the two schools. German rationalism bears the marks\nof its origin in the idealistic optimism of the philosophy of Leibnitz\nand Wolff, and remains in sympathy with the ethical spirit of Biblical\nreligion; whilst the but faintly religious naturalism of the English\nDeists leads them, with their rejection of the Biblical miracles, to\nattack the religion of the Bible, and drag down into the mire its\nrepresentatives and heroes. With this the German Rationalists have no\nsympathy. They were unable to treat the Biblical narratives of miracles\nas historical occurrences, but they were not prepared on that account\nto regard them as deceit and delusion on the part of Biblical heroes,\nor as the invention of Biblical narrators: their reverence for the\nBible and its religion kept them from both of these inferences. They\ntried to get over the difficulty in two ways,\u2014either they looked upon\nthe narratives of miracles, particularly those of the Old Testament, as\npopular religious legends, traditions, or \u201cmyths,\u201d of the same kind as\nthe myths to be met with in all heathen religions; or, on the other\nhand, regarding them as containing the actual history of perfectly\nnatural events, they ascribed the miraculous appearance and form which\nthey bear simply to the mistaken judgment of the narrators, or, in\nother cases, to the erroneous view of the interpreters. The latter\nmethod was employed especially by Dr. Paulus in his commentary on the\nGospels, in which he seeks, with a great display of learning and\ningenuity, to explain all the miracles of the New Testament. The\ntheologian Schleiermacher also made frequent use of it in his Lectures\non the Life of Jesus; and traces of it are to be met with even in the\ncommentaries of theologians of the supernaturalist school\u2014as, for\ninstance, Olshausen\u2019s. The inexcusable violence which was thereby done\nto the Biblical narratives, by which they are forced to say something\nquite different from what the unsophisticated narrators intended them\nto say, according to the plain sense of their words, was not felt; nor\nwere these interpreters conscious of how much the Gospels are deprived\nof their choicest treasures of ideal truth and poetic beauty by this\nmethod of treatment, and this only for the sake of securing instead\nmiserable common-place stories as the final outcome of critical\nexamination.\n\nThe favour with which this radically false rationalistic interpretation\nof the Gospels was received by very many German theologians at the\nbeginning of this century finds its sole explanation and excuse in the\nprevailing view of the time\u2014that our Gospels were written very soon\nafter the death of Jesus, during the first generation of Christians,\nand two of them by eye-witnesses\u2014the apostles Matthew and John. On this\nsupposition, the occurrence in the Gospels of unhistorical elements, of\nreligious legends, such as might be without hesitation allowed in the\nOld Testament, could not be thought of. Or if the admissibility of this\npoint of view was granted in the case of the birth-stories of the\nopening chapters of Matthew and Luke (as by De Wette), objection was\nfelt against its application to the miracles of the public life of\nJesus. Thus, on the question of the historicity of the gospel\nnarratives, theologians held views which were confused, undecided,\ncontradictory, and lacking thoroughness. This state of things could not\nlast; simple faith had at every point lost its security; doubt attached\nto the miraculous narratives of the New no less than to those of the\nOld Testament. But before Strauss no one had had the courage to explain\nall these narratives of both Testaments alike by the logical\napplication of one and the same principle; and mainly for the reason,\nthat the critics were all under the bondage of the supposition of the\napostolic authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John. Yet even this\nsupposition had received various shocks prior to Strauss. Critics had\nbeen unable to close their eyes to the fact that there are differences\nbetween these two Gospels particularly, of such a fundamental nature as\nto preclude the possibility of both being right, and therefore of both\nhaving been written by eye-witnesses and apostles. Under the influence\nof dogmatic and sentimental motives, Schleiermacher and his disciples\naccepted it as an a priori certainty that John is to be preferred to\nMatthew; and from this secure position, as was imagined, these\ntheologians assailed the narrative of Matthew at all points, and\nundermined the tradition of its apostolic authority. But suppose the\nsame arguments with which they assailed Matthew might be used against\ntheir favourite evangelist John? What if it could be shown that his\nnarrative is in no respect more probable, but, on the contrary, more\nimprobable, than that of Matthew? In that case, must not the critical\nverdict which those theologians had given against Matthew so\ntriumphantly and without regard to its consequences, apply equally to\nJohn, and thereby overthrow the only remaining pillar of apostolic\nauthority for the gospel tradition?\n\nThis logical consequence, which was at the time deemed an unheard-of\ninnovation, notwithstanding the opinions of a few individual critics\n(Vogel, Bretschneider), Strauss had the courage to draw. By that act he\ncast off the fetters by which the examination of the Gospels had till\nthen been bound, and secured a free field for a thorough-going\ncriticism of them. Since the external evidence of the authorship of the\nGospels is not of a kind or a date such as to compel us to consider the\ntradition of their apostolic origin established, and as the matter of\nall the Gospels alike is not free from historical improbability, there\nis nothing, Strauss argued, to prevent our complete abandonment of the\nhistoricity of their miraculous narratives, though the Rationalists\ncontinue to maintain it, or our treating them as religious legends or\nmyths, similar to those which, as was admitted, the Old Testament\ncontained. The novelty in the work of Strauss was not the application\nof the principle of \u201cmyth\u201d to Biblical narratives; others had already\nmade use of it in the case of the Old and to some extent in the case of\nthe New Testament; the originality lay in the uncompromising\nthoroughness with which the principle was applied to every section of\nthe gospel story; the originality lay in the merciless acumen and\nclearness with which the discrepancies between the Gospels and the\ndifficulties presented to the critical understanding by their\nnarratives were laid bare, and with which all the subterfuges of\nsupernaturalist apologists, as well as all the forced and artificial\ninterpretations of semi-critical Rationalists, were exposed, thereby\ncutting off all ways of escape from the final consequences of\ncriticism.\n\nThe merciless thoroughness and unreserved honesty with which criticism\ndid its negative work in this book, by exposing the baselessness of the\nsupposed knowledge of the gospel history, produced a profound shock\namongst theologians and laymen. It was not merely the untaught\nmultitude who believed that the foundations of Christianity must perish\nwith the miraculous stories of the Bible; learned theologians were\ndistressed as the daring critic so rudely, and without any regard to\nconsequences, roused them from the illusions of their sentimental or\nspeculative dogmatism and their precipitate treaty of peace between\nfaith and knowledge. \u201cStrauss was hated,\u201d as Baur truly said, \u201cbecause\nthe spirit of the time was unable to look upon its own portrait, which\nhe held up before it in faithful, clearly drawn lines. The spirit of\nthis age resists with all its power the proof of its ignorance on a\nmatter about which it has long thought itself certain. Instead of\nacknowledging what had to be acknowledged, if any progress was to be\nmade, all possible attempts were instituted to create fresh illusions\nas to the true state of the case, by reviving obsolete hypotheses and\nby theological charlatanism. But a higher certainty as to the truth of\nthe gospel history can be attained in no other way than by\nacknowledging, on the basis of Strauss\u2019s criticism, that our previous\nknowledge is no knowledge at all.\u201d But here we come upon the limits of\nthe criticism of Strauss: it brought home to men the fact of their want\nof knowledge, but it did not conduct to the required new and positive\nknowledge. This Strauss was unable to do, because he offered a critique\nof the gospel history only, without a critique of the documents which\nform the sources of this history.\n\nIn these words Baur has accurately described the main defect of\nStrauss\u2019s book. When Strauss drew from the discrepancies and\ncontradictions of the various narratives of the Gospels the conclusion\nthat they have all alike little credibility, the conclusion was\nintelligible enough in reply to the ingenious artifices of the\ntraditional harmonists, who maintained that in spite of the\ncontradictions the evangelists were all alike worthy of credit; but\nreally this line of procedure on the part of Strauss conformed as\nlittle as that of the harmonists to the principles of strict historical\ninquiry. These principles require us to examine the relative value of\nthe various sources with reference to their age, to the situation, the\ncharacter, the interests, and aims of their author; to assign\naccordingly to one account a higher measure of credibility than to\nanother; and so, by distinguishing between what is better and what is\nnot so well attested, to make out what is probable and reach the\noriginal matter of fact. It is true Strauss made some advance towards\nsuch a differentiation of the relative value of the gospel narratives;\nand particularly with reference to the inferior historical value of the\nJohannine in comparison with the Synoptic narrative, he has made acute\nobservations, the worth of which ought to be estimated the higher as\nthey boldly opposed the then dominant preference for the Gospel of\nJohn, and effectively prepared the way for the criticism of Baur. But\nit was not Strauss\u2019s forte to prepare, as the foundation of the\nmaterial critique of the gospel history, a thorough critique of the\nliterary sources, nor, in the state of the general science of criticism\nat the time, could this be very well expected. When all deductions have\nbeen made, to Strauss belongs the honour of having given, by his\ncriticism of the gospel narratives, the most effective impulse to a\nmore penetrating examination of the sources of the gospel story, and of\nhaving prepared the way for this to no small extent, particularly as\nregards the Fourth Gospel. Baur\u2019s classical critique of this Gospel\ncompleted in this direction the criticism of Strauss, and laid its\nfoundations deeper. As regards the Synoptic Gospels, Weisse and Ewald,\nHoltzmann and Volkmar, did good work towards clearing up the relations\nof the Gospels to each other, especially in establishing the priority\nof Mark, by which a firmer basis was laid for the positive decision of\nthe question as to the historical foundations of the gospel tradition.\nThe fruit of this critique of the sources, carried on from various\nsides with painstaking industry, was the new literature dealing with\nthe life of Jesus, which, just a generation after the first Leben Jesu\nof Strauss, took up again the problems it had raised, but in a new\nfashion, and with improved critical apparatus. We shall have further on\nto refer to Strauss\u2019s new life of Jesus.\n\nThe same scholar, Weisse, who was the first to point out the want in\nStrauss\u2019s book of a more satisfactory critique of the sources, and who\nhad sought to supply this defect in his Evangelische Geschichte (1838),\ncalled attention at the same time to a defect in the mythical theory of\nStrauss. Weisse was fully agreed with Strauss so far, that we must\nacknowledge the presence of religious myths in miraculous narratives of\nthe Bible, but he was not satisfied with the way in which Strauss had\nexplained their origin. According to Strauss, the early Christians had\nsimply transferred to Jesus as the actual Messiah the miraculous\nlegends of the Old Testament, out of which the Jews were supposed to\nhave composed the miraculous portrait of their expected Messiah; and he\nwas right in thinking that the miraculous stories of the Old Testament\ndo undoubtedly supply the motives and models of no few narratives in\nthe New Testament, but not, surely, of all. Precisely the chief\nmiracles\u2014the birth of Jesus, his baptism, transfiguration,\nresurrection, the change of water into wine at Cana, the stilling of\nthe storm, and walking on the sea\u2014violence must be used to explain\nthese miracles by reference to Old Testament types, and the Jewish idea\nof the Messiah offers no lines corresponding to these. At this point\ntherefore, at all events, we must look about us for another method of\nexplanation. And Weisse was undoubtedly right in pointing to the\nspontaneous productivity of the Christian spirit in the primitive\nChurch as the source of the miraculous narratives, in which it gave\nexpression in symbolic and allegorical forms to its ideal truth and the\nnew inspired life of which it was conscious. Not that these narratives\nwere intended by the narrators themselves to be merely allegories, or\nsymbolical illustrations of spiritual truths; but the religious\nimagination gave birth to these illustrations after the manner of\nunconscious poetry, that is, without distinguishing between the poetic\nform and the essential truth of the idea; believing, as the religious\nimagination did, in the ideal content of the narratives, and being at\nthe same time unable to give vivid and sensible expression to it in any\nother than the material form of outward miracles, it involuntarily came\nto believe also in the reality of the symbolical form of the narrative\nto which it had itself given rise; it conceived idea and history both\ntogether in such inseparable combination as to confer on each equal\ntruth and certainty.\n\nIn the production of such ideal narratives the same process is\nobservable to-day in the experience of simple religious believers:\nfeeling the ideal truth of the content of the stories, they come to\nbelieve also in the reality of the outward history in which the idea\nhas for them been incorporated. But the critical understanding of the\nhistorical inquirer is permitted, and indeed is bound, to distinguish\nclearly and definitely, as the simple-minded believer cannot do,\nbetween the spiritual idea and the outward form of its representation,\nand to find in the former both the productive power and the permanent\nkernel within the outward husk. This explanation of the miraculous\nlegends of the Bible is not only more correct and profound than\nStrauss\u2019s from the point of view of historical science, but for the\nreligious consciousness it is far less objectionable, as Weisse\nobserves with truth; inasmuch as in this case the legends do not appear\nas the worthless product of the idle play of the imagination, but as\nthe normal expression, rationally and psychologically intelligible, of\na creative religious spirit, which displays its treasures of ideal\ntruth in this legendary and mythical poetry for the benefit of the\noriginators and the wider world. Nor should it be left unnoticed that\nStrauss himself had already indicated in a few cases this more profound\nexplanation of myths by means of the religious idea. At the close of\nhis interpretation of the story of the Transfiguration (\u00a7 107), for\ninstance, he says, we may see from this example very plainly how the\nnatural system of explanation, by insisting on the historical certainty\nof the narratives, lets go their ideal truth, sacrificing the content\nto the form of the story, whereas the mythical interpretation, by\nresigning the historical material body of such narratives, really\nrescues and preserves their idea, their soul and spirit. He might,\nhowever, have unfolded the idea of the Transfiguration with greater\ndefiniteness and fulness if he had not merely alluded to the dogmatic\ndiscussion of Paul in 2 Cor. iii. 7 sq., but had recognised it as the\nreal theme of the gospel story, and had interpreted the latter\naccordingly. In the same way, in the case of the story of the birth of\nJesus (Luke i. and ii.), Strauss laid great emphasis on the analogies\nand figures of the Old Testament, which, after all, could only\ncontribute as secondary motives in the formation of this birth-story,\nwhile its real origin is to be sought in the Pauline Messianic idea of\n\u201cthe Son of God, according to the spirit of holiness\u201d (Rom. i. 4; 1\nCor. xv. 45 sq.), a fact Strauss overlooked. This defect takes a really\nsurprising form when he comes to explain the miracles of the Fourth\nGospel, which, in complete independence of any suggestion from the Old\nTestament, are entirely based upon the dogmatic ideas of the\nAlexandrian theology, and simply supply their transparent symbolic\nvestment. How much more truthfully and profoundly can the miracle at\nCana, or the raising of Lazarus, or the cure of the man born blind, be\ninterpreted from this point of view than from that of Strauss! In this\nrespect Baur\u2019s interpretation of the Fourth Gospel was an immense\nadvance beyond Strauss, as the latter himself acknowledged\nsubsequently.\n\nWith the above defects of Strauss\u2019s method of interpretation is\nconnected, in the last place, the fact that the outcome of his book in\nreference to the decisive question,\u2014What, then, is the historical\nkernel of the evangelical tradition, what the real character of Jesus\nand of his work?\u2014is meagre and unsatisfactory. In the closing essay at\nthe end of his work, it is true, he endeavoured to restore dogmatically\nwhat he had destroyed critically, but he effected this in a way which\namounted to the transformation of religious faith in Christ into a\nmetaphysical allegory. The predications of faith with regard to Christ\nare to be regarded as containing predications as to the relations of\nthe human race to the Absolute, as to the self-abasement of the\nInfinite to the Finite, and the return of the Infinite to itself, as to\nmind and its power over nature, and its dependence on it, and the like.\nIn all this Strauss was led astray by the influence of the Hegelian\nphilosophy, which looked for the truth of religion in logical and\nmetaphysical categories instead of in the facts and experiences of\nmoral feeling and volition. But as there is no essential relation\nbetween these metaphysical ideas and the person of Jesus, he is made\narbitrarily, as any one else might have been, an illustration and\nexample of absolute ideas to which he stands in no more intimate\nrelation than the rest of the human race; whereby the special\nhistorical importance of the originator of the Christian community, and\nof the first model of its religious and moral life, is not only left\nwithout explanation, but is lost altogether, a result which does\nviolence not merely to the religious consciousness, but is\nunsatisfactory to historical science, which is concerned to understand\nJesus as the originating source of Christianity. It is quite true that\nwe can go with Strauss in his answer to the alternative of Ullmann\nwhether the church created the Christ of the Gospels or he the church,\nby declaring the alternative false, and the two things in so far both\ntenable as the Christ of the Gospels is a creation of the faith of the\nchurch, but this faith an effect of the person of the historical Jesus.\nWe find this answer to Ullmann just, but cannot free Strauss from the\ncharge of having worked out in his book the first only of these two\npositions, and of having passed over the second. He has shown no more\nthan that the church formed the mythical traditions about Jesus out of\nits faith in him as the Messiah. But how did the church come by the\nfaith that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah? To this question\u2014which is\nthe main question of a Life of Jesus\u2014Strauss gave his readers no\nanswer. Undoubtedly it can be urged in his defence that the criticism\nof the sources was at that time still in a condition of too great\nconfusion and uncertainty to permit any successful answer to that\nproblem of the historical kernel of the life of Jesus. Nevertheless the\ndifficulty of the matter could not relieve the historian of the duty of\nat least making an attempt to trace from the materials left to him, as\nthe residue of his critical analysis of the deeds and words of Jesus,\nthe main outlines of his character, to bring out the peculiarity and\noriginality of his religious genius, and in this way to discover in the\noriginal personality and reforming activity of Jesus the originating\ncause of the rise of the community of his disciples and their faith in\nhim as the Messiah and his divine mission. If in his closing essay\nStrauss had presented a religious and moral description of Jesus of\nthis nature, instead of a metaphysical allegory as a substitute for the\nshattered mythological conception of tradition, though the objection of\nthe church to his work would not have been wanting, it would then\nundoubtedly have taken a less passionately denunciatory form than was\nthe case, in consequence of the purely negative character of the\nresult, unrelieved by any modifying conclusion.\n\nIn proportion to the strength of the feeling of these defects, shared\nby readers of all parties, was the urgency of the duty laid upon\nscientific theologians of preparing, by a renewed and more thorough\nexamination of the Gospels, the stones of a new edifice to be reared\nupon the site laid bare by Strauss\u2019s critical labours. \u201cIn the darkness\nwhich criticism produces, by putting out all the lights hitherto\nthought to be historical, the eye has first to learn by gradual habit\nto again distinguish a few single objects,\u201d as Strauss himself remarked\nin his third edition. But this difficult task was not accomplished by\nthose apologists who endeavoured to make good the damage by the\nantiquated arts of the harmonists, with their petty concessions,\nmystifications, and evasions, but by those courageous inquirers who,\nundeterred by dogmatic considerations, sought by a strictly historical\nmethod to set in the true light the exact composition and the mutual\nrelations of the evangelical documents. We have already remarked that\nBaur and his disciples, the so-called T\u00fcbingen school, took a leading\npart in this work, while other independent students co-operated with\nthem, supplementing and correcting their labours. This, however, is not\nthe place to follow these inquiries in detail; but we must glance at\ntheir result as regards the historical treatment of the life of Jesus.\n\nFor an entire generation the examination of the literary details of the\nGospels had occupied theologians so exclusively that the interest in\nthe supreme problems of the evangelical history seemed to have been\nalmost lost sight of. But this interest was newly awakened, and made\nitself felt far beyond learned theological circles, by the nearly\nsimultaneous publication of Renan\u2019s Vie de J\u00e9sus and Strauss\u2019s second\nLeben Jesu f\u00fcr das deutsche Volk (1864). These two works, with all\ntheir dissimilarity, resemble each other in this, that they were both\nwritten by scholars of the highest eminence, not for the learned world,\nbut for educated people generally, both throwing overboard, therefore,\nthe ballast of learned detailed criticism, and presenting the results\nof their inquiries in a language intelligible to everybody, and\nattractive from its literary excellence. They are alike also in this,\nthat both subordinate the criticism of the gospel traditions to a\npositive description of the personality of Jesus, of his essential\nreligious tendency and genius, of his relation to the Messianic idea of\nhis nation, to the law and the temple, to the hierarchy and religious\nand political parties of his time, both seeking an explanation of the\nreformatory success of the commencement, and also of the tragical issue\nof his labours in these factors. But inasmuch as Strauss confines\nhimself to what he can deem the ascertained or probable facts, after a\nstrict critique of the sources, the portrait delineated by him turns\nout naturally somewhat indistinct and defective in its outlines; the\nmeagreness of the result answers to the caution of his historical\nconscience. Renan, on the other hand, feels no such scruples; in his\ncriticism of the sources he goes to work with a much lighter heart, and\nclaims for the biographer the right to help himself over the lacun\u00e6 and\nobscurities or contradictions of his authorities by calling in the aid\nof the creative imagination, with its powers of combination and\ninference. By this means he has succeeded in presenting a life of Jesus\ndistinguished for its epic vividness and dramatic development, but its\n\u00e6sthetic charm has been purchased at the price of its historical\nsolidity. This novelistic feature becomes most questionable when it\nwanders into the vagaries of the naturalistic explanation of the\nmiracles (e.g. the raising of Lazarus), and in such cases casts\nreflections on the moral character of Jesus. On the other hand, for\nRenan must be claimed the merit of having emphasised the social aspects\nof the Messianic mission of Jesus, and of having attempted to sketch\nthe development of his inner life, a change in the phases of his\nreformatory labours. As to Strauss\u2019s second Life of Jesus, its strength\nlies, as in the first, not so much in the first part, which deals with\nthe positive side of the history, as in the second part, where it comes\nto treat of the mythical side of the history. But in the second work,\nin the place of the analysis of the traditions given in the first, we\nget a synthetic presentation of the rise and gradual growth and\nelaboration, in more and more exalted forms, of the idea of the Christ\nof mythical tradition; the successive stages of the development of the\nChristian consciousness are set forth by reference to the genesis of\nthe ideas of Christ\u2019s person, power, and supernatural exaltation. Thus\nthis genetic method of treatment, followed in the later work, supplants\nand confirms the result of the former one; while the latter had shown\nthat the miraculous narratives in the Gospels are myth and not history,\nthe new Life shows how in these myths, after all, history is reflected,\nnamely, the history of the religious consciousness of the Christian\ncommunity. The great advance of this new treatment upon that of the\nprevious work was the fruit of the intervening studies of Baur and his\ndisciples, to which Renan, to the detriment of the critical and\nhistorical value of his work, had not paid sufficient attention.\n\nThe two works of Renan and Strauss were followed by a deluge of\nliterature on the life of Jesus, the historical value of which is very\nvarious. To give an account of all these books would require more space\nthan is at my disposal. I must confine myself to the work of Theodor\nKeim, an English translation of which has been published under the\n\u201cTheological Translation Fund.\u201d The work is so distinguished by the\nrichness of its learned material, and the ability with which it is\nhandled, as to constitute it the best representation of the present\ncondition of our knowledge of the life of Jesus. Keim\u2019s standpoint\ndiffers from that of Strauss by the warmth of religious feeling and\nenthusiasm which pervades his entire work, while at the same time no\nfetters are laid upon the critical reason; freedom and piety join\nhands, in order to be just to the double claim which the truth of\nhistory on the one hand, and the church on the other, are justified in\npresenting. The most brilliant part of Keim\u2019s work is his delineation\nof the religious personality of Jesus,\u2014how in it were combined, in a\nunique degree, strength and harmony, complete openness towards the\nworld, with perfect inwardness towards God, so as to become the source\nof a new religion, in which self-surrender and liberty, humility and\nenergy, enthusiasm and lucidity, are blended, and the chasm of previous\nages between God and man filled up. His description of the\npsychological development of the Messianic consciousness of Jesus out\nof inward experiences and outward impressions and impulses, is also\ndrawn with great delicacy of touch; at all events, it is an able and\nsuggestive effort to penetrate, as far as the state of the sources\nadmits, by means of sympathetic and reproductive divination, to the\npersonal experiences and mental states of the religious genius from\nwhom a new epoch in the world\u2019s religious history proceeded. Still, as\nin the kindred efforts of Renan, Weizs\u00e4cker, Beyschlag and Weiss, we\nmay never forget how much, with the poverty of the ascertained\nhistorical materials, is left to the uncontrolled power of combination\nand divination; in other words, to the imagination, which at best can\ndo no more than roughly and approximately arrive at the truth, while it\nmay no less easily go far astray. It is certainly to be deemed an\nadvance that in the more recent works on the life of Jesus the subject\nof main interest is not so much the external miracles as the internal,\nthe problems of the peculiar nature and development of his religious\nconsciousness and character, his view of his vocation, his attitude\ntowards the Messianic idea, and the like. Yet this advance is\nmanifestly attended by the temptation to sacrifice the caution of\nhistorical criticism to the production of a biography as rich in detail\nand as dramatic in movement as possible, and to represent things as the\nascertained results of critical examination, which are really nothing\nmore than subjective combinations of the writers, to which a certain\ndegree of probability may be attached, though the possibility will\nalways remain, that the actual facts were something quite different.\nThe subtle examination of the question, whether Jesus himself ever\ndeclared himself to be the Messiah, or spoke of his return in celestial\nglory, by Martineau, in his Seat of Authority in Religion, is in this\nrespect deserving of all attention, and is of great value, as at least\nsupplying a needed lesson in caution in view of the excessive\nconfidence with which questions such as these have been treated by\nRenan, Keim, and later writers. In any case, the reserve and caution of\nStrauss are quite justified as a corrective and counterpoise to the\nextravagances committed in the opposite direction.\n\nWith regard to the miraculous narratives of the Gospels, the advance of\nmore recent criticism beyond the first book of Strauss has been in two\ndirections. First, these questions no longer constitute the central\npoint of historical interest, but are subordinated in importance to the\nproblems of the religious consciousness of Jesus. Secondly, we do not\nnow seek to interpret these narratives so exclusively and without\ndistinction from the one motive of the transference to Jesus of the\ntypes of the Old Testament; but the great difference between the\nvarious narratives of miracles is clearly recognised, and various clues\nare accordingly used in their explanation; whilst in one narrative we\nobserve merely symbols of religious and dogmatic ideas, in others we\ndiscover, behind the glorifying tendency to idealism, some background\nof historical fact, for instance, in the miracles of healing, as is now\nvery generally acknowledged. It cannot be denied, it is true, that with\nthis perfectly legitimate endeavour is connected the peril of falling\nback into the old abuses of rationalistic artifice. Even Keim has not\nquite escaped this danger, inasmuch as he abandons the basis of strict\nhistory in the case of the story of the resurrection of Jesus, and\nmakes concessions to supernaturalistic dogma; as the sequel of which\nthe old doctrine of miracles may be readmitted into Lives of Jesus, as\nis really the case in the works of Beyschlag and Weiss.\n\nIn this danger appears the necessity for the continued prosecution of\nthe negative work of criticism, a duty as yet by no means\nsupererogatory. The inclination to sink into the slumber of dogma is so\nnatural to every generation that the most uncompromising critical\nintellect must without intermission stand upon the watch against it.\nAnd as this task was performed by Strauss in his first Life of Jesus in\na manner that may serve as a model for all time, the book, like every\ntruly classical work, must ever retain its value. Strauss\u2019s criticism\nbroke down the ramparts of dogmatism, new and old, and opened to the\ninquiring mind the breach through which the conquest of historical\ntruth might be won.\n\n\n Otto Pfleiderer.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCertior factus ex Britannia, librum meum, quem de vita Jesu XI abhinc\nannis composui, virorum ejusmodi studiis faventium cura in linguam\nBritannicam translatum, brevi illic in publicum proditurum esse,\nl\u00e6litia anxietate temperata commoveor.\n\nNam ut gratulari sibi \u00e6quum est auctorem, cujus operi contigit, patri\u00e6\nterr\u00e6 ac lingu\u00e6 fines transgredi, ita sollicitudo eundem subeat necesse\nest, ne, qui domi placuit liber, foris displiceat, aut cujus inter\npopulares vel adversariorum numero creverat auctoritas, apud exteros\nneglectus in obscuro maneat. Solum enim c\u0153lumque vix minore libri quam\nplant\u00e6 periculo mutant. Et facilius quidem transtuleris opera in illis\nrebus versantia, de quibus inter diversas gentes communis quidam aut\ncerte parum discrepans sensus obtinet: ut, qu\u00e6 poet\u00e6 aut disciplinarum\nquas exactas dicunt periti proferunt, inter politiores hujus seculi\nnationes fere solent esse communia. Neque tamen vel hoc in librorum\ngenere plane \u00e6quum Germano cum Britannis aut Gallis certamen. Peregrina\nenim cum facilius nostra quam illorum et lingua et indoles recipiat,\nlonge frequentius poet\u00e6 quoque illorum in nostram quam nostri in\nillorum linguas transferuntur. At Germanicum opus in theologi\u00e6 et\nphilosophi\u00e6 quasi confinio versans, si trajicere in Britanniam parat,\nne illa quidem inter utramque gentem sensus et studiorum communione\nadjuvatur. Tam diversa enim utrimque via ist\u00e6 disciplin\u00e6 processerunt,\nut in theologia impii, in philosophia superstitiosi Britannis Germani\niidem videamur. Cum iis, qui in Britannia ausi sunt, historias,\nJud\u00e6orum et Christianorum religione sacratas, examini ut ajunt critico\nsubjicere, nihil agendum esset, nisi ut Lockii sui atque Humii\nprincipia philosophica, sicut ad reliquas omnes historias, ita ad illas\netiam, quas legibus istis hucusque superstitio subtraxerat, adhiberent:\nin Germania ad hoc monstri res degeneraverat, ut superstitioni a\ntheologorum potissima parte derelict\u00e6 philosophia succurreret, critico\nergo non simplex san\u00e6 philosophi\u00e6 contra theologorum superstitionem,\nsed duplex et contra philosophorum ex sanioribus principiis deductas\nineptas conclusiones, et contra theologorum propter philosophica ista\nauxilia ornamentaque inflatam atque induratam superstitionem, certamen\nineundum esset. Ex hoc rei statu proprie Germanico natum opus meum,\nnominibus insuper atque opinionibus theologorum ac philosophorum\nnostratium refertum, nec scholarum etiam vocabula, quibus nostr\u00e6 tantum\naures assuevere, satis evitans, a Britannorum usu ingenioque non posse\nnon abhorrere, tam probe scio, ut de translato in eorum linguam, licet\ninterpretatio, quantum quidem ejus inspicere potuerim, et accurata et\nperspicua sit et librum, quantum in ipsa est, popularibus commendet,\nnum gaudendum mihi magnopere sit, mehercule nesciam.\n\nAccedit, quod a primo libri mei ortu duo lustra, et a recentissima\netiam editione unum jam lustrum intercessit. Ut tum, quum opus\ninchoabam, via incedebam, quam pauci ingressi, totam emensus nemo erat,\nita per primum illud lustrum null\u00e6 fere nisi adversariorum voces\naudiebantur, principia mea negantium et historiam in Evangeliis vel\nmeram, vel levissima tantum erroris rumorisve adspersione tinctam\ncontineri affirmantium, cum quibus non modo non disputandum, sed a\nquibus ne discendum quidem quidquam erat, quod ad rem et ad librum vere\nemendandum pertineret. Proximo demum lustro viri vestigia mea non\nrefugientes neque evitantes, sed persequentes, ubi ego substiteram\nlongius progressi, rem revera juverunt atque promoverunt. Narrationes\nin Evangeliis traditas, quas rerum vere gestarum esse persuadere mihi\nnon potueram, mythorum in modum, qui inter antiquas gentes inveniuntur,\naut in ore populi a minutis initiis coaluisse et eundo crevisse, aut a\nsingulis, sed qui vere ita evenisse superstitiose in animum induxerant,\nfictas esse existimaveram. Quod ut sufficit explicandis plerisque\neorum, qu\u00e6 dubitationem moventia tribus prioribus Evangeliis\ncontinentur: ita quarti Evangelii auctorem ad tuendas et illustrandas\nsententias suas haud raro meras fabulas scientem confinxisse, a Baurio,\ntheologo Tubingensi doctissimo, nuper ita demonstratum est, ut critici\nme judicii rigori religiosius quam verius temperasse intelligam. Dumque\nprima a Christo secula accuratius perscrutantur, partes partiumque\ncertamina, quibus nova ecclesia commovebatur, in apricum proferunt,\nnarrationum haud paucarum, quas fabulas esse ego bene quidem\nperspexeram, sed unde ort\u00e6 essent demonstrare non valueram, veram in\nillis prim\u00e6 ecclesi\u00e6 motibus originem detegere theologis Tubingensibus\ncontigit.\n\nImperfectum igitur opus meum, ut solent rerum initia, non ob hoc tamen,\nquod sententi\u00e6 deest, timerem, ne a Britannis sperneretur, nisi form\u00e6\netiam illud quod supra dixi peregrinum atque inusitatum accederet. Qui\nsi suum Hennellium non audiverunt, de iisdem rebus cum Britannis\nBritannice agentem, quomodo audient, si quis Germanus surget, cujus\nliber cum sua lingua non potuerit cogitandi quoque disputandique morem\nprorsus Germanicum exuere? Sed absit omen verbis meis, atque ut pridem\nin Germania, ita mox in Britannia jaceat liber hic \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f42\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c6\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af.\n\n STRAUSS.\n\n Scribebam Heilbronn\u00e6. Med. mens. April a. 1846.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE FIRST GERMAN EDITION.\n\n\nIt appeared to the author of the work, the first half of which is\nherewith submitted to the public, that it was time to substitute a new\nmode of considering the life of Jesus, in the place of the antiquated\nsystems of supranaturalism and naturalism. This application of the term\nantiquated will in the present day be more readily admitted in relation\nto the latter system than to the former. For while the interest excited\nby the explanations of the miracles and the conjectural facts of the\nrationalists has long ago cooled, the commentaries now most read are\nthose which aim to adapt the supernatural interpretation of the sacred\nhistory to modern taste. Nevertheless, in point of fact, the orthodox\nview of this history became superannuated earlier than the\nrationalistic, since it was only because the former had ceased to\nsatisfy an advanced state of culture, that the latter was developed,\nwhile the recent attempts to recover, by the aid of a mystical\nphilosophy, the supernatural point of view held by our forefathers,\nbetray themselves, by the exaggerating spirit in which they are\nconceived, to be final, desperate efforts to render the past present,\nthe inconceivable conceivable.\n\nThe new point of view, which must take the place of the above, is the\nmythical. This theory is not brought to bear on the evangelical history\nfor the first time in the present work: it has long been applied to\nparticular parts of that history, and is here only extended to its\nentire tenor. It is not by any means meant that the whole history of\nJesus is to be represented as mythical, but only that every part of it\nis to be subjected to a critical examination, to ascertain whether it\nhave not some admixture of the mythical. The exegesis of the ancient\nchurch set out from the double presupposition: first, that the gospels\ncontained a history, and secondly, that this history was a supernatural\none. Rationalism rejected the latter of these presuppositions, but only\nto cling the more tenaciously to the former, maintaining that these\nbooks present unadulterated, though only natural, history. Science\ncannot rest satisfied with this half-measure: the other presupposition\nalso must be relinquished, and the inquiry must first be made whether\nin fact, and to what extent, the ground on which we stand in the\ngospels is historical. This is the natural course of things, and thus\nfar the appearance of a work like the present is not only justifiable,\nbut even necessary.\n\nIt is certainly not therefore evident that the author is precisely the\nindividual whose vocation it is to appear in this position. He has a\nvery vivid consciousness that many others would have been able to\nexecute such a work with incomparably superior erudition. Yet on the\nother hand he believes himself to be at least possessed of one\nqualification which especially fitted him to undertake this task. The\nmajority of the most learned and acute theologians of the present day\nfail in the main requirement for such a work, a requirement without\nwhich no amount of learning will suffice to achieve anything in the\ndomain of criticism\u2014namely, the internal liberation of the feelings and\nintellect from certain religious and dogmatical presuppositions; and\nthis the author early attained by means of philosophical studies. If\ntheologians regard this absence of presupposition from his work, as\nunchristian: he regards the believing presuppositions of theirs as\nunscientific. Widely as in this respect the tone of the present work\nmay be contrasted with the edifying devoutness and enthusiastic\nmysticism of recent books on similar subjects; still it will nowhere\ndepart from the seriousness of science, or sink into frivolity; and it\nseems a just demand in return, that the judgments which are passed upon\nit should also confine themselves to the domain of science, and keep\naloof from bigotry and fanaticism.\n\nThe author is aware that the essence of the Christian faith is\nperfectly independent of his criticism. The supernatural birth of\nChrist, his miracles, his resurrection and ascension, remain eternal\ntruths, whatever doubts may be cast on their reality as historical\nfacts. The certainty of this can alone give calmness and dignity to our\ncriticism, and distinguish it from the naturalistic criticism of the\nlast century, the design of which was, with the historical fact, to\nsubvert also the religious truth, and which thus necessarily became\nfrivolous. A dissertation at the close of the work will show that the\ndogmatic significance of the life of Jesus remains inviolate: in the\nmeantime let the calmness and insensibility with which, in the course\nof it, criticism undertakes apparently dangerous operations, be\nexplained solely by the security of the author\u2019s conviction that no\ninjury is threatened to the Christian faith. Investigations of this\nkind may, however, inflict a wound on the faith of individuals. Should\nthis be the case with theologians, they have in their science the means\nof healing such wounds, from which, if they would not remain behind the\ndevelopment of their age, they cannot possibly be exempt. For the laity\nthe subject is certainly not adequately prepared; and for this reason\nthe present work is so framed, that at least the unlearned among them\nwill quickly and often perceive that the book is not destined for them.\nIf from curiosity or excessive zeal against heresy they persist in\ntheir perusal, they will then have, as Schleiermacher says on a similar\noccasion, to bear the punishment in their conscience, since their\nfeelings directly urge on them the conviction that they understand not\nthat of which they are ambitious to speak.\n\nA new opinion, which aims to fill the place of an older one, ought\nfully to adjust its position with respect to the latter. Hence the way\nto the mythical view is here taken in each particular point through the\nsupranaturalistic and rationalistic opinions and their respective\nrefutations; but, as becomes a valid refutation, with an acknowledgment\nof what is true in the opinions combated, and an adoption of this truth\ninto the new theory. This method also brings with it the extrinsic\nadvantage, that the work may now serve as a repertory of the principal\nopinions and treatises concerning all parts of the evangelical history.\nThe author has not, however, aimed to give a complete bibliographical\nview of this department of theological literature, but, where it was\npossible, has adhered to the chief works in each separate class of\nopinions. For the rationalistic system the works of Paulus remain\nclassical, and are therefore pre-eminently referred to; for the\northodox opinions, the commentary of Olshausen is especially important,\nas the most recent and approved attempt to render the supranatural\ninterpretation philosophical and modern; while as a preliminary to a\ncritical investigation of the life of Jesus, the commentaries of\nFritzsche are excellently adapted, since they exhibit, together with\nuncommon philological learning, that freedom from prejudice and\nscientific indifference to results and consequences, which form the\nfirst condition of progress in this region of inquiry.\n\nThe second volume, which will open with a detailed examination of the\nmiracles of Jesus, and which will conclude the whole work, is already\nprepared and will be in the press immediately on the completion of the\nfirst.\n\n\n THE AUTHOR.\n\n T\u00fcbingen, 24th May, 1835.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION.\n\n\nAs this new edition of my critical examination of the life of Jesus\nappears simultaneously with the first volume of my Dogmatik, it will\nnot be expected to contain any essential alterations. Indeed, even in\nthe absence of other labours, I should scarcely have been inclined to\nundertake such on the present occasion. The critical researches\nprompted by the appearance of my work have, after the stormy reaction\nof the first few years, at length entered on that quiet course, which\npromises the most valuable assistance towards the confirmation and more\nprecise determination of the negative results at which I have arrived.\nBut these fruits still require some years for their maturing; and it\nmust therefore be deferred to a future opportunity to enrich this work\nby the use of them. I could not persuade myself to do so, at least in\nthe present instance, by prosecuting a polemic against opposite\nopinions. Already in the last edition there was more of a polemical\ncharacter than accorded with the unity and calmness proper to such a\nwork; hence I was in this respect admonished rather to abridge than to\namplify. But that edition also contained too much of compliance. The\nintermingling voices of opponents, critics, and fellow labourers, to\nwhich I held it a duty attentively to listen, had confused the idea of\nthe work in my mind; in the diligent comparison of divergent opinions I\nhad lost sight of the subject itself. Hence on coming with a more\ncollected mind to this last revision, I found alterations at which I\ncould not but wonder, and by which I had evidently done myself\ninjustice. In all these passages the earlier readings are now restored,\nand thus my labour in this new edition has chiefly consisted in\nwhetting, as it were, my good sword, to free it from the notches made\nin it rather by my own grinding, than by the blows of my enemies.\n\n\n THE AUTHOR.\n\n Stuttgard, 17th October, 1840.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nDEVELOPMENT OF THE MYTHICAL POINT OF VIEW IN RELATION TO THE GOSPEL\nHISTORIES.\n\n PAGE\n\n \u00a7 1. Inevitable rise of different modes of explaining sacred\n histories 39\n 2. Different explanations of sacred legends among the Greeks 40\n 3. Allegorical interpretations among the Hebrews. Philo 41\n 4. Allegorical interpretations among the Christians. Origen 41\n 5. Transition to more modern times. Deists and Naturalists of\n the 17th and 18th centuries. The Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist 44\n 6. Natural mode of explanation adopted by the Rationalists.\n Eichhorn. Paulus 46\n 7. Moral interpretation of Kant 50\n 8. Rise of the mythical mode of interpreting the sacred\n history, in reference first to the Old Testament 52\n 9. The mythical mode of interpretation in reference to the\n New Testament 57\n 10. The notion of the mythus in its application to sacred\n histories not clearly apprehended by theologians 59\n 11. The application of the notion of the mythus too\n circumscribed 63\n 12. Opposition to the mythical view of the Gospel history 65\n 13. The possibility of the existence of mythi in the New\n Testament considered in reference to external evidences 69\n 14. The possibility of mythi in the New Testament considered\n on internal grounds 75\n 15. Definition of the evangelical mythus, and its distinctive\n characteristics 86\n 16. Criteria by which to distinguish the unhistorical in the\n Gospel narrative 87\n\n\nFIRST PART.\n\nHISTORY OF THE BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nANNUNCIATION AND BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.\n\n \u00a7 17. Account given by Luke. Immediate supernatural character\n of the representation 95\n 18. Natural explanation of the narrative 100\n 19. Mythical view of the narrative in its different stages 104\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nDAVIDICAL DESCENT OF JESUS, ACCORDING TO THE GENEALOGICAL TABLES OF\nMATTHEW AND LUKE.\n\n \u00a7 20. The two genealogies of Jesus considered separately and\n irrespectively of one another 108\n 21. Comparison of the two genealogies. Attempt to reconcile\n their contradictions 112\n 22. The genealogies unhistorical 117\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CONCEPTION OF JESUS.\u2014ITS SUPERNATURAL\nCHARACTER.\u2014VISIT OF MARY TO ELIZABETH.\n\n \u00a7 23. Sketch of the different canonical and apocryphal accounts 119\n 24. Disagreements of the canonical gospels in relation to the\n form of the annunciation 121\n 25. Import of the angel\u2019s message. Fulfilment of the prophecy\n of Isaiah 126\n 26. Jesus begotten of the Holy Ghost. Criticism of the\n orthodox opinion 130\n 27. Retrospect of the genealogies 132\n 28. Natural explanation of the history of the conception 137\n 29. History of the conception of Jesus viewed as a mythus 140\n 30. Relation of Joseph to Mary. Brothers of Jesus 143\n 31. Visit of Mary to Elizabeth 148\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nBIRTH AND EARLIEST EVENTS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.\n\n \u00a7 32. The census 152\n 33. Particular circumstances of the birth of Jesus. The\n circumcision 156\n 34. The Magi and their star. The flight into Egypt, and the\n murder of the children in Bethlehem. Criticism of the\n supranaturalistic view 162\n 35. Attempts at a natural explanation of the history of the\n Magi. Transition to the mythical explanation 169\n 36. The purely mythical explanation of the narrative\n concerning the Magi, and of the events with which it\n is connected 173\n 37. Chronological relation between the visit of the Magi,\n together with the flight into Egypt, and the presentation\n in the temple recorded by Luke 178\n 38. The presentation of Jesus in the temple 181\n 39. Retrospect. Difference between Matthew and Luke as to the\n original residence of the parents of Jesus 184\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE FIRST VISIT TO THE TEMPLE, AND THE EDUCATION OF JESUS.\n\n \u00a7 40. Jesus, when twelve years old, in the temple 191\n 41. This narrative also mythical 196\n 42. On the external life of Jesus up to the time of his\n public appearance 198\n 43. The intellectual development of Jesus 201\n\n\nSECOND PART.\n\nHISTORY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nRELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST.\n\n \u00a7 44. Chronological relations between John and Jesus 209\n 45. Appearance and design of the Baptist. His personal\n relations with Jesus 214\n 46. Was Jesus acknowledged by John as the Messiah? and in\n what sense? 219\n 47. Opinion of the evangelists and of Jesus concerning\n the Baptist, with his own judgment of himself. Result\n of the inquiry into the relationship between these\n two individuals 230\n 48. The execution of John the Baptist 234\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nBAPTISM AND TEMPTATION OF JESUS.\n\n \u00a7 49. Why did Jesus receive baptism from John? 237\n 50. The scene at the baptism of Jesus considered as\n supernatural, and as natural 239\n 51. An attempt at a criticism and mythical interpretation\n of the narratives 242\n 52. Relation of the supernatural at the baptism of Jesus\n to the supernatural in his conception 247\n 53. Place and time of the temptation of Jesus. Divergencies\n of the evangelists on this subject 249\n 54. The history of the temptation conceived in the sense\n of the evangelists 252\n 55. The temptation considered as a natural occurrence either\n internal or external; and also as a parable 255\n 56. The history of the temptation as a mythus 259\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nLOCALITY AND CHRONOLOGY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.\n\n \u00a7 57. Difference between the synoptical writers and John, as\n to the customary scene of the ministry of Jesus 264\n 58. The residence of Jesus at Capernaum 271\n 59. Divergencies of the Evangelists as to the chronology\n of the life of Jesus. Duration of his public ministry 275\n 60. The attempts at a chronological arrangement of the\n particular events in the public life of Jesus 278\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nJESUS AS THE MESSIAH.\n\n \u00a7 61. Jesus, the Son of Man 281\n 62. How soon did Jesus conceive himself to be the Messiah,\n and find recognition as such from others? 284\n 63. Jesus, the Son of God 288\n 64. The divine mission and authority of Jesus. His\n pre-existence 291\n 65. The messianic plan of Jesus. Indications of a political\n element 293\n 66. Data for the pure spirituality of the messianic plan\n of Jesus. Balance 295\n 67. The relation of Jesus to the Mosaic law 297\n 68. Scope of the messianic plan of Jesus. Relation to\n the Gentiles 300\n 69. Relation of the messianic plan of Jesus to the\n Samaritans. His interview with the woman of Samaria 303\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE DISCIPLES OF JESUS.\n\n \u00a7 70. Calling of the first companions of Jesus. Difference\n between the first two Evangelists and the fourth 309\n 71. Peter\u2019s draught of fishes 315\n 72. Calling of Matthew. Connexion of Jesus with the publicans 319\n 73. The twelve apostles 323\n 74. The twelve considered individually. The three or four\n most confidential disciples of Jesus 326\n 75. The rest of the twelve, and the seventy disciples 330\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS.\n\n \u00a7 76. The Sermon on the Mount 334\n 77. Instructions to the twelve. Lamentations over the\n Galilean cities. Joy over the calling of the simple 342\n 78. The parables 345\n 79. Miscellaneous instructions and controversies of Jesus 355\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nDISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL.\n\n \u00a7 80. Conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus 365\n 81. The discourses of Jesus, John v.\u2013xii. 371\n 82. Isolated maxims of Jesus, common to the fourth gospel\n and the synoptical ones 377\n 83. The modern discussions on the authenticity of the\n discourses in the Gospel of John. Result 381\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nEVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS, EXCLUSIVE OF THE MIRACLES.\n\n \u00a7 84. General comparison of the manner of narration that\n distinguishes the several Evangelists 387\n 85. Isolated groups of anecdotes. Imputation of a league\n with Beelzebub, and demand of a sign 391\n 86. Visit of the mother and brethren of Jesus. The woman\n who pronounces the mother of Jesus blessed 394\n 87. Contentions for pre-eminence among the disciples. The\n love of Jesus for children 396\n 88. The purification of the temple 399\n 89. Narratives of the anointing of Jesus by a woman 402\n 90. The narratives of the woman taken in adultery, and of\n Mary and Martha 409\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nMIRACLES OF JESUS.\n\n \u00a7 91. Jesus considered as a worker of miracles 413\n 92. The demoniacs, considered generally 415\n 93. Cases of the expulsion of demons by Jesus, considered\n singly 423\n 94. Cures of lepers 437\n 95. Cures of the blind 441\n 96. Cures of paralytics. Did Jesus regard diseases as\n punishments? 452\n 97. Involuntary cures 457\n 98. Cures at a distance 462\n 99. Cures on the sabbath 471\n 100. Resuscitations of the dead 476\n 101. Anecdotes having relation to the sea 496\n 102. The miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes 507\n 103. Jesus turns water into wine 519\n 104. Jesus curses a barren fig-tree 527\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE TRANSFIGURATION OF JESUS, AND HIS LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM.\n\n\u00a7 105. The transfiguration of Jesus considered as a miraculous\n external event 535\n 106. The natural explanation of the narrative in various\n forms 537\n 107. The history of the transfiguration considered as a mythus 540\n 108. Diverging accounts concerning the last journey of Jesus\n to Jerusalem 546\n 109. Divergencies of the gospels, in relation to the point\n from which Jesus made his entrance into Jerusalem 549\n 110. More particular circumstances of the entrance. Its\n object and historical reality 553\n\n\nTHIRD PART.\n\nHISTORY OF THE PASSION, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nRELATION OF JESUS TO THE IDEA OF A SUFFERING AND DYING MESSIAH; HIS\nDISCOURSES ON HIS DEATH, RESURRECTION, AND SECOND ADVENT.\n\n\u00a7 111. Did Jesus in precise terms predict his passion and death? 563\n 112. The predictions of Jesus concerning his death in general;\n their relation to the Jewish idea of the Messiah;\n declarations of Jesus concerning the object and effects of\n his death 567\n 113. Precise declarations of Jesus concerning his future\n resurrection 574\n 114. Figurative discourses, in which Jesus is supposed to have\n announced his resurrection 576\n 115. The discourses of Jesus on his second advent. Criticism\n of the different interpretations 582\n 116. Origin of the discourses on the second advent 591\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nMACHINATIONS OF THE ENEMIES OF JESUS; TREACHERY OF JUDAS; LAST SUPPER\nWITH THE DISCIPLES.\n\n\u00a7 117. Development of the relation of Jesus to his enemies 599\n 118. Jesus and his betrayer 602\n 119. Different opinions concerning the character of Judas,\n and the motives of his treachery 607\n 120. Preparation for the passover 611\n 121. Divergent statements respecting the time of the last\n supper 614\n 122. Divergencies in relation to the occurrences at the last\n meal of Jesus 621\n 123. Announcement of the betrayal and the denial 626\n 124. The institution of the Lord\u2019s supper 631\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nRETIREMENT TO THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, ARREST, TRIAL, CONDEMNATION, AND\nCRUCIFIXION OF JESUS.\n\n\u00a7 125. Agony of Jesus in the garden 635\n 126. Relation of the fourth gospel to the events in Gethsemane.\n The farewell discourses in John, and the scene following\n the announcement of the Greeks 640\n 127. Arrest of Jesus 649\n 128. Examination of Jesus before the high priest 653\n 129. The denial by Peter 658\n 130. The death of the betrayer 662\n 131. Jesus before Pilate and Herod 669\n 132. The crucifixion 677\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nDEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS.\n\n\u00a7 133. Prodigies attendant on the death of Jesus 691\n 134. The wound by a spear in the side of Jesus 697\n 135. Burial of Jesus 701\n 136. The watch at the grave of Jesus 705\n 137. First tidings of the resurrection 709\n 138. Appearances of the risen Jesus in Galilee and in Judea,\n including those mentioned by Paul and by apocryphal\n writings 718\n 139. Quality of the body and life of Jesus after the\n resurrection 728\n 140. Debates concerning the reality of the death and\n resurrection of Jesus 735\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE ASCENSION.\n\n\u00a7 141. The last commands and promises of Jesus 745\n 142. The so-called ascension considered as a supernatural\n and as a natural event 749\n 143. Insufficiency of the narratives of the ascension. Mythical\n conception of those narratives 752\n\n\nCONCLUDING DISSERTATION.\n\nTHE DOGMATIC IMPORT OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.\n\n\u00a7 144. Necessary transition from criticism to dogma 757\n 145. The Christology of the orthodox system 758\n 146. Objections to the Christology of the church 764\n 147. The Christology of rationalism 767\n 148. The eclectic Christology of Schleiermacher 768\n 149. Christology interpreted symbolically. Kant. De Wette 773\n 150. The speculative Christology 777\n 151. Last dilemma 778\n 152. Relation of the critical and speculative theology to\n the church 781\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE LIFE OF JESUS.\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nDEVELOPMENT OF THE MYTHICAL POINT OF VIEW IN RELATION TO THE GOSPEL\nHISTORIES.\n\n\u00a7 1.\n\nINEVITABLE RISE OF DIFFERENT MODES OF EXPLAINING SACRED HISTORIES.\n\nWherever a religion, resting upon written records, prolongs and extends\nthe sphere of its dominion, accompanying its votaries through the\nvaried and progressive stages of mental cultivation, a discrepancy\nbetween the representations of those ancient records, referred to as\nsacred, and the notions of more advanced periods of mental development,\nwill inevitably sooner or later arise. In the first instance this\ndisagreement is felt in reference only to the unessential\u2014the external\nform: the expressions and delineations are seen to be inappropriate;\nbut by degrees it manifests itself also in regard to that which is\nessential: the fundamental ideas and opinions in these early writings\nfail to be commensurate with a more advanced civilisation. As long as\nthis discrepancy is either not in itself so considerable, or else is\nnot so universally discerned and acknowledged, as to lead to a complete\nrenunciation of these Scriptures as of sacred authority, so long will a\nsystem of reconciliation by means of interpretation be adopted and\npursued by those who have a more or less distinct consciousness of the\nexisting incongruity.\n\nA main element in all religious records is sacred history; a history of\nevents in which the divine enters, without intermediation, into the\nhuman; the ideal thus assuming an immediate embodiment. But as the\nprogress of mental cultivation mainly consists in the gradual\nrecognition of a chain of causes and effects connecting natural\nphenomena with each other; so the mind in its development becomes ever\nincreasingly conscious of those mediate links which are indispensable\nto the realization of the ideal; [1] and hence the discrepancy between\nthe modern culture and the ancient records, with regard to their\nhistorical portion, becomes so apparent, that the immediate\nintervention of the divine in human affairs loses its probability.\nBesides, as the humanity of these records is the humanity of an early\nperiod, consequently of an age comparatively undeveloped and\nnecessarily rude, a sense of repulsion is likewise excited. The\nincongruity may be thus expressed. The divine cannot so have happened;\n(not immediately, not in forms so rude;) or, that which has so happened\ncannot have been divine:\u2014and if a reconciliation be sought by means of\ninterpretation, it will be attempted to prove, either that the divine\ndid not manifest itself in the manner related,\u2014which is to deny the\nhistorical validity of the ancient Scriptures; or, that the actual\noccurrences were not divine\u2014which is to explain away the absolute\ncontents of these books. In both cases the interpretation may be\npartial or impartial: partial, if undertaken with a determination to\nclose the eyes to the secretly recognised fact of the disagreement\nbetween the modern culture and the ancient records, and to see only in\nsuch interpretation the original signification of these records;\nimpartial, if it unequivocally acknowledges and openly avows that the\nmatters narrated in these books must be viewed in a light altogether\ndifferent from that in which they were regarded by the authors\nthemselves. This latter method, however, by no means involves the\nentire rejection of the religious documents; on the contrary, the\nessential may be firmly retained, whilst the unessential is\nunreservedly abandoned.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2.\n\nDIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS OF SACRED LEGENDS AMONG THE GREEKS.\n\nThough the Hellenistic religion cannot be said to have rested upon\nwritten records, it became enshrined in the Greek poems, for example,\nin those of Homer and Hesiod; and these, no less than its orally\ntransmitted legends, did not fail to receive continually varying\ninterpretations, successively adapted to the progressive intellectual\nculture of the Greeks. At an early period the rigid philosophy of the\nGreeks, and under its influence even some of the Greek poets,\nrecognized the impossibility of ascribing to Deity manifestations so\ngrossly human, so immediate, and so barbarous, as those exhibited and\nrepresented as divine in the wild conflicts of Hesiod\u2019s Theogony, and\nin the domestic occupations and trivial pursuits of the Homeric\ndeities. Hence arose the quarrel of Plato, and prior to him of Pindar,\nwith Homer; [2] hence the cause which induced Anaxagoras, to whom the\ninvention of the allegorical mode of interpretation is ascribed, to\napply the Homeric delineations to virtue and to justice; [3] hence it\nwas that the Stoics understood the Theogony of Hesiod as relating to\nthe action of the elements, which, according to their notions,\nconstituted, in their highest union, the divine nature. [4] Thus did\nthese several thinkers, each according to his own peculiar mode of\nthought, succeed in discovering an absolute meaning in these\nrepresentations: the one finding in them a physical, the other an\nethical signification, whilst, at the same time, they gave up their\nexternal form, ceasing to regard them as strictly historical.\n\nOn the other hand, the more popular and sophistical culture of another\nclass of thinkers led them to opposite conclusions. Though, in their\nestimation, every semblance of the divine had evaporated from these\nhistories; though they were convinced that the proceedings ascribed to\nthe gods were not godlike, still they did not abandon the historical\nsense of these narratives. With Evemerus [5] they transformed the\nsubjects of these histories from gods to men, to heroes and sages of\nantiquity, kings and tyrants, who, through deeds of might and valour,\nhad acquired divine honours. Some indeed went still further, and, with\nPolybius, [6] considered the whole system of heathen theology as a\nfable, invented by the founders of states to awe the people into\nsubjection.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\nALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATIONS AMONG THE HEBREWS.\u2014PHILO.\n\nWhilst, on the one hand, the isolation and stability of the Hebrews\nserved to retard the development of similar manifestations amongst this\npeople, on the other hand, when once actually developed, they were the\nmore marked; because, in proportion to the high degree of authority\nascribed to the sacred records, was the skill and caution required in\ntheir interpretation. Thus, even in Palestine, subsequent to the exile,\nand particularly after the time of the Maccabees, many ingenious\nattempts were made to interpret the Old Testament so as to remove\noffensive literalities, supply deficiencies, and introduce the notions\nof a later age. Examples of this system of interpretation occur in the\nwritings of the Rabbins, and even in the New Testament; [7] but it was\nat that place where the Jewish mind came into contact with Greek\ncivilization, and under its influence was carried beyond the limits of\nits own national culture\u2014namely at Alexandria\u2014that the allegorical mode\nof interpretation was first consistently applied to the whole body of\nhistorical narrative in the Old Testament. Many had prepared the way,\nbut it was Philo who first fully developed the doctrine of both a\ncommon and a deeper sense of the Holy Scriptures. He was by no means\ninclined to cast away the former, but generally placed the two\ntogether, side by side, and even declared himself opposed to those who,\neverywhere and without necessity, sacrificed the literal to the higher\nsignification. In many cases, however, he absolutely discarded the\nverbal meaning and historical conception, and considered the narrative\nmerely as the figurative representation of an idea. He did so, for\nexample, whenever the sacred story appeared to him to present\ndelineations unworthy of Deity, tending either to materialism or\nanthropomorphism, or otherwise to contain contradictions. [8]\n\nThe fact that the Jews, whilst they adopted this mode of explaining the\nOld Testament, (which, in order to save the purity of the intrinsic\nsignification, often sacrificed the historical form), were never led\ninto the opposite system of Evemerus (which preserved the historical\nform by divesting the history of the divine, and reducing it to a\nrecord of mere human events), is to be ascribed to the tenacity with\nwhich that people ever adhered to the supernatural point of view. The\nlatter mode of interpretation was first brought to bear upon the Old\nTestament by the Christians.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\nALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATIONS AMONG THE CHRISTIANS.\u2014ORIGEN.\n\n\nTo the early Christians who, antecedent to the fixing of the christian\ncanon, made especial use of the Old Testament as their principal sacred\nrecord, an allegorical interpretation was the more indispensable,\ninasmuch as they had made greater advances beyond the views of the Old\nTestament writers than even the most enlightened of the Jews. It was no\nwonder therefore that this mode of explanation, already in vogue among\nthe Jews, was almost universally adopted by the primitive christian\nchurches. It was however again in Alexandria that it found the fullest\napplication amongst the Christians, and that in connexion with the name\nof Origen. Origen attributes a threefold meaning to the Scriptures,\ncorresponding with his distribution of the human being into three\nparts: the literal sense answering to the body; the moral, to the soul;\nand the mystical, to the spirit. [9] The rule with him was to retain\nall three meanings, though differing in worth; in some particular\ncases, however, he was of opinion that the literal interpretation\neither gave no sense at all, or else a perverted sense, in order the\nmore directly to impel the reader to the discovery of its mystical\nsignification. Origen\u2019s repeated observation that it is not the purpose\nof the biblical narratives to transmit old tales, but to instruct in\nthe rules of life; [10] his assertion that the merely literal\nacceptation of many of the narratives would prove destructive of the\nchristian religion; [11] and his application of the passage \u201cThe letter\nkilleth, but the spirit giveth life,\u201d [12] to the relative worth of the\nallegorical and the literal modes of biblical interpretation, may be\nunderstood as indicating only the inferiority of the literal to the\ndeeper signification. But the literal sense is decidedly given up when\nit is said, \u201cEvery passage of Scripture has a spiritual element, but\nnot every one has a corporeal element;\u201d [13] \u201cA spiritual truth often\nexists embodied in a corporeal falsehood\u201d; [14] \u201cThe Scriptures contain\nmany things which never came to pass, interwoven with the history, and\nhe must be dull indeed who does not of his own accord observe that much\nwhich the Scriptures represent as having happened never actually\noccurred.\u201d [15] Among the passages which Origen regarded as admitting\nno other than an allegorical interpretation, besides those which too\nsensibly humanised the Deity, [16] he included those which attributed\nunworthy action to individuals who had held intimate communion with\nGod. [17]\n\nIt was not however from the Old Testament views alone that Origen had,\nin consequence of his christian training, departed so widely that he\nfelt himself compelled, if he would retain his reverence for the sacred\nrecords, to allegorize their contents, as a means of reconciling the\ncontradiction which had arisen between them and his own mind. There was\nmuch likewise in the New Testament writings which so little accorded\nwith his philosophical notions, that he found himself constrained to\nadopt a similar proceeding in reference to them. He reasoned thus:\u2014the\nNew Testament and the Old are the work of the same spirit, and this\nspirit would proceed in the same manner in the production of the one\nand of the other, interweaving fiction with reality, in order thereby\nto direct the mind to the spiritual signification. [18] In a remarkable\npassage of his work against Celsus, Origen classes together, and in no\nambiguous language, the partially fabulous stories of profane history,\nand of heathen mythology, with the gospel narratives. [19] He expresses\nhimself as follows: \u201cIn almost every history it is a difficult task,\nand not unfrequently an impossible one, to demonstrate the reality of\nthe events recorded, however true they may in fact be. Let us suppose\nsome individual to deny the reality of a Trojan war on account of the\nincredibilities mixed up with the history; as, for example, the birth\nof Achilles from a goddess of the sea. How could we substantiate the\nfact, encumbered as it is with the numerous and undeniable poetical\nfictions which have, in some unascertainable manner, become interwoven\nwith the generally admitted account of the war between the Greeks and\nthe Trojans? There is no alternative: he who would study history with\nunderstanding, and not suffer himself to be deluded, must weigh each\nseparate detail, and consider what is worthy of credit and may be\nbelieved without further evidence; what, on the contrary, must be\nregarded as merely figurative; (\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9) always bearing in\nmind the aim of the narrator\u2014and what must be wholly mistrusted as\nbeing written with intent to please certain individuals.\u201d In conclusion\nOrigen says, \u201cI was desirous of making these preliminary observations\nin relation to the entire history of Jesus given in the Gospels, not\nwith the view of exacting from the enlightened a blind and baseless\nbelief, but with design to show how indispensable to the study of this\nhistory are not only judgment and diligent examination, but, so to\nspeak, the very penetrating into the mind of the author, in order to\ndiscover the particular aim with which each narrative may have been\nwritten.\u201d\n\nWe here see Origen almost transcending the limits of his own customary\npoint of view, and verging towards the more modern mythical view. But\nif his own prepossessions in favour of the supernatural, and his fear\nof giving offence to the orthodox church, combined to hinder him from\nmaking a wider application of the allegorical mode of interpretation to\nthe Old Testament, the same causes operated still more powerfully in\nrelation to the New Testament; so that when we further inquire of which\nof the gospel histories in particular did Origen reject the historical\nmeaning, in order to hold fast a truth worthy of God? the instances\nwill prove to be meagre in the extreme. For when he says, in\nillustration of the above-mentioned passage, that amongst other things,\nit is not to be understood literally that Satan showed to Jesus all the\nkingdoms of the earth from a mountain, because this is impossible to\nthe bodily eye; he here gives not a strictly allegorical\ninterpretation, but merely a different turn to the literal sense,\nwhich, according to him, relates not to an external fact, but to the\ninternal fact of a vision. Again, even where the text offers a tempting\nopportunity of sacrificing the literal to the spiritual meaning, as,\nfor example, the cursing of the fig-tree, [20] Origen does not speak\nout freely. He is most explicit when speaking of the expulsion of the\nbuyers and sellers from the temple; he characterizes the conduct of\nJesus, according to the literal interpretation, as assuming and\nseditious. [21] He moreover expressly remarks that the Scriptures\ncontain many more historical than merely scriptural truths. [22]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\nTRANSITION TO MORE MODERN TIMES.\u2014DEISTS AND NATURALISTS OF THE 17TH AND\n18TH CENTURIES.\u2014THE WOLFENB\u00dcTTEL FRAGMENTIST.\n\nThus was developed one of those forms of interpretation to which the\nHebrew and Christian Scriptures, in common with all other religious\nrecords, in relation to their historical contents, became necessarily\nsubjected; that, namely, which recognizes in them the divine, but\ndenies it to have actually manifested itself in so immediate a manner.\nThe other principal mode of interpretation, which, to a certain extent,\nacknowledges the course of events to have been historically true, but\nassigns it to a human and not a divine origin, was developed amongst\nthe enemies of Christianity by a Celsus, a Porphyry, and a Julian. They\nindeed rejected much of the history as altogether fabulous; but they\nadmitted many of the incidents related of Moses, Jesus, and others, to\nbe historical facts: these facts were however considered by them as\noriginating from common motives; and they attributed their apparently\nsupernatural character either to gross fraud or impious sorcery.\n\nIt is worthy of observation that the circumstances attending the\nintroduction of these several modes of interpretation into the heathen\nand Jewish religions, on the one hand, and into the christian religion,\non the other, were different. The religion and sacred literature of the\nGreeks and Hebrews had been gradually developed with the development of\nthe nation, and it was not until the intellectual culture of the people\nhad outgrown the religion of their fathers, and the latter was in\nconsequence verging towards decay, that the discrepancy which is the\nsource of these varying interpretations became apparent. Christianity,\non the contrary, came into a world of already advanced civilization;\nwhich was, with the exception of that of Palestine, the\nJudaico-Hellenistic and the Greek. Consequently a disagreement\nmanifested itself at the very beginning; it was not now, however, as in\nformer times, between modern culture and an ancient religion, but\nbetween a new religion and ancient culture. The production of\nallegorical interpretations among the Pagans and the Hebrews, was a\nsign that their religion had lost its vitality; the allegories of\nOrigen and the attacks of Celsus, in reference to Christianity, were\nevidences rather that the world had not as yet duly accommodated itself\nto the new religion. As however with the christianizing of the Roman\nempire, and the overthrow of the chief heresies, the christian\nprinciple gained an ever-increasing supremacy; as the schools of\nheathen wisdom closed; and the uncivilized Germanic tribes lent\nthemselves to the teaching of the church;\u2014the world, during the tedious\ncenturies of the middle ages, was satisfied with Christianity, both in\nform and in substance. Almost all traces of these modes of\ninterpretation which presuppose a discrepancy between the culture of a\nnation, or of the world, and religion, in consequence disappeared. The\nreformation effected the first breach in the solid structure of the\nfaith of the church. It was the first vital expression of a culture,\nwhich had now in the heart of Christendom itself, as formerly in\nrelation to Paganism and Judaism, acquired strength and independence\nsufficient to create a reaction against the soil of its birth, the\nprevailing religion. This reaction, so long as it was directed against\nthe dominant hierarchy, constituted the sublime, but quickly\nterminated, drama of the reformation. In its later direction against\nthe Bible, it appeared again upon the stage in the barren revolutionary\nefforts of deism; and many and various have been the forms it has\nassumed in its progress down to the present time.\n\nThe deists and naturalists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries\nrenewed the polemic attacks of the pagan adversaries of Christianity in\nthe bosom of the christian church; and gave to the public an irregular\nand confused mass of criticisms, impugning the authenticity and\ncredibility of the Scriptures, and exposing to contempt the events\nrecorded in the sacred volume. Toland, [23] Bolingbroke, [24] and\nothers, pronounced the Bible to be a collection of unauthentic and\nfabulous books; whilst some spared no pains to despoil the biblical\nhistories, and the heroes whose actions they celebrate, of every ray of\ndivine light. Thus, according to Morgan, [25] the law of Moses is a\nmiserable system of superstition, blindness, and slavery; the Jewish\npriests are deceivers; and the Jewish prophets the originators of the\ndistractions and civil wars of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel.\nAccording to Chubb, [26] the Jewish religion cannot be a revelation\nfrom God, because it debases the moral character of the Deity by\nattributing to him arbitrary conduct, partiality for a particular\npeople, and above all, the cruel command to exterminate the Canaanitish\nnations. Assaults were likewise made by these and other deists upon the\nNew Testament: the Apostles were suspected of being actuated by selfish\nand mercenary motives; [27] the character of Jesus himself was not\nspared, [28] and the fact of his resurrection was denied. [29] The\nmiracles of Jesus, wrought by an immediate exercise of divine power in\nhuman acts and concerns, were made the particular objects of attack by\nWoolston. [30] This writer is also worthy of notice on account of the\npeculiar position taken by him between the ancient allegorists and the\nmodern naturalists. His whole reasoning turns upon the alternative;\neither to retain the historical reality of the miracles narrated in the\nBible, and thus to sacrifice the divine character of the narratives,\nand reduce the miracles to mere artifices, miserable juggleries, or\ncommonplace deceptions; or, in order to hold fast the divine character\nof these narratives, to reject them entirely as details of actual\noccurrences, and regard them as historical representations of certain\nspiritual truths. Woolston cites the authority of the most\ndistinguished allegorists among the fathers in support of this view. He\nis wrong however in representing them as supplanting the literal by the\nfigurative meaning. These ancient fathers, on the contrary, were\ndisposed to retain both the literal and the allegorical meaning. (A few\nexamples in Origen, it is true, are an exception to this rule.) It may\nbe doubted, from the language of Woolston, which alternative was\nadopted by himself. If we reason from the fact, that before he appeared\nas the opponent of the commonly entertained views of Christianity, he\noccupied himself with allegorical interpretations of the Scriptures,\n[31] we may be led to consider the latter alternative as expressing his\nreal conviction. On the other hand, he enlarges with so evident a\npredilection on the absurdities of the miracles, when literally\nunderstood, and the manner in which he treats the whole subject is so\ntinged with levity, that we may suspect the Deist to put forward the\nallegorical interpretations merely as a screen, from behind which he\nmight inveigh the more unreservedly against the literal signification.\n\nSimilar deistical objections against the Bible, and the divine\ncharacter of its history, were propagated in Germany chiefly by an\nanonymous author (Reimarus) whose manuscripts were discovered by\nLessing in the Wolfenb\u00fcttel library. Some portions of these\nmanuscripts, called the \u201cWolfenb\u00fcttel Fragments,\u201d were published by\nLessing in 1774. They consist of Essays, one of which treats of the\nmany arguments which may be urged against revealed religion in general;\nthe others relate partly to the Old and partly to the New Testament. It\nis the opinion of the Fragmentist, in relation to the Old Testament,\nfirst, that the men, of whom the Scriptures narrate that they had\nimmediate communications with God, were so unworthy, that such\nintercourse, admitting its reality, compromised the character of Deity;\nsecondly, that the result of this intercourse,\u2014the instructions and\nlaws alleged to have been thus divinely communicated,\u2014were so barbarous\nand destructive, that to ascribe them to God is impossible; and\nthirdly, that the accompanying miracles were at once absurd and\nincredible. From the whole, it appears to him clear, that the divine\ncommunications were only pretended; and that the miracles were\ndelusions, practised with the design of giving stability and efficiency\nto certain laws and institutions highly advantageous to the rulers and\npriests. The author finds much to condemn in the conduct of the\npatriarchs, and their simulations of divine communications; such as the\ncommand to Abraham to sacrifice his son. But it is chiefly Moses upon\nwhom he seeks, in a long section, to cast all the obloquy of an\nimpostor, who did not scruple to employ the most disgraceful means in\norder to make himself the despotic ruler of a free people: who, to\neffect his purpose, feigned divine apparitions, and pretended to have\nreceived the command of God to perpetrate acts which, but for this\ndivine sanction, would have been stigmatized as fraudulent, as highway\nrobbery, as inhuman barbarity. For instance, the spoiling of the\nEgyptians, and the extirpation of the inhabitants of Canaan; atrocities\nwhich, when introduced by the words \u201cJehovah hath said it,\u201d became\ninstantly transformed into deeds worthy of God. The Fragmentist is as\nlittle disposed to admit the divinity of the New Testament histories.\nHe considers the aim of Jesus to have been political; and his connexion\nwith John the Baptist a preconcerted arrangement, by which the one\nparty should recommend the other to the people. He views the death of\nJesus as an event by no means foreseen by himself, but which frustrated\nall his plans; a catastrophe which his disciples knew not how else to\nrepair than by the fraudulent pretence that Jesus was risen from the\ndead, and by an artful alteration of his doctrines [32].\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6.\n\nNATURAL MODE OF EXPLANATION ADOPTED BY THE\nRATIONALISTS.\u2014EICHHORN.\u2014PAULUS.\n\nWhilst the reality of the biblical revelation, together with the divine\norigin and supernatural character of the Jewish and Christian\nhistories, were tenaciously maintained in opposition to the English\ndeists by numerous English apologists, and in opposition to the\nWolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist by the great majority of German theologians,\nthere arose a distinct class of theologians in Germany, who struck into\na new path. The ancient pagan mythology, as understood by Evemerus,\nadmitted of two modes of explanation, each of which was in fact\nadopted. The deities of the popular worship might, on the one hand, be\nregarded as good and benevolent men; as wise lawgivers, and just\nrulers, of early times, whom the gratitude of their contemporaries and\nposterity had encircled with divine glory; or they might, on the other\nhand, be viewed as artful impostors and cruel tyrants, who had veiled\nthemselves in a nimbus of divinity, for the purpose of subjugating the\npeople to their dominion. So, likewise, in the purely human explanation\nof the bible histories, besides the method of the deists to regard the\nsubjects of these narratives as wicked and deceitful men, there was yet\nanother course open; to divest these individuals of their immediate\ndivinity, but to accord to them an undegraded humanity; not indeed to\nlook upon their deeds as miraculous;\u2014as little on the other hand to\ndecry them as impositions;\u2014but to explain their proceedings as\naltogether natural, yet morally irreprehensible. If the Naturalist was\nled by his special enmity to the Christianity of the church to the\nformer explanation, the Rationalist, anxious, on the contrary, to\nremain within the pale of the church, was attracted towards the latter.\n\nEichhorn, in his critical examination of the Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragments,\n[33] directly opposes this rationalistic view to that maintained by the\nNaturalist. He agrees with the Fragmentist in refusing to recognize an\nimmediate divine agency, at all events in the narratives of early date.\nThe mythological researches of a Heyne had so far enlarged his circle\nof vision as to lead Eichhorn to perceive that divine interpositions\nmust be alike admitted, or alike denied, in the primitive histories of\nall people. It was the practice of all nations, of the Grecians as well\nas the Orientals, to refer every unexpected or inexplicable occurrence\nimmediately to the Deity. The sages of antiquity lived in continual\ncommunion with superior intelligences. Whilst these representations\n(such is Eichhorn\u2019s statement of the matter) are always, in reference\nto the Hebrew records, understood verbally and literally, it has\nhitherto been customary to explain similar representations in the pagan\nhistories, by presupposing either deception and gross falsehood, or the\nmisinterpretation and corruption of tradition. But Eichhorn thinks\njustice evidently requires that Hebrew and pagan history should be\ntreated in the same way; so that intercourse with celestial beings\nduring a state of infancy, must either be accorded to all nations,\npagan and Hebrew, or equally denied to all. The mind hesitates to make\nso universal an admission: first, on account of the not unfrequent\nerrors contained in religions claiming to have been divinely\ncommunicated; secondly, from a sense of the difficulty of explaining\nthe transition of the human race from a state of divine tutelage to one\nof self-dependence: and lastly, because in proportion as intelligence\nincreases, and the authenticity of the records may be more and more\nconfidently relied upon, in the same proportion do these immediate\ndivine influences invariably disappear. If, accordingly, the notion of\nsupernatural interposition is to be rejected with regard to the\nHebrews, as well as to all other people, the view generally taken of\npagan antiquity presents itself, at first sight, as that most obviously\napplicable to the early Hebrews; namely, that their pretended\nrevelations were based upon deceit and falsehood, or that their\nmiraculous histories should be referred to the misrepresentations and\ncorruptions of tradition. This is the view of the subject actually\napplied by the Fragmentist to the Old Testament; a representation, says\nEichhorn, from which the mind on a nearer contemplation recoils. Is it\nconceivable that the greatest men of antiquity, whose influence\noperated so powerfully and so beneficially upon their age, should one\nand all have been impostors, and yet have escaped the detection of\ntheir contemporaries?\n\nAccording to Eichhorn, so perverted a view could arise only in a mind\nthat refused to interpret the ancient records in the spirit of their\nage. Truly, had they been composed with all the philosophical accuracy\nof the writers of the present day, we should have been compelled to\nfind in them either actual divine interpositions, or a fraudulent\npretence. But they are the production of an infant and unscientific\nage; and treat, without reserve of divine interventions, in accordance\nwith the conceptions and phraseology of that early period. So that, in\npoint of fact, we have neither miracles to wonder at, on the one hand,\nnor deceptions to unmask on the other; but simply the language of a\nformer age to translate into that of our own day. Eichhorn observes\nthat before the human race had gained a knowledge of the true causes of\nthings, all occurrences were referred to supernatural agencies, or to\nthe interposition of superhuman beings. Lofty conceptions, noble\nresolves, useful inventions and regulations, but more especially vivid\ndreams, were the operations of that Deity under whose immediate\ninfluence they believed themselves placed. Manifestations of\ndistinguished intelligence and skill, by which some individual excited\nthe wonder of the people, were regarded as miraculous; as signs of\nsupernatural endowments, and of a particular intercourse with higher\nbeings. And this was the belief, not of the people only, but also of\nthese eminent individuals, who entertained no doubt of the fact, and\nwho exulted in the full conviction of being in mysterious connexion\nwith the Deity. Eichhorn is of opinion that no objection can be urged\nagainst the attempt to resolve all the Mosaic narratives into natural\noccurrences, and thus far he concedes to the Fragmentist his primary\nposition; but he rejects his inference that Moses was an impostor,\npronouncing the conclusion to be over-hasty and unjust. Thus Eichhorn\nagreed with the Naturalists in divesting the biblical narratives of all\ntheir immediately divine contents, but he differed from them in this,\nthat he explained the supernatural lustre which adorns these histories,\nnot as a fictitious colouring imparted with design to deceive, but as a\nnatural and as it were spontaneous illumination reflected from\nantiquity itself.\n\nIn conformity with these principles Eichhorn sought to explain\nnaturally the histories of Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. Viewed in the\nlight of that age, the appointment of Moses to be the leader of the\nIsraelites was nothing more than the long cherished project of the\npatriot to emancipate his people, which when presented before his mind\nwith more than usual vividness in his dreams, was believed by him to be\na divine inspiration. The flame and smoke which ascended from Mount\nSinai, at the giving of the law, was merely a fire which Moses kindled\nin order to make a deeper impression upon the imagination of the\npeople, together with an accidental thunderstorm which arose at that\nparticular moment. The shining of his countenance was the natural\neffect of being over-heated: but it was supposed to be a divine\nmanifestation, not only by the people, but by Moses himself, he being\nignorant of the true cause.\n\nEichhorn was more reserved in his application of this mode of\ninterpretation to the New Testament. Indeed, it was only to a few of\nthe narratives in the Acts of the Apostles, such as the miracle of the\nday of Pentecost, the conversion of the Apostle Paul, and the many\napparitions of angels, that he allowed himself to apply it. Here too,\nhe refers the supernatural to the figurative language of the Bible; in\nwhich, for example, a happy accident is called\u2014a protecting angel; a\njoyous thought\u2014the salutation of an angel; and a peaceful state of\nmind\u2014a comforting angel. It is however remarkable that Eichhorn was\nconscious of the inapplicability of the natural explanation to some\nparts of the gospel history, and with respect to many of the narratives\ntook a more elevated view.\n\nMany writings in a similar spirit, which partially included the New\nTestament within the circle of their explanations, appeared; but it was\nDr. Paulus who by his commentary on the Gospels [34] in 1800, first\nacquired the full reputation of a christian Evemerus. In the\nintroduction to this work he states it to be the primary requisite of\nthe biblical critic to be able to distinguish between what is fact, and\nwhat is opinion. That which has been actually experienced, internally\nor externally, by the participants in an event, he calls fact. The\ninterpretation of an event, the supposed causes to which it is referred\neither by the participants or by the narrators, he calls opinion. But,\naccording to Dr. Paulus, these two elements become so easily blended\nand confounded in the minds both of the original sharers in an event,\nand of the subsequent relators and historians, that fact and opinion\nlose their distinction; so that the one and the other are believed and\nrecorded with equal confidence in their historical truth. This\nintermixture is particularly apparent in the historical books of the\nNew Testament; since at the time when Jesus lived, it was still the\nprevailing disposition to derive every striking occurrence from an\ninvisible and superhuman cause. It is consequently the chief task of\nthe historian who desires to deal with matters of fact, that is to say,\nin reference to the New Testament, to separate these two constituent\nelements so closely amalgamated, and yet in themselves so distinct; and\nto extricate the pure kernel of fact from the shell of opinion. In\norder to do this, in the absence of any more genuine account which\nwould serve as a correcting parallel, he must transplant himself in\nimagination upon the theatre of action, and strive to the utmost to\ncontemplate the events by the light of the age in which they occurred.\nAnd from this point of view he must seek to supply the deficiencies of\nthe narration, by filling in those explanatory collateral\ncircumstances, which the relator himself is so often led by his\npredilection for the supernatural to leave unnoticed. It is well known\nin what manner Dr. Paulus applies these principles to the New Testament\nin his Commentary, and still more fully in his later production, \u201cThe\nLife of Jesus.\u201d He firmly maintains the historical truth of the gospel\nnarratives, and he aims to weave them into one consecutive\nchronologically-arranged detail of facts; but he explains away every\ntrace of immediate divine agency, and denies all supernatural\nintervention. Jesus is not to him the Son of God in the sense of the\nChurch, but a wise and virtuous human being; and the effects he\nproduced are not miracles, but acts sometimes of benevolence and\nfriendship, sometimes of medical skill, sometimes also the results of\naccident and good fortune.\n\nThis view proposed by Eichhorn, and more completely developed by\nPaulus, necessarily presupposes the Old and New Testament writings to\ncontain a minute and faithful narration, composed shortly after the\noccurrence of the events recorded, and derived, wherever this was\npossible, from the testimony of eye-witnesses. For it is only from an\naccurate and original report that the ungarbled fact can be\ndisentangled from interwoven opinion. If the report be later and less\noriginal, what security is there that what is taken for the\nmatter-of-fact kernel does not belong to opinion or tradition? To avoid\nthis objection, Eichhorn sought to assign a date to the Old Testament\nhistories approximating as nearly as possible to the events they\nrecord: and here he, and other theologians of the same school, found no\ndifficulty in admitting suppositions the most unnatural: for example,\nthat the Pentateuch was written during the passage through the\nwilderness. However this critic admits that some portions of the Old\nTestament, the Book of Judges, for instance, could not have been\nwritten contemporaneously with the events; that the historian must have\ncontemplated his heroes through the dim mist of intervening ages, which\nmight easily have magnified them into giant forms. No historian who had\neither witnessed the circumstances, or had been closely connected with\nthem in point of time, could embellish after such fashion, except with\nthe express aim to amuse at the expense of truth. But with regard to\nremote occurrences it is quite different. The imagination is no longer\nrestricted by the fixed limits of historical reality, but is aided in\nits flight by the notion that in earlier times all things were better\nand nobler; and the historian is tempted to speak in loftier phrase,\nand to use hyperbolical expressions. Least of all is it possible to\navoid embellishment, when the compiler of a subsequent age derives his\nmaterials from the orally transmitted traditions of antiquity. The\nadventures and wondrous exploits of ancestors, handed down by father to\nson, and by son to grandson, in glowing and enthusiastic\nrepresentations, and sung by the poet in lofty strains, are registered\nin the written records of the historian in similar terms of high\nflowing diction. Though Eichhorn took this view of a portion of the Old\nTestament Books, he believed he was not giving up their historical\nbasis, but was still able, after clearing away the more or less evident\nlegendary additions, to trace out the natural course of the history.\n\nBut in one instance at least, this master of the natural mode of\ninterpretation in reference to the Old Testament, took a more elevated\nview:\u2014namely, of the history of the creation and the fall. In his\ninfluential work on primitive history, [35] although he had from the\nfirst declared the account of the creation to be poetry, he\nnevertheless maintained that of the fall to be neither mythology nor\nallegory, but true history. The historical basis that remained after\nthe removal of the supernatural, he stated to be this: that the human\nconstitution had at the very beginning become impaired by the eating of\na poisonous fruit. He thought it indeed very possible in itself, and\nconfirmed by numerous examples in profane history, that purely\nhistorical narratives might be overlaid by a mythical account; but\nowing to a supranaturalistic notion, he refused to allow the same\npossibility to the Bible, because he thought it unworthy of the Deity\nto admit a mythological fragment into a book, which bore such\nincontestable traces of its divine origin. Later, however, Eichhorn\nhimself declared that he had changed his opinion with regard to the\nsecond and third chapters of Genesis. [36] He no longer saw in them an\nhistorical account of the effects of poison, but rather the mythical\nembodying of a philosophical thought; namely, that the desire for a\nbetter condition than that in which man actually is, is the source of\nall the evil in the world. Thus, in this point at least, Eichhorn\npreferred to give up the history in order to hold fast the idea, rather\nthan to cling to the history with the sacrifice of every more elevated\nconception. For the rest, he agreed with Paulus and others in\nconsidering the miraculous in the sacred history as a drapery which\nneeds only to be drawn aside, in order to disclose the pure historic\nform.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7.\n\nMORAL INTERPRETATION OF KANT.\n\nAmidst these natural explanations which the end of the eighteenth\ncentury brought forth in rich abundance, it was a remarkable interlude\nto see the old allegorical system of the christian fathers all at once\ncalled up from its grave, and revived in the form of the moral\ninterpretation of Kant. He, as a philosopher, did not concern himself\nwith the history, as did the rationalist theologians, but like the\nfathers of the church, he sought the idea involved in the history: not\nhowever considering it as they did an absolute idea, at once\ntheoretical as well as practical, but regarding it only on its\npractical side, as what he called the moral imperative and consequently\nbelonging to the finite. He moreover attributed these ideas wrought\ninto the biblical text, not to the Divine Spirit, but to its\nphilosophical interpreters, or in a deeper sense, to the moral\ncondition of the authors of the book themselves. This opinion Kant [37]\nbases upon the fact, that in all religions old and new which are partly\ncomprised in sacred books, intelligent and well-meaning teachers of the\npeople have continued to explain them, until they have brought their\nactual contents into agreement with the universal principles of\nmorality. Thus did the moral philosophers amongst the Greeks and Romans\nwith their fabulous legends; till at last they explained the grossest\npolytheism as mere symbolical representations of the attributes of the\none divine Being, and gave a mystical sense to the many vicious actions\nof their gods, and to the wildest dreams of their poets, in order to\nbring the popular faith, which it was not expedient to destroy, into\nagreement with the doctrines of morality. The later Judaism and\nChristianity itself he thinks have been formed upon similar\nexplanations, occasionally much forced, but always directed to objects\nundoubtedly good and necessary for all men. Thus the Mahometans gave a\nspiritual meaning to the sensual descriptions of their paradise, and\nthus the Hindoos, or at least the more enlightened part of them,\ninterpreted their Vedas. In like manner, according to Kant, the\nChristian Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, must be interpreted\nthroughout in a sense which agrees with the universal practical laws of\na religion of pure reason: and such an explanation, even though it\nshould, apparently or actually, do violence to the text, which is the\ncase with many of the biblical narratives, is to be preferred to a\nliteral one, which either contains no morality at all or is in\nopposition to the moral principle. For example, the expressions\nbreathing vengeance against enemies in many of the Psalms are made to\nrefer to the desires and passions which we must strive by all means to\nbring into subjection; and the miraculous account in the New Testament\nof the descent of Jesus from heaven, of his relationship to God, etc.,\nis taken as an imaginative description of the ideal of humanity\nwell-pleasing to God. That such an interpretation is possible, without\neven always too offensive an opposition to the literal sense of these\nrecords of the popular faith, arises according to the profound\nobservations of Kant from this: that long before the existence of these\nrecords, the disposition to a moral religion was latent in the human\nmind; that its first manifestations were directed to the worship of the\nDeity, and on this very account gave occasion to those pretended\nrevelations; still, though unintentionally, imparting even to these\nfictions somewhat of the spiritual character of their origin. In reply\nto the charge of dishonesty brought against his system of\ninterpretation, he thinks it a sufficient defence to observe, that it\ndoes not pretend that the sense now given to the sacred books, always\nexisted in the intention of the authors; this question it sets aside,\nand only claims for itself the right to interpret them after its own\nfashion.\n\nWhilst Kant in this manner sought to educe moral thoughts from the\nbiblical writings, even in their historical part, and was even inclined\nto consider these thoughts as the fundamental object of the history: on\nthe one hand, he derived these thoughts only from himself and the\ncultivation of his age, and therefore could seldom assume that they had\nactually been laid down by the authors of those writings; and on the\nother hand, and for the same reason, he omitted to show what was the\nrelation between these thoughts and those symbolic representations, and\nhow it happened that the one came to be expressed by the other.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8.\n\nRISE OF THE MYTHICAL MODE OF INTERPRETING THE SACRED HISTORY, IN\nREFERENCE FIRST TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\nIt was impossible to rest satisfied with modes of proceeding so\nunhistorical on the one hand, and so unphilosophical on the other.\nAdded to which, the study of mythology, now become far more general and\nmore prolific in its results, exerted an increasing influence on the\nviews taken of biblical history. Eichhorn had indeed insisted that all\nprimitive histories, whether Hebrew or Pagan, should be treated alike,\nbut this equality gradually disappeared; for though the mythical view\nbecame more and more developed in relation to profane history, the\nnatural mode of explanation was still rigidly adhered to for the Hebrew\nrecords. All could not imitate Paulus, who sought to establish\nconsistency of treatment by extending the same natural explanation\nwhich he gave to the Bible, to such also of the Greek legends as\npresented any points of resemblance; on the contrary, opinion in\ngeneral took the opposite course, and began to regard many of the\nbiblical narratives as mythi. Semler had already spoken of a kind of\nJewish mythology, and had even called the histories of Samson and\nEsther mythi; Eichhorn too had done much to prepare the way, now\nfurther pursued by Gabler, Schelling, and others, who established the\nnotion of the mythus as one of universal application to ancient\nhistory, sacred as well as profane, according to the principle of\nHeyne: A mythis omnis priscorum hominum cum historia tum philosophia\nprocedit. [38] And Bauer in 1820 ventured so far as to publish a Hebrew\nmythology of the Old and New Testament. [39] The earliest records of\nall nations are, in the opinion of Bauer, mythical: why should the\nwritings of the Hebrews form a solitary exception?\u2014whereas in point of\nfact a cursory glance at their sacred books proves that they also\ncontain mythical elements. A narrative he explains, after Gabler and\nSchelling, to be recognizable as mythus, first, when it proceeds from\nan age in which no written records existed, but in which facts were\ntransmitted through the medium of oral tradition alone; secondly, when\nit presents an historical account of events which are either absolutely\nor relatively beyond the reach of experience, such as occurrences\nconnected with the spiritual world, and incidents to which, from the\nnature of the circumstances, no one could have been witness; or\nthirdly, when it deals in the marvellous and is couched in symbolical\nlanguage. Not a few narratives of this description occur in the Bible;\nand an unwillingness to regard them as mythi can arise only from a\nfalse conception of the nature of a mythus, or of the character of the\nbiblical writings. In the one case mythi are confounded with fables,\npremeditated fictions, and wilful falsehoods, instead of being\nrecognised as the necessary vehicle of expression for the first efforts\nof the human mind; in the other case it certainly does appear\nimprobable, (the notion of inspiration presupposed,) that God should\nhave admitted the substitution of mythical for actual representations\nof facts and ideas, but a nearer examination of the scriptures shows\nthat this very notion of inspiration, far from being any hindrance to\nthe mythical interpretation, is itself of mythical origin.\n\nWegscheider ascribed this greater unwillingness to recognise mythi in\nthe early records of the Hebrew and Christian religion than in the\nheathen religions, partly to the prevailing ignorance respecting the\nprogress of historical and philosophical science; partly to a certain\ntimidity which dares not call things manifestly identical by the same\nname. At the same time he declared it impossible to rescue the Bible\nfrom the reproaches and scoffs of its enemies except by the\nacknowledgment of mythi in the sacred writings, and the separation of\ntheir inherent meaning from their unhistorical form. [40]\n\nThese biblical critics gave the following general definition of the\nmythus. It is the representation of an event or of an idea in a form\nwhich is historical, but, at the same time characterized by the rich\npictorial and imaginative mode of thought and expression of the\nprimitive ages. They also distinguished several kinds of mythi. [41]\n\n1st. Historical mythi: narratives of real events coloured by the light\nof antiquity, which confounded the divine and the human, the natural\nand the supernatural.\n\n2nd. Philosophical mythi: such as clothe in the garb of historical\nnarrative a simple thought, a precept, or an idea of the time.\n\n3rd. Poetical mythi: historical and philosophical mythi partly blended\ntogether, and partly embellished by the creations of the imagination,\nin which the original fact or idea is almost obscured by the veil which\nthe fancy of the poet has woven around it.\n\nTo classify the biblical mythi according to these several distinctions\nis a difficult task, since the mythus which is purely symbolical wears\nthe semblance of history equally with the mythus which represents an\nactual occurrence. These critics however laid down rules by which the\ndifferent mythi might be distinguished. The first essential is, they\nsay, to determine whether the narrative have a distinct object, and\nwhat that object is. Where no object, for the sake of which the legend\nmight have been invented, is discoverable, every one would pronounce\nthe mythus to be historical. But if all the principal circumstances of\nthe narrative concur to symbolize a particular truth, this undoubtedly\nwas the object of the narrative, and the mythus is philosophical. The\nblending of the historical and philosophical mythus is particularly to\nbe recognised when we can detect in the narrative an attempt to derive\nevents from their causes. In many instances the existence of an\nhistorical foundation is proved also by independent testimony;\nsometimes certain particulars in the mythus are intimately connected\nwith known genuine history, or bear in themselves undeniable and\ninherent characteristics of probability: so that the critic, while he\nrejects the external form, may yet retain the groundwork as historical.\nThe poetical mythus is the most difficult to distinguish, and Bauer\ngives only a negative criterion. When the narrative is so wonderful on\nthe one hand as to exclude the possibility of its being a detail of\nfacts, and when on the other it discovers no attempt to symbolize a\nparticular thought, it may be suspected that the entire narrative owes\nits birth to the imagination of the poet. Schelling particularly\nremarks on the unartificial and spontaneous origin of mythi in general.\nThe unhistorical which is interwoven with the matters of fact in the\nhistorical mythus is not, he observes, the artistical product of design\nand invention. It has on the contrary glided in of itself, as it were,\nin the lapse of time and in the course of transmission. And, speaking\nof philosophical mythi, he says: the sages of antiquity clothed their\nideas in an historical garb, not only in order to accommodate those\nideas to the apprehension of a people who must be awakened by sensible\nimpressions, but also on their own account: deficient themselves in\nclear abstract ideas, and in ability to give expression to their dim\nconceptions, they sought to illumine what was obscure in their\nrepresentations by means of sensible imagery. [42]\n\nWe have already remarked, that the natural mode of interpreting the Old\nTestament could be maintained only so long as the records were held to\nbe contemporaneous, or nearly so, with the events recorded.\nConsequently it was precisely those theologians, Vater, De Wette and\nothers who controverted this opinion, who contributed to establish the\nmythical view of the sacred histories. Vater [43] expressed the opinion\nthat the peculiar character of the narrations in the Pentateuch could\nnot be rightly understood, unless it were conceded that they are not\nthe production of an eye witness, but are a series of transmitted\ntraditions. Their traditional origin being admitted, we cease to feel\nsurprised at the traces which they discover of a subsequent age; at\nnumerical exaggerations, together with other inaccuracies and\ncontradictions; at the twilight which hangs over many of the\noccurrences; and at representations such as, that the clothes of the\nIsraelites waxed not old during their passage through the wilderness.\nVater even contends, that unless we ascribe a great share of the\nmarvellous contained in the Pentateuch to tradition, we do violence to\nthe original sense of the compilers of these narratives.\n\nThe natural mode of explanation was still more decidedly opposed by De\nWette than by Vater. He advocated the mythical interpretation of a\nlarge proportion of the Old Testament histories. In order to test the\nhistorical credibility of a narrative, he says, [44] we must ascertain\nthe intention of the narrator. If that intention be not to satisfy the\nnatural thirst for historical truth by a simple narration of facts, but\nrather to delight or touch the feelings, or to illustrate some\nphilosophical or religious truth, then his narrative has no pretension\nto historical validity. Even when the narrator is conscious of strictly\nhistorical intentions, nevertheless his point of view may not be the\nhistorical: he may be a poetical narrator, not indeed subjectively, as\na poet drawing inspiration from himself, but objectively, as enveloped\nby and depending on poetry external to himself. This is evidently the\ncase when the narrator details as bon\u00e2 fide matter of fact things which\nare impossible and incredible, which are contrary not only to\nexperience, but to the established laws of nature. Narrations of this\ndescription spring out of tradition. Tradition, says De Wette, is\nuncritical and partial; its tendency is not historical, but rather\npatriotic and poetical. And since the patriotic sentiment is gratified\nby all that flatters national pride, the more splendid, the more\nhonourable, the more wonderful the narrative, the more acceptable it\nis; and where tradition has left any blanks, imagination at once steps\nin and fills them up. And since, he continues, a great part of the\nhistorical books of the Old Testament bear this stamp, it has hitherto\nbeen believed possible (on the part of the natural interpreters) to\nseparate the embellishments and transformations from the historical\nsubstance, and still to consider them available as records of facts.\nThis might indeed be done, had we, besides the marvellous biblical\nnarratives, some other purely historical account of the events. But\nthis is not the case with regard to the Old Testament history; we are\nsolely dependent on those accounts which we cannot recognize as purely\nhistorical. They contain no criterion by which to distinguish between\nthe true and the false; both are promiscuously blended, and set forth\nas of equal dignity. According to De Wette, the whole natural mode of\nexplanation is set aside by the principle that the only means of\nacquaintance with a history is the narrative which we possess\nconcerning it, and that beyond this narrative the historian cannot go.\nIn the present case, this reports to us only a supernatural course of\nevents, which we must either receive or reject: if we reject it, we\ndetermine to know nothing at all about it, and are not justified in\nallowing ourselves to invent a natural course of events, of which the\nnarrative is totally silent. It is moreover inconsistent and arbitrary\nto refer the dress in which the events of the Old Testament are clothed\nto poetry, and to preserve the events themselves as historical; much\nrather do the particular details and the dress in which they appear,\nconstitute a whole belonging to the province of poetry and mythus. For\nexample, if God\u2019s covenant with Abraham be denied in the form of fact,\nwhilst at the same time it is maintained that the narrative had an\nhistorical basis,\u2014that is to say, that though no objective divine\ncommunication took place, the occurrence had a subjective reality in\nAbraham\u2019s mind in a dream or in a waking vision; in other words, that a\nnatural thought was awakened in Abraham which he, in the spirit of the\nage, referred to God:\u2014of the naturalist who thus reasons, De Wette\nasks, how he knows that such thoughts arose in Abraham\u2019s mind? The\nnarration refers them to God; and if we reject the narration, we know\nnothing about these thoughts of Abraham, and consequently cannot know\nthat they had arisen naturally in him. According to general experience,\nsuch hopes as are described in this covenant, that he should become the\nfather of a mighty nation which should possess the land of Canaan,\ncould not have sprung up naturally in Abraham\u2019s mind; but it is quite\nnatural that the Israelites when they had become a numerous people in\npossession of that land, should have invented the covenant in order to\nrender their ancestor illustrious. Thus the natural explanation, by its\nown unnaturalness, ever brings us back to the mythical.\n\nEven Eichhorn, who so extensively employed the natural explanation in\nreference to the Old Testament, perceived its inadmissibility in\nrelation to the gospel histories. Whatever in these narratives has a\ntendency to the supernatural, he remarks, [45] we ought not to attempt\nto transform into a natural occurrence, because this is impossible\nwithout violence. If once an event has acquired a miraculous colouring,\nowing to the blending together of some popular notion with the\noccurrence, the natural fact can be disentangled only when we possess a\nsecond account which has not undergone the like transformation; as,\nconcerning the death of Herod Agrippa, we have not only the narrative\nin the Acts, but also that of Josephus. [46] But since we have no such\ncontrolling account concerning the history of Jesus, the critic who\npretends to discover the natural course of things from descriptions of\nsupernatural occurrences, will only weave a tissue of indemonstrable\nhypotheses:\u2014a consideration which, as Eichhorn observes, at once\nannihilates many of the so-called psychological interpretations of the\nGospel histories.\n\nIt is this same difference between the natural and mythical modes of\ninterpretation which Krug intends to point out, referring particularly\nto the histories of miracles, when he distinguishes the physical or\nmaterial, from the genetic or formal, mode of explaining them.\nFollowing the former mode, according to him, the inquiry is: how can\nthe wonderful event here related have possibly taken place with all its\ndetails by natural means and according to natural laws? Whereas,\nfollowing the latter, the question is: whence arose the narrative of\nthe marvellous event? The former explains the natural possibility of\nthe thing related (the substance of the narrative); the latter traces\nthe origin of the existing record (the form of the narrative). Krug\nconsiders attempts of the former kind to be fruitless, because they\nproduce interpretations yet more wonderful than the fact itself; far\npreferable is the other mode, since it leads to results which throw\nlight upon miraculous histories collectively. He gives the preference\nto the exegetist, because in his explanation of the text he is not\nobliged to do violence to it, but may accept it altogether literally as\nthe author intended, even though the thing related be impossible;\nwhereas the interpreter, who follows the material or physical\nexplanation, is driven to ingenious subtleties which make him lose\nsight of the original meaning of the authors, and substitute something\nquite different which they neither could nor would have said.\n\nIn like manner Gabler recommended the mythical view, as the best means\nof escaping from the so called natural, but forced explanation, which\nhad become the fashion. The natural interpreter, he remarks, commonly\naims to make the whole narrative natural; and as this can but seldom\nsucceed, he allows himself the most violent measures, owing to which\nmodern exegesis has been brought into disrepute even amongst laymen.\nThe mythical view, on the contrary, needs no such subtleties; since the\ngreater part of a narrative frequently belongs to the mythical\nrepresentation merely, while the nucleus of fact, when divested of the\nsubsequently added miraculous envelopments, is often very small.\n\nNeither could Horst reconcile himself to the atomistic mode of\nproceeding, which selected from the marvellous narratives of the Bible,\nas unhistorical, isolated incidents merely, and inserted natural ones\nin their place, instead of recognizing in the whole of each narrative a\nreligious moral mythus in which a certain idea is embodied.\n\nAn anonymous writer in Bertholdt\u2019s Journal has expressed himself very\ndecidedly against the natural mode of explaining the sacred history,\nand in favour of the mythical. The essential defect of the natural\ninterpretation, as exhibited in its fullest development by Paulus\u2019s\nCommentary, is, according to that writer, its unhistorical mode of\nprocedure. He objects: that it allows conjecture to supply the\ndeficiencies of the record; adopts individual speculations as a\nsubstitute for real history; seeks by vain endeavours to represent that\nas natural which the narrative describes as supernatural; and lastly,\nevaporates all sacredness and divinity from the Scriptures, reducing\nthem to collections of amusing tales no longer meriting the name of\nhistory. According to our author, this insufficiency of the natural\nmode of interpretation, whilst the supernatural also is felt to be\nunsatisfactory, leads the mind to the mythical view, which leaves the\nsubstance of the narrative unassailed; and instead of venturing to\nexplain the details, accepts the whole, not indeed as true history, but\nas a sacred legend. This view is supported by the analogy of all\nantiquity, political and religious, since the closest resemblance\nexists between many of the narratives of the Old and New Testament, and\nthe mythi of profane antiquity. But the most convincing argument is\nthis: if the mythical view be once admitted, the innumerable, and never\notherwise to be harmonized, discrepancies and chronological\ncontradictions in the gospel histories disappear, as it were, at one\nstroke. [47]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9.\n\nTHE MYTHICAL MODE OF INTERPRETATION IN REFERENCE TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nThus the mythical mode of interpretation was adopted not only in\nrelation to the Old Testament, but also to the New; not, however,\nwithout its being felt necessary to justify such a step. Gabler has\nobjected to the Commentary of Paulus, that it concedes too little to\nthe mythical point of view, which must be adopted for certain New\nTestament narratives. For many of these narratives present not only\nthose mistaken views of things which might have been taken by\neye-witnesses, and by the rectification of which a natural course of\nevents may be made out; but frequently, also, false facts and\nimpossible consequences which no eye-witness could have related, and\nwhich could only have been the product of tradition, and must therefore\nbe mythically understood. [48]\n\nThe chief difficulty which opposed the transference of the mythical\npoint of view from the Old Testament to the New, was this:\u2014it was\ncustomary to look for mythi in the fabulous primitive ages only, in\nwhich no written records of events as yet existed; whereas, in the time\nof Jesus, the mythical age had long since passed away, and writing had\nbecome common among the Jews. Schelling had however conceded (at least\nin a note) that the term mythi, in a more extended sense, was\nappropriate to those narratives which, though originating in an age\nwhen it was usual to preserve documentary records, were nevertheless\ntransmitted by the mouth of the people. Bauer [49] in like manner\nasserted, that though a connected series of mythi,\u2014a history which\nshould be altogether mythical,\u2014was not to be sought in the New\nTestament, yet there might occur in it single myths, either transferred\nfrom the Old Testament to the New, or having originally sprung up in\nthe latter. Thus he found, in the details of the infancy of Jesus, much\nwhich requires to be regarded from a mythical point of view. As after\nthe decease of celebrated personages, numerous anecdotes are circulated\nconcerning them, which fail not to receive many and wondrous\namplifications in the legends of a wonder-loving people; so, after\nJesus had become distinguished by his life, and yet more glorified by\nhis death, his early years, which had been passed in obscurity, became\nadorned with miraculous embellishments. And, according to Bauer,\nwhenever in this history of the infancy we find celestial beings,\ncalled by name and bearing the human shape, predicting future\noccurrences, etc., we have a right to suppose a mythus; and to\nconjecture as its origin, that the great actions of Jesus being\nreferred to superhuman causes, this explanation came to be blended with\nthe history. On the same subject, Gabler [50] remarked that the notion\nof ancient is relative; compared with the Mosaic religion Christianity\nis certainly young; but in itself it is old enough to allow us to refer\nthe original history of its founder to ancient times. That at that time\nwritten documents on other subjects existed, proves nothing, whilst it\ncan be shown that for a long period there was no written account of the\nlife of Jesus, and particularly of his infancy. Oral narratives were\nalone transmitted, and they would easily become tinged with the\nmarvellous, mixed with Jewish ideas, and thus grow into historical\nmythi. On many other points there was no tradition, and here the mind\nwas left to its own surmises. The more scanty the historical data, the\ngreater was the scope for conjecture, and historical guesses and\ninferences of this description, formed in harmony with the\nJewish-Christian tastes, may be called the philosophical, or rather,\nthe dogmatical mythi of the early christian Gospel. The notion of the\nmythus, concludes Gabler, being thus shown to be applicable to many of\nthe narratives of the New Testament, why should we not dare to call\nthem by their right name; why\u2014that is to say in learned\ndiscussion\u2014avoid an expression which can give offence only to the\nprejudiced or the misinformed?\n\nAs in the Old Testament Eichhorn had been brought over by the force of\ninternal evidence from his earlier natural explanation, to the mythical\nview of the history of the fall; so in the New Testament, the same\nthing happened to Usteri in relation to the history of the temptation.\nIn an earlier work he had, following Schleiermacher, considered it as a\nparable spoken by Jesus but misunderstood by his disciples. [51] Soon\nhowever he perceived the difficulties of this interpretation; and since\nboth the natural and the supernatural views of the narrative appeared\nto him yet more objectionable, he had no alternative but to adopt the\nmythical. Once admit, he remarks, a state of excitement, particularly\nof religious excitement, among a not unpoetical people, and a short\ntime is sufficient to give an appearance of the marvellous not only to\nobscure and concealed, but even to public and well-known facts. It is\ntherefore by no means conceivable that the early Jewish Christians,\ngifted with the spirit, that is, animated with religious enthusiasm, as\nthey were, and familiar with the Old Testament, should not have been in\na condition to invent symbolical scenes such as the temptation and\nother New Testament mythi. It is not however to be imagined that any\none individual seated himself at his table to invent them out of his\nown head, and write them down, as he would a poem: on the contrary,\nthese narratives like all other legends were fashioned by degrees, by\nsteps which can no longer be traced; gradually acquired consistency,\nand at length received a fixed form in our written Gospels.\n\nWe have seen that in reference to the early histories of the Old\nTestament, the mythical view could be embraced by those only who\ndoubted the composition of these Scriptures by eye-witnesses or\ncontemporaneous writers. This was equally the case in reference to the\nNew. It was not till Eichhorn [52] became convinced that only a slender\nthread of that primitive Gospel believed by the Apostles ran through\nthe three first Gospels, and that even in Matthew this thread was\nentangled in a mass of unapostolic additions, that he discarded as\nunhistorical legends, the many narratives which he found perplexing,\nfrom all share in the history of Jesus; for example, besides the Gospel\nof Infancy, the details of the temptation; several of the miracles of\nJesus; the rising of the saints from their graves at his crucifixion;\nthe guard at the sepulchre, etc. [53] Particularly since the opinion,\nthat the three first Gospels originated from oral traditions, became\nfirmly established, [54] they have been found to contain a continually\nincreasing number of mythi and mythical embellishments. [55] On this\naccount the authenticity of the Gospel of John, and consequently its\nhistorical credibility, is confidently maintained by most of the\ntheologians of the present day: he only who, with Bretschneider, [56]\nquestions its apostolic composition, may cede in this Gospel also a\nconsiderable place to the mythical element.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10.\n\nTHE NOTION OF THE MYTHUS IN ITS APPLICATION TO SACRED HISTORIES NOT\nCLEARLY APPREHENDED BY THEOLOGIANS.\n\nThus, indeed, did the mythical view gain application to the biblical\nhistory: still the notion of the mythus was for a long time neither\nclearly apprehended nor applied to a due extent.\n\nNot clearly apprehended. The characteristic which had been recognised\nas constituting the distinction between historical and philosophical\nmythi, however just that distinction might in itself be, was of a kind\nwhich easily betrayed the critic back again into the scarcely abandoned\nnatural explanation. His task, with regard to historical mythi, was\nstill to separate the natural fact\u2014the nucleus of historical\nreality\u2014from its unhistorical and miraculous embellishments. An\nessential difference indeed existed: the natural explanation attributed\nthe embellishments to the opinion of the actors concerned, or of the\nnarrator; the mythical interpretation derived them from tradition; but\nthe mode of proceeding was left too little determined. If the\nRationalist could point out historical mythi in the Bible, without\nmaterially changing his mode of explanation; so the Supernaturalist on\nhis part felt himself less offended by the admission of historical\nmythi, which still preserved to the sacred narratives a basis of fact,\nthan by the supposition of philosophical mythi, which seemed completely\nto annihilate every trace of historical foundation. It is not\nsurprising, therefore, that the interpreters who advocated the mythical\ntheory spoke almost exclusively of historical mythi; that Bauer,\namongst a considerable number of mythi which he cites from the New\nTestament, finds but one philosophical mythus; and that a mixed mode of\ninterpretation, partly mythical and partly natural, (a medley far more\ncontradictory than the pure natural explanation, from the difficulties\nof which these critics sought to escape,) should have been adopted.\nThus Bauer [57] thought that he was explaining Jehovah\u2019s promise to\nAbraham as an historical mythus, when he admitted as the fundamental\nfact of the narrative, that Abraham\u2019s hopes of a numerous posterity\nwere re-awakened by the contemplation of the star-sown heavens. Another\ntheologian [58] imagined he had seized the mythical point of view,\nwhen, having divested the announcement of the birth of the Baptist of\nthe supernatural, he still retained the dumbness of Zachariah as the\nhistorical groundwork. In like manner Krug, [59] immediately after\nassuring us that his intention is not to explain the substance of the\nhistory, (according to the natural mode,) but to explain the origin of\nthe narrative, (according to the mythical view,) constitutes an\naccidental journey of oriental merchants the basis of the narrative of\nthe visit of the wise men from the east. But the contradiction is most\nglaring when we meet with palpable misconceptions of the true nature of\na mythus in a work on the mythology of the New Testament, such as\nBauer\u2019s; in which for instance he admits, in the case of the parents of\nJohn the Baptist, a marriage which had actually been childless during\nmany years;\u2014in which he explains the angelic appearance at the birth of\nJesus as a meteoric phenomenon; supposes the occurrence of thunder and\nlightning and the accidental descent of a dove at his baptism;\nconstitutes a storm the groundwork of the transfiguration; and converts\nthe angels at the tomb of the risen Jesus into white grave-clothes.\nKaiser also, though he complains of the unnaturalness of many of the\nnatural explanations, accords to a very considerable proportion of\nnatural explanations a place by the side of the mythical; remarking\u2014and\nthe remark is in itself just\u2014that to attempt to explain all the\nmiracles of the New Testament in one and the same manner betrays a\nlimited and partial comprehension of the subject. Let it be primarily\nadmitted that the ancient author intended to narrate a miracle, and the\nnatural explanation is in many instances admissible. This may be either\na physical-historical explanation, as in the narrative of the leper\nwhose approaching recovery Jesus doubtless perceived; or it may be a\npsychological explanation; since, in the case of many sick persons, the\nfame of Jesus and faith in him were mainly instrumental in effecting\nthe cure; sometimes indeed good fortune must be taken into the account,\nas where one apparently dead revived in the presence of Jesus, and he\nbecame regarded as the author of the sudden re-animation. With respect\nto other miracles Kaiser is of opinion that the mythical interpretation\nis to be preferred; he, however, grants a much larger space to\nhistorical, than to philosophical mythi. He considers most of the\nmiracles in the Old and New Testament real occurrences mythically\nembellished: such as the narrative of the piece of money in the fish\u2019s\nmouth; and of the changing of water into wine: which latter history he\nsupposes to have originated from a friendly jest on the part of Jesus.\nFew only of the miracles are recognised by this critic as pure poetry\nembodying Jewish ideas; as the miraculous birth of Jesus, and the\nmurder of the innocents. [60]\n\nGabler in particular calls attention to the error of treating\nphilosophical mythi as if they were historical, and of thus converting\ninto facts things that never happened. [61] He is however as little\ndisposed to admit the exclusive existence of philosophical, as of\nhistorical mythi in the New Testament, but adopting a middle course, he\ndecides in each case that the mythus is of this kind or of that\naccording to its intrinsic character. He maintains that it is as\nnecessary to guard against the arbitrary proceeding of handling as\nphilosophical a mythus through which a fact unquestionably glimmers, as\nit is to avoid the opposite tendency to explain naturally or\nhistorically that which belongs properly to the mythical clothing. In\nother words: when the derivation of a mythus from a thought is easy and\nnatural, and when the attempt to educe from it a matter of fact and to\ngive the wonderful history a natural explanation, does violence to the\nsense or appears ridiculous, we have, according to Gabler, certain\nevidence that the mythus is philosophical and not historical. He\nremarks in conclusion that the philosophical-mythical interpretation is\nin many cases far less offensive than the historical-mythical\nexplanation. [62]\n\nYet, notwithstanding this predilection in favour of the philosophical\nmythus in relation to biblical history, one is surprised to find that\nGabler himself was ignorant of the true nature both of the historical\nand of the philosophical mythus. Speaking of the mythological\ninterpreters of the New Testament who had preceded him, he says that\nsome of them, such as Dr. Paulus, discover in the history of Jesus\nhistorical mythi only; whilst others, the anonymous E. F. in Henke\u2019s\nMagazine for instance, find only philosophical mythi. From this we see\nthat he confounded not only the natural explanation with the\nhistorical-mythical view, (for in Paulus\u2019s \u201cCommentar\u201d the former only\nis adopted,) but also historical with philosophical mythi; for the\nauthor E. F. is so exclusively attached to the historical-mythical view\nthat his explanations might almost be considered as naturalistic.\n\nDe Wette has some very cogent observations directed equally against the\narbitrary adoption either of the historical-mythical or of the natural\nexplanation in relation to the Mosaic history. In reference to the New\nTestament an anonymous writer in Bertholdt\u2019s Critical Journal [63] is\nthe most decided in his condemnation of every attempt to discover an\nhistorical groundwork even in the Gospel mythi. To him likewise the\nmidway path struck out by Gabler, between the exclusive adoption of\nhistorical mythi on the one hand and of philosophical mythi on the\nother, appears inapplicable; for though a real occurrence may in fact\nconstitute the basis of most of the New Testament narratives, it may\nstill be impossible at the present time to separate the element of fact\nfrom the mythical adjuncts which have been blended with it, and to\ndetermine how much may belong to the one and how much to the other.\nUsteri likewise expressed the opinion that it is no longer possible to\ndiscriminate between the historical and the symbolical in the gospel\nmythi; no critical knife however sharp is now able to separate the one\nelement from the other. A certain measure of probability respecting the\npreponderance of the historical in one legend, and of the symbolical in\nanother, is the ultimate point to which criticism can now attain.\n\nOpposed however to the onesidedness of those critics who found it so\neasy to disengage the historical contents from the mythical narratives\nof the Scriptures, is the onesidedness of other critics, who, on\naccount of the difficulty of the proposed separation, despaired of the\npossibility of success, and were consequently led to handle the whole\nmass of gospel mythi as philosophical, at least in so far as to\nrelinquish the endeavour to extract from them a residuum of historical\nfact. Now it is precisely this latter onesidedness which has been\nattributed to my criticism of the life of Jesus; consequently, several\nof the reviewers of this work have taken occasion repeatedly to call\nattention to the varying proportions in which the historical and the\nideal in the pagan religion and primitive history, (the legitimate\nprovince of the mythus,) alternate; an interchange with the historical\nwhich in the christian primitive history, presupposing the notion of\nthe mythus to be admitted here, must unquestionably take place in a far\ngreater degree. Thus Ullmann distinguishes not only firstly the\nphilosophical, and secondly the historical mythus, but makes a further\ndistinction between the latter (that is the historical mythus, in which\nthere is always a preponderance of the fictitious,) and thirdly the\nmythical history, in which the historical element, though wrought into\nthe ideal, forms the predominating constituent; whilst fourthly in\nhistories of which the legend is a component element we tread properly\nspeaking upon historical ground, since in these histories we meet only\nwith a few faint echoes of mythical fiction. Ullmann is moreover of\nopinion, and Bretschneider and others agree with him, that\nindependently of the repulsion and confusion which must inevitably be\ncaused by the application of the term mythus to that which is\nChristian\u2014a term originally conceived in relation to a religion of a\ntotally different character\u2014it were more suitable, in connexion with\nthe primitive Christian records, to speak only of Gospel legend, (Sage)\nand the legendary element. [64]\n\nGeorge on the contrary has recently attempted not only more accurately\nto define the notions of the mythus and of the legend, but likewise to\ndemonstrate that the gospel narratives are mythical rather than\nlegendary. Speaking generally, we should say, that he restricts the\nterm mythus to what had previously been distinguished as philosophical\nmythi; and that he applies the name legend to what had hitherto been\ndenominated historical mythi. He handles the two notions as the\nantipodes of each other; and grasps them with a precision by which the\nnotion of the mythus has unquestionably gained. According to George,\nmythus is the creation of a fact out of an idea: legend the seeing of\nan idea in a fact, or arising out of it. A people, a religious\ncommunity, finds itself in a certain condition or round of institutions\nof which the spirit, the idea, lives and acts within it. But the mind,\nfollowing a natural impulse, desires to gain a complete representation\nof that existing condition, and to know its origin. This origin however\nis buried in oblivion, or is too indistinctly discernible to satisfy\npresent feelings and ideas. Consequently an image of that origin,\ncoloured by the light of existing ideas, is cast upon the dark wall of\nthe past, which image is however but a magnified reflex of existing\ninfluences.\n\nIf such be the rise of the mythus, the legend, on the contrary,\nproceeds from given facts: represented, indeed, sometimes in an\nincomplete and abridged, sometimes in an amplified form, in order to\nmagnify the heroes of the history\u2014but disjoined from their true\nconnexion; the points of view from which they should be contemplated,\nand the ideas they originally contained, having in the course of\ntransmission wholly disappeared. The consequence is, that new ideas,\nconceived in the spirit of the different ages through which the legend\nhas passed down, become substituted in the stead of the original ideas.\nFor example, the period of Jewish history subsequent to the time of\nMoses, which was in point of fact pervaded by a gradual elevation of\nideas to monotheism and to a theocracy, is, in a later legend,\nrepresented in the exactly opposite light, as a state of falling away\nfrom the religious constitution of Moses. An idea so unhistorical will\ninfallibly here and there distort facts transmitted by tradition, fill\nup blanks in the history, and subjoin new and significant features\u2014and\nthen the mythus reappears in the legend. It is the same with the\nmythus: propagated by tradition, it, in the process of transmission,\nloses its distinctive character and completeness, or becomes\nexaggerated in its details\u2014as for example in the matter of numbers\u2014and\nthen the mythus comes under the influence of the legend. In such wise\ndo these two formations, so essentially distinct in their origin, cross\neach other and mingle together. Now, if the history of the life of\nJesus be of mythical formation, inasmuch as it embodies the vivid\nimpression of the original idea which the first christian community had\nof their founder, this history, though unhistorical in its form, is\nnevertheless a faithful representation of the idea of the Christ. If\ninstead of this, the history be legendary\u2014if the actual external facts\nare given in a distorted and often magnified form\u2014are represented in a\nfalse light and embody a false idea,\u2014then, on the contrary, the real\ntenour of the life of Jesus is lost to us. So that, according to\nGeorge, the recognition of the mythical element in the Gospels is far\nless prejudicial to the true interests of the Christian faith than the\nrecognition of the legendary element. [65]\n\nWith respect to our own opinion, without troubling ourselves here with\nthe dogmatic signification, we need only remark in this introduction,\nthat we are prepared to meet with both legend and mythus in the gospel\nhistory; and when we undertake to extract the historial contents which\nmay possibly exist in narratives recognized as mythical, we shall be\nequally careful neither on the one part by a rude and mechanical\nseparation, to place ourselves on the same ground with the natural\ninterpreter; nor on the other by a hypercritical refusal to recognize\nsuch contents where they actually exist, to lose sight of the history.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 11.\n\nTHE APPLICATION OF THE NOTION OF THE MYTHUS TOO CIRCUMSCRIBED.\n\nThe notion of the mythus, when first admitted by theologians, was not\nonly imperfectly apprehended, but also too much limited in its\napplication to biblical history.\n\nAs Eichhorn recognized a genuine mythus only on the very threshold of\nthe Old Testament history, and thought himself obliged to explain all\nthat followed in a natural manner; as, some time later, other portions\nof the Old Testament were allowed to be mythical, whilst nothing of the\nkind might be suspected in the New; so, when the mythus was once\nadmitted into the New Testament, it was here again long detained at the\nthreshold, namely, the history of the infancy of Jesus, every farther\nadvance being contested. Ammon, [66] the anonymous E. F. in Henke\u2019s\nMagazine, Usteri, and others maintained a marked distinction between\nthe historical worth of the narratives of the public life and those of\nthe infancy of Jesus. The records of the latter could not, they\ncontend, have been contemporaneous; for particular attention was not at\nthat time directed towards him; and it is equally manifest that they\ncould not have been written during the last three years of his life,\nsince they embody the idea of Jesus glorified, and not of Jesus in\nconflict and suffering. Consequently their composition must be referred\nto a period subsequent to his resurrection. But at this period accurate\ndata concerning his childhood were no longer to be obtained. The\napostles knew him first in manhood. Joseph was probably dead; and Mary,\nsupposing her to be living when the first and third gospels were\ncomposed, had naturally imparted an imaginative lustre to every\nincident treasured in her memory, whilst her embellishments were\ndoubtless still further magnified in accordance with the Messianic\nideas of those to whom her communications were made. Much also that is\nnarrated had no historical foundation, but originated entirely from the\nnotions of the age, and from the Old Testament predictions\u2014that a\nvirgin should conceive\u2014for example. But, say these critics, all this\ndoes not in any degree impair the credibility of what follows. The\nobject and task of the Evangelists was merely to give an accurate\naccount of the three last years of the life of Jesus; and here they\nmerit implicit confidence, since they were either themselves spectators\nof the details they record, or else had learned them from the mouth of\ntrustworthy eye-witnesses. This boundary line between the credibility\nof the history of the public life, and the fabulousness of the history\nof the infancy of Jesus, became yet more definitely marked, from the\ncircumstance that many theologians were disposed to reject the two\nfirst chapters of Matthew and Luke as spurious and subsequent\nadditions. [67]\n\nSoon, however, some of the theologians who had conceded the\ncommencement of the history to the province of mythi, perceived that\nthe conclusion, the history of the ascension, must likewise be regarded\nas mythical. [68] Thus the two extremities were cut off by the pruning\nknife of criticism, whilst the essential body of the history, the\nperiod from the baptism to the resurrection, remained, as yet,\nunassailed: or in the words of the reviewer of Greiling\u2019s Life of\nJesus: [69] the entrance to the gospel history was through the\ndecorated portal of mythus, and the exit was similar to it, whilst the\nintermediate space was still traversed by the crooked and toilsome\npaths of natural interpretations.\n\nIn Gabler\u2019s [70] writings we meet with a somewhat more extended\napplication of the mythical view. He distinguishes (and recently\nRosenkranz [71] has agreed with him) between the miracles wrought by\nJesus and those operated on him or in relation to him, interpreting the\nlatter mythically, but the former naturally. Subsequently however, we\nfind Gabler expressing himself as if with the above mentioned\ntheologians he restricted the mythical interpretation to the miraculous\nnarratives of the childhood of Jesus, but this restriction is in fact a\nlimitation merely of the admitted distinction: since though all the\nmiracles connected with the early history of Jesus were operated in\nrelation to him and not wrought by him, many miracles of the same\ncharacter occur in the history of his public life. Bauer appears to\nhave been guided by the same rule in his Hebrew mythology. He classes\nas mythical the narratives of the conception and birth of Jesus, of the\nBaptism, the transfiguration, the angelic apparitions in Gethsemane and\nat the sepulchre: miracles selected from all periods of the life of\nJesus, but all operated in relation to him and not by him. This\nenumeration, however, does not include all the miracles of this kind.\n\nThe often referred to author of the treatise \u201cUpon the different views\nwith which and for which a Biographer of Jesus may work,\u201d has\nendeavoured to show that so limited an application of the notion of the\nmythus to the history of the life of Jesus is insufficient and\ninconsequent. This confused point of view from which the gospel\nnarrative is regarded as partly historical and partly mythical owes its\norigin, according to him, to those theologians who neither give up the\nhistory, nor are able to satisfy themselves with its clear results, but\nwho think to unite both parties by this middle course\u2014a vain endeavour\nwhich the rigid supranaturalist pronounces heretical, and the\nrationalist derides. The attempt of these reconcilers, remarks our\nauthor, to explain as intelligible everything which is not impossible,\nlays them open to all the charges so justly brought against the natural\ninterpretation; whilst the admission of the existence of mythi in the\nNew Testament subjects them to the direct reproach of being\ninconsequent: the severest censure which can be passed upon a scholar.\nBesides, the proceeding of these Eclectics is most arbitrary, since\nthey decide respecting what belongs to the history and what to the\nmythus almost entirely upon subjective grounds. Such distinctions are\nequally foreign to the evangelists, to logical reasoning, and to\nhistorical criticism. In consistency with these opinions, this writer\napplies the notion of the mythus to the entire history of the life of\nJesus; recognizes mythi or mythical embellishments in every portion,\nand ranges under the category of mythus not merely the miraculous\noccurrences during the infancy of Jesus, but those also of his public\nlife; not merely miracles operated on Jesus, but those wrought by him.\n\nThe most extended application of the notion of the philosophical or\ndogmatical mythus to the Gospel histories which has yet been made, was\npublished in 1799 in an anonymous work concerning Revelation and\nMythology. The writer contends that the whole life of Jesus, all that\nhe should and would do, had an ideal existence in the Jewish mind long\nprior to his birth. Jesus as an individual was not actually such as\naccording to Jewish anticipations he should have been. Not even that,\nin which all the records which recount his actions agree, is absolutely\nmatter of fact. A popular idea of the life of Jesus grew out of various\npopular contributions, and from this source our written Gospels were\nfirst derived. A reviewer objects that this author appears to suppose a\nstill smaller portion of the historical element in the gospels than\nactually exists. It would, he remarks, have been wiser to have been\nguided by a sober criticism of details, than by a sweeping scepticism.\n[72]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 12.\n\nOPPOSITION TO THE MYTHICAL VIEW OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY.\n\nIn adopting the mythical point of view as hitherto applied to Biblical\nhistory, our theologians had again approximated to the ancient\nallegorical interpretation. For as both the natural explanations of the\nRationalists, and the jesting expositions of the Deists, belong to that\nform of opinion which, whilst it sacrifices all divine meaning in the\nsacred record, still upholds its historical character; the mythical\nmode of interpretation agrees with the allegorical, in relinquishing\nthe historical reality of the sacred narratives in order to preserve to\nthem an absolute inherent truth. The mythical and the allegorical view\n(as also the moral) equally allow that the historian apparently relates\nthat which is historical, but they suppose him, under the influence of\na higher inspiration known or unknown to himself, to have made use of\nthis historical semblance merely as the shell of an idea\u2014of a religious\nconception. The only essential distinction therefore between these two\nmodes of explanation is, that according to the allegorical this higher\nintelligence is the immediate divine agency; according to the mythical,\nit is the spirit of a people or a community. (According to the moral\nview it is generally the mind of the interpreter which suggests the\ninterpretation.) Thus the allegorical view attributes the narrative to\na supernatural source, whilst the mythical view ascribes it to that\nnatural process by which legends are originated and developed. To which\nit should be added, that the allegorical interpreter (as well as the\nmoral) may with the most unrestrained arbitrariness separate from the\nhistory every thought he deems to be worthy of God, as constituting its\ninherent meaning; whilst the mythical interpreter, on the contrary, in\nsearching out the ideas which are embodied in the narrative, is\ncontrolled by regard to conformity with the spirit and modes of thought\nof the people and of the age.\n\nThis new view of the sacred Scriptures was opposed alike by the\northodox and by the rationalistic party. From the first, whilst the\nmythical interpretation was still restricted to the primitive history\nof the Old Testament, Hess [73] on the orthodox side, protested against\nit. The three following conclusions may be given as comprising, however\nincredible this may appear, the substance of his book, a work of some\ncompass; upon which however it is unnecessary to remark further than\nthat Hess was by no means the last orthodox theologian who pretended to\ncombat the mythical view with such weapons. He contends, 1st, that\nmythi are to be understood figuratively; now the sacred historians\nintended their writings to be understood literally: consequently they\ndo not relate mythi. 2ndly, Mythology is something heathenish; the\nBible is a christian book; consequently it contains no mythology. The\nthird conclusion is more complex, and, as will appear below, has more\nmeaning. If, says Hess, the marvellous were confined to those earliest\nbiblical records of which the historical validity is less certain, and\ndid not appear in any subsequent writings, the miraculous might be\nconsidered as a proof of the mythical character of the narrative; but\nthe marvellous is no less redundant in the latest and undeniably\nhistorical records, than in the more ancient; consequently it cannot be\nregarded as a criterion of the mythical. In short the most hollow\nnatural explanation, did it but retain the slightest vestige of the\nhistorical\u2014however completely it annihilated every higher meaning,\u2014was\npreferable, in the eyes of the orthodox, to the mythical\ninterpretation. Certainly nothing could be worse than Eichhorn\u2019s\nnatural explanation of the fall. In considering the tree of knowledge\nas a poisonous plant, he at once destroyed the intrinsic value and\ninherent meaning of the history; of this he afterwards became fully\nsensible, and in his subsequent mythical interpretation, he recognized\nin the narrative the incorporation of a worthy and elevated conception.\nHess however declared himself more content with Eichhorn\u2019s original\nexplanation, and defended it against his later mythical interpretation.\nSo true is it that supranaturalism clings with childlike fondness to\nthe empty husk of historical semblance, though void of divine\nsignificance, and estimates it higher than the most valuable kernel\ndivested of its variegated covering.\n\nSomewhat later De Wette\u2019s bold and thorough application of the mythical\nview to the Mosaic writings; his decided renunciation of the so-called\nhistorical-mythical, or more properly speaking of the natural mode of\ninterpretation; and his strict opposition to the notion of the\npossibility of arriving at any certainty respecting the residue of fact\npreserved in these writings, gave rise to much controversy. Some agreed\nwith Steudel in totally rejecting the mythical view in relation to the\nBible, and in upholding the strictly historical and indeed supranatural\nsense of the Scriptures: whilst Meyer and others were willing to follow\nthe guidance of De Wette, at least as far as the principles of Vater,\nwhich permitted the attempt to extract some, if only probable,\nhistorical data from the mythical investment. If, says Meyer [74], the\nmarvellousness and irrationality of many of the narratives contained in\nthe Pentateuch, (narratives which no one would have thought of\ninventing,) together with the want of symmetry and connexion in the\nnarration, and other considerations, permit us not to mistake the\nhistorical groundwork of the record; surely, allowing the existence of\nan historical basis, a modest and cautious attempt to seek out or at\nany rate to approximate towards a discovery of that historical\nfoundation is admissible. In the hope of preserving those who adopted\nthe historical-mythical view from relapsing into the inconsistencies of\nthe natural interpreters, Meyer laid down the following rules, which\nhowever serve rather to exhibit afresh the difficulty of escaping this\ndanger. 1. To abstract every thing which is at once recognizable as\nmythical representation as opposed to historical fact; that is the\nextraordinary, the miraculous, accounts of immediate divine operation,\nalso the religious notions of the narrators in relation to final\ncauses. 2. To proceed from that which is simple to that which is more\ncomplicated. Let a case be supposed where we have two accounts of the\nsame event, the one natural, the other supernatural, as, for instance,\nthe gathering of the elders by Moses, attributed, Numbers, xi. 16., to\nthe suggestion of Jehovah, and Exodus, xviii. 14., to the counsel of\nJethro. According to this rule all divine inspiration must be\nsubtracted from the known decisions of Noah, Abraham, Moses, and\nothers. (Precisely the proceeding which met with the censure of De\nWette quoted above.) 3. As far as possible to contemplate the fact\nwhich forms the basis of a narrative, in its simple and common\ncharacter, apart from all collateral incidents. (This however, is going\ntoo far where no basis of fact exists.) For example. The story of the\ndeluge may be reduced thus; a great inundation in Asia Minor, according\nto the legend, destroyed many wicked. (Here the supposed final cause is\nnot abstracted.) Noah the father of Shem, a devout man, (the\nteleological notion again!) saved himself by swimming. The exact\ncircumstances of this preservation, the character of the vessel, if\nsuch there were, which saved him, are left undetermined in order to\navoid arbitrary explanations. Thus, in reference to the birth of Isaac,\nMeyer is satisfied with saying, that the wish and hope of the wealthy\nand pious Emir Abraham to possess an heir by his wife Sara was\nfulfilled unusually late, and in the eyes of others very unexpectedly.\n(Here again De Wette\u2019s censure is quite applicable.)\n\nIn like manner Eichhorn, in his Introduction to the New Testament,\ndeclared in yet stronger terms his opposition to the view advocated by\nDe Wette. If the orthodox were displeased at having their historical\nfaith disturbed by the progressive inroads of the mythical mode of\ninterpretation, the rationalists were no less disconcerted to find the\nweb of facts they had so ingeniously woven together torn asunder, and\nall the art and labour expended on the natural explanation at once\ndeclared useless. Unwillingly does Dr. Paulus admit to himself the\npresentiment that the reader of his Commentary may possibly exclaim:\n\u201cWherefore all this labour to give an historical explanation to such\nlegends? how singular thus to handle mythi as history, and to attempt\nto render marvellous fictions intelligible according to the rules of\ncausality!\u201d Contrasted with the toilsomeness of his natural\nexplanation, the mythical interpretation appears to this theologian\nmerely as the refuge of mental indolence, which, seeking the easiest\nmethod of treating the gospel history, disposes of all that is\nmarvellous, and all that is difficult to comprehend, under the vague\nterm\u2014mythus, and which, in order to escape the labour of disengaging\nthe natural from the supernatural, fact from opinion, carries back the\nwhole narration into the camera-obscura of ancient sacred legends. [75]\n\nStill more decided was Greiling\u2019s [76] expression of disapprobation,\nelicited by Krug\u2019s commendation of the genetic\u2014that is to say, mythical\ntheory; but each stroke levelled by him at the mythical interpretation\nmay be turned with far greater force against his own natural\nexplanation. He is of opinion that among all the attempts to explain\nobscure passages in the New Testament, scarcely any can be more\ninjurious to the genuine historical interpretation, to the ascertaining\nof actual facts and their legitimate objects (that is, more prejudicial\nto the pretensions of the natural expounder) than the endeavour to\nsupply, by aid of an inventive imagination, the deficiencies of the\nhistorical narrative. (The inventive imagination is that of the natural\ninterpreter, which suggests to him collateral incidents of which there\nis no trace in the text. The imagination of the mythical interpreter is\nnot inventive; his part is merely the recognizing and detecting of the\nfictitious.) According to Greiling the genetic, or mythical mode of\nexplaining miracles, is a needless and arbitrary invention of the\nimagination. (Let a groping spirit of inquiry be added, and the natural\nexplanation is accurately depicted.) Many facts, he continues, which\nmight be retained as such are thus consigned to the province of fable,\nor replaced by fictions the production of the interpreter. (But it is\nthe historical mythical mode of interpretation alone which substitutes\nsuch inventions, and this only in so far as it is mixed up with the\nnatural explanation.) Greiling thinks that the explanation of a miracle\nought not to change the fact, and by means of interpretation, as by\nsleight of hand, substitute one thing for another; (which is done by\nthe natural explanation only,) for this is not to explain that which\nshocks the reason, but merely to deny the fact, and leave the\ndifficulty unsolved. (It is false to say we have a fact to explain;\nwhat immediately lies before us is a statement, respecting which we\nhave to discover whether it embody a fact or not.) According to this\nlearned critic the miracles wrought by Jesus should be naturally, or\nrather psychologically, explained; by which means all occasion to\nchange, clip, and amplify by invention the recorded facts, till at\nlength they become metamorphosed into fiction, is obviated\u2014(with how\nmuch justice this censure may be applied to the natural mode of\nexplanation has been sufficiently demonstrated.)\n\nHeydenreich has lately written a work expressly on the inadmissibility\nof the mythical interpretation of the historical portions of the New\nTestament. He reviews the external evidences concerning the origin of\nthe Gospels, and finds the recognition of a mythical element in these\nwritings quite incompatible with their substantiated derivation from\nthe Apostles, and the disciples of the Apostles. He also examines the\ncharacter of the gospel representations, and decides, in reference to\ntheir form, that narratives at once so natural and simple, so complete\nand exact, could be expected only from eye-witnesses, or those\nconnected with them; and, with respect to their contents, that those\nrepresentations which are in their nature miraculous are so worthy of\nGod, that nothing short of an abhorrence of miracles could occasion a\ndoubt as to their historical truth. The divine operations are indeed\ngenerally mediate, but according to Heydenreich this by no means\nprecludes the possibility of occasional intermediate exertions of the\ndivine energy, when requisite to the accomplishment of some particular\nobject; and, referring to each of the divine attributes in succession,\nhe shows that such intervention in nowise contradicts any of them; and\nthat each individual miracle is a peculiarly appropriate exercise of\ndivine power.\n\nThese, and similar objections against the mythical interpretation of\nthe gospel histories, which occur in recent commentaries and in the\nnumerous writings in opposition to my work on the life of Jesus, will\nfind their place and refutation in the following pages.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 13.\n\nTHE POSSIBILITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF MYTHI IN THE NEW TESTAMENT\nCONSIDERED IN REFERENCE TO THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCES.\n\nThe assertion that the Bible contains mythi is, it is true, directly\nopposed to the convictions of the believing christian. For if his\nreligious view be circumscribed within the limits of his own community,\nhe knows no reason why the things recorded in the sacred books should\nnot literally have taken place; no doubt occurs to him, no reflection\ndisturbs him. But, let his horizon be so far widened as to allow him to\ncontemplate his own religion in relation to other religions, and to\ndraw a comparison between them, the conclusion to which he then comes\nis that the histories related by the heathens of their deities, and by\nthe Mussulman of his prophet, are so many fictions, whilst the accounts\nof God\u2019s actions, of Christ and other Godlike men contained in the\nBible are, on the contrary, true. Such is the general notion expressed\nin the theological position: that which distinguishes Christianity from\nthe heathen religions is this, they are mythical, it is historical.\n\nBut this position, thus stated without further definition and proof, is\nmerely the product of the limitation of the individual to that form of\nbelief in which he has been educated, which renders the mind incapable\nof embracing any but the affirmative view in relation to its own creed,\nany but the negative in reference to every other\u2014a prejudice devoid of\nreal worth, and which cannot exist in conjunction with an extensive\nknowledge of history. For let us transplant ourselves among other\nreligious communities; the believing Mohammedan is of opinion that\ntruth is contained in the Koran alone, and that the greater portion of\nour Bible is fabulous; the Jew of the present day, whilst admitting the\ntruth and divine origin of the Old Testament, rejects the New; and, the\nsame exclusive belief in the truth of their own creed and the falsity\nof every other was entertained by the professors of most of the heathen\nreligions before the period of the Syncretism. But which community is\nright? Not all, for this is impossible, since the assertion of each\nexcludes the others. But which particular one? Each claims for itself\nthe true faith. The pretensions are equal; what shall decide? The\norigin of the several religions? Each lays claim to a divine origin.\nNot only does the Christian religion profess to be derived from the Son\nof God, and the Jewish from God himself, through Moses; the Mohammedan\nreligion asserts itself to be founded by a prophet immediately inspired\nby God; in like manner the Greeks attributed the institution of their\nworship to the gods.\n\n\u201cBut in no other religion\u201d it is urged \u201care the vouchers of a divine\norigin so unequivocal as in the Jewish and the Christian. The Greek and\nRoman mythologies are the product of a collection of unauthenticated\nlegends, whilst the Bible history was written by eye-witnesses; or by\nthose whose connexion with eye-witnesses afforded them opportunities of\nascertaining the truth; and whose integrity is too apparent to admit of\na doubt as to the sincerity of their intentions.\u201d It would most\nunquestionably be an argument of decisive weight in favour of the\ncredibility of the biblical history, could it indeed be shown that it\nwas written by eye-witnesses, or even by persons nearly contemporaneous\nwith the events narrated. For though errors and false representations\nmay glide into the narrations even of an eye-witness, there is far less\nprobability of unintentional mistake (intentional deception may easily\nbe detected) than where the narrator is separated by a long interval\nfrom the facts he records, and is obliged to derive his materials\nthrough the medium of transmitted communications.\n\nBut this alleged ocular testimony, or proximity in point of time of the\nsacred historians to the events recorded, is mere assumption, an\nassumption originating from the titles which the biblical books bear in\nour Canon. Those books which describe the departure of the Israelites\nfrom Egypt, and their wanderings through the wilderness, bear the name\nof Moses, who being their leader would undoubtedly give a faithful\nhistory of these occurrences, unless he designed to deceive; and who,\nif his intimate connexion with Deity described in these books be\nhistorically true, was likewise eminently qualified, by virtue of such\nconnexion, to produce a credible history of the earlier periods. In\nlike manner, of the several accounts of the life and fate of Jesus, the\nsuperscriptions assign one to Matthew and one to John: two men who\nhaving been eye-witnesses of the public ministry of Jesus from its\ncommencement to its close were particularly capable of giving a report\nof it; and who, from their confidential intercourse with Jesus and his\nmother, together with that supernatural aid which, according to John,\nJesus promised to his disciples to teach them and bring all things to\ntheir remembrance, were enabled to give information of the\ncircumstances of his earlier years; of which some details are recorded\nby Matthew.\n\nBut that little reliance can be placed on the headings of ancient\nmanuscripts, and of sacred records more especially, is evident, and in\nreference to biblical books has long since been proved. In the\nso-called books of Moses mention is made of his death and burial: but\nwho now supposes that this was written beforehand by Moses in the form\nof prophecy? Many of the Psalms bear the name of David which presuppose\nan acquaintance with the miseries of the exile; and predictions are put\ninto the mouth of Daniel, a Jew living at the time of the Babylonish\ncaptivity, which could not have been written before the reign of\nAntiochus Epiphanes. It is an incontrovertible position of modern\ncriticism that the titles of the Biblical books represent nothing more\nthan the design of their author, or the opinion of Jewish or Christian\nantiquity respecting their origin; points the first of which proves\nnothing; and as to the second every thing depends upon the following\nconsiderations: 1. the date of the opinion and the authority on which\nit rests; 2. the degree of harmony existing between this opinion and\nthe internal character of the writings in question. The first\nconsideration includes an examination of the external, the second of\nthe internal grounds of evidence respecting the authenticity of the\nbiblical books. To investigate the internal grounds of credibility in\nrelation to each detail given in the Gospels, (for it is with them\nalone we are here concerned) and to test the probability or\nimprobability of their being the production of eye-witnesses, or of\ncompetently informed writers, is the sole object of the present work.\nThe external grounds of evidence may be examined in this introduction,\nonly so far however as is necessary in order to judge whether they\nyield a definite result, which may perhaps be in opposition to the\ninternal grounds of evidence; or whether the external evidence,\ninsufficient of itself, leaves to the internal evidence the decision of\nthe question.\n\nWe learn from the works of Iren\u00e6us, of Clemens Alexandrinus, and of\nTertullian, that at the end of the second century after Christ our four\nGospels were recognized by the orthodox church as the writings of the\nApostles and the disciples of the Apostles; and were separated from\nmany other similar productions as authentic records of the life of\nJesus. The first Gospel according to our Canon is attributed to\nMatthew, who is enumerated among the twelve Apostles; the fourth to\nJohn the beloved disciple of our Lord; the second to Mark the\ninterpreter of Peter; and the third to Luke the companion of Paul. [77]\nWe have, besides, the authority of earlier authors, both in their own\nworks and in quotations cited by others.\n\nIt is usual, in reference to the first Gospel, to adduce the testimony\nof Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, said to have been an auditor \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2\nof John, (probably the presbyter) and to have suffered martyrdom under\nMarcus Aurelius. (161\u2013180.) Papias asserts that Matthew the Apostle\nwrote \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70 [78]). Schleiermacher, straining the meaning\nof \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1, has latterly understood it to signify merely a collection of\nthe sayings of Jesus. But when Papias speaks of Mark, he seems to use\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, and \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f22\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f22 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd as equivalent expressions. Whence it\nappears that the word \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 designates a writing comprehending the acts\nand fate of Jesus; and the fathers of the church were justified in\nunderstanding the testimony of Papias as relating to an entire Gospel.\n[79] They did indeed apply this testimony decidedly to our first\nGospel; but the words of the Apostolic father contain no such\nindication, and the manuscript, of which he speaks, cannot be\nabsolutely identical with our Gospel; for, according to the statement\ngiven by Papias, Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language; and it is a mere\nassumption of the christian fathers that our Greek Matthew is a\ntranslation of the original Hebrew Gospel [80]. Precepts of Jesus, and\nnarratives concerning him, corresponding more or less exactly with\npassages in our Matthew, do indeed occur in the works of other of the\napostolic fathers; but then these works are not wholly genuine, and the\nquotations themselves are either in a form which indicates that they\nmight have been derived from oral traditions; or where these authors\nrefer to written sources, they do not mention them as being directly\napostolic. Many citations in the writings of Justin Martyr (who died\n166) agree with passages in our Matthew; but there are also, mixed up\nwith these, other elements which are not to be found in our Gospels;\nand he refers to the writings from which he derives them generally as\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, or \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, without naming any author\nin particular. Celsus, [81] the opponent of Christianity, (subsequent\nto 150) mentions that the disciples of Jesus had written his history,\nand he alludes to our present Gospels when he speaks of the divergence\nof the accounts respecting the number of angels seen at the\nresurrection; but we find no more precise reference to any one\nEvangelist in his writings, so far as we know them through Origen.\n\nWe have the testimony of the same Papias who has the notice concerning\nMatthew, a testimony from the mouth of John (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2), that Mark,\nwho according to him was the interpreter of Peter (\u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5),\nwrote down the discourses and actions of Jesus from his recollections\nof the instructions of that Apostle. [82] Ecclesiastical writers have\nlikewise assumed that this passage from Papias refers to our second\nGospel, though it does not say any thing of the kind, and is besides\ninapplicable to it. For our second Gospel cannot have originated from\nrecollections of Peter\u2019s instructions, i.e., from a source peculiar to\nitself, since it is evidently a compilation, whether made from memory\nor otherwise, from the first and third Gospels. [83] As little will the\nremark of Papias that Mark wrote without order (\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9) apply to our\nGospel. For he cannot by this expression intend a false chronological\narrangement, since he ascribes to Mark the strictest love of truth,\nwhich, united with the consciousness that he had not the means of\nfixing dates, must have withheld him from making the attempt. But a\ntotal renunciation of chronological connexion, which Papias can alone\nhave meant to attribute to him, is not to be found in the second\nGospel. This being the case, what do those echoes which our second\nGospel, in like manner as our first, seems to find in the most ancient\necclesiastical writers, prove?\n\nThat Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote a Gospel, is not attested by\nany authority of corresponding weight or antiquity with that of Papias\nin relation to Matthew and to Mark. The third Gospel however possesses\na testimony of a particular kind in the \u201cActs of the Apostles;\u201d not\nindeed authenticating it as the composition of Luke, but attributing it\nto an occasional companion of the Apostle Paul. According to the pro\u00ebm\nto the Acts and that to the Gospel of Luke, these two books proceeded\nfrom the same author or compiler: an origin which these writings do\nnot, in other respects, contradict. In several chapters in the second\nhalf of the Book of the Acts the author, speaking of himself together\nwith Paul, makes use of the first person plural, [84] and thus\nidentifies himself with the companion of that apostle. The fact is,\nhowever, that many of the details concerning Paul, contained in other\nparts of the book of the Acts, are so indefinite and marvellous, and\nare moreover so completely at variance with Paul\u2019s genuine epistles,\nthat it is extremely difficult to reconcile them with the notion that\nthey were written by a companion of that apostle. It is also not a\nlittle remarkable that the author, neither in the introduction to the\nActs, nor in that to the Gospel, alludes to his connexion with one of\nthe most distinguished of the Apostles, so that it is impossible not to\nsuspect that the passages in which the writer speaks of himself as an\nactor in the scenes described, belong to a distinct memorial by another\nhand, which the author of the Acts has merely incorporated into his\nhistory. But leaving this conjecture out of the question, it is indeed\npossible that the companion of Paul may have composed his two works at\na time, and under circumstances, when he was no longer protected by\nApostolic influence against the tide of tradition; and that he saw no\nreason why, because he had not heard them previously from this Apostle,\nhe should therefore reject the instructive, and (according to his\nnotions, which certainly would not lead him to shun the marvellous,)\ncredible narratives derived from that source. Now, it is asserted that\nbecause the Book of the Acts terminates with the two years\u2019\nimprisonment of Paul at Rome, therefore this second work of the\ndisciple of that apostle, must have been written during that time,\n(63\u201365, A.D.) before the decision of Paul\u2019s trial, and that\nconsequently, the Gospel of Luke, the earlier work of the same author,\ncould not have been of later date. But, the breaking off of the Acts at\nthat particular point might have been the result of many other causes;\nat all events such testimony, standing alone, is wholly insufficient to\ndecide the historical worth of the Gospel.\n\nIt were to be wished that Polycarp, (he died 167) who both heard and\nsaw the Apostle John, [85] had left us a testimony respecting him\nsimilar to that of Papias concerning Matthew. Still his silence on this\nsubject, in the one short epistle which has come down to us, is no\nevidence against the authenticity of that Gospel, any more than the\nmore or less ambiguous allusions in several of the Apostolic fathers to\nthe Epistles of John are proofs in its favour. But it is matter of\nsurprise that Iren\u00e6us the disciple of Polycarp, who was called upon to\ndefend this Gospel from the attacks of those who denied its composition\nby John, should neither on this occasion, nor once in his diffuse work,\nhave brought forward the weighty authority of his Apostolic master, as\nto this fact. Whether or not the fourth Gospel originally bore the name\nof John remains uncertain. We meet with it first among the Valentinians\nand the Montanists, about the middle of the second century. Its\nApostolic origin was however (immediately after) denied by the\nso-called Alogi, who ascribed it to Cerinthus; partly because the\nMontanists derived from it their idea of the Paraclete; partly also\nbecause it did not harmonize with the other Gospels. [86] The earliest\nquotation expressly stated to be from the Gospel of John is found in\nTheophilus of Antioch, about the year 172. [87] How little reason the\nnumerous theologians of the present day have to boast of the evidences\nin favour of the fourth Gospel, whilst they deny the not less well\nattested Apocalypse, has been well remarked by Tholuck. Lastly, that\nthere were two Johns, the Apostle and the Presbyter, living\ncontemporaneously at Ephesus, is a circumstance which has not received\nsufficient attention in connexion with the most ancient testimonies in\nfavour of the derivation from John, of the Apocalypse on the one hand,\nand of the Gospels and Epistles on the other.\n\nThus these most ancient testimonies tell us, firstly, that an apostle,\nor some other person who had been acquainted with an apostle, wrote a\nGospel history; but not whether it was identical with that which\nafterwards came to be circulated in the church under his name;\nsecondly, that writings similar to our Gospels were in existence; but\nnot that they were ascribed with certainty to any one individual\napostle or companion of an apostle. Such is the uncertainty of these\naccounts, which after all do not reach further back than the third or\nfourth decade of the second century. According to all the rules of\nprobability, the Apostles were all dead before the close of the first\ncentury; not excepting John, who is said to have lived till A.D. 100;\nconcerning whose age and death, however, many fables were early\ninvented. What an ample scope for attributing to the Apostles\nmanuscripts they never wrote! The Apostles, dispersed abroad, had died\nin the latter half of the first century; the Gospel became more widely\npreached throughout the Roman empire, and by degrees acquired a fixed\nform in accordance with a particular type. It was doubtless from this\norally circulated Gospel that the many passages agreeing accurately\nwith passages in our Gospels, which occur without any indication of\ntheir source in the earliest ecclesiastical writers, were actually\nderived. Before long this oral traditionary Gospel became deposited in\ndifferent manuscripts: this person or that, possibly an apostle,\nfurnishing the principal features of the history. But these manuscripts\nwere not at first compiled according to a particular form and order,\nand consequently had to undergo many revisions and re-arrangements, of\nwhich we have an example in the Gospel of the Hebrews and the citations\nof Justin. It appears that these manuscripts did not originally bear\nthe names of their compilers, but either that of the community by whom\nthey were first read, as the Gospel of Hebrews; or that of the Apostle\nor disciple after whose oral discourses or notes some other person had\ncomposed a connected history. The latter seems to have been the\noriginal meaning attached to the word \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70; as in the title to our\nfirst Gospel. [88] Nothing however was more natural than the\nsupposition which arose among the early christians, that the histories\nconcerning Jesus which were circulated and used by the churches had\nbeen written by his immediate disciples. Hence the ascription of the\ngospel writings generally to the apostles by Justin and by Celsus; and\nalso of particular gospels to those particular apostles and disciples,\nwhose oral discourses or written notes might possibly have formed the\ngroundwork of a gospel manuscript, or who had perhaps been particularly\nconnected with some certain district, or had been held in especial\nesteem by some particular community. The Gospel of the Hebrews\nsuccessively received all three kinds of appellations; being first\ncalled \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, after the community by which it was\nread; somewhat later, Evangelium juxta duodecim apostolos; and finally,\nsecundum Matth\u00e6um.\n\nAdmitting however that we do not possess the immediate record of an\neye-witness in any one of the four Gospels, it is still very\nincomprehensible, replies the objector, how in Palestine itself, and at\na time when so many eye-witnesses yet lived, unhistorical legends and\neven collections of them should have been formed. But, in the first\nplace, the fact that many such compilations of narratives concerning\nthe life of Jesus were already in general circulation during the\nlifetime of the Apostles, and more especially that any one of our\ngospels was known to an Apostle and acknowledged by him, can never be\nproved. With respect to isolated anecdotes, it is only necessary to\nform an accurate conception of Palestine and of the real position of\nthe eye-witnesses referred to, in order to understand that the\norigination of legends, even at so early a period, is by no means\nincomprehensible. Who informs us that they must necessarily have taken\nroot in that particular district of Palestine where Jesus tarried\nlongest, and where his actual history was well known? And with respect\nto eye-witnesses, if by these we are to understand the Apostles, it is\nto ascribe to them absolute ubiquity, to represent them as present here\nand there, weeding out all the unhistorical legends concerning Jesus in\nwhatever places they had chanced to spring up and flourish.\nEye-witnesses in the more extended sense, who had only seen Jesus\noccasionally and not been his constant companions, must, on the\ncontrary, have been strongly tempted to fill up their imperfect\nknowledge of his history with mythical representations.\n\nBut it is inconceivable, they say, that such a mass of mythi should\nhave originated in an age so historical as that of the first Roman\nemperors. We must not however be misled by too comprehensive a notion\nof an historical age. The sun is not visible at the same instant to\nevery place on the same meridian at the same time of year; it gleams\nupon the mountain summits and the high plains before it penetrates the\nlower valleys and the deep ravines. No less true is it that the\nhistoric age dawns not upon all people at the same period. The people\nof highly civilized Greece, and of Rome the capital of the world, stood\non an eminence which had not been reached in Galilee and Jud\u00e6a. Much\nrather may we apply to this age an expression become trite among\nhistorians, but which seems in the present instance willingly\nforgotten: namely, that incredulity and superstition, scepticism and\nfanaticism go hand in hand.\n\nBut the Jews, it is said, had long been accustomed to keep written\nrecords; nay, the most flourishing period of their literature was\nalready past, they were no longer a progressing and consequently a\nproductive people, they were a nation verging to decay. But the fact\nis, the pure historic idea was never developed among the Hebrews during\nthe whole of their political existence; their latest historical works,\nsuch as the Books of the Maccabees, and even the writings of Josephus,\nare not free from marvellous and extravagant tales. Indeed no just\nnotion of the true nature of history is possible, without a perception\nof the inviolability of the chain of finite causes, and of the\nimpossibility of miracles. This perception which is wanting to so many\nminds of our own day was still more deficient in Palestine, and indeed\nthroughout the Roman empire. And to a mind still open to the reception\nof the marvellous, if it be once carried away by the tide of religious\nenthusiasm, all things will appear credible, and should this enthusiasm\nlay hold of a yet wider circle, it will awaken a new creative vigour,\neven in a decayed people. To account for such an enthusiasm it is by no\nmeans necessary to presuppose the gospel miracles as the existing\ncause. This may be found in the known religious dearth of that period,\na dearth so great that the cravings of the mind after some religious\nbelief excited a relish for the most extravagant forms of worship;\nsecondly in the deep religious satisfaction which was afforded by the\nbelief in the resurrection of the deceased Messiah, and by the\nessential principles of the doctrine of Jesus.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 14.\n\nTHE POSSIBILITY OF MYTHI IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CONSIDERED ON INTERNAL\nGROUNDS.\n\nSeeing from what has already been said that the external testimony\nrespecting the composition of our Gospels, far from forcing upon us the\nconclusion that they proceeded from eye-witnesses or well-informed\ncontemporaries, leaves the decision to be determined wholly by internal\ngrounds of evidence, that is, by the nature of the Gospel narratives\nthemselves: we might immediately proceed from this introduction to the\npeculiar object of the present work, which is an examination of those\nnarratives in detail. It may however appear useful, before entering\nupon this special inquiry, to consider the general question, how far it\nis consistent with the character of the Christian religion that mythi\nshould be found in it, and how far the general construction of the\nGospel narratives authorizes us to treat them as mythi. Although,\nindeed, if the following critical examination of the details be\nsuccessful in proving the actual existence of mythi in the New\nTestament, this preliminary demonstration of their possibility becomes\nsuperfluous.\n\nIf with this view we compare the acknowledged mythical religions of\nantiquity with the Hebrew and Christian, it is true that we are struck\nby many differences between the sacred histories existing in these\nreligious forms and those in the former. Above all, it is commonly\nalleged that the sacred histories of the Bible are distinguished from\nthe legends of the Indians, Greeks, Romans, etc., by their moral\ncharacter and excellence. \u201cIn the latter, the stories of the battles of\nthe gods, the loves of Krishna, Jupiter, etc., contain much which was\noffensive to the moral feeling even of enlightened heathens, and which\nis revolting to ours: whilst in the former, the whole course of the\nnarration, offers only what is worthy of God, instructive, and\nennobling.\u201d To this it may be answered with regard to the heathens,\nthat the appearance of immorality in many of their narratives is merely\nthe consequence of a subsequent misconception of their original\nmeaning: and with regard to the Old Testament, that the perfect moral\npurity of its history has been contested. Often indeed, it has been\ncontested without good grounds, because a due distinction is not made\nbetween that which is ascribed to individual men, (who, as they are\nrepresented, are by no means spotless examples of purity,) and that\nwhich is ascribed to God: [89] nevertheless it is true that we have\ncommands called divine, which, like that to the Israelites on their\ndeparture out of Egypt to purloin vessels of gold, are scarcely less\nrevolting to an enlightened moral feeling, than the thefts of the\nGrecian Hermes. But even admitting this difference in the morality of\nthe religions to its full extent (and it must be admitted at least with\nregard to the New Testament), still it furnishes no proof of the\nhistorical character of the Bible; for though every story relating to\nGod which is immoral is necessarily fictitious, even the most moral is\nnot necessarily true.\n\n\u201cBut that which is incredible and inconceivable forms the staple of the\nheathen fables; whilst in the biblical history, if we only presuppose\nthe immediate intervention of the Deity, there is nothing of the kind.\u201d\nExactly, if this be presupposed. Otherwise, we might very likely find\nthe miracles in the life of Moses, Elias, or Jesus, the Theophany and\nAngelophany of the Old and New Testament, just as incredible as the\nfables of Jupiter, Hercules, or Bacchus: presuppose the divinity or\ndivine descent of these individuals, and their actions and fate become\nas credible as those of the biblical personages with the like\npresupposition. Yet not quite so, it may be returned. Vishnu appearing\nin his three first avatars as a fish, a tortoise, and a boar; Saturn\ndevouring his children; Jupiter turning himself into a bull, a swan,\netc.\u2014these are incredibilities of quite another kind from Jehovah\nappearing to Abraham in a human form under the terebinth tree, or to\nMoses in the burning bush. This extravagant love of the marvellous is\nthe character of the heathen mythology. A similar accusation might\nindeed be brought against many parts of the Bible, such as the tales of\nBalaam, Joshua, and Samson; but still it is here less glaring, and does\nnot form as in the Indian religion and in certain parts of the Grecian,\nthe prevailing character. What however does this prove? Only that the\nbiblical history might be true, sooner than the Indian or Grecian\nfables; not in the least that on this account it must be true, and can\ncontain nothing fictitious.\n\n\u201cBut the subjects of the heathen mythology are for the most part such,\nas to convince us beforehand that they are mere inventions: those of\nthe Bible such as at once to establish their own reality. A Brahma, an\nOrmusd, a Jupiter, without doubt never existed; but there still is a\nGod, a Christ, and there have been an Adam, a Noah, an Abraham, a\nMoses.\u201d Whether an Adam or a Noah, however, were such as they are\nrepresented, has already been doubted, and may still be doubted. Just\nso, on the other side, there may have been something historical about\nHercules, Theseus, Achilles, and other heroes of Grecian story. Here,\nagain, we come to the decision that the biblical history might be true\nsooner than the heathen mythology, but is not necessarily so. This\ndecision however, together with the two distinctions already made,\nbrings us to an important observation. How do the Grecian divinities\napprove themselves immediately to us as non-existing beings, if not\nbecause things are ascribed to them which we cannot reconcile with our\nidea of the divine? whilst the God of the Bible is a reality to us just\nin so far as he corresponds with the idea we have formed of him in our\nown minds. Besides the contradiction to our notion of the divine\ninvolved in the plurality of heathen gods, and the intimate description\nof their motives and actions, we are at once revolted to find that the\ngods themselves have a history; that they are born, grow up, marry,\nhave children, work out their purposes, suffer difficulties and\nweariness, conquer and are conquered. It is irreconcileable with our\nidea of the Absolute to suppose it subjected to time and change, to\nopposition and suffering; and therefore where we meet with a narrative\nin which these are attributed to a divine being, by this test we\nrecognize it as unhistorical or mythical.\n\nIt is in this sense that the Bible, and even the Old Testament, is said\nto contain no mythi. The story of the creation with its succession of\neach day\u2019s labour ending in a rest after the completion of the task;\nthe expression often recurring in the farther course of the narrative,\nGod repented of having done so and so;\u2014these and similar\nrepresentations cannot indeed be entirely vindicated from the charge of\nmaking finite the nature of the Deity, and this is the ground which has\nbeen taken by mythical interpreters of the history of the creation. And\nin every other instance where God is said to reveal himself exclusively\nat any definite place or time, by celestial apparition, or by miracle\nwrought immediately by himself, it is to be presumed that the Deity has\nbecome finite and descended to human modes of operation. It may however\nbe said in general, that in the Old Testament the divine nature does\nnot appear to be essentially affected by the temporal character of its\noperation, but that the temporal shows itself rather as a mere form, an\nunavoidable appearance, arising out of the necessary limitation of\nhuman, and especially of uncultivated powers of representation. It is\nobvious to every one, that there is something quite different in the\nOld Testament declarations, that God made an alliance with Noah, and\nAbraham, led his people out of Egypt, gave them laws, brought them into\nthe promised land, raised up for them judges, kings, and prophets, and\npunished them at last for their disobedience by exile;\u2014from the tales\nconcerning Jupiter, that he was born of Rhea in Crete, and hidden from\nhis father Saturn in a cave; that afterwards he made war upon his\nfather, freed the Uranides, and with their help and that of the\nlightning with which they furnished him, overcame the rebellious\nTitans, and at last divided the world amongst his brothers and\nchildren. The essential difference between the two representations is,\nthat in the latter, the Deity himself is the subject of progression,\nbecomes another being at the end of the process from what he was at the\nbeginning, something being effected in himself and for his own sake:\nwhilst in the former, change takes place only on the side of the world;\nGod remains fixed in his own identity as the I AM, and the temporal is\nonly a superficial reflection cast back upon his acting energy by that\ncourse of mundane events which he both originated and guides. In the\nheathen mythology the gods have a history: in the Old Testament, God\nhimself has none, but only his people: and if the proper meaning of\nmythology be the history of gods, then the Hebrew religion has no\nmythology.\n\nFrom the Hebrew religion, this recognition of the divine unity and\nimmutability was transmitted to the Christian. The birth, growth,\nmiracles, sufferings, death, and resurrection of Christ, are\ncircumstances belonging to the destiny of the Messiah, above which God\nremains unaffected in his own changeless identity. The New Testament\ntherefore knows nothing of mythology in the above sense. The state of\nthe question is however somewhat changed from that which it assumed in\nthe Old Testament: for Jesus is called the Son of God, not merely in\nthe same sense as kings under the theocracy were so called, but as\nactually begotten by the divine spirit, or from the incarnation in his\nperson of the divine \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. Inasmuch as he is one with the Father, and\nin him the whole fullness of the godhead dwells bodily, he is more than\nMoses. The actions and sufferings of such a being are not external to\nthe Deity: though we are not allowed to suppose a theopaschitic union\nwith the divine nature, yet still, even in the New Testament, and more\nin the later doctrine of the Church, it is a divine being that here\nlives and suffers, and what befals him has an absolute worth and\nsignificance. Thus according to the above accepted notion of the\nmythus, the New Testament has more of a mythical character than the\nOld. But to call the history of Jesus mythical in this sense, is as\nunimportant with regard to the historical question as it is\nunexceptionable; for the idea of God is in no way opposed to such an\nintervention in human affairs as does not affect his own immutability;\nso that as far as regards this point, the gospel history,\nnotwithstanding its mythical designation, might be at the same time\nthroughout historically true.\n\nAdmitting that the biblical history does not equally with the heathen\nmythology offend our idea of Deity, and that consequently it is not in\nlike manner characterized by this mark of the unhistorical, however far\nit be from bearing any guarantee of being historical,\u2014we are met by the\nfurther question whether it be not less accordant with our idea of the\nworld, and whether such discordancy may not furnish a test of its\nunhistorical nature.\n\nIn the ancient world, that is, in the east, the religious tendency was\nso preponderating, and the knowledge of nature so limited, that the law\nof connexion between earthly finite beings was very loosely regarded.\nAt every link there was a disposition to spring into the Infinite, and\nto see God as the immediate cause of every change in nature or the\nhuman mind. In this mental condition the biblical history was written.\nNot that God is here represented as doing all and every thing\nhimself:\u2014a notion which, from the manifold direct evidence of the\nfundamental connexion between finite things, would be impossible to any\nreasonable mind:\u2014but there prevails in the biblical writers a ready\ndisposition to derive all things down to the minutest details, as soon\nas they appear particularly important, immediately from God. He it is\nwho gives the rain and sunshine; he sends the east wind and the storm;\nhe dispenses war, famine, pestilence; he hardens hearts and softens\nthem, suggests thoughts and resolutions. And this is particularly the\ncase with regard to his chosen instruments and beloved people. In the\nhistory of the Israelites we find traces of his immediate agency at\nevery step: through Moses, Elias, Jesus, he performs things which never\nwould have happened in the ordinary course of nature.\n\nOur modern world, on the contrary, after many centuries of tedious\nresearch, has attained a conviction, that all things are linked\ntogether by a chain of causes and effects, which suffers no\ninterruption. It is true that single facts and groups of facts, with\ntheir conditions and processes of change, are not so circumscribed as\nto be unsusceptible of external influence; for the action of one\nexistence or kingdom in nature intrenches on that of another: human\nfreedom controls natural development, and material laws react on human\nfreedom. Nevertheless the totality of finite things forms a vast\ncircle, which, except that it owes its existence and laws to a superior\npower, suffers no intrusion from without. This conviction is so much a\nhabit of thought with the modern world, that in actual life, the belief\nin a supernatural manifestation, an immediate divine agency, is at once\nattributed to ignorance or imposture. It has been carried to the\nextreme in that modern explanation, which, in a spirit exactly opposed\nto that of the Bible, has either totally removed the divine causation,\nor has so far restricted it that it is immediate in the act of creation\nalone, but mediate from that point onwards;\u2014i.e., God operates on the\nworld only in so far as he gave to it this fixed direction at the\ncreation. From this point of view, at which nature and history appear\nas a compact tissue of finite causes and effects, it was impossible to\nregard the narratives of the Bible, in which this tissue is broken by\ninnumerable instances of divine interference, as historical.\n\nIt must be confessed on nearer investigation, that this modern\nexplanation, although it does not exactly deny the existence of God,\nyet puts aside the idea of him, as the ancient view did the idea of the\nworld. For this is, as it has been often and well remarked, no longer a\nGod and Creator, but a mere finite Artist, who acts immediately upon\nhis work only during its first production, and then leaves it to\nitself; who becomes excluded with his full energy from one particular\nsphere of existence. It has therefore been attempted to unite the two\nviews so as to maintain for the world its law of sequence, and for God\nhis unlimited action, and by this means to preserve the truth of the\nbiblical history. According to this view, the world is supposed to move\nin obedience to the law of consecutive causes and effects bound up with\nits constitution, and God to act upon it only mediately: but in single\ninstances, where he finds it necessary for particular objects, he is\nnot held to be restricted from entering into the course of human\nchanges immediately. This is the view of modern Supranaturalism [90];\nevidently a vain attempt to reconcile two opposite views, since it\ncontains the faults of both, and adds a new one in the contradiction\nbetween the two ill-assorted principles. For here the consecutiveness\nof nature and history is broken through as in the ancient biblical\nview; and the action of God limited as in the contrary system. The\nproposition that God works sometimes mediately, sometimes immediately,\nupon the world, introduces a changeableness, and therefore a temporal\nelement, into the nature of his action, which brings it under the same\ncondemnation as both the other systems; that, namely, of distinguishing\nthe maintaining power, in the one case from individual instances of the\ndivine agency, and in the other from the act of creation. [91]\n\nSince then our idea of God requires an immediate, and our idea of the\nworld a mediate divine operation; and since the idea of combination of\nthe two species of action is inadmissible:\u2014nothing remains for us but\nto regard them both as so permanently and immoveably united, that the\noperation of God on the world continues for ever and every where\ntwofold, both immediate and mediate; which comes just to this, that it\nis neither of the two, or this distinction loses its value. To explain\nmore closely: if we proceed from the idea of God, from which arose the\ndemand for his immediate operation, then the world is to be regarded in\nrelation to him as a Whole: on the contrary, if we proceed from the\nidea of the finite, the world is a congeries of separate parts, and\nhence has arisen the demand for a merely mediate agency of God:\u2014so that\nwe must say\u2014God acts upon the world as a Whole immediately, but on each\npart only by means of his action on every other part, that is to say,\nby the laws of nature. [92]\n\nThis view brings us to the same conclusion with regard to the\nhistorical value of the Bible as the one above considered. The miracles\nwhich God wrought for and by Moses and Jesus, do not proceed from his\nimmediate operation on the Whole, but presuppose an immediate action in\nparticular cases, which is a contradiction to the type of the divine\nagency we have just given. The supranaturalists indeed claim an\nexception from this type on behalf of the biblical history; a\npresupposition which is inadmissible from our point of view [93],\naccording to which the same laws, although varied by various\ncircumstances, are supreme in every sphere of being and action, and\ntherefore every narrative which offends against these laws, is to be\nrecognized as so far unhistorical.\n\nThe result, then, however surprising, of a general examination of the\nbiblical history, is that the Hebrew and Christian religions, like all\nothers, have their mythi. And this result is confirmed, if we consider\nthe inherent nature of religion, what essentially belongs to it and\ntherefore must be common to all religions, and what on the other hand\nis peculiar and may differ in each. If religion be defined as the\nperception of truth, not in the form of an idea, which is the\nphilosophic perception, but invested with imagery; it is easy to see\nthat the mythical element can be wanting only when religion either\nfalls short of, or goes beyond, its peculiar province, and that in the\nproper religious sphere it must necessarily exist.\n\nIt is only amongst the lowest and most barbarous people, such as the\nEsquimaux, that we find religion not yet fashioned into an objective\nform, but still confined to a subjective feeling. They know nothing of\ngods, of superior spirits and powers, and their whole piety consists in\nan undefined sentiment excited by the hurricane, the eclipse, or the\nmagician. As it progresses however, the religious principle loses more\nand more of this indefiniteness, and ceasing to be subjective, becomes\nobjective. In the sun, moon, mountains, animals, and other objects of\nthe sensible world, higher powers are discovered and revered; and in\nproportion as the significance given to these objects is remote from\ntheir actual nature, a new world of mere imagination is created, a\nsphere of divine existences whose relations to one another, actions,\nand influences, can be represented only after human analogy, and\ntherefore as temporal and historical. Even when the mind has raised\nitself to the conception of the Divine unity, still the energy and\nactivity of God are considered only under the form of a series of acts:\nand on the other hand, natural events and human actions can be raised\nto a religious significance only by the admission of divine\ninterpositions and miracles. It is only from the philosophic point of\nview that the world of imagination is seen again to coincide with the\nactual, because the thought of God is comprehended to be his essence,\nand in the regular course itself of nature and of history, the\nrevelation of the divine idea is acknowledged.\n\nIt is certainly difficult to conceive, how narratives which thus speak\nof imagination as reality can have been formed without intentional\ndeceit, and believed without unexampled credulity; and this difficulty\nhas been held an invincible objection to the mythical interpretation of\nmany of the narratives of the Old and New Testament. If this were the\ncase, it would apply equally to the Heathen legends; and on the other\nhand, if profane Mythology have steered clear of the difficulty,\nneither will that of the Bible founder upon it. I shall here quote at\nlength the words of an experienced inquirer into Grecian mythology and\nprimitive history, Otfried M\u00fcller, since it is evident that this\npreliminary knowledge of the subject which must be derived from general\nmythology, and which is necessary for the understanding of the\nfollowing examination of the evangelic mythus, is not yet familiar to\nall theologians. \u201cHow,\u201d says M\u00fcller [94], \u201cshall we reconcile this\ncombination of the true and the false, the real and ideal, in mythi,\nwith the fact of their being believed and received as truth? The ideal,\nit may be said, is nothing else than poetry and fiction clothed in the\nform of a narration. But a fiction of this kind cannot be invented at\nthe same time by many different persons without a miracle, requiring,\nas it does, a peculiar coincidence of intention, imagination, and\nexpression. It is therefore the work of one person:\u2014but how did he\nconvince all the others that his fiction had an actual truth? Shall we\nsuppose him to have been one who contrived to delude by all kinds of\ntrickery and deception, and perhaps allied himself with similar\ndeceivers, whose part it was to afford attestation to the people of his\ninventions as having been witnessed by themselves? Or shall we think of\nhim as a man of higher endowments than others, who believed him upon\nhis word; and received the mythical tales under whose veil he sought to\nimpart wholesome truths, as a sacred revelation? But it is impossible\nto prove that such a caste of deceivers existed in ancient Greece (or\nPalestine); on the contrary, this skilful system of deception, be it\ngross or refined, selfish or philanthropic, if we are not misled by the\nimpression we have received from the earliest productions of the\nGrecian (or Christian) mind, is little suited to the noble simplicity\nof those times. Hence an inventer of the mythus in the proper sense of\nthe word is inconceivable. This reasoning brings us to the conclusion,\nthat the idea of a deliberate and intentional fabrication, in which the\nauthor clothes that which he knows to be false in the appearance of\ntruth, must be entirely set aside as insufficient to account for the\norigin of the mythus. Or in other words, that there is a certain\nnecessity in this connexion between the ideal and the real, which\nconstitutes the mythus; that the mythical images were formed by the\ninfluence of sentiments common to all mankind; and that the different\nelements grew together without the author\u2019s being himself conscious of\ntheir incongruity. It is this notion of a certain necessity and\nunconsciousness in the formation of the ancient mythi, on which we\ninsist. If this be once understood, it will also be perceived that the\ncontention whether the mythus proceed from one person or many, from the\npoet or the people, though it may be started on other grounds, does not\ngo to the root of the matter. For if the one who invents the mythus is\nonly obeying the impulse which acts also upon the minds of his hearers,\nhe is but the mouth through which all speak, the skilful interpreter\nwho has the address first to give form and expression to the thoughts\nof all. It is however very possible that this notion of necessity and\nunconsciousness, might appear itself obscure and mystical to our\nantiquarians (and theologians), from no other reason than that this\nmythicising tendency has no analogy in the present mode of thinking.\nBut is not history to acknowledge even what is strange, when led to it\nby unprejudiced research?\u201d\n\nAs an example to show that even very complicated mythi, in the\nformation of which many apparently remote circumstances must have\ncombined, may yet have arisen in this unconscious manner, M\u00fcller then\nrefers to the Grecian mythus of Apollo and Marsyas. \u201cIt was customary\nto celebrate the festivals of Apollo with playing on the lyre, and it\nwas necessary to piety, that the god himself should be regarded as its\nauthor. In Phrygia, on the contrary, the national music was the flute,\nwhich was similarly derived from a demon of their own, named Marsyas.\nThe ancient Grecians perceived that the tones of these two instruments\nwere essentially opposed: the harsh shrill piping of the flute must be\nhateful to Apollo, and therefore Marsyas his enemy. This was not\nenough: in order that the lyre-playing Grecian might flatter himself\nthat the invention of his god was the more excellent instrument, Apollo\nmust triumph over Marsyas. But why was it necessary in particular that\nthe unlucky Phrygian should be flayed? Here is the simple origin of the\nmythus. Near the castle of Cel\u0153ne in Phrygia, in a cavern whence flowed\na stream or torrent named Marsyas, was suspended a skin flask, called\nby the Phrygians, the bottle of Marsyas; for Marsyas was, like the\nGrecian Silenus, a demi-god symbolizing the exuberance of the juices of\nnature. Now where a Grecian, or a Phrygian with Grecian prepossessions,\nlooked on the bottle, he plainly saw the catastrophe of Marsyas; here\nwas still suspended his skin, which had been torn off and made into a\nbottle:\u2014Apollo had flayed him. In all this there is no arbitrary\ninvention: the same ideas might have occurred to many, and if one first\ngave expression to them, he knew well that his auditors, imbued with\nthe same prepossessions, would not for an instant doubt his accuracy.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe chief reason of the complicated character of mythi in general, is\ntheir having been formed for the most part, not at once, but\nsuccessively and by degrees, under the influence of very different\ncircumstances and events both external and internal. The popular\ntraditions, being orally transmitted and not restricted by any written\ndocument, were open to receive every new addition, and thus grew in the\ncourse of long centuries to the form in which we now find them. (How\nfar this applies to a great part of the New Testament mythi, will be\nshown hereafter.) This is an important and luminous fact, which however\nis very frequently overlooked in the explanation of mythi; for they are\nregarded as allegories invented by one person, at one stroke, with the\ndefinite purpose of investing a thought in the form of a narration.\u201d\n\nThe view thus expressed by M\u00fcller, that the mythus is founded not upon\nany individual conception, but upon the more elevated and general\nconception of a whole people (or religious community), is said by a\ncompetent judge of M\u00fcller\u2019s work to be the necessary condition for a\nright understanding of the ancient mythus, the admission or rejection\nof which henceforth ranges the opinions on mythology into two opposite\ndivisions. [95]\n\nIt is not however easy to draw a line of distinction between\nintentional and unintentional fiction. In the case where a fact lay at\nthe foundation, which, being the subject of popular conversation and\nadmiration, in the course of time formed itself into a mythus, we\nreadily dismiss all notion of wilful fraud, at least in its origin. For\na mythus of this kind is not the work of one man, but of a whole body\nof men, and of succeeding generations; the narrative passing from mouth\nto mouth, and like a snowball growing by the involuntary addition of\none exaggerating feature from this, and another from that narrator. In\ntime however these legends are sure to fall into the way of some gifted\nminds, which will be stimulated by them to the exercise of their own\npoetical, religious, or didactic powers. Most of the mythical\nnarratives which have come down to us from antiquity, such as the\nTrojan, and the Mosaic series of legends, are presented to us in this\nelaborated form. Here then it would appear there must have been\nintentional deception: this however is only the result of an erroneous\nassumption. It is almost impossible, in a critical and enlightened age\nlike our own, to carry ourselves back to a period of civilization in\nwhich the imagination worked so powerfully, that its illusions were\nbelieved as realities by the very minds that created them. Yet the very\nsame miracles which are wrought in less civilized circles by the\nimagination, are produced in the more cultivated by the understanding.\nLet us take one of the best didactic historians of ancient or modern\ntimes, Livy, as an example. \u201cNuma,\u201d he says, \u201cgave to the Romans a\nnumber of religious ceremonies, ne luxuriarentur otio animi, and\nbecause he regarded religion as the best means of bridling multitudinem\nimperitam et illis seculis rudem. Idem,\u201d he continues, \u201cnefastos dies\nfastosque fecit, quia aliquando nihil cum populo agi utile futurum\nerat.\u201d [96] How did Livy know that these were the motives of Numa? In\npoint of fact they certainly were not. But Livy believed them to be so.\nThe inference of his own understanding appeared to him so necessary,\nthat he treated it with full conviction as an actual fact. The popular\nlegend, or some ancient poet, had explained this fertility of religious\ninvention in Numa otherwise; namely, that it arose from his\ncommunication with the nymph Egeria, who revealed to him the forms of\nworship that would be most acceptable to the gods. It is obvious, that\nthe case is pretty nearly the same with regard to both representations.\nIf the latter had an individual author, it was his opinion that the\nhistorical statement could be accounted for only upon the supposition\nof a communication with a superior being; as it was that of Livy, that\nits explanation must lie in political views. The one mistook the\nproduction of his imagination, the other the inference of his\nunderstanding, for reality.\n\nPerhaps it may be admitted that there is a possibility of unconscious\nfiction, even when an individual author is assigned to it, provided\nthat the mythical consists only in the filling up and adorning some\nhistorical event with imaginary circumstances: but that where the whole\nstory is invented, and not any historical nucleus is to be found, this\nunconscious fiction is impossible. Whatever view may be taken of the\nheathen mythology, it is easy to show with regard to the New Testament,\nthat there was the greatest antecedent probability of this very kind of\nfiction having arisen respecting Jesus without any fraudulent\nintention. The expectation of a Messiah had grown up amongst the\nIsraelitish people long before the time of Jesus, and just then had\nripened to full maturity. And from its beginning this expectation was\nnot indefinite, but determined, and characterized by many important\nparticulars. Moses was said to have promised his people a prophet like\nunto himself (Deut. xviii. 15), and this passage was in the time of\nJesus applied to the Messiah (Acts iii. 22; vii. 37). Hence the\nrabbinical principle: as the first redeemer (Go\u00ebl), so shall be the\nsecond; which principle was carried out into many particulars to be\nexpected in the Messiah after his prototype Moses. [97] Again, the\nMessiah was to come of the race of David, and as a second David take\npossession of his throne (Matt. xxii. 42; Luke i. 32; Acts ii. 30): and\ntherefore in the time of Jesus it was expected that he, like David,\nshould be born in the little village of Bethlehem (John vii. 42; Matt.\nii. 5 f.). In the above passage Moses describes the supposed Messiah as\na prophet; so in his own idea, Jesus was the greatest and last of the\nprophetic race. But in the old national legends the prophets were made\nillustrious by the most wonderful actions and destiny. How could less\nbe expected of the Messiah? Was it not necessary beforehand, that his\nlife should be adorned with that which was most glorious and important\nin the lives of the prophets? Must not the popular expectation give him\na share in the bright portion of their history, as subsequently the\nsufferings of himself and his disciples were attributed by Jesus, when\nhe appeared as the Messiah, to a participation in the dark side of the\nfate of the prophets (Matt. xxiii. 29 ff.; Luke xiii. 33 ff.; comp.\nMatt. v. 12)? Believing that Moses and all the prophets had prophesied\nof the Messiah (John v. 46; Luke iv. 21; xxiv. 27), it was as natural\nfor the Jews, with their allegorizing tendency, to consider their\nactions and destiny as types of the Messiah, as to take their sayings\nfor predictions. In general the whole Messianic era was expected to be\nfull of signs and wonders. The eyes of the blind should be opened, the\nears of the deaf should be unclosed, the lame should leap, and the\ntongue of the dumb praise God (Isa. xxxv. 5 f.; xlii. 7; comp. xxxii.\n3, 4). These merely figurative expressions soon came to be understood\nliterally (Matt. xi. 5; Luke vii. 21 f.), and thus the idea of the\nMessiah was continually filled up with new details, even before the\nappearance of Jesus. [98] Thus many of the legends respecting him had\nnot to be newly invented; they already existed in the popular hope of\nthe Messiah, having been mostly derived with various modifications [99]\nfrom the Old Testament, and had merely to be transferred to Jesus,\n[100] and accommodated to his character and doctrines. In no case could\nit be easier for the person who first added any new feature to the\ndescription of Jesus, to believe himself its genuineness, since his\nargument would be: Such and such things must have happened to the\nMessiah; Jesus was the Messiah; therefore such and such things happened\nto him. [101]\n\nTruly it may be said that the middle term of this argument, namely,\nthat Jesus was the Messiah, would have failed in proof to his\ncontemporaries all the more on account of the common expectation of\nmiraculous events, if that expectation had not been fulfilled by him.\nBut the following critique on the Life of Jesus does not divest it of\nall those features to which the character of miraculous has been\nappropriated: and besides we must take into account the overwhelming\nimpression which was made upon those around him by the personal\ncharacter and discourse of Jesus, as long as he was living amongst\nthem, which did not permit them deliberately to scrutinize and compare\nhim with their previous standard. The belief in him as the Messiah\nextended to wider circles only by slow degrees; and even during his\nlifetime the people may have reported many wonderful stories of him\n(comp. Matt. xiv. 2). After his death, however, the belief in his\nresurrection, however that belief may have arisen, afforded a more than\nsufficient proof of his Messiahship; so that all the other miracles in\nhis history need not be considered as the foundation of the faith in\nthis, but may rather be adduced as the consequence of it.\n\nIt is however by no means necessary to attribute this same freedom from\nall conscious intention of fiction, to the authors of all those\nnarratives in the Old and New Testament which must be considered as\nunhistorical. In every series of legends, especially if any patriotic\nor religious party interest is associated with them, as soon as they\nbecome the subject of free poetry or any other literary composition,\nsome kind of fiction will be intentionally mixed up with them. The\nauthors of the Homeric songs could not have believed that every\nparticular which they related of their gods and heroes had really\nhappened; and just as little could the writer of the Chronicles have\nbeen ignorant that in his deviation from the books of Samuel and of the\nKings, he was introducing many events of later occurrence into an\nearlier period; or the author of the book of Daniel [102] that he was\nmodelling his history upon that of Joseph, and accommodating prophecies\nto events already past; and exactly as little may this be said of all\nthe unhistorical narratives of the Gospels, as for example, of the\nfirst chapter of the third, and many parts of the fourth Gospel. But a\nfiction, although not undesigned, may still be without evil design. It\nis true, the case is not the same with the supposed authors of many\nfictions in the Bible, as with poets properly so called, since the\nlatter write without any expectation that their poems will be received\nas history: but still it is to be considered that in ancient times, and\nespecially amongst the Hebrews, and yet more when this people was\nstirred up by religious excitement, the line of distinction between\nhistory and fiction, prose and poetry, was not drawn so clearly as with\nus. It is a fact also deserving attention that amongst the Jews and\nearly Christians, the most reputable authors published their works with\nthe substitution of venerated names, without an idea that they were\nguilty of any falsehood or deception by so doing.\n\nThe only question that can arise here is whether to such fictions, the\nwork of an individual, we can give the name of mythi? If we regard only\ntheir own intrinsic nature, the name is not appropriate; but it is so\nwhen these fictions, having met with faith, come to be received amongst\nthe legends of a people or religious party, for this is always a proof\nthat they were the fruit, not of any individual conception, but of an\naccordance with the sentiments of a multitude. [103]\n\nA frequently raised objection remains, for the refutation of which the\nremarks above made, upon the date of the origin of many of the gospel\nmythi, are mainly important: the objection, namely, that the space of\nabout thirty years, from the death of Jesus to the destruction of\nJerusalem, during which the greater part of the narratives must have\nbeen formed; or even the interval extending to the beginning of the\nsecond century, the most distant period which can be allowed for the\norigin of even the latest of these gospel narratives, and for the\nwritten composition of our gospels;\u2014is much too short to admit of the\nrise of so rich a collection of mythi. But, as we have shown, the\ngreater part of these mythi did not arise during that period, for their\nfirst foundation was laid in the legends of the Old Testament, before\nand after the Babylonish exile; and the transference of these legends\nwith suitable modifications to the expected Messiah, was made in the\ncourse of the centuries which elapsed between that exile and the time\nof Jesus. So that for the period between the formation of the first\nChristian community and the writing of the Gospels, there remains to be\neffected only the transference of Messianic legends, almost all ready\nformed, to Jesus, with some alterations to adapt them to christian\nopinions, and to the individual character and circumstances of Jesus:\nonly a very small proportion of mythi having to be formed entirely new.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 15.\n\nDEFINITION OF THE EVANGELICAL MYTHUS AND ITS DISTINCTIVE\nCHARACTERISTICS.\n\nThe precise sense in which we use the expression mythus, applied to\ncertain parts of the gospel history, is evident from all that has\nalready been said; at the same time the different kinds and gradations\nof the mythi which we shall meet with in this history may here by way\nof anticipation be pointed out.\n\nWe distinguish by the name evangelical mythus a narrative relating\ndirectly or indirectly to Jesus, which may be considered not as the\nexpression of a fact, but as the product of an idea of his earliest\nfollowers: such a narrative being mythical in proportion as it exhibits\nthis character. The mythus in this sense of the term meets us, in the\nGospel as elsewhere, sometimes in its pure form, constituting the\nsubstance of the narrative, and sometimes as an accidental adjunct to\nthe actual history.\n\nThe pure mythus in the Gospel will be found to have two sources, which\nin most cases contributed simultaneously, though in different\nproportions, to form the mythus. The one source is, as already stated,\nthe Messianic ideas and expectations existing according to their\nseveral forms in the Jewish mind before Jesus, and independently of\nhim; the other is that particular impression which was left by the\npersonal character, actions, and fate of Jesus, and which served to\nmodify the Messianic idea in the minds of his people. The account of\nthe Transfiguration, for example, is derived almost exclusively from\nthe former source; the only amplification taken from the latter source\nbeing\u2014that they who appeared with Jesus on the Mount spake of his\ndecease. On the other hand, the narrative of the rending of the veil of\nthe temple at the death of Jesus seems to have had its origin in the\nhostile position which Jesus, and his church after him, sustained in\nrelation to the Jewish temple worship. Here already we have something\nhistorical, though consisting merely of certain general features of\ncharacter, position, etc.; we are thus at once brought upon the ground\nof the historical mythus.\n\nThe historical mythus has for its groundwork a definite individual fact\nwhich has been seized upon by religious enthusiasm, and twined around\nwith mythical conceptions culled from the idea of the Christ. This fact\nis perhaps a saying of Jesus such as that concerning \u201cfishers of men\u201d\nor the barren fig-tree, which now appear in the Gospels transmuted into\nmarvellous histories: or, it is perhaps a real transaction or event\ntaken from his life; for instance, the mythical traits in the account\nof the baptism were built upon such a reality. Certain of the\nmiraculous histories may likewise have had some foundation in natural\noccurrences, which the narrative has either exhibited in a supernatural\nlight, or enriched with miraculous incidents.\n\nAll the species of imagery here enumerated may justly be designated as\nmythi, even according to the modern and precise definition of George,\ninasmuch as the unhistorical which they embody\u2014whether formed gradually\nby tradition, or created by an individual author\u2014is in each case the\nproduct of an idea. But for those parts of the history which are\ncharacterized by indefiniteness and want of connexion, by\nmisconstruction and transformation, by strange combinations and\nconfusion,\u2014the natural results of a long course of oral transmission;\nor which, on the contrary, are distinguished by highly coloured and\npictorial representations, which also seem to point to a traditionary\norigin;\u2014for these parts the term legendary is certainly the more\nappropriate.\n\nLastly. It is requisite to distinguish equally from the mythus and the\nlegend, that which, as it serves not to clothe an idea on the one hand,\nand admits not of being referred to tradition on the other, must be\nregarded as the addition of the author, as purely individual, and\ndesigned merely to give clearness, connexion, and climax, to the\nrepresentation.\n\nIt is to the various forms of the unhistorical in the Gospels that this\nenumeration exclusively refers: it does not involve the renunciation of\nthe historical which they may likewise contain.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 16.\n\nCRITERIA BY WHICH TO DISTINGUISH THE UNHISTORICAL IN THE GOSPEL\nNARRATIVE.\n\nHaving shown the possible existence of the mythical and the legendary\nin the Gospels, both on extrinsic and intrinsic grounds, and defined\ntheir distinctive characteristics, it remains in conclusion to inquire\nhow their actual presence may be recognised in individual cases?\n\nThe mythus presents two phases: in the first place it is not history;\nin the second it is fiction, the product of the particular mental\ntendency of a certain community. These two phases afford the one a\nnegative, the other a positive criterion, by which the mythus is to be\nrecognised.\n\nI. Negative. That an account is not historical\u2014that the matter related\ncould not have taken place in the manner described is evident,\n\nFirst. When the narration is irreconcilable with the known and\nuniversal laws which govern the course of events. Now according to\nthese laws, agreeing with all just philosophical conceptions and all\ncredible experience, the absolute cause never disturbs the chain of\nsecondary causes by single arbitrary acts of interposition, but rather\nmanifests itself in the production of the aggregate of finite\ncausalities, and of their reciprocal action. When therefore we meet\nwith an account of certain phenomena or events of which it is either\nexpressly stated or implied that they were produced immediately by God\nhimself (divine apparitions\u2014voices from heaven and the like), or by\nhuman beings possessed of supernatural powers (miracles, prophecies),\nsuch an account is in so far to be considered as not historical. And\ninasmuch as, in general, the intermingling of the spiritual world with\nthe human is found only in unauthentic records, and is irreconcilable\nwith all just conceptions; so narratives of angels and of devils, of\ntheir appearing in human shape and interfering with human concerns,\ncannot possibly be received as historical.\n\nAnother law which controls the course of events is the law of\nsuccession, in accordance with which all occurrences, not excepting the\nmost violent convulsions and the most rapid changes, follow in a\ncertain order of sequence of increase and decrease. If therefore we are\ntold of a celebrated individual that he attracted already at his birth\nand during his childhood that attention which he excited in his\nmanhood; that his followers at a single glance recognized him as being\nall that he actually was; if the transition from the deepest\ndespondency to the most ardent enthusiasm after his death is\nrepresented as the work of a single hour; we must feel more than\ndoubtful whether it is a real history which lies before us. Lastly, all\nthose psychological laws, which render it improbable that a human being\nshould feel, think, and act in a manner directly opposed to his own\nhabitual mode and that of men in general, must be taken into\nconsideration. As for example, when the Jewish Sanhedrim are\nrepresented as believing the declaration of the watch at the grave that\nJesus was risen, and instead of accusing them of having suffered the\nbody to be stolen away whilst they were asleep, bribing them to give\ncurrency to such a report. By the same rule it is contrary to all the\nlaws belonging to the human faculty of memory, that long discourses,\nsuch as those of Jesus given in the fourth Gospel, could have been\nfaithfully recollected and reproduced.\n\nIt is however true that effects are often far more rapidly produced,\nparticularly in men of genius and by their agency, than might be\nexpected; and that human beings frequently act inconsequently, and in\nopposition to their general modes and habits; the two last mentioned\ntests of the mythical character must therefore be cautiously applied,\nand in conjunction only with other tests.\n\nSecondly. An account which shall be regarded as historically valid,\nmust neither be inconsistent with itself, nor in contradiction with\nother accounts.\n\nThe most decided case falling under this rule, amounting to a positive\ncontradiction, is when one account affirms what another denies. Thus,\none gospel represents the first appearance of Jesus in Galilee as\nsubsequent to the imprisonment of John the Baptist, whilst another\nGospel remarks, long after Jesus had preached both in Galilee and in\nJudea, that \u201cJohn was not yet cast into prison.\u201d\n\nWhen on the contrary, the second account, without absolutely\ncontradicting the first, differs from it, the disagreement may be\nmerely between the incidental particulars of the narrative; such as\ntime, (the clearing of the Temple,) place, (the original residence of\nthe parents of Jesus;) number, (the Gadarenes, the angels at the\nsepulchre;) names, (Matthew and Levi;) or it may concern the essential\nsubstance of the history. In the latter case, sometimes the character\nand circumstances in one account differ altogether from those in\nanother. Thus, according to one narrator, the Baptist recognizes Jesus\nas the Messiah destined to suffer; according to the other, John takes\noffence at his suffering condition. Sometimes an occurrence is\nrepresented in two or more ways, of which one only can be consistent\nwith the reality; as when in one account Jesus calls his first\ndisciples from their nets whilst fishing on the sea of Galilee, and in\nthe other meets them in Judea on his way to Galilee. We may class under\nthe same head instances where events or discourses are represented as\nhaving occurred on two distinct occasions, whilst they are so similar\nthat it is impossible to resist the conclusion that both the narratives\nrefer to the same event or discourse.\n\nIt may here be asked: is it to be regarded as a contradiction if one\naccount is wholly silent respecting a circumstance mentioned by\nanother? In itself, apart from all other considerations, the argumentum\nex silentio is of no weight; but it is certainly to be accounted of\nmoment when, at the same time, it may be shown that had the author\nknown the circumstance he could not have failed to mention it, and also\nthat he must have known it had it actually occurred.\n\nII. Positive. The positive characters of legend and fiction are to be\nrecognized sometimes in the form, sometimes in the substance of a\nnarrative.\n\nIf the form be poetical, if the actors converse in hymns, and in a more\ndiffuse and elevated strain than might be expected from their training\nand situations, such discourses, at all events, are not to be regarded\nas historical. The absence of these marks of the unhistorical do not\nhowever prove the historical validity of the narration, since the\nmythus often wears the most simple and apparently historical form: in\nwhich case the proof lies in the substance.\n\nIf the contents of a narrative strikingly accords with certain ideas\nexisting and prevailing within the circle from which the narrative\nproceeded, which ideas themselves seem to be the product of\npreconceived opinions rather than of practical experience, it is more\nor less probable, according to circumstances, that such a narrative is\nof mythical origin. The knowledge of the fact, that the Jews were fond\nof representing their great men as the children of parents who had long\nbeen childless, cannot but make us doubtful of the historical truth of\nthe statement that this was the case with John the Baptist; knowing\nalso that the Jews saw predictions everywhere in the writings of their\nprophets and poets, and discovered types of the Messiah in all the\nlives of holy men recorded in their Scriptures; when we find details in\nthe life of Jesus evidently sketched after the pattern of these\nprophecies and prototypes, we cannot but suspect that they are rather\nmythical than historical.\n\nThe more simple characteristics of the legend, and of additions by the\nauthor, after the observations of the former section, need no further\nelucidation.\n\nYet each of these tests, on the one hand, and each narrative on the\nother, considered apart, will rarely prove more than the possible or\nprobable unhistorical character of the record. The concurrence of\nseveral such indications, is necessary to bring about a more definite\nresult. The accounts of the visit of the Magi, and of the murder of the\ninnocents at Bethlehem, harmonize remarkably with the Jewish Messianic\nnotion, built upon the prophecy of Balaam, respecting the star which\nshould come out of Jacob; and with the history of the sanguinary\ncommand of Pharaoh. Still this would not alone suffice to stamp the\nnarratives as mythical. But we have also the corroborative facts that\nthe described appearance of the star is contrary to the physical, the\nalleged conduct of Herod to the psychological laws; that Josephus, who\ngives in other respects so circumstantial an account of Herod, agrees\nwith all other historical authorities in being silent concerning the\nBethlehem massacre; and that the visit of the Magi together with the\nflight into Egypt related in the one Gospel, and the presentation in\nthe temple related in another Gospel, mutually exclude one another.\nWherever, as in this instance, the several criteria of the mythical\ncharacter concur, the result is certain, and certain in proportion to\nthe accumulation of such grounds of evidence.\n\nIt may be that a narrative, standing alone, would discover but slight\nindications, or perhaps, might present no one distinct feature of the\nmythus; but it is connected with others, or proceeds from the author of\nother narratives which exhibit unquestionable marks of a mythical or\nlegendary character; and consequently suspicion is reflected back from\nthe latter, on the former. Every narrative, however miraculous,\ncontains some details which might in themselves be historical, but\nwhich, in consequence of their connexion with the other supernatural\nincidents, necessarily become equally doubtful.\n\nIn these last remarks we are, to a certain extent, anticipating the\nquestion which is, in conclusion, to be considered: viz., whether the\nmythical character is restricted to those features of the narrative,\nupon which such character is actually stamped; and whether a\ncontradiction between two accounts invalidate one account only, or\nboth? That is to say, what is the precise boundary line between the\nhistorical and the unhistorical?\u2014the most difficult question in the\nwhole province of criticism.\n\nIn the first place, when two narratives mutually exclude one another,\none only is thereby proved to be unhistorical. If one be true the other\nmust be false, but though the one be false the other may be true. Thus,\nin reference to the original residence of the parents of Jesus, we are\njustified in adopting the account of Luke which places it at Nazareth,\nto the exclusion of that of Matthew, which plainly supposes it to have\nbeen at Bethlehem; and, generally speaking, when we have to choose\nbetween two irreconcilable accounts, in selecting as historical that\nwhich is the least opposed to the laws of nature, and has the least\ncorrespondence with certain national or party opinions. But upon a more\nparticular consideration it will appear that, since one account is\nfalse, it is possible that the other may be so likewise: the existence\nof a mythus respecting some certain point, shows that the imagination\nhas been active in reference to that particular subject; (we need only\nrefer to the genealogies;) and the historical accuracy of either of two\nsuch accounts cannot be relied upon, unless substantiated by its\nagreement with some other well authenticated testimony.\n\nConcerning the different parts of one and the same narrative: it might\nbe thought for example, that though the appearance of an angel, and his\nannouncement to Mary that she should be the Mother of the Messiah, must\ncertainly be regarded as unhistorical, still, that Mary should have\nindulged this hope before the birth of the child, is not in itself\nincredible. But what should have excited this hope in Mary\u2019s mind? It\nis at once apparent that that which is credible in itself is\nnevertheless unhistorical when it is so intimately connected with what\nis incredible that, if you discard the latter, you at the same time\nremove the basis on which the former rests. Again, any action of Jesus\nrepresented as a miracle, when divested of the marvellous, might be\nthought to exhibit a perfectly natural occurrence; with respect to some\nof the miraculous histories, the expulsion of devils for instance, this\nmight with some limitation, be possible. But for this reason alone: in\nthese instances, a cure, so instantaneous, and effected by a few words\nmerely, as it is described in the Gospels, is not psychologically\nincredible; so that, the essential in these narratives remains\nuntouched. It is different in the case of the healing of a man born\nblind. A natural cure could not have been effected otherwise than by a\ngradual process; the narrative states the cure to have been immediate;\nif therefore the history be understood to record a natural occurrence,\nthe most essential particular is incorrectly represented, and\nconsequently all security for the truth of the otherwise natural\nremainder is gone, and the real fact cannot be discovered without the\naid of arbitrary conjecture.\n\nThe following examples will serve to illustrate the mode of deciding in\nsuch cases. According to the narrative, as Mary entered the house and\nsaluted her cousin Elizabeth, who was then pregnant, the babe leaped in\nher womb, she was filled with the Holy Ghost, and she immediately\naddressed Mary as the mother of the Messiah. This account bears\nindubitable marks of an unhistorical character. Yet, it is not, in\nitself, impossible that Mary should have paid a visit to her cousin,\nduring which everything went on quite naturally. The fact is however\nthat there are psychological difficulties connected with this journey\nof the betrothed; and that the visit, and even the relationship of the\ntwo women, seem to have originated entirely in the wish to exhibit a\nconnexion between the mother of John the Baptist, and the mother of the\nMessiah. Or when in the history of the transfiguration it is stated,\nthat the men who appeared with Jesus on the Mount were Moses and Elias:\nand that the brilliancy which illuminated Jesus was supernatural; it\nmight seem here also that, after deducting the marvellous, the presence\nof two men and a bright morning beam might be retained as the\nhistorical facts. But the legend was predisposed, by virtue of the\ncurrent idea concerning the relation of the Messiah to these two\nprophets, not merely to make any two men (whose persons, object and\nconduct, if they were not what the narrative represents them, remain in\nthe highest degree mysterious) into Moses and Elias, but to create the\nwhole occurrence; and in like manner not merely to conceive of some\ncertain illumination as a supernatural effulgence (which, if a natural\none, is much exaggerated and misrepresented), but to create it at once\nafter the pattern of the brightness which illumined the face of Moses\non Mount Sinai.\n\nHence is derived the following rule. Where not merely the particular\nnature and manner of an occurrence is critically suspicious, its\nexternal circumstances represented as miraculous and the like; but\nwhere likewise the essential substance and groundwork is either\ninconceivable in itself, or is in striking harmony with some Messianic\nidea of the Jews of that age, then not the particular alleged course\nand mode of the transaction only, but the entire occurrence must be\nregarded as unhistorical. Where on the contrary, the form only, and not\nthe general contents of the narration, exhibits the characteristics of\nthe unhistorical, it is at least possible to suppose a kernel of\nhistorical fact; although we can never confidently decide whether this\nkernel of fact actually exists, or in what it consists; unless, indeed,\nit be discoverable from other sources. In legendary narratives, or\nnarratives embellished by the writer, it is less difficult,\u2014by\ndivesting them of all that betrays itself as fictitious imagery,\nexaggeration, etc.\u2014by endeavouring to abstract from them every\nextraneous adjunct and to fill up every hiatus\u2014to succeed, proximately\nat least, in separating the historical groundwork.\n\nThe boundary line, however, between the historical and the\nunhistorical, in records, in which as in our Gospels this latter\nelement is incorporated, will ever remain fluctuating and unsusceptible\nof precise attainment. Least of all can it be expected that the first\ncomprehensive attempt to treat these records from a critical point of\nview should be successful in drawing a sharply defined line of\ndemarcation. In the obscurity which criticism has produced, by the\nextinction of all lights hitherto held historical, the eye must\naccustom itself by degrees to discriminate objects with precision; and\nat all events the author of this work, wishes especially to guard\nhimself in those places where he declares he knows not what happened,\nfrom the imputation of asserting that he knows that nothing happened.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFIRST PART.\n\nHISTORY OF THE BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nANNUNCIATION AND BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.\n\n\n\u00a7 17.\n\nACCOUNT GIVEN BY LUKE. [104] IMMEDIATE, SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER OF THE\nREPRESENTATION.\n\nEach of the four Evangelists represents the public ministry of Jesus as\npreceded by that of John the Baptist; but it is peculiar to Luke to\nmake the Baptist the precursor of the Messiah in reference also to the\nevent of his birth. This account finds a legitimate place in a work\ndevoted exclusively to the consideration of the life of Jesus: firstly,\non account of the intimate connexion which it exhibits as subsisting\nfrom the very commencement between the life of John and the life of\nJesus; and secondly, because it constitutes a valuable contribution,\naiding essentially towards the formation of a correct estimate of the\ngeneral character of the gospel narratives. The opinion that the two\nfirst chapters of Luke, of which this particular history forms a\nportion, are a subsequent and unauthentic addition, is the uncritical\nassumption of a class of theologians who felt that the history of the\nchildhood of Jesus seemed to require a mythical interpretation, but yet\ndemurred to apply the comparatively modern mythical view to the\nremainder of the Gospel. [105]\n\nA pious sacerdotal pair had lived and grown old in the cherished, but\nunrealized hope, of becoming parents, when, on a certain day, as the\npriest is offering incense in the sanctuary, the angel Gabriel appears\nto him, and promises him a son, who shall live consecrated to God, and\nwho shall be the harbinger of the Messiah, to prepare his way when he\nshall visit and redeem his people. Zacharias, however, is incredulous,\nand doubts the prediction on account of his own advanced age and that\nof his wife; whereupon the angel, both as a sign and as a punishment,\nstrikes him dumb until the time of its accomplishment; an infliction\nwhich endures until the day of the circumcision of the actually born\nson, when the father, being called upon to assign to the child the name\npredetermined by the angel, suddenly recovers his speech, and with the\nregained powers of utterance, breaks forth in a hymn of praise. (Luke\ni. 5\u201325, 57\u201380.)\n\nIt is evidently the object of this gospel account to represent a series\nof external and miraculous occurrences. The announcement of the birth\nof the forerunner of the Messiah is divinely communicated by the\napparition of a celestial spirit; the conception takes place under the\nparticular and preternatural blessing of God; and the infliction and\nremoval of dumbness are effected by extraordinary means. But it is\nquite another question, whether we can accede to the view of the\nauthor, or can feel convinced that the birth of the Baptist was in fact\npreceded by such a series of miraculous events.\n\nThe first offence against our modern notions in this narrative is the\nappearance of the angel: the event contemplated in itself, as well as\nthe peculiar circumstances of the apparition. With respect to the\nlatter, the angel announces himself to be Gabriel that stands in the\npresence of God. Now it is inconceivable that the constitution of the\ncelestial hierarchy should actually correspond with the notions\nentertained by the Jews subsequent to the exile; and that the names\ngiven to the angels should be in the language of this people. [106]\nHere the supranaturalist finds himself in a dilemma, even upon his own\nground. Had the belief in celestial beings, occupying a particular\nstation in the court of heaven, and distinguished by particular names,\noriginated from the revealed religion of the Hebrews,\u2014had such a belief\nbeen established by Moses, or some later prophet,\u2014then, according to\nthe views of the supranaturalist, they might, nay they must, be\nadmitted to be correct. But it is in the Maccab\u00e6an Daniel [107] and in\nthe apocryphal Tobit, [108] that this doctrine of angels, in its more\nprecise form, first appears; and it is evidently a product of the\ninfluence of the Zend religion of the Persians on the Jewish mind. We\nhave the testimony of the Jews themselves, that they brought the names\nof the angels with them from Babylon. [109] Hence arises a series of\nquestions extremely perplexing to the supranaturalist. Was the doctrine\nfalse so long as it continued to be the exclusive possession of the\nheathens, but true as soon as it became adopted by the Jews? or was it\nat all times equally true, and was an important truth discovered by an\nidolatrous nation sooner than by the people of God? If nations shut out\nfrom a particular and divine revelation, arrived at truth by the light\nof reason alone, sooner than the Jews who were guided by that\nrevelation, then either the revelation was superfluous, or its\ninfluence was merely negative: that is, it operated as a check to the\npremature acquisition of knowledge. If, in order to escape this\nconsequence, it be contended that truths were revealed by the divine\ninfluence to other people besides the Israelites, the supranaturalistic\npoint of view is annihilated; and, since all things contained in\nreligions which contradict each other cannot have been revealed, we are\ncompelled to exercise a critical discrimination. Thus, we find it to be\nby no means in harmony with an elevated conception of God to represent\nhim as an earthly monarch, surrounded by his court: and when an appeal\nis made, in behalf of the reality of angels standing round the throne,\nto the reasonable belief in a graduated scale of created intelligences,\n[110] the Jewish representation is not thereby justified, but merely a\nmodern conception substituted for it. We should, thus, be driven to the\nexpedient of supposing an accommodation on the part of God: that he\nsent a celestial spirit with the command to simulate a rank and title\nwhich did not belong to him, in order that, by this conformity to\nJewish notions, he might insure the belief of the father of the\nBaptist. Since however it appears that Zacharias did not believe the\nangel, but was first convinced by the result, the accommodation proved\nfruitless, and consequently could not have been a divine arrangement.\nWith regard to the name of the angel, and the improbability that a\ncelestial being should bear a Hebrew name, it has been remarked that\nthe word Gabriel, taken appellatively in the sense of Man of God, very\nappropriately designates the nature of the heavenly visitant; and since\nit may be rendered with this signification into every different\nlanguage, the name cannot be said to be restricted to the Hebrew. [111]\nThis explanation however leaves the difficulty quite unsolved, since it\nconverts into a simple appellative a name evidently employed as a\nproper name. In this case likewise an accommodation must be supposed,\nnamely, that the angel, in order to indicate his real nature,\nappropriated a name which he did not actually bear: an accommodation\nalready judged in the foregoing remarks.\n\nBut it is not only the name and the alleged station of the angel which\nshock our modern ideas, we also feel his discourse and his conduct to\nbe unworthy. Paulus indeed suggests that none but a levitical priest,\nand not an angel of Jehovah, could have conceived it necessary that the\nboy should live in nazarite abstemiousness, [112] but to this it may be\nanswered that the angel also might have known that under this form John\nwould obtain greater influence with the people. But there is a more\nimportant difficulty. When Zacharias, overcome by surprise, doubts the\npromise and asks for a sign, this natural incredulity is regarded by\nthe angel as a crime, and immediately punished with dumbness. Though\nsome may not coincide with Paulus that a real angel would have lauded\nthe spirit of inquiry evinced by the priest, yet all will agree in the\nremark, that conduct so imperious is less in character with a truly\ncelestial being than with the notions the Jews of that time entertained\nof such. Moreover we do not find in the whole province of\nsupranaturalism a parallel severity.\n\nThe instance, cited by Paulus, of Jehovah\u2019s far milder treatment of\nAbraham, who asks precisely the same question unreproved, Gen. xv. 8,\nis refuted by Olshausen, because he considers the words of Abraham,\nchap. xv. 6, an evidence of his faith; but this observation does not\napply to chap. xviii. 12, where the greater incredulity of Sarah, in a\nsimilar case, remains unpunished; nor to chap. xvii. 17, where Abraham\nhimself is not even blamed, though the divine promise appears to him so\nincredible as to excite laughter. The example of Mary is yet closer,\nwho (Luke i. 34) in regard to a still greater improbability, but one\nwhich was similarly declared by a special divine messenger to be no\nimpossibility, puts exactly the same question as Zacharias; so that we\nmust agree with Paulus that such inconsistency certainly cannot belong\nto the conduct of God or of a celestial being, but merely to the Jewish\nrepresentation of them. Feeling the objectionableness of the\nrepresentation in its existing form, orthodox theologians have invented\nvarious motives to justify this infliction of dumbness. Hess has\nattempted to screen it from the reproach of an arbitrary procedure by\nregarding it as the only means of keeping secret, even against the will\nof the priest, an event, the premature proclamation of which might have\nbeen followed by disastrous consequences, similar to those which\nattended the announcement by the wise men of the birth of the child\nJesus. [113] But, in the first place, the angel says nothing of such an\nobject, he inflicts the dumbness but as a sign and punishment;\nsecondly, the loss of speech did not hinder Zacharias from\ncommunicating, at any rate to his wife, the main features of the\napparition, since we see that she was acquainted with the destined name\nof the child before appeal was made to the father. Thirdly, what end\ndid it serve thus to render difficult the communication of the\nmiraculous annunciation of the unborn babe, since no sooner was it born\nthan it was at once exposed to all the dreaded dangers?\u2014for the\nfather\u2019s sudden recovery of speech, and the extraordinary scene at the\ncircumcision excited attention and became noised abroad in all the\ncountry. Olshausen\u2019s view of the thing is more admissible. He regards\nthe whole proceeding, and especially the dumbness, as a moral training\ndestined to teach Zacharias to know and conquer his want of faith.\n[114] But of this too we have no mention in the text; besides the\nunexpected accomplishment of the prediction would have made Zacharias\nsufficiently ashamed of his unbelief, if instead of inflicting dumbness\nthe angel had merely remonstrated with him.\n\nBut however worthy of God we might grant the conduct of his messenger\nto have been, still many of the present day will find an angelic\napparition, as such, incredible. Bauer insists that wherever angels\nappear, both in the New Testament and in the Old, the narrative is\nmythical. [115] Even admitting the existence of angels, we cannot\nsuppose them capable of manifesting themselves to human beings, since\nthey belong to the invisible world, and spiritual existences are not\ncognizable by the organs of sense; so that it is always advisable to\nrefer their pretended apparitions to the imagination. [116] It is not\nprobable, it is added, that God should make use of them according to\nthe popular notion, for these apparitions have no apparent adequate\nobject, they serve generally only to gratify curiosity, or to encourage\nman\u2019s disposition passively to leave his affairs in higher hands. [117]\nIt is also remarkable that in the old world these celestial beings show\nthemselves active upon the smallest occasions, whilst in modern times\nthey remain idle even during the most important occurrences. [118] But\nto deny their appearance and agency among men is to call in question\ntheir very being, because it is precisely this occupation which is a\nmain object of their existence (Heb. i. 14). According to\nSchleiermacher [119] we cannot indeed actually disprove the existence\nof angels, yet the conception is one which could not have originated in\nour time, but belongs wholly to the ancient ideas of the world. The\nbelief in angels has a twofold root or source: the one the natural\ndesire of the mind to presuppose a larger amount of intelligence in the\nuniverse than is realized in the human race. We who live in these days\nfind this desire satisfied in the conviction that other worlds exist\nbesides our own, and are peopled by intelligent beings; and thus the\nfirst source of the belief in angels is destroyed. The other source,\nnamely, the representation of God as an earthly monarch surrounded by\nhis court, contradicts all enlightened conceptions of Deity; and\nfurther, the phenomena in the natural world and the transitions in\nhuman life, which were formerly thought to be wrought by God himself\nthrough ministering angels, we are now able to explain by natural\ncauses; so that the belief in angels is without a link by which it can\nattach itself to rightly apprehended modern ideas; and it exists only\nas a lifeless tradition. The result is the same if, with one of the\nlatest writers on the doctrine of angels, [120] we consider as the\norigin of this representation, man\u2019s desire to separate the two sides\nof his moral nature, and to contemplate, as beings existing external to\nhimself, angels and devils. For, the origin of both representations\nremains merely subjective, the angel being simply the ideal of created\nperfection: which, as it was formed from the subordinate point of view\nof a fanciful imagination, disappears from the higher and more\ncomprehensive observation of the intellect. [121]\n\nOlshausen, on the other hand, seeks to deduce a positive argument in\nfavour of the reality of the apparition in question, from those very\nreasonings of the present day which, in fact, negative the existence of\nangels; and he does so by viewing the subject on its speculative side.\nHe is of opinion that the gospel narrative does not contradict just\nviews of the world, since God is immanent in the universe and moves it\nby his breath. [122] But if it be true that God is immanent in the\nworld, precisely on that account is the intervention of angels\nsuperfluous. It is only a Deity who dwells apart, throned in heaven,\nwho requires to send down his angels to fulfil his purposes on earth.\nIt would excite surprise to find Olshausen arguing thus, did we not\nperceive from the manner in which this interpreter constantly treats of\nangelology and demonology, that he does not consider angels to be\nindependent personal entities; but regards them rather as divine\npowers, transitory emanations and fulgurations of the Divine Being.\nThus Olshausen\u2019s conception of angels, in their relation to God, seems\nto correspond with the Sabellian doctrine of the Trinity; but as his is\nnot the representation of the Bible, as also the arguments in favour of\nthe former prove nothing in relation to the latter, it is useless to\nenter into further explanation. The reasoning of this same theologian,\nthat we must not require the ordinariness of every-day life for the\nmost pregnant epochs in the life of the human race; that the\nincarnation of the eternal word was accompanied by extraordinary\nmanifestations from the world of spirits, uncalled for in times less\nrich in momentous results, [123] rests upon a misapprehension. For the\nordinary course of every-day life is interrupted in such moments, by\nthe very fact that exalted beings like the Baptist are born into the\nworld, and it would be puerile to designate as ordinary those times and\ncircumstances which gave birth and maturity to a John, because they\nwere unembellished by angelic apparitions. That which the spiritual\nworld does for ours at such periods is to send extraordinary human\nintelligences, not to cause angels to ascend and descend.\n\nFinally, if, in vindication of this narrative, it be stated that such\nan exhibition by the angel, of the plan of education for the unborn\nchild, was necessary in order to make him the man he should become,\n[124] the assumption includes too much; namely, that all great men, in\norder by their education to become such, must have been introduced into\nthe world in like manner, or cause must be shown why that which was\nunnecessary in the case of great men of other ages and countries was\nindispensable for the Baptist. Again, the assumption attaches too much\nimportance to external training, too little to the internal development\nof the mind. But in conclusion, many of the circumstances in the life\nof the Baptist, instead of serving to confirm a belief in the truth of\nthe miraculous history, are on the contrary, as has been justly\nmaintained, altogether irreconcilable with the supposition, that his\nbirth was attended by these wonderful occurrences. If it were indeed\ntrue, that John was from the first distinctly and miraculously\nannounced as the forerunner of the Messiah, it is inconceivable that he\nshould have had no acquaintance with Jesus prior to his baptism; and\nthat, even subsequent to that event, he should have felt perplexed\nconcerning his Messiahship (John i. 30; Matt. xi. 2). [125]\n\nConsequently the negative conclusion of the rationalistic criticism and\ncontroversy must, we think, be admitted, namely, that the birth of the\nBaptist could not have been preceded and attended by these supernatural\noccurrences. The question now arises, what positive view of the matter\nis to replace the rejected literal orthodox explanation?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 18.\n\nNATURAL EXPLANATION OF THE NARRATIVE.\n\nIn treating the narrative before us according to the rationalistic\nmethod, which requires the separation of the pure fact from the opinion\nof interested persons, the simplest alteration is this: to retain the\ntwo leading facts, the apparition and the dumbness, as actual external\noccurrences; but to account for them in a natural manner. This were\npossible with respect to the apparition, by supposing that a man,\nmistaken by Zacharias for a divine messenger, really appeared to him,\nand addressed to him the words he believed he heard. But this\nexplanation, viewed in connexion with the attendant circumstances,\nbeing too improbable, it became necessary to go a step further, and to\ntransform the event from an external to an internal one; to remove the\noccurrence out of the physical into the psychological world. To this\nview the opinion of Bahrdt, that a flash of lightning was perhaps\nmistaken by Zacharias for an angel, [126] forms a transition; since he\nattributes the greater part of the scene to Zacharias\u2019s imagination.\nBut that any man, in an ordinary state of mind, could have created so\nlong and consecutive a dialogue out of a flash of lightning is\nincredible. A peculiar mental state must be supposed; whether it be a\nswoon, the effect of fright occasioned by the lightning, [127] but of\nthis there is no trace in the text (no falling down as in Acts ix. 4);\nor, abandoning the notion of the lightning, a dream, which, however,\ncould scarcely occur whilst burning incense in the temple. Hence, it\nhas been found necessary, with Paulus, to call to mind that there are\nwaking visions or ecstasies, in which the imagination confounds\ninternal images with external occurrences. [128] Such ecstasies, it is\ntrue, are not common; but, says Paulus, in Zacharias\u2019s case many\ncircumstances combined to produce so unusual a state of mind. The\nexciting causes were, firstly, the long-cherished desire to have a\nposterity; secondly, the exalted vocation of administering in the Holy\nof Holies, offering up with the incense the prayers of the people to\nthe throne of Jehovah, which seemed to Zacharias to foretoken the\nacceptance of his own prayer; and thirdly, perhaps an exhortation from\nhis wife as he left his house, similar to that of Rachel to Jacob. Gen.\nxxx. 1(!) In this highly excited state of mind, as he prays in the\ndimly-lighted sanctuary, he thinks of his most ardent wish, and\nexpecting that now or never his prayer shall be heard, he is prepared\nto discern a sign of its acceptance in the slightest occurrence. As the\nglimmer of the lamps falls upon the ascending cloud of incense, and\nshapes it into varying forms, the priest imagines he perceives the\nfigure of an angel. The apparition at first alarms him; but he soon\nregards it as an assurance from God that his prayer is heard. No sooner\ndoes a transient doubt cross his mind, than the sensitively pious\npriest looks upon himself as sinful, believes himself reproved by the\nangel, and\u2014here two explanations are possible\u2014either an apoplectic\nseizure actually deprives him of speech, which he receives as the just\npunishment of his incredulity, till the excessive joy he experiences at\nthe circumcision of his son restores the power of utterance: so that\nthe dumbness is retained as an external, physical, though not\nmiraculous, occurrence; [129] or the proceeding is psychologically\nunderstood, namely, that Zacharias, in accordance with a Jewish\nsuperstition, for a time denied himself the use of the offending\nmember. [130] Reanimated in other respects by the extraordinary event,\nthe priest returns home to his wife, and she becomes a second Sarah.\n\nWith regard to this account of the angelic apparition given by\nPaulus,\u2014and the other explanations are either of essentially similar\ncharacter, or are so manifestly untenable, as not to need refutation\u2014it\nmay be observed that the object so laboriously striven after is not\nattained. Paulus fails to free the narrative of the marvellous; for by\nhis own admission, the majority of men have no experience of the kind\nof vision here supposed. [131] If such a state of ecstasy occur in\nparticular cases, it must result either from a predisposition in the\nindividual, of which we find no sign in Zacharias, and which his\nadvanced age must have rendered highly improbable; or it must have been\ninduced by some peculiar circumstances, which totally fail in the\npresent instance. [132] A hope which has been long indulged is\ninadequate to the production of ecstatic vehemence, and the act of\nburning incense is insufficient to cause so extraordinary an\nexcitement, in a priest who has grown old in the service of the temple.\nThus Paulus has in fact substituted a miracle of chance for a miracle\nof God. Should it be said that to God nothing is impossible, or to\nchance nothing is impossible, both explanations are equally precarious\nand unscientific.\n\nIndeed, the dumbness of Zacharias as explained from this point of view\nis very unsatisfactory. For had it been, as according to one\nexplanation, the result of apoplexy; admitting Paulus\u2019s reference to\nLev. xxi. 16, to be set aside by the contrary remark of Lightfoot,\n[133] still, we must join with Schleiermacher in wondering how\nZacharias, notwithstanding this apoplectic seizure, returned home in\nother respects healthy and vigorous; [134] and that in spite of partial\nparalysis his general strength was unimpaired, and his long-cherished\nhope fulfilled. It must also be regarded as a strange coincidence, that\nthe father\u2019s tongue should have been loosed exactly at the time of the\ncircumcision; for if the recovery of speech is to be considered as the\neffect of joy, [135] surely the father must have been far more elated\nat the birth of the earnestly-desired son, than at the circumcision;\nfor by that time he would have become accustomed to the possession of\nhis child.\n\nThe other explanation: that Zacharias\u2019s silence was not from any\nphysical impediment, but from a notion, to be psychologically\nexplained, that he ought not to speak, is in direct contradiction to\nthe words of Luke. What do all the passages, collected by Paulus to\nshow that \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 may signify not only a positive non posse, but\nlikewise a mere non sustinere, [136] prove against the clear meaning of\nthe passage and its context? If perhaps the narrative phrase (v. 22),\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f20\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 might be forced to bear this sense, yet\ncertainly in the supposed vision of Zacharias, had the angel only\nforbidden him to speak, instead of depriving him of the power of\nspeech, he would not have said: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9,\nbut \u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. The words \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c9\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 (v.\n21) also most naturally mean actual dumbness. This view assumes, and\nindeed necessarily so, that the gospel history is a correct report of\nthe account given by Zacharias himself; if then it be denied that the\ndumbness was actual, as Zacharias affirms that actual dumbness was\nannounced to him by the angel, it must be admitted that, though\nperfectly able to speak, he believed himself to be dumb, which leads to\nthe conclusion that he was mad: an imputation not to be laid upon the\nfather of the Baptist without compulsory evidence in the text.\n\nAgain, the natural explanation makes too light of the incredibly\naccurate fulfilment of a prediction originating, as it supposes, in an\nunnatural, over-excited state of mind. In no other province of inquiry\nwould the realization of a prediction which owed its birth to a vision\nbe found credible, even by the Rationalist. If Dr. Paulus were to read\nthat a somnambulist, in a state of ecstasy, had foretold the birth of a\nchild, under circumstances in the highest degree improbable; and not\nonly of a child, but of a boy; and had moreover, with accurate\nminuteness, predicted his future mode of life, character, and position\nin history; and that each particular had been exactly verified by the\nresult: would he find such a coincidence credible? Most assuredly to no\nhuman being, under any conditions whatsoever, would he concede the\npower thus to penetrate the most mysterious workings of nature; on the\ncontrary he would complain of the outrage on human free-will, which is\nannihilated by the admission that a man\u2019s entire intellectual and moral\ndevelopment may be predetermined like the movements of a clock. And he\nwould on this very ground complain of the inaccuracy of observation,\nand untrustworthiness of the report which represented, as matters of\nfact, things in their very nature impossible. Why does he not follow\nthe same rule with respect to the New Testament narrative? Why admit in\nthe one case what he rejects in the other? Is biblical history to be\njudged by one set of laws, and profane history by another?\u2014An\nassumption which the Rationalist is compelled to make, if he admits as\ncredible in the Gospels that which he rejects as unworthy of credit in\nevery other history\u2014which is in fact to fall back on the\nsupranaturalistic point of view, since the assumption, that the natural\nlaws which govern in every other province are not applicable to sacred\nhistory, is the very essential of supranaturalism.\n\nNo other rescue from this self-annihilation remains to the\nanti-supernatural mode of explanation, than to question the verbal\naccuracy of the history. This is the simplest expedient, felt to be\nsuch by Paulus himself, who remarks, that his efforts may be deemed\nsuperfluous to give a natural explanation of a narrative, which is\nnothing more than one of those stories invented either after the death\nor even during the lifetime of every distinguished man to embellish his\nearly history. Paulus, however, after an impartial examination, is of\nopinion that the analogy, in the present instance, is not applicable.\nThe principal ground for this opinion is the too short interval between\nthe birth of the Baptist, and the composition of the Gospel of Luke.\n[137] We, on the contrary, in harmony with the observations in the\nintroduction, would reverse the question and inquire of this\ninterpreter, how he would render it credible, that the history of the\nbirth of a man so famed as the Baptist should have been transmitted, in\nan age of great excitement, through a period of more than sixty years,\nin all its primitive accuracy of detail? Paulus\u2019s answer is ready: an\nanswer approved by others (Heidenreich, Olshausen):\u2014the passage\ninserted by Luke i. 5; ii. 39 was possibly a family record, which\ncirculated among the relatives of the Baptist and of Jesus; and of\nwhich Zacharias was probably the author. [138]\n\nK. Ch. L. Schmidt controverts this hypothesis with the remark, that it\nis impossible that a narrative so disfigured (we should rather say, so\nembellished) could have been a family record; and that, if it does not\nbelong altogether to the class of legends, its historical basis, if\nsuch there be, is no longer to be distinguished. [139] It is further\nmaintained, that the narrative presents certain features which no poet\nwould have conceived, and which prove it to be a direct impression of\nfacts; for instance, the Messianic expectations expressed by the\ndifferent personages introduced by Luke (chap. i. and ii.) correspond\nexactly with the situation and relation of each individual. [140] But\nthese distinctions are by no means so striking as Paulus represents;\nthey are only the characteristics of a history which goes into details,\nmaking a transition from generalities to particulars, which is natural\nalike to the poet and to the popular legend; besides, the peculiar\nJudaical phraseology in which the Messianic expectations are expressed,\nand which it is contended confirm the opinion that this narrative was\nwritten, or received its fixed form, before the death of Jesus,\ncontinued to be used after that event Acts i. 6 [141]. Moreover we must\nagree with Schleiermacher when he says: [142] least of all is it\npossible to regard these utterances as strictly historical; or to\nmaintain that Zacharias, in the moment that he recovered his speech,\nemployed it in a song of praise, uninterrupted by the exultation and\nwonder of the company, sentiments which the narrator interrupts himself\nto indulge. It must, at all events, be admitted that the author has\nmade additions of his own, and has enriched the history by the lyric\neffusions of his muse. Kuin\u00f6l supposes that Zacharias composed and\nwrote down the canticle subsequent to the occasion; but this strange\nsurmise contradicts the text. There are some other features which, it\nis contended, belong not to the creations of the poet; such as, the\nsigns made to the father, the debate in the family, the position of the\nangel on the right hand of the altar. [143] But this criticism is\nmerely a proof that these interpreters have, or determine to have, no\njust conception of poetry or popular legend; for the genuine\ncharacteristic of poetry and mythus is natural and pictorial\nrepresentation of details. [144]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 19.\n\nMYTHICAL VIEW OF THE NARRATIVE IN ITS DIFFERENT STAGES.\n\nThe above exposition of the necessity, and lastly, of the possibility\nof doubting the historical fidelity of the gospel narrative, has led\nmany theologians to explain the account of the birth of the Baptist as\na poetical composition; suggested by the importance attributed by the\nChristians to the forerunner of Jesus, and by the recollection of some\nof the Old Testament histories, in which the births of Ishmael, Isaac,\nSamuel, and especially of Samson, are related to have been similarly\nannounced. Still the matter was not allowed to be altogether invented.\nIt may have been historically true that Zacharias and Elizabeth lived\nlong without offspring; that, on one occasion whilst in the temple, the\nold man\u2019s tongue was suddenly paralyzed; but that soon afterwards his\naged wife bore him a son, and he, in his joy at the event, recovered\nthe power of speech. At that time, but still more when John became a\nremarkable man, the history excited attention, and out of it the\nexisting legend grew. [145]\n\nIt is surprising to find an explanation almost identical with the\nnatural one we have criticised above, again brought forward under a new\ntitle; so that the admission of the possibility of an admixture of\nsubsequent legends in the narrative has little influence on the view of\nthe matter itself. As the mode of explanation we are now advocating\ndenies all confidence in the historical authenticity of the record, all\nthe details must be in themselves equally problematic; and whether\nhistorical validity can be retained for this or that particular\nincident, can be determined only by its being either less improbable\nthan the rest, or else less in harmony with the spirit, interest, and\ndesign of the poetic legend, so as to make it probable that it had a\ndistinct origin. The barrenness of Elizabeth and the sudden dumbness of\nZacharias are here retained as incidents of this character: so that\nonly the appearing and prediction of the angel are given up. But by\ntaking away the angelic apparition, the sudden infliction and as sudden\nremoval of the dumbness loses its only adequate supernatural cause, so\nthat all difficulties which beset the natural interpretation remain in\nfull force: a dilemma into which these theologians are, most\nunnecessarily, brought by their own inconsequence; for the moment we\nenter upon mythical ground, all obligation to hold fast the assumed\nhistorical fidelity of the account ceases to exist. Besides, that which\nthey propose to retain as historical fact, namely, the long barrenness\nof the parents of the Baptist, is so strictly in harmony with the\nspirit and character of Hebrew legendary poetry, that of this incident\nthe mythical origin is least to be mistaken. How confused has this\nmisapprehension made, for example, the reasoning of Bauer! It was a\nprevailing opinion, says he, consonant with Jewish ideas, that all\nchildren born of aged parents, who had previously been childless,\nbecame distinguished personages. John was the child of aged parents,\nand became a notable preacher of repentance; consequently it was\nthought justifiable to infer that his birth was predicted by an angel.\nWhat an illogical conclusion! for which he has no other ground than the\nassumption that John was the son of aged parents. Let this be made a\nsettled point, and the conclusion follows without difficulty. It was\nreadily believed, he proceeds, of remarkable men that they were born of\naged parents, and that their birth, no longer in the ordinary course of\nnature to be expected, was announced by a heavenly messenger [146];\nJohn was a great man and a prophet; consequently, the legend\nrepresented him to have been born of an aged couple, and his birth to\nhave been proclaimed by an angel.\n\nSeeing that this explanation of the narrative before us, as a half (so\ncalled historical) mythus, is encumbered with all the difficulties of a\nhalf measure, Gabler has treated it as a pure philosophical, or\ndogmatical mythus. [147] Horst likewise considers it, and indeed the\nentire two first chapters of Luke, of which it forms a part, as an\ningenious fiction, in which the birth of the Messiah, together with\nthat of his precursor, and the predictions concerning the character and\nministry of the latter, framed after the event, are set forth; it being\nprecisely the loquacious circumstantiality of the narration which\nbetrays the poet. [148] Schleiermacher likewise explains the first\nchapter as a little poem, similar in character to many of the Jewish\npoems which we meet with in their apocrypha. He does not however\nconsider it altogether a fabrication. It might have had a foundation in\nfact, and in a widespread tradition; but the poet has allowed himself\nso full a license in arranging, and combining, in moulding and\nembodying the vague and fluctuating representations of tradition, that\nthe attempt to detect the purely historical in such narratives, must\nprove a fruitless and useless effort. [149] Horst goes so far as to\nsuppose the author of the piece to have been a Judaising Christian;\nwhilst Schleiermacher imagines it to have been composed by a Christian\nof the famed Jewish school, at a period when it comprised some who\nstill continued strict disciples of John; and whom it was the object of\nthe narrative to bring over to Christianity, by exhibiting the\nrelationship of John to the Christ as his peculiar and highest destiny;\nand also by holding out the expectation of a state of temporal\ngreatness for the Jewish people at the reappearance of Christ.\n\nAn attentive consideration of the Old Testament histories, to which, as\nmost interpreters admit, the narrative of the annunciation and birth of\nthe Baptist bears a striking affinity, will render it abundantly\nevident that this is the only just view of the passage in question. But\nit must not here be imagined, as is now so readily affirmed in the\nconfutation of the mythical view of this passage, that the author of\nour narrative first made a collection from the Old Testament of its\nindividual traits; much rather had the scattered traits respecting the\nlate birth of different distinguished men, as recorded in the Old\nTestament, blended themselves into a compound image in the mind of\ntheir reader, whence he selected the features most appropriate to his\npresent subject. Of the children born of aged parents, Isaac is the\nmost ancient prototype. As it is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth, \u201cthey\nboth were advanced in their days\u201d (v. 7) \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, so Abraham and Sarah \u201cwere advanced in their days\u201d \u200f\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\n(Gen. xviii. 11; LXX: \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd), when they were promised a\nson. It is likewise from this history that the incredulity of the\nfather, on account of the advanced age of both parents, and the demand\nof a sign, are borrowed in our narrative. As Abraham, when Jehovah\npromises him he shall have a son and a numerous posterity who shall\ninherit the land of Canaan, doubtingly inquires, \u201cWhereby shall I know\nthat I shall inherit it?\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03af \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f44\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd; (sc.\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd. Gen. xv. 8. LXX.): so Zacharias\u2014\u201cWhereby shall I know this?\u201d\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03af \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf; (v. 18.) The incredulity of Sarah is not made\nuse of for Elizabeth; but she is said to be of the daughters of Aaron,\nand the name Elizabeth may perhaps have been suggested by that of\nAaron\u2019s wife (Exod. vi. 23. LXX.). The incident of the angel announcing\nthe birth of the Baptist is taken from the history of another late-born\nchild, Samson. In our narrative, indeed, the angel appears first to the\nfather in the temple, whereas in the history of Samson he shows himself\nfirst to the mother, and afterwards to the father in the field. This,\nhowever, is an alteration arising naturally out of the different\nsituations of the respective parents (Judges xiii.). According to\npopular Jewish notions, it was no unusual occurrence for the priest to\nbe visited by angels and divine apparitions whilst offering incense in\nthe temple. [150] The command which before his birth predestined the\nBaptist\u2014whose later ascetic mode of life was known\u2014to be a Nazarite, is\ntaken from the same source. As, to Samson\u2019s mother during her\npregnancy, wine, strong drink, and unclean food, were forbidden, so a\nsimilar diet is prescribed for her son, [151] adding, as in the case of\nJohn, that the child shall be consecrated to God from the womb. [152]\nThe blessings which it is predicted that these two men shall realize\nfor the people of Israel are similar (comp. Luke i. 16, 17, with Judges\nxiii. 5), and each narrative concludes with the same expression\nrespecting the hopeful growth of the child. [153] It may be too bold to\nderive the Levitical descent of the Baptist from a third Old Testament\nhistory of a late-born son\u2014from the history of Samuel (compare 1 Sam.\ni. 1; Chron. vii. 27); but the lyric effusions in the first chapter of\nLuke are imitations of this history. As Samuel\u2019s mother, when\nconsigning him to the care of the high priest, breaks forth into a hymn\n(1 Sam. ii. 1), so the father of John does the same at the\ncircumcision; though the particular expressions in the Canticle uttered\nby Mary\u2014of which we shall have to speak hereafter\u2014have a closer\nresemblance to Hannah\u2019s song of praise than that of Zacharias. The\nsignificant appellation John (\u200f\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05d7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05df\u200e = \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2), predetermined by\nthe angel, had its precedent in the announcements of the names of\nIshmael and Isaac [154]; but the ground of its selection was the\napparently providential coincidence between the signification of the\nname and the historical destination of the man. The remark, that the\nname of John was not in the family (v. 61), only brought its celestial\norigin more fully into view. The tablet (\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) upon which the\nfather wrote the name (v. 63), was necessary on account of his\nincapacity to speak; but it also had its type in the Old Testament.\nIsaiah was commanded to write the significant names of the child\nMaher-shalal-hash-baz upon a tablet (Isaiah viii. 1 ff.). The only\nsupernatural incident of the narrative, of which the Old Testament may\nseem to offer no precise analogy, is the dumbness; and this is the\npoint fixed upon by those who contest the mythical view. [155] But if\nit be borne in mind that the asking and receiving a sign from heaven in\nconfirmation of a promise or prophecy was usual among the Hebrews\n(comp. Isaiah vii. 11 ff.); that the temporary loss of one of the\nsenses was the peculiar punishment inflicted after a heavenly vision\n(Acts ix. 8, 17 ff.); that Daniel became dumb whilst the angel was\ntalking with him, and did not recover his speech till the angel had\ntouched his lips and opened his mouth (Dan. x. 15 f.): the origin of\nthis incident also will be found in the legend, and not in historical\nfact. Of two ordinary and subordinate features of the narrative, the\none, the righteousness of the parents of the Baptist (v. 6), is merely\na conclusion founded upon the belief that to a pious couple alone would\nthe blessing of such a son be vouchsafed, and consequently is void of\nall historical worth; the other, the statement that John was born in\nthe reign of Herod (the Great) (v. 5), is without doubt a correct\ncalculation.\n\nSo that we stand here upon purely mythical-poetical ground; the only\nhistorical reality which we can hold fast as positive matter of fact\nbeing this:\u2014the impression made by John the Baptist, by virtue of his\nministry and his relation to Jesus, was so powerful as to lead to the\nsubsequent glorification of his birth in connection with the birth of\nthe Messiah in the Christian legend. [156]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nDAVIDICAL DESCENT OF JESUS, ACCORDING TO THE GENEALOGICAL TABLES OF\nMATTHEW AND LUKE.\n\n\u00a7 20.\n\nTHE TWO GENEALOGIES OF JESUS CONSIDERED SEPARATELY AND IRRESPECTIVELY\nOF ONE ANOTHER.\n\nIn the history of the birth of the Baptist, we had the single account\nof Luke; but regarding the genealogical descent of Jesus we have also\nthat of Matthew; so that in this case the mutual control of two\nnarrators in some respects multiplies, whilst in others it lightens,\nour critical labour. It is indeed true that the authenticity of the two\nfirst chapters of Matthew, which contain the history of the birth and\nchildhood of Jesus, as well as that of the parallel section of Luke,\nhas been questioned: but as in both cases the question has originated\nmerely in a prejudiced view of the subject, the doubt has been silenced\nby a decisive refutation. [157]\n\nEach of these two Gospels contains a genealogical table designed to\nexhibit the Davidical descent of Jesus, the Messiah. That of Matthew\n(i. 1\u201317) precedes, that of Luke (iii. 23\u201338) follows, the history of\nthe announcement and birth of Jesus. These two tables, considered each\nin itself, or both compared together, afford so important a key to the\ncharacter of the evangelic records in this section, as to render a\nclose examination of them imperative. We shall first consider each\nseparately, and then each, but particularly that of Matthew, in\ncomparison with the passages in the Old Testament to which it is\nparallel.\n\nIn the Genealogy given by the author of the first Gospel, there is a\ncomparison of the account with itself which is important, as it gives a\nresult, a sum at its conclusion, whose correctness may be proved by\ncomparing it with the previous statements. In the summing up it is\nsaid, that from Abraham to Christ there are three divisions of fourteen\ngenerations each, the first from Abraham to David, the second from\nDavid to the Babylonish exile, the third from the exile to Christ. Now\nif we compute the number of names for ourselves, we find the first\nfourteen from Abraham to David, both included, complete (2\u20135); also\nthat from Solomon to Jechonias, after whom the Babylonish exile is\nmentioned (6\u201311); but from Jechonias to Jesus, even reckoning the\nlatter as one, we can discover only thirteen (12\u201316). How shall we\nexplain this discrepancy? The supposition that one of the names has\nescaped from the third division by an error of a transcriber, [158] is\nin the highest degree improbable, since the deficiency is mentioned so\nearly as by Porphyry. [159] The insertion, in some manuscripts and\nversions, of the name Jehoiakim [160] between Josias and Jechonias,\ndoes not supply the deficiency of the third division; it only adds a\nsuperfluous generation to the second division, which was already\ncomplete. As also there is no doubt that this deficiency originated\nwith the author of the genealogy, the question arises: in what manner\ndid he reckon so as to count fourteen generations for his third series?\nTruly it is possible to count in various ways, if an arbitrary\ninclusion and exclusion of the first and last members of the several\nseries be permitted. It might indeed have been presupposed, that a\ngeneration already included in one division was necessarily excluded\nfrom another: but the compiler of the genealogy may perhaps have\nthought otherwise; and since David is twice mentioned in the table, it\nis possible that the author counted him twice: namely, at the end of\nthe first series, and again at the beginning of the second. This would\nnot indeed, any more than the insertion of Jehoiakim, fill up the\ndeficiency in the third division, but give too many to the second; so\nthat we must, with some commentators, [161] conclude the second series\nnot with Jechonias, as is usually done, but with his predecessor\nJosias: and now, by means of the double enumeration of David,\nJechonias, who was superfluous in the second division, being available\nfor the third, the last series, including Jesus, has its fourteen\nmembers complete. But it seems very arbitrary to reckon the concluding\nmember of the first series twice, and not also that of the second: to\navoid which inconsistency some interpreters have proposed to count\nJosias twice, as well as David, and thus complete the fourteen members\nof the third series without Jesus. But whilst this computation escapes\none blunder, it falls into another; namely, that whereas the expression\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (v. 17) is supposed to include the latter,\nin \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, the latter is excluded.\nThis difficulty may be avoided by counting Jechonias twice instead of\nJosias, which gives us fourteen names for the third division, including\nJesus; but then, in order not to have too many in the second, we must\ndrop the double enumeration of David, and thus be liable to the same\ncharge of inconsistency as in the former case, since the double\nenumeration is made between the second and third divisions, and not\nbetween the first and second. Perhaps De Wette has found the right clue\nwhen he remarks, that in v. 17, in both transitions some member of the\nseries is mentioned twice, but in the first case only that member is a\nperson (David), and therefore to be twice reckoned. In the second case\nit is the Babylonish captivity occurring between Josias and Jechonias,\nwhich latter, since he had reigned only three months in Jerusalem (the\ngreater part of his life having passed after the carrying away to\nBabylon), was mentioned indeed at the conclusion of the second series\nfor the sake of connexion, but was to be reckoned only at the beginning\nof the third. [162]\n\nIf we now compare the genealogy of Matthew (still without reference to\nthat of Luke) with the corresponding passages of the Old Testament, we\nshall also find discrepancy, and in this case of a nature exactly the\nreverse of the preceding: for as the table considered in itself\nrequired the duplication of one member in order to complete its scheme,\nso when compared with the Old Testament, we find that many of the names\nthere recorded have been omitted, in order that the number fourteen\nmight not be exceeded. That is to say, the Old Testament affords data\nfor comparison with this genealogical table as the famed pedigree of\nthe royal race of David, from Abraham to Zorobabel and his sons; after\nwhom, the Davidical line begins to retire into obscurity, and from the\nsilence of the Old Testament the genealogy of Matthew ceases to be\nunder any control. The series of generations from Abraham to Judah,\nPharez, and Hezron, is sufficiently well known from Genesis; from\nPharez to David we find it in the conclusion of the book of Ruth, and\nin the 2nd chapter of the 1st Chronicles; that from David to Zerubbabel\nin the 3rd chapter of the same book; besides passages that are parallel\nwith separate portions of the series.\n\nTo complete the comparison: we find the line from Abraham to David,\nthat is, the whole first division of fourteen in our genealogy, in\nexact accordance with the names of men given in the Old Testament:\nleaving out however the names of some women, one of which makes a\ndifficulty. It is said v. 5 that Rahab was the mother of Boaz. Not only\nis this without confirmation in the Old Testament, but even if she be\nmade the great-grandmother of Jesse, the father of David, there are too\nfew generations between her time and that of David (from about 1450 to\n1050 B.C.), that is, counting either Rahab or David as one, four for\n400 years. Yet this error falls back upon the Old Testament genealogy\nitself, in so far as Jesse\u2019s great-grandfather Salmon, whom Matthew\ncalls the husband of Rahab, is said Ruth iv. 20, as well as by Matthew,\nto be the son of Nahshon, who, according to Numbers i. 7, lived in the\ntime of the march through the wilderness: [163] from which circumstance\nthe idea was naturally suggested, to marry his son with that Rahab who\nsaved the Israelitish spies, and thus to introduce a woman for whom the\nIsraelites had an especial regard (compare James ii. 25, Heb. xi. 31)\ninto the lineage of David and the Messiah.\n\nMany discrepancies are found in the second division from David to\nZorobabel and his son, as well as in the beginning of the third.\nFirstly, it is said v. 8 Joram begat Ozias; whereas we know from 1\nChron. iii. 11, 12, that Uzziah was not the son, but the grandson of\nthe son of Joram, and that three kings occur between them, namely,\nAhaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, after whom comes Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 1,\nor as he is called 1 Chron. iii. 12, and 2 Kings xiv. 21, Azariah).\nSecondly: our genealogy says v. 11, Josias begat Jechonias and his\nbrethren. But we find from 1 Chron. iii. 16, that the son and successor\nof Josiah was called Jehoiakim, after whom came his son and successor\nJechoniah or Jehoiachin. Moreover brethren are ascribed to Jechoniah,\nwhereas the Old Testament mentions none. Jehoiakim, however, had\nbrothers: so that the mention of the brethren of Jechonias in Matthew\nappears to have originated in an exchange of these two persons.\u2014A third\ndiscrepancy relates to Zorobabel. He is here called, v. 12, a son of\nSalathiel; whilst in 1 Chron. iii. 19, he is descended from Jechoniah,\nnot through Shealtiel, but through his brother Pedaiah. In Ezra v. 2,\nand Haggai i. 1, however, Zerubbabel is designated, as here, the son of\nShealtiel.\u2014In the last place, Abiud, who is here called the son of\nZorobabel, is not to be found amongst the children of Zerubbabel\nmentioned 1 Chron. iii. 19 f.: perhaps because Abiud was only a surname\nderived from a son of one of those there mentioned. [164]\n\nThe second and third of these discrepancies may have crept in without\nevil intention, and without any great degree of carelessness, for the\nomission of Jehoiakim may have arisen from the similar sound of the\nnames (\u200f\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b8\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e and \u200f\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b8\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u05df\u200e), which accounts also for the\ntransposition of the brothers of Jechoniah; whilst respecting Zorobabel\nthe reference to the Old Testament is partly adverse, partly\nfavourable. But the first discrepancy we have adduced, namely, the\nomission of three known kings, is not so easily to be set aside. It has\nindeed been held that the similarity of names may here also have led\nthe author to pass unintentionally from Joram to Ozias, instead of to\nthe similar sounding Ahaziah (in the LXX. Ochozias). But this omission\nfalls in so happily with the author\u2019s design of the threefold fourteen\n(admitting the double enumeration of David), that we cannot avoid\nbelieving, with Jerome, that the oversight was made on purpose with a\nview to it. [165] From Abraham to David, where the first division\npresented itself, having found fourteen members, he seems to have\nwished that those of the following divisions should correspond in\nnumber. In the whole remaining series the Babylonish exile offered\nitself as the natural point of separation. But as the second division\nfrom David to the exile gave him four supernumerary members, therefore\nhe omitted four of the names. For what reason these particular four\nwere chosen would be difficult to determine, at least for the three\nlast mentioned.\n\nThe cause of the compiler\u2019s laying so much stress on the threefold\nequal numbers, may have been simply, that by this adoption of the\nOriental custom of division into equal sections, the genealogy might be\nmore easily committed to memory: [166] but with this motive a mystical\nidea was probably combined. The question arises whether this is to be\nsought in the number which is thrice repeated, or whether it consists\nin the threefold repetition? Fourteen is the double of the sacred\nnumber seven; but it is improbable that it was selected for this\nreason, [167] because otherwise the seven would scarcely have been so\ncompletely lost sight of in the fourteen. Still more improbable is the\nconjecture of Olshausen, that the number fourteen was specially chosen\nas being the numeric value of the name of David; [168] for puerilities\nof this kind, appropriate to the rabbinical gematria, are to be found\nin no other part of the Gospels. It is more likely that the object of\nthe genealogists consisted merely in the repetition of an equal number\nby retaining the fourteen which had first accidentally presented\nitself: since it was a notion of the Jews that signal divine\nvisitations, whether of prosperity or adversity, recurred at regular\nperiodical intervals. Thus, as fourteen generations had intervened\nbetween Abraham, the founder of the holy people, and David the king\nafter God\u2019s own heart, so fourteen generations must intervene between\nthe re-establishment of the kingdom and the coming of the son of David,\nthe Messiah. [169] The most ancient genealogies in Genesis exhibit the\nvery same uniformity. As according to the \u03b2\u1f76\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd,\ncap. v., from Adam the first, to Noah the second, father of men, were\nten generations: so from Noah, or rather from his son, the tenth is\nAbraham the father of the faithful. [170]\n\nThis \u00e0 priori treatment of his subject, this Procrustes-bed upon which\nthe author of our genealogy now stretches, now curtails it, almost like\na philosopher constructing a system,\u2014can excite no predisposition in\nhis favour. It is in vain to appeal to the custom of Oriental\ngenealogists to indulge themselves in similar licence; for when an\nauthor presents us with a pedigree expressly declaring that all the\ngenerations during a space of time were fourteen, whereas, through\naccident or intention, many members are wanting,\u2014he betrays an\narbitrariness and want of critical accuracy, which must shake our\nconfidence in the certainty of his whole genealogy.\n\nThe genealogy of Luke, considered separately, does not present so many\ndefects as that of Matthew. It has no concluding statement of the\nnumber of generations comprised in the genealogy, to act as a check\nupon itself, neither can it be tested, to much extent, by a comparison\nwith the Old Testament. For, from David to Nathan, the line traced by\nLuke has no correspondence with any Old Testament genealogy, excepting\nin two of its members, Salathiel and Zorobabel; and even with respect\nto these two, there is a contradiction between the statement of Luke\nand that of 1 Chron. iii. 17, 19 f.: for the former calls Salathiel a\nson of Neri, whilst, according to the latter, he was the son of\nJechoniah. Luke also mentions one Resa as the son of Zorobabel, a name\nwhich does not appear amongst the children of Zerubbabel in 1 Chron.\niii. 17, 19. Also, in the series before Abraham, Luke inserts a Cainan,\nwho is not to be found in the Hebrew text, Gen. x. 24; xi. 12 ff., but\nwho was however already inserted by the LXX. In fact, the original text\nhas this name in its first series as the third from Adam, and thence\nthe translation appears to have transplanted him to the corresponding\nplace in the second series as the third from Noah.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 21.\n\nCOMPARISON OF THE TWO GENEALOGIES\u2014ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE THEIR\nCONTRADICTIONS.\n\nIf we compare the genealogies of Matthew and Luke together, we become\naware of still more striking discrepancies. Some of these differences\nindeed are unimportant, as the opposite direction of the two tables,\nthe line of Matthew descending from Abraham to Jesus, that of Luke\nascending from Jesus to his ancestors. Also the greater extent of the\nline of Luke; Matthew deriving it no further than from Abraham, while\nLuke (perhaps lengthening some existing document in order to make it\nmore consonant with the universalism of the doctrines of Paul) [171]\ncarries it back to Adam and to God himself. More important is the\nconsiderable difference in the number of generations for equal periods,\nLuke having 41 between David and Jesus, whilst Matthew has only 26. The\nmain difficulty, however, lies in this: that in some parts of the\ngenealogy, in Luke totally different individuals are made the ancestors\nof Jesus from those of Matthew. It is true, both writers agree in\nderiving the lineage of Jesus through Joseph from David and Abraham,\nand that the names of the individual members of the series correspond\nfrom Abraham to David, as well as two of the names in the subsequent\nportion; those of Salathiel and Zorobabel. But the difficulty becomes\ndesperate when we find that, with these two exceptions about midway,\nthe whole of the names from David to the foster-father of Jesus are\ntotally different in Matthew and in Luke. In Matthew, the father of\nJoseph is called Jacob; in Luke, Heli. In Matthew, the son of David\nthrough whom Joseph descended from that king is Solomon; in Luke,\nNathan: and so on, the line descends, in Matthew, through the race of\nknown kings; in Luke, through an unknown collateral branch, coinciding\nonly with respect to Salathiel and Zorobabel, whilst they still differ\nin the names of the father of Salathiel and the son of Zorobabel. Since\nthis difference appears to offer a complete contradiction, the most\nindustrious efforts have been made at all times to reconcile the two.\nPassing in silence explanations evidently unsatisfactory, such as a\nmystical signification, [172] or an arbitrary change of names, [173] we\nshall consider two pairs of hypotheses which have been most\nconspicuous, and are mutually supported, or at least bear affinity to\none another.\n\nThe first pair is formed upon the presupposition of Augustine, that\nJoseph was an adopted son, and that one evangelist gave the name of his\nreal, the other that of his adopted, father [174]; and the opinion of\nthe old chronologist Julius Africanus, that a Levirate marriage had\ntaken place between the parents of Joseph, and that the one genealogy\nbelonged to the natural, the other to the legal, father of Joseph, by\nthe one of whom he was descended from David through Solomon, by the\nother through Nathan. [175] The farther question: to which father do\nthe respective genealogies belong? is open to two species of criticism,\nthe one founded upon literal expressions, the other upon the spirit and\ncharacter of each gospel: and which lead to opposite conclusions.\nAugustine as well as Africanus, has observed, that Matthew makes use of\nan expression in describing the relationship between Joseph and his\nso-called father, which more definitely points out the natural filial\nrelationship than that of Luke: for the former says \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03b2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6: whilst the expression of the latter, \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f28\u03bb\u1f76, appears\nequally applicable to a son by adoption, or by virtue of a Levirate\nmarriage. But since the very object of a Levirate marriage was to\nmaintain the name and race of a deceased childless brother, it was the\nJewish custom to inscribe the first-born son of such a marriage, not on\nthe family register of his natural father, as Matthew has done here,\nbut on that of his legal father, as Luke has done on the above\nsupposition. Now that a person so entirely imbued with Jewish opinions\nas the author of the first Gospel, should have made a mistake of this\nkind, cannot be held probable. Accordingly, Schleiermacher and others\nconceive themselves bound by the spirit of the two Gospels to admit\nthat Matthew, in spite of his \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5, must have given the lineage of\nthe legal father, according to Jewish custom: whilst Luke, who perhaps\nwas not born a Jew, and was less familiar with Jewish habits, might\nhave fallen upon the genealogy of the younger brothers of Joseph, who\nwere not, like the firstborn, inscribed amongst the family of the\ndeceased legal father, but with that of their natural father, and might\nhave taken this for the genealogical table of the first-born Joseph,\nwhilst it really belonged to him only by natural descent, to which\nJewish genealogists paid no regard. [176] But, besides the fact, which\nwe shall show hereafter, that the genealogy of Luke can with difficulty\nbe proved to be the work of the author of that Gospel:\u2014in which case\nthe little acquaintance of Luke with Jewish customs ceases to afford\nany clue to the meaning of this genealogy;\u2014it is also to be objected,\nthat the genealogist of the first Gospel could not have written his\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 thus without any addition, if he was thinking of a mere legal\npaternity. Wherefore these two views of the genealogical relationship\nare equally difficult.\n\nHowever, this hypothesis, which we have hitherto considered only in\ngeneral, requires a more detailed examination in order to judge of its\nadmissibility. In considering the proposition of a Levirate marriage,\nthe argument is essentially the same if, with Augustine and Africanus,\nwe ascribe the naming of the natural father to Matthew, or with\nSchleiermacher, to Luke. As an example we shall adopt the former\nstatement: the rather because Eusebius, according to Africanus, has\nleft us a minute account of it. According to this representation, then,\nthe mother of Joseph was first married to that person whom Luke calls\nthe father of Joseph, namely Heli. But since Heli died without\nchildren, by virtue of the Levirate law, his brother, called by Matthew\nJacob the father of Joseph, married the widow, and by her begot Joseph,\nwho was legally regarded as the son of the deceased Heli, and so\ndescribed by Luke, whilst naturally he was the son of his brother\nJacob, and thus described by Matthew.\n\nBut, merely thus far, the hypothesis is by no means adequate. For if\nthe two fathers of Joseph were real brothers, sons of the same father,\nthey had one and the same lineage, and the two genealogies would have\ndiffered only in the father of Joseph, all the preceding portion being\nin agreement. In order to explain how the discordancy extends so far\nback as to David, we must have recourse to the second proposition of\nAfricanus, that the fathers of Joseph were only half-brothers, having\nthe same mother, but not the same father. We must also suppose that\nthis mother of the two fathers of Joseph, had twice married; once with\nthe Matthan of Matthew, who was descended from David through Solomon\nand the line of kings, and to whom she bore Jacob; and also, either\nbefore or after, with the Matthat of Luke, the offspring of which\nmarriage was Heli: which Heli, having married and died childless, his\nhalf-brother Jacob married his widow, and begot for the deceased his\nlegal child Joseph.\n\nThis hypothesis of so complicated a marriage in two successive\ngenerations, to which we are forced by the discrepancy of the two\ngenealogies, must be acknowledged to be in no way impossible, but still\nhighly improbable: and the difficulty is doubled by the untoward\nagreement already noticed, which occurs midway in the discordant\nseries, in the two members Salathiel and Zorobabel. For to explain how\nNeri in Luke, and Jechonias in Matthew, are both called the father of\nSalathiel, who was the father of Zorobabel;\u2014not only must the\nsupposition of the Levirate marriage be repeated, but also that the two\nbrothers who successively married the same wife, were brothers only on\nthe mother\u2019s side. The difficulty is not diminished by the remark, that\nany nearest blood-relation, not only a brother, might succeed in a\nLevirate marriage,\u2014that is to say, though not obligatory, it was at\nleast open to his choice (Ruth iii. 12. f., iv. 4 f. [177]). For since\neven in the case of two cousins, the concurrence of the two branches\nmust take place much earlier than here for Jacob and Eli, and for\nJechonias and Neri, we are still obliged to have recourse to the\nhypothesis of half-brothers; the only amelioration in this hypothesis\nover the other being, that these two very peculiar marriages do not\ntake place in immediately consecutive generations. Now that this\nextraordinary double incident should not only have been twice repeated,\nbut that the genealogists should twice have made the same selection in\ntheir statements respecting the natural and the legal father, and\nwithout any explanation,\u2014is so improbable, that even the hypothesis of\nan adoption, which is burdened with only one-half of these\ndifficulties, has still more than it can bear. For in the case of\nadoption, since no fraternal or other relationship is required, between\nthe natural and adopting fathers, the recurrence to a twice-repeated\nhalf-brotherhood is dispensed with; leaving only the necessity for\ntwice supposing a relationship by adoption, and twice the peculiar\ncircumstance, that the one genealogist from want of acquaintance with\nJewish customs was ignorant of the fact, and the other, although he\ntook account of it, was silent respecting it.\n\nIt has been thought by later critics that the knot may be loosed in a\nmuch easier way, by supposing that in one Gospel we have the genealogy\nof Joseph, in the other that of Mary, in which case there would be no\ncontradiction in the disagreement: [178] to which they are pleased to\nadd the assumption that Mary was an heiress. [179] The opinion that\nMary was of the race of David as well as Joseph has been long held.\nFollowing indeed the idea, that the Messiah, as a second Melchizedec,\nought to unite in his person the priestly with the kingly dignity,\n[180] and guided by the relationship of Mary with Elizabeth, who was a\ndaughter of Aaron (Luke i. 36); already in early times it was not only\nheld by many that the races of Judah and Levi were blended in the\nfamily of Joseph; [181] but also the opinion was not rare that Jesus,\nderiving his royal lineage from Joseph, descended also from the\npriestly race through Mary. [182] The opinion of Mary\u2019s descent from\nDavid, soon however became the more prevailing. Many apocryphal writers\nclearly state this opinion, [183] as well as Justin Martyr, whose\nexpression, that the virgin was of the race of David, Jacob, Isaac, and\nAbraham, may be considered an indication that he applied to Mary one of\nour genealogies, which are both traced back to Abraham through David.\n[184]\n\nOn inquiring which of these two genealogies is to be held that of Mary?\nwe are stopped by an apparently insurmountable obstacle, since each is\ndistinctly announced as the genealogy of Joseph; the one in the words\n\u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03b2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6, the other by the phrase \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f28\u03bb\u0390.\nHere also, however, the \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 of Matthew is more definite than the\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 of Luke, which according to those interpreters may mean just as\nwell a son-in-law or grandson; so that the genitive of Luke in iii. 23\nwas either intended to express that Jesus was in common estimation a\nson of Joseph, who was the son-in-law of Heli, the father of Mary\n[185]:\u2014or else, that Jesus was, as was believed, a son of Joseph, and\nthrough Mary a grandson of Heli. [186] As it may here be objected, that\nthe Jews in their genealogies were accustomed to take no account of the\nfemale line, [187] a farther hypothesis is had recourse to, namely,\nthat Mary was an heiress, i.e. the daughter of a father without sons:\nand that in this case, according to Numbers xxxvi. 6, and Nehemiah vii.\n63, Jewish custom required that the person who married her should not\nonly be of the same race with herself, but that he should henceforth\nsink his own family in hers, and take her ancestors as his own. But the\nfirst point only is proved by the reference to Numbers; and the passage\nin Nehemiah, compared with several similar ones (Ezra ii. 61; Numbers\nxxxii. 41; comp. with 1 Chron. ii. 21 f.), shows only that sometimes,\nby way of exception, a man took the name of his maternal ancestors.\nThis difficulty with regard to Jewish customs, however, is cast into\nshade by one much more important. Although undeniably the genitive case\nused by Luke, expressing simply derivation in a general sense, may\nsignify any degree of relationship, and consequently that of son-in-law\nor grandson; yet this interpretation destroys the consistency of the\nwhole passage. In the thirty-four preceding members, which are well\nknown to us from the Old Testament, this genitive demonstrably\nindicates throughout the precise relationship of a son; likewise when\nit occurs between Salathiel and Zorobabel: how could it be intended in\nthe one instance of Joseph to indicate that of son-in-law? or,\naccording to the other interpretation, supposing the nominative \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 to\ngovern the whole series, how can we suppose it to change its\nsignification from son to grandson, great-grandson, and so on to the\nend? If it be said the phrase \u1f08\u03b4\u1f70\u03bc \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 is a proof that the\ngenitive does not necessarily indicate a son in the proper sense of the\nword, we may reply that it bears a signification with regard to the\nimmediate Author of existence equally inapplicable to either\nfather-in-law or grandfather.\n\nA further difficulty is encountered by this explanation of the two\ngenealogies in common with the former one, in the concurrence of the\ntwo names of Salathiel and Zorobabel. The supposition of a Levirate\nmarriage is as applicable to this explanation as the other, but the\ninterpreters we are now examining prefer for the most part to suppose,\nthat these similar names in the different genealogies belong to\ndifferent persons. When Luke however, in the twenty-first and\ntwenty-second generations from David, gives the very same names that\nMatthew (including the four omitted generations), gives in the\nnineteenth and twentieth, one of these names being of great notoriety,\nit is certainly impossible to doubt that they refer to the same\npersons.\n\nMoreover, in no other part of the New Testament is there any trace to\nbe found of the Davidical descent of Mary: on the contrary, some\npassages are directly opposed to it. In Luke i. 27, the expression \u1f10\u03be\n\u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03b4 refers only to the immediately preceding \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f76 \u1fa1 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6, not to the more remote \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. And more pointed\nstill is the turn of the sentence in Luke ii. 4, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u0342\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03b4, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., where \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 might so easily have been written instead of\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, if the author had any thought of including Mary in the descent\nfrom David. These expressions fill to overflowing the measure of proof\nalready adduced, that it is impossible to apply the genealogy of the\nthird Evangelist to Mary.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 22.\n\nTHE GENEALOGIES UNHISTORICAL.\n\nA consideration of the insurmountable difficulties, which unavoidably\nembarrass every attempt to bring these two genealogies into harmony\nwith one another, will lead us to despair of reconciling them, and will\nincline us to acknowledge, with the more free-thinking class of\ncritics, that they are mutually contradictory. [188] Consequently they\ncannot both be true: if, therefore, one is to be preferred before the\nother, several circumstances would seem to decide in favour of the\ngenealogy of Luke, rather than that of Matthew. It does not exhibit an\narbitrary adherence to a fixed form and to equal periods: and whilst\nthe ascribing of twenty generations to the space of time from David to\nJechonias or Neri, in Luke, is at least not more offensive to\nprobability, than the omission of four generations in Matthew to\nhistorical truth; Luke\u2019s allotment of twenty-two generations from the\nperiod from Jechonias (born 617 B.C.) to Jesus, i.e. about 600 years,\nforming an average of twenty-seven years and a half to each generation,\nis more consonant with natural events, particularly amongst eastern\nnations, than the thirteen generations of Matthew, which make an\naverage of forty-two years for each. Besides the genealogy of Luke is\nless liable than that of Matthew to the suspicion of having been\nwritten with a design to glorify Jesus, since it contents itself with\nascribing to Jesus a descent from David, without tracing that descent\nthrough the royal line. On the other hand, however, it is more\nimprobable that the genealogy of the comparatively insignificant family\nof Nathan should have been preserved, than that of the royal branch.\nAdded to which, the frequent recurrence of the same names is, as justly\nremarked by Hoffmann, an indication that the genealogy of Luke is\nfictitious.\n\nIn fact then neither table has any advantage over the other. If the one\nis unhistorical, so also is the other, since it is very improbable that\nthe genealogy of an obscure family like that of Joseph, extending\nthrough so long a series of generations, should have been preserved\nduring all the confusion of the exile, and the disturbed period that\nfollowed. Yet, it may be said, although we recognise in both, so far as\nthey are not copied from the Old Testament, and unrestrained play of\nthe imagination, or arbitrary applications of other genealogies to\nJesus,\u2014we may still retain as an historical basis that Jesus descended\nfrom David, and that only the intermediate members of the line of\ndescent were variously filled up by different writers. But the one\nevent on which this historical basis is mainly supported, namely, the\njourney of the parents of Jesus to Bethlehem in order to be taxed, so\nfar from sufficing to prove them to be of the house and lineage of\nDavid, is itself, as we shall presently show, by no means established\nas matter of history. Of more weight is the other ground, namely, that\nJesus is universally represented in the New Testament, without any\ncontradiction from his adversaries, as the descendant of David. Yet\neven the phrase \u1f51\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4 is a predicate that may naturally have been\napplied to Jesus, not on historical, but on dogmatical grounds.\nAccording to the prophecies, the Messiah could only spring from David.\nWhen therefore a Galilean, whose lineage was utterly unknown, and of\nwhom consequently no one could prove that he was not descended from\nDavid, had acquired the reputation of being the Messiah; what more\nnatural than that tradition should under different forms have early\nascribed to him a Davidical descent, and that genealogical tables,\ncorresponding with this tradition, should have been formed? which,\nhowever, as they were constructed upon no certain data, would\nnecessarily exhibit such differences and contradictions as we find\nactually existing between the genealogies in Matthew and in Luke. [189]\n\nIf, in conclusion, it be asked, what historical result is to be deduced\nfrom these genealogies? we reply: a conviction (arrived at also from\nother sources), that Jesus, either in his own person or through his\ndisciples, acting upon minds strongly imbued with Jewish notions and\nexpectations, left among his followers so firm a conviction of his\nMessiahship, that they did not hesitate to attribute to him the\nprophetical characteristic of Davidical descent, and more than one pen\nwas put in action, in order, by means of a genealogy which should\nauthenticate that descent, to justify his recognition as the Messiah.\n[190]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CONCEPTION OF JESUS.\u2014ITS SUPERNATURAL\nCHARACTER.\u2014VISIT OF MARY TO ELIZABETH.\n\n\u00a7 23.\n\nSKETCH OF THE DIFFERENT CANONICAL AND APOCRYPHAL ACCOUNTS.\n\nThere is a striking gradation in the different representations of the\nconception and birth of Jesus given in the canonical and in the\napocryphal Gospels. They exhibit the various steps, from a simple\nstatement of a natural occurrence, to a minute and miraculously\nembellished history, in which the event is traced back to its very\nearliest date. Mark and John presuppose the fact of the birth of Jesus,\nand content themselves with the incidental mention of Mary as the\nmother (Mark vi. 3), and of Joseph as the father of Jesus (John i. 46).\nMatthew and Luke go further back, since they state the particular\ncircumstances attending the conception as well as the birth of the\nMessiah. But of these two evangelists Luke mounts a step higher than\nMatthew. According to the latter Mary, the betrothed of Joseph, being\nfound with child, Joseph is offended, and determines to put her away;\nbut the angel of the Lord visits him in a dream, and assures him of the\ndivine origin and exalted destiny of Mary\u2019s offspring; the result of\nwhich is that Joseph takes unto him his wife: but knows her not till\nshe has brought forth her first-born son. (Matt. i. 18\u201325.) Here the\npregnancy is discovered in the first place, and then afterwards\njustified by the angel; but in Luke the pregnancy is prefaced and\nannounced by a celestial apparition. The same Gabriel, who had\npredicted the birth of John to Zacharias, appears to Mary, the\nbetrothed of Joseph, and tells her that she shall conceive by the power\nof the Holy Ghost; whereupon the destined mother of the Messiah pays a\nvisit full of holy import to the already pregnant mother of his\nforerunner; upon which occasion both Mary and Elizabeth pour forth\ntheir emotions to one another in the form of a hymn (Luke i. 26\u201356).\nMatthew and Luke are content to presuppose the connexion between Mary\nand Joseph; but the apocryphal Gospels, the Protevangelium Jacobi, and\nthe Evangelium de Nativitate Mariae, [191] (books with the contents of\nwhich the Fathers partially agree,) seek to represent the origin of\nthis connexion; indeed they go back to the birth of Mary, and describe\nit to have been preceded, equally with that of the Messiah and the\nBaptist, by a divine annunciation. As the description of the birth of\nJohn in Luke is principally borrowed from the Old Testament accounts of\nSamuel and of Samson, so this history of the birth of Mary is an\nimitation of the history in Luke, and of the Old Testament histories.\n\nJoachim, so says the apocryphal narrative, and Anna (the name of\nSamuel\u2019s mother [192]) are unhappy on account of their long childless\nmarriage (as were the parents of the Baptist); when an angel appears to\nthem both (so in the history of Samson) at different places, and\npromises them a child, who shall be the mother of God, and commands\nthat this child shall live the life of a Nazarite (like the Baptist).\nIn early childhood Mary is brought by her parents to the temple (like\nSamuel); where she continues till her twelfth year, visited and fed by\nangels and honoured by divine visions. Arrived at womanhood she is to\nquit the temple, her future provision and destiny being revealed by the\noracle to the high priest. In conformity with the prophecy of Isaiah\nxi. 1 f.: egredietur virga de radice Jesse, et flos de radice ejus\nascendet, et requiescet super eum spiritus Domini; this oracle\ncommanded, according to one Gospel, [193] that all the unmarried men of\nthe house of David,\u2014according to the other, [194] that all the widowers\namong the people,\u2014should bring their rods, and that he on whose rod a\nsign should appear (like the rod of Aaron, Numb. xvii.), namely the\nsign predicted in the prophecy, should take Mary unto himself. This\nsign was manifested upon Joseph\u2019s rod; for, in exact accordance with\nthe oracle, it put forth a blossom and a dove lighted upon it. [195]\nThe apocryphal Gospels and the Fathers agree in representing Joseph as\nan old man; [196] but the narrative is somewhat differently told in the\ntwo apocryphal Gospels. According to the Evang. de nativ. Mariae,\nnotwithstanding Mary\u2019s alleged vow of chastity, and the refusal of\nJoseph on account of his great age, betrothment took place at the\ncommand of the priest, and subsequently a marriage\u2014(which marriage,\nhowever, the author evidently means to represents also as chaste).\nAccording to the Protevang. Jacobi, on the contrary, neither\nbetrothment nor marriage are mentioned, but Joseph is regarded merely\nas the chosen protector of the young virgin, [197] and Joseph on the\njourney to Bethlehem doubts whether he shall describe his charge as his\nwife or as his daughter; fearing to bring ridicule upon himself, on\naccount of his age, if he called her his wife. Again, where in Matthew\nMary is called \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 of Joseph, the apocryphal Gospel carefully\ndesignates her merely as \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, and even avoids using the term\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd or substitutes \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 with which many of the Fathers\nconcur. [198] In the Protevangelium it is further related that Mary,\nhaving been received into Joseph\u2019s house, was charged, together with\nother young women, with the fabrication of the veil for the temple, and\nthat it fell to her lot to spin the true purple.\u2014But whilst Joseph was\nabsent on business Mary was visited by an angel, and Joseph on his\nreturn found her with child and called her to account, not as a\nhusband, but as the guardian of her honour. Mary, however, had\nforgotten the words of the angel and protested her ignorance of the\ncause of her pregnancy. Joseph was perplexed and determined to remove\nher secretly from under his protection; but an angel appeared to him in\na dream and reassured him by his explanation. The matter was then\nbrought before the priest, and both Joseph and Mary being charged with\nincontinence were condemned to drink the \u201cbitter water,\u201d [199] \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, but as they remained uninjured by it, they were declared\ninnocent. Then follows the account of the taxing and of the birth of\nJesus. [200]\n\nSince these apocryphal narratives were for a long period held as\nhistorical by the church, and were explained, equally with those of the\ncanonical accounts, from the supranaturalistic point of view as\nmiraculous, they were entitled in modern times to share with the New\nTestament histories the benefit of the natural explanation. If, on the\none hand, the belief in the marvellous was so superabundantly strong in\nthe ancient church, that it reached beyond the limits of the New\nTestament even to the embracing of the apocryphal narratives, blinding\nthe eye to the perception of their manifestly unhistorical character;\nso, on the other hand, the positive rationalism of some of the heralds\nof the modern modes of explanation was so overstrong that they believed\nit adequate to explain even the apocryphal miracles. Of this we have an\nexample in the author of the natural history of the great prophet of\nNazareth; [201] who does not hesitate to include the stories of the\nlineage and early years of Mary within the circle of his\nrepresentations, and to give them a natural explanation. If we in our\nday, with a perception of the fabulous character of such narratives,\nlook down alike upon the Fathers of the church and upon these\nnaturalistic interpreters, we are certainly so far in the right, as it\nis only by gross ignorance that this character of the apocryphal\naccounts is here to be mistaken; more closely considered, however, the\ndifference between the apocryphal and the canonical narratives\nconcerning the early history of the Baptist and of Jesus, is seen to be\nmerely a difference of form: they have sprung, as we shall hereafter\nfind, from the same root, though the one is a fresh and healthy sprout,\nand the other an artificially nurtured and weak aftergrowth. Still, the\nFathers of the church and these naturalistic interpreters had this\nsuperiority over most of the theologians of our own time; that they did\nnot allow themselves to be deceived respecting the inherent similarity\nby the difference of form, but interpreted the kindred narratives by\nthe same method; treating both as miraculous or both as natural; and\nnot, as is now usual, the one as fiction and the other as history.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 24.\n\nDISAGREEMENTS OF THE CANONICAL GOSPELS IN RELATION TO THE FORM OF THE\nANNUNCIATION.\n\nAfter the foregoing general sketch, we now proceed to examine the\nexternal circumstances which, according to our Gospels, attended the\nfirst communication of the future birth of Jesus to Mary and Joseph.\nLeaving out of sight, for the present, the special import of the\nannunciation, namely, that Jesus should be supernaturally begotten of\nthe Holy Ghost, we shall, in the first place, consider merely the form\nof the announcement; by whom, when, and in what manner it was made.\n\nAs the birth of the Baptist was previously announced by an angel, so\nthe conception of Jesus was, according to the gospel histories,\nproclaimed after the same fashion. But whilst, in the one case, we have\nbut one history of the apparition, that of Luke; in the other we have\ntwo accounts, accounts however which do not correspond, and which we\nmust now compare. Apart from the essential signification the two\naccounts exhibit the following differences. 1. The individual who\nappears is called in Matthew by the indefinite appellation, angel of\nthe Lord, \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5: in Luke by name, the angel Gabriel, \u1f41 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u0393\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u1f74\u03bb. 2. The person to whom the angel appears is, according to\nMatthew, Joseph, according to Luke, Mary. 3. In Matthew the apparition\nis seen in a dream, in Luke whilst awake. 4. There is a disagreement in\nrelation to the time at which the apparition took place: according to\nMatthew, Joseph receives the heavenly communication after Mary was\nalready pregnant: according to Luke it is made to Mary prior to her\npregnancy. 5. Lastly, both the purpose of the apparition and the effect\nproduced are different; it was designed, according to Matthew, to\ncomfort Joseph, who was troubled on account of the pregnancy of his\nbetrothed: according to Luke to prevent, by a previous announcement,\nall possibility of offence.\n\nWhere the discrepancies are so great and so essential, it may, at first\nsight, appear altogether superfluous to inquire whether the two\nEvangelists record one and the same occurrence, though with\nconsiderable disagreement; or whether they record distinct occurrences,\nso that the two accounts can be blended together, and the one be made\nto amplify the other? The first supposition cannot be admitted without\nimpeaching the historical validity of the narrative; for which reason\nmost of our theologians, indeed all who see in the narrative a true\nhistory, whether miraculous or natural, have decided in favour of the\nsecond supposition. Maintaining, and justly, that the silence of one\nEvangelist concerning an event which is narrated by the other, is not a\nnegation of the event, [202] they blend the two accounts together in\nthe following manner: 1, First, the angel makes known to Mary her\napproaching pregnancy (Luke); 2, she then journeys to Elizabeth (the\nsame Gospel); 3, after her return her situation being discovered,\nJoseph takes offence (Matthew); whereupon, 4, he likewise is visited by\nan angelic apparition (the same Gospel [203]).\n\nBut this arrangement of the incidents is, as Schleiermacher has already\nremarked, full of difficulty [204]; and it seems that what is related\nby one Evangelist is not only not presupposed, but excluded, by the\nother. For, in the first place, the conduct of the angel who appears to\nJoseph is not easily explained, if the same or another angel had\npreviously appeared to Mary. The angel (in Matthew) speaks altogether\nas if his communication were the first in this affair: he neither\nrefers to the message previously received by Mary, nor reproaches\nJoseph because he had not believed it; but more than all, the informing\nJoseph of the name of the expected child, and the giving him a full\ndetail of the reasons why he should be so called, (Matt. i. 21) would\nhave been wholly superfluous had the angel (according to Luke i. 34)\nalready indicated this name to Mary.\n\nStill more incomprehensible is the conduct of the betrothed parties\naccording to this arrangement of events. Had Mary been visited by an\nangel, who had made known to her an approaching supernatural pregnancy,\nwould not the first impulse of a delicate woman have been, to hasten to\nimpart to her betrothed the import of the divine message, and by this\nmeans to anticipate the humiliating discovery of her situation, and an\ninjurious suspicion on the part of her affianced husband. But exactly\nthis discovery Mary allows Joseph to make from others, and thus excites\nsuspicions; for it is evident that the expression \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 (Matt. i. 18) signifies a discovery made independent of any\ncommunication on Mary\u2019s part, and it is equally clear that in this\nmanner only does Joseph obtain the knowledge of her situation, since\nhis conduct is represented as the result of that discovery\n(\u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9). The apocryphal Protevangelium Jacobi felt how\nenigmatical Mary\u2019s conduct must appear, and sought to solve the\ndifficulty in a manner which, contemplated from the supranaturalistic\npoint of view, is perhaps the most consistent. Had Mary retained a\nrecollection of the import of the heavenly message\u2014upon this point the\nwhole ingenious representation of the apocryphal Gospel rests\u2014she ought\nto have imparted it to Joseph; but since it is obvious from Joseph\u2019s\ndemeanour that she did not acquaint him with it, the only remaining\nalternative is, to admit that the mysterious communication made to Mary\nhad, owing to her excited state of mind, escaped her memory, and that\nshe was herself ignorant of the true cause of her pregnancy. [205] In\nfact, nothing is left to supranaturalism in the present case but to\nseek refuge in the miraculous and the incomprehensible. The attempts\nwhich the modern theologians of this class have made to explain Mary\u2019s\nsilence, and even to find in it an admirable trait in her character,\nare so many rash and abortive efforts to make a virtue of necessity.\nAccording to Hess [206] it must have cost Mary much self-denial to have\nconcealed the communication of the angel from Joseph; and this reserve,\nin a matter known only to herself and to God, must be regarded as a\nproof of her firm trust in God. Without doubt Mary communed thus with\nherself: It is not without a purpose that this apparition has been made\nto me alone; had it been intended that Joseph should have participated\nin the communication, the angel would have appeared to him also (if\neach individual favoured with a divine revelation were of this opinion,\nhow many special revelations would it not require?); besides it is an\naffair of God alone, consequently it becomes me to leave it with him to\nconvince Joseph (the argument of indolence). Olshausen concurs, and\nadds his favourite general remark, that in relation to events so\nextraordinary the measure of the ordinary occurrences of the world is\nnot applicable: a category under which, in this instance, the highly\nessential considerations of delicacy and propriety are included.\n\nMore in accordance with the views of the natural interpreters, the\nEvangelium de nativitate Mariae, [207] and subsequently some later\nwriters, for example, the author of the Natural History of the Great\nProphet of Nazareth, have sought to explain Mary\u2019s silence, by\nsupposing Joseph to have been at a distance from the abode of his\naffianced bride at the time of the heavenly communication. According to\nthem Mary was of Nazareth, Joseph of Bethlehem; to which latter place\nJoseph departed after the betrothing, and did not return to Mary until\nthe expiration of three months, when he discovered the pregnancy which\nhad taken place in the interim. But since the assumption that Mary and\nJoseph resided in different localities has no foundation, as will\npresently be seen, in the canonical Gospels, the whole explanation\nfalls to the ground. Without such an assumption, Mary\u2019s silence towards\nJoseph might, perhaps, have been accounted for from the point of view\nof the naturalistic interpreters, by imagining her to have been held\nback through modesty from confessing a situation so liable to excite\nsuspicion. But one who, like Mary, was so fully convinced of the divine\nagency in the matter, and had shown so ready a comprehension of her\nmysterious destination (Luke i. 38), could not possibly have been\ntongue-tied by petty considerations of false shame.\n\nConsequently, in order to rescue Mary\u2019s character, without bringing\nreproach upon Joseph\u2019s, and at the same time to render his unbelief\nintelligible, interpreters have been compelled to assume that a\ncommunication, though a tardy one, was actually made by Mary to Joseph.\nLike the last-named apocryphal Gospel, they introduce a journey, not of\nJoseph, but of Mary\u2014the visit to Elizabeth mentioned in Luke\u2014to account\nfor the postponement of the communication. It is probable, says Paulus,\nthat Mary did not open her heart to Joseph before this journey, because\nshe wished first to consult with her older friend as to the mode of\nmaking the disclosure to him, and whether she, as the mother of the\nMessiah, ought to marry.\n\nIt was not till after her return, and then most likely through the\nmedium of others, that she made Joseph acquainted with her situation,\nand with the promises she had received. But Joseph\u2019s mind was not\nproperly attuned and prepared for such a disclosure; he became haunted\nby all kinds of thoughts; and vacillated between suspicion and hope\ntill at length a dream decided him. [208] But in the first place a\nmotive is here given to Mary\u2019s journey which is foreign to the account\nin Luke. Mary sets off to Elizabeth, not to take counsel of her, but to\nassure herself regarding the sign appointed by the angel. No uneasiness\nwhich the friend is to dissipate, but a proud joy, unalloyed by the\nsmallest anxiety, is expressed in her salutation to the future mother\nof the Baptist. But besides, a confession so tardily made can in nowise\njustify Mary. What behaviour on the part of an affianced bride\u2014after\nhaving received a divine communication, so nearly concerning her future\nhusband, and in a matter so delicate\u2014to travel miles away, to absent\nherself for three months, and then to permit her betrothed to learn\nthrough third persons that which could no longer be concealed!\n\nThose, therefore, who do not impute to Mary a line of conduct which\ncertainly our Evangelists do not impute to her, must allow that she\nimparted the message of the angel to her future husband as soon as it\nhad been revealed to her; but that he did not believe her. [209] But\nnow let us see how Joseph\u2019s character is to be dealt with! Even Hess is\nof opinion that, since Joseph was acquainted with Mary, he had no cause\nto doubt her word, when she told him of the apparition she had had.\nThis scepticism presupposes a mistrust of his betrothed which is\nincompatible with his character as a just man (Matt. i. 19), and an\nincredulity respecting the marvellous which is difficult to reconcile\nwith a readiness on other occasions to believe in angelic apparitions;\nnor, in any case, would this want of faith have escaped the censure of\nthe angel who subsequently appeared to himself.\n\nSince then, to suppose that the two accounts are parallel, and complete\none another, leads unavoidably to results inconsistent with the sense\nof the Gospels, in so far as they evidently meant to represent the\ncharacters of Joseph and Mary as free from blemish; the supposition\ncannot be admitted, but the accounts mutually exclude each other. An\nangel did not appear, first to Mary, and also afterwards to Joseph; he\ncan only have appeared either to the one or to the other. Consequently,\nit is only the one or the other relation which can be regarded as\nhistorical. And here different considerations would conduct to opposite\ndecisions. The history in Matthew might appear the more probable from\nthe rationalistic point of view, because it is more easy to interpret\nnaturally an apparition in a dream; whilst that in Luke might be\npreferred by the supranaturalist, because the manner in which the\nsuspicion cast upon the holy virgin is refuted is more worthy of God.\nBut in fact, a nearer examination proves, that neither has any\nessential claim to be advanced before the other. Both contain an\nangelic apparition, and both are therefore encumbered with all the\ndifficulties which, as was stated above in relation to the annunciation\nof the birth of the Baptist, oppose the belief in angels and\napparitions. Again, in both narrations the import of the angelic\nmessage is, as we shall presently see, an impossibility. Thus every\ncriterion which might determine the adoption of the one, and the\nrejection of the other, disappears; and we find ourselves, in reference\nto both accounts, driven back by necessity to the mythical view.\n\nFrom this point of view, all the various explanations, which the\nRationalists have attempted to give of the two apparitions, vanish of\nthemselves. Paulus explains the apparition in Matthew as a natural\ndream, occasioned by Mary\u2019s previous communication of the announcement\nwhich had been made to her; and with which Joseph must have been\nacquainted, because this alone can account for his having heard the\nsame words in his dream, which the angel had beforehand addressed to\nMary: but much rather, is it precisely this similarity in the language\nof the presumed second angel to that of the first, with the absence of\nall reference by the latter to the former, which proves that the words\nof the first angel were not presupposed by the second. Besides, the\nnatural explanation is annihilated the moment the narratives are shown\nto be mythical. The same remark applies to the explanation, expressed\nguardedly indeed by Paulus, but openly by the author of the Natural\nHistory of the Great Prophet of Nazareth, namely, that the angel who\nvisited Mary (in Luke) was a human being; of which we must speak\nhereafter.\n\nAccording to all that has been said, the following is the only judgment\nwe can form of the origin of the two narratives of the angelic\napparitions. The conception of Jesus through the power of the Holy\nGhost ought not to be grounded upon a mere uncertain suspicion; it must\nhave been clearly and positively asserted; and to this end a messenger\nfrom heaven was required, since theocratic decorum seemed to demand it\nfar more in relation to the birth of the Messiah, than of a Samson or a\nJohn. Also the words which the angels use, correspond in part with the\nOld Testament annunciations of extraordinary children. [210] The\nappearing of the angel in the one narrative beforehand to Mary, but in\nthe other at a later period to Joseph, is to be regarded as a variation\nin the legend or in the composition, which finds an explanatory\ncounterpart in the history of the annunciation of Isaac. Jehovah (Gen.\nxvii. 15) promises Abraham a son by Sarah, upon which the Patriarch\ncannot refrain from laughing; but he receives a repetition of the\nassurance; Jehovah (Gen. xviii. 1 ff.) makes this promise under the\nTerebinth tree at Mamre, and Sarah laughs as if it were something\naltogether novel and unheard of by her; lastly, according to Genesis\nxxi. 5 ff. it is first after Isaac\u2019s birth that Sarah mentions the\nlaughing of the people, which is said to have been the occasion of his\nname; whereby it appears that this last history does not presuppose the\nexistence of the two other accounts of the annunciation of the birth of\nIsaac. [211] As in relation to the birth of Isaac, different legends or\npoems were formed without reference to one another, some simpler, some\nmore embellished: so we have two discordant narratives concerning the\nbirth of Jesus. Of these the narrative in Matthew [212] is the simpler\nand ruder style of composition, since it does not avoid, though it be\nbut by a transient suspicion on the part of Joseph, the throwing a\nshade over the character of Mary which is only subsequently removed;\nthat in Luke, on the contrary, is a more refined and artistical\nrepresentation, exhibiting Mary from the first in the pure light of a\nbride of heaven. [213]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 25.\n\nIMPORT OF THE ANGEL\u2019S MESSAGE.\u2014FULFILMENT OF THE PROPHECY OF ISAIAH.\n\nAccording to Luke, the angel who appears to Mary, in the first place\ninforms her only that she shall become pregnant, without specifying\nafter what manner: that she shall bring forth a son and call his name\nJesus; He shall be great, and shall he called the Son of the Highest\n(\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5); and God shall give unto him the throne of his father\nDavid, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever. The\nsubject, the Messiah is here treated precisely in the language common\nto the Jews, and even the term Son of the Highest, if nothing further\nfollowed, must be taken in the same sense; as according to 2 Sam. vii.\n14, Ps. ii. 7 an ordinary king of Israel might be so named; still more,\ntherefore, the greatest of these kings, the Messiah, even considered\nmerely as a man. This Jewish language reflects in addition a new light\nupon the question of the historic validity of the angelic apparition;\nfor we must agree with Schleiermacher that the real angel Gabriel would\nhardly have proclaimed the advent of the Messiah in a phraseology so\nstrictly Jewish: [214] for which reason we are inclined to coincide\nwith this theologian, and to ascribe this particular portion of the\nhistory, as also that which precedes and relates to the Baptist, to one\nand the same Jewish-christian author. It is not till Mary opposes the\nfact of her virginity to the promises of a son, that the angel defines\nthe nature of the conception: that it shall be by the Holy Ghost, by\nthe power of the Highest; after which the appellation \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\nreceives a more precise metaphysical sense. As a confirmatory sign that\na matter of this kind is nowise impossible to God, Mary is referred to\nthat which had occurred to her relative Elizabeth; whereupon she\nresigns herself in faith to the divine determination respecting her.\n\nIn Matthew, where the main point is to dissipate Joseph\u2019s anxiety, the\nangel begins at once with the communication, that the child conceived\nby Mary is (as the Evangelist had already stated of his own accord,\nchap. i. 18), of the Holy Ghost (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd); and hereupon the\nMessianic destination of Jesus is first pointed out by the expression,\nHe shall save his people from their sins. This language may seem to\nsound less Jewish than that by which the Messianic station of the child\nwho should be born, is set forth in Luke; it is however to be observed,\nthat under the term sins (\u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2) is comprehended the punishment of\nthose sins, namely, the subjection of the people to a foreign yoke; so\nthat here also the Jewish element is not wanting; as neither in Luke,\non the other hand, is the higher destination of the Messiah left wholly\nout of sight, since under the term to reign, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, the rule over\nan obedient and regenerated people is included. Next is subjoined by\nthe angel, or more probably by the narrator, an oracle from the Old\nTestament, introduced by the often recurring phrase, all this was done,\nthat it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet\n[v. 22]. It is the prophecy from Isaiah (chap. vii. 14) which the\nconception of Jesus after this manner should accomplish: namely, a\nvirgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall\ncall His name Emmanuel\u2014God-with-us.\n\nThe original sense of this passage in Isaiah is, according to modern\nresearch, [215] this. The prophet is desirous of giving Ahaz, who,\nthrough fear of the kings of Syria and Israel, was disposed to make a\ntreaty with Assyria, a lively assurance of the speedy destruction of\nhis much dreaded enemies; and he therefore says to him: suppose that an\nunmarried woman now on the point of becoming a wife [216] shall\nconceive; or categorically: a certain young woman is, or is about to be\nwith child (perhaps the prophet\u2019s own wife); now, before this child is\nborn, the political aspect of affairs shall be so much improved, that a\nname of good omen shall be given to the child; and before he shall be\nold enough to use his reason, the power of these enemies shall be\ncompletely annihilated. That is to say, prosaically expressed: before\nnine months shall have passed away, the condition of the kingdom shall\nbe amended, and within about three years the danger shall have\ndisappeared. Thus much, at all events, is demonstrated by modern\ncriticism, that, under the circumstances stated by Isaiah in the\nintroduction to the oracle, it is only a sign having reference to the\nactual moment and the near future, which could have any meaning. How\nill chosen, according to Hengstenberg\u2019s [217] interpretation, is the\nprophet\u2019s language: As certainly as the day shall arrive when, in\nfulfilment of the covenant, the Messiah shall be born, so impossible is\nit that the people among whom he shall arise, or the family whence he\nshall spring, shall pass away. How ill-judged, on the part of the\nprophet, to endeavour to make the improbability of a speedy deliverance\nappear less improbable, by an appeal to a yet greater improbability in\nthe far distant future!\u2014And then the given limit of a few years! The\noverthrow of the two kingdoms, such is Hengstenberg\u2019s explanation,\nshall take place\u2014not in the immediately succeeding years, before the\nchild specified shall have acquired the use of his reason, but\u2014within\nsuch a space of time, as in the far future will elapse between the\nbirth of the Messiah and the first development of his mental powers;\ntherefore in about three years. What a monstrous confounding of times!\nA child is to be born in the distant future, and that which shall\nhappen before this child shall know how to use his reason, is to take\nplace in the nearest present time.\n\nThus Paulus and his party are decidedly right in opposing to\nHengstenberg and his party, that the prophecy of Isaiah has relation,\nin its original local signification, to the then existing\ncircumstances, and not to the future Messiah, still less to Jesus.\nHengstenberg, on the other hand, is equally in the right, when in\nopposition to Paulus he maintains, that the passage from Isaiah is\nadopted by Matthew as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus of a virgin.\nWhilst the orthodox commentators explain the often recurring that it\nmight be fulfilled (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b7), and similar expressions as\nsignifying: this happened by divine arrangement, in order that the Old\nTestament prophecy, which in its very origin had reference to the New\nTestament occurrence, might be fulfilled;\u2014the rationalistic\ninterpreters, on the contrary, understand merely: this took place after\nsuch a manner, that it was so constituted, that the Old Testament\nwords, which, originally indeed, had relation to something different,\nshould admit of being so applied; and in such application alone do they\nreceive their full verification. In the first explanation, the relation\nbetween the Old Testament passage and the New Testament occurrence is\nobjective, arranged by God himself: in the last it is only subjective,\na relation perceived by the later author; according to the former it is\na relationship at once precise and essential: according to the latter\nboth inexact and adventitious. But opposed to this latter\ninterpretation of New Testament passages, which point out an Old\nTestament prophecy as fulfilled, is the language, and equally so the\nspirit of the New Testament writers. The language: for neither can\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 signify in such connexion anything than ratum fieri, eventu\ncomprobari, nor \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 anything than eo consilio ut, whilst the\nextensive adoption of \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd has arisen only from dogmatic\nperplexity. [218] But such an interpretation is altogether at variance\nwith the Judaical spirit of the authors of the Gospels. Paulus\nmaintains that the Orientalist does not seriously believe that the\nancient prophecy was designedly spoken, or was accomplished by God,\nprecisely in order that it should prefigure a modern event, and vice\nversa; but this is to carry over our sober European modes of thought\ninto the imaginative life of the Orientals. When however Paulus adds:\nmuch rather did the coincidence of a later event with an earlier\nprophecy assume only the form of a designed coincidence in the mind of\nthe Oriental: he thus, at once, annuls his previous assertion; for this\nis to admit, that, what in our view is mere coincidence, appeared to\nthe oriental mind the result of design; and we must acknowledge this to\nbe the meaning of an oriental representation, if we would interpret it\naccording to its original signification. It is well known that the\nlater Jews found prophecies, of the time being and of the future,\neverywhere in the Old Testament; and that they constructed a complete\nimage of the future Messiah, out of various, and in part falsely\ninterpreted Old Testament passages. [219] And the Jew believed he saw\nin the application he gave to the Scripture, however perverted it might\nbe, an actual fulfilment of the prophecy. In the words of Olshausen: it\nis a mere dogmatic prejudice to attribute to this formula, when used by\nthe New Testament writers, an altogether different sense from that\nwhich it habitually bears among their countrymen; and this solely with\nthe view to acquit them of the sin of falsely interpreting the\nScripture.\n\nMany theologians of the present day are sufficiently impartial to\nadmit, with regard to the Old Testament, in opposition to the ancient\northodox interpretation, that many of the prophecies originally\nreferred to near events; but they are not sufficiently rash, with\nregard to the New Testament, to side with the rationalistic\ncommentators, and to deny the decidedly Messianic application which the\nNew Testament writers make of these prophecies; they are still too\nprejudiced to allow, that here and there the New Testament has falsely\ninterpreted the Old. Consequently, they have recourse to the expedient\nof distinguishing a double sense in the prophecy; the one relating to a\nnear and minor occurrence, the other to a future and more important\nevent; and thus they neither offend against the plain grammatical and\nhistorical sense of the Old Testament passage on the one hand, nor\ndistort or deny the signification of the New Testament passage on the\nother. [220] Thus, in the prophecy of Isaiah under consideration, the\nspirit of prophecy, they contend, had a double intention: to announce a\nnear occurrence, the delivery of the affianced bride of the prophet,\nand also a distinct event in the far distant future, namely the birth\nof the Messiah of a virgin. But a double sense so monstrous owes its\norigin to dogmatic perplexity alone. It has been adopted, as Olshausen\nhimself remarks, in order to avoid the offensive admission that the New\nTestament writers, and Jesus himself, did not interpret the Old\nTestament rightly, or, more properly speaking, according to modern\nprinciples of exegesis, but explained it after the manner of their own\nage, which was not the most correct. But so little does this offence\nexist for the unprejudiced, that the reverse would be the greater\ndifficulty, that is, if, contrary to all the laws of historical and\nnational development, the New Testament writers had elevated themselves\ncompletely above the modes of interpretation common to their age and\nnation. Consequently, with regard to the prophecies brought forward in\nthe New Testament, we may admit, according to circumstances, without\nfurther argument, that they are frequently interpreted and applied by\nthe evangelists, in a sense which is totally different from that they\noriginally bore.\n\nWe have here in fact a complete table of all the four possible views on\nthis point: two extreme and two conciliatory; one false and one, it is\nto be hoped, correct.\n\n1. Orthodox view (Hengstenberg and others): Such Old Testament passages\nhad in their very origin an exclusive prophetic reference to Christ,\nfor the New Testament writers so understand them; and they must be in\nthe right even should human reason be confounded.\n\n2. Rationalistic view (Paulus and others): The New Testament writers do\nnot assign a strictly Messianic sense to the Old Testament prophecies,\nfor this reference to Christ is foreign to the original signification\nof these prophecies viewed by the light of reason; and the New\nTestament writings must accord with reason, whatever ancient beliefs\nmay say to the contrary.\n\n3. Mystical conciliatory view (Olshausen and others): The Old Testament\npassages originally embody both the deeper signification ascribed to\nthem by the New Testament writers, and that more proximate meaning\nwhich common sense obliges us to recognize: thus sound reason and the\nancient faith are reconcilable.\n\n4. Decision of criticism: Very many of the Old Testament prophecies\nhad, originally, only an immediate reference to events belonging to the\ntime: but they came to be regarded by the men of the New Testament as\nactual predictions of Jesus as the Messiah, because the intelligence of\nthese men was limited by the manner of thinking of their nation, a fact\nrecognized neither by Rationalism nor the ancient faith. [221]\n\nAccordingly we shall not hesitate for a moment to allow, in relation to\nthe prophecy in question, that the reference to Jesus is obtruded upon\nit by the Evangelists. Whether the actual birth of Jesus of a virgin\ngave rise to this application of the prophecy, or whether this\nprophecy, interpreted beforehand as referring to the Messiah,\noriginated the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, remains to be\ndetermined.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 26.\n\nJESUS BEGOTTEN OF THE HOLY GHOST. CRITICISM OF THE ORTHODOX OPINION.\n\nThe statement of Matthew and of Luke concerning the mode of Jesus\u2019s\nconception has, in every age, received the following interpretation by\nthe church; that Jesus was conceived in Mary not by a human father, but\nby the Holy Ghost. And truly the gospel expressions seem, at first\nsight, to justify this interpretation; since the words \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 (Matt. i. 18) and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 (Luke i. 34) preclude\nthe participation of Joseph or any other man in the conception of the\nchild in question. Nevertheless the terms \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd and \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 do not represent the Holy Ghost in the sense of the church, as\nthe third person in the Godhead, but rather the \u200f\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, Spiritus\nDei as used in the Old Testament: God in his agency upon the world, and\nespecially upon man. In short the words \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 in Matthew, and \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f72 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. in Luke,\nexpress with sufficient clearness that the absence of human agency was\nsupplied\u2014not physically after the manner of heathen representations\u2014but\nby the divine creative energy.\n\nThough this seems to be the representation intended by the evangelists\nin the passages referred to concerning the origin of the life of Jesus,\nstill it cannot be completed without considerable difficulties. We may\nseparate what we may term the physico-theological from the\nhistorical-exegetical difficulties.\n\nThe physiological difficulties amount to this, that such a conception\nwould be a most remarkable deviation from all natural laws. However\nobscure the physiology of the fact, it is proved by an exceptionless\nexperience that only by the concurrence of the two sexes is a new human\nbeing generated; on which account Plutarch\u2019s remark, \u201c\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03af\u03c7\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2,\u201d [222] and Cerinthus\u2019s\n\u201cimpossible\u201d become applicable. [223] It is only among the lowest\nspecies of the animal kingdom that generation takes place without the\nunion of sexes; [224] so that, regarding the matter purely\nphysiologically, what Origen says, in the supranaturalistic sense,\nwould indeed be true of a man of the like origin; namely, that the\nwords in Psalm xxii. 7, I am a worm and no man is a prophecy of Jesus\nin the above respect. [225] But to the merely physical consideration a\ntheological one is subjoined by the angel (Luke i. 37), when he appeals\nto the divine omnipotence to which nothing is impossible. But since the\ndivine omnipotence, by virtue of its unity with divine wisdom, is never\nexerted in the absence of an adequate motive, the existence of such, in\nthe present instance, must be demonstrated. But nothing less than an\nobject worthy of the Deity, and at the same time necessarily\nunattainable except by a deviation from the ordinary course of nature,\ncould constitute a sufficient cause for the suspension by God of a\nnatural law which he had established. Only here, it is said, the end,\nthe redemption of mankind, required impeccability on the part of Jesus;\nand in order to render him exempt from sin, a divinely wrought\nconception, which excluded the participation of a sinful father, and\nsevered Jesus from all connexion with original sin, was necessary.\n[226] To which it has been answered by others, [227] (and\nSchleiermacher has recently most decisively argued this side of the\nquestion, [228]) that the exclusion of the paternal participation is\ninsufficient, unless, indeed, the inheritance of original sin, on the\nmaternal side, be obviated by the adoption of the Valentinian\nassertion, that Jesus only passed through the body of Mary. But that\nthe gospel histories represent an actual maternal participation is\nundeniable; consequently a divine intervention which should sanctify\nthe participation of the sinful human mother in the conception of Jesus\nmust be supposed in order to maintain his assumed necessary\nimpeccability. But if God determined on such a purification of the\nmaternal participation, it had been easier to do the same with respect\nto that of the father, than by his total exclusion, to violate the\nnatural law in so unprecedented a manner; and consequently, a\nfatherless conception cannot be insisted upon as the necessary means of\ncompassing the impeccability of Jesus.\n\nEven he who thinks to escape the difficulties already specified, by\nenveloping himself in a supranaturalism, inaccessible to arguments\nbased on reason or the laws of nature, must nevertheless admit the\nforce of the exegetical-historical difficulties meeting him upon his\nown ground, which likewise beset the view of the supernatural\nconception of Jesus. Nowhere in the New Testament is such an origin\nascribed to Jesus, or even distinctly alluded to, except in these two\naccounts of his infancy in Matthew and in Luke. [229] The history of\nthe conception is omitted not only by Mark, but also by John, the\nsupposed author of the fourth Gospel and an alleged inmate with the\nmother of Jesus subsequent to his death, who therefore would have been\nthe most accurately informed concerning these occurrences. It is said\nthat John sought rather to record the heavenly than the earthly origin\nof Jesus; but the question arises, whether the doctrine which he sets\nforth in his prologue, of a divine hypostasis actually becoming flesh\nand remaining immanent in Jesus, is reconcilable with the view given in\nthe passages before us, of a simple divine operation determining the\nconception of Jesus; whether therefore John could have presupposed the\nhistory of the conception contained in Matthew and Luke? This\nobjection, however, loses its conclusive force if in the progress of\nour investigation the apostolic origin of the fourth Gospel is not\nestablished. The most important consideration therefore is, that no\nretrospective allusion to this mode of conception occurs throughout the\nfour Gospels; not only neither in John nor in Mark, but also neither in\nMatthew nor in Luke. Not only does Mary herself designate Joseph simply\nas the father of Jesus (Luke ii. 48), and the Evangelist speak of both\nas his parents, \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 (Luke ii. 41),\u2014an appellation which could only\nhave been used in an ulterior sense by one who had just related the\nmiraculous conception,\u2014but all his contemporaries in general, according\nto our Evangelists, regarded him as a son of Joseph, a fact which was\nnot unfrequently alluded to contemptuously and by way of reproach in\nhis presence (Matt. xiii. 55; Luke iv. 22; John vi. 42), thus affording\nhim an opportunity of making a decisive appeal to his miraculous\nconception, of which, however, he says not a single word. Should it be\nanswered, that he did not desire to convince respecting the divinity of\nhis person by this external evidence, and that he could have no hope of\nmaking an impression by such means on those who were in heart his\nopponents,\u2014it must also be remembered, that, according to the testimony\nof the fourth Gospel, his own disciples, though they admitted him to be\nthe son of God, still regarded him as the actual son of Joseph. Philip\nintroduces Jesus to Nathanael as the son of Joseph, \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 (John i. 46), manifestly in the same sense of real paternity\nwhich the Jews attached to the designation; and nowhere is this\nrepresented as an erroneous or imperfect notion which these Apostles\nhad subsequently to relinquish; much rather does the whole sense of the\nnarrative, which is not to be mistaken, exhibit the Apostles as having\na right belief on this point. The enigmatical presupposition, with\nwhich, at the marriage in Cana, Mary addressed herself to Jesus, [230]\nis far too vague to prove a recollection of his miraculous conception\non the part of the mother; at all events this feature is\ncounterbalanced by the opposing one that the family of Jesus, and, as\nappears from Matt. xii. 46 ff. compared with Mark iii. 21 ff., his\nmother also were, at a later time, in error respecting his aims; which\nis scarcely explicable, even of his brothers, supposing them to have\nhad such recollections.\n\nJust as little as in the Gospels, is anything in confirmation of the\nview of the supernatural conception of Jesus, to be found in the\nremaining New Testament writings. For when the Apostle Paul speaks of\nJesus as made of a woman, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 (Gal. iv. 4), this\nexpression is not to be understood as an exclusion of paternal\nparticipation; since the addition made under the law, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, clearly shows that he would here indicate (in the form which is\nfrequent in the Old and New Testament, for example Job xiv. 1; Matt.\nxi. 11) human nature with all its conditions. When Paul (Rom. i. 3, 4\ncompared with ix. 5) makes Christ according to the flesh, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1,\ndescend from David, but declares him to be the son of God according to\nthe Spirit of Holiness, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2; no one will here\nidentify the antithesis flesh and spirit with the maternal human\nparticipation, and the divine energy superseding the paternal\nparticipation in the conception of Jesus. Finally when in the Epistle\nto the Hebrews (vii. 3) Melchisedec is compared with the son of God,\n\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, because without father, \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, the application of the\nliterally interpreted \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 to Jesus, as he appeared upon earth, is\nforbidden by the addition without mother, \u1f00\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, which agrees as\nlittle with him as the immediately following without descent,\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 27.\n\nRETROSPECT OF THE GENEALOGIES.\n\nThe most conclusive exegetical ground of decision against the\nsupernatural conception of Jesus, which bears more closely on the point\nthan all the hitherto adduced passages, is found in the two genealogies\npreviously considered. Even the Manich\u00e6an Faustus asserted that it is\nimpossible without contradiction to trace the descent of Jesus from\nDavid through Joseph, as is done by our two genealogists, and yet\nassume that Joseph was not the father of Jesus; and Augustine had\nnothing convincing to answer when he remarked that it was necessary, on\naccount of the superior dignity of the masculine gender, to carry the\ngenealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was Mary\u2019s husband if not by a\nnatural by a spiritual alliance. [231] In modern times also the\nconstruction of the genealogical tables in Matthew and in Luke has led\nmany theologians to observe, that these authors considered Jesus as the\nactual son of Joseph. [232] The very design of these tables is to prove\nJesus to be of the lineage of David through Joseph; but what do they\nprove, if indeed Joseph was not the father of Jesus? The assertion that\nJesus was the son of David, \u1f51\u1f78\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4, which in Matthew (i. 1) prefaces\nthe genealogy and announces its object, is altogether annulled by the\nsubsequent denial of his conception by means of the Davidical Joseph.\nIt is impossible, therefore, to think it probable that the genealogy\nand the history of the birth of Jesus emanate from the same author\n[233]; and we must concur with the theologians previously cited, that\nthe genealogies are taken from a different source. Scarcely could it\nsatisfy to oppose the remark, that as Joseph doubtlessly adopted Jesus,\nthe genealogical table of the former became fully valid for the latter.\nFor adoption might indeed suffice to secure to the adopted son the\nreversion of certain external family rights and inheritances; but such\na relationship could in no wise lend a claim to the Messianic dignity,\nwhich was attached to the true blood and lineage of David. He,\ntherefore, who had regarded Joseph as nothing more than the adopted\nfather of Jesus, would hardly have given himself the trouble to seek\nout the Davidical descent of Joseph; but if indeed, besides the\nestablished belief that Jesus was the son of God, it still remained\nimportant to represent him as the son of David, the pedigree of Mary\nwould have been preferred for this purpose; for, however contrary to\ncustom, the maternal genealogy must have been admitted in a case where\na human father did not exist. Least of all is it to be believed, that\nseveral authors would have engaged in the compilation of a genealogical\ntable for Jesus which traced his descent through Joseph, so that two\ndifferent genealogies of this kind are still preserved to us, if a\ncloser relationship between Jesus and Joseph had not been admitted at\nthe time of their composition.\n\nConsequently, the decision of the learned theologians who agree that\nthese genealogies were composed in the belief that Jesus was the actual\nson of Joseph and Mary, can hardly be disputed; but the authors or\ncompilers of our Gospels, notwithstanding their own conviction of the\ndivine origin of Jesus, received them among their materials; only that\nMatthew (i. 16) changed the original Joseph begat Jesus of Mary\u2014\u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (comp. verses 3. 5. 6) according\nto his own view; and so likewise Luke (iii. 23) instead of commencing\nhis genealogy simply with, Jesus\u2014the son of Joseph\u2014\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6,\ninserts being as was supposed, \u1f62\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nLet it not be objected that the view for which we contend, namely, that\nthe genealogies could not have been composed under the notion that\nJoseph was not the father of Jesus, leaves no conceivable motive for\nincorporating them into our present Gospels. The original construction\nof a genealogy of Jesus, even though in the case before us it consisted\nsimply in the adapting of foreign already existing genealogical tables\nto Jesus, required a powerful and direct inducement; this was the hope\nthereby to gain\u2014the corporeal descent of Jesus from Joseph being\npresupposed\u2014a main support to the belief in his Messiahship; whilst, on\nthe other hand, a less powerful inducement was sufficient to incite to\nthe admission of the previously constructed genealogies: the\nexpectation that, notwithstanding the non-existence of any real\nrelationship between Joseph and Jesus, they might nevertheless serve to\nlink Jesus to David. Thus we find, that in the histories of the birth\nboth in Matthew and in Luke, though they each decidedly exclude Joseph\nfrom the conception, great stress is laid upon the Davidical descent of\nJoseph (Matt. i. 20, Luke i. 27, ii. 4); that which in fact had no real\nsignificance, except in connexion with the earlier opinion, is retained\neven after the point of view is changed.\n\nSince, in this way, we discover both the genealogies to be memorials\nbelonging to the time and circle of the primitive church, in which\nJesus was still regarded as a naturally begotten man, the sect of the\nEbionites cannot fail to occur to us; as we are told concerning them,\nthat they held this view of the person of Christ at this early period.\n[234] We should therefore have expected, more especially, to have found\nthese genealogies in the old Ebionitish Gospels, of which we have still\nknowledge, and are not a little surprised to learn that precisely in\nthese Gospels the genealogies were wanting. It is true Epiphanius\nstates that the Gospel of the Ebionites commenced with the public\nappearance of the Baptist [235]; accordingly, by the genealogies,\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, which they are said to have cut away, might have been\nmeant, those histories of the birth and infancy comprised in the two\nfirst chapters of Matthew; which they could not have adopted in their\npresent form, since they contained the fatherless conception of Jesus,\nwhich was denied by the Ebionites: and it might also have been\nconjectured that this section which was in opposition to their system\nhad alone perhaps been wanting in their Gospel; and that the genealogy\nwhich was in harmony with their view might nevertheless have been\nsomewhere inserted. But this supposition vanishes as soon as we find\nthat Epiphanius, in reference to the Nazarenes, defines the\ngenealogies, (of which he is ignorant whether they possessed them or\nnot,) as reaching from Abraham to Christ, \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 [236]; consequently, by the genealogies which were wanting to\nsome heretics, he evidently understood the genealogical tables, though,\nin relation to the Ebionites, he might likewise have included under\nthis expression the history of the birth.\n\nHow is the strange phenomenon, that these genealogies are not found\namong that very sect of Christians who retained the particular opinion\nupon which they were constructed, to be explained? A modern\ninvestigator has advanced the supposition, that the Jewish-christians\nomitted the genealogical tables from prudential motives, in order not\nto facilitate or augment the persecution which, under Domitian, and\nperhaps even earlier, threatened the family of David. [237] But\nexplanations, having no inherent connexion with the subject, derived\nfrom circumstances in themselves of doubtful historical validity, are\nadmissible only as a last refuge, when no possible solution of the\nquestionable phenomenon is to be found in the thing itself, as here in\nthe principles of the Ebionitish system.\n\nBut in this case the matter is by no means so difficult. It is known\nthat the Fathers speak of two classes of Ebionites, of which the one,\nbesides strenuously maintaining the obligation of the Mosaic law, held\nJesus to be the naturally begotten Son of Joseph and Mary; the other,\nfrom that time called also Nazarenes, admitted with the orthodox church\nthe conception by the Holy Ghost. [238] But besides this distinction\nthere existed yet another. The most ancient ecclesiastic writers,\nJustin Martyr and Iren\u00e6us for example, are acquainted with those\nEbionites only, who regarded Jesus as a naturally born man first\nendowed with divine powers at his baptism. [239] In Epiphanius and the\nClementine Homilies, on the other hand, we meet with Ebionites who had\nimbibed an element of speculative Gnosticism. This tendency, which\naccording to Epiphanius is to be dated from one Elxai, has been\nascribed to Essenic influence, [240] and traces of the same have been\ndiscovered in the heresies referred to in the Epistle to the\nColossians; whereas the first class of Ebionites evidently proceeded\nfrom common Judaism. Which form of opinion was the earlier and which\nthe later developed is not so easily determined; with reference to the\nlast detailed difference, it might seem, since the speculative\nEbionites are mentioned first by the Clementines and Epiphanius, whilst\nEbionites holding a simpler view are spoken of by Justin and by\nIren\u00e6us, that the latter were the earlier; nevertheless as Tertullian\nalready notices in his time the Gnosticising tendency of the opinions\nof the Ebionites respecting Christ [241], and as the germ of such views\nexisted among the Essenes in the time of Jesus, the more probable\nassumption is, that both opinions arose side by side about the same\nperiod. [242] As little can it be proved with regard to the other\ndifference, that the views concerning Christ held by the Nazarenes\nbecame first, at a later period, lowered to those of the Ebionites\n[243]; since the notices, partly confused and partly of late date, of\nthe ecclesiastical writers, may be naturally explained as arising out\nof what may be called an optical delusion of the church, which,\u2014whilst\nshe in fact made continual advances in the glorification of Christ, but\na part of the Jewish Christians remained stationary,\u2014made it appear to\nher as if she herself remained stationary, whilst the others fell back\ninto heresy.\n\nBy thus distinguishing the simple and the speculative Ebionites, so\nmuch is gained, that the failure of the genealogies among the latter\nclass, mentioned by Epiphanius, does not prove them to have been also\nwanting among the former. And the less if we should be able to make it\nappear probable, that the grounds of their aversion to the genealogical\ntable, and the grounds of distinction between them and the other class\nof Ebionites, were identical. One of these grounds was evidently the\nunfavourable opinion, which the Ebionites of Epiphanius and of the\nClementine Homilies had of David, from whom the genealogy traces the\ndescent of Jesus. It is well known that they distinguished in the Old\nTestament a twofold prophecy, male and female, pure and impure, of\nwhich the former only promised things heavenly and true, the latter\nthings earthly and delusive; that proceeding from Adam and Abel, this\nfrom Eve and Cain; and both constituted an under current through the\nwhole history of the revelation. [244] It was only the pious men from\nAdam to Joshua whom they acknowledged as true prophets: the later\nprophets and men of God, among whom David and Solomon are named, were\nnot only not recognized, but abhorred. [245] We even find positive\nindications that David was an object of their particular aversion.\nThere were many things which created in them a detestation of David\n(and Solomon). David was a bloody warrior; but to shed blood was,\naccording to the doctrines of these Ebionites, one of the greatest of\nsins; David was known to have committed adultery, (Solomon to have been\na voluptuary); and adultery was even more detested by this sect than\nmurder. David was a performer on stringed instruments; this art, the\ninvention of the Canaanites (Gen. iv. 21), was held by these Ebionites\nto be a sign of false prophecy; finally, the prophecies announced by\nDavid and those connected with him, (and Solomon,) had reference to the\nkingdoms of this world, of which the Gnosticising Ebionites desired to\nknow nothing. [246] Now the Ebionites who had sprung from common\nJudaism could not have shared this ground of aversion to the\ngenealogies; since to the orthodox Jew David was an object of the\nhighest veneration.\n\nConcerning a second point the notices are not so lucid and accordant as\nthey should be; namely, whether it was a further development of the\ngeneral Ebionitish doctrine concerning the person of the Christ, which\nled these Ebionites to reject the genealogies. According to Epiphanius,\nthey fully recognized the Gnostic distinction between Jesus the son of\nJoseph and Mary, and the Christ who descended upon him [247]; and\nconsequently might have been withheld from referring the genealogy to\nJesus only perhaps by their abhorrence of David. On the other hand,\nfrom the whole tenor of the Clementines, and from one passage in\nparticular, [248] it has recently been inferred, and not without\napparent reason, that the author of these writings had himself\nabandoned the view of a natural conception, and even birth of Jesus\n[249]; whereby it is yet more manifest that the ground of the rejection\nof the genealogies by this sect was peculiar to it, and not common to\nthe other Ebionites.\n\nMoreover positive indications, that the Ebionites who proceeded from\nJudaism possessed the genealogies, do not entirely fail. Whilst the\nEbionites of Epiphanius and of the Clementines called Jesus only Son of\nGod, but rejected the appellation Son of David, as belonging to the\ncommon opinion of the Jews [250]; other Ebionites were censured by the\nFathers for recognizing Jesus only as the Son of David, to whom he is\ntraced in the genealogies, and not likewise as the Son of God. [251]\nFurther, Epiphanius relates of the earliest Judaising Gnostics,\nCerinthus and Carpocrates, that they used a Gospel the same in other\nrespects indeed as the Ebionites, but that they adduced the\ngenealogies, which they therefore read in the same, in attestation of\nthe human conception of Jesus by Joseph. [252] Also the \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\ncited by Justin, and which originated upon Jud\u00e6o-christian ground,\nappear to have contained a genealogy similar to that in our Matthew;\nsince Justin as well as Matthew speaks, in relation to Jesus, of a\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc, of a \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03b2, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u1f72\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd [253]; only that at the time, and in\nthe circle of Justin, the opinion of a supernatural conception of Jesus\nhad already suggested the reference of the genealogy to Mary, instead\nof to Joseph.\n\nHence it appears that we have in the genealogies a memorial, agreeing\nwith indications from other sources, of the fact that in the very\nearliest Christian age, in Palestine, a body of Christians, numerous\nenough to establish upon distinct fundamental opinions two different\nMessianic tables of descent, considered Jesus to have been a naturally\nconceived human being. And no proof is furnished to us in the apostolic\nwritings, that the Apostles would have declared this doctrine to be\nunchristian; it appeared so first from the point of view adopted by the\nauthors of the histories of the birth in the first and third Gospels:\nnotwithstanding which, however, it is treated with surprising lenity by\nthe Fathers of the church.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 28.\n\nNATURAL EXPLANATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE CONCEPTION.\n\nIf, as appears from the foregoing statements, so many weighty\ndifficulties, philosophical as well as exegetical, beset the\nsupranaturalistic explanation, it is well worth while to examine\nwhether it be not possible to give an interpretation of the gospel\nhistory which shall obviate these objections. Recourse has been had to\nthe natural explanation, and the two narratives singly and conjointly\nhave been successively subjected to the rationalistic mode of\ninterpretation.\n\nIn the first place, the account in Matthew seemed susceptible of such\nan interpretation. Numerous rabbinical passages were cited to\ndemonstrate, that it was consonant with Jewish notions to consider a\nson of pious parents to be conceived by the divine co-operation, and\nthat he should be called the son of the Holy Spirit, without its being\never imagined that paternal participation was thereby excluded. It was\nconsequently contended, that the section in Matthew represented merely\nthe intention of the angel to inform Joseph, not indeed that Mary had\nbecome pregnant in the absence of all human intercourse, but that\nnotwithstanding her pregnancy she was to be regarded as pure, not as\none fallen from virtue. It was maintained that the exclusion of\npaternal participation\u2014which is an embellishment of the original\nrepresentation\u2014occurs first in Luke in the words \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 (i.\n34). [254] When however this view was justly opposed by the remark,\nthat the expression \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 in Matthew (i. 18)\ndecidedly excludes the participation of the only individual in\nquestion, namely Joseph; it was then thought possible to prove that\neven in Luke the paternal exclusion was not so positive: but truly this\ncould be done only by an unexegetical subversion of the clear sense of\nthe words, or else by uncritically throwing suspicion on a part of a\nwell-connected narrative. The first expedient is to interpret Mary\u2019s\ninquiry of the angel i. 34, thus: Can I who am already betrothed and\nmarried give birth to the Messiah, for as the mother of the Messiah I\nmust have no husband? whereupon the angel replies, that God, through\nhis power, could make something distinguished even of the child\nconceived of her and Joseph. [255] The other proceeding is no less\narbitrary. Mary\u2019s inquiry of the angel is explained as an unnatural\ninterruption of his communication, which being abstracted, the passage\nis found to contain no decided intimation of the supernatural\nconception. [256]\n\nIf consequently, the difficulty of the natural explanation of the two\naccounts be equally great, still, with respect to both it must be alike\nattempted or rejected; and for the consistent Rationalist, a Paulus for\nexample, the latter is the only course. This commentator considers the\nparticipation of Joseph, indeed excluded by Matt. i. 18, but by no\nmeans that of every other man; neither can he find a supernatural\ndivine intervention in the expression of Luke i. 35. The Holy\nGhost\u2014\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u2014is not with him objective, an external influence\noperating upon Mary, but her own pious imagination. The power of the\nHighest\u2014\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u2014is not the immediate divine omnipotence, but\nevery natural power employed in a manner pleasing to God may be so\ncalled. Consequently, according to Paulus, the meaning of the angelic\nannouncement is simply this: prior to her union with Joseph, Mary,\nunder the influence of a pure enthusiasm in sacred things on the one\nhand, and by an human co-operation pleasing to God on the other, became\nthe mother of a child who on account of this holy origin was to be\ncalled a son of God.\n\nLet us examine rather more accurately the view which this\nrepresentative of rationalistic interpretation takes of the particulars\nof the conception of Jesus. He begins with Elizabeth, the patriotic and\nwise daughter of Aaron, as he styles her. She, having conceived the\nhope that she might give birth to one of God\u2019s prophets, naturally\ndesired moreover that he might be the first of prophets, the forerunner\nof the Messiah; and that the latter also might speedily be born. Now\nthere was among her own kinsfolk a person suited in every respect for\nthe mother of the Messiah, Mary, a young virgin, a descendant of David;\nnothing more was needful than to inspire her likewise with such a\nspecial hope. Whilst these intimations prepare us to anticipate a\ncleverly concerted plan on the part of Elizabeth in reference to her\nyoung relative, in the which we hope to become initiated; Paulus here\nsuddenly lets fall the curtain, and remarks, that the exact manner in\nwhich Mary was convinced that she should become the mother of the\nMessiah must be left historically undetermined; thus much only is\ncertain, that Mary remained pure, for she could not with a clear\nconscience have stationed herself, as she afterwards did, under the\nCross of her Son, had she felt that a reproach rested on her concerning\nthe origin of the hopes she had entertained of him. The following is\nthe only hint subsequently given of the particular view held by Paulus.\nIt is probable, he thinks, that the angelic messenger visited Mary in\nthe evening or even at night; indeed according to the correct reading\nof Luke i. 28, which has not the word angel, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5, without \u1f41 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, the evangelist here speaks only of some one\nwho had come in. (As if in this case, the participle \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd must not\nnecessarily be accompanied by \u03c4\u1f76\u03c2; or, in the absence of the pronoun be\nreferred to the subject, the angel Gabriel\u2014\u1f41 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u0393\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u1f74\u03bb, v. 26!)\nPaulus adds: that this visitant was the angel Gabriel was the\nsubsequent suggestion of Mary\u2019s own mind, after she had heard of the\nvision of Zacharias.\n\nGabler, in a review of Paulus\u2019s Commentary [257] has fully exposed,\nwith commensurate plainness of speech, the transaction which lies\nconcealed under this explanation. It is impossible, says he, to imagine\nany other interpretation of Paulus\u2019s view than that some one passed\nhimself off for the angel Gabriel, and as the pretended Messenger of\nGod remained with Mary in order that she might become the mother of the\nMessiah. What! asks Gabler, is Mary, at the very time she is betrothed,\nto become pregnant by another, and is this to be called an innocent\nholy action, pleasing to God and irreproachable? Mary is here\npourtrayed as a pious visionary, and the pretended messenger of heaven\nas a deceiver, or he too is a gross fanatic. The reviewer most justly\nconsiders such an assertion as revolting, if contemplated from the\nchristian point of view; if from the scientific, as at variance both\nwith the principles of interpretation and of criticism.\n\nThe author of the Natural History of the Great Prophet of Nazareth is,\nin this instance, to be considered as the most worthy interpreter of\nPaulus; for though the former could not, in this part of his work, have\nmade use of Paulus\u2019s Commentary, yet, in exactly the same spirit, he\nunreservedly avows what the latter carefully veils. He brings into\ncomparison a story in Josephus, [258] according to which, in the very\ntime of Jesus, a Roman knight won the chaste wife of a Roman noble to\nhis wishes, by causing her to be invited by a priest of Isis into the\ntemple of the goddess, under the pretext that the god Anubis desired to\nembrace her. In innocence and faith, the woman resigned herself, and\nwould perhaps afterwards have believed she had given birth to the child\nof a god, had not the intriguer, with bitter scorn, soon after\ndiscovered to her the true state of the case. It is the opinion of the\nauthor that Mary, the betrothed bride of the aged Joseph, was in like\nmanner deceived by some amorous and fanatic young man (in the sequel to\nthe history he represents him to be Joseph of Arimathea), and that she\non her part, in perfect innocence, continued to deceive others. [259]\nIt is evident that this interpretation does not differ from the ancient\nJewish blasphemy, which we find in Celsus and in the Talmud; that Jesus\nfalsely represented himself as born of a pure virgin, whereas, in fact,\nhe was the offspring of the adultery of Mary with a certain Panthera.\n[260]\n\nThis whole view, of which the culminating point is in the calumny of\nthe Jews, cannot be better judged than in the words of Origen. If, says\nthis author, they wished to substitute something else in the place of\nthe history of the supernatural conception of Jesus, they should at any\nrate have made it happen in a more probable manner; they ought not, as\nit were against their will, to admit that Mary knew not Joseph, but\nthey might have denied this feature, and yet have allowed Jesus to have\nbeen born of an ordinary human marriage; whereas the forced and\nextravagant character of their hypothesis betrays its falsehood. [261]\nIs not this as much as to say, that if once some particular features of\na marvellous narrative are doubted, it is inconsequent to allow others\nto remain unquestioned? each part of such an account ought to be\nsubjected to critical examination. The correct view of the narrative\nbefore us is to be found, that is indirectly, in Origen. For when at\none time he places together, as of the same kind, the miraculous\nconception of Jesus and the story of Plato\u2019s conception by Apollo\n(though here, indeed, the meaning is that only ill-disposed persons\ncould doubt such things [262]), and when at another time he says of the\nstory concerning Plato, that it belongs to those mythi by which it was\nsought to exhibit the distinguished wisdom and power of great men (but\nhere he does not include the narrative of Jesus\u2019s conception), he in\nfact states the two premises, namely, the similarity of the two\nnarratives and the mythical character of the one [263]; from which the\ninference of the merely mythical worth of the narrative of the\nconception of Jesus follows; a conclusion which can never indeed have\noccurred to his own mind.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 29.\n\nHISTORY OF THE CONCEPTION OF JESUS VIEWED AS A MYTHUS.\n\nIf, says Gabler in his review of the Commentary of Paulus, we must\nrelinquish the supernatural origin of Jesus, in order to escape the\nridicule of our contemporaries, and if, on the other hand, the natural\nexplanation leads to conclusions not only extravagant, but revolting;\nthe adoption of the mythus, by which all these difficulties are\nobviated, is to be preferred. In the world of mythology many great men\nhad extraordinary births, and were sons of the gods. Jesus himself\nspoke of his heavenly origin, and called God his father; besides, his\ntitle as Messiah was\u2014Son of God. From Matthew i. 22, it is further\nevident that the passage of Isaiah, vii. 14, was referred to Jesus by\nthe early Christian Church. In conformity with this passage the belief\nprevailed that Jesus, as the Messiah, should be born of a virgin by\nmeans of divine agency; it was therefore taken for granted that what\nwas to be actually did occur; and thus originated a philosophical\n(dogmatical) mythus concerning the birth of Jesus. But according to\nhistorical truth, Jesus was the offspring of an ordinary marriage,\nbetween Joseph and Mary; an explanation which, it has been justly\nremarked, maintains at once the dignity of Jesus and the respect due to\nhis mother. [264]\n\nThe proneness of the ancient world to represent the great men and\nbenefactors of their race as the sons of the gods, has therefore been\nreferred to, in order to explain the origin of such a mythus. Our\ntheologians have accumulated examples from the Greco-Roman mythology\nand history. They have cited Hercules, and the Dioscuri; Romulus, and\nAlexander; but above all Pythagoras, [265] and Plato. Of the latter\nphilosopher Jerome speaks in a manner quite applicable to Jesus:\nsapienti\u00e6 principem non aliter arbitrantur, nisi de partu virginis\neditum. [266]\n\nFrom these examples it might have been inferred that the narratives of\nthe supernatural conception had possibly originated in a similar\ntendency, and had no foundation in history. Here however the orthodox\nand the rationalists are unanimous in denying, though indeed upon\ndifferent grounds, the validity of the analogy. Origen, from a\nperception of the identical character of the two classes of narratives,\nis not far from regarding the heathen legends of the sons of the gods\nas true supernatural histories. Paulus on his side is more decided, and\nis so logical as to explain both classes of narratives in the same\nmanner, as natural, but still as true histories. At least he says of\nthe narrative concerning Plato: it cannot be affirmed that the\ngroundwork of the history was a subsequent creation; it is far more\nprobable that Perictione believed herself to be pregnant by one of her\ngods. The fact that her son became a Plato might indeed have served to\nconfirm that belief, but not to have originated it. Tholuck invites\nattention to the important distinction that the mythi concerning\nRomulus and others were formed many centuries after the lifetime of\nthese men: the mythi concerning Jesus, on the contrary, must have\nexisted shortly after his death. [267] He cleverly fails to remember\nthe narrative of Plato\u2019s birth, since he is well aware that precisely\nin that particular, it is a dangerous point. Osiander however\napproaches the subject with much pathos, and affirms that Plato\u2019s\napotheosis as son of Apollo did not exist till several centuries after\nhim [268]; whereas in fact Plato\u2019s sister\u2019s son speaks of it as a\nprevailing legend in Athens. [269] Olshausen, with whom Neander\ncoincides, refuses to draw any detrimental inference from this analogy\nof the mythical sons of the gods; remarking that though these\nnarratives are unhistorical, they evince a general anticipation and\ndesire of such a fact, and therefore guarantee its reality, at least in\none historical manifestation. Certainly, a general anticipation and\nrepresentation must have truth for its basis; but the truth does not\nconsist in any one individual fact, presenting an accurate\ncorrespondence with that notion, but in an idea which realizes itself\nin a series of facts, which often bear no resemblance to the general\nnotion. The widely spread notion of a golden age does not prove the\nexistence of a golden age: so the notion of divine conceptions does not\nprove that some one individual was thus produced. The truth which is\nthe basis of this notion is something quite different.\n\nA more essential objection [270] to the analogy is, that the\nrepresentations of the heathen world prove nothing with respect to the\nisolated Jews; and that the idea of sons of the gods, belonging to\npolytheism, could not have exerted an influence on the rigidly\nmonotheistic notion of the Messiah. At all events such an inference\nmust not be too hastily drawn from the expression \u201csons of God,\u201d found\nlikewise among the Jews, which as applied in the Old Testament to\nmagistrates, (Ps. lxxxii. 6, or to theocratic kings, 2 Sam. vii. 14,\nPs. ii. 7,) indicates only a theocratic, and not a physical or\nmetaphysical relation. Still less is importance to be attached to the\nlanguage of flattery used by a Roman, in Josephus, who calls beautiful\nchildren of the Jewish princes children of God. [271] It was, however,\na notion among the Jews, as was remarked in a former section, that the\nHoly Spirit co-operated in the conception of pious individuals;\nmoreover, that God\u2019s choicest instruments were conceived by divine\nassistance of parents, who could not have had a child according to the\nnatural course of things. And if, according to the believed\nrepresentation, the extinct capability on both sides was renewed by\ndivine intervention (Rom. iv. 19), it was only one step further to the\nbelief that in the case of the conception of the most distinguished of\nall God\u2019s agents, the Messiah, the total absence of participation on\nthe one side was compensated by a more complete superadded capability\non the other. The latter is scarcely a degree more marvellous than the\nformer. And thus must it have appeared to the author of Luke i., since\nhe dissipates Mary\u2019s doubts by the same reply with which Jehovah\nrepelled Sara\u2019s incredulity. [272] Neither the Jewish reverence for\nmarriage, nor the prevalent representation of the Messiah as a human\nbeing, could prevent the advance to this climax; to which, on the other\nhand, the ascetic estimation of celibacy, and the idea, derived from\nDaniel, of the Christ as a superhuman being, contributed. But decided\nimpulse to the development of the representations embodied in our\nhistories of the birth, consisted partly in the title, Son of God, at\none time usually given to the Messiah. For it is the nature of such\noriginally figurative expressions, after a while to come to be\ninterpreted according to their more precise and literal signification;\nand it was a daily occurrence, especially among the later Jews, to\nattach a sensible signification to that which originally had merely a\nspiritual or figurative meaning. This natural disposition to understand\nthe Messianic title Son of God more and more literally, was fostered by\nthe expression in the Psalms (ii. 7), interpreted of the Messiah: Thou\nart my Son; this day have I begotten thee: words which can scarcely\nfail to suggest a physical relation; it was also nurtured by the\nprophecy of Isaiah respecting the virgin who should be with child,\nwhich it appears was applied to the Messiah; as were so many other\nprophecies of which the immediate signification had become obscure.\nThis application may be seen in the Greek word chosen by the\nSeptuagint, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, a pure unspotted virgin, whereas by Aquila and\nother Greek translators the word \u03bd\u03b5\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2 is used. [273] Thus did the\nnotions of a son of God and a son of a virgin complete one another,\ntill at last the divine agency was substituted for human paternal\nparticipation. Wetstein indeed affirms that no Jew ever applied the\nprophecy of Isaiah to the Messiah; and it was with extreme labour that\nSchoettgen collected traces of the notion that the Messiah should be\nthe son of a virgin from the Rabbinical writings. This however,\nconsidering the paucity of records of the Messianic ideas of that age,\n[274] proves nothing in opposition to the presumption that a notion\nthen prevailed, of which we have the groundwork in the Old Testament,\nand an inference hardly to be mistaken in the New.\n\nOne objection yet remains, which I can no longer designate as peculiar\nto Olshausen, since other theologians have shown themselves solicitous\nof sharing the fame. The objection is, that the mythical interpretation\nof the gospel narrative is especially dangerous, it being only too well\nfitted to engender, obscurely indeed, profane and blasphemous notions\nconcerning the origin of Jesus; since it cannot fail to favour an\nopinion destructive of the belief in a Redeemer, namely, that Jesus\ncame into being through unholy means; since, in fact, at the time of\nher pregnancy Mary was not married. [275] In Olshausen\u2019s first edition\nof his work, he adds that he willingly allows that these interpreters\nknow not what they do: it is therefore but just to give him the\nadvantage of the same concession, since he certainly appears not to\nknow what mythical interpretation means. How otherwise would he say,\nthat the mythical interpretation is fitted only to favour a blasphemous\nopinion; therefore that all who understand the narrative mythically,\nare disposed to commit the absurdity with which Origen reproaches the\nJewish calumniators; the retaining one solitary incident, namely, that\nMary was not married, whilst the remainder of the narrative is held to\nbe unhistorical; a particular incident which evidently serves only as a\nsupport to the other, that Jesus was conceived without human paternal\nparticipation, and with it, therefore, stands or falls. No one among\nthe interpreters who, in this narrative, recognise a mythus, in the\nfull signification of that term, has been thus blind and inconsequent;\nall have supposed a legitimate marriage between Joseph and Mary; and\nOlshausen merely paints the mythical mode of interpretation in\ncaricature, in order the more easily to set it aside; for he confesses\nthat in relation to this portion of the Gospel in particular, it has\nmuch that is dazzling.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 30.\n\nRELATION OF JOSEPH TO MARY\u2014BROTHERS OF JESUS.\n\nOur Gospels, in the true spirit of the ancient legend, find it\nunbecoming to allow the mother of Jesus, so long as she bore the\nheavenly germ, to be approached or profaned by an earthly husband.\nConsequently Luke (ii. 5) represents the connexion between Joseph and\nMary, prior to the birth of Jesus, as a betrothment merely. And, as it\nis stated respecting the father of Plato, after his wife had become\npregnant by Apollo: \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,\n[276] so likewise it is remarked of Joseph in Matthew (i. 25): \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd. In each of these kindred passages the Greek word \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 (till)\nmust evidently receive the same interpretation. Now in the first\nquotation the meaning is incontestably this:\u2014that till the time of\nPlato\u2019s birth his father abstained from intercourse with his wife, but\nsubsequently assumed his conjugal rights, since we hear of Plato\u2019s\nbrothers. In reference, therefore, to the parents of Jesus, the \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2\ncannot have a different signification; in each case it indicates\nprecisely the same limitation. So again the expression \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\n(firstborn) used in reference to Jesus in both the Gospels (Matt. i.\n25, Luke ii. 7) supposes that Mary had other children, for as Lucian\nsays: \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. [277] Even in\nthe same Gospels (Matt. xiii. 55, Luke viii. 19) mention is made of\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 (the brothers of Jesus). In the words of Fritzsche:\nLubentissime post Jesu natales Mariam concessit Matth\u00e6us (Luke does the\nsame) uxorem Josepho, in hoc uno occupatus, ne quis ante Jesu primordia\nmutu\u00e2 venere usos suspicaretur. But this did not continue to satisfy\nthe orthodox; as the veneration for Mary rose even higher, she who had\nonce become fruitful by divine agency was not subsequently to be\nprofaned by the common relations of life. [278] The opinion that Mary\nafter the birth of Jesus became the wife of Joseph, was early ranked\namong the heresies, [279] and the orthodox Fathers sought every means\nto escape from it and to combat it. They contended that according to\nthe exegetical interpretation of \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57, it sometimes affirmed or\ndenied a thing, not merely up to a certain limit, but beyond that\nlimitation and for ever; and that the words of Matthew \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. excluded a matrimonial connexion between\nJoseph and Mary for all time. [280] In like manner it was asserted of\nthe term \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, that it did not necessarily include the subsequent\nbirth of other children, but that it merely excluded any previous\nbirth. [281] But in order to banish the thought of a matrimonial\nconnexion between Mary and Joseph, not only grammatically but\nphysiologically, they represented Joseph as a very old man, under whom\nMary was placed for control and protection only; and the brothers of\nJesus mentioned in the New Testament they regarded as the children of\nJoseph by a former marriage. [282] But this was not all; soon it was\ninsisted not only that Mary never became the wife of Joseph, but that\nin giving birth to Jesus she did not lose her virginity. [283] But even\nthe conservation of Mary\u2019s virginity did not long continue to satisfy:\nperpetual virginity was likewise required on the part of Joseph. It was\nnot enough that he had no connexion with Mary; it was also necessary\nthat his entire life should be one of celibacy. Accordingly, though\nEpiphanius allows that Joseph had sons by a former marriage, Jerome\nrejects the supposition as an impious and audacious invention; and from\nthat time the brothers of Jesus were degraded to the rank of cousins.\n[284]\n\nSome modern theologians agree with the Fathers of the Church in\nmaintaining that no matrimonial connexion subsisted at any time between\nJoseph and Mary, and believe themselves able to explain the gospel\nexpressions which appear to assert the contrary. In reference to the\nterm firstborn, Olshausen contends that it signifies an only son: no\nless than the eldest of several. Paulus allows that here he is right,\nand Clemen [285] and Fritzsche seek in vain to demonstrate the\nimpossibility of this signification. For when it is said in Ex. xiii.\n2, \u200f\u05e7\u05b7\u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05be\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9 \u05db\u05b8\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05d8\u05b6\u05e8 \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05e8\u05b6\u05d7\u05b6\u05dd\u200e (\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 LXX.) it was not\nmerely a firstborn followed by others subsequently born, who was\nsanctified to Jehovah, but the fruit of the body of that mother of whom\nno other child had previously been born. Therefore the term \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\nmust of necessity bear also this signification. Truly however we must\nconfess with Winer [286] and others, on the other side, that if a\nnarrator who was acquainted with the whole sequel of the history used\nthat expression, we should be tempted to understand it in its primitive\nsense; since had the author intended to exclude other children, he\nwould rather have employed the word \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2, or would have connected\nit with \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2. If this be not quite decisive, the reasoning of\nFritzsche in reference to the \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., is more convincing. He\nrejects the citations adduced in support of the interpretation of the\nFathers of the Church, proving that this expression according to its\nprimitive signification affirms only to a given limit, and beyond that\nlimit supposes the logical opposite of the affirmation to take place; a\nsignification which it loses only when the context shows clearly that\nthe opposite is impossible in the nature of things. [287] For example,\nwhen it is said \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd, it is\nself-evident that the negation, during the time elapsed till\ndeath\u2014cannot be transformed after death into an affirmation; but when\nit is said, as in Matthew, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10. \u1f00. \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, the giving birth to\nthe divine fruit opposes no impossibility to the establishment of the\nconjugal relations; on the contrary it renders it possible, i.e.\nsuitable [288] for them now to take place.\n\nOlshausen, impelled by the same doctrinal motives which influenced the\nFathers, is led in this instance to contradict both the evidence of\ngrammar and of logic. He thinks that Joseph, without wishing to impair\nthe sanctity of marriage, must have concluded after the experiences he\nhad had (?) that his marriage with Mary had another object than the\nproduction of children; besides it was but natural (?) in the last\ndescendant of the house of David, and of that particular branch from\nwhich the Messiah should come forth, to terminate her race in this last\nand eternal offshoot.\n\nA curious ladder may be formed of these different beliefs and\nsuperstitions in relation to the connexion between Mary and Joseph.\n\n1. Contemporaries of Jesus and composers of the genealogies: Joseph and\nMary man and wife\u2014Jesus the offspring of their marriage.\n\n2. The age and authors of our histories of the birth of Jesus: Mary and\nJoseph betrothed only; Joseph having no participation in the conception\nof the child, and previous to his birth no conjugal connexion with\nMary.\n\n3. Olshausen and others: subsequent to the birth of Jesus, Joseph,\nthough then the husband of Mary, relinquishes his matrimonial rights.\n\n4. Epiphanius, Protevangelium Jacobi and others: Joseph a decrepit old\nman, no longer to be thought of as a husband: the children attributed\nto him are of a former marriage. More especially it is not as a bride\nand wife that he receives Mary; he takes her merely under his\nguardianship.\n\n5. Protevang., Chrysostom and others: Mary\u2019s virginity was not only not\ndestroyed by any subsequent births of children by Joseph, it was not in\nthe slightest degree impaired by the birth of Jesus.\n\n6. Jerome: not Mary only but Joseph also observed an absolute\nvirginity, and the pretended brothers of Jesus were not his sons but\nmerely cousins to Jesus.\n\nThe opinion that the \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76 (brothers) and \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 (sisters of\nJesus) mentioned in the New Testament, were merely half brothers or\nindeed cousins, appears in its origin, as shown above, together with\nthe notion that no matrimonial connexion ever subsisted between Joseph\nand Mary, as the mere invention of superstition, a circumstance highly\nprejudicial to such an opinion. It is however no less true that purely\nexegetical grounds exist, in virtue of which theologians who were free\nfrom prejudice have decided, that the opinion that Jesus actually had\nbrothers is untenable. [289] Had we merely the following passages\u2014Matt.\nxiii. 55, Mark vi. 3, where the people of Nazareth, astonished at the\nwisdom of their countryman, in order to mark his well known origin,\nimmediately after having spoken of \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (the carpenter) his father,\nand his mother Mary, mention by name his \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 (brothers) James,\nJoses, Simon, and Judas, together with his sisters whose names are not\ngiven [290]; again Matt. xii. 46, Luke viii. 19, when his mother and\nhis brethren come to Jesus; John ii. 12, where Jesus journeys with his\nmother and his brethren to Capernaum; Acts i. 14, where they are\nmentioned in immediate connexion with his mother\u2014if we had these\npassages only, we could not for a moment hesitate to recognize here\nreal brothers of Jesus at least on the mother\u2019s side, children of\nJoseph and Mary; not only on account of the proper signification of the\nword \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2, but also in consequence of its continual conjunction with\nMary and Joseph. Even the passages\u2014John vii. 5, in which it is remarked\nthat his brethren did not believe on Jesus, and Mark iii. 21, compared\nwith 31, where, according to the most probable explanation, the\nbrothers of Jesus with his mother went out to lay hold of him as one\nbeside himself\u2014furnish no adequate grounds for relinquishing the proper\nsignification of \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2. Many theologians have interpreted \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 in the last cited passage half brothers, sons of Joseph by a\nformer marriage, alleging that the real brothers of Jesus must have\nbelieved on him, but this is a mere assumption. The difficulty seems\ngreater when we read in John xix. 26 f. that Jesus, on the cross,\nenjoined John to be a son to his mother; an injunction it is not easy\nto regard as suitable under the supposition that Mary had other\nchildren, except indeed these were half-brothers and unfriendly to\nJesus. Nevertheless we can imagine the existence both of external\ncircumstances and of individual feelings which might have influenced\nJesus to confide his mother to John rather than to his brothers. That\nthese brothers appeared in company with his apostles after the\nascension (Acts i. 14) is no proof that they must have believed on\nJesus at the time of his death.\n\nThe real perplexity in the matter, however, originates in this: that\nbesides the James and Joses spoken of as the brothers of Jesus, two men\nof the same name are mentioned as the sons of another Mary (Mark xv.\n40, 47, xvi. 1, Matt. xxvii. 56), without doubt that Mary who is\ndesignated, John xix. 25, as the sister of the mother of Jesus, and the\nwife of Cleophas; so that we have a James and a Joses not only among\nthe children of Mary the mother of Jesus, but again among her sister\u2019s\nchildren. We meet with several others among those immediately connected\nwith Jesus, whose names are identical. In the lists of the apostles\n(Matt. x. 2 ff., Luke vi. 14 ff.) we have two more of the name of\nJames: that is four, the brother and cousin of Jesus included; two more\nof the name of Judas: that is three, the brother of Jesus included; two\nof the name of Simon, also making three with the brother of Jesus of\nthe same name. The question naturally arises, whether the same\nindividual is not here taken as distinct persons? The suspicion is\nalmost unavoidable in reference to James. As James the son of Alpheus\nis, in the list of the apostles, introduced after the son of Zebedee,\nas the second, perhaps the younger; and as James the cousin of Jesus is\ncalled \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 (\u201cthe less\u201d) Mark xv. 40; and since by comparing John\nxix. 25, we find that the latter is called the son of Cleophas, it is\npossible that the name \u039a\u03bb\u03c9\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 (Cleophas) given to the husband of Mary\u2019s\nsister, and the name \u1f08\u03bb\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 (Alpheus) given to the father of the\napostle, may be only different forms of the Hebrew \u200f\u05d7\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u200e. Thus would\nthe second James enumerated among the apostles and the cousin of Jesus\nof that name be identical, and there would remain besides him only the\nson of Zebedee and the brother of Jesus. Now in the Acts (xv. 13) a\nJames appears who takes a prominent part in the so-called apostolic\ncouncil, and as, according to Acts xii. 2, the son of Zebedee had\npreviously been put to death, and as in the foregoing portion of the\nbook of the Acts no mention is made of any other James besides the son\nof Alpheus (i. 13), so this James, of whom (Acts xv. 13) no more\nprecise description is given, can be no other than the son of Alpheus.\nBut Paul speaks of a James (Gal. i. 19) the Lord\u2019s brother, whom he saw\nat Jerusalem, and it is doubtless he of whom he speaks in connexion\nwith Cephas and John as the \u03c3\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 (pillars) of the church\u2014for this is\nprecisely in character with the (Apostle) James as he appeared at the\napostolic council\u2014so that this James may be considered as identical\nwith the Lord\u2019s brother, and the rather as the expression \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f38\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (but other of\nthe apostles saw I none, save James the Lord\u2019s brother. Gal. i. 19),\nmakes it appear as if the Lord\u2019s brother were reckoned among the\napostles; with which also the ancient tradition which represents James\nthe Just, a brother of Jesus, as the first head of the church at\nJerusalem, agrees. [291] But admitting the James of the Acts to be\nidentical with the distinguished apostle of that name, then is he the\nson of Alpheus, and not the son of Joseph; consequently if he be at the\nsame time \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, then \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 cannot signify a brother.\nNow if Alpheus and Cleophas are admitted to be the same individual, the\nhusband of the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, it is obvious that\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2, used to denote the relationship of his son to Jesus, must be\ntaken in the signification, cousin. If, after this manner, James the\nApostle the son of Alpheus be identified with the cousin, and the\ncousin be identified with the brother of Jesus of the same name, it is\nobvious that \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 in the catalogue of the Apostles in Luke\n(Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13), must be translated brother of James (son of\nAlpheus); and this Apostle Jude must be held as identical with the Jude\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, that is, with the cousin of the Lord and son of Mary\nCleophas (though the name of Jude is never mentioned in connexion with\nthis Mary). If the Epistle of Jude in our canon be authentic, it is\nconfirmatory of the above deduction, that the author (verse 1)\ndesignates himself as the \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 (brother of James). Some\nmoreover have identified the Apostle Simon \u1f41 \u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 or \u039a\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n(Zelotes or the Canaanite) with the Simon enumerated among the brothers\nof Jesus (Mark vi. 3), and who according to a tradition of the church\nsucceeded James as head of the church at Jerusalem [292]; so that Joses\nalone appears without further designation or appellative.\n\nIf, accordingly, those spoken of as \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 were merely cousins,\nand three of these were apostles, it must excite surprise that not only\nin the Acts (i. 14), after an enumeration of the apostles, the brothers\nof Jesus are separately particularized, but that also (1 Cor. ix. 5)\nthey appear to be a class distinct from the apostles. Perhaps, also,\nthe passage Gal. i. 19 ought to be understood as indicating that James,\nthe Lord\u2019s brother, was not an apostle. [293] If, therefore, the\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 seem thus to be extruded from the number of the apostles,\nit is yet more difficult to regard them merely as the cousins of Jesus,\nsince they appear in so many places immediately associated with the\nmother of Jesus, and in two or three passages only are two men bearing\nthe same names mentioned in connexion with the other Mary, who\naccordingly would be their real mother. The Greek word \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 may\nindeed signify, in language which pretends not to precision, as well as\nthe Hebrew \u200f\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, a more distant relative; but as it is repeatedly used\nto express the relationship of these persons to Jesus, and is in no\ninstance replaced by \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2\u2014a word which is not foreign to the New\nTestament language when the relationship of cousin is to be denoted\n(Col. iv. 10), it cannot well be taken in any other than its proper\nsignification. Further, it need only be pointed out that the highest\ndegree of uncertainty exists respecting not only the identity of the\nnames Alpheus and Cleophas, upon which the identity of James the cousin\nof Jesus and of the Apostle James the Less rests, but also regarding\nthe translation of \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 by the brother of James; and likewise\nrespecting the assumed identity of the author of the last Catholic\nEpistle with the Apostle Jude.\n\nThus the web of this identification gives way at all points, and we are\nforced back to the position whence we set out; so that we have again\nreal brothers of Jesus, also two cousins distinct from these brothers,\nthough bearing the same names with two of them, besides some apostles\nof the same names with both brothers and cousins. To find two pairs of\nsons of the same names in a family is, indeed, not so uncommon as to\nbecome a source of objection. It is, however, remarkable that the same\nJames who in the Epistle to the Galatians is designated \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n(the Lord\u2019s brother), must unquestionably, according to the Acts of the\nApostles, be regarded as the son of Alpheus; which he could not be if\nthis expression signified a brother. So that there is perplexity on\nevery side, which can be solved only (and then, indeed, but negatively\nand without historical result) by admitting the existence of obscurity\nand error on this point in the New Testament writers, and even in the\nvery earliest Christian traditions; error which, in matters of involved\nrelationships and family names, is far more easily fallen into than\navoided. [294]\n\nWe have consequently no ground for denying that the mother of Jesus\nbore her husband several other children besides Jesus, younger, and\nperhaps also older; the latter, because the representation in the New\nTestament that Jesus was the first-born may belong no less to the\nmythus than the representation of the Fathers that he was an only son.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 31.\n\nVISIT OF MARY TO ELIZABETH.\n\nThe angel who announced to Mary her own approaching pregnancy, at the\nsame time informed her (Luke i. 36) of that of her relative Elizabeth,\nwith whom it was already the sixth month. Hereupon Mary immediately set\nout on a journey to her cousin, a visit which was attended by\nextraordinary occurrences; for when Elizabeth heard the salutation of\nMary, the babe leaped in her womb for joy; she also became inspired,\nand in her exultation poured forth an address to Mary as the future\nmother of the Messiah, to which Mary responded by a hymn of praise\n(Luke i. 39\u201356).\n\nThe rationalistic interpreter believes it to be an easy matter to give\na natural explanation of this narrative of the Gospel of Luke. He is of\nopinion [295] that the unknown individual who excited such peculiar\nanticipations, in Mary, had at the same time acquainted her with the\nsimilar situation of her cousin Elizabeth. This it was which impelled\nMary the more strongly to confer on the subject with her older\nrelative. Arrived at her cousin\u2019s dwelling, she first of all made known\nwhat had happened to herself; but upon this the narrator is silent, not\nwishing to repeat what he had just before described. And here the\nRationalist not only supposes the address of Elizabeth to have been\npreceded by some communication from Mary, but imagines Mary to have\nrelated her history piecemeal, so as to allow Elizabeth to throw in\nsentences during the intervals. The excitement of Elizabeth\u2014such is the\ncontinuation of the rationalistic explanation\u2014communicated itself,\naccording to natural laws, to the child, who, as is usual with an\nembryo of six months, made a movement, which was first regarded by the\nmother as significant, and as the consequence of the salutation, after\nMary\u2019s farther communications. Just as natural does it appear to the\nRationalist that Mary should have given utterance to her Messianic\nexpectations, confirmed as they were by Elizabeth, in a kind of\npsalmodic recitative, composed of reminiscences borrowed from various\nparts of the Old Testament.\n\nBut there is much in this explanation which positively contradicts the\ntext. In the first place, that Elizabeth should have learned the\nheavenly message imparted to Mary from Mary herself. There is no trace\nin the narrative either of any communication preceding Elizabeth\u2019s\naddress, or of interruptions occasioned by farther explanations on the\npart of Mary. On the contrary, as it is a supernatural revelation which\nacquaints Mary with the pregnancy of Elizabeth, so also it is to a\nrevelation that Elizabeth\u2019s immediate recognition of Mary, as the\nchosen mother of the Messiah, is attributed. [296] As little will the\nother feature of this narrative\u2014that the entrance of the mother of the\nMessiah occasioned a responsive movement in his mother\u2019s womb on the\npart of his forerunner\u2014bear a natural explanation. In modern times,\nindeed, even orthodox interpreters have inclined to this explanation,\nbut with the modification, that Elizabeth in the first place received a\nrevelation, in which however the child, owing to the mother\u2019s\nexcitement, a matter to be physiologically explained, likewise took\npart. [297] But the record does not represent the thing as if the\nexcitement of the mother were the determining cause of the movement of\nthe child; on the contrary (v. 41), the emotion of the mother follows\nthe movement of the child, and Elizabeth\u2019s own account states, that it\nwas the salutation of Mary (v. 44), not indeed from its particular\nsignification, but merely as the voice of the mother of the Messiah,\nwhich produced the movement of the unborn babe: undeniably assuming\nsomething supernatural. And indeed the supranaturalistic view of this\nmiracle is not free from objection, even on its own ground; and hence\nthe anxiety of the above-mentioned modern orthodox interpreters to\nevade it. It may be possible to conceive the human mind immediately\nacted upon by the divine mind, to which it is related, but how solve\nthe difficulty of an immediate communication of the divine mind to an\nunintelligent embryo? And if we inquire the object of so strange a\nmiracle, none which is worthy presents itself. Should it be referred to\nthe necessity that the Baptist should receive the earliest possible\nintimation of the work to which he was destined; still we know not how\nsuch an impression could have been made upon an embryo. Should the\npurpose be supposed to centre in the other individuals, in Mary or\nElizabeth; they had been the recipients of far higher revelations, and\nwere consequently already possessed of an adequate measure of insight\nand faith.\n\nNo fewer difficulties oppose the rationalistic than the\nsupranaturalistic explanation of the hymn pronounced by Mary. For\nthough it is not, like the Canticle of Zacharias (v. 67) and the\naddress of Elizabeth (v. 41), introduced by the formula \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, she was filled with the Holy Ghost, still the\nsimilarity of these utterances is so great, that the omission cannot be\nadduced as a proof that the narrator did not intend to represent this,\nequally with the other two, as the operation of the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 (spirit).\nBut apart from the intention of the narrator, can it be thought natural\nthat two friends visiting one another should, even in the midst of the\nmost extraordinary occurrences, break forth into long hymns, and that\ntheir conversation should entirely lose the character of dialogue, the\nnatural form on such occasions? By a supernatural influence alone could\nthe minds of the two friends be attuned to a state of elevation, so\nforeign to their every-day life. But if, indeed, Mary\u2019s hymn is to be\nunderstood as the work of the Holy Spirit, it is surprising that a\nspeech emanating immediately from the divine source of inspiration\nshould not be more striking for its originality, but should be so\ninterlarded with reminiscences from the Old Testament, borrowed from\nthe song of praise spoken by the mother of Samuel (1 Sam. ii.) under\nanalogous circumstances. [298] Accordingly we must admit that the\ncompilation of this hymn, consisting of recollections from the Old\nTestament, was put together in a natural way; but allowing its\ncomposition to have been perfectly natural, it cannot be ascribed to\nthe artless Mary, but to him who poetically wrought out the tradition\nin circulation respecting the scene in question.\n\nSince then we find all the principal incidents of this visit\ninconceivable according to the supernatural interpretation; also that\nthey will not bear a natural explanation; we are led to seek a mythical\nexposition of this as well as the preceding portions of the gospel\nhistory. This path has already been entered upon by others. The view of\nthis narrative given by the anonymous E. F. in Henke\u2019s Magazine [299]\nis, that it does not pourtray events as they actually did occur, but as\nthey might have occurred; that much which the sequel taught of the\ndestiny of their sons was carried back into the speeches of these\nwomen, which were also enriched by other features gleaned from\ntradition; that a true fact however lies at the bottom, namely an\nactual visit of Mary to Elizabeth, a joyous conversation, and the\nexpression of gratitude to God; all which might have happened solely in\nvirtue of the high importance attached by Orientals to the joys of\nmaternity, even though the two mothers had been at that time ignorant\nof the destination of their children. This author is of opinion that\nMary, when pondering over at a later period the remarkable life of her\nson, may often have related the happy meeting with her cousin and their\nmutual expressions of thankfulness to God, and that thus the history\ngained currency. Horst also, who has a just conception of the\nfictitious nature of this section in Luke, and ably refutes the natural\nmode of explanation, yet himself slides unawares half-way back into it.\nHe thinks it not improbable that Mary during her pregnancy, which was\nin many respects a painful one, should have visited her older and more\nexperienced cousin, and that Elizabeth should during this visit have\nfelt the first movement of her child: an occurrence which as it was\nafterwards regarded as ominous, was preserved by the oral tradition.\n[300]\n\nThese are farther examples of the uncritical proceeding which pretends\nto disengage the mythical and poetical from the narrative, by plucking\naway a few twigs and blossoms of that growth, whilst it leaves the very\nroot of the mythus undisturbed as purely historical. In our narrative\nthe principal mythical feature (the remainder forms only its adjuncts)\nis precisely that which the above-mentioned authors, in their pretended\nmythical explanations, retain as historical: namely, the visit of Mary\nto the pregnant Elizabeth. For, as we have already seen, the main\ntendency of the first chapter of Luke is to magnify Jesus by connecting\nthe Baptist with him from the earliest possible point in a relation of\ninferiority. Now this object could not be better attained than by\nbringing about a meeting, not in the first instance of the sons, but of\nthe mothers in reference to their sons, during their pregnancy, at\nwhich meeting some occurrence which should prefigure the future\nrelative positions of these two men should take place. Now the more\napparent the existence of a dogmatical motive as the origin of this\nvisit, the less probability is there that it had an historical\nfoundation. With this principal feature the other details are connected\nin the following order:\u2014The visit of the two women must be represented\nas possible and probable by the feature of family relationship between\nMary and Elizabeth (v. 36), which would also give a greater suitability\nto the subsequent connexion of the sons. Further, a visit, so full of\nimport, made precisely at that time, must have taken place by special\ndivine appointment; therefore it is an angel who refers Mary to her\ncousin. At the visit the subservient position of the Baptist to Jesus\nis to be particularly exhibited;\u2014this could have been effected by the\nmother, as indeed it is, in her address to Mary, but it were better if\npossible that the future Baptist himself should give a sign. The mutual\nrelation of Esau and Jacob had been prefigured by their struggles and\nposition in their mother\u2019s womb (Gen. xxv. 22 ff.). But, without too\nviolent an offence against the laws of probability, an ominous movement\nwould not be attributed to the child prior to that period of her\npregnancy at which the motion of the f\u0153tus is felt; hence the necessity\nthat Elizabeth should be in the sixth month of her pregnancy when Mary,\nin consequence of the communication of the angel, set out to visit her\ncousin (v. 36). Thus, as Schleiermacher remarks, [301] the whole\narrangement of times had reference to the particular circumstance the\nauthor desired to contrive\u2014the joyous responsive movement of the child\nin his mother\u2019s womb at the moment of Mary\u2019s entrance. To this end only\nmust Mary\u2019s visit be delayed till after the fifth month; and the angel\nnot appear to her before that period.\n\nThus not only does the visit of Mary to Elizabeth with all the\nattendant circumstances disappear from the page of history, but the\nhistorical validity of the further details\u2014that John was only half a\nyear older than Jesus; that the two mothers were related; that an\nintimacy subsisted between the families;\u2014cannot be affirmed on the\ntestimony of Luke, unsupported by other authorities: indeed, the\ncontrary rather will be found substantiated in the course of our\ncritical investigations.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nBIRTH AND EARLIEST EVENTS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.\n\n\u00a7 32.\n\nTHE CENSUS.\n\nWith respect to the birth of Jesus, Matthew and Luke agree in\nrepresenting it as taking place at Bethlehem; but whilst the latter\nenters into a minute detail of all the attendant circumstances, the\nformer merely mentions the event as it were incidentally, referring to\nit once in an appended sentence as the sequel to what had gone before\n(i. 25), and again as a presupposed occurrence (ii. 1). The one\nEvangelist seems to assume that Bethlehem was the habitual residence of\nthe parents; but according to the other they are led thither by very\nparticular circumstances. This point of difference between the\nEvangelists however can only be discussed after we shall have collected\nmore data; we will therefore leave it for the present, and turn our\nattention to an error into which Luke, when compared with himself and\nwith dates otherwise ascertained, seems to have fallen. This is the\nstatement, that the census, decreed by Augustus at the time when\nCyrenius (Quirinus) was governor of Syria, was the occasion of the\njourney of the parents of Jesus, who usually resided at Nazareth, to\nBethlehem where Jesus was born (Luke ii. 1 ff.).\n\nThe first difficulty is that the \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 (namely, the inscription of\nthe name and amount of property in order to facilitate the taxation)\ncommanded by Augustus, is extended to all the world, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. This expression, in its common acceptation at that time,\nwould denote the orbis Romanus. But ancient authors mention no such\ngeneral census decreed by Augustus; they speak only of the assessment\nof single provinces decreed at different times. Consequently, it was\nsaid Luke meant to indicate by \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 merely the land of Judea, and\nnot the Roman world according to its ordinary signification. Examples\nwere forthwith collected in proof of the possibility of such an\ninterpretation, [302] but they in fact prove nothing. For supposing it\ncould not be shown that in all these citations from the Septuagint,\nJosephus, and the New Testament, the expression really does signify, in\nthe extravagant sense of these writers, the whole known world; still in\nthe instance in question, where the subject is a decree of the Roman\nemperor, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 must necessarily be understood of the regions\nwhich he governed, and therefore of the orbis Romanus. This is the\nreason that latterly the opposite side has been taken up, and it has\nbeen maintained, upon the authority of Savigny, that in the time of\nAugustus a census of the whole empire was actually undertaken. [303]\nThis is positively affirmed by late Christian writers [304]: but the\nstatement is rendered suspicious by the absence of all more ancient\ntestimony [305]; and it is even contradicted by the fact, that for a\nconsiderable lapse of time an equal assessment throughout the empire\nwas not effected. Finally, the very expressions of these writers show\nthat their testimony rests upon that of Luke. [306] But, it is said,\nAugustus at all events attempted an equal assessment of the empire by\nmeans of an universal census; and he began the carrying out his project\nby an assessment of individual provinces, but he left the further\nexecution and completion to his successors. [307] Admit that the gospel\nterm \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 (decree) may be interpreted as a mere design, or, as\nHoffmann thinks, an undetermined project expressed in an imperial\ndecree; still the fulfilment of this project in Judea at the time of\nthe birth of Jesus was impossible.\n\nMatthew places the birth of Jesus shortly before the death of Herod the\nGreat, whom he represents (ii. 19) as dying during the abode of Jesus\nin Egypt. Luke says the same indirectly, for when speaking of the\nannouncement of the birth of the Baptist, he refers it to the days of\nHerod the Great, and he places the birth of Jesus precisely six months\nlater; so that according to Luke, also, Jesus was born, if not, like\nJohn, previous to the death of Herod I., shortly after that event. Now,\nafter the death of Herod the country of Judea fell to his son Archelaus\n(Matt. ii. 22), who, after a reign of something less than ten years,\nwas deposed and banished by Augustus, [308] at which time Judea was\nfirst constituted a Roman province, and began to be ruled by Roman\nfunctionaries. [309] Thus the Roman census in question must have been\nmade either under Herod the Great, or at the commencement of the reign\nof Archelaus. This is in the highest degree improbable, for in those\ncountries which were not reduced in formam provinci\u00e6, but were governed\nby regibus sociis, the taxes were levied by these princes, who paid a\ntribute to the Romans [310]; and this was the state of things in Judea\nprior to the deposition of Archelaus. It has been the object of much\nresearch to make it appear probable that Augustus decreed a census, as\nan extraordinary measure, in Palestine under Herod. Attention has been\ndirected to the circumstance that the breviarium imperii, which\nAugustus left behind him, contained the financial state of the whole\nempire, and it has been suggested that, in order to ascertain the\nfinancial condition of Palestine, he caused a statement to be prepared\nby Herod. [311] Reference has been made first to the record of\nJosephus, that on account of some disturbance of the relations between\nHerod and Augustus, the latter threatened for the future to make him\nfeel his subjection [312]; secondly, also to the oath of allegiance to\nAugustus which, according to Josephus, the Jews were forced to take\neven during the lifetime of Herod. [313] From which it is inferred that\nAugustus, since he had it in contemplation after the death of Herod to\nrestrict the power of his sons, was very likely to have commanded a\ncensus in the last years of that prince. [314] But it seems more\nprobable that it took place shortly after the death of Herod, from the\ncircumstance that Archelaus went to Rome concerning the matter of\nsuccession, and that during his absence the Roman procurator Sabinus\noccupied Jerusalem, and oppressed the Jews by every possible means.\n[315]\n\nThe Evangelist relieves us from a farther inquiry into this more or\nless historical or arbitrary combination by adding, that this taxing\nwas first made when Cyrenius (Quirinus) was governor of Syria,\n\u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5; for it is an authenticated point\nthat the assessment of Quirinus did not take place either under Herod\nor early in the reign of Archelaus, the period at which, according to\nLuke, Jesus was born. Quirinus was not at that time governor of Syria,\na situation held during the last years of Herod by Sentius Saturninus,\nand after him by Quintilius Varus; and it was not till long after the\ndeath of Herod that Quirinus was appointed governor of Syria. That\nQuirinus undertook a census of Judea we know certainly from Josephus,\n[316] who, however, remarks that he was sent to execute this measure,\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, or, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd [317]; thus about ten years after the time at\nwhich, according to Matthew and Luke, Jesus must have been born.\n\nYet commentators have supposed it possible to reconcile this apparently\nundeniable contradiction between Luke and history. The most dauntless\nexplain the whole of the second verse as a gloss, which was early\nincorporated into the text. [318] Some change the reading of the verse;\neither of the nomen proprium, by substituting the name of Saturninus or\nQuintilius, [319] according to the example of Tertullian, who ascribed\nthe census to the former [320]; or of the other words, by various\nadditions and modifications. Paulus\u2019s alteration is the most simple. He\nreads, instead of \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74, and concludes, from the reasons stated\nabove, that Augustus actually gave orders for a census during the reign\nof Herod I., and that the order was so far carried out as to occasion\nthe journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem; but that Augustus being\nafterwards conciliated, the measure was abandoned, and \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74\nwas only carried into effect a considerable time later, by Quirinus.\nTrifling as this alteration, which leaves the letters unchanged, may\nappear, in order to render it admissible it must be supported by the\ncontext. The reverse, however, is the fact. For if one sentence\nnarrates a command issued by a prince, and the very next sentence its\nexecution, it is not probable that a space of ten years intervened. But\nchiefly, according to this view the Evangelist speaks, verse 1, of the\ndecree of the emperor; verse 2, of the census made ten years later; but\nverse 3, without any remark, again of a journey performed at the time\nthe command was issued; which, in a rational narrative, is impossible.\nOpposed to such arbitrary conjectures, and always to be ranked above\nthem, are the attempts to solve a difficulty by legitimate methods of\ninterpretation. Truly, however, to take \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 in this connexion for\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, and \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a. not for a genitive absolute, but for a\ngenitive governed by a comparative, and thus to understand an enrolment\nbefore that of Quirinus, [321] is to do violence to grammatical\nconstruction; and to insert \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 after \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 [322] is is no less\nuncritical. As little is it to be admitted that some preliminary\nmeasure, in which Quirinus was not employed, perhaps the already\nmentioned oath of allegiance, took place during the lifetime of Herod,\nin reference to the census subsequently made by Quirinus; and that this\npreliminary step and the census were afterwards comprised under the\nsame name. In order in some degree to account for this appellation,\nQuirinus is said to have been sent into Judea, in Herod\u2019s time, as an\nextraordinary tax-commissioner [323]; but this interpretation of the\nword \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is rendered impossible by the addition of the word\n\u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, in combination with which the expression can denote only the\nPr\u00e6ses Syri\u00e6.\n\nThus at the time at which Jesus, according to Matt. ii. 1, and Luke i.\n5, 26, was born, the census of which Luke ii. 1 f. speaks could not\nhave taken place; so that if the former statements are correct, the\nlatter must be false. But may not the reverse be the fact, and Jesus\nhave been born after the banishment of Archelaus, and at the time of\nthe census of Quirinus? Apart from the difficulties in which this\nhypothesis would involve us in relation to the chronology of the future\nlife of Jesus, a Roman census, subsequent to the banishment of\nArchelaus, would not have taken the parents of Jesus from Nazareth in\nGalilee to Bethlehem in Judea. For Judea only, and what otherwise\nbelonged to the portion of Archelaus, became a Roman province and\nsubjected to the census. In Galilee Herod Antipas continued to reign as\nan allied prince, and none of his subjects dwelling at Nazareth could\nhave been called to Bethlehem by the census. The Evangelist therefore,\nin order to get a census, must have conceived the condition of things\nsuch as they were after the deposition of Archelaus; but in order to\nget a census extending to Galilee, he must have imagined the kingdom to\nhave continued undivided, as in the time of Herod the Great. Thus he\ndeals in manifest contradictions; or rather he has an exceedingly sorry\nacquaintance with the political relations of that period; for he\nextends the census not only to the whole of Palestine, but also (which\nwe must not forget) to the whole Roman world.\n\nStill these chronological incongruities do not exhaust the difficulties\nwhich beset this statement of Luke. His representation of the manner in\nwhich the census was made is subject to objection. In the first place,\nit is said, the taxing took Joseph to Bethlehem, because he was of the\nhouse and lineage of David, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2\n\u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4, and likewise every one into his own city, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd,\ni.e. according to the context, to the place whence his family had\noriginally sprung. Now, that every individual should be registered in\nhis own city was required in all Jewish inscriptions, because among the\nJews the organization of families and tribes constituted the very basis\nof the state. The Romans, on the contrary, were in the habit of taking\nthe census at the residences, and at the principal cities in the\ndistrict. [324] They conformed to the usages of the conquered countries\nonly in so far as they did not interfere with their own objects. In the\npresent instance it would have been directly contrary to their design,\nhad they removed individuals\u2014Joseph for example\u2014to a great distance,\nwhere the amount of their property was not known, and their statement\nconcerning it could not be checked. [325] The view of Schleiermacher is\nthe more admissible, that the real occasion which took the parents to\nBethlehem was a sacerdotal inscription, which the Evangelist confounded\nwith the better known census of Quirinus. But this concession does not\nobviate the contradiction in this dubious statement of Luke. He allows\nMary to be inscribed with Joseph, but according to Jewish customs\ninscriptions had relation to men only. Thus, at all events, it is an\ninaccuracy to represent Mary as undertaking the journey, in order to be\ninscribed with her betrothed in his own city. Or, if with Paulus we\nremove this inaccuracy by a forced construction of the sentence, we can\nno longer perceive what inducement could have instigated Mary, in her\nparticular situation, to make so long a journey, since, unless we adopt\nthe airy hypothesis of Olshausen and others, that Mary was the heiress\nof property in Bethlehem, she had nothing to do there.\n\nThe Evangelist, however, knew perfectly well what she had to do there;\nnamely, to fulfil the prophecy of Micah (v. 1), by giving birth, in the\ncity of David, to the Messiah. Now as he set out with the supposition\nthat the habitual abode of the parents of Jesus was Nazareth, so he\nsought after a lever which should set them in motion towards Bethlehem,\nat the time of the birth of Jesus. Far and wide nothing presented\nitself but the celebrated census; he seized it the more unhesitatingly\nbecause the obscurity of his own view of the historical relations of\nthat time, veiled from him the many difficulties connected with such a\ncombination. If this be the true history of the statement in Luke, we\nmust agree with K. Ch. L. Schmidt when he says, that to attempt to\nreconcile the statement of Luke concerning the \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 with\nchronology, would be to do the narrator too much honour; he wished to\nplace Mary in Bethlehem, and therefore times and circumstances were to\naccommodate themselves to his pleasure. [326]\n\nThus we have here neither a fixed point for the date of the birth of\nJesus, nor an explanation of the occasion which led to his being born\nprecisely at Bethlehem. If then\u2014it may justly be said\u2014no other reason\nwhy Jesus should have been born at Bethlehem can be adduced than that\ngiven by Luke, we have absolutely no guarantee that Bethlehem was his\nbirth-place.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 33.\n\nPARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS. THE CIRCUMCISION.\n\nThe basis of the narrative, the arrival of Joseph and Mary as strangers\nin Bethlehem on account of the census, being once chosen by Luke, the\nfarther details are consistently built upon it. In consequence of the\ninflux of strangers brought to Bethlehem by the census, there is no\nroom for the travellers in the inn, and they are compelled to put up\nwith the accommodation of a stable where Mary is forthwith delivered of\nher first-born. But the child, who upon earth comes into being in so\nhumble an abode, is highly regarded in heaven. A celestial messenger\nannounces the birth of the Messiah to shepherds who are guarding their\nflocks in the fields by night, and directs them to the child in the\nmanger. A choir of the heavenly host singing hymns of praise next\nappears to them, after which they seek and find the child. (Luke ii.\n6\u201320.)\n\nThe apocryphal gospels and the traditions of the Fathers still further\nembellished the birth of Jesus. According to the Protevangelium Jacobi,\n[327] Joseph conducts Mary on an ass to Bethlehem to be taxed. As they\napproach the city she begins to make now mournful, now joyous gestures,\nand upon inquiry explains that\u2014(as once in Rebecca\u2019s womb the two\nhostile nations struggled, Gen. xxv. 23)\u2014she sees two people before\nher, the one weeping, the other laughing: i.e. according to one\nexplanation, the two portions of Israel, to one of whom the advent of\nJesus was set (Luke ii. 34) \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, for the fall, to the other \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, for the rising again. According to another interpretation,\nthe two people were the Jews who should reject Jesus, and the heathens\nwho should accept him. [328] Soon, however, whilst still without the\ncity\u2014as appears from the context and the reading of several MSS.\u2014Mary\nis seized with the pains of child-bearing, and Joseph brings her into a\ncave situated by the road side, where, veiled by a cloud of light, all\nnature pausing in celebration of the event, she brings her child into\nthe world, and after her delivery is found, by women called to her\nassistance, still a virgin. [329] The legend of the birth of Jesus in a\ncave was known to Justin [330] and to Origen, [331] who, in order to\nreconcile it with the account in Luke that he was laid in a manger,\nsuppose a manger situated within the cave. Many modern commentators\nagree with them [332]; whilst others prefer to consider the cave itself\nas \u03c6\u03ac\u03c4\u03bd\u03b7, in the sense of foddering-stall. [333] For the birth of Jesus\nin a cave, Justin appeals to the prophecy in Isaiah xxviii. 16: \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n(the righteous) \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2. In like\nmanner, for the statement that on the third day the child Jesus, when\nbrought from the cave into the stable, was worshipped by the oxen and\nthe asses, the Historia de Nativitate Mariae, [334] etc. refers to\nIsaiah i. 3: cognovit bos possessorem suum, et asinus praesepe domini\nsui. In several apocryphas, between the Magi and the women who assist\nat the birth, the shepherds are forgotten; but they are mentioned in\nthe Evangelium infantiae arabicum, [335] where it says, that when they\narrived at the cave, and had kindled a fire of rejoicing, the heavenly\nhost appeared to them.\n\nIf we take the circumstances attending the birth of Jesus, narrated by\nLuke, in a supranaturalistic sense, many difficulties occur. First, it\nmay reasonably be asked, to what end the angelic apparition? The most\nobvious answer is, to make known the birth of Jesus; but so little did\nit make it known that, in the neighbouring city of Jerusalem, it is the\nMagi who give the first information of the new-born king of the Jews;\nand in the future history of Jesus, no trace of any such occurrence at\nhis birth is to be found. Consequently, the object of that\nextraordinary phenomenon was not to give a wide-spreading intimation of\nthe fact; for if so, God failed in his object. Must we then agree with\nSchleiermacher, that the aim was limited to an immediate operation upon\nthe shepherds? Then we must also suppose with him, that the shepherds,\nequally with Simeon, were filled with Messianic expectations, and that\nGod designed by this apparition to reward and confirm their pious\nbelief. The narrative however says nothing of this heavenly frame of\nmind, neither does it mention any abiding effects produced upon these\nmen. According to the whole tenor of the representation, the apparition\nseems to have had reference, not to the shepherds, but exclusively to\nthe glorification and the proclaiming of the birth of Jesus, as the\nMessiah. But as before observed, the latter aim was not accomplished,\nand the former, by itself, like every mere empty display, is an object\nunworthy of God. So that this circumstance in itself presents no\ninconsiderable obstacle to the supranaturalistic conception of the\nhistory. If, to the above considerations, we add those already stated\nwhich oppose the belief in apparitions and the existence of angels in\ngeneral, it is easy to understand that with respect to this narrative\nalso refuge has been sought in a natural explanation.\n\nThe results of the first attempts at a natural explanation were\ncertainly sufficiently rude. Thus Eck regarded the angel as a messenger\nfrom Bethlehem, who carried a light which caught the eye of the\nshepherds, and the song of the heavenly host as the merry tones of a\nparty accompanying the messenger. [336] Paulus has woven together a\nmore refined and matter of fact explanation. Mary, who had met with a\nhospitable reception in a herdsman\u2019s family, and who was naturally\nelated with the hope of giving birth to the Messiah, told her\nexpectations to the members of this family; to whom as inhabitants of a\ncity of David the communication could not have been indifferent. These\nshepherds therefore on perceiving, whilst in the fields by night, a\nluminous appearance in the air\u2014a phenomenon which travellers say is not\nuncommon in those regions\u2014they interpret it as a divine intimation that\nthe stranger in their foddering-stall is delivered of the Messiah; and\nas the meteoric light extends and moves to and fro, they take it for a\nchoir of angels chaunting hymns of praise. Returning home they find\ntheir anticipations confirmed by the event, and that which at first\nthey merely conjectured to be the sense and interpretation of the\nphenomenon, they now, after the manner of the East, represent as words\nactually spoken. [337]\n\nThis explanation rests altogether on the assumption, that the shepherds\nwere previously acquainted with Mary\u2019s expectation that she should give\nbirth to the Messiah. How otherwise should they have been led to\nconsider the sign as referring particularly to the birth of the Messiah\nin their manger? Yet this very assumption is the most direct\ncontradiction of the gospel account. For, in the first place, the\nEvangelist evidently does not suppose the manger to belong to the\nshepherds: since after he has narrated the delivery of Mary in the\nmanger, he then goes on to speak of the shepherds as a new and distinct\nsubject, not at all connected with the manger. His words are: and there\nwere in the same country shepherds, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7. If this explanation were correct he would, at all events, have\nsaid, the shepherds etc. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; besides he would not\nhave been wholly silent respecting the comings and goings of these\nshepherds during the day, and their departure to guard the flock at the\napproach of night. But, grant these presupposed circumstances, is it\nconsistent in Paulus to represent Mary, at first so reserved concerning\nher pregnancy as to conceal it even from Joseph, and then so\ncommunicative that, just arrived among strangers, she parades the whole\nhistory of her expectations? Again the sequel of the narrative\ncontradicts the assumption that the shepherds were informed of the\nmatter by Mary herself, before her delivery. For, according to the\ngospel history, the shepherds receive the first intelligence of the\nbirth of the Saviour \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 from the angel who appears to them, and who\ntells them, as a sign of the truth of his communication, that they\nshall find the babe lying in a manger. Had they already heard from Mary\nof the approaching birth of the Messiah, the meteoric appearance would\nhave been a confirmation to them of Mary\u2019s words, and not the finding\nof the child a proof of the truth of the apparition. Finally, may we so\nfar confide in the investigations already made as to inquire, whence,\nif neither a miraculous announcement nor a supernatural conception\nactually occurred, could Mary have derived the confident anticipation\nthat she should give birth to the Messiah?\n\nIn opposition to this natural explanation, so full of difficulties on\nevery side, Bauer announced his adoption of the mythical view [338]; in\nfact, however, he did not advance one step beyond the interpretation of\nthe Rationalists, but actually repeated Paulus\u2019s exposition point for\npoint. To this mixed mythical explanation Gabler justly objected that\nit, equally with the natural interpretation, multiplies\nimprobabilities: by the adoption of the pure, dogmatic mythus,\neverything appears simpler; thereby, at the same time, greater harmony\nis introduced into the early christian history, all the preceding\nnarratives of which ought equally to be interpreted as pure mythi.\n[339] Gabler, accordingly, explained the narrative as the product of\nthe ideas of the age, which demanded the assistance of angels at the\nbirth of the Messiah. Now had it been known that Mary was delivered in\na dwelling belonging to shepherds, it would also have been concluded\nthat angels must have brought the tidings to these good shepherds that\nthe Messiah was born in their manger; and the angels who cease not\npraising God, must have sung a hymn of praise on the occasion. Gabler\nthinks it impossible, that a Jewish christian who should have known\nsome of the data of the birth of Jesus, could have thought of it\notherwise than as here depicted. [340]\n\nThis explanation of Gabler shows, in a remarkable manner, how difficult\nit is entirely to extricate oneself from the natural explanation, and\nto rise completely to the mythical; for whilst this theologian believes\nhe treads on pure mythical ground, he still stands with one foot upon\nthat of the natural interpretation. He selects from the account of Luke\none incident as historical which, by its connexion with other\nunhistorical statements and its conformity to the spirit of the\nprimitive christian legend, is proved to be merely mythical; namely,\nthat Jesus was really born in a shepherd\u2019s dwelling. He also borrows an\nassumption from the natural explanation, which the mythical needs not\nto obtrude on the text: that the shepherds, to whom it is alleged the\nangels appeared, were the possessors of the manger in which Mary was\ndelivered. The first detail, upon which the second is built, belongs to\nthe same machinery by which Luke, with the help of the census,\ntransported the parents of Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Now we\nknow what is the fact respecting the census; it crumbles away\ninevitably before criticism, and with it the datum built entirely upon\nit, that Jesus was born in a manger. For had not the parents of Jesus\nbeen strangers, and had they not come to Bethlehem in company with so\nlarge a concourse of strangers as the census might have occasioned, the\ncause which obliged Mary to accept a stable for her place of delivery\nwould no longer have existed. But, on the other hand, the incident,\nthat Jesus was born in a stable and saluted in the first instance by\nshepherds, is so completely in accordance with the spirit of the\nancient legend, that it is evident the narrative may have been derived\npurely from this source. Theophylact, in his time, pointed out its true\ncharacter, when he says: the angels did not appear to the scribes and\npharisees of Jerusalem who were full of all malice, but to the\nshepherds, in the fields, on account of their simplicity and innocence,\nand because they by their mode of life were the successors of the\npatriarchs. [341] It was in the field by the flocks that Moses was\nvisited by a heavenly apparition (Exod. iii. 1 ff.); and God took\nDavid, the forefather of the Messiah, from his sheepfolds (at\nBethlehem), to be the shepherd of his people. Psalm lxxviii. 70 (comp.\n1 Sam. xvi. 11). The mythi of the ancient world more generally ascribed\ndivine apparitions to countrymen [342] and shepherds [343]; the sons of\nthe gods, and of great men were frequently brought up among shepherds.\n[344] In the same spirit of the ancient legend is the apocryphal\ninvention that Jesus was born in a cave, and we are at once reminded of\nthe cave of Jupiter and of the other gods; even though the\nmisunderstood passage of Isaiah xxxiii. 16 may have been the immediate\noccasion of this incident. [345] Moreover the night, in which the scene\nis laid,\u2014(unless one refers here to the rabbinical representations,\naccording to which, the deliverance by means of the Messiah, like the\ndeliverance from Egypt, should take place by night [346])\u2014forms the\nobscure background against which the manifested glory of the Lord shone\nso much the more brilliantly, which, as it is said to have glorified\nthe birth of Moses, [347] could not have been absent from that of the\nMessiah, his exalted antitype.\n\nThe mythical interpretation of this section of the gospel history has\nfound an opponent in Schleiermacher. [348] He thinks it improbable that\nthis commencement of the second chapter of Luke is a continuation of\nthe first, written by the same author; because the frequent\nopportunities of introducing lyrical effusions\u2014as for example, when the\nshepherds returned glorifying and praising God, v. 20\u2014are not taken\nadvantage of as in the first chapter; and here indeed we can in some\nmeasure agree with him. But when he adds that a decidedly poetical\ncharacter cannot be ascribed to this narrative, since a poetical\ncomposition would of necessity have contained more of the lyrical, this\nonly proves that Schleiermacher has not justly apprehended the notion\nof that kind of poetry of which he here treats, namely, the poetry of\nthe mythus. In a word, mythical poetry is objective: the poetical\nexists in the substance of the narrative, and may therefore appear in\nthe plainest form, free from all the adornments of lyrical effusions;\nwhich latter are rather only the subsequent additions of a more\nintelligent and artificially elaborated subjective poetry. [349]\nUndoubtedly this section seems to have been preserved to us more nearly\nin its original legendary form, whilst the narratives of the first\nchapter in Luke bear rather the stamp of having been re-wrought by some\npoetical individual; but historical truth is not on that account to be\nsought here any more than there. Consequently the obligation which\nSchleiermacher further imposes upon himself, to trace out the source of\nthis narrative in the Gospel of Luke, can only be regarded as an\nexercise of ingenuity. He refuses to recognize that source in Mary,\nthough a reference to her might have been found in the observation, v.\n19, she kept all these sayings in her heart; wherein indeed he is the\nmore right, since that observation (a fact to which Schleiermacher does\nnot advert) is merely a phrase borrowed from the history of Jacob and\nhis son Joseph. [350] For as the narrative in Genesis relates of Jacob,\nthe father of Joseph, that child of miracle, that when the latter told\nhis significant dreams, and his brethren envied him, his father\nobserved the saying: so the narrative in Luke, both here and at verse\n51, relates of Mary, that she, whilst others gave utterance aloud to\ntheir admiration at the extraordinary occurrences which happened to her\nchild, kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. But the\nabove-named theologian points out the shepherds instead of Mary as the\nsource of our narrative, alleging that all the details are given, not\nfrom Mary\u2019s point of view, but from that of the shepherds. More truly\nhowever is the point of view that of the legend which supersedes both.\nIf Schleiermacher finds it impossible to believe that this narrative is\nan air-bubble conglomerated out of nothing, he must include under the\nword nothing the Jewish and early christian ideas\u2014concerning Bethlehem,\nas the necessary birthplace of the Messiah; concerning the condition of\nthe shepherds, as being peculiarly favoured by communications from\nheaven; concerning angels, as the intermediate agents in such\ncommunications\u2014notions we on our side cannot possibly hold in so little\nestimation, but we find it easy to conceive that something similar to\nour narrative might have formed itself out out of them. Finally, when\nhe finds an adventitious or designed invention impossible, because the\nChristians of that district might easily have inquired of Mary or of\nthe disciples concerning the truth of the matter: he speaks too nearly\nthe language of the ancient apologists, and presupposes the ubiquity of\nthese persons, [351] already alluded to in the Introduction, who\nhowever could not possibly have been in all places rectifying the\ntendency to form christian legends, wherever it manifested itself.\n\nThe notice of the circumcision of Jesus (Luke ii. 21), evidently\nproceeds from a narrator who had no real advice of the fact, but who\nassumed as a certainty that, according to Jewish custom, the ceremony\ntook place on the eighth day, and who was desirous of commemorating\nthis important event in the life of an Israelitish boy; [352] in like\nmanner as Paul (Phil. iii. 5) records his circumcision on the eighth\nday. The contrast however between the fulness of detail with which this\npoint is elaborated and coloured in the life of the Baptist, and the\nbarrenness and brevity with which it is stated in reference to Jesus,\nis striking, and may justify an agreement with the remark of\nSchleiermacher, that here, at least the author of the first chapter is\nno longer the originator. Such being the state of the case, this\nstatement furnishes nothing for our object, which we might not already\nhave known; only we have till now had no opportunity of observing,\ndistinctly, that the pretended appointment of the name of Jesus before\nhis birth likewise belongs merely to the mythical dress of the\nnarrative. When it is said his name was called Jesus, which was so\nnamed of the angel before he was conceived in the womb, the importance\nattached to the circumstance is a clear sign, that a dogmatic interest\nlies at the bottom of this feature in the narrative; which interest can\nbe no other than that which gave rise to the statement\u2014in the Old\nTestament concerning an Isaac and an Ishmael, and in the New Testament\nconcerning a John\u2014that the names of these children were, respectively,\nrevealed to their parents prior to their birth, and on account of which\ninterest the rabbins, in particular, expected that the same thing\nshould occur in relation to the name of the Messiah. [353] Without\ndoubt there were likewise other far more natural reasons which induced\nthe parents of Jesus to give him this name (\u200f\u05d9\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u200e an abbreviation of\n\u200f\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05bb\u05c1\u05e2\u05b7\u200e, \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1); a name which was very common among his\ncountrymen; but because this name agreed in a remarkable manner with\nthe path of life subsequently chosen by him as Messiah and \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1, it\nwas not thought possible that this coincidence could have been\naccidental. Besides it seemed more appropriate that the name of the\nMessiah should have been determined by divine command than by human\narbitration, and consequently the appointment of the name was ascribed\nto the same angel who had announced the conception of Jesus.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 34.\n\nTHE MAGI AND THEIR STAR. THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT AND THE MURDER OF THE\nCHILDREN IN BETHLEHEM. CRITICISM OF THE SUPRANATURALISTIC VIEW.\n\nIn the Gospel of Matthew also we have a narrative of the Messiah\u2019s\nentrance into the world; it differs considerably in detail from that of\nLuke, which we have just examined, but in the former part of the two\naccounts there is a general similarity (Matt. ii. 1 ff.). The object of\nboth narratives is to describe the solemn introduction of the Messianic\ninfant, the heralding of his birth undertaken by heaven itself, and his\nfirst reception among men. [354] In both, attention is called to the\nnew-born Messiah by a celestial phenomenon; according to Luke, it is an\nangel clothed in brightness, according to Matthew, it is a star. As the\napparitions are different, so accordingly are the recipients; the angel\naddresses simple shepherds; the star is discovered by eastern magi, who\nare able to interpret for themselves the voiceless sign. Both parties\nare directed to Bethlehem; the shepherds by the words of the angel, the\nmagi by the instructions they obtain in Jerusalem; and both do homage\nto the infant; the poor shepherds by singing hymns of praise, the magi\nby costly presents from their native country. But from this point the\ntwo narratives begin to diverge widely. In Luke all proceeds happily;\nthe shepherds return with gladness in their hearts, the child\nexperiences no molestation, he is presented in the temple on the\nappointed day, thrives and grows up in tranquillity. In Matthew, on the\ncontrary, affairs take a tragical turn. The inquiry of the wise men in\nJerusalem concerning the new-born King of the Jews, is the occasion of\na murderous decree on the part of Herod against the children of\nBethlehem, a danger from which the infant Jesus is rescued only by a\nsudden flight into Egypt, whence he and his parents do not return to\nthe Holy Land till after the death of Herod.\n\nThus we have here a double proclamation of the Messianic child: we\nmight, however, suppose that the one by the angel, in Luke, would\nannounce the birth of the Messiah to the immediate neighbourhood; the\nother, by means of the star, to distant lands. But as, according to\nMatthew, the birth of Jesus became known at Jerusalem, which was in the\nimmediate vicinity, by means of the star; if this representation be\nhistorical, that of Luke, according to which the shepherds were the\nfirst to spread abroad with praises to God (v. 17, 20), that which had\nbeen communicated to them as glad tidings for all people (v. 10),\ncannot possibly be correct. So, on the other hand, if it be true that\nthe birth of Jesus was made known in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem as\nLuke states, by an angelic communication to the shepherds, Matthew must\nbe in error when he represents the first intelligence of the event as\nsubsequently brought to Jerusalem (which is only from two to three\nhours distant from Bethlehem) by the magi. But as we have recognized\nmany indications of the unhistorical character of the announcement by\nthe shepherds given in Luke, the ground is left clear for that of\nMatthew, which must be judged of according to its inherent credibility.\n\nOur narrative commences as if it were an admitted fact, that\nastrologers possessed the power of recognizing a star announcing the\nbirth of the Messiah. That eastern magi should have knowledge of a King\nof the Jews to whom they owed religious homage might indeed excite our\nsurprise; but contenting ourselves here with remarking, that seventy\nyears later an expectation did prevail in the east that a ruler of the\nworld would arise from among the Jewish people, [355] we pass on to a\nyet more weighty difficulty. According to this narrative it appears,\nthat astrology is right when it asserts that the birth of great men and\nimportant revolutions in human affairs are indicated by astral\nphenomena; an opinion long since consigned to the region of\nsuperstition. It is therefore to be explained, how this deceptive\nscience could in this solitary instance prove true, though in no other\ncase are its inferences to be relied on. The most obvious explanation,\nfrom the orthodox point of view, is an appeal to the supernatural\nintervention of God; who, in this particular instance, in order to\nbring the distant magi unto Jesus, accommodated himself to their\nastrological notions, and caused the anticipated star to appear. But\nthe adoption of this expedient involves very serious consequences. For\nthe coincidence of the remarkable sequel with the astrological\nprognostic could not fail to strengthen the belief, not only of the\nmagi and their fellow-countrymen, but also of the Jews and Christians\nwho were acquainted with the circumstances, in the spurious science of\nastrology, thereby creating incalculable error and mischief. If\ntherefore it be unadvisable to admit an extraordinary divine\nintervention, [356] and if the position that in the ordinary course of\nnature, important occurrences on this earth are attended by changes in\nthe heavenly bodies, be abandoned, the only remaining explanation lies\nin the supposition of an accidental coincidence. But to appeal to\nchance is in fact either to say nothing, or to renounce the\nsupranaturalistic point of view.\n\nBut the orthodox view of this account not only sanctions the false\nscience of astrology, but also confirms the false interpretation of a\npassage in the prophets. For as the magi, following their star, proceed\nin the right direction, so the chief priests and scribes of Jerusalem\nwhom Herod, on learning the arrival and object of the magi, summons\nbefore him and questions concerning the birth-place of the King of the\nJews, interpret the passage in Micah v. 1 as signifying that the\nMessiah should be born in Bethlehem; and to this signification the\nevent corresponds. Now such an application of the above passage can\nonly be made by forcing the words from their true meaning and from all\nrelation with the context, according to the well-known practice of the\nrabbins. For independently of the question whether or not under the\nword \u200f\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dc\u200e, in the passage cited, the Messiah be intended, the entire\ncontext shows the meaning to be, not that the expected governor who was\nto come forth out of Bethlehem would actually be born in that city, but\nonly that he would be a descendant of David, whose family sprang from\nBethlehem. [357] Thus allowing the magi to have been lightly directed\nby means of the rabbinical exegesis of the oracle, a false\ninterpretation must have hit on the truth, either by means of divine\nintervention and accommodation, or by accident. The judgment pronounced\nin the case of the star is applicable here also.\n\nAfter receiving the above answer from the Sanhedrim, Herod summons the\nmagi before him, and his first question concerns the time at which the\nstar appeared (v. 7). Why did he wish to know this [358]? The 16th\nverse tells us, that he might thereby calculate the age of the\nMessianic child, and thus ascertain up to what age it would be\nnecessary for him to put to death the children of Bethlehem, so as not\nto miss the one announced by the star. But this plan of murdering all\nthe children of Bethlehem up to a certain age, that he might destroy\nthe one likely to prove fatal to the interests of his family, was not\nconceived by Herod until after the magi had disappointed his\nexpectation that they would return to Jerusalem; a deception which, if\nwe may judge from his violent anger on account of it (v. 16), Herod had\nby no means anticipated. Prior to this, according to v. 8, it had been\nhis intention to obtain from the magi, on their return, so close a\ndescription of the child, his dwelling and circumstances, that it would\nbe easy for him to remove his infantine rival without sacrificing any\nother life. It was not until he had discovered the stratagem of the\nmagi, that he was obliged to have recourse to the more violent measure\nfor the execution of which it was necessary for him to know the time of\nthe star\u2019s appearance. [359] How fortunate for him, then, that he had\nascertained this time before he had decided on the plan that made the\ninformation important; but how inconceivable that he should make a\npoint which was only indirectly connected with his original project,\nthe subject of his first and most eager interrogation (v. 7)!\n\nHerod, in the second place, commissions the magi to acquaint themselves\naccurately with all that concerns the royal infant, and to impart their\nknowledge to him on their return, that he also may go and tender his\nhomage to the child, that is, according to his real meaning, take sure\nmeasures for putting him to death (v. 8). Such a proceeding on the part\nof an astute monarch like Herod has long been held improbable. [360]\nEven if he hoped to deceive the magi, while in conference with them, by\nadopting this friendly mask, he must necessarily foresee that others\nwould presently awaken them to the probability that he harboured evil\ndesigns against the child, and thus prevent them from returning\naccording to his injunction. He might conjecture that the parents of\nthe child on hearing of the ominous interest taken in him by the king,\nwould seek his safety by flight, and finally, that those inhabitants of\nBethlehem and its environs who cherished Messianic expectations, would\nnot be a little confirmed in them by the arrival of the magi. On all\nthese grounds, Herod\u2019s only prudent measure would have been either to\ndetain the magi in Jerusalem, [361] and in the meantime by means of\nsecret emissaries to dispatch the child to whom such peculiar hopes\nwere attached, and who must have been easy of discovery in the little\nvillage of Bethlehem; or to have given the magi companions who, so soon\nas the child was found, might at once have put an end to his existence.\nEven Olshausen thinks that these strictures are not groundless, and his\nbest defence against them is the observation that the histories of all\nages present unaccountable instances of forgetfulness\u2014a proof that the\ncourse of human events is guided by a supreme hand. When the\nsupernaturalist invokes the supreme hand in the case before us, he must\nsuppose that God himself blinded Herod to the surest means of attaining\nhis object, in order to save the Messianic child from a premature\ndeath. But the other side of this divine contrivance is, that instead\nof the one child, many others must die. There would be nothing to\nobject against such a substitution in this particular case, if it could\nbe proved that there was no other possible mode of rescuing Jesus from\na fate inconsistent with the scheme of human redemption. But if it be\nonce admitted, that God interposed supernaturally to blind the mind of\nHerod and to suggest to the magi that they should not return to\nJerusalem, we are constrained to ask, why did not God in the first\ninstance inspire the magi to shun Jerusalem and proceed directly to\nBethlehem, whither Herod\u2019s attention would not then have been so\nimmediately attracted, and thus the disastrous sequel perhaps have been\naltogether avoided? [362] The supranaturalist has no answer to this\nquestion but the old-fashioned argument that it was good for the\ninfants to die, because they were thus freed by transient suffering\nfrom much misery, and more especially from the danger of sinning\nagainst Jesus with the unbelieving Jews; whereas now they had the\nhonour of losing their lives for the sake of Jesus, and thus of ranking\nas martyrs, and so forth. [363]\n\nThe magi leave Jerusalem by night, the favourite time for travelling in\nthe east. The star, which they seem to have lost sight of since their\ndeparture from home, again appears and goes before them on the road to\nBethlehem, until at length it remains stationary over the house that\ncontains the wondrous child and its parents. The way from Jerusalem to\nBethlehem lies southward; now the true path of erratic stars is either\nfrom west to east, as that of the planets and of some comets, or from\neast to west, as that of other comets; the orbits of many comets do\nindeed tend from north to south, but the true motion of all these\nbodies is so greatly surpassed by their apparent motion from east to\nwest produced by the rotation of the earth on its axis, that it is\nimperceptible except at considerable intervals. Even the diurnal\nmovement of the heavenly bodies, however, is less obvious on a short\njourney than the merely optical one, arising from the observer\u2019s own\nchange of place, in consequence of which a star that he sees before him\nseems, as long as he moves forward, to pass on in the same direction\nthrough infinite space; it cannot therefore stand still over a\nparticular house and thus induce a traveller to halt there also; on the\ncontrary, the traveller himself must halt before the star will appear\nstationary. The star of the magi could not then be an ordinary, natural\nstar, but must have been one created by God for that particular\nexigency, and impressed by him with a peculiar law of motion and rest.\n[364] Again, this could not have been a true star, moving among the\nsystems of our firmament, for such an one, however impelled and\narrested, could never, according to optical laws, appear to pause over\na particular house. It must therefore have been something lower,\nhovering over the earth\u2019s surface; hence some of the Fathers and\napocryphal writers [365] supposed it to have been an angel, which,\ndoubtless, might fly before the magi in the form of a star, and take\nits station at a moderate height above the house of Mary in Bethlehem;\nmore modern theologians have conjectured that the phenomenon was a\nmeteor. [366] Both these explanations are opposed to the text of\nMatthew: the former, because it is out of keeping with the style of our\nGospels to designate anything purely supernatural, such as an angelic\nappearance, by an expression that implies a merely natural object, as\n\u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 (a star); the latter, because a mere meteor would not last for so\nlong a time as must have elapsed between the departure of the magi from\ntheir remote home and their arrival in Bethlehem. Perhaps, however, it\nwill be contended that God created one meteor for the first monition,\nand another for the second.\n\nMany, even of the orthodox expositors, have found these difficulties in\nrelation to the star so pressing, that they have striven to escape at\nany cost from the admission that it preceded the magi in their way\ntowards Bethlehem, and took its station directly over a particular\nhouse. According to S\u00fcskind, whose explanation has been much approved,\nthe verb \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1fc6\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd (went before) (v. 9), which is in the imperfect tense,\ndoes not signify that the star visibly led the magi on their way, but\nis equivalent to the pluperfect, which would imply that the star had\nbeen invisibly transferred to the destination of the magi before their\narrival, so that the Evangelist intends to say: the star which the magi\nhad seen in the east and subsequently lost sight of, suddenly made its\nappearance to them in Bethlehem above the house they were seeking; it\nhad therefore preceded them. [367] But this is a transplantation of\nrationalistic artifice into the soil of orthodox exegesis. Not only the\nword \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1fc6\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd, but the less flexible expression \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (till\nit came, etc.) denotes that the transit of the star was not an already\ncompleted phenomenon, but one brought to pass under the observation of\nthe magi. Expositors who persist in denying this must, to be\nconsistent, go still farther, and reduce the entire narrative to the\nstandard of merely natural events. So when Olshausen admits that the\nposition of a star could not possibly indicate a single house, that\nhence the magi must have inquired for the infant\u2019s dwelling, and only\nwith child-like simplicity referred the issue as well as the\ncommencement of their journey to a heavenly guide [368]; he deserts his\nown point of view for that of the rationalists, and interlines the text\nwith explanatory particulars, an expedient which he elsewhere justly\ncondemns in Paulus and others.\n\nThe magi then enter the house, offer their adoration to the infant, and\npresent to him gifts, the productions of their native country. One\nmight wonder that there is no notice of the astonishment which it must\nhave excited in these men to find, instead of the expected prince, a\nchild in quite ordinary, perhaps indigent circumstances. [369] It is\nnot fair, however, to heighten the contrast by supposing, according to\nthe common notion, that the magi discovered the child in a stable lying\nin the manger; for this representation is peculiar to Luke, and is\naltogether unknown to Matthew, who merely speaks of a house, \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, in\nwhich the child was found. Then follows (v. 10) the warning given to\nthe magi in a dream, concerning which, as before remarked, it were only\nto be wished that it had been vouchsafed earlier, so as to avert the\nsteps of the magi from Jerusalem, and thus perchance prevent the whole\nsubsequent massacre.\n\nWhile Herod awaits the return of the magi, Joseph is admonished by an\nangelic apparition in a dream to flee with the Messianic child and its\nmother into Egypt for security (v. 13\u201315). Adopting the evangelist\u2019s\npoint of view, this is not attended with any difficulty; it is\notherwise, however, with the prophecy which the above event is said to\nfulfil, Hosea xi. 1. In this passage the prophet, speaking in the name\nof Jehovah, says: When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called\nmy son out of Egypt. We may venture to attribute, even to the most\northodox expositor, enough clear-sightedness to perceive that the\nsubject of the first half of the sentence is also the object of the\nsecond, namely the people of Israel, who here, as elsewhere, (e.g.\nExod. iv. 22, Sirach xxxvi. 14), are collectively called the Son of\nGod, and whose past deliverance under Moses out of their Egyptian\nbondage is the fact referred to: that consequently, the prophet was not\ncontemplating either the Messiah or his sojourn in Egypt. Nevertheless,\nas our evangelist says, v. 15, that the flight of Jesus into Egypt took\nplace expressly that the above words of Hosea might be fulfilled, he\nmust have understood them as a prophecy relating to Christ\u2014must,\ntherefore, have misunderstood them. It has been pretended that the\npassage has a twofold application, and, though referring primarily to\nthe Israelitish people, is not the less a prophecy relative to Christ,\nbecause the destiny of Israel \u201cafter the flesh\u201d was a type of the\ndestiny of Jesus. But this convenient method of interpretation is not\napplicable here, for the analogy would, in the present case, be\naltogether external and inane, since the only parallel consists in the\nbare fact in both instances of a sojourn in Egypt, the circumstances\nunder which the Israelitish people and the child Jesus sojourned there\nbeing altogether diverse. [370]\n\nWhen the return of the magi has been delayed long enough for Herod to\nbecome aware that they have no intention to keep faith with him, he\ndecrees the death of all the male children in Bethlehem and its\nenvirons up to the age of two years, that being, according to the\nstatements of the magi as to the time of the star\u2019s appearance, the\nutmost interval that could have elapsed since the birth of the\nMessianic child (16\u201318). This was, beyond all question, an act of the\nblindest fury, for Herod might easily have informed himself whether a\nchild who had received rare and costly presents was yet to be found in\nBethlehem: but even granting it not inconsistent with the disposition\nof the aged tyrant to the extent that Schleiermacher supposed, it were\nin any case to be expected that so unprecedented and revolting a\nmassacre would be noticed by other historians than Matthew. [371] But\nneither Josephus, who is very minute in his account of Herod, nor the\nrabbins, who were assiduous in blackening his memory, give the\nslightest hint of this decree. The latter do, indeed, connect the\nflight of Jesus into Egypt with a murderous scene, the author of which,\nhowever, is not Herod, but King Jann\u00e6us, and the victims not children,\nbut rabbins. [372] Their story is evidently founded on a confusion of\nthe occurrence gathered from the christian history, with an earlier\nevent; for Alexander Jann\u00e6us died 40 years before the birth of Christ.\nMacrobius, who lived in the fourth century, is the only author who\nnotices the slaughter of the infants, and he introduces it obliquely in\na passage which loses all credit by confounding the execution of\nAntipater, who was so far from a child that he complained of his grey\nhairs, [373] with the murder of the infants, renowned among the\nChristians. [374] Commentators have attempted to diminish our surprise\nat the remarkable silence in question, by reminding us that the number\nof children of the given age in the petty village of Bethlehem, must\nhave been small, and by remarking that among the numerous deeds of\ncruelty by which the life of Herod was stained, this one would be lost\nsight of as a drop in the ocean. [375] But in these observations the\nspecific atrocity of murdering innocent children, however few, is\noverlooked; and it is this that must have prevented the deed, if really\nperpetrated, from being forgotten. [376] Here also the evangelist cites\n(v. 17, 18) a prophetic passage (Jerem. xxxi. 15), as having been\nfulfilled by the murder of the infants; whereas it originally referred\nto something quite different, namely the transportation of the Jews to\nBabylon, and had no kind of reference to an event lying in remote\nfuturity.\n\nWhile Jesus and his parents are in Egypt, Herod the Great dies, and\nJoseph is instructed by an angel, who appears to him in a dream, to\nreturn to his native country; but as Archelaus, Herod\u2019s successor in\nJud\u00e6a, was to be feared, he has more precise directions in a second\noracular dream, in obedience to which he fixes his abode at Nazareth in\nGalilee, under the milder government of Herod Antipas (19\u201323). Thus in\nthe compass of this single chapter, we have five extraordinary\ninterpositions of God; an anomalous star, and four visions. For the\nstar and the first vision, we have already remarked, one miracle might\nhave been substituted, not only without detriment, but with advantage;\neither the star or the vision might from the beginning have deterred\nthe magi from going to Jerusalem, and by this means perhaps have\naverted the massacre ordained by Herod. But that the two last visions\nare not united in one is a mere superfluity; for the direction to\nJoseph to proceed to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, which is made the\nobject of a special vision, might just as well have been included in\nthe first. Such a disregard, even to prodigality, of the lex parsimoni\u00e6\nin relation to the miraculous, one is tempted to refer to human\nimagination rather than to divine providence.\n\nThe false interpretations of Old Testament passages in this chapter are\ncrowned by the last verse, where it is said that by the settlement of\nthe parents of Jesus at Nazareth was fulfilled the saying of the\nprophets: He shall be called a Nazarene. Now this passage is not to be\nfound in the Old Testament, and unless expositors, losing courage, take\nrefuge in darkness by supposing that it is extracted from a canonical\n[377] or apocryphal [378] book now lost, they must admit the\nconditional validity of one or other of the following charges against\nthe evangelist. If, as it has been alleged, he intended to compress the\nOld Testament prophecies that the Messiah would be despised, into the\noracular sentence, He shall be called a Nazarene, i.e. the citizen of a\ndespised city, [379] we must accuse him of the most arbitrary mode of\nexpression; or, if he be supposed to give a modification of \u200f\u05e0\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u200e\n(nasir) we must tax him with the most violent transformation of the\nword and the grossest perversion of its meaning, for even if, contrary\nto the fact, this epithet were applied to the Messiah in the Old\nTestament, it could only mean either that he would be a Nazarite, [380]\nwhich Jesus never was, or that he would be crowned, [381] as Joseph,\nGen. xlix. 26, in no case that he would be brought up in the petty town\nof Nazareth. The most probable interpretation of this passage, and that\nwhich has the sanction of the Jewish Christians questioned on the\nsubject by Jerome, is, that the evangelist here alludes to Isa. xi. 1,\nwhere the Messiah is called \u200f\u05e0\u05b5\u05e2\u05b6\u05e8 \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d9\u200e (surculus Jesse) as elsewhere\n\u200f\u05e6\u05b6\u05de\u05b7\u05d7\u200e. [382] But in every case there is the same violence done to the\nword by attaching to a mere appellative of the Messiah, an entirely\nfictitious relation to the name of the city of Nazareth.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 35.\n\nATTEMPTS AT A NATURAL EXPLANATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE MAGI.\nTRANSITION TO THE MYTHICAL EXPLANATION.\n\nTo avoid the many difficulties which beset us at every step in\ninterpreting this chapter after the manner of the supranaturalists, it\nis quite worth our while to seek for another exposition which may\nsuffice to explain the whole according to physical and psychological\nlaws, without any admixture of supernaturalism. Such an exposition has\nbeen the most successfully attempted by Paulus.\n\nHow could heathen magi, in a remote country of the east, know anything\nof a Jewish king about to be born? This is the first difficulty, and it\nis removed on the above system of interpretation by supposing that the\nmagi were expatriated Jews. But this, apparently, is not the idea of\nthe evangelist.\n\nFor the question which he puts into the mouth of the magi, \u201cWhere is he\nthat is born King of the Jews?\u201d distinguishes them from that people,\nand as regards the tendency of the entire narrative, the church seems\nto have apprehended it more correctly than Paulus thinks, in\nrepresenting the visit of the magi as the first manifestation of Christ\nto the Gentiles. Nevertheless, as we have above remarked, this\ndifficulty may be cleared away without having recourse to the\nsupposition of Paulus.\n\nFurther, according to the natural explanation, the real object of the\njourney of these men was not to see the new-born king, nor was its\ncause the star which they had observed in the east; but they happened\nto be travelling to Jerusalem perhaps with mercantile views, and\nhearing far and wide in the land of a new-born king, a celestial\nphenomenon which they had recently observed occurred to their\nremembrance, and they earnestly desired to see the child in question.\nBy this means, it is true, the difficulty arising from the sanction\ngiven to astrology by the usual conception of the story is diminished,\nbut only at the expense of unprejudiced interpretation. For even if it\nwere admissible unceremoniously to transform magi \u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 into\nmerchants, their purpose in this journey cannot have been a commercial\none, for their first inquiry on arriving at Jerusalem is after the\nnew-born king, and they forthwith mention a star, seen by them in the\neast, as the cause not only of their question, but also of their\npresent journey, the object of which they aver to be the presentation\nof their homage to the new-born child (v. 2).\n\nThe \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 (star) becomes, on this method of interpretation, a natural\nmeteor, or a comet, [383] or finally, a constellation, that is, a\nconjunction of planets. [384] The last idea was put forth by Kepler,\nand has been approved by several astronomers and theologians. Is it\nmore easy, on any one of these suppositions, to conceive that the star\ncould precede the magi on their way, and remain stationary over a\nparticular house, according to the representation of the text? We have\nalready examined the two first hypotheses; if we adopt the third, we\nmust either suppose the verb \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (v. 9) to signify the disjunction\nof the planets, previously in apparent union, [385] though the text\ndoes not imply a partition but a forward movement of the entire\nphenomenon; or we must call S\u00fcskind\u2019s pluperfect to our aid, and\nimagine that the constellation, which the magi could no longer see in\nthe valley between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, again burst on their view\nover the place where the child dwelt. [386] For the expression, \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\n\u03bf\u1f57 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd (v. 9), denotes merely the place of abode, not the\nparticular dwelling of the child and his parents. This we grant; but\nwhen the evangelist proceeds thus: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, (v.\n9), he gives the more general expression the precise meaning of\ndwelling-house, so that this explanation is clearly a vain effort to\nabate the marvellousness of the evangelical narrative.\n\nThe most remarkable supposition adopted by those who regard \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 as a\nconjunction of planets, is that they hereby obtain a fixed point in\naccredited history, to which the narrative of Matthew may be attached.\nAccording to Kepler\u2019s calculation, corrected by Ideler, there occurred,\nthree years before the death of Herod, in the year of Rome 747, a\nconjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the sign Pisces. The conjunction\nof these planets is repeated in the above sign, to which astrologers\nattribute a special relation to Palestine, about every 800 years, and\naccording to the computation of the Jew Abarbanel (1463) it took place\nthree years before the birth of Moses; hence it is probable enough that\nthe hope of the second great deliverer of the nation would be\nassociated with the recurrence of this conjunction in the time of\nHerod, and that when the phenomenon was actually observed, it would\noccasion inquiry on the part of Babylonian Jews. But that the star\nmentioned by Matthew was this particular planetary conjunction, is,\nfrom our uncertainty as to the year of Christ\u2019s birth, and also as to\nthe period of the above astrological calculation, an extremely\nprecarious conjecture; and as, besides, there are certain particulars\nin the evangelical text, for instance, the words \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1fc6\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd and \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7,\nwhich do not accord with such an explanation,\u2014so soon as another, more\ncongruous with Matthew\u2019s narrative, presents itself, we are justified\nin giving it the preference.\n\nThe difficulties connected with the erroneous interpretations of\npassages from the Old Testament are, from the natural point of view,\neluded by denying that the writers of the New Testament are responsible\nfor the falsity of these interpretations. It is said that the prophecy\nof Micah is applied to the Messiah and his birth in Bethlehem by the\nSanhedrim alone, and that Matthew has not committed himself to their\ninterpretation by one word of approval. But when the evangelist\nproceeds to narrate how the issue corresponded with the interpretation,\nhe sanctions it by the authoritative seal of fact. In relation to the\npassage from Hosea, Paulus and Steudel [387] concur in resorting to a\nsingular expedient. Matthew, say they, wished to guard against the\noffence which it might possibly give to the Jews of Palestine to learn\nthat the Messiah had once left the Holy Land; he therefore called\nattention to the fact that Israel, in one sense the first-born of God,\nhad been called out of Egypt, for which reason, he would imply, no one\nought to be astonished that the Messiah, the son of God in a higher\nsense, had also visited a profane land. But throughout the passage\nthere is no trace [388] of such a negative, precautionary intention on\nthe part of the evangelist in adducing this prophecy: on the contrary,\nall his quotations seem to have the positive object to confirm the\nMessiahship of Jesus by showing that in him the Old Testament\nprophecies had their fulfilment. It has been attempted with reference\nto the two other prophecies cited in this chapter, to reduce the\nsignification of the verb \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (to be fulfilled) to that of mere\nsimilitude or applicability; but the futility of the effort needs no\nexposure.\n\nThe various directions conveyed to the persons of our narrative by\nmeans of visions are, from the same point of view, all explained\npsychologically, as effects of waking inquiries and reflections. This\nappears, indeed, to be indicated by the text itself, v. 22, according\nto which Joseph, hearing that Archelaus was master of Judea, feared to\ngo thither, and not until then did he receive an intimation from a\nhigher source in a dream. Nevertheless, on a closer examination we find\nthat the communication given in the dream was something new, not a mere\nrepetition of intelligence received in waking moments. Only the\nnegative conclusion, that on account of Archelaus it was not advisable\nto settle at Bethlehem, was attained by Joseph when awake; the positive\ninjunction to proceed to Nazareth was superadded in his dream. To\nexplain the other visions in the above way is a direct interpolation of\nthe text, for this represents both the hostility and death of Herod as\nbeing first made known to Joseph by dreams; in like manner, the magi\nhave no distrust of Herod until a dream warns them against his\ntreachery.\n\nThus, on the one hand, the sense of the narrative in Matt. ii. is\nopposed to the conception of its occurrence as natural; on the other\nhand, this narrative, taken in its original sense, carries the\nsupernatural into the extravagant, the improbable into the impossible.\nWe are therefore led to doubt the historical character of the\nnarrative, and to conjecture that we have before us something mythical.\nThe first propounders of this opinion were so unsuccessful in its\nillustration, that they never liberated themselves from the sphere of\nthe natural interpretation, which they sought to transcend. Arabian\nmerchants (thinks Krug, for example) coming by chance to Bethlehem, met\nwith the parents of Jesus, and learning that they were strangers in\ndistress (according to Matthew, the parents of Jesus were not strangers\nin Bethlehem), made them presents, uttered many good wishes for their\nchild, and pursued their journey. When subsequently, Jesus was reputed\nto be the Messiah, the incident was remembered and embellished with a\nstar, visions, and believing homage. To these were added the flight\ninto Egypt and the infanticide; the latter, because the above incident\nwas supposed to have had some effect on Herod, who, on other grounds\nthan those alleged in the text, had caused some families in Bethlehem\nto be put to death; the former, probably because Jesus had, with some\nunknown object, actually visited Egypt at a later period. [389]\n\nIn this, as in the purely naturalistic interpretation, there remain as\nso many garb, the arrival of some oriental travellers, the flight into\nEgypt, and the massacre in Bethlehem; divested, however, of the\nmarvellous garb with which they are enveloped in the evangelical\nnarrative. In this unadorned form, these occurrences are held to be\nintelligible and such as might very probably happen, but in point of\nfact they are more incomprehensible even than when viewed through the\nmedium of orthodoxy, for with their supernatural embellishments\nvanishes the entire basis on which they rest. Matthew\u2019s narrative\nadequately accounts for the relations between the men of the east and\nthe parents of Jesus; this attempt at mythical exposition reduces them\nto a wonderful chance. The massacre at Bethlehem has, in the\nevangelical narrative, a definite cause; here, we are at a loss to\nunderstand how Herod came to ordain such an enormity; so, the journey\ninto Egypt, which had so urgent a motive according to Matthew, is on\nthis scheme of interpretation totally inexplicable. It may indeed be\nsaid: these events had their adequate causes in accordance with the\nregular course of things, but Matthew has withheld this natural\nsequence and given a miraculous one in its stead. But if the writer or\nlegend be capable of environing occurrences with fictitious motives and\naccessory circumstances, either the one or the other is also capable of\nfabricating the occurrences themselves, and this fabrication is the\nmore probable, the more clearly we can show that the legend had an\ninterest in depicting such occurrences, though they had never actually\ntaken place.\n\nThis argument is equally valid against the attempt, lately made from\nthe supranaturalistic point of view, to separate the true from the\nfalse in the evangelical narrative. In a narrative like this, says\nNeander, we must carefully distinguish the kernel from the shell, the\nmain fact from immaterial circumstances, and not demand the same degree\nof certitude for all its particulars. That the magi by their\nastrological researches were led to anticipate the birth of a Saviour\nin Judea, and hence journeyed to Jerusalem that they might offer him\ntheir homage is, according to him, the only essential and certain part\nof the narrative. But how, when arrived in Jerusalem, did they learn\nthat the child was to be born in Bethlehem? From Herod, or by some\nother means? On this point Neander is not equally willing to guarantee\nthe veracity of Matthew\u2019s statements, and he regards it as unessential.\nThe magi, he continues, in so inconsiderable a place as Bethlehem,\nmight be guided to the child\u2019s dwelling by many providential\narrangements in the ordinary course of events; for example, by meeting\nwith the shepherds or other devout persons who had participated in the\ngreat event. When however they had once entered the house, they might\nrepresent the circumstances in the astrological guise with which their\nminds were the most familiar. Neander awards an historical character to\nthe flight into Egypt and the infanticide. [390] By this explanation of\nthe narrative, only its heaviest difficulty, namely, that the star\npreceded the magi on their way and paused above a single house, is in\nreality thrown overboard; the other difficulties remain. But Neander\nhas renounced unlimited confidence in the veracity of the evangelist,\nand admitted that a part of his narrative is unhistorical. If it be\nasked how far this unhistorical portion extends, and what is its\nkind\u2014whether the nucleus around which legend has deposited its\ncrystallizations be historical or ideal\u2014it is easy to show that the few\nand vague data which a less lenient criticism than that of Neander can\nadmit as historical, are far less adapted to give birth to our\nnarrative, than the very precise circle of ideas and types which we are\nabout to exhibit.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 36.\n\nTHE PURELY MYTHICAL EXPLANATION OF THE NARRATIVE CONCERNING THE MAGI,\nAND OF THE EVENTS WITH WHICH IT IS CONNECTED.\n\nSeveral Fathers of the Church indicated the true key to the narrative\nconcerning the magi when, in order to explain from what source those\nheathen astrologers could gather any knowledge of a Messianic star,\nthey put forth the conjecture that this knowledge might have been drawn\nfrom the prophecies of the heathen Balaam, recorded in the Book of\nNumbers. [391] K. Ch. L. Schmidt justly considers it a deficiency in\nthe exposition of Paulus, that it takes no notice of the Jewish\nexpectation that a star would become visible at the appearance of the\nMessiah; and yet, he adds, this is the only thread to guide us to the\ntrue origin of this narrative. [392] The prophecy of Balaam (Num. xxiv.\n17), A star shall come out of Jacob, was the cause\u2014not indeed, as the\nFathers supposed, that magi actually recognized a newly-kindled star as\nthat of the Messiah, and hence journeyed to Jerusalem\u2014but that legend\nrepresented a star to have appeared at the birth of Jesus, and to have\nbeen recognized by astrologers as the star of the Messiah. The prophecy\nattributed to Balaam originally referred to some fortunate and\nvictorious ruler of Israel; but it seems to have early received a\nMessianic interpretation. Even if the translation in the Targum of\nOnkelos, surget rex ex Jacobo et Messias (unctus) ungetur ex Israele,\nprove nothing, because here the word unctus is synonymous with rex, and\nmight signify an ordinary king\u2014it is yet worthy of notice that,\naccording to the testimony of Aben Ezra, [393] and the passages cited\nby Wetstein and Sch\u00f6ttgen, many rabbins applied the prophecy to the\nMessiah. The name Bar-Cocheba (son of a star), assumed by a noted\npseudo-Messiah under Hadrian, was chosen with reference to the\nMessianic interpretation of Balaam\u2019s prophecy.\n\nIt is true that the passage in question, taken in its original sense,\ndoes not speak of a real star, but merely compares to a star the future\nprince of Israel, and this is the interpretation given to it in the\nTargum above quoted. But the growing belief in astrology, according to\nwhich every important event was signalized by sidereal changes, soon\ncaused the prophecy of Balaam to be understood no longer figuratively,\nbut literally, as referring to a star which was to appear\ncontemporaneously with the Messiah. We have various proofs that a\nbelief in astrology was prevalent in the time of Jesus. The future\ngreatness of Mithridates was thought to be prognosticated by the\nappearance of a comet in the year of his birth, and in that of his\naccession to the throne [394]; and a comet observed shortly after the\ndeath of Julius C\u00e6sar, was supposed to have a close relation to that\nevent. [395] These ideas were not without influence on the Jews; at\nleast we find traces of them in Jewish writings of a later period, in\nwhich it is said that a remarkable star appeared at the birth of\nAbraham. [396] When such ideas were afloat, it was easy to imagine that\nthe birth of the Messiah must be announced by a star, especially as,\naccording to the common interpretation of Balaam\u2019s prophecy, a star was\nthere made the symbol of the Messiah. It is certain that the Jewish\nmind effected this combination; for it is a rabbinical idea that at the\ntime of the Messiah\u2019s birth, a star will appear in the east and remain\nfor a long time visible. [397] The narrative of Matthew is allied to\nthis simpler Jewish idea; the apocryphal descriptions of the star that\nannounced the birth of Jesus, to the extravagant fictions about the\nstar said to have appeared in the time of Abraham. [398] We may\ntherefore state the opinion of K. Ch. L. Schmidt, [399] recently\napproved by Fritzsche and De Wette, as the nearest approach to truth on\nthe subject of Matthew\u2019s star in the east. In the time of Jesus it was\nthe general belief that stars were always the forerunners of great\nevents; hence the Jews of that period thought that the birth of the\nMessiah would necessarily be announced by a star, and this supposition\nhad a specific sanction in Num. xxiv. 17. The early converted Jewish\nChristians could confirm their faith in Jesus, and justify it in the\neyes of others, only by labouring to prove that in him were realized\nall the attributes lent to the Messiah by the Jewish notions of their\nage\u2014a proposition that might be urged the more inoffensively and with\nthe less chance of refutation, the more remote lay the age of Jesus,\nand the more completely the history of his childhood was shrouded in\ndarkness. Hence it soon ceased to be matter of doubt that the\nanticipated appearance of a star was really coincident with the birth\nof Jesus. [400] This being once presupposed, it followed as a matter of\ncourse that the observers of this appearance were eastern magi; first,\nbecause none could better interpret the sign than astrologers, and the\neast was supposed to be the native region of their science; and\nsecondly, because it must have seemed fitting that the Messianic star\nwhich had been seen by the spiritual eye of the ancient magus Balaam,\nshould, on its actual appearance be first recognized by the bodily eyes\nof later magi.\n\nThis particular, however, as well as the journey of the magi into\nJudea, and their costly presents to the child, bear a relation to other\npassages in the Old Testament. In the description of the happier\nfuture, given in Isaiah, chap. lx., the prophet foretells that, at that\ntime, the most remote people and kings will come to Jerusalem to\nworship Jehovah, with offerings of gold and incense and all acceptable\ngifts. [401] If in this passage the messianic times alone are spoken\nof, while the Messiah himself is wanting, in Psalm lxxii. we read of a\nking who is to be feared as long as the sun and moon endure, in whose\ntimes the righteous shall flourish, and whom all nations shall call\nblessed; this king might easily be regarded as the Messiah, and the\nPsalm says of him nearly in the words of Isa. lx., that foreign kings\nshall bring him gold and other presents. To this it may be added, that\nthe pilgrimage of foreign people to Jerusalem is connected with a risen\nlight, [402] which might suggest the star of Balaam. What was more\nnatural, when on the one hand was presented Balaam\u2019s messianic star out\nof Jacob (for the observation of which magian astrologers were the best\nadapted); on the other, a light which was to arise on Jerusalem, and to\nwhich distant nations would come, bringing gifts\u2014than to combine the\ntwo images and to say: In consequence of the star which had risen over\nJerusalem, astrologers came from a distant land with presents for the\nMessiah whom the star announced? But when the imagination once had\npossession of the star, and of travellers attracted by it from a\ndistance, there was an inducement to make the star the immediate guide\nof their course, and the torch to light them on their way. This was a\nfavourite idea of antiquity: according to Virgil, a star, stella facem\nducens, marked out the way of \u00c6neas from the shores of Troy to the west\n[403]; Thrasybulus and Timoleon were led by celestial fires; and a star\nwas said to have guided Abraham on his way to Moriah. [404] Besides, in\nthe prophetic passage itself, the heavenly light seems to be associated\nwith the pilgrimage of the offerers as the guide of their course; at\nall events the originally figurative language of the prophet would\nprobably, at a later period, be understood literally, in accordance\nwith the rabbinical spirit of interpretation. The magi are not\nconducted by the star directly to Bethlehem where Jesus was; they first\nproceed to Jerusalem. One reason for this might be, that the prophetic\npassage connects the risen light and the offerers with Jerusalem; but\nthe chief reason lies in the fact, that in Jerusalem Herod was to be\nfound; for what was better adapted to instigate Herod to his murderous\ndecree, than the alarming tidings of the magi, that they had seen the\nstar of the great Jewish king?\n\nTo represent a murderous decree as having been directed by Herod\nagainst Jesus, was the interest of the primitive christian legend. In\nall times legend has glorified the infancy of great men by persecutions\nand attempts on their life; the greater the danger that hovered over\nthem, the higher seems their value; the more unexpectedly their\ndeliverance is wrought, the more evident is the esteem in which they\nare held by heaven. Hence in the history of the childhood of Cyrus in\nHerodotus, of Romulus in Livy, [405] and even later of Augustus in\nSuetonius, [406] we find this trait; neither has the Hebrew legend\nneglected to assign such a distinction to Moses. [407] One point of\nanalogy between the narrative in Exod. i., ii., and that in Matthew, is\nthat in both cases the murderous decree does not refer specially to the\none dangerous child, but generally to a certain class of children; in\nthe former, to all new-born males, in the latter to all of and under\nthe age of two years. It is true that, according to the narrative in\nExodus, the murderous decree is determined on without any reference to\nMoses, of whose birth Pharaoh is not supposed to have had any\npresentiment, and who is therefore only by accident implicated in its\nconsequences. But this representation did not sufficiently mark out\nMoses as the object of hostile design to satisfy the spirit of Hebrew\ntradition, and by the time of Josephus it had been so modified as to\nresemble more nearly the legends concerning Cyrus and Augustus, and\nabove all the narrative of Matthew. According to the later legend,\nPharaoh was incited to issue his murderous decree by a communication\nfrom his interpreters of the sacred writings, who announced to him the\nbirth of an infant destined to succour the Israelites and humble the\nEgyptians. [408] The interpreters of the sacred writings here play the\nsame part as the interpreters of dreams in Herodotus, and the\nastrologers in Matthew. Legend was not content with thus signalizing\nthe infancy of the lawgiver alone\u2014it soon extended the same distinction\nto the great progenitor of the Israelitish nation, Abraham, whom it\nrepresented as being in peril of his life from the murderous attempt of\na jealous tyrant, immediately after his birth. Moses was opposed to\nPharaoh as an enemy and oppressor; Abraham held the same position with\nrespect to Nimrod. This monarch was forewarned by his sages, whose\nattention had been excited by a remarkable star, that Tharah would have\na son from whom a powerful nation would descend. Apprehensive of\nrivalry, Nimrod immediately issues a murderous command, which, however,\nAbraham happily escapes. [409] What wonder then, that, as the great\nprogenitor and the lawgiver of the nation had their Nimrod and Pharaoh,\na corresponding persecutor was found for the restorer of the nation,\nthe Messiah, in the person of Herod;\u2014that this tyrant was said to have\nbeen apprised of the Messiah\u2019s birth by wise men, and to have laid\nsnares against his life, from which, however, he happily escapes? The\napocryphal legend, indeed, has introduced an imitation of this trait,\nafter its own style, into the history of the Forerunner; he, too, is\nendangered by Herod\u2019s decree, a mountain is miraculously cleft asunder\nto receive him and his mother, but his father refusing to point out the\nboy\u2019s hiding place, is put to death. [410]\n\nJesus escapes from the hostile attempts of Herod by other means than\nthose by which Moses, according to the mosaic history, and Abraham,\naccording to the Jewish legend, elude the decree issued against them;\nnamely, by a flight out of his native land into Egypt. In the life of\nMoses also there occurs a flight into a foreign land; not, however,\nduring his childhood, but after he had slain the Egyptian, when,\nfearing the vengeance of Pharaoh, he takes refuge in Midian (Exod. ii.\n15). That reference was made to this flight of the first Go\u00ebl in that\nof the second, our text expressly shows, for the words, which it\nattributes to the angel, who encourages Joseph to return out of Egypt\ninto Palestine, are those by which Moses is induced to return out of\nMidian into Egypt. [411] The choice of Egypt as a place of refuge for\nJesus, may be explained in the simplest manner: the young Messiah could\nnot, like Moses, flee out of Egypt; hence, that his history might not\nbe destitute of so significant a feature as a connexion with Egypt,\nthat ancient retreat of the patriarchs, the relation was reversed, and\nhe was made to flee into Egypt, which, besides, from its vicinity, was\nthe most appropriate asylum for a fugitive from Judea. The prophetic\npassage which the evangelist cites from Hosea xi. 1, Out of Egypt have\nI called my son\u2014is less available for the elucidation of this\nparticular in our narrative. For the immediate proofs that the Jews\nreferred this passage to the Messiah are very uncertain; [412] though,\nif we compare such passages as Ps. ii. 7, in which the words \u200f\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e\n(thou art my son) are interpreted of the Messiah, it cannot appear\nincredible that the expression \u200f\u05dc\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (my son) in Hosea was supposed to\nhave a messianic signification.\n\nAgainst this mythical derivation of the narrative, two objections have\nbeen recently urged. First, if the history of the star originated in\nBalaam\u2019s prophecy, why, it is asked, does not Matthew, fond as he is of\nshowing the fulfilment of Old Testament predictions in the life of\nJesus, make the slightest allusion to that prophecy? [413] Because it\nwas not he who wove this history out of the materials furnished in the\nOld Testament; he received it, already fashioned, from others, who did\nnot communicate to him its real origin. For the very reason that many\nnarratives were transmitted to him without their appropriate keys, he\nsometimes tries false ones; as in our narrative, in relation to the\nBethlehem massacre, he quotes, under a total misconception of the\npassage, Jeremiah\u2019s image of Rachel weeping for her children. [414] The\nother objection is this: how could the communities of Jewish\nChristians, whence this pretended mythus must have sprung, ascribe so\nhigh an importance to the heathen as is implied in the star of the\nmagi? [415] As if the prophets had not, in such passages as we have\nquoted, already ascribed to them this importance, which, in fact,\nconsists but in their rendering homage and submission to the Messiah, a\nrelation that must be allowed to correspond with the ideas of the\nJewish Christians, not to speak of the particular conditions on which\nthe heathen were to be admitted into the kingdom of the Messiah.\n\nWe must therefore abide by the mythical interpretation of our\nnarrative, and content ourselves with gathering from it no particular\nfact in the life of Jesus, but only a new proof how strong was the\nimpression of his messiahship left by Jesus on the minds of his\ncontemporaries, since even the history of his childhood received a\nmessianic form. [416]\n\nLet us now revert to the narrative of Luke, chap. ii., so far as it\nruns parallel with that of Matthew. We have seen that the narrative of\nMatthew does not allow us to presuppose that of Luke as a series of\nprior incidents: still less can the converse be true, namely, that the\nmagi arrived before the shepherds: it remains then to be asked, whether\nthe two narratives do not aim to represent the same fact, though they\nhave given it a different garb? From the older orthodox opinion that\nthe star in Matthew was an angel, it was an easy step to identify that\napparition with the angel in Luke, and to suppose that the angels, who\nappeared to the shepherds of Bethlehem on the night of the birth of\nJesus, were taken by the distant magi for a star vertical to Judea,\n[417] so that both the accounts might be essentially correct. Of late,\nonly one of the Evangelists has been supposed to give the true\ncircumstances, and Luke has had the preference, Matthew\u2019s narrative\nbeing regarded as an embellished edition.\n\nAccording to this opinion, the angel clothed in heavenly brightness, in\nLuke, became a star in the tradition recorded by Matthew, the ideas of\nangels and stars being confounded in the higher Jewish theology; the\nshepherds were exalted into royal magi, kings being in antiquity called\nthe shepherds of their people. [418] This derivation is too elaborate\nto be probable, even were it true, as it is here assumed, that Luke\u2019s\nnarrative bears the stamp of historical credibility. As, however, we\nconceive that we have proved the contrary, and as, consequently, we\nhave before us two equally unhistorical narratives, there is no reason\nfor preferring a forced and unnatural derivation of Matthew\u2019s narrative\nfrom that of Luke, to the very simple derivation which may be traced\nthrough Old Testament passages and Jewish notions. These two\ndescriptions of the introduction of Jesus into the world, are,\ntherefore, two variations on the same theme, composed, however, quite\nindependently of each other.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 37.\n\nCHRONOLOGICAL RELATION BETWEEN THE VISIT OF THE MAGI, TOGETHER WITH THE\nFLIGHT INTO EGYPT, AND THE PRESENTATION IN THE TEMPLE RECORDED BY LUKE.\n\nIt has been already remarked, that the narratives of Matthew and Luke\nabove considered at first run tolerably parallel, but afterwards widely\ndiverge; for instead of the tragical catastrophe of the massacre and\nflight, Luke has preserved to us the peaceful scene of the presentation\nof the child Jesus in the temple. Let us for the present shut our eyes\nto the result of the preceding inquiry\u2014the purely mythical character of\nMatthew\u2019s narrative\u2014and ask: In what chronological relation could the\npresentation in the temple stand to the visit of the magi and the\nflight into Egypt?\n\nOf these occurrences the only one that has a precise date is the\npresentation in the temple, of which it is said that it took place at\nthe expiration of the period appointed by the law for the purification\nof a mother, that is, according to Lev. xii. 2\u20134, forty days after the\nbirth of the child (Luke ii. 22). The time of the other incidents is\nnot fixed with the same exactness; it is merely said that the magi came\nto Jerusalem, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03bb\u03b5\u1f72\u03bc (Matt. ii. 1)\u2014how long\nafter the birth the Evangelist does not decide. As, however, the\nparticiple connects the visit of the magi with the birth of the child,\nif not immediately, at least so closely that nothing of importance can\nbe supposed to have intervened, some expositors have been led to the\nopinion that the visit ought to be regarded as prior to the\npresentation in the temple. [419] Admitting this arrangement, we have\nto reconcile it with one of two alternatives; either the flight into\nEgypt also preceded the presentation in the temple; or, while the visit\nof the magi preceded, the flight followed that event. If we adopt the\nlatter alternative, and thrust the presentation in the temple between\nthe visit of the magi and the flight, we come into collision at once\nwith the text of Matthew and the mutual relation of the facts. The\nEvangelist connects the command to flee into Egypt with the return of\nthe magi, by a participial construction (v. 13) similar to that by\nwhich he connects the arrival of the oriental sages with the birth of\nJesus; hence those, who in the one instance hold such a construction to\nbe a reason for placing the events which it associates in close\nsuccession, must in the other instance be withheld by it from inserting\na third occurrence between the visit and the flight. As regards the\nmutual relation of the facts, it can hardly be considered probable,\nthat at the very point of time in which Joseph received a divine\nintimation, that he was no longer safe in Bethlehem from the designs of\nHerod, he should be permitted to take a journey to Jerusalem, and thus\nto rush directly into the lion\u2019s mouth. At all events, the strictest\nprecautions must have been enjoined on all who were privy to the\npresence of the messianic child in Jerusalem, lest a rumour of the fact\nshould get abroad. But there is no trace of this solicitous incognito\nin Luke\u2019s narrative; on the contrary, not only does Simeon call\nattention to Jesus in the temple, unchecked either by the Holy Spirit\nor by the parents, but Anna also thinks she is serving the good cause,\nby publishing as widely as possible the tidings of the Messiah\u2019s birth\n(Luke ii. 28 ff., 38). It is true that she is said to have confined her\ncommunications to those who were like-minded with herself (\u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc), but this could\nnot hinder them from reaching the ears of the Herodian party, for the\ngreater the excitement produced by such news on the minds of those who\nlooked for redemption, the more would the vigilance of the government\nbe aroused, so that Jesus would inevitably fall into the hands of the\ntyrant who was lying in wait.\n\nThus in any case, they who place the presentation in the temple after\nthe visit of the magi, must also determine to postpone it until after\nthe return from Egypt. But even this arrangement clashes with the\nevangelical statement; for it requires us to insert, between the birth\nof Jesus and his presentation in the temple, the following events: the\narrival of the magi, the flight into Egypt, the Bethlehem massacre, the\ndeath of Herod, and the return of the parents of Jesus out of\nEgypt\u2014obviously too much to be included in the space of forty days. It\nmust therefore be supposed that the presentation of the child, and the\nfirst appearance of the mother in the temple, were procrastinated\nbeyond the time appointed by the law. This expedient, however, runs\ncounter to the narrative of Luke, who expressly says, that the visit to\nthe temple took place at the legal time. But in either case the\ndifficulty is the same; the parents of Jesus could, according to\nMatthew\u2019s account, as little think of a journey to Jerusalem after\ntheir return from Egypt, as immediately previous to their departure\nthither. For if Joseph, on his return from Egypt, was warned not to\nenter Judea, because Archelaus was Herod\u2019s successor in that province,\nhe would least of all venture to Jerusalem, the very seat of the\nredoubted government.\n\nOn neither of the above plans, therefore, will the presentation in the\ntemple bear to be placed after the visit of the magi, and the only\nremaining alternative, which is embraced by the majority of\ncommentators, [420] is to make the incident noticed by Luke, precede\nboth those narrated by Matthew. This is so far the most natural, that\nin Matthew there is at least an indirect intimation of a considerable\ninterval between the birth of Jesus and the arrival of the magi. For we\nare told that Herod\u2019s decree included all the children in Bethlehem up\nto the age of two years; we must therefore necessarily infer, that even\nif Herod, to make sure of his object, exceeded the term fixed by the\nmagi, the star had been visible to these astrologers for more than a\nyear. Now the narrator seems to suppose the appearance of the star to\nhave been cotemporary with the birth of Jesus. Viewing the narratives\nin this order, the parents of Jesus first journeyed from Bethlehem,\nwhere the child was born, to Jerusalem, there to present the legal\nofferings; they next returned to Bethlehem, where (according to Matt.\nii. 1 and 5) they were found by the magi; then followed the flight into\nEgypt, and after the return from thence, the settlement at Nazareth.\nThe first and most urgent question that here suggests itself is this:\nWhat had the parents of Jesus to do a second time in Bethlehem, which\nwas not their home, and where their original business connected with\nthe census must surely have been despatched in the space of forty days?\nThe discussion of this question must be deferred, but we can find an\nample substitute for this argument, drawn from the nature of the fact,\nin one which rests on the words of the evangelical narrative. Luke (v.\n39) says, in the most definite manner, that after the completion of the\nlegal observance, the parents of Jesus returned to Nazareth, as to\ntheir proper home, not to Bethlehem, which, according to him, was\nmerely a temporary residence. [421] If, then, the magi arrived after\nthe presentation in the temple, they must have met with the parents of\nJesus in Nazareth, and not in Bethlehem, as Matthew states. Moreover,\nhad the arrival of the magi really been preceded by the presentation in\nthe temple, together with the attention which must have been excited by\nthe language of Simeon and Anna; it is impossible that at the period of\nthat arrival the birth of the messianic child could have been so much a\nsecret in Jerusalem, that the announcement of it by the magi should be,\nas Matthew relates, a source of general astonishment. [422]\n\nIf, then, the presentation of Jesus in the temple can have taken place\nneither earlier nor later than the visit of the magi and the flight\ninto Egypt; and if the flight into Egypt can have taken place neither\nearlier nor later than the presentation in the temple; it is impossible\nthat both these occurrences really happened, and, at the very utmost,\nonly one can be historical. [423]\n\nTo escape from this dangerous dilemma, supranaturalism has lately been\ninduced to take a freer position, that by the surrender of what is no\nlonger tenable, the residue may be saved. Neander finds himself\nconstrained to admit, that neither did Luke know anything of what\nMatthew communicates concerning the childhood of Jesus, nor did the\nGreek editor of Matthew (to be distinguished from the apostle) know\nanything of the events detailed by Luke. But, he contends, it does not\ntherefore follow that both the different series of incidents cannot\nhave happened. [424] By giving this turn to the matter, the\ndifficulties arising from the words of the Evangelist are certainly\navoided; not so, the difficulties arising from the nature of the facts.\nThe first Evangelist ranges in close succession the visit of the magi\nand the flight into Egypt, as though no change of place had intervened;\nthe author of the third Gospel represents the parents of Jesus as\nreturning with the child, after the presentation in the temple,\ndirectly to Nazareth. We cannot, on this ground, argue from one\nevangelist against the other; for it is inadmissible to maintain that\ncertain events never happened, because they were unknown to a remote\nnarrator. But viewing the two narratives in another light, we perceive\nhow improbable it is that, after the scene in the temple, the birth of\nthe messianic child should be so entirely unknown in Jerusalem as the\nconduct of Herod on the arrival of the magi implies; how incredible\n(reversing the order of the events) that Joseph should be permitted to\ngo to Jerusalem, with the child which Herod had just sought to kill;\nhow inconceivable, finally, that the parents of Jesus should have\nreturned to Bethlehem after the presentation in the temple (of which\nmore hereafter). All these difficulties, lying in the nature of the\nfacts, difficulties not less weighty than those connected with the\nwords of the Evangelists, still subsist in Neander\u2019s explanation, and\nprove its inadequacy.\n\nThus the dilemma above stated remains, and were we compelled to choose\nunder it, we should, in the present stage of our inquiry, on no account\ndecide in favour of Matthew\u2019s narrative, and against that of Luke; on\nthe contrary, as we have recognized the mythical character of the\nformer, we should have no resource but to adhere, with our modern\ncritics, [425] to the narrative of Luke, and surrender that of Matthew.\nBut is not Luke\u2019s narrative of the same nature as that of Matthew, and\ninstead of having to choose between the two, must we not deny to both\nan historical character? The answer to this question will be found in\nthe succeeding examination.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 38.\n\nTHE PRESENTATION OF JESUS IN THE TEMPLE.\n\nThe narrative of the presentation of Jesus in the temple (Luke ii. 22)\nseems, at the first glance, to bear a thoroughly historical stamp. A\ndouble law, on the one hand, prescribing to the mother an offering of\npurification, on the other, requiring the redemption of the first-born\nson, leads the parents of Jesus to Jerusalem and to the temple. Here\nthey meet with a devout man, absorbed in the expectation of the\nMessiah, named Simeon. Many expositors hold this Simeon to be the same\nwith the Rabbi Simeon, the son of Hillel, his successor as president of\nthe Sanhedrim, and the father of Gamaliel; some even identify him with\nthe Sameas of Josephus, [426] and attach importance to his pretended\ndescent from David, because this descent makes him a relative of Jesus,\nand helps to explain the following scene naturally; but this hypothesis\nis improbable, for Luke would hardly have introduced so celebrated a\npersonage by the meagre designation, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, (a certain man).\n[427] Without this hypothesis, however, the scene between the parents\nof Jesus and Simeon, as also the part played by Anna the prophetess,\nseems to admit of a very natural explanation. There is no necessity for\nsupposing, with the author of the Natural History, [428] that Simeon\nwas previously aware of the hope cherished by Mary that she was about\nto give birth to the Messiah; we need only, with Paulus and others,\nconceive the facts in the following manner. Animated, like many of that\nperiod, with the hope of the speedy advent of the Messiah, Simeon\nreceives, probably in a dream, the assurance that before his death he\nwill be permitted to see the expected deliverer of his nation. One day,\nin obedience to an irresistible impulse, he visited the temple, and on\nthis very day Mary brought thither her child, whose beauty at once\nattracted his notice; on learning the child\u2019s descent from David, the\nattention and interest of Simeon were excited to a degree that induced\nMary to disclose to him the hopes which were reposed on this scion of\nancient royalty, with the extraordinary occurrences by which they had\nbeen called into existence. These hopes Simeon embraced with\nconfidence, and in enthusiastic language gave utterance to his\nmessianic expectations and forebodings, under the conviction that they\nwould be fulfilled in this child. Still less do we need the supposition\nof the author of the Natural History with respect to Anna, namely, that\nshe was one of the women who assisted at the birth of the infant Jesus,\nand was thus acquainted beforehand with the marvels and the hopes that\nhad clustered round his cradle; she had heard the words of Simeon, and\nbeing animated by the same sentiments, she gave them her approval.\n\nSimple as this explanation appears, it is not less arbitrary than we\nhave already found other specimens of natural interpretation. The\nevangelist nowhere says, that the parents of Jesus had communicated\nanything concerning their extraordinary hopes to Simeon, before he\npoured forth his inspired words; on the contrary, the point of his\nentire narrative consists in the idea that the aged saint had, by\nvirtue of the spirit with which he was filled, instantaneously\ndiscerned in Jesus the messianic child, and the reason why the\nco-operation of the Holy Spirit is insisted on, is to make it evident\nhow Simeon was enabled, without any previous information, to recognise\nin Jesus the promised child, and at the same time to foretell the\ncourse of his destiny. Our canonical Gospel refers Simeon\u2019s recognition\nof Jesus to a supernatural principle resident in Simeon himself; the\nEvangelium infanti\u00e6 arabicum refers it to something objective in the\nappearance of Jesus [429]\u2014far more in the spirit of the original\nnarrative than the natural interpretation, for it retains the\nmiraculous element. But, apart from the general reasons against the\ncredibility of miracles, the admission of a miracle in this instance is\nattended with a special difficulty, because no worthy object for an\nextraordinary manifestation of divine power is discoverable. For, that\nthe above occurrence during the infancy of Jesus served to disseminate\nand establish in more distant circles the persuasion of his\nMessiahship, there is no indication; we must therefore, with the\nEvangelist, limit the object of these supernatural communications to\nSimeon and Anna, to whose devout hopes was vouchsafed the special\nreward of having their eyes enlightened to discern the messianic child.\nBut that miracles should be ordained for such occasional and isolated\nobjects, is not reconcileable with just ideas of divine providence.\n\nThus here again we find reason to doubt the historical character of the\nnarrative, especially as we have found by a previous investigation that\nit is annexed to narratives purely mythical. Simeon\u2019s real expressions,\nsay some commentators, were probably these: Would that I might yet\nbehold the new-born Messiah, even as I now bear this child in my\narms!\u2014a simple wish which was transformed ex eventu by tradition, into\nthe positive enunciations now read in Luke [430]. But this explanation\nis incomplete, for the reason why such stories became current\nconcerning Jesus, must be shown in the relative position of this\nportion of the evangelical narrative, and in the interest of the\nprimitive Christian legend. As to the former, this scene at the\npresentation of Jesus in the temple is obviously parallel with that at\nthe circumcision of the Baptist, narrated by the same evangelist; for\non both occasions, at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God is\npraised for the birth of a national deliverer, and the future destiny\nof the child is prophetically announced, in the one case by the father,\nin the other by a devout stranger. That this scene is in the former\ninstance connected with the circumcision, in the latter with the\npresentation in the temple, seems to be accidental; when however the\nlegend had once, in relation to Jesus, so profusely adorned the\npresentation in the temple, the circumcision must be left, as we have\nabove found it, without embellishment.\n\nAs to the second spring in the formation of our narrative, namely, the\ninterest of the Christian legend, it is easy to conceive how this would\nact. He who, as a man, so clearly proved himself to be the Messiah,\nmust also, it was thought, even as a child have been recognisable in\nhis true character to an eye rendered acute by the Holy Spirit; he who\nat a later period, by his powerful words and deeds, manifested himself\nto be the Son of God, must surely, even before he could speak or move\nwith freedom, have borne the stamp of divinity. Moreover if men, moved\nby the Spirit of God, so early pressed Jesus with love and reverence in\ntheir arms, then was the spirit that animated him not an impious one,\nas his enemies alleged; and if a holy seer had predicted, along with\nthe high destiny of Jesus, the conflict which he had to undergo, and\nthe anguish which his fate would cause his mother, [431] then it was\nassuredly no chance, but a divine plan, that led him into the depths of\nabasement on the way to his ultimate exaltation.\n\nThis view of the narrative is thus countenanced positively by the\nnature of the fact,\u2014and negatively by the difficulties attending any\nother explanation. One cannot but wonder, therefore, how Schleiermacher\ncan be influenced against it by an observation which did not prevent\nhim from taking a similar view of the history of the Baptist\u2019s birth,\nnamely, that the narrative is too natural to have been fabricated\n[432]; and how Neander can argue against it, from exaggerated ideas of\nthe more imposing traits which the mythus would have substituted for\nour narrative. Far from allowing a purification for the mother of\nJesus, and a redemption for himself, to take place in the ordinary\nmanner, Neander thinks the mythus would have depicted an angelic\nappearance, intended to deter Mary or the priest from an observance\ninconsistent with the dignity of Jesus. [433] As though even the\nChristianity of Paul did not maintain that Christ was born under the\nlaw \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd (Gal. iv. 4); how much more then the Judaic\nChristianity whence these narratives are derived! As though Jesus\nhimself had not, agreeably to this view of his position, submitted to\nbaptism, and according to the Evangelist whose narrative is in\nquestion, without any previous expostulation on the part of the\nBaptist! Of more weight is Schleiermacher\u2019s other observation, that\nsupposing this narrative to be merely a poetical creation, its author\nwould scarcely have placed by the side of Simeon Anna, of whom he makes\nno poetical use, still less would he have characterized her with\nminuteness, after designating his principal personage with comparative\nnegligence. But to represent the dignity of the child Jesus as being\nproclaimed by the mouth of two witnesses, and especially to associate a\nprophetess with a prophet\u2014this is just the symmetrical grouping that\nthe legend loves. The detailed description of Anna may have been taken\nfrom a real person who, at the time when our narrative originated, was\nyet held in remembrance for her distinguished piety. As to the\nEvangelist\u2019s omission to assign her any particular speech, it is to be\nobserved that her office is to spread abroad the glad news, while that\nof Simeon is to welcome Jesus into the temple: hence as the part of the\nprophetess was to be performed behind the scenes, her precise words\ncould not be given. As in a former instance Schleiermacher supposes the\nEvangelist to have received his history from the lips of the shepherds,\nso here he conceives him to have been indebted to Anna, of whose person\nhe has so vivid a recollection; Neander approves this opinion\u2014not the\nonly straw thrown out by Schleiermacher, to which this theologian has\nclung in the emergencies of modern criticism.\n\nAt this point also, where Luke\u2019s narrative leaves Jesus for a series of\nyears, there is a concluding sentence on the prosperous growth of the\nchild (v. 40); a similar sentence occurs at the corresponding period in\nthe life of the Baptist, and both recall the analogous form of\nexpression found in the history of Samson (Judg. xiii. 24 f.).\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 39.\n\nRETROSPECT. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND LUKE AS TO THE ORIGINAL\nRESIDENCE OF THE PARENTS OF JESUS.\n\nIn the foregoing examinations we have called in question the historical\ncredibility of the Gospel narratives concerning the genealogy, birth,\nand childhood of Jesus, on two grounds: first, because the narratives\ntaken separately contain much that will not bear an historical\ninterpretation; and secondly, because the parallel narratives of\nMatthew and Luke exclude each other, so that it is impossible for both\nto be true, and one must necessarily be false; this imputation however\nmay attach to either, and consequently to both. One of the\ncontradictions between the two narratives extends from the commencement\nof the history of the childhood to the point we have now reached; it\nhas therefore often come in our way, but we have been unable hitherto\nto give it our consideration, because only now that we have completely\nreviewed the scenes in which it figures, have we materials enough on\nwhich to found a just estimate of its consequences. We refer to the\ndivergency that exists between Matthew and Luke, in relation to the\noriginal dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus.\n\nLuke, from the very beginning of his history, gives Nazareth as the\nabode of Joseph and Mary; here the angel seeks Mary (i. 26); here we\nmust suppose Mary\u2019s house \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2?, to be situated (i. 56); from hence\nthe parents of Jesus journey to Bethlehem on account of the census (ii.\n4): and hither, when circumstances permit, they return as to their own\ncity \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd (v. 39). Thus in Luke, Nazareth is evidently the\nproper residence of the parents of Jesus, and they only visit Bethlehem\nfor a short time, owing to a casual circumstance.\n\nIn Matthew, it is not stated in the first instance where Joseph and\nMary resided. According to ii. 1, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and\nsince no extraordinary circumstances are said to have led his parents\nthither, it appears as if Matthew supposed them to have been originally\nresident in Bethlehem. Here he makes the parents with the child receive\nthe visit of the magi; then follows the flight into Egypt, on returning\nfrom which Joseph is only deterred from again seeking Judea by a\nspecial divine admonition, which directs him to Nazareth in Galilee\n(ii. 22). This last particular renders certain what had before seemed\nprobable, namely, that Matthew did not with Luke suppose Nazareth, but\nBethlehem, to have been the original dwelling-place of the parents of\nJesus, and that he conceived their final settlement at Nazareth to have\nbeen the result of unforeseen circumstances.\n\nThis contradiction is generally glided over without suspicion. The\nreason of this lies in the peculiar character of Matthew\u2019s Gospel, a\ncharacter on which a modern writer has built the assertion that this\nEvangelist does not contradict Luke concerning the original residence\nof the parents of Jesus, for he says nothing at all on the subject,\ntroubling himself as little about topographical as chronological\naccuracy. He mentions the later abode of Joseph and Mary, and the\nbirth-place of Jesus, solely because it was possible to connect with\nthem Old Testament prophecies; as the abode of the parent of Jesus\nprior to his birth furnished no opportunity for a similar quotation,\nMatthew has left it entirely unnoticed, an omission which however, in\nhis style of narration, is no proof that he was ignorant of their\nabode, or that he supposed it to have been Bethlehem. [434] But even\nadmitting that the silence of Matthew on the earlier residence of the\nparents of Jesus in Nazareth, and on the peculiar circumstances that\ncaused Bethlehem to be his birth-place, proves nothing; yet the above\nsupposition requires that the exchange of Bethlehem for Nazareth should\nbe so represented as to give some intimation, or at least to leave a\npossibility, that we should understand the former to be a merely\ntemporary abode, and the journey to the latter a return homeward. Such\nan intimation would have been given, had Matthew attributed to the\nangelic vision, that determined Joseph\u2019s settlement in Nazareth after\nhis return from Egypt, such communications as the following: Return now\ninto the land of Israel and into your native city Nazareth, for there\nis no further need of your presence in Bethlehem, since the prophecy\nthat your messianic child should be born in that place is already\nfulfilled. But as Matthew is alleged to be generally indifferent about\nlocalities, we will be moderate, and demand no positive intimation from\nhim, but simply make the negative requisition, that he should not\nabsolutely exclude the idea, that Nazareth was the original\ndwelling-place of the parents of Jesus. This requisition would be met\nif, instead of a special cause being assigned for the choice of\nNazareth as a residence, it had been merely said that the parents of\nJesus returned by divine direction into the land of Israel and betook\nthemselves to Nazareth. It would certainly seem abrupt enough, if\nwithout any preamble Nazareth were all at once named instead of\nBethlehem: of this our narrator was conscious, and for this reason he\nhas detailed the causes that led to the change (ii. 22). But instead of\ndoing this, as we have shown that he must have done if had he, with\nLuke, known Nazareth to be the original dwelling-place of the parents\nof Jesus, his account has precisely the opposite bearing, which\nundeniably proves that his supposition was the reverse of Luke\u2019s. For\nwhen Matthew represents Joseph on his return from Egypt as being\nprevented from going to Judea solely by his fear of Archelaus, he\nascribes to him an inclination to proceed to that province\u2014an\ninclination which is unaccountable if the affair of the census alone\nhad taken him to Bethlehem, and which is only to be explained by the\nsupposition that he had formerly dwelt there. On the other hand as\nMatthew makes the danger from Archelaus (together with the fulfilment\nof a prophecy) the sole cause of the settlement of Joseph and Mary at\nNazareth, he cannot have supposed that this was their original home,\nfor in that case there would have been an independently decisive cause\nwhich would have rendered any other superfluous.\n\nThus the difficulty of reconciling Matthew with Luke, in the present\ninstance, turns upon the impossibility of conceiving how the parents of\nJesus could, on their return from Egypt, have it in contemplation to\nproceed a second time to Bethlehem unless this place had formerly been\ntheir home. The efforts of commentators have accordingly been chiefly\napplied to the task of finding other reasons for the existence of such\nan inclination in Joseph and Mary. Such efforts are of a very early\ndate. Justin Martyr, holding by Luke, who, while he decidedly states\nNazareth to be the dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus, yet does not\nrepresent Joseph as a complete stranger in Bethlehem (for he makes it\nthe place from which he lineally sprang), seems to suppose that\nNazareth was the dwelling-place and Bethlehem the birth-place of\nJoseph, [435] and Credner thinks that this passage of Justin points out\nthe source, and presents the reconciliation of the divergent statements\nof our two Evangelists. [436] But it is far from presenting a\nreconciliation. For as Nazareth is still supposed to be the place which\nJoseph had chosen as his home, no reason appears why, on his return\nfrom Egypt, he should all at once desire to exchange his former\nresidence for his birth-place, especially as, according to Justin\nhimself, the cause of his former journey to Bethlehem had not been a\nplan of settling there, but simply the census\u2014a cause which, after the\nflight, no longer existed. Thus the statement of Justin leans to the\nside of Luke and does not suffice to bring him into harmony with\nMatthew. That it was the source of our two evangelical accounts is\nstill less credible; for how could the narrative of Matthew, which\nmentions neither Nazareth as a dwelling-place, nor the census as the\ncause of a journey to Bethlehem, originate in the statement of Justin,\nto which these facts are essential? Arguing generally, where on the one\nhand, there are two diverging statements, on the other, an insufficient\nattempt to combine them, it is certain that the latter is not the\nparent and the two former its offspring, but vice vers\u00e2. Moreover, in\nthis department of attempting reconciliations, we have already, in\nconnection with the genealogies, learned to estimate Justin or his\nauthorities.\n\nA more thorough attempt at reconciliation is made in the Evangelium de\nnativitate Mari\u00e6, and has met with much approval from modern\ntheologians. According to this apocryphal book, the house of Mary\u2019s\nparents was at Nazareth, and although she was brought up in the temple\nat Jerusalem and there espoused to Joseph, she returned after this\noccurrence to her parents in Galilee. Joseph, on the contrary, was not\nonly born at Bethlehem, as Justin seems to intimate, but also lived\nthere, and thither brought home his betrothed. [437] But this mode of\nconciliation, unlike the other, is favourable to Matthew and\ndisadvantageous to Luke. For the census with its attendant\ncircumstances is left out, and necessarily so, because if Joseph were\nat home in Bethlehem, and only went to Nazareth to fetch his bride, the\ncensus could not be represented as the reason why he returned to\nBethlehem, for he would have done so in the ordinary course of things,\nafter a few days\u2019 absence. Above all, had Bethlehem been his home, he\nwould not on his arrival have sought an inn where there was no room for\nhim, but would have taken Mary under his own roof. Hence modern\nexpositors who wish to avail themselves of the outlet presented by the\napocryphal book, and yet to save the census of Luke from rejection,\nmaintain that Joseph did indeed dwell, and carry on his trade, in\nBethlehem, but that he possessed no house of his own in that place, and\nthe census recalling him thither sooner than he had anticipated, he had\nnot yet provided one. [438] But Luke makes it appear, not only that the\nparents of Jesus were not yet settled in Bethlehem, but that they were\nnot even desirous of settling there; that, on the contrary, it was\ntheir intention to depart after the shortest possible stay. This\nopinion supposes great poverty on the part of Joseph and Mary;\nOlshausen, on the other hand, prefers enriching them, for the sake of\nconciliating the difference in question. He supposes that they had\nproperty both in Bethlehem and Nazareth, and could therefore have\nsettled in either place, but unknown circumstances inclined them, on\ntheir return from Egypt, to fix upon Bethlehem until the divine warning\ncame as a preventive. Thus Olshausen declines particularizing the\nreason why it appeared desirable to the parents of Jesus to settle in\nBethlehem; but Heydenreich [439] and others have supplied his omission,\nby assuming that it must have seemed to them most fitting for him, who\nwas pre-eminently the Son of David, to be brought up in David\u2019s own\ncity.\n\nHere, however, theologians would do well to take for their model the\nhonesty of Neander, and to confess with him that of this intention on\nthe part of Joseph and Mary to settle at Bethlehem, and of the motives\nwhich induced them to give up the plan, Luke knows nothing, and that\nthey rest on the authority of Matthew alone. But what reason does\nMatthew present for this alleged change of place? The visit of the\nmagi, the massacre of the infants, visions in dreams\u2014events whose\nevidently unhistorical character quite disqualifies them from serving\nas proofs of a change of residence on the part of the parents of Jesus.\nOn the other hand Neander, while confessing that the author of the\nfirst Gospel was probably ignorant of the particular circumstances\nwhich, according to Luke, led to the journey to Bethlehem, and hence\ntook Bethlehem to be the original residence of the parents of Jesus,\nmaintains that there may be an essential agreement between the two\naccounts though that agreement did not exist in the consciousness of\nthe writers. [440] But, once more, what cause does Luke assign for the\njourney to Bethlehem? The census, which our previous investigations\nhave shown to be as frail a support for this statement, as the\ninfanticide and its consequences for that of Matthew. Hence here again\nit is not possible by admitting the inacquaintance of the one narrator\nwith what the other presents to vindicate the statements of both; since\neach has against him, not only the ignorance of the other, but the\nimprobability of his own narrative.\n\nBut we must distinguish more exactly the respective aspects and\nelements of the two accounts. As, according to the above observations,\nthe change of residence on the part of the parents of Jesus, is in\nMatthew so linked with the unhistorical data of the infanticide and the\nflight into Egypt, that without these every cause for the migration\ndisappears, we turn to Luke\u2019s account, which makes the parents of Jesus\nresident in the same place, both after and before the birth of Jesus.\nBut in Luke, the circumstance of Jesus being born in another place than\nwhere his parents dwelt, is made to depend on an event as unhistorical\nas the marvels of Matthew, namely the census. If this be surrendered,\nno motive remains that could induce the parents of Jesus to take a\nformidable journey at so critical a period for Mary, and in this view\nof the case Matthew\u2019s representation seems the more probable one, that\nJesus was born in the home of his parents and not in a strange place.\nHitherto, however, we have only obtained the negative result, that the\nevangelical statements, according to which the parents of Jesus lived\nat first in another place than that in which they subsequently settled,\nand Jesus was born elsewhere than in the home of his parents, are\ndestitute of any guarantee; we have yet to seek for a positive\nconclusion by inquiring what was really the place of his birth.\n\nOn this point we are drawn in two opposite directions. In both Gospels\nwe find Bethlehem stated to be the birth-place of Jesus, and there is,\nas we have seen, no impediment to our supposing that it was the\nhabitual residence of his parents; on the other hand, the two Gospels\nagain concur in representing Nazareth as the ultimate dwelling-place of\nJoseph and his family, and it is only an unsupported statement that\nforbids us to regard it as their original residence, and consequently\nas the birth-place of Jesus. It would be impossible to decide between\nthese contradictory probabilities were both equally strong, but as soon\nas the slightest inequality between them is discovered, we are\nwarranted to form a conclusion. Let us first test the opinion, that the\nGalilean city Nazareth was the final residence of Jesus. This is not\nsupported barely by the passages immediately under consideration, in\nthe 2nd chapters of Matthew and Luke;\u2014it rests on an uninterrupted\nseries of data drawn from the Gospels and from the earliest church\nhistory. The Galilean, the Nazarene\u2014were the epithets constantly\napplied to Jesus. As Jesus of Nazareth he was introduced by Philip to\nNathanael, whose responsive question was, Can any good thing come out\nof Nazareth? Nazareth is described, not only as the place where he was\nbrought up, \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (Luke iv. 16 f.), but also as his\ncountry; \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 (Matt. xiii. 34, Mark vi. 1). He was known among the\npopulace as Jesus of Nazareth (Luke xviii. 37), and invoked under this\nname by the demons (Mark i. 24). The inscription on the cross styles\nhim a Nazarene (John xix. 19), and after his resurrection his apostles\neverywhere proclaimed him as Jesus of Nazareth (Acts ii. 22), and\nworked miracles in his name (Acts iii. 6). His disciples too were long\ncalled Nazarenes, and it was not until a late period that this name was\nexclusively applied to a heretical sect. [441] This appellation proves,\nif not that Jesus was born in Nazareth, at least that he resided in\nthat place for a considerable time; and as, according to a probable\ntradition (Luke iv. 16 f. parall.), Jesus, during his public life, paid\nbut transient visits to Nazareth, this prolonged residence must be\nreferred to the earlier part of his life, which he passed in the bosom\nof his family. Thus his family, at least his parents, must have lived\nin Nazareth during his childhood; and if it be admitted that they once\ndwelt there, it follows that they dwelt there always, for we have no\nhistorical grounds for supposing a change of residence: so that this\none of the two contradictory propositions has as much certainty as we\ncan expect, in a fact belonging to so remote and obscure a period.\n\nNeither does the other proposition, however, that Jesus was born in\nBethlehem, rest solely on the statement of our Gospels; it is\nsanctioned by an expectation, originating in a prophetic passage, that\nthe Messiah would be born at Bethlehem (comp. with Matt. ii. 5 f., John\nvii. 42). But this is a dangerous support, which they who wish to\nretain as historical the Gospel statement, that Jesus was born in\nBethlehem, will do well to renounce. For wherever we find a narrative\nwhich recounts the accomplishment of a long-expected event, a strong\nsuspicion must arise, that the narrative owes its origin solely to the\npre-existent belief that that event would be accomplished. But our\nsuspicion is converted into certainty when we find this belief to be\ngroundless; and this is the case here, for the alleged issue must have\nconfirmed a false interpretation of a prophetic passage. Thus this\nprophetic evidence of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, deprives the\nhistorical evidence, which lies in the 2nd chapters of Matthew and\nLuke, of its value, since the latter seems to be built on the former,\nand consequently shares its fall. Any other voucher for this fact is\nhowever sought in vain. Nowhere else in the New Testament is the birth\nof Jesus at Bethlehem mentioned; nowhere does he appear in any relation\nwith his alleged birth-place, or pay it the honour of a visit, which he\nyet does not deny to the unworthy Nazareth; nowhere does he appeal to\nthe fact as a concomitant proof of his messiahship, although he had the\nmost direct inducements to do so, for many were repelled from him by\nhis Galilean origin, and defended their prejudice by referring to the\nnecessity, that the Messiah should come out of Bethlehem, the city of\nDavid (John vii. 42). [442] John does not, it is true, say that these\nobjections were uttered in the presence of Jesus; [443] but as,\nimmediately before, he had annexed to a discourse of Jesus a comment of\nhis own, to the effect that the Holy Ghost was not yet given, so here\nhe might very suitably have added, in explanation of the doubts\nexpressed by the people, that they did not yet know that Jesus was born\nin Bethlehem. Such an observation will be thought too superficial and\ntrivial for an apostle like John: thus much however must be admitted;\nhe had occasion repeatedly to mention the popular notion that Jesus was\na native of Nazareth, and the consequent prejudice against him; had he\nthen known otherwise, he must have added a corrective remark, if he\nwished to avoid leaving the false impression, that he also believed\nJesus to be a Nazarene. As it is, we find Nathanael, John i. 46,\nalleging this objection, without having his opinion rectified either\nmediately or immediately, for he nowhere learns that the good thing did\nnot really come out of Nazareth, and the conclusion he is left to draw\nis, that even out of Nazareth something good can come. In general, if\nJesus were really born in Bethlehem, though but fortuitously (according\nto Luke\u2019s representation), it is incomprehensible, considering the\nimportance of this fact to the article of his messiahship, that even\nhis own adherents should always call him the Nazarene, instead of\nopposing to this epithet, pronounced by his opponents with polemical\nemphasis, the honourable title of the Bethlehemite.\n\nThus the evangelical statement that Jesus was born at Bethlehem is\ndestitute of all valid historical evidence; nay, it is contravened by\npositive historical facts. We have seen reason to conclude that the\nparents of Jesus lived at Nazareth, not only after the birth of Jesus,\nbut also, as we have no counter evidence, prior to that event, and\nthat, no credible testimony to the contrary existing, Jesus was\nprobably not born at any other place than the home of his parents. With\nthis twofold conclusion, the supposition that Jesus was born at\nBethlehem is irreconcileable: it can therefore cost us no further\neffort to decide that Jesus was born, not in Bethlehem, but, as we have\nno trustworthy indications that point elsewhere, in all probability at\nNazareth.\n\nThe relative position of the two evangelists on this point may be thus\nstated. Each of their accounts is partly correct, and partly incorrect:\nLuke is right in maintaining the identity of the earlier with the later\nresidence of the parents of Jesus, and herein Matthew is wrong; again,\nMatthew is right in maintaining the identity of the birth-place of\nJesus with the dwelling-place of his parents, and here the error is on\nthe side of Luke. Further, Luke is entirely correct in making the\nparents of Jesus reside in Nazareth before, as well as after, the birth\nof Jesus, while Matthew has only half the truth, namely, that they were\nestablished there after his birth; but in the statement that Jesus was\nborn at Bethlehem both are decidedly wrong. The source of all the error\nof their narratives, is the Jewish opinion with which they fell in,\nthat the Messiah must be born at Bethlehem; the source of all their\ntruth, is the fact which lay before them, that he always passed for a\nNazarene; finally, the cause of the various admixture of the true and\nthe false in both, and the preponderance of the latter in Matthew, is\nthe different position held by the two writers in relation to the above\ndata. Two particulars were to be reconciled\u2014the historical fact that\nJesus was universally reputed to be a Nazarene, and the prophetic\nrequisition that, as Messiah, he should be born at Bethlehem. Matthew,\nor the legend which he followed, influenced by the ruling tendency to\napply the prophecies, observable in his Gospel, effected the desired\nreconciliation in such a manner, that the greatest prominence was given\nto Bethlehem, the locality pointed out by the prophet; this was\nrepresented as the original home of the parents of Jesus, and Nazareth\nmerely as a place of refuge, recommended by a subsequent turn of\nevents. Luke, on the contrary, more bent on historic detail, either\nadopted or created that form of the legend, which attaches the greatest\nimportant to Nazareth, making it the original dwelling-place of the\nparents of Jesus, and regarding the sojourn in Bethlehem as a temporary\none, the consequence of a casual occurrence.\n\nSuch being the state of the case, no one, we imagine, will be inclined\neither with Schleiermacher, [444] to leave the question concerning the\nrelation of the two narratives to the real facts undecided, or with\nSieffert, [445] to pronounce exclusively in favour of Luke. [446]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE FIRST VISIT TO THE TEMPLE, AND THE EDUCATION OF JESUS.\n\n\u00a7 40.\n\nJESUS, WHEN TWELVE YEARS OLD, IN THE TEMPLE.\n\nThe Gospel of Matthew passes in silence over the entire period from the\nreturn of the parents of Jesus out of Egypt, to the baptism of Jesus by\nJohn: and even Luke has nothing to tell us of the long interval between\nthe early childhood of Jesus and his maturity, beyond a single\nincident\u2014his demeanour on a visit to the temple in his twelfth year\n(ii. 41\u201352). This anecdote, out of the early youth of Jesus is, as Hess\nhas truly remarked, [447] distinguished from the narratives hitherto\nconsidered, belonging to his childhood, by the circumstance that Jesus\nno longer, as in the latter, holds a merely passive position, but\npresents an active proof of his high destination; a proof which has\nalways been especially valued, as indicating the moment in which the\nconsciousness of that destination was kindled in Jesus. [448]\n\nIn his twelfth year, the period at which, according to Jewish usage,\nthe boy became capable of an independent participation in the sacred\nrites, the parents of Jesus, as this narrative informs us, took him for\nthe first time to the Passover. At the expiration of the feast, the\nparents bent their way homewards; that their son was missing gave them\nno immediate anxiety, because they supposed him to be among their\ntravelling companions, and it was not until after they had accomplished\na day\u2019s journey, and in vain sought their son among their kinsfolk and\nacquaintance, that they turned back to Jerusalem to look for him there.\nThis conduct on the part of the parents of Jesus may with reason excite\nsurprise. It seems inconsistent with the carefulness which it has been\nthought incumbent on us to attribute to them, that they should have\nallowed the divine child entrusted to their keeping, to remain so long\nout of their sight; and hence they have on many sides been accused of\nneglect and a dereliction of duty, in the instance before us. [449] It\nhas been urged, as a general consideration in vindication of Joseph and\nMary, that the greater freedom permitted to the boy is easily\nconceivable as part of a liberal method of education; [450] but even\naccording to our modern ideas, it would seem more than liberal for\nparents to let a boy of twelve years remain out of their sight during\nso long an interval as our narrative supposes; how far less\nreconcileable must it then be with the more rigid views of education\nheld by the ancients, not excepting the Jews? It is remarked however,\nthat viewing the case as an extraordinary one, the parents of Jesus\nknew their child, and they could therefore very well confide in his\nunderstanding and character, so far as to be in no fear that any danger\nwould accrue to him from his unusual freedom; [451] but we can perceive\nfrom their subsequent anxiety, that they were not so entirely at ease\non that head. Thus their conduct must be admitted to be such as we\nshould not have anticipated; but it is not consequently incredible nor\ndoes it suffice to render the entire narrative improbable, for the\nparents of Jesus are no saints to us, that we should not impute to them\nany fault.\n\nReturned to Jerusalem, they find their son on the third day in the\ntemple, doubtless in one of the outer halls, in the midst of an\nassembly of doctors, engaged in a conversation with them, and exciting\nuniversal astonishment (v. 45 f.). From some indications it would seem\nthat Jesus held a higher position in the presence of the doctors, than\ncould belong to a boy of twelve years. The word \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (sitting)\nhas excited scruples, for according to Jewish records, it was not until\nafter the death of the Rabbi Gamaliel, an event long subsequent to the\none described in our narrative, that the pupils of the rabbins sat,\nthey having previously been required to stand [452] when in the school;\nbut this Jewish tradition is of doubtful authority. [453] It has also\nbeen thought a difficulty, that Jesus does not merely hear the doctors,\nbut also asks them questions, thus appearing to assume the position of\ntheir teacher. Such is indeed the representation of the apocryphal\nGospels, for in them Jesus, before he is twelve years old, perplexes\nall the doctors by his questions, [454] and reveals to his instructor\nin the alphabet the mystical significance of the characters; [455]\nwhile at the above visit to the temple he proposes controversial\nquestions, [456] such as that touching the Messiah\u2019s being at once\nDavid\u2019s Son and Lord (Matt. xxii. 41), and proceeds to throw light on\nall departments of knowledge. [457] If the expressions \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03bd and\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 implied that Jesus played the part of a teacher in this\nscene, so unnatural a feature in the evangelical narrative would render\nthe whole suspicious. [458] But there is nothing to render this\ninterpretation of the words necessary, for according to Jewish custom,\nrabbinical teaching was of such a kind that not only did the masters\ninterrogate the pupils, but the pupils interrogated the masters, when\nthey wished for explanations on any point. [459] We may with the more\nprobability suppose that the writer intended to attribute to Jesus such\nquestions as suited a boy, because he, apparently not without design,\nrefers the astonishment of the doctors, not to his questions, but to\nthat in which he could best show himself in the light of an intelligent\npupil\u2014namely, to his answers. A more formidable difficulty is the\nstatement, that the boy Jesus sat in the midst of the doctors, \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd. For we learn from Paul (Acts xxii. 3) the position that\nbecame a pupil, when he says that he was brought up at the feet (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2) of Gamaliel: it being the custom for the rabbins to be\nplaced on chairs, while their pupils sat on the ground, [460] and did\nnot take their places among their masters. It has indeed been thought\nthat \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 might be so explained as to signify, either that Jesus sat\nbetween the doctors, who are supposed to have been elevated on chairs,\nwhile Jesus and the other pupils are pictured as sitting on the ground\nbetween them, [461] or merely that he was in the company of doctors,\nthat is, in the synagogue; [462] but according to the strict sense of\nthe words, the expression \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd appears to signify,\nif not as Sch\u00f6ttgen believes, [463] in majorem Jesu gloriam, a place of\npre-eminent honour, at least a position of equal dignity with that\noccupied by the rest. It need only be asked, would it harmonize with\nthe spirit of our narrative to substitute \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd for \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8. \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c4. \u03b4.? the answer will certainly be in\nthe negative, and it will then be inevitable to admit, that our\nnarrative places Jesus in another relation to the doctors than that of\na learner, though the latter is the only natural one for a boy of\ntwelve, however highly gifted. For Olshausen\u2019s position, [464]\u2014that in\nJesus nothing was formed from without, by the instrumentality of\nanother\u2019s wisdom, because this would be inconsistent with the character\nof the Messiah, as absolutely self-determined,\u2014contradicts a dogma of\nthe church which he himself advances, namely, that Jesus in his\nmanifestation as man, followed the regular course of human development.\nFor not only is it in the nature of this development to be gradual, but\nalso, and still more essentially, to be dependent, whether it be mental\nor physical, on the interchange of reception and influence. To deny\nthis in relation to the physical life of Jesus\u2014to say, for example,\nthat the food which he took did not serve for the nourishment and\ngrowth of his body by real assimilation, but merely furnished occasion\nfor him to reproduce himself from within, would strike every one as\nDocetism; and is the analogous proposition in relation to his spiritual\ndevelopment, namely, that he appropriated nothing from without, and\nused what he heard from others merely as a voice to evoke one truth\nafter another from the recesses of his own mind\u2014is this anything else\nthan a more refined Docetism? Truly, if we attempt to form a conception\nof the conversation of Jesus with the doctors in the temple according\nto this theory, we make anything but a natural scene of it. It is not\nto be supposed that he taught, nor properly speaking that he was\ntaught, but that the discourse of the doctors merely gave an impetus to\nhis power of teaching himself, and was the occasion for an\never-brightening light to rise upon him, especially on the subject of\nhis own destination. But in that case he would certainly have given\nutterance to his newly acquired knowledge; so that the position of a\nteacher on the part of the boy would return upon us, a position which\nOlshausen himself pronounces to be preposterous. At least such an\nindirect mode of teaching is involved as Ness subscribes to, when he\nsupposes that Jesus, even thus early, made the first attempt to combat\nthe prejudices which swayed in the synagogue, exposing to the doctors,\nby means of good-humoured questions and requests for explanation, such\nas are willingly permitted to a boy, the weakness of many of their\ndogmas. [465] But even such a position on the part of a boy of twelve,\nis inconsistent with the true process of human development, through\nwhich it behoved the God-Man himself to pass. Discourse of this kind\nfrom a boy must, we grant, have excited the astonishment of all the\nhearers; nevertheless the expression \u1f10\u03be\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (v. 47), looks too much like a panegyrical formula. [466]\n\nThe narrative proceeds to tell us how the mother of Jesus reproached\nher son when she had found him thus, asking him why he had not spared\nhis parents the anguish of their sorrowful search? To this Jesus\nreturns an answer which forms the point of the entire narrative; he\nasks whether they might not have known that he was to be sought nowhere\nelse than in the house of his Father, in the temple? (v. 48 f.) One\nmight be inclined to understand this designation of God as \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\ngenerally, as implying that God was the Father of all men, and only in\nthis sense the Father of Jesus. But this interpretation is forbidden,\nnot only by the addition of the pronoun \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, the above sense requiring\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd (as in Matt. vi. 9), but still more absolutely by the circumstance\nthat the parents of Jesus did not understand these words (v. 50), a\ndecided indication that they must have a special meaning, which can\nhere be no other than the mystery of the Messiahship of Jesus, who as\nMessiah, was \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 in a peculiar sense. But that Jesus in his\ntwelfth year had already the consciousness of his Messiahship, is a\nposition which, although it may be consistently adopted from the\northodox point of view, and although it is not opposed to the regular\nhuman form of the development of Jesus, which even orthodoxy maintains,\nwe are not here bound to examine. So also the natural explanation,\nwhich retains the above narrative as a history, though void of the\nmiraculous, and which accordingly supposes the parents of Jesus, owing\nto a particular combination of circumstances, to have come even before\nhis birth to a conviction of his Messiahship, and to have instilled\nthis conviction into their son from his earliest childhood,\u2014this too\nmay make it plain how Jesus could be so clear as to his messianic\nrelation to God; but it can only do so by the hypothesis of an\nunprecedented coincidence of extraordinary accidents. We, on the\ncontrary, who have renounced the previous incidents as historical,\neither in the supernatural or the natural sense, are unable to\ncomprehend how the consciousness of his messianic destination could be\nso early developed in Jesus. For though the consciousness of a more\nsubjective vocation, as that of a poet or an artist, which is dependent\nsolely on the internal gifts of the individual (gifts which cannot long\nremain latent), may possibly be awakened very early; an objective\nvocation, in which the conditions of external reality are a chief\nco-operator, as the vocation of the statesman, the general, the\nreformer of a religion, can hardly be so early evident to the most\nhighly endowed individual, because for this a knowledge of cotemporary\ncircumstances would be requisite, which only long observation and\nmature experience can confer. Of the latter kind is the vocation of the\nMessiah, and if this is implied in the words by which Jesus in his\ntwelfth year justified his lingering in the temple, he cannot have\nuttered the words at that period.\n\nIn another point of view also, it is worthy of notice that the parents\nof Jesus are said (v. 50) not to have understood the words which he\naddressed to them. What did these words signify? That God was his\nFather, in whose house it behoved him to be. But that her son would in\na specific sense be called a \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 had been already made known to\nMary by the annunciating angel (Luke i. 32, 35), and that he would have\na peculiar relation to the temple she might infer, both from the above\ntitle, and from the striking reception which he had met with at his\nfirst presentation in the temple, when yet an infant. The parents of\nJesus, or at least Mary, of whom it is repeatedly noticed that she\ncarefully kept in her heart the extraordinary communications concerning\nher son, ought not to have been in the dark a single moment as to the\nmeaning of his language on this occasion. But even at the presentation\nin the temple, we are told that the parents of Jesus marvelled at the\ndiscourse of Simeon (v. 33), which is merely saying in other words that\nthey did not understand him. And their wonder is not referred to the\ndeclaration of Simeon that their boy would be a cause, not only of the\nrising again, but of the fall of many in Israel, and that a sword would\npierce through the heart of his mother (an aspect of his vocation and\ndestiny on which nothing had previously been communicated to the\nparents of Jesus, and at which therefore they might naturally wonder);\nfor these disclosures are not made by Simeon until after the wonder of\nthe parents, which is caused only by Simeon\u2019s expressions of joy at the\nsight of the Saviour, who would be the glory of Israel, and a light\neven to the Gentiles. And here again there is no intimation that the\nwonder was excited by the idea that Jesus would bear this relation to\nthe heathens, which indeed it could not well be, since this more\nextended destination of the Messiah had been predicted in the Old\nTestament. There remains therefore as a reason for the wonder in\nquestion, merely the fact of the child\u2019s Messiahship, declared by\nSimeon; a fact which had been long ago announced to them by angels, and\nwhich was acknowledged by Mary in her song of praise. We have just a\nparallel difficulty in the present case, it being as inconceivable that\nthe parents of Jesus should not understand his allusion to his\nmessianic character, as that they should wonder at the declaration of\nit by Simeon. We must therefore draw this conclusion: if the parents of\nJesus did not understand these expressions of their son when twelve\nyears old, those earlier communications cannot have happened; or, if\nthe earlier communications really occurred, the subsequent expressions\nof Jesus cannot have remained incomprehensible to them. Having done\naway with those earlier incidents as historical, we might content\nourselves with this later want of comprehension, were it not fair to\nmistrust the whole of a narrative whose later portions agree so ill\nwith the preceding. For it is the character, not of an historical\nrecord, but of a marvellous legend, to represent its personages as so\npermanently in a state of wonder, that they not only at the first\nappearance of the extraordinary, but even at the second, third, tenth\nrepetition, when one would expect them to be familiarized with it,\ncontinually are astonished and do not understand\u2014obviously with the\nview of exalting the more highly the divine impartation by this lasting\nincomprehensibleness. So, to draw an example from the later history of\nJesus, the divine decree of his suffering and death is set forth in all\nits loftiness in the evangelical narratives by the circumstance, that\neven the repeated, explicit disclosures of Jesus on this subject,\nremain throughout incomprehensible to the disciples; as here the\nmystery of the Messiahship of Jesus is exalted by the circumstance,\nthat his parents, often as it had been announced to them, at every\nfresh word on the subject are anew astonished and do not understand.\n\nThe twofold form of conclusion, that the mother of Jesus kept all these\nsayings in her heart (v. 51), and that the boy grew in wisdom and\nstature, and so forth, we have already recognised as a favourite form\nof conclusion and transition in the heroic legend of the Hebrews; in\nparticular, that which relates to the growth of the boy is almost\nverbally parallel with a passage relating to Samuel, as in two former\ninstances similar expressions appeared to have been borrowed from the\nhistory of Samson. [467]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 41\n\nTHIS NARRATIVE ALSO MYTHICAL.\n\nThus here again we must acknowledge the influence of the legend; but as\nthe main part of the incident is thoroughly natural, we might in this\ninstance prefer the middle course, and after disengaging the mythical,\nseek to preserve a residue of history. We might suppose that the\nparents of Jesus really took their son to Jerusalem in his early youth,\nand that after having lost sight of him (probably before their\ndeparture), they found him in the temple, where, eager for instruction,\nhe sat at the feet of the rabbins. When called to account, he declared\nthat his favourite abode was in the house of God; [468] a sentiment\nwhich rejoiced his parents, and won the approbation of the bystanders.\nThe rest of the story we might suppose to have been added by the\naggrandizing legend, after Jesus was acknowledged as the Messiah. Here\nall the difficulties in our narrative,\u2014the idea of the boy sitting in\nthe midst of the doctors, his claiming God as his father in a special\nsense, and the departure of the parents without their son, would be\nrejected; but the journey of Jesus when twelve years old, the eagerness\nfor knowledge then manifested by him, and his attachment to the temple,\nare retained. To these particulars there is nothing to object\nnegatively, for they contain nothing improbable in itself; but their\nhistorical truth must become doubtful if we can show, positively, a\nstrong interest of the legend, out of which the entire narrative, and\nespecially these intrinsically not improbable particulars, might have\narisen.\n\nThat in the case of great men who in their riper age have been\ndistinguished by mental superiority, the very first presaging movements\nof their mind are eagerly gleaned, and if they are not to be\nascertained historically, are invented under the guidance of\nprobability, is well known. In the Hebrew history and legend\nespecially, we find manifold proofs of this tendency. Thus of Samuel it\nis said in the old Testament itself, that even as a boy he received a\ndivine revelation and the gift of prophecy (1 Sam. iii.), and with\nrespect to Moses, on whose boyish years the Old Testament narrative is\nsilent, a subsequent tradition, followed by Josephus and Philo, had\nstriking proofs to relate of his early development. As in the narrative\nbefore us Jesus shows himself wise beyond his years, so this tradition\nattributes a like precocity to Moses; [469] as Jesus, turning away from\nthe idle tumult of the city in all the excitement of festival time,\nfinds his favourite entertainment in the temple among the doctors; so\nthe boy Moses was not attracted by childish sports, but by serious\noccupation, and very early it was necessary to give him tutors, whom,\nhowever, like Jesus in his twelfth year, he quickly surpassed. [470]\n\nAccording to Jewish custom and opinion, the twelfth year formed an\nepoch in development to which especial proofs of awakening genius were\nthe rather attached, because in the twelfth year, as with us in the\nfourteenth, the boy was regarded as having outgrown the period of\nchildhood. [471] Accordingly it was believed of Moses that in his\ntwelfth year he left the house of his father, to become an independent\norgan of the divine revelations. [472] The Old Testament leaves it\nuncertain how early the gift of prophecy was imparted to Samuel, but he\nwas said by a later tradition to have prophesied from his twelfth year;\n[473] and in like manner the wise judgments of Solomon and Daniel (1\nKings iii. 23 ff., Susann. 45 ff.) were supposed to have been given\nwhen they were only twelve. [474] If in the case of these Old Testament\nheroes, the spirit that impelled them manifested itself according to\ncommon opinion so early as in their twelfth year, it was argued that it\ncould not have remained longer concealed in Jesus; and if Samuel and\nDaniel showed themselves at that age in their later capacity of\ndivinely inspired seers, Solomon in that of a wise ruler, so Jesus at\nthe corresponding period in his life must have shown himself in the\ncharacter to which he subsequently established his claim, that namely,\nof the Son of God and Teacher of Mankind. It is, in fact, the obvious\naim of Luke to pass over no epoch in the early life of Jesus without\nsurrounding him with divine radiance, with significant prognostics of\nthe future; in this style he treats his birth, mentions the\ncircumcision at least emphatically, but above all avails himself of the\npresentation in the temple. There yet remained according to Jewish\nmanners one epoch, the twelfth year, with the first journey to the\npassover; how could he do otherwise than, following the legend, adorn\nthis point in the development of Jesus as we find that he has done in\nhis narrative? and how could we do otherwise than regard his narrative\nas a legendary embellishment of this period in the life of Jesus, [475]\nfrom which we learn nothing of his real development, [476] but merely\nsomething of the exalted notions which were entertained in the\nprimitive church of the early ripened mind of Jesus?\n\nBut how this anecdote can be numbered among mythi is found by some\naltogether inconceivable. It bears, thinks Heydenreich, [477] a\nthoroughly historical character (this is the very point to be proved),\nand the stamp of the highest simplicity (like every popular legend in\nits original form); it contains no tincture of the miraculous, wherein\nthe primary characteristic of a mythus (but not of every mythus) is\nheld to consist; it is so remote from all embellishment that there is\nnot the slightest detail of the conversation of Jesus with the doctors\n(the legend was satisfied with the dramatic trait, sitting in the midst\nof the doctors: as a dictum, v. 49 was alone important, and towards\nthis the narrator hastens without delay); nay, even the conversation\nbetween Jesus and his mother is only given in a fragmentary aphoristic\nmanner (there is no trace of an omission); finally, the inventor of a\nlegend would have made Jesus speak differently to his mother, instead\nof putting into his mouth words which might be construed into\nirreverence and indifference. In this last observation Heydenreich\nagrees with Schleiermacher, who finds in the behaviour of Jesus to his\nmother, liable as it is to be misinterpreted, a sure guarantee that the\nwhole history was not invented to supply something remarkable\nconcerning Jesus, in connexion with the period at which the holy things\nof the temple and the law were first opened to him. [478]\n\nIn combating the assertion, that an inventor would scarcely have\nattributed to Jesus so much apparent harshness towards his mother, we\nneed not appeal to the apocryphal Evangelium Thom\u00e6, which makes the boy\nJesus say to his foster-father Joseph: insipientissime fecisti; [479]\nfor even in the legend or history of the canonical gospels\ncorresponding traits are to be found. In the narrative of the wedding\nat Cana, we find this rough address to his mother: \u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (John ii. 4); and in the account of the visit paid to Jesus by\nhis mother and brethren, the striking circumstance that he apparently\nwishes to take no notice of his relatives (Matt. xii. 46). If these are\nreal incidents, then the legend had an historical precedent to warrant\nthe introduction of a similar feature, even into the early youth of\nJesus; if, on the other hand, they are only legends, they are the most\nvivid proofs that an inducement as not wanting for the invention of\nsuch features. Where this inducement lay, it is easy to see. The figure\nof Jesus would stand in the higher relief from the obscure background\nof his contracted family relations, if it were often seen that his\nparents were unable to comprehend his elevated mind, and if even he\nhimself sometimes made them feel his superiority\u2014so far as this could\nhappen without detriment to his filial obedience, which, it should be\nobserved, our narrative expressly preserves.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 42.\n\nON THE EXTERNAL LIFE OF JESUS UP TO THE TIME OF HIS PUBLIC APPEARANCE.\n\nWhat were the external conditions under which Jesus lived, from the\nscene just considered up to the time of his public appearance? On this\nsubject our canonical gospels give scarcely an indication.\n\nFirst, as to his place of residence, all that we learn explicitly is\nthis: that both at the beginning and at the end of this obscure period\nhe dwelt at Nazareth. According to Luke ii. 51, Jesus when twelve years\nold returned thither with his parents, and according to Matthew iii.\n13, Mark i. 9, he, when thirty years old (comp. Luke iii. 23), came\nfrom thence to be baptized by John. Thus our evangelists appear to\nsuppose, that Jesus had in the interim resided in Galilee, and, more\nparticularly, in Nazareth. This supposition, however, does not exclude\njourneys, such as those to the feasts in Jerusalem.\n\nThe employment of Jesus during the years of his boyhood and youth\nseems, from an intimation in our gospels, to have been determined by\nthe trade of his father, who is there called a \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (Matt. xiii. 55).\nThis Greek word, used to designate the trade of Joseph, is generally\nunderstood in the sense of faber lignarius (carpenter); [480] a few\nonly, on mystical grounds, discover in it a faber ferrarius\n(blacksmith), aurarius (goldsmith), or c\u00e6mentarius (mason). [481] The\nworks in wood which he executed are held of different magnitude by\ndifferent authors: according to Justin and the Evangelium Thom\u00e6, [482]\nthey were ploughs and yokes, \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u1f70, and in that case he would\nbe what we call a wheel-wright; according to the Evangelium infanti\u00e6\narabicum, [483] they were doors, milk-vessels, sieves and coffers, and\nonce Joseph makes a throne for the king; so that here he is represented\npartly as a cabinet-maker and partly as a cooper. The Protevangelium\nJacobi, on the other hand, makes him work at buildings, \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2,\n[484] without doubt as a carpenter. In these labours of the father\nJesus appears to have shared, according to an expression of Mark, who\nmakes the Nazarenes ask concerning Jesus, not merely as in the parallel\npassage of Matthew: Is not this the carpenter\u2019s son? \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2; but Is not this the carpenter? \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (vi. 3). It is true that in replying to the taunt of Celsus that\nthe teacher of the Christians was a carpenter by trade, \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, Origen says, he must have forgotten that in none of the Gospels\nreceived by the churches is Jesus himself called a carpenter, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. [485] The above passage in Mark has, in fact, the\nvarious reading, \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2, which Origen must have taken,\nunless he be supposed altogether to have overlooked the passage, and\nwhich is preferred by some modern critics. [486] But here Beza has\njustly remarked that fortasse mutavit aliquis, existimans, hanc artem\nChristi majestati parum convenire; whereas there could hardly be an\ninterest which would render the contrary alteration desirable. [487]\nMoreover Fathers of the Church and apocryphal writings represent Jesus,\nin accordance with the more generally accepted reading, as following\nthe trade of his father. Justin attaches especial importance to the\nfact that Jesus made ploughs and yokes or scales, as symbols of active\nlife and of justice. [488] In the Evangelium infanti\u00e6 Arabicum, Jesus\ngoes about with Joseph to the places where the latter has work, to help\nhim in such a manner that if Joseph made anything too long or too\nshort, Jesus, by a touch or by merely stretching out his hand, gave to\nthe object its right size, an assistance which was very useful to his\nfoster-father, because, as the apocryphal text naively remarks: nec\nadmodum peritus erat artis fabrilis. [489]\n\nApart from these apocryphal descriptions, there are many reasons for\nbelieving that the above intimation as to the youthful employment of\nJesus is correct. In the first place, it accords with the Jewish custom\nwhich prescribed even to one destined to a learned career, or in\ngeneral to any spiritual occupation, the acquisition of some\nhandicraft; thus Paul, the pupil of the rabbins, was also a tent-maker,\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd (Acts xviii. 3). Next, as our previous\nexaminations have shown that we know nothing historical of\nextraordinary expectations and plans on the part of the parents of\nJesus in relation to their son, so nothing is more natural than the\nsupposition that Jesus early practised the trade of his father.\nFurther, the Christians must have had an interest in denying, rather\nthan inventing, this opinion as to their Messiah\u2019s youthful occupation,\nsince it often drew down upon them the ridicule of their opponents.\nThus Celsus, as we have already mentioned, could not abstain from a\nreflection on this subject, for which reason Origen will know nothing\nof any designation of Jesus as a \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd in the New Testament; and every\none knows the scoffing question of Libanius about the carpenter\u2019s son,\na question which seems to have been provided with so striking an\nanswer, only ex eventu. [490] It may certainly be said in opposition to\nthis, that the notion of Jesus having been a carpenter, seems to be\nfounded on a mere inference from the trade of the father as to the\noccupation of the son, whereas the latter was just as likely to apply\nhimself to some other branch of industry; nay, that perhaps the whole\ntradition of the carpentry of Joseph and Jesus owes its origin to the\nsymbolical significance exhibited by Justin. As however the allusion in\nour Gospels to the trade of Joseph is very brief and bare, and is\nnowhere used allegorically in the New Testament, nor entered into more\nminutely; it is not to be contested that he was really a carpenter; but\nit must remain uncertain whether Jesus shared in this occupation.\n\nWhat were the circumstances of Jesus and his parents as to fortune? The\nanswer to this question has been the object of many dissertations. It\nis evident that the ascription of pressing poverty to Jesus, on the\npart of orthodox theologians, rested on dogmatical and \u00e6sthetic\ngrounds. On the one hand, they wished to maintain even in this point\nthe status exinanitionis, and on the other, they wished to depict as\nstrikingly as possible the contrast between the \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (form of\nGod) and the \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 (form of a servant). That this contrast as\nset forth by Paul (Phil. ii. 6, ff.), as well as the expression\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03c4\u03ce\u03c7\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5, which this apostle applies to Christ (2 Cor. viii. 9) merely\ncharacterizes the obscure and laborious life to which he submitted\nafter his heavenly pre-existence, and instead of playing the part of\nking which the Jewish imagination attributed to the Messiah, is also to\nbe regarded as established. [491] The expression of Jesus himself, The\nSon of man hath not where to lay his head, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3 (Matt.\nviii. 20), may possibly import merely his voluntary renunciation of the\npeaceful enjoyment of fortune, for the sake of devoting himself to the\nwandering life of the Messiah. There is only one other particular\nbearing on the point in question, namely, that Mary presented, as an\noffering of purification, doves (Luke ii. 24),\u2014according to Lev. xii.\n8, the offering of the poor: which certainly proves that the author of\nthis information conceived the parents of Jesus to have been in by no\nmeans brilliant circumstances; [492] but what shall assure us that he\nalso was not induced to make this representation by unhistorical\nmotives? Meanwhile we are just as far from having tenable ground for\nmaintaining the contrary proposition, namely, that Jesus possessed\nproperty: at least it is inadmissible to adduce the coat without seam\n[493] (John xix. 23), until we shall have inquired more closely what\nkind of relation it has to the subject.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 43.\n\nTHE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF JESUS.\n\nOur information concerning the external life of Jesus during his youth\nis very scanty: but we are almost destitute of any concerning his\nintellectual development. For the indeterminate phrase, twice occurring\nin Luke\u2019s history of the childhood, concerning the increase of his\nspiritual strength and his growth in wisdom, tells us no more than we\nmust necessarily have presupposed without it; while on the expectations\nwhich his parents cherished with respect to him before his birth, and\non the sentiment which his mother especially then expressed, no\nconclusion is to be founded, since those expectations and declarations\nare themselves unhistorical. The narrative just considered, of the\nappearance of Jesus in the temple at twelve years of age, rather gives\nus a result\u2014the early and peculiar development of his religious\nconsciousness,\u2014than an explanation of the causes and conditions by\nwhich this development was favoured. But we at least learn from Luke\nii. 41 (what however is to be of course supposed of pious Israelites),\nthat the parents of Jesus used to go to Jerusalem every year at the\nPassover. We may conjecture, then, that Jesus from his twelfth year\ngenerally accompanied them, and availed himself of this excellent\nopportunity, amid the concourse of Jews and Jewish proselytes of all\ncountries and all opinions, to form his mind, to become acquainted with\nthe condition of his people and the false principles of the Pharisaic\nleaders, and to extend his survey beyond the narrow limits of\nPalestine. [494]\n\nWhether or in what degree Jesus received the learned education of a\nrabbin, is also left untold in our canonical Gospels. From such\npassages as Matt. vii. 29, where it is said that Jesus taught not as\nthe scribes, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, we can only infer that he did not\nadopt the method of the doctors of the law, and it does not follow that\nhe had never enjoyed the education of a scribe (\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2). On the\nother hand, not only was Jesus called \u1fe5\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u1f76 and \u1fe5\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 by his\ndisciples (Matt. xxvi. 25, 49; Mark ix. 5, xi. 21, xiv. 45; John iv.\n31, ix. 2, xi. 8, xx. 16: comp. i. 38, 40, 50), and by supplicating\nsufferers (Mark x. 5), but even the pharisaic \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd Nicodemus (John\niii. 2) did not refuse him this title. We cannot, however, conclude\nfrom hence that Jesus had received the scholastic instruction of a\nrabbin; [495] for the salutation Rabbi, as also the privilege of\nreading in the synagogue (Luke iv. 16 ff.), a particular which has\nlikewise been appealed to, belonged not only to graduated rabbins, but\nto every teacher who had given actual proof of his qualifications.\n[496] The enemies of Jesus explicitly assert, and he does not\ncontradict them, that he had never learned letters: \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u1f7c\u03c2 (John vii. 15); and the Nazarenes are astonished to\nfind so much wisdom in him, whence we infer that he had not to their\nknowledge been a student. These facts cannot be neutralized by the\ndiscourse of Jesus in which he represents himself as the model of a\nscribe well instructed unto the kingdom of heaven [497] (Matt. xiii.\n52), for the word \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 here means a doctor of the law in general,\nand not directly a doctor qualified in the schools. Lastly, the\nintimate acquaintance with the doctrinal traditions, and the abuses of\nthe rabbins, which Jesus exhibits, [498] especially in the sermon on\nthe mount and the anti-pharisaic discourse Matt. xxiii. he might\nacquire from the numerous discourses of the Pharisees to the people,\nwithout going through a course of study under them. Thus the data on\nour present subject to be found in the Gospels, collectively yield the\nresult that Jesus did not pass formally through a rabbinical school; on\nthe other hand, the consideration that it must have been the interest\nof the Christian legend to represent Jesus as independent of human\nteachers, may induce a doubt with respect to these statements in the\nNew Testament, and a conjecture that Jesus may not have been so\nentirely a stranger to the learned culture of his nation. But from the\nabsence of authentic information we can arrive at no decision on this\npoint.\n\nVarious hypotheses, more or less independent of the intimations given\nin the New Testament, have been advanced both in ancient and modern\ntimes concerning the intellectual development of Jesus: they may be\ndivided into two principal classes, according to their agreement with\nthe natural or the supernatural view. The supernatural view of the\nperson of Jesus requires that he should be the only one of his kind,\nindependent of all external, human influences, self-taught or rather\ntaught of God; hence, not only must its advocates determinedly reject\nevery supposition implying that he borrowed or learned anything, and\nconsequently place in the most glaring light the difficulties which lay\nin the way of the natural development of Jesus; [499] but, the more\nsurely to exclude every kind of reception, they must also be disposed\nto assign as early an appearance as possible to that spontaneity which\nwe find in Jesus in his mature age. This spontaneous activity is\ntwofold: it is theoretical and practical. As regards the theoretical\nside, comprising judgment and knowledge, the effort to give as early a\ndate as possible to its manifestation in Jesus, displays itself in the\napocryphal passages which have been already partly cited, and which\ndescribe Jesus as surpassing his teachers long before his twelfth year,\nfor according to one of them he spoke in his cradle and declared\nhimself to be the Son of God. [500] The practical side, too, of that\nsuperior order of spontaneity attributed to Jesus in his later years,\nnamely, the power of working miracles, is attached by the apocryphal\ngospels to his earliest childhood and youth. The Evangelium Thom\u00e6 opens\nwith the fifth year of Jesus the story of his miracles, [501] and the\nArabian Evangelium Infanti\u00e6 fills the journey into Egypt with miracles\nwhich the mother of Jesus performed by means of the swaddling bands of\nher infant, and the water in which he was washed. [502] Some of the\nmiracles which according to these apocryphal gospels were wrought by\nJesus when in his infancy and boyhood, are analogous to those in the\nNew Testament\u2014cures and resuscitations of the dead; others are totally\ndiverse from the ruling type in the canonical Gospels\u2014extremely\nrevolting retributive miracles, by which every one who opposes the boy\nJesus in any matter whatever is smitten with lameness, or even with\ndeath, or else mere extravagancies, such as the giving of life to\nsparrows formed out of mud. [503]\n\nThe natural view of the person of Jesus had an opposite interest, which\nwas also very early manifested both among Jewish and heathen opponents\nof Christianity, and which consisted in explaining his appearance\nconformably to the laws of causality, by comparing it with prior and\ncontemporaneous facts to which it had a relation, and thus exhibiting\nthe conditions on which Jesus depended, and the sources from which he\ndrew. It is true that in the first centuries of the Christian era, the\nwhole region of spirituality being a supernatural one for heathens as\nwell as Jews, the reproach that Jesus owed his wisdom and seemingly\nmiraculous powers, not to himself or to God, but to a communication\nfrom without, could not usually take the form of an assertion that he\nhad acquired natural skill and wisdom in the ordinary way of\ninstruction from others. [504] Instead of the natural and the human,\nthe unnatural and the demoniacal were opposed to the divine and the\nsupernatural (comp. Matt xii. 24), and Jesus was accused of working his\nmiracles by the aid of magic acquired in his youth. This charge was the\nmost easily attached to the journey of his parents with him into Egypt,\nthat native land of magic and secret wisdom, and thus we find it both\nin Celsus and in the Talmud. The former makes a Jew allege against\nJesus, amongst other things, that he had entered into service for wages\nin Egypt, that he had there possessed himself of some magic arts, and\non the strength of these had on his return vaunted himself for a God.\n[505] The Talmud gives him a member of the Jewish Sanhedrim as a\nteacher, makes him journey to Egypt with this companion, and bring\nmagic charms from thence into Palestine. [506]\n\nThe purely natural explanation of the intellectual development of Jesus\ncould only become prevalent amid the enlightened culture of modern\ntimes. In working out this explanation, the chief points of difference\nare the following: either the character of Jesus is regarded in too\ncircumscribed a view, as the result of only one among the means of\nculture which his times afforded, or more comprehensively, as the\nresult of all these combined; again, in tracing this external\ninfluence, either the internal gifts and self-determination of Jesus\nare adequately considered, or they are not.\n\nIn any case, the basis of the intellectual development of Jesus was\nfurnished by the sacred writings of his people, of which the discourses\npreserved to us in the Gospels attest his zealous and profound study.\nHis Messianic ideas seem to have been formed chiefly on Isaiah and\nDaniel: spiritual religiousness and elevation above the prejudices of\nJewish nationality were impressively shadowed forth in the prophetic\nwritings generally, together with the Psalms.\n\nNext among the influences affecting mental cultivation in the native\ncountry of Jesus, must be reckoned the three sects under which the\nspiritual life of his fellow-countrymen may be classified. Among these,\nthe Pharisees, whom Jesus at a later period so strenuously combated,\ncan apparently have had only a negative influence over him; yet along\nwith their fondness for tradition and legal pedantry, their\nsanctimoniousness and hypocrisy, by which Jesus was repelled from them,\nwe must remember their belief in angels and in immortality, and their\nconstant admission of a progressive development of the Jewish religion\nafter Moses, which were so many points of union between them and Jesus.\nStill as these tenets were only peculiar to the Pharisees in\ncontradistinction to the Sadducees, and, for the rest, were common to\nall orthodox Jews, we abide by the opinion that the influence of the\nPharisaic sect on the development of Jesus was essentially negative.\n\nIn the discourses of Jesus Sadduceeism is less controverted, nay, he\nagrees with it in rejecting the Pharisaic traditions and hypocrisy;\nhence a few of the learned have wished to find him a school in this\nsect. [507] But the merely negative agreement against the errors of the\nPharisees,\u2014an agreement which, moreover, proceeded from quite another\nprinciple in Jesus than in the Sadducees,\u2014is more than counterbalanced\nby the contrast which their religious indifference, their unbelief in\nimmortality and in spiritual existences, formed with the disposition of\nJesus, and his manner of viewing the world. That the controversy with\nthe Sadducees is not prominent in the Gospels, may be very simply\nexplained by the fact that their sect had very slight influence on the\ncircle with which Jesus was immediately connected, the adherents of\nSadduceeism belonging to the higher ranks alone. [508]\n\nConcerning one only of the then existing Jewish sects can the question\nseriously arise, whether we ought not to ascribe to it a positive\ninfluence on the development and appearance of Jesus\u2014the sect, namely,\nof the Essenes. [509] In the last century the derivation of\nChristianity from Essenism was very much in vogue; not only English\ndeists, and among the Germans, Bahrdt and Venturini, but even\ntheologians, such as St\u00e4udlin, embraced the idea. [510] In the days of\nfreemasonry and secret orders, there was a disposition to transfer\ntheir character to primitive Christianity. The concealment of an Essene\nlodge appeared especially adapted to explain the sudden disappearance\nof Jesus after the brilliant scenes of his infancy and boyhood, and\nagain after his restoration to life. Besides the forerunner John, the\ntwo men on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the angels clothed in\nwhite at the grave, and on the Mount of Ascension, were regarded as\nmembers of the Essene brotherhood, and many cures of Jesus and the\nApostles were referred to the medical traditions of the Essenes. Apart,\nhowever, from these fancies of a bygone age, there are really some\nessential characteristics which seem to speak in favour of an intimate\nrelation between Essenism and Christianity. The most conspicuous as\nsuch are the prohibition of oaths, and the community of goods: with the\nformer was connected fidelity, peaceableness, obedience to every\nconstituted authority; with the latter, contempt of riches, and the\ncustom of travelling without provisions. These and other features, such\nas the sacred meal partaken in common, the rejection of sanguinary\nsacrifices and of slavery, constitute so strong a resemblance between\nEssenism and Christianity, that even so early a writer as Eusebius\nmistook the Therapeut\u00e6, a sect allied to the Essenes, for Christians.\n[511] But there are very essential dissimilarities which must not be\noverlooked. Leaving out of consideration the contempt of marriage,\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c8\u03af\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, since Josephus ascribes it to a part only of the\nEssenes; the asceticism, the punctilious observance of the Sabbath, the\npurifications, and other superstitious usages of this sect, their\nretention of the names of the angels, the mystery which they affected,\nand their contracted, exclusive devotion to their order, are so\nforeign, nay so directly opposed to the spirit of Jesus, that,\nespecially as the Essenes are nowhere mentioned in the New Testament,\nthe aid which this sect also contributed to the development of Jesus,\nmust be limited to the uncertain influence which might be exercised\nover him by occasional intercourse with Essenes. [512]\n\nDid other elements than such as were merely Jewish, or at least\nconfined to Palestine, operate upon Jesus? Of the heathens settled in\nGalilee of the Gentiles, \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, there was hardly much to\nbe learned beyond patience under frequent intercourse with them. On the\nother hand, at the feasts in Jerusalem, not only foreign Jews, some of\nwhom, as for example the Alexandrian and Cyrenian Jews, had synagogues\nthere (Acts vi. 9), but also devout heathens were to be met with (John\nxii. 20); and that intercourse with these had some influence in\nextending the intellectual horizon of Jesus, and spiritualizing his\nopinions, has, as we have already intimated, all historical\nprobability. [513]\n\nBut why do we, in the absence of certain information, laboriously seek\nafter uncertain traces of an influence which cotemporary means of\ndevelopment may have exercised on Jesus? and yet more, why, on the\nother side, are these labours so anxiously repudiated? Whatever amount\nof intellectual material may be collected, the spark by which genius\nkindles it, and fuses its various elements into a consistent whole, is\nneither easier to explain nor reduced in value. Thus it is with Jesus.\nAllow him to have exhausted the means of development which his age\nafforded: a comprehensive faculty of reception is with great men ever\nthe reverse side of their powerful originality; allow him to have owed\nfar more to Essenism and Alexandrianism, and whatever other schools and\ntendencies existed, than we, in our uncertainty, are in a condition to\nprove:\u2014still, for the reformation of a world these elements were all\ntoo little; the leaven necessary for this he must obtain from the depth\nof his own mind. [514]\n\nBut we have not yet spoken of an appearance to which our Gospels assign\na most important influence in developing the activity of Jesus\u2014that of\nJohn the Baptist. As his ministry is first noticed in the Gospels in\nconnexion with the baptism and public appearance of Jesus, our inquiry\nconcerning him, and his relation to Jesus, must open the second part.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSECOND PART.\n\nHISTORY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nRELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST.\n\n\u00a7 44.\n\nCHRONOLOGICAL RELATIONS BETWEEN JOHN AND JESUS.\n\nFor the ministry of John the Baptist, mentioned in all the Gospels, the\nsecond and fourth evangelists fix no epoch; the first gives us an\ninexact one; the third, one apparently precise. According to Matt. iii.\n1, John appeared as a preacher of repentance, in those days, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, that is, if we interpret strictly this reference to\nthe previous narrative, about the time when the parents of Jesus\nsettled at Nazareth, and when Jesus was yet a child. We are told,\nhowever, in the context, that Jesus came to John for baptism; hence\nbetween the first appearance of the Baptist, which was cotemporary with\nthe childhood of Jesus, and the period at which the latter was\nbaptized, we must intercalate a number of years, during which Jesus\nmight have become sufficiently matured to partake of John\u2019s baptism.\nBut Matthew\u2019s description of the person and work of the Baptist is so\nconcise, the office attributed to him is so little independent, so\nentirely subservient to that of Jesus, that it was certainly not the\nintention of the evangelist to assign a long series of years to his\nsingle ministry. His meaning incontestably is, that John\u2019s short career\nearly attained its goal in the baptism of Jesus.\n\nIt being thus inadmissible to suppose between the appearance of John\nand the baptism of Jesus, that is, between verses 12 and 13 of the 3rd\nchapter of Matthew, the long interval which is in every case\nindispensable, nothing remains but to insert it between the close of\nthe second and the beginning of the third chapter, namely, between the\nsettlement of the parents of Jesus at Nazareth and the appearance of\nthe Baptist. To this end we may presume, with Paulus, that Matthew has\nhere introduced a fragment from a history of the Baptist, narrating\nmany particulars of his life immediately preceding his public agency,\nand very properly proceeding with the words, in those days, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, which connecting phrase Matthew, although he omitted\nthat to which it referred, has nevertheless retained [515]; or we may,\nwith S\u00fcskind, apply the words, not to the settlement, but to the\nsubsequent residence of Jesus at Nazareth; [516] or better still, \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, like the corresponding Hebrew expression, \u200f\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05b7\u05d4\u05b5\u05dd\u200e e.g., Exod. ii. 11, is probably to be interpreted as relating\nindeed to the establishment at Nazareth, but so that an event happening\nthirty years afterwards may yet be said, speaking indefinitely, to\noccur in those days. [517] In neither case do we learn from Matthew\nconcerning the time of John\u2019s appearance more than the very vague\ninformation, that it took place in the interval between the infancy and\nmanhood of Jesus.\n\nLuke determines the date of John\u2019s appearance by various synchronisms,\nplacing it in the time of Pilate\u2019s government in Judea; in the\nsovereignty of Herod (Antipas), of Philip and of Lysanias over the\nother divisions of Palestine; in the high priesthood of Annas and\nCaiaphas; and, moreover, precisely in the 15th year of the reign of\nTiberius, which, reckoning from the death of Augustus, corresponds with\nthe year 28\u201329 of our era [518] (iii. 1, 2). With this last and closest\ndemarcation of time all the foregoing less precise ones agree. Even\nthat which makes Annas high priest together with Caiaphas appears\ncorrect, if we consider the peculiar influence which, according to John\nxviii. 13, Acts iv. 6, that ex-high priest retained, even when deposed,\nespecially after the assumption of office by his son-in-law, Caiaphas.\n\nA single exception occurs in the statement about Lysanias, whom Luke\nmakes cotemporary with Antipas and Philip as tetrarch of Abilene.\nJosephus, it is true, speaks of an \u1f08\u03b2\u03af\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f21 \u039b\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, and mentions a\nLysanias as governor of Chalcis in Lebanon, near to which lay the\nterritory of Abila; so that the same Lysanias was probably master of\nthe latter. But this Lysanias was, at the instigation of Cleopatra, put\nto death 34 years before the birth of Christ, and a second Lysanias is\nnot mentioned either by Josephus or by any other writer on the period\nin question. [519] Thus, not only is the time of his government earlier\nby 60 years than the 15th year of Tiberius, but it is also at issue\nwith the other dates associated with it by Luke. Hence it has been\nconjectured that Luke here speaks of a younger Lysanias, the descendant\nof the earlier one, who possessed Abilene under Tiberius, but who,\nbeing less famous, is not noticed by Josephus. [520] We cannot indeed\nprove what S\u00fcskind demands for the refutation of this hypothesis,\nnamely, that had such a younger Lysanias existed, Josephus must have\nmentioned him; yet that he had more than one inducement to do so,\nPaulus has satisfactorily shown. Especially, when in relation to the\ntimes of the first and second Agrippa he designates Abila, \u1f21 \u039b\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5,\nhe must have been reminded that he had only treated of the elder\nLysanias, and not at all of the younger, from whom, as the later ruler,\nthe country must at that time have derived its second appellation.\n[521] If, according to this, the younger Lysanias is but an historic\nfiction, the proposed alternative is but a philological one. [522] For\nwhen it is said in the first place: \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u2014 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f38\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., and when it follows: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b2\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2: we cannot possibly understand from this, that Philip\nreigned also over the Abilene of Lysanias. For in that case the word\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 ought not to have been repeated, [523] and \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 ought to\nhave been placed before Lysanias, if the author wished to avoid\nmisconstruction. The conclusion is therefore inevitable that the writer\nhimself erred, and, from the circumstance that Abilene, even in recent\ntimes, was called, after the last ruler of the former dynasty, \u1f21\n\u039b\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, drew the inference that a monarch of that name was still\nexisting; while, in fact, Abilene either belonged to Philip, or was\nimmediately subject to the Romans. [524]\n\nThe above chronological notation relates directly to John the Baptist\nalone; a similar one is wanting when Luke begins farther on (v. 21 ff.)\nto speak of Jesus. Of him it is merely said that he was about thirty\nyears of age, \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, on his public appearance\n(\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), but no date is given; while, in the case of John, there is\na contrary omission. Thus even if John commenced his ministry in the\n15th year of Tiberius, we cannot thence gather anything as to the time\nwhen Jesus commenced his, as it is nowhere said how long John had been\nbaptizing when Jesus came to him on the Jordan; while, on the other\nhand, although we know that Jesus, at his baptism, was about 30 years\nold, this does not help us to ascertain the age of John when he entered\non his ministry as Baptist. Remembering, however, Luke i. 26, according\nto which John was just half a year older than Jesus, and calling to our\naid the fact that Jewish usage would scarcely permit the exercise of\npublic functions before the thirtieth year, we might infer that the\nBaptist could only have appeared half a year before the arrival of\nJesus on the banks of the Jordan, since he would only so much earlier\nhave attained the requisite age. But no express law forbade a public\nappearance previous to the thirtieth year; and it has been justly\nquestioned whether we can apply to the freer office of a Prophet a\nrestriction which concerned the Priests and Levites, for whom the\nthirtieth year was fixed for their entrance on regular service [525]\n(Num. iv. 3, 47. Compare besides 2 Chron. xxxi. 17, where the 20th year\nis named). This then would not hinder us from placing the appearance of\nJohn considerably prior to that of Jesus, even presupposing the averred\nrelation between their ages. Hardly, however, could this be the\nintention of the Evangelist. For to ascertain so carefully the date of\nthe Forerunner\u2019s appearance, and leave that of the Messiah himself\nundetermined, would be too great an oversight, [526] and we cannot but\nsuppose that his design, in the particulars he gives concerning John,\nwas to fix the time for the appearance of Jesus. To agree with this\npurpose, he must have understood that Jesus came to the banks of the\nJordan and began to teach, shortly after the appearance of John. [527]\nFor that the above chronological determination was originally merely\nthe introduction to a document concerning John, quoted by Luke, is\nimprobable, since its exactness corresponds with the style of him who\nhad perfect understanding of all things from the very first,\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1ff6\u03c2, and who sought to determine, in\nlike manner, the epoch of the Messiah\u2019s birth.\n\nIt is not easy, however, to imagine, in accordance with this statement,\nthat John was by so little the predecessor of Jesus, nor is it without\nreason that the improbability of his having had so short an agency is\nmaintained. For he had a considerable number of disciples, whom he not\nonly baptized, but taught (Luke xi. 1), and he left behind a party of\nhis peculiar followers (Acts xviii. 25, xix. 3), all which could hardly\nbe the work of a few months. There needed time, it has been observed,\nfor the Baptist to become so well known, that people would undertake a\njourney to him in the wilderness; there needed time for his doctrine to\nbe comprehended, time for it to gain a footing and establish itself,\nespecially as it clashed with the current Jewish ideas; in a word, the\ndeep and lasting veneration in which John was held by his nation,\naccording to Josephus [528] as well as the evangelists, could not have\nbeen so hastily won. [529]\n\nBut the foregoing considerations, although they demand, in general, a\nlonger agency for the Baptist, do not prove that the evangelists err in\nplacing the commencement of his ministry shortly before that of Jesus,\nsince they might suppose the required prolongation as a sequel, instead\nof an introduction, to the appearance of Jesus. Such a prolongation of\nthe Baptist\u2019s ministry, however, is not to be found, at least in the\nfirst two Gospels; for not only do these contain no details concerning\nJohn, after the baptism of Jesus, except his sending two disciples\n(Matt. xi.), which is represented as a consequence of his imprisonment;\nbut we gather from Matt. iv. 12, Mark i. 14, that during or shortly\nafter the forty days\u2019 abode of Jesus in the wilderness, the Baptist was\narrested, and thereupon Jesus went into Galilee, and entered on his\npublic career. Luke, it is true (iv. 14), does not mention the\nimprisonment of John as the cause of the appearance of Jesus in\nGalilee, and he seems to regard the commission of the two disciples as\noccurring while John was at large (vii. 18 ff.); and the fourth\nEvangelist testifies yet more decisively against the notion that John\nwas arrested so soon after the baptism of Jesus; for in chap. iii. 24,\nit is expressly stated, that John was actively engaged in his ministry\nafter the first passover, attended by Jesus during His public life. But\non the one hand, as it appears from Luke ix. 9; Matt. xiv. 1 ff.; Mark\nxiv. 16, that John was put to death long before Jesus, the continuance\nof his agency after the rise of the latter could not be very protracted\n(Luke ix. 9; Matt. xiv. 1 ff.; Mark xiv. 16); and on the other, that\nwhich may be added to the agency of John after the appearance of Jesus,\nwill not make amends for that which is subtracted from it before that\nepoch. For, apart from the fact implied by the fourth Evangelist (i.\n35), that the Baptist had formed a definite circle of familiar\ndisciples before the appearance of Jesus, it would be difficult to\naccount for the firm footing acquired by his school, if he had laboured\nonly a few months, to be, at their close, eclipsed by Jesus.\n\nThere is yet one resource, namely, to separate the baptism of Jesus\nfrom the commencement of his ministry, and to say: It was indeed after\nthe first half-year of John\u2019s agency that Jesus was so attracted by his\nfame, as to become a candidate for his baptism; but for some time\nsubsequently, he either remained among the followers of the Baptist, or\nwent again into retirement, and did not present himself independently\nuntil a considerable interval had elapsed. By this means we should\nobtain the requisite extension of John\u2019s ministry prior to the more\nbrilliant career of Jesus, without impugning the apparent statement of\nour evangelists that the baptism of Jesus followed close upon the\npublic appearance of John. But the idea of a long interim, between the\nbaptism of Jesus and the commencement of his ministry, is utterly\nforeign to the New Testament writers. For that they regard the baptism\nof Jesus as his consecration to the Messianic office, is proved by the\naccompanying descent of the spirit and the voice from heaven; the only\npause which they allow to intervene, is the six weeks\u2019 fast in the\nwilderness, immediately after which, according to Luke, or after the\napparently cotemporary arrest of the Baptist, according to Matthew and\nMark, Jesus appears in Galilee. Luke, in particular, by designating\n(iii. 23) the baptism of Jesus as his \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, his assumption of\noffice, and by dating the intercourse of Jesus with his disciples from\nthe \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 (Acts i. 22), evinces his persuasion that the\nbaptism and public manifestation of Jesus were identical.\n\nThus the gospel narrative is an obstacle to the adoption of the two\nmost plausible expedients for the prolongation of John\u2019s ministry,\nviz., that Jesus presented himself for baptism later, or that his\npublic appearance was retarded longer after his baptism, than has been\ngenerally inferred. We are not, however, compelled to renounce either\nof these suppositions, if we can show that the New Testament writers\nmight have been led to their point of view even without historical\ngrounds. A sufficient motive lies close at hand, and is implied in the\nforegoing observations. Let the Baptist once be considered, as was the\ncase in the Christian Church (Acts xix. 4), not a person of independent\nsignificance, but simply a Forerunner of the Christ; and the\nimagination would not linger with the mere Precursor, but would hasten\nforward to the object at which he pointed. Yet more obvious is the\ninterest which primitive Christian tradition must have had in\nexcluding, whatever might have been the fact, any interval between the\nbaptism of Jesus and the beginning of his public course. For to allow\nthat Jesus, by his submission to John\u2019s baptism, declared himself his\ndisciple, and remained in that relation for any length of time, was\noffensive to the religious sentiment of the new church, which desired a\nFounder instructed by God, and not by man: another turn, therefore,\nwould soon be given to the facts, and the baptism of Jesus would be\nheld to signify, not his initiation into the school of John, but a\nconsecration to his independent office. Thus the diverging testimony of\nthe evangelists does not preclude our adopting the conclusion to which\nthe nature of the case leads us; viz., that the Baptist had been long\nlabouring, anterior to the appearance of Jesus.\n\nIf, in addition to this, we accept the statement of Luke (i. 26 and\niii. 23), that Jesus, being only half a year younger than John, was\nabout in his thirtieth year at his appearance, we must suppose that\nJohn was in his twentieth year when he began his ministry. There is, as\nwe have seen, no express law against so early an exercise of the\nprophetic office; neither do I, so decidedly as Cludius, [530] hold it\nimprobable that so young a preacher of repentance should make an\nimpression, or even that he should be taken for a prophet of the olden\ntime\u2014an Elias; I will only appeal to the ordinary course of things as a\nsanction for presuming, that one who entered so much earlier upon the\nscene of action was proportionately older, especially when the\nprinciples and spirit of his teaching tell so plainly of a mature age\nas do the discourses of John. There are exceptions to this rule; but\nthe statement of Luke (i. 26), that John was only six months older than\nJesus, is insufficient to establish one in this instance, as it accords\nwith the interest of the poetical legend, and must therefore be\nrenounced for the slightest improbability.\n\nThe result then of our critique on the chronological data Luke iii. 1,\n2, comp. 23 and i. 26, is this: if Jesus, as Luke seems to understand,\nappeared in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, the appearance of John\noccurred, not in the same year, but earlier; and if Jesus was in his\nthirtieth year when he began his ministry, the Baptist, so much his\npredecessor, could hardly be but six months his senior.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 45.\n\nAPPEARANCE AND DESIGN OF THE BAPTIST. HIS PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH\nJESUS.\n\nJohn, a Nazarite, according to our authorities (Matt. iii. 4, ix. 14,\nxi. 18; Luke i. 15), and in the opinion of several theologians, [531]\nan Essene, is said by Luke (iii. 2) to have been summoned to his public\nwork by the word of God \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, which came to him in the wilderness.\nNot possessing the Baptist\u2019s own declaration, we cannot accept as\ncomplete the dilemma stated by Paulus, [532] when he says, that we know\nnot whether John himself interpreted some external or internal fact as\na divine call, or whether he received a summons from another\nindividual; and we must add as a third possibility, that his followers\nsought to dignify the vocation of their Teacher by an expression which\nrecalls to mind the ancient Prophets.\n\nWhile from the account of Luke it appears that the divine call came to\nJohn in the wilderness, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3, but that for the purpose of\nteaching and baptizing he resorted to the country about Jordan,\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 (ver. 3); Matthew (iii. ff.) makes the\nwilderness of Judea the scene of his labours, as if the Jordan in which\nhe baptized flowed through that wilderness. It is true that, according\nto Josephus, the Jordan before emptying itself into the Dead Sea\ntraverses a great wilderness, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, [533] but this was not\nthe wilderness of Judea, which lay farther south. [534] Hence it has\nbeen supposed that Matthew, misled by his application of the prophecy,\nthe voice of one crying in the wilderness, \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b2\u03bf\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3, to\nJohn, who issued from the wilderness of Judea, \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,\nplaced there his labours as a preacher of repentance and a baptizer,\nalthough their true scene was the blooming valley of the Jordan. [535]\nIn the course of Luke\u2019s narrative, however, this evangelist ceases to\nintimate that John forsook the wilderness after receiving his call, for\non the occasion of John\u2019s message to Jesus, he makes the latter ask,\nWhom went ye out into the wilderness to see? \u03a4\u03af \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (vii. 24). Now as the valley of the Jordan in the\nvicinity of the Dead Sea was in fact a barren plain, the narrow margin\nof the river excepted, no greater mistake may belong to Matthew than\nthat of specifying the wilderness as the \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; and even\nthat may be explained away by the supposition, either that John, as he\nalternately preached and baptized, passed from the wilderness of Judea\nto the borders of the Jordan, [536] or that the waste tract through\nwhich that river flowed, being a continuation of the wilderness of\nJudea, retained the same name. [537]\n\nThe baptism of John could scarcely have been derived from the baptism\nof proselytes, [538] for this rite was unquestionably posterior to the\nrise of Christianity. It was more analogous to the religious\nlustrations in practice amongst the Jews, especially the Essenes, and\nwas apparently founded chiefly on certain expressions used by several\nof the prophets in a figurative sense, but afterwards understood\nliterally. According to these expressions, God requires from the\nIsraelitish people, as a condition of their restoration to his favour,\na washing and purification from their iniquity, and he promises that he\nwill himself cleanse them with water (Isaiah i. 16, Ez. xxxvi. 25,\ncomp. Jer. ii. 22). Add to this the Jewish notion that the Messiah\nwould not appear with his kingdom until the Israelites repented, [539]\nand we have the combination necessary for the belief that an ablution,\nsymbolical of conversion and forgiveness of sins, must precede the\nadvent of the Messiah.\n\nOur accounts are not unanimous as to the signification of John\u2019s\nbaptism. They all, it is true, agree in stating repentance, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1,\nto be one of its essential requirements; for even what Josephus says of\nthe Baptist, that he admonished the Jews, practising virtue, just\ntowards each other, and devout towards God, to come to his baptism,\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, [540] has the same sense under a\nGreek form. Mark and Luke, however, while designating the baptism of\nJohn, \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, add, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd (i. 4, iii. 3).\nMatthew has not the same addition; but he, with Mark, describes the\nbaptized as confessing their sins, \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1f7a\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n(iii. 6). Josephus, on the other hand, appears in direct contradiction\nto them, when he gives it as the opinion of the Baptist, that baptism\nis pleasing to God, not when we ask pardon for some transgressions, but\nwhen we purify the body, after having first purified the mind by\nrighteousness, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 (\u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7)\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f04\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f74, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03ba\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. We\nmight here be led to the supposition that the words for the remission\nof sins, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, as in Acts ii. 38, and other passages,\nwas commonly used in relation to Christian baptism, and was thence\ntransferred unhistorically to that of John; but as in the passages\nquoted from Ezekiel the washing typified not only reformation but\nforgiveness, the probabilities are in favour of the evangelical\nstatement. Moreover, it is possible to reconcile Josephus and the\nEvangelists, by understanding the words of the former to mean that the\nbaptism of John was intended to effect a purification, not from\nparticular or merely Levitical transgressions, but of the entire man,\nnot immediately and mysteriously through the agency of water, but by\nmeans of the moral acts of reformation. [541]\n\nThe several accounts concerning John are farther at variance, as to the\nrelation in which they place his baptism to the kingdom of heaven,\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd. According to Matthew, the concise purport of the\nappeal with which he accompanied his baptism was, Repent, for the\nkingdom of heaven is at hand, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5\u2019 \u1f24\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd (iii. 2); according to Luke, the Baptist in the first instance\nmentions only repentance and remission of sins, but no kingdom of\nheaven; and it is the conjecture of the people, that he might be the\nMessiah, by which he is first led to direct them to one who was coming\nafter him (iii. 15 ff.). In Josephus, there is no trace of a relation\nbetween the ministry of John and the Messianic idea. Yet we must not\ntherefore conclude that the Baptist himself recognized no such\nrelation, and that its only source was the Christian legend. For the\nbaptism of John, waiving the opinion that it was derived from the\nbaptism of proselytes, is not quite explicable without a reference to\nthe above-mentioned expiatory lustrations of the people\u2014lustrations\nwhich were to usher in the times of the Messiah; moreover, the\nappearance of Jesus is made more comprehensible by the supposition,\nthat John had introduced the idea of the proximity of the Messiah\u2019s\nkingdom. That Josephus should keep back the Messianic aspect of the\nfact, is in accordance with his general practice, which is explained by\nthe position of his people with respect to the Romans. Besides, in the\nexpression, to assemble for baptism, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, in his mention\nof popular assemblages, \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, and in the fear of Antipas lest\nJohn should excite a revolt, \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 there lies an intimation of\nprecisely such a religious and political movement as the hope of the\nMessiah was calculated to produce. That the Baptist should so\ndistinctly foretell the immediate appearance of the Messiah\u2019s kingdom\nmust create surprise, and (Luke\u2019s reference to a divine call and\nrevelation being held unsatisfactory) might lead to the supposition\nthat the Christian narrator, believing that the true Messiah was\nactually manifested in the person of Jesus, the cotemporary of John,\ngave to the language of the latter a definiteness which did not belong\nto it originally; and while the Baptist merely said, consonantly with\nthe Jewish notion already mentioned: Repent, that the kingdom of heaven\nmay come, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 \u1f21 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c2. \u03c4. \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1., a later edition of his\nwords gave \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 (for) instead of \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 (that). But such a supposition is\nneedless. In those times of commotion, John might easily believe that\nhe discerned signs, which certified to him the proximity of the\nMessiah\u2019s kingdom; the exact degree of its proximity he left undecided.\n\nAccording to the Evangelists, the coming of the kingdom of heaven,\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, was associated by John with a Messianic\nindividual to whom he ascribed, in distinction from his own baptism\nwith water, a baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f76 (Matt. iii. 11 parall.), the outpouring of the\nHoly Spirit being regarded as a leading feature of the Messianic times\n(Joel ii. 28; Acts ii. 16 ff.). Of this personage he farther predicted,\nin imagery akin to that used by the prophets on the same subject, that\nhe would winnow the people as wheat (Mal. iii. 2, 3; Zech. xiii. 9).\nThe Synoptical Gospels state the case as if John expressly understood\nthis Messianic individual to be Jesus of Nazareth. According to Luke,\nindeed, the mothers of these two men were cousins, and aware of the\ndestination of their sons. The Baptist while yet unborn acknowledged\nthe divinity of Jesus, and all the circumstances imply that both were\nearly acquainted with their relative position, predetermined by a\nheavenly communication. Matthew, it is true, says nothing of such a\nfamily connexion between John and Jesus; but when the latter presents\nhimself for baptism, he puts into the mouth of John words which seem to\npresuppose an earlier acquaintance. His expression of astonishment that\nJesus should come to him for baptism, when he had need to be baptized\nof Jesus, could only arise from a previous knowledge or instantaneous\nrevelation of his character. Of the latter there is no intimation; for\nthe first visible sign of the Messiahship of Jesus did not occur till\nafterwards. While in the first and third Gospels (in the second, the\nfacts are so epitomized that the writer\u2019s view on the subject is not\nevident), John and Jesus seem to have been no strangers to each other\nprior to the baptism; in the fourth, the Baptist pointedly asserts that\nhe knew not Jesus before the heavenly appearance, which, according to\nthe Synoptical Gospels, was coincident with his baptism (i. 31, 33).\nSimply considered, this looks like a contradiction. By Luke, the\nprevious acquaintance of the two is stated objectively, as an external\nmatter of fact; by Matthew, it is betrayed in the involuntary\nconfession of the astonished Baptist; in the fourth Gospel, on the\ncontrary, their previous unacquaintance is attested subjectively, by\nhis premeditated assertion. It was not, therefore, a very far-fetched\nidea of the Wolfenb\u00fcttel fragmentist, to put down the contradiction to\nthe account of John and Jesus, and to presume that they had in fact\nlong known and consulted each other, but that in public (in order\nbetter to play into one another\u2019s hands) they demeaned themselves as if\nthey had hitherto been mutual strangers, and each delivered an\nunbiassed testimony to the other\u2019s excellence. [542]\n\nThat such premeditated dissimulation might not be imputed to John, and\nindirectly to Jesus, it has been sought to disprove the existence of\nthe contradiction in question exegetically. What John learned from the\nheavenly sign was the Messiahship of Jesus; to this therefore, and not\nto his person, refer the words, I knew him not, \u03ba\u1f80\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f94\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd.\n[543] But it may be questioned whether such an acquaintance as John\nmust have had with Jesus, presupposing the narrative of Matthew and\nLuke, was separable from a knowledge of his Messiahship. The connection\nand intercourse of the two families, as described by Luke, would render\nit impossible for John not to be early informed how solemnly Jesus had\nbeen announced as the Messiah, before and at his birth; he could not\ntherefore say at a later period that, prior to the sign from heaven, he\nhad not known, but only that he had not believed, the story of former\nwonders, one of which relates to himself. [544] It being thus\nunavoidable to acknowledge that by the above declaration in the fourth\nGospel, the Baptist is excluded, not only from a knowledge of the\nMessiahship of Jesus, but also from a personal acquaintance with him;\nit has been attempted to reconcile the first chapter of Luke with this\nignorance, by appealing to the distance of residence between the two\nfamilies, as a preventive to the continuance of their intercourse.\n[545] But if the journey from Nazareth to the hill country of Judea was\nnot too formidable for the betrothed Mary, how could it be so for the\ntwo sons when ripening to maturity? What culpable indifference is\nhereby supposed in both families to the heavenly communications they\nhad received! nay, what could be the object of those communications, if\nthey had no influence on the early life and intercourse of the two\nsons? [546]\n\nLet it be granted that the fourth Gospel excludes an acquaintance with\nthe Messiahship only of Jesus, and that the third presupposes an\nacquaintance with his person only, on the part of John; still the\ncontradiction is not removed. For in Matthew, John, when required to\nbaptize Jesus, addresses him as if he knew him, not generally and\npersonally alone, but specially, in his character of Messiah. It is\ntrue that the words: I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest\nthou to me? (iii. 14), have been interpreted, in the true spirit of\nharmonizing, as referring to the general superior excellence of Jesus,\nand not to his Messiahship. [547] But the right to undertake the\nbaptism which was to prepare the way for the Messiah\u2019s kingdom, was not\nto be obtained by moral superiority in general, but was conferred by a\nspecial call, such as John himself had received, and such as could\nbelong only to a prophet, or to the Messiah and his Forerunner (John i.\n19 ff.). If then John attributed to Jesus authority to baptize, he must\nhave regarded him not merely as an excellent man, but as indubitably a\nprophet, nay, since he held him worthy to baptize himself, as his own\nsuperior: that is, since John conceived himself to be the Messiah\u2019s\nForerunner, no other than the Messiah himself. Add to this, that\nMatthew had just cited a discourse of the Baptist, in which he ascribes\nto the coming Messiah a baptism more powerful than his own; how then\ncan we understand his subsequent language towards Jesus otherwise than\nthus: \u201cOf what use is my water baptism to thee, O Messiah? Far more do\nI need thy baptism of the Spirit!\u201d [548]\n\nThe contradiction cannot be cleared away; we must therefore, if we\nwould not lay the burthen of intentional deception on the agents, let\nthe narrators bear the blame; and there will be the less hindrance to\nour doing so, the more obvious it is how one or both of them might be\nled into an erroneous statement. There is in the present case no\nobstacle to the reconciliation of Matthew with the fourth evangelist,\nfarther than the words by which the Baptist seeks to deter Jesus from\nreceiving baptism; words which, if uttered before the occurrence of\nanything supernatural, presuppose a knowledge of Jesus in his character\nof Messiah. Now the Gospel of the Hebrews, according to Epiphanius,\nplaces the entreaty of John that Jesus would baptize him, as a sequel\nto the sign from heaven; [549] and this account has been recently\nregarded as the original one, abridged by the writer of our first\nGospel, who, for the sake of effect, made the refusal and confession of\nthe Baptist coincident with the first approach of Jesus. [550] But that\nwe have not in the Gospel of the Hebrews the original form of the\nnarrative, is sufficiently proved by its very tedious repetition of the\nheavenly voice and the diffuse style of the whole. It is rather a very\ntraditional record, and the insertion of John\u2019s refusal after the sign\nand voice from heaven, was not made with the view of avoiding a\ncontradiction of the fourth Gospel, which cannot be supposed to have\nbeen recognized in the circle of the Ebionite Christians, but from the\nvery motive erroneously attributed to Matthew in his alleged\ntransposition, namely, to give greater effect to the scene. A simple\nrefusal on the part of the Baptist appeared too weak; he must at least\nfall at the feet of Jesus; and a more suitable occasion could not be\ngiven than that of the sign from heaven, which accordingly must be\nplaced beforehand. This Hebrew Gospel, therefore, will not help us to\nunderstand how Matthew was led into contradiction with John; still less\nwill it avail for the explanation of Luke\u2019s narrative.\n\nAll is naturally explained by the consideration, that the important\nrelation between John and Jesus must have been regarded as existing at\nall times, by reason of that ascription of pre-existence to the\nessential which is a characteristic of the popular mind. Just as the\nsoul, when considered as an essence, is conceived more or less clearly\nas pre-existent; so in the popular mind, every relation pregnant with\nconsequences is endowed with pre-existence. Hence the Baptist, who\neventually held so significant a relation to Jesus, must have known him\nfrom the first, as is indistinctly intimated by Matthew, and more\nminutely detailed by Luke; according to whom, their mothers knew each\nother, and the sons themselves were brought together while yet unborn.\nAll this is wanting in the fourth Gospel, the writer of which\nattributes an opposite assertion to John, simply because in his mind an\nopposite interest preponderated; for the less Jesus was known to John\nby whom he was afterwards so extolled, the more weight was thrown on\nthe miraculous scene which arrested the regards of the Baptist\u2014the more\nclearly was his whole position with respect to Jesus demonstrated to be\nthe effect, not of the natural order of events, but of the immediate\nagency of God.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 46.\n\nWAS JESUS ACKNOWLEDGED BY JOHN AS THE MESSIAH? AND IN WHAT SENSE?\n\nTo the foregoing question whether Jesus was known to John before the\nbaptism, is attached another, namely, What did John think of Jesus and\nhis Messiahship? The evangelical narratives are unanimous in stating,\nthat before Jesus had presented himself for baptism, John had announced\nthe immediate coming of One to whom he stood in a subordinate relation;\nand the scene at the baptism of Jesus marked him, beyond mistake, as\nthe personage of whom John was the forerunner. According to Mark and\nLuke, we must presume that the Baptist gave credence to this sign;\naccording to the fourth Gospel, he expressly attested his belief (i.\n34), and moreover uttered words which evince the deepest insight into\nthe higher nature and office of Jesus (i. 29 ff. 36; iii. 27 ff.);\naccording to the first Gospel, he was already convinced of these before\nthe baptism of Jesus. On the other hand, Matthew (xi. 2 ff.) and Luke\n(vii. 18 ff.) tell us that at a later period, the Baptist, on hearing\nof the ministry of Jesus, despatched some of his disciples to him with\nthe inquiry, whether he (Jesus) was the promised Messiah, or whether\nanother must be expected.\n\nThe first impression from this is, that the question denoted an\nuncertainty on the part of the Baptist whether Jesus were really the\nMessiah; and so it was early understood. [551] But such a doubt is in\ndirect contradiction with all the other circumstances reported by the\nEvangelists. It is justly regarded as psychologically impossible that\nhe whose belief was originated or confirmed by the baptismal sign,\nwhich he held to be a divine revelation, and who afterwards pronounced\nso decidedly on the Messianic call and the superior nature of Jesus,\nshould all at once have become unsteady in his conviction; he must then\nindeed have been like a reed shaken by the wind, a comparison which\nJesus abnegates on this very occasion (Matt. xi. 7). A cause for such\nvacillation is in vain sought in the conduct or fortunes of Jesus at\nthe time; for the rumour of the works of Christ, \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\nwhich in Luke\u2019s idea were miracles, could not awaken doubt in the\nBaptist, and it was on this rumour that he sent his message. Lastly,\nhow could Jesus subsequently (John v. 33 ff.) so confidently appeal to\nthe testimony of the Baptist concerning him, when it was known that\nJohn himself was at last perplexed about his Messiahship? [552]\n\nHence it has been attempted to give a different turn to the facts, and\nto show that John\u2019s inquiry was not made on his own account, but for\nthe sake of his disciples, to overcome in them the doubt with which he\nwas himself untainted. [553] Hereby it is true, the above-named\ndifficulties are removed; in particular it is explained why the Baptist\nshould contrive to send this message precisely on hearing of the\nmiracles of Jesus; he plainly hoping that his disciples, who had not\nbelieved his testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus, would be convinced\nof its truth by beholding the marvellous works of the latter. But how\ncould John hope that his envoys would chance to find Jesus in the act\nof working miracles? According to Matthew, indeed, they did not so find\nhim, and Jesus appeals (v. 4) only to his former works, many of which\nthey had seen, and of which they might hear wherever he had presented\nhimself. Luke alone, in giving his evidently second-hand narrative,\n[554] misconstrues the words of Jesus to require that the disciples of\nJohn should have found him in the exercise of his supernatural power.\nFurther, if it had been the object of the Baptist to persuade his\ndisciples by a sight of the works of Jesus, he would not have charged\nthem with a question which could be answered by the mere words, the\nauthentic declaration of Jesus. For he could not hope by the assertion\nof the person whose Messiahship was the very point in debate, to\nconvince the disciples whom his own declaration, in other cases\nauthoritative, had failed to satisfy. On the whole, it would have been\na singular course in the Baptist to lend his own words to the doubts of\nothers, and thereby, as Schleiermacher well observes, to compromise his\nearly and repeated testimony in favour of Jesus. It is clear that Jesus\nunderstood the question proposed to him by the messengers as proceeding\nfrom John himself; (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u1fc3, Matt. xi. 4;) and he indirectly\ncomplained of the want of faith in the latter by pronouncing those\nblessed who were not offended in him (ver. 6). [555]\n\nIf then it must be granted that John made his inquiry on his own\nbehalf, and not on that of his disciples, and if nevertheless we cannot\nimpute to him a sudden lapse into doubt after his previous confidence;\nnothing remains but to take the positive instead of the negative side\nof the question, and to consider its scepticism as the mere garb of\nsubstantial encouragement. [556] On this interpretation, the time which\nJesus allowed to escape without publicly manifesting himself as the\nMessiah, seemed too tedious to John in his imprisonment; he sent\ntherefore to inquire how long Jesus would allow himself to be waited\nfor, how long he would delay winning to himself the better part of the\npeople by a declaration of his Messiahship, and striking a decisive\nblow against the enemies of his cause\u2014a blow that might even liberate\nthe Baptist from his prison. But if the Baptist, on the strength of his\nbelief that Jesus was the Messiah, hoped and sued for a deliverance,\nperhaps miraculous, by him from prison, he would not clothe in the\nlanguage of doubt an entreaty which sprang out of his faith. Now the\ninquiry in our evangelical text is one of unmixed doubt, and\nencouragement must be foisted in, before it can be found there. How\ngreat a violence must be done to the words is seen by the way in which\nSchleiermacher handles them in accordance with this interpretation. The\ndubitative question, \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b5\u1f36 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; he changes into the positive\nassumption, thou art he who was to come; the other still more\nembarrassing interrogatory, \u1f22 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd; he completely\ntransfigures thus: wherefore (seeing that thou performest so great\nworks) do we yet await thee?\u2014shall not John with all his authority\ncommand, through us, all those who have partaken of his baptism to obey\nthee as the Messiah, and be attentive to thy signs? Even if we allow,\nwith Neander, the possibility of truth to this interpretation, a mere\nsummons to action will not accord with the earlier representation of\nJesus given by the Baptist. The two enunciations are at issue as to\nform; for if John doubted not the Messiahship of Jesus, neither could\nhe doubt his better knowledge of the fitting time and manner of his\nappearance: still farther are they at issue as to matter; for the\nBaptist could not take offence at what is termed the delay of Jesus in\nmanifesting himself as the Messiah, or wish to animate him to bolder\nconduct, if he retained his early view of the destination of Jesus. If\nhe still, as formerly, conceived Jesus to be the Lamb of God that\ntaketh away the sins of the world, \u1f41 \u1f00\u03bc\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a4\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f41 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, no thought could occur to him of a blow to be\nstruck by Jesus against his enemies, or in general, of a violent\nprocedure to be crowned by external conquest; rather, the quiet path\nwhich Jesus trod must appear to him the right one\u2014the path befitting\nthe destination of the Lamb of God. Thus if the question of John\nconveyed a mere summons to action, it contradicted his previous views.\n\nThese expedients failing, the original explanation returns upon us;\nnamely, that the inquiry was an expression of uncertainty respecting\nthe messianic dignity of Jesus, which had arisen in the Baptist\u2019s own\nmind; an explanation which even Neander allows to be the most natural.\nThis writer seeks to account for the transient apostacy of the Baptist\nfrom the strong faith in which he gave his earlier testimony, by the\nsupposition that a dark hour of doubt had overtaken the man of God in\nhis dismal prison; and he cites instances of men who, persecuted for\ntheir Christian faith or other convictions, after having long borne\nwitness to the truth in the face of death, at length yielded to human\nweakness and recanted. But on a closer examination, he has given a\nfalse analogy. Persecuted Christians of the first centuries, and,\nlater, a Berengarius or a Galileo, were false to the convictions for\nwhich they were imprisoned, and by abjuring which they hoped to save\nthemselves: the Baptist, to be compared with them, should have\nretracted his censure of Herod, and not have shaken his testimony in\nfavour of Christ, which had no relation to his imprisonment. However\nthat may be, it is evident here that these doubts cannot have been\npreceded by a state of certainty.\n\nWe come again to the difficulty arising from the statement of Matthew\nthat John sent his two disciples on hearing of the works of Christ,\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, or as Luke has it, because his disciples\nshowed him of all these things, \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. The\nlatter evangelist has narrated, immediately before, the raising of the\nwidow\u2019s son, and the healing of the centurion\u2019s servant. Could John,\nthen, believe Jesus to be the Messiah before he had performed any\nmessianic works, and be seized with doubt when he began to legitimatize\nhis claim by miracles such as were expected from the Messiah [557]?\nThis is so opposed to all psychological probability, that I wonder Dr.\nPaulus, or some other expositor versed in psychology and not timid in\nverbal criticism, has not started the conjecture that a negative has\nslipped out of Matt. xi. 2, and that its proper reading is, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. It\nmight then be conceived, that John had indeed been convinced, at a\nformer period, of the Messiahship o\u00a3 Jesus; now, however, in his\nimprisonment, the works of Jesus came no longer to his ears, and\nimagining him inactive, he was assailed with doubt. But had John been\npreviously satisfied of the Messiahship of Jesus, the mere want of\nacquaintance with his miracles could not have unhinged his faith. The\nactual cause of John\u2019s doubt, however, was the report of these\nmiracles;\u2014a state of the case which is irreconcilable with any previous\nconfidence.\n\nBut how could he become uncertain about the Messiahship of Jesus, if he\nhad never recognised it? Not indeed in the sense of beginning to\nsuspect that Jesus was not the Messiah; but quite possibly in the sense\nof beginning to conjecture that a man of such deeds was the Messiah.\n\nWe have here, not a decaying, but a growing certainty, and this\ndiscrimination throws light on the whole purport of the passages in\nquestion. John knew nothing of Jesus before, but that he had, like many\nothers, partaken of his baptism, and perhaps frequented the circle of\nhis disciples; and not until after the imprisonment of the Baptist did\nJesus appear as a teacher, and worker of miracles. Of this John heard,\nand then arose in his mind a conjecture, fraught with hope, that as he\nhad announced the proximity of the Messiah\u2019s kingdom, this Jesus might\nbe he who would verify his idea. [558] So interpreted, this message of\nthe Baptist excludes his previous testimony; if he had so spoken\nformerly, he could not have so inquired latterly, and vice vers\u00e2. It is\nour task, therefore, to compare the two contradictory statements, that\nwe may ascertain which has more traces than the other, of truth or\nuntruth.\n\nThe most definite expressions of John\u2019s conviction that Jesus was the\nMessiah are found in the fourth Gospel, and these suggest two distinct\nquestions: first, whether it be conceivable that John had such a notion\nof the Messiah as is therein contained; and, secondly, whether it be\nprobable that he believed it realized in the person of Jesus.\n\nWith respect to the former, the fourth Gospel makes the Baptist\u2019s idea\nof the Messiah include the characteristics of expiatory suffering, and\nof a premundane, heavenly existence. It has been attempted, indeed, so\nto interpret the expressions with which he directs his disciples to\nJesus, as to efface the notion of expiatory suffering. Jesus, we are\ntold, is compared to a lamb on account of his meekness and patience;\n\u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, is to be understood either of a patient\nendurance of the world\u2019s malice, or of an endeavour to remove the sins\nof the world by reforming it; and the sense of the Baptist\u2019s words is\nthis: \u201cHow moving is it that this meek and gentle Jesus should have\nundertaken so difficult and painful an office [559]!\u201d But the best\ncritics have shown that even if \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd by itself might bear this\ninterpretation, still \u1f00\u03bc\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2, not merely with the article but with the\naddition \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, must signify, not a lamb in general, but a special,\nholy Lamb; and if, as is most probable, this designation has reference\nto Isa. liii. 7., \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd can only be expounded by what is\nthere predicated of the lamb-like servant of God, that he \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (V. 4, LXX.), words which must\nsignify vicarious suffering. [560] Now that the Baptist should have\nreferred the above prophetic passage to the Messiah, and hence have\nthought of him as suffering, has been recently held more than doubtful.\n[561]\n\nFor so foreign to the current opinion, at least, was this notion of the\nMessiah, that the disciples of Jesus, during the whole period of their\nintercourse with him, could not reconcile themselves to it; and when\nhis death had actually resulted, their trust in him as the Messiah was\nutterly confounded (Luke xxiv. 20 ff.). How, then, could the Baptist,\nwho, according to the solemn declaration of Jesus, Matt. xi. 11,\nconfirmed by the allusions in the Gospels to his strict ascetic life,\nranked below the least in the kingdom of heaven, to which the apostles\nalready belonged\u2014how could this alien discern, long before the\nsufferings of Jesus, that they pertained to the character of the\nMessiah, when the denizens were only taught the same lesson by the\nissue? Or, if the Baptist really had such insight, and communicated it\nto his disciples, why did it not, by means of those who left his circle\nfor that of Jesus, win an entrance into the latter\u2014nay, why did it not,\nby means of the great credit which John enjoyed, mitigate the offence\ncaused by the death of Jesus, in the public at large [562]? Add to\nthis, that in none of our accounts of the Baptist, with the exception\nof the fourth Gospel, do we find that he entertained such views of the\nMessiah\u2019s character; for, not to mention Josephus, the Synoptical\nGospels confine his representation of the Messianic office to the\nspiritual baptism and winnowing of the people. Still it remains\npossible that a penetrating mind, like that of the Baptist, might, even\nbefore the death of Jesus, gather from Old Testament phrases and types\nthe notion of a suffering Messiah, and that his obscure hints on the\nsubject might not be comprehended by his disciples and cotemporaries.\n\nThus the above considerations are not decisive, and we therefore turn\nto the expressions concerning the premundane existence and heavenly\norigin of the Messiah, with the question: Could the Baptist have really\nheld such tenets? That from the words, John i. 15, 27, 30: He that\ncometh after me is preferred before me; for he was before me, \u1f41 \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9\n\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f44\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f26\u03bd, nothing but\ndogmatical obstinacy can banish the notion of pre-existence, is seen by\na mere glance at such expositions as this of Paulus: \u201cHe who in the\ncourse of time comes after me; has so appeared in my eyes, \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, that he (\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\u2014\u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5, premiss\u2014conclusion!) deserves rather from his\nrank and character to be called the first.\u201d [563] With preponderating\narguments more unprejudiced commentators have maintained, that the\nreason here given why Jesus, who appeared after the Baptist in point of\ntime, had the precedence of him in dignity, is the pre-existence of the\nformer. [564] We have here obviously the favourite dogma of the fourth\nEvangelist, the eternal pre-existence of the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, present indeed to\nthe mind of that writer, who had just been inditing his proem, but that\nit was also present to the mind of the Baptist is another question. The\nmost recent expositor allows that the sense in which the Evangelist\nintends \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, must have been very remote from the Baptist\u2019s point\nof view, at least so far as the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is concerned. The Baptist, he\nthinks, held the popular Jewish notion of the pre-existence of the\nMessiah, as the subject of the Old Testament theophanies. [565] There\nare traces of this Jewish notion in the writings of Paul (e.g. 1 Cor.\nx. 4. Col. i. 15 f.) and the rabbins [566]; and allowing that it was of\nAlexandrian origin, as Bretschneider argues, [567] we may yet ask\nwhether even before the time of Christ, the Alexandrian-judaic theology\nmay not have modified the opinions of the mother country? [568] Even\nthese expressions then, taken alone, are not conclusive, although it\nbegins to appear suspicious that the Baptist, otherwise conspicuous for\nexhibiting the practical side of the idea of the Messiah\u2019s kingdom,\nshould have ascribed to him by the fourth Evangelist solely, two\nnotions which at that time undoubtedly belonged only to the deepest\nmessianic speculations; and that the form in which those notions are\nexpressed is too peculiarly that of the writer, not to be put to his\naccount.\n\nWe arrive at a more decisive result by taking into examination the\npassage John iii. 27\u201336, where John replies to the complaints of his\ndisciples at the rival baptism of Jesus, in a way that reduces all\ncommentators to perplexity. After showing how it lay at the foundation\nof their respective destinies, which he desired not to overstep, that\nhe must decrease, while Jesus must increase, he proceeds (ver. 31) to\nuse forms of expression precisely similar to those in which the\nEvangelist makes Jesus speak of himself, and in which he delivers his\nown thoughts concerning Jesus. Our most recent commentator [569] allows\nthat this discourse of John seems the echo of the foregoing\nconversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. [570] The expressions in the\nspeech lent to the Baptist are peculiarly those of the apostle John;\nfor instance, \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03c9 (to seal), \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 (testimony), the antithesis\nof \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd and \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 (from above and of the earth), the phrase\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (to have eternal life); and the question presents\nitself: Is it more probable that the Evangelist, as well as Jesus, in\nwhose mouth these expressions are so often put, borrowed them from the\nBaptist, or that the Evangelist lent them (I will only at present say)\nto the latter? This must be decided by the fact that the ideas, to\nwhich the Baptist here gives utterance, lie entirely within the domain\nof Christianity, and belong specially to the Christianity of the\nApostle John. Take for example that antithesis of \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 (from above), and\n\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 (of the earth), the designation of Jesus as \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n(he that cometh from above), as \u1f43\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 (he whom God hath\nsent), who consequently \u03c4\u1f70 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 (speaketh the words of\nGod), the relation of Jesus to God as the \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 (son), whom \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f72\u03c1\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1fb7 (the Father loveth):\u2014what can be characteristic of Christianity,\nand of the Apostle John\u2019s mode of presenting it, if these ideas are not\nso? and could they belong to the Baptist? Christianismus ante Christum!\nAnd then, as Olshausen well observes, [571] is it consistent for John,\nwho, even on the fourth Evangelist\u2019s own showing, remained separate\nfrom Jesus, to speak of the blessedness of a believing union with him?\n(v. 33 and 36).\n\nThus much then is certain, and has been acknowledged by the majority of\nmodern commentators: the words v. 31\u201336 cannot have been spoken by the\nBaptist. Hence theologians have concluded, that the Evangelist cannot\nhave intended to ascribe them to him, but from v. 31 speaks in his own\nperson. [572] This sounds plausible, if they can only point out any\nmark of division between the discourse of the Baptist and the addenda\nof the Evangelist. But none such is to be found. It is true that the\nspeaker from v. 31 uses the third person, and not the first as in v.\n30, when referring to the Baptist: but in the former passage the\nBaptist is no longer alluded to directly and individually, but as one\nof a class, in which case he must, though himself the speaker, choose\nthe third person. Thus there is no definitive boundary, and the speech\nglides imperceptibly from those passages which might have been uttered\nby the Baptist, into those which are altogether incongruous with his\nposition; moreover from v. 30 Jesus is spoken of in the present tense,\nas the Evangelist might represent the Baptist to speak during the\nlifetime of Jesus, but could not in his own person have written after\nthe death of Jesus. In other passages, when presenting his own\nreflections concerning Jesus, he uses the preterite. [573] Thus,\ngrammatically, the Baptist continues to speak from v. 31, and yet,\nhistorically, it is impossible that he should have uttered the sequel;\na contradiction not to be solved, if it be added that, dogmatically,\nthe Evangelist cannot have ascribed to the Baptist words which he never\nreally pronounced. Now if we do not choose to defy the clear rules of\ngrammar, and the sure data of history, for the sake of the visionary\ndogma of inspiration, we shall rather conclude from the given premises,\nwith the author of the Probabilia, that the Evangelist falsely ascribes\nthe language in question to the Baptist, putting into his mouth a\nChristology of his own, of which the latter could know nothing. This is\nno more than L\u00fccke [574] confesses, though not quite so frankly, when\nhe says that the reflections of the Evangelist are here more than\nequally mixed with the discourse of the Baptist, in such a way as to be\nundistinguishable. In point of fact, however, the reflections of the\nEvangelist are easily to be recognized; but of the fundamental ideas of\nthe Baptist there is no trace, unless they are sought for with a good\nwill which amounts to prejudice, and to which therefore we make no\npretension. If then we have a proof in the passages just considered,\nthat the fourth Evangelist did not hesitate to lend to the Baptist\nmessianic and other ideas which were never his; we may hence conclude\nretrospectively concerning the passages on which we formerly suspended\nour decision, that the ideas expressed in them of a suffering and\npre-existent Messiah belonged, not to the Baptist, but to the\nEvangelist.\n\nIn giving the above reply to our first question, we have, in\nstrictness, answered the remaining one; for if the Baptist had no such\nmessianic ideas, he could not refer them to the person of Jesus. But to\nstrengthen the evidence for the result already obtained, we will make\nthe second question the object of a special examination. According to\nthe fourth Evangelist the Baptist ascribed to Jesus all the messianic\nattributes above discussed. If he did this so enthusiastically,\npublicly, and repeatedly, as we read in John, he could not have been\nexcluded by Jesus from the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xi. 11), nor have\nbeen placed below the least of its citizens. For such a confession as\nthat of the Baptist, when he calls Jesus the \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, who was\nbefore him,\u2014such refined insight into the messianic economy, as is\nshown by his designating Jesus \u1f41 \u1f00\u03bc\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f41 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, Peter himself had not to produce, though Jesus not only\nreceives him into the kingdom of heaven for his confession, Matt. xvi.\n16, but constitutes him the rock on which that kingdom was to be\nfounded. But we have something yet more incomprehensible. John, in the\nfourth gospel, gives it as the object of his baptism, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\n(Jesus as Messiah) \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u1f74\u03bb (i. 31), and acknowledges it to be the\ndivine ordinance, that by the side of the increasing Jesus, he must\ndecrease (iii. 30); nevertheless after Jesus had begun to baptize by\nthe instrumentality of his disciples, John continues to practise his\nbaptism (iii. 32). Why so, if he knew the object of his baptism to be\nfulfilled by the introduction of Jesus, and if he directed his\nfollowers to him as the Messiah? (i. 36 f.). [575] The continuance of\nhis baptism would be to no purpose; for L\u00fccke\u2019s supposition that John\u2019s\nbaptism was still of effect in those places where Jesus had not\nappeared, he himself overthrows by the observation, that at least at\nthe period treated of in John iii. 22 ff., Jesus and John must have\nbeen baptizing near to each other, since the disciples of John were\njealous of the concourse to the baptism of Jesus. But the continuance\nof John\u2019s baptism appears even to counteract his aim, if that aim were\nmerely to point out Jesus as the Messiah. He thereby detained a circle\nof individuals on the borders of the Messiah\u2019s kingdom, and retarded or\nhindered their going over to Jesus (and that through his own fault, not\ntheirs alone, [576] for he nullified his verbal direction to Jesus by\nhis contradictory example). Accordingly we find the party of John\u2019s\ndisciples still existing in the time of the Apostle Paul (Acts xviii.\n24 f., xix. 1 ff.); and, if the Sab\u00e6ans are to be credited concerning\ntheir own history, the sect remains to this day. [577] Certainly,\npresupposing the averred conviction of the Baptist relative to Jesus,\nit would seem most natural for him to have attached himself to the\nlatter; this, however, did not happen, and hence we conclude that he\ncannot have had that conviction. [578]\n\nBut chiefly the character and entire demeanour of the Baptist render it\nimpossible to believe that he placed himself on that footing with\nJesus, described by the fourth evangelist. How could the man of the\nwilderness, the stern ascetic, who fed on locusts and wild honey, and\nprescribed severe fasts to his disciples, the gloomy, threatening\npreacher of repentance, animated with the spirit of Elias\u2014how could he\nform a friendship with Jesus, in every thing his opposite? He must\nassuredly, with his disciples, have stumbled at the liberal manners of\nJesus, and have been hindered by them from recognizing him as the\nMessiah. Nothing is more unbending than ascetic prejudice; he who, like\nthe Baptist, esteems it piety to fast and mortify the body, will never\nassign a high grade in things divine to him who disregards such\nasceticism. A mind with narrow views can never comprehend one whose\nvision takes a wider range, although the latter may know how to do\njustice to its inferior; hence Jesus could value and sanction John in\nhis proper place, but the Baptist could never give the precedence to\nJesus, as he is reported to have done in the fourth gospel. The\ndeclaration of the Baptist (John iii. 30), that he must decrease, but\nJesus must increase, is frequently praised as an example of the noblest\nand sublimest resignation. [579] The beauty of this representation we\ngrant; but not its truth. The instance would be a solitary one, if a\nman whose life had its influence on the world\u2019s history, had so readily\nyielded the ascendant, in his own \u00e6ra, to one who came to eclipse him\nand render him superfluous. Such a step is not less difficult for\nindividuals than for nations, and that not from any vice, as egotism or\nambition, so that an exception might be presumed (though not without\nprejudice) in the case of a man like the Baptist; it is a consequence\nof that blameless limitation which, as we have already remarked, is\nproper to a low point of view in relation to a higher, and which is all\nthe more obstinately maintained if the inferior individual is, like\nJohn, of a coarse, rugged nature. Only from the divine point of view,\nor from that of an historian, bent on establishing religious doctrines,\ncould such things be spoken, and the fourth Evangelist has in fact put\ninto the mouth of the Baptist the very same thoughts concerning the\nrelation between him and Jesus, that the compiler of the 2nd book of\nSamuel has communicated, as his own observation, on the corresponding\nrelation between Saul and David. [580] Competent judges have recently\nacknowledged that there exists a discrepancy between the synoptical\ngospels and the fourth, the blame of which must be imputed to the\nlatter: [581] and this opinion is confirmed and strengthened by the\nfact that the fourth Evangelist transforms the Baptist into a totally\ndifferent character from that in which he appears in the Synoptical\ngospels and in Josephus; out of a practical preacher he makes a\nspeculative christologist; out of a hard and unbending, a yielding and\nself-renunciating nature.\n\nThe style in which the scenes between John and Jesus (John i. 29 ff. 35\nff.) are depicted, shows them to have originated partly in the free\ncomposition of the imagination, partly in a remodelling of the\nsynoptical narratives with a view to the glorification of Jesus. With\nrespect to the former: Jesus is walking, v. 35, near to John; in v. 29\nhe is said to come directly to him; yet on neither occasion is there\nany account of an interview between the two. Could Jesus really have\navoided contact with the Baptist, that there might be no appearance of\npreconcerted action? This is Lampe\u2019s conjecture; but it is the product\nof modern reflections, foreign to the time and circumstances of Jesus.\nOr shall we suppose that the narrator, whether fortuitously or\npurposely, omitted known details? But the meetings of Jesus and John\nmust have furnished him with peculiarly interesting matter, so that, as\nL\u00fccke allows, [582] his silence is enigmatical. From our point of view\nthe enigma is solved. The Baptist had, in the Evangelist\u2019s idea,\npointed to Jesus as the Messiah. This, understood as a visible\npointing, required that Jesus should pass by or approach John; hence\nthis feature was inserted in the narrative; but the particulars of an\nactual meeting being unnecessary, were, though very awkwardly, omitted.\nThe incident of some disciples attaching themselves to Jesus in\nconsequence of the Baptist\u2019s direction, seems to be a free version of\nthe sending of two disciples by John from his prison. Thus, as in\nMatthew xi. 2, and Luke vii. 18, John despatches two disciples to Jesus\nwith the dubitative question, \u201cArt thou he that should come?\u201d so in the\nfourth gospel he likewise sends two disciples to Jesus, but with the\npositive assertion that he (Jesus) is the Lamb of God, \u1f00\u03bc\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6; as\nJesus in the former case gives to the disciples, after the delivery of\ntheir message, the direction: \u201cGo and tell John the things ye have seen\nand heard,\u201d \u1f02 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5: so in the latter, he gives to the\ninquiry concerning his abode, the answer: Come and see, \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5. But while in the synoptical gospels the two disciples return to\nJohn, in the fourth, they permanently attach themselves to Jesus.\n\nFrom the foregoing considerations, it is inconceivable that John should\never have held and pronounced Jesus to be the Messiah: but it is easy\nto show how a belief that he did so might obtain, without historical\nfoundation. According to Acts xix. 4, the Apostle Paul declares what\nseems sufficiently guaranteed by history, that John baptized \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, and this coming Messiah, adds Paul, to whom John pointed was\nJesus (\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd). This was an interpretation of the\nBaptist\u2019s words by the issue; for Jesus had approved himself to a great\nnumber of his cotemporaries, as the Messiah announced by John. There\nwas but a step to the notion that the Baptist himself had, under the\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, understood the individual Jesus,\u2014had himself the \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. in his mind; a view which, however unhistorical, would be\ninviting to the early Christians, in proportion to their wish to\nsustain the dignity of Jesus by the authority of the Baptist, then very\ninfluential in the Jewish world. [583] There was yet another reason,\ngathered from the Old Testament. The ancestor of the Messiah, David,\nhad likewise in the old Hebrew legend a kind of forerunner in the\nperson of Samuel, who by order from Jehovah anointed him to be king\nover Israel (1 Sam. xvi.), and afterwards stood in the relation of a\nwitness to his claims. If then it behoved the Messiah to have a\nforerunner, who, besides, was more closely characterized in the\nprophecy of Malachi as a second Elias, and if, historically, Jesus was\npreceded by John, whose baptism as a consecration corresponded to an\nanointing; the idea was not remote of conforming the relation between\nJohn and Jesus to that between Samuel and David.\n\nWe might have decided with tolerable certainty which of the two\nincompatible statements concerning the relation between the Baptist and\nJesus is to be renounced as unhistorical, by the universal canon of\ninterpretation, that where, in narratives having a tendency to\naggrandise a person or a fact (a tendency which the Gospels evince at\nevery step), two contradictory statements are found, that which best\ncorresponds to this aim is the least historical; because if, in\naccordance with it, the original fact had been so dazzling, it is\ninconceivable that the other less brilliant representation should\nafterwards arise; as here, if John so early acknowledged Jesus, it is\ninexplicable how a story could be fabricated, which reports him to have\nbeen in doubt on the same subject at a very late period. We have,\nhowever, by a separate examination of the narrative in the fourth\ngospel, ascertained that it is self-contradictory and contains its own\nsolution; hence our result, found independently of the above canon,\nserves for its confirmation.\n\nMeanwhile that result is only the negative, that all which turns upon\nthe early acknowledgment of Jesus by John has no claim to be received\nas historical; of the positive we know nothing, unless the message out\nof prison may be regarded as a clue to the truth, and we must therefore\nsubject this side of the matter to a separate examination. We will not\nextend our arguments against the probability of an early and decided\nconviction on the part of the Baptist, to a mere conjecture awakened in\nhim at a later period that Jesus was the Messiah; and therefore we\nleave uncontested the proper contents of the narrative. But as regards\nthe form, it is not to be conceived without difficulty. That the\nBaptist in prison, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3, should have information of the\nproceedings of Jesus; that he should from that locality send his\ndisciples to Jesus; and that these as we are led to infer, should bring\nhim an answer in his imprisonment.\n\nAccording to Josephus, [584] Herod imprisoned John from fear of\ndisturbances: allowing this to be merely a joint cause with that given\nby the Evangelist, it is yet difficult to believe that to a man, one\nmotive of whose imprisonment was to seclude him from his followers, his\ndisciples should have retained free access; although we cannot prove it\nan impossibility that circumstances might favour the admission of\ncertain individuals. Now that the message was sent from prison we learn\nfrom Matthew alone; Luke says nothing of it, although he tells of the\nmessage. We might hence, with Schleiermacher, [585] consider Luke\u2019s\naccount the true one, and the \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 of Matthew an unhistorical\naddition. But that critic has himself very convincingly shown, from the\ntedious amplifications, partly betraying even misunderstanding, which\nthe narrative of Luke contains (vii. 20, 21, 29, 30), that Matthew\ngives the incident in its original, Luke in a revised form. [586] It\nwould indeed be singular if Matthew had supplied the \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 when it\nwas originally wanting; it is far more natural to suppose that Luke,\nwho in the whole paragraph appears as a reviser, expunged the original\nmention of the prison.\n\nIn judging of Luke\u2019s motives for so doing, we are led to notice the\ndifference in the dates given by the evangelists for the imprisonment\nof John. Matthew, with whom Mark agrees, places it before the public\nappearance of Jesus in Galilee; for he gives it as the motive for the\nreturn of Jesus into that province (Matt. iv. 12; Mark i. 14). Luke\nassigns no precise date to the arrest of the Baptist (iii. 19 f.), yet\nit is to be inferred from his silence about the prison, in connexion\nwith the sending of the two disciples, that he regarded it as a later\noccurrence; but John expressly says, that after the first passover\nattended by Jesus in his public character, John was not yet cast into\nprison (iii. 24). If it be asked, who is right? we answer that there is\nsomething on the face of the account of the first Evangelist, which has\ninclined many commentators to renounce it in favour of the two last.\nThat Jesus, on the report of John\u2019s imprisonment in Galilee by Herod\nAntipas, should have returned into the dominions of that prince for the\nsake of safety, is, as Schneckenburger well maintains, [587] highly\nimprobable, since there, of all places, he was the least secure from a\nsimilar fate. But even if it be held impossible to dissociate the\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (he withdrew) from the cognate idea of seeking security, we\nmay still ask whether, disregarding the mistake in the motive, the fact\nitself may not be maintained. Matthew and Mark connect with this\njourney into Galilee after John\u2019s imprisonment, the commencement of the\npublic ministry of Jesus; and that this was consequent on the removal\nof the Baptist, I am quite inclined to believe. For it is in itself the\nmost natural that the exit of the Baptist should incite Jesus to carry\non in his stead the preaching of \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u1f10\u00b7 \u1f26\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd; and the canon cited above is entirely in favour of Matthew.\nFor if it be asked which fiction best accords with the aggrandising\nspirit of the Christian legend,\u2014that of John\u2019s removal before the\nappearance of Jesus, or that of their having long laboured in\nconjunction?\u2014the answer must be, the latter. If he to whom the hero of\na narrative is superior disappears from the scene before the entrance\nof the latter, the crowning opportunity for the hero to demonstrate his\nascendancy is lost\u2014the full splendour of the rising sun can only be\nappreciated, when the waning moon is seen above the horizon, growing\npaler and paler in the presence of the greater luminary. Such is the\ncase in the Gospels of Luke and John, while Matthew and Mark rest\nsatisfied with the less effective representation. Hence, as the least\ncalculated to magnify Jesus, the account of Matthew has the advantage\nin historical probability.\n\nThus at the time when the two disciples must have been sent to Jesus,\nthe Baptist was already imprisoned, and we have remarked above, that he\ncould hardly, so situated, transmit and receive messages. But popular\nlegend might be prompted to fabricate such a message, that the Baptist\nmight not depart without at least an incipient recognition of Jesus as\nthe Messiah; so that neither the one nor the other of the two\nincompatible statements is to be regarded as historical.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 47.\n\nOPINION OF THE EVANGELISTS AND JESUS CONCERNING THE BAPTIST, WITH HIS\nOWN JUDGMENT ON HIMSELF. RESULT OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE RELATIONSHIP\nBETWEEN THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS.\n\nThe Evangelists apply to John, as the preparer of the Messiah\u2019s\nkingdom, several passages of the Old Testament.\n\nThe abode of the preacher of repentance in the wilderness, his activity\nin preparing the way for the Messiah, necessarily recalled the passage\nof Isaiah (xl. 3ff. LXX.): \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b2\u03bf\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3\u00b7 \u1f11\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. This passage, which in its original connection related not\nto the Messiah and his forerunner, but to Jehovah, for whom a way was\nto be prepared through the wilderness toward Judea, that he might\nreturn with his people from exile, is quoted by the first three\nEvangelists as a prophecy fulfilled by the appearance of the Baptist\n(Matt. iii. 3; Mark i. 3; Luke iii. 4 ff.). This might be thought a\nlater and Christian application, but there is nothing to controvert the\nstatement of the fourth Evangelist, that the Baptist had himself\ncharacterized his destination by those prophetic words.\n\nAs the synoptical gospels have unanimously borrowed this passage from\nthe Baptist himself, so Mark has borrowed the application of another\nprophetic passage to the Baptist from Jesus. Jesus had said (Matt. xi.\n10; Luke vii. 27): \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7. This is he of whom it is written, Behold I send my\nmessenger before thy face, to prepare thy way before thee; and Mark in\nthe introduction to his Gospel, applies these words of Malachi (iii.\n1), together with the above passage from Isaiah, without distinguishing\ntheir respective sources, to the forerunner, John. The text is a\nmessianic one; Jehovah, however, does not therein speak of sending a\nmessenger before the Messiah, but before himself: and it is only in the\nNew Testament citations in all these instances that the second person\n(\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5) is substituted for the first (\u200f\u05dc\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9\u200e).\n\nAnother notable passage of the same prophet (iii. 23, LXX. iv. 4: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f28\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\n\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.: Behold, I will send you Elijah the Tishbite before the\ncoming of the day of the Lord, etc.) suggested to the Evangelists the\nassimilation of John the Baptist to Elias. That John, labouring for the\nreformation of the people, in the spirit and power of Elias, should\nprepare the way for the Divine visitation in the times of the Messiah,\nwas according to Luke i. 17, predicted before his birth. In John i. 21,\nwhen the emissaries of the Sanhedrim ask, \u201cArt thou Elias?\u201d the Baptist\ndeclines this dignity: according to the usual explanation, he only\nextended his denial to the rude popular notion, that he was the ancient\nseer corporeally resuscitated, whereas he would have admitted the view\nof the synoptical gospels, that he had the spirit of Elias.\nNevertheless it appears improbable that if the fourth Evangelist had\nbeen familiar with the idea of the Baptist as a second Elias, he would\nhave put into his mouth so direct a negative.\n\nThis scene, peculiar to the fourth gospel, in which John rejects the\ntitle of Elias, with several others, demands a yet closer examination,\nand must be compared with a narrative in Luke (iii. 15), to which it\nhas a striking similarity. In Luke, the crowd assembled round the\nBaptist begin to think: Is not this the Christ? \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u1f41\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 in John, the deputies of the Sanhedrim [588] ask him, Who art\nthou? \u03c3\u1f7a \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36; which we infer from the Baptist\u2019s answer to mean: \u201cArt\nthou, as is believed, the Messiah?\u201d [589] According to Luke, the\nBaptist answers, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than\nI cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose.\nAccording to John he gives a similar reply: I baptize with water; but\nthere standeth one among you whom ye know not; He it is who coming\nafter me is preferred before me, whose shoes\u2019 latchet I am not worthy\nto unloose: the latter Evangelist adding his peculiar propositions\nconcerning the pre-existence of Jesus, and deferring to another\noccasion (v. 33) the mention of the Messiah\u2019s spiritual baptism, which\nLuke gives in immediate connexion with the above passage. In Luke, and\nstill more decidedly in John, this whole scene is introduced with a\ndesign to establish the Messiahship of Jesus, by showing that the\nBaptist had renounced that dignity, and attributed it to one who should\ncome after him. If at the foundation of two narratives so similar,\nthere can scarcely be more than one fact, [590] the question is, which\ngives that fact the most faithfully? In Luke\u2019s account there is no\nintrinsic improbability; on the contrary it is easy to imagine, that\nthe people, congregated round the man who announced the Messiah\u2019s\nkingdom, and baptized with a view to it, should, in moments of\nenthusiasm, believe him to be the Messiah. But that the Sanhedrim\nshould send from Jerusalem to John on the banks of the Jordan, for the\nsake of asking him whether he were the Messiah, seems less natural.\nTheir object could only be what, on a later occasion, it was with\nrespect to Jesus (Matt. xxi. 23 ff.), namely, to challenge the\nauthority of John to baptize, as appears from v. 25. Moreover, from the\nhostile position which John had taken towards the sects of the\nPharisees and Sadducees (Matt. iii. 7), to whom the members of the\nSanhedrim belonged, they must have prejudged that he was not the\nMessiah, nor a prophet, and consequently, that he had no right to\nundertake a \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1. But in that case, they could not possibly have so\nput their questions as they are reported to have done in the fourth\ngospel. In the passage from Mathew above cited, they asked Jesus, quite\nconsistently with their impression that he had no prophetic authority:\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2; By what authority doest thou these\nthings? but in John, they question the Baptist precisely as if they\npre-supposed him to be the Messiah, and when he, apparently to their\nconsternation, has denied this, they tender him successively the\ndignities of Elias, and of another prophetic forerunner, as if they\nearnestly wished him to accept one of these titles. Searching opponents\nwill not thus thrust the highest honours on the man to whom they are\ninimical;\u2014this is the representation of a narrator who wishes to\nexhibit the modesty of the man, and his subordination to Jesus, by his\nrejection of those brilliant titles. To enable him to reject them, they\nmust have been offered; but this could in reality only be done by\nwell-wishers, as in Luke, where the conjecture that the Baptist was the\nMessiah is attributed to the people.\n\nWhy then did not the fourth Evangelist attribute those questions\nlikewise to the people, from whom, with a slight alteration, they would\nhave seemed quite natural? Jesus, when addressing the unbelieving Jews\nin Jerusalem, (John v. 33), appeals to their message to the Baptist,\nand to the faithful testimony then given by the latter. Had John given\nhis declaration concerning his relation to Jesus before the common\npeople merely, such an appeal would have been impossible; for if Jesus\nwere to refer his enemies to the testimony of John, that testimony must\nhave been delivered before his enemies; if the assertions of the\nBaptist were to have any diplomatic value, they must have resulted from\nthe official inquiry of a magisterial deputation. Such a remodelling of\nthe facts appears to have been aided by the above-mentioned narrative\nfrom the synoptical traditions, wherein the high priests and scribes\nask Jesus, by what authority he does such things (as the casting out of\nthe buyers and sellers). Here also Jesus refers to John, asking for\ntheir opinion as to the authority of his baptism, only, it is true,\nwith the negative view of repressing their further inquiries (Matt.\nxxi. 23 ff. parall.); but how easily might this reference be made to\ntake an affirmative sense, and instead of the argument, \u201cIf ye know not\nwhat powers were entrusted to John, ye need not know whence mine are\ngiven,\u201d\u2014the following be substituted: \u201cSince ye know what John has\ndeclared concerning me, ye must also know what power and dignity belong\nto me;\u201d whereupon what was originally a question addressed to Jesus,\ntransformed itself into a message to the Baptist. [591]\n\nThe judgment of Jesus on the character of John is delivered on two\noccasions in the synoptical gospels; first after the departure of\nJohn\u2019s messengers (Matt xi. 7 ff.); secondly, after the appearance of\nElias at the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 12 ff.), in reply to the\nquestion of a disciple. In the fourth gospel, after an appeal to the\nBaptist\u2019s testimony, Jesus pronounces an eulogium on him in the\npresence of the Jews (v. 35), after referring, as above remarked, to\ntheir sending to John. In this passage he calls the Baptist a burning\nand a shining light, in whose beams the fickle people were for a season\nwilling to rejoice. In one synoptical passage, he declares John to be\nthe promised Elias; in the other, there are three points to be\ndistinguished. First, with respect to the character and agency of\nJohn,\u2014the severity and firmness of his mind, and the pre-eminence which\nas the messianic forerunner, who with forcible hand had opened the\nkingdom of heaven, he maintained even over the prophets, are extolled\n(v. 7\u201314); secondly, in relation to Jesus and the citizens of the\nkingdom of heaven, the Baptist, though exalted above all the members of\nthe Old Testament economy, is declared to be in the rear of every one\non whom, through Jesus, the new light had arisen (v. 11). We see how\nJesus understood this from what follows (v. 18), when we compare it\nwith Matt. ix. 16 f. In the former passage Jesus describes John as \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, neither eating nor drinking; and in the latter it is\nthis very asceticism which is said to liken him to the \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 and\n\u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, the old garments and old bottles, with which the new,\nintroduced by Jesus, will not agree. What else then could it be, in\nwhich the Baptist was beneath the children of the kingdom of Jesus, but\n(in connexion with his non-recognition or only qualified acknowledgment\nof Jesus as Messiah) the spirit of external observance, which still\nclung to fasting and similar works, and his gloomy asceticism? And, in\ntruth, freedom from these is the test of transition from a religion of\nbondage, to one of liberty and spirituality. [592] Thirdly, with\nrespect to the relation in which the agency of John and Jesus stood to\ntheir cotemporaries, the same inaptitude to receive the ministrations\nof both is complained of v. 16 ff., although in v. 12 it is observed,\nthat the violent zeal of some \u03b2\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 had, under the guidance of John,\nwrested for them an entrance into the kingdom of the Messiah. [593]\n\nIn conclusion, we must take a review of the steps by which tradition\nhas gradually annexed itself to the simple historical traits of the\nrelation between John and Jesus. Thus much seems to be historical: that\nJesus, attracted by the fame of the Baptist, put himself under the\ntuition of that preacher, and that having remained some time among his\nfollowers, and been initiated into his ideas of the approaching\nmessianic kingdom, he, after the imprisonment of John, carried on,\nunder certain modifications, the same work, never ceasing, even when he\nhad far surpassed his predecessor, to render him due homage.\n\nThe first addition to this in the Christian legend, was, that John had\ntaken approving notice of Jesus. During his public ministry, it was\nknown that he had only indefinitely referred to one coming after him;\nbut it behoved him, at least in a conjectural way, to point out Jesus\npersonally, as that successor. To this it was thought he might have\nbeen moved by the fame of the works of Jesus, which, loud as it was,\nmight even penetrate the walls of his prison. Then was formed Matthew\u2019s\nnarrative of the message from prison; the first modest attempt to make\nthe Baptist a witness for Jesus, and hence clothed in an interrogation,\nbecause a categorical testimony was too unprecedented.\n\nBut this late and qualified testimony was not enough. It was a late\none, for prior to it there was the baptism which Jesus received from\nJohn, and by which he, in a certain degree, placed himself in\nsubordination to the Baptist; hence those scenes in Luke, by which the\nBaptist was placed, even before his birth, in a subservient relation to\nJesus.\n\nNot only was it a late testimony which that message contained; it was\nbut half a one; for the question implied uncertainty, and \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\nconveyed indecision. Hence in the fourth gospel there is no longer a\nquestion about the Messiahship of Jesus, but the most solemn\nasseverations on that head, and we have the most pointed declarations\nof the eternal, divine nature of Jesus, and his character as the\nsuffering Messiah.\n\nIn a narrative aiming at unity, as does the fourth gospel, these very\npointed declarations could not stand by the side of the dubious\nmessage, which is therefore only found in this Gospel under a totally\nreorganized form. Neither does this message accord with that which in\nthe synoptical gospels is made to occur at the baptism of Jesus, and\neven earlier in his intercourse with John; but the first three\nEvangelists, in their loose compositions, admitted, along with the more\nrecent form of the tradition, the less complete one, because they\nattached less importance to the question of John than to the consequent\ndiscourse of Jesus.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 48.\n\nTHE EXECUTION OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.\n\nWe here take under our examination, by way of appendix, all that has\nbeen transmitted to us concerning the tragic end of the Baptist.\nAccording to the unanimous testimony of the synoptical Evangelists and\nJosephus, [594] he was executed, after a protracted imprisonment, by\norder of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee; and in the New Testament\naccounts he is said to have been beheaded. (Matt. xiv. 3 ff.; Mark vi.\n17 ff.; Luke ix. 9.)\n\nBut Josephus and the Evangelists are at variance as to the cause of his\nimprisonment and execution. According to the latter, the censure which\nJohn had pronounced on the marriage of Herod with his (half) brother\u2019s\n[595] wife, was the cause of his imprisonment, and the revengeful\ncunning of Herodias, at a court festival, of his death: Josephus gives\nthe fear of disturbances, which was awakened in Herod by the formidable\ntrain of the Baptist\u2019s followers, as the cause at once of the\nimprisonment and the execution. [596] If these two accounts be\nconsidered as distinct and irreconcilable, it may be doubted which of\nthe two deserves the preference. It is not here as in the case of Herod\nAgrippa\u2019s death, Acts xii. 23, viz., that the New Testament narrative,\nby intermixing a supernatural cause where Josephus has only a natural\none, enables us to prejudge it as unhistorical; on the contrary, we\nmight here give the palm to the evangelical narrative, for the\nparticularity of its details. But on the other hand, it must be\nconsidered that that very particularity, and especially the conversion\nof a political into a personal motive, corresponds fully to the\ndevelopment of the legendary spirit among the people, whose imagination\nis more at home in domestic than in political circles. [597] Meanwhile\nit is quite possible to reconcile the two narratives. This has been\nattempted by conjecturing, that the fear of insurrection was the proper\ncabinet motive for the imprisonment of the Baptist, while the\nirreverent censure passed on the ruler was thrust forward as the\nostensible motive. [598] But I greatly doubt whether Herod would\ndesignedly expose the scandalous point touched on by John; it is more\nlikely, if a distinction is to be here made between a private and\nostensible cause, that the censure of the marriage was the secret\nreason, and the fear of insurrection disseminated as an excuse for\nextreme severity. [599] Such a distinction, however, is not needed; for\nAntipas might well fear, that John, by his strong censure of the\nmarriage and the whole course of the tetrarch\u2019s life, might stir up the\npeople into rebellion against him.\n\nBut there is a diversity even between the evangelical narratives\nthemselves, not only in this, that Mark gives the scene at the feast\nwith the most graphic details, while Luke is satisfied with a concise\nstatement (iii. 18\u201320, ix. 9), and Matthew takes a middle course; but\nMark\u2019s representation of the relation between Herod and the Baptist\ndiffers essentially from that of Matthew. While according to the\nlatter, Herod wished to kill John, but was withheld by his dread of the\npeople, who looked on the Baptist as a prophet (v. 5); according to\nMark, it was Herodias who conspired against his life, but could not\nattain her object, because her husband was in awe of John as a holy\nman, sometimes heard him gladly, and not seldom followed his counsel\n(v. 19). [600] Here, again, the individualizing characteristic of\nMark\u2019s narrative has induced commentators to prefer it to that of\nMatthew. [601] But in the finishing touches and alterations of Mark we\nmay detect the hand of tradition; especially as Josephus merely says of\nthe people, that they gave ear to the sound of his words, \u1f24\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, while he says of Herod, that having conceived fears\nof John, he judged it expedient to put him to death, \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd) \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. How near lay the temptation to exalt\nthe Baptist, by representing the prince against whom he had spoken, and\nby whom he was imprisoned, as feeling bound to venerate him, and only,\nto his remorse, seduced into giving his death-warrant, by his\nvindictive wife! It may be added, that the account of Matthew is not\ninconsistent with the character of Antipas, as gathered from other\nsources. [602]\n\nThe close of the evangelical narratives leaves the impression that the\ndissevered head of John was presented at table, and that the prison was\nconsequently close at hand. But we learn from the passage in Josephus\nabove cited, that the Baptist was confined in Mach\u00e6rus, a fortress on\nthe southern border of Per\u00e6a, whereas the residence of Herod was in\nTiberias, [603] a day\u2019s journey distant from Mach\u00e6rus. Hence the head\nof John the Baptist could only be presented to Herod after two days\u2019\njourney, and not while he yet sat at table. The contradiction here\napparent is not to be removed by the consideration, that it is not\nexpressly said in the Gospels that John\u2019s head was brought in during\nthe meal, for this is necessarily inferred from the entire narrative.\nNot only are the commission of the executioner and his return with the\nhead, detailed in immediate connexion with the incidents of the meal;\nbut only thus has the whole dramatic scene its appropriate\nconclusion;\u2014only thus is the contrast complete, which is formed by the\ndeath-warrant and the feast: in fine, the \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, on which the\ndissevered head is presented, marks it as the costliest viand which the\nunnatural revenge of a woman could desire at table. But we have, as a\nprobable solution, the information of Josephus, [604] that Herod\nAntipas was then at war with the Arabian king, Aretas, between whose\nkingdom and his own lay the fortress of Mach\u00e6rus; and there Herod might\npossibly have resided with his court at that period.\n\nThus we see that the life of John in the evangelical narratives is,\nfrom easily conceived reasons, overspread with mythical lustre on the\nside which is turned towards Jesus, while on the other its historical\nlineaments are more visible.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nBAPTISM AND TEMPTATION OF JESUS.\n\n\u00a7 49.\n\nWHY DID JESUS RECEIVE BAPTISM FROM JOHN?\n\nIn conformity with the evangelical view of the fact, the customary\nanswer given by the orthodox to this question is, that Jesus, by his\nsubmission to John\u2019s baptism, signified his consecration to the\nmessianic office; an explanation which is supported by a passage in\nJustin, according to which it was the Jewish notion, that the Messiah\nwould be unknown as such to himself and others, until Elias as his\nforerunner should anoint him, and thereby make him distinguishable by\nall. [605] The Baptist himself, however, as he is represented by the\nfirst Evangelist, could not have partaken of this design; for had he\nregarded his baptism as a consecration which the Messiah must\nnecessarily undergo, he would not have hesitated to perform it on the\nperson of Jesus (iii. 14).\n\nOur former inquiries have shown that John\u2019s baptism related partly \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, its recipients promising a believing preparation for the\nexpected Messiah; how then could Jesus, if he was conscious of being\nhimself the \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, submit himself to this baptism? The usual answer\nfrom the orthodox point of view is, that Jesus, although conscious of\nhis Messiahship, yet, so long as it was not publicly attested by God,\nspoke and acted, not as Messiah, but merely as an Israelite, who held\nhimself bound to obey every divine ordinance relative to his nation.\n[606] But, here, there is a distinction to be made. Negatively, it\nbecame Jesus to refrain from performing any messianic deeds, or using\nany of the Messiah\u2019s prerogatives, before his title was solemnly\nattested; even positively, it became him to submit himself to the\nordinances which were incumbent on every Israelite; but to join in a\nnew rite, which symbolized the expectation of another and a future\nMessiah, could never, without dissimulation, be the act of one who was\nconscious of being the actual Messiah himself. More recent theologians\nhave therefore wisely admitted, that when Jesus came to John for\nbaptism, he had not a decided conviction of his Messiahship. [607] They\nindeed regard this uncertainty as only the struggle of modesty. Paulus,\nfor instance, observes that Jesus, notwithstanding he had heard from\nhis parents of his messianic destination, and had felt this first\nintimation confirmed by many external incidents, as well as by his own\nspiritual development, was yet not over eager to appropriate the\nhonour, which had been as it were thrust upon him. But, if the previous\nnarratives concerning Jesus be regarded as a history, and therefore, of\nnecessity, as a supernatural one; then must he, who was heralded by\nangels, miraculously conceived, welcomed into the world by the homage\nof magi and prophets, and who in his twelfth year knew the temple to be\nhis Father\u2019s house, have long held a conviction of his Messiahship,\nabove all the scruples of a false modesty. If on the contrary it be\nthought possible, by criticism, to reduce the history of the childhood\nof Jesus to a merely natural one, there is no longer anything to\naccount for his early belief that he was the Messiah; and the position\nwhich he adopted by the reception of John\u2019s baptism becomes, instead of\nan affected diffidence, a real ignorance of his messianic destiny.\u2014Too\nmodest, continue these commentators, to declare himself Messiah on his\nown authority, Jesus fulfilled all that the strictest self-judgment\ncould require, and wished to make the decisive experiment, whether the\nDeity would allow that he, as well as every other, should dedicate\nhimself to the coming Messiah, or whether a sign would be granted, that\nhe himself was the \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. But to do something seen to be\ninappropriate, merely to try whether God will correct the mistake, is\njust such a challenging of the divine power as Jesus, shortly after his\nbaptism, decidedly condemns. Thus it must be allowed that, the baptism\nof John being a baptism \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, if Jesus could submit\nhimself to it without dissimulation or presumption, he could not at the\ntime have held himself to be that \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and if he really uttered\nthe words \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Suffer it to be so now, etc.\n(which, however, could only be called forth by the refusal of the\nBaptist\u2014a refusal that stands or falls with his previous conviction of\nthe Messiahship of Jesus), he could only mean by them, that it became\nhim, with every pious Israelite, to devote himself by anticipation to\nthe expected Messiah, in baptism, although the Evangelist, instructed\nby the issue, put on them a different construction.\n\nBut the relation hitherto discussed is only one aspect of John\u2019s\nbaptism; the other, which is yet more strongly attested by history,\nshows it as a \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, a baptism of repentance. The\nIsraelites, we are told, Matt. iii. 6, were baptized of John,\nconfessing their sins: shall we then suppose that Jesus made such a\nconfession? They received the command to repent: did Jesus acknowledge\nsuch a command? This difficulty was felt even in the early church. In\nthe Gospel of the Hebrews, adopted by the Nazarenes, Jesus asks his\nmother and brother, when invited by them to receive John\u2019s baptism,\nwherein he had sinned, that this baptism was needful for him? [608] and\nan heretical apocryphal work appears to have attributed to Jesus a\nconfession of his own sins at his baptism. [609]\n\nThe sum of what modern theologians have contributed towards the removal\nof this difficulty, consists in the application to Jesus of the\ndistinction between what a man is as an individual, and what he is as a\nmember of the community. He needed, say they, no repentance on his own\nbehalf, but, aware of its necessity for all other men, the children of\nAbraham not excepted, he wished to demonstrate his approval of an\ninstitute which confirmed this truth, and hence he submitted to it. But\nlet the reader only take a nearer view of the facts. According to Matt.\niii. 6, John appears to have required a confession of sins previous to\nbaptism; such a confession Jesus, presupposing his impeccability, could\nnot deliver without falsehood; if he refused, John would hardly baptize\nhim, for he did not yet believe him to be the Messiah, and from every\nother Israelite he must have considered a confession of sins\nindispensable. The non-compliance of Jesus might very probably\noriginate the dispute to which Matthew gives a wholly different\ncharacter; but certainly, if the refusal of John had such a cause, the\nmatter could scarcely have been adjusted by a mere suffer it to be so\nnow, for no confession being given, the Baptist would not have\nperceived that all righteousness was fulfilled. Even supposing that a\nconfession was not required of every baptized person, John would not\nconclude the ceremony of baptism without addressing the neophyte on the\nsubject of repentance. Could Jesus tacitly sanction such an address to\nhimself, when conscious that he needed no regeneration? and would he\nnot, in so doing, perplex the minds which were afterwards to believe in\nhim as the sinless one? We will even abandon the position that John so\naddressed the neophytes, and only urge that the gestures of those who\nplunged into the purifying water must have been those of contrition;\nyet if Jesus conformed himself to these even in silence, without\nreferring them to his own condition, he cannot be absolved from the\ncharge of dissimulation.\n\nThere is then no alternative but to suppose, that as Jesus had not, up\nto the time of his baptism, thought of himself as the Messiah, so with\nregard to the \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 (repentance), he may have justly ranked himself\namongst the most excellent in Israel, without excluding himself from\nwhat is predicated in Job iv. 18, xv. 15. There is little historical\nground for controverting this; for the words, which of you convinceth\nme of sin? (John viii. 46) could only refer to open delinquencies, and\nto a later period in the life of Jesus. The scene in his twelfth year,\neven if historical, could not by itself prove a sinless development of\nhis powers.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 50.\n\nTHE SCENE AT THE BAPTISM OF JESUS CONSIDERED AS SUPERNATURAL AND AS\nNATURAL.\n\nAt the moment that John had completed his baptism of Jesus, the\nsynoptical gospels tell us that the heavens were opened, the Holy\nSpirit descended on Jesus in the form of a dove, and a voice from\nheaven designated him the Son of God, in whom the Father was well\npleased. The fourth Evangelist (i. 32 ff.) makes the Baptist narrate\nthat he saw the Holy Spirit descend like a dove, and remain on Jesus;\nbut as in the immediate context John says of his baptism, that it was\ndestined for the manifestation of the Messiah, and as the description\nof the descending dove corresponds almost verbally with the synoptical\naccounts, it is not to be doubted that the same event is intended. The\nold and lost Gospels of Justin and the Ebionites give, as concomitants,\na heavenly light, and a flame bursting out of the Jordan; [610] in the\ndove and heavenly voice also, they have alterations, hereafter to be\nnoticed. For whose benefit the appearance was granted, remains doubtful\non a comparison of the various narratives. In John, where the Baptist\nrecites it to his followers, these seem not to have been eye-witnesses;\nand from his stating that he who sent him to baptize, promised the\ndescent and repose of the Spirit as a mark of the Messiah, we gather\nthat the appearance was designed specially for the Baptist. According\nto Mark it is Jesus, who, in ascending from the water, sees the heavens\nopen and the Spirit descend. Even in Matthew it is the most natural to\nrefer \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5, he saw, and \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff4\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, were opened to him, to \u1f41\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, Jesus, the subject immediately before; but as it is said, in\ncontinuation, that he saw the Holy Spirit \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, not \u03b5\u03c6\u2019\n\u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd (Mark\u2019s \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, which does not agree with his construction, is\nexplained by his dependence on Matthew), the beholder seems not to be\nthe same as he on whom the Spirit descended, and we are obliged to\nrefer \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5 and \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff4\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 to the more remote antecedent, namely\nthe Baptist, who, as the heavenly voice speaks of Jesus in the third\nperson, is most naturally to be regarded as also a witness. Luke\nappears to give a much larger number of spectators to the scene, for\naccording to him, Jesus was baptized \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd,\nwhen all the people were baptized, and consequently he must have\nsupposed that the scene described occurred in their presence. [611]\n\nThe narrations directly convey no other meaning, than that the whole\nscene was externally visible and audible, and thus they have been\nalways understood by the majority of commentators. But in endeavouring\nto conceive the incident as a real one, a cultivated and reflecting\nmind must stumble at no insignificant difficulties. First, that for the\nappearance of a divine being on earth, the visible heavens must divide\nthemselves, to allow of his descent from his accustomed seat, is an\nidea that can have no objective reality, but must be the entirely\nsubjective creation of a time when the dwelling-place of Deity was\nimagined to be above the vault of heaven. Further, how is it\nreconcilable with the true idea of the Holy Spirit as the divine,\nall-pervading Power, that he should move from one place to another,\nlike a finite being, and embody himself in the form of a dove? Finally,\nthat God should utter articulate tones in a national idiom, has been\njustly held extravagant. [612]\n\nEven in the early church, the more enlightened fathers adopted the\nopinion, that the heavenly voices spoken of in the biblical history\nwere not external sounds, the effect of vibrations in the air, but\ninward impressions produced by God in the minds of those to whom he\nwilled to impart himself: thus of the appearance at the baptism of\nJesus, Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia maintain that it was a vision,\nand not a reality, \u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. [613] To the simple indeed, says\nOrigen, in their simplicity, it is a light thing to set the universe in\nmotion, and to sever a solid mass like the heavens; but those who\nsearch more deeply into such matters, will, he thinks, refer to those\nhigher revelations, by means of which chosen persons, even waking, and\nstill more frequently in their dreams, are led to suppose that they\nperceive something with their bodily senses, while their minds only are\naffected: so that consequently, the whole appearance in question should\nbe understood, not as an external incident, but as an inward vision\nsent by God; an interpretation which has also met with much approbation\namong modern theologians.\n\nIn the first two Gospels and in the fourth, this interpretation is\nfavoured by the expressions, were opened to him, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff4\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, he\nsaw, \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5, and I beheld, \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, which seem to imply that the\nappearance was subjective, in the sense intended by Theodore, when he\nobserves that the descent of the Holy Spirit was not seen by all\npresent, but that, by a certain spiritual contemplation, it was visible\nto John alone, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u1fc3: to John however we must add Jesus, who,\naccording to Mark, participated in the vision. But in opposition to\nthis stands the statement of Luke: the expressions which he uses,\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u2014\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff3\u03c7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd\u2014\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, it came to\npass\u2014was opened\u2014and descended\u2014and a voice came, bear a character so\ntotally objective and exterior, [614] especially if we add the words,\nin a bodily form, \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9, that (abiding by the notion of the\nperfect truthfulness of all the evangelical records) the less explicit\nnarratives must be interpreted by the unequivocal one of Luke, and the\nincident they recount must be understood as something more than an\ninward revelation to John and Jesus. Hence it is prudent in Olshausen\nto allow, in concession to Luke, that there was present on the occasion\na crowd of persons, who saw and heard something, yet to maintain that\nthis was nothing distinct or comprehensible. By this means, on the one\nhand, the occurrence is again transferred from the domain of subjective\nvisions to that of objective phenomena; while on the other, the\ndescending dove is supposed visible, not to the bodily eye, but only to\nthe open spiritual one, and the words audible to the soul, not to the\nbodily ear. Our understanding fails us in this pneumatology of\nOlshausen, wherein there are sensible realities transcending the\nsenses; and we hasten out of this misty atmosphere into the clearer one\nof those, who simply tell us, that the appearance was an external\nincident, but one purely natural.\n\nThis party appeals to the custom of antiquity, to regard natural\noccurrences as divine intimations, and in momentous crises, where a\nbold resolution was to be taken, to adopt them as guides. To Jesus,\nspiritually matured into the Messiah, and only awaiting an external\ndivine sanction, and to the Baptist who had already ceded the\nsuperiority to the friend of his youth, in their solemn frame of mind\nat the baptism of the former by the latter, every natural phenomenon\nthat happened at the time, must have been pregnant with meaning, and\nhave appeared as a sign of the divine will. But what the natural\nappearance actually was, is a point on which the commentators are\ndivided in opinion. Some, with the synoptical writers, include a sound\nas well as an appearance; others give, with John, an appearance only.\nThey interpret the opening of the heavens, as a sudden parting of the\nclouds, or a flash of lightning; the dove they consider as a real bird\nof that species, which by chance hovered over the head of Jesus; or\nthey assume that the lightning or some meteor was compared to a dove,\nfrom the manner of its descent. They who include a sound as a part of\nthe machinery in the scene, suppose a clap of thunder, which was\nimagined by those present to be a Bath Kol, and interpreted into the\nwords given by the first Evangelist. Others, on the contrary,\nunderstand what is said of audible words, merely as an explanation of\nthe visible sign, which was regarded as an attestation that Jesus was\nthe Son of God. This last opinion sacrifices the synoptical writers,\nwho undeniably speak of an audible voice, to John, and thus contains a\ncritical doubt as to the historical character of the narratives, which,\nconsistently followed out, leads to quite other ground than that of the\nnaturalistic interpretation. If the sound was mere thunder, and the\nwords only an interpretation put upon it by the bystanders; then, as in\nthe synoptical accounts, the words are evidently supposed to have been\naudibly articulated, we must allow that there is a traditional\ningredient in these records. So far as the appearance is concerned, it\nis not to be denied that the sudden parting of clouds, or a flash of\nlightning, might be described as an opening of heaven; but in nowise\ncould the form of a dove be ascribed to lightning or a meteor. The form\nis expressly the point of comparison in Luke only, but it is doubtless\nso intended by the other narrators; although Fritzsche contends that\nthe words like a dove, \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd, in Matthew refer only to the\nrapid motion. The flight of the dove has nothing so peculiar and\ndistinctive, that, supposing this to be the point of comparison, there\nwould not be in any of the parallel passages a variation, a\nsubstitution of some other bird, or an entirely new figure. As, instead\nof this, the mention of the dove is invariable through all the four\ngospels, the simile must turn upon something exclusively proper to the\ndove, and this can apparently be nothing but its form. Hence those\ncommit the least violence on the text, who adopt the supposition of a\nreal dove. Paulus, however, in so doing, incurred the hard task of\nshowing by a multitude of facts from natural history and other sources,\nthat the dove might be tame enough to fly towards a man; [615] how it\ncould linger so long over one, that it might be said, \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, it abode upon him, he has not succeeded in explaining, and he\nthus comes into collision with the narrative of John, by which he had\nsustained his supposition of the absence of a voice. [616]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 51.\n\nAN ATTEMPT AT A CRITICISM AND MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE\nNARRATIVES.\n\nIf then a more intelligible representation of the scene at the baptism\nof Jesus is not to be given, without doing violence to the evangelical\ntext, or without supposing it to be partially erroneous, we are\nnecessarily driven to a critical treatment of the accounts; and indeed,\naccording to De Wette and Schleiermacher, [617] this is the prevalent\ncourse in relation to the above point in the evangelical history. From\nthe narrative of John, as the pure source, it is sought to derive the\nsynoptical accounts, as turbid streams. In the former, it is said,\nthere is no opening heaven, no heavenly voice; only the descent of the\nSpirit is, as had been promised, a divine witness to John that Jesus is\nthe Messiah; but in what manner the Baptist perceived that the Spirit\nrested on Jesus, he does not tell us, and possibly the only sign may\nhave been the discourse of Jesus.\n\nOne cannot but wonder at Schleiermacher\u2019s assertion, that the manner in\nwhich the Baptist perceived the descending Spirit is not given in the\nfourth gospel, when here also the expression \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd, like a\ndove, tells it plainly enough; and this particular marks the descent as\na visible one, and not a mere inference from the discourse of Jesus.\nUsteri, indeed, thinks that the Baptist mentioned the dove, merely as a\nfigure, to denote the gentle, mild spirit which he had observed in\nJesus. But had this been all, he would rather have compared Jesus\nhimself to a dove, as on another occasion he did to a lamb, than have\nsuggested the idea of a sensible appearance by the picturesque\ndescription, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove. It is\ntherefore not true in relation to the dove, that first in the more\nremote tradition given by the synoptical writers, what was originally\nfigurative, was received in a literal sense; for in this sense it is\nunderstood by John, and if he have the correct account, the Baptist\nhimself must have spoken of a visible dove-like appearance, as Bleek,\nNeander, and others, acknowledge.\n\nWhile the alleged distinction in relation to the dove, between the\nfirst three evangelists and the fourth, is not to be found; with\nrespect to the voice, the difference is so wide, that it is\ninconceivable how the one account could be drawn from the other. For it\nis said that the testimony which John gave concerning Jesus, after the\nappearance: This is the Son of God (John i. 34), taken in connexion\nwith the preceding words: He that sent me to baptize, the same said\nunto me, etc., became, in the process of tradition, an immediate\nheavenly declaration, such as we see in Matthew: This is my beloved\nSon, in whom I am well pleased. Supposing such a transformation\nadmissible, some instigation to it must be shown. Now in Isaiah xlii.\n1, Jehovah says of his servant: \u200f\u05d4\u05b5\u05df \u05e2\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05da\u05b0\u05be\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9 \u05e8\u05b8\u05e6\u05b2\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4 \u05e0\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u200e;\nwords which, excepting those between the parentheses, are almost\nliterally translated by the declaration of the heavenly voice in\nMatthew. We learn from Matt. xii. 17 ff. that this passage was applied\nto Jesus as the Messiah; and in it God himself is the speaker, as in\nthe synoptical account of the baptism. Here then was what would much\nmore readily prompt the fiction of a heavenly voice, than the\nexpressions of John. Since, therefore, we do not need a misapprehension\nof the Baptist\u2019s language to explain the story of the divine voice, and\nsince we cannot use it for the derivation of the allusion to the dove;\nwe must seek for the source of our narrative, not in one of the\nevangelical documents, but beyond the New Testament,\u2014in the domain of\ncotemporary ideas, founded on the Old Testament, the total neglect of\nwhich has greatly diminished the value of Schleiermacher\u2019s critique on\nthe New Testament.\n\nTo regard declarations concerning the Messiah, put by poets into the\nmouth of Jehovah, as real, audible voices from heaven, was wholly in\nthe spirit of the later Judaism, which not seldom supposed such vocal\ncommunications to fall to the lot of distinguished rabbins, [618] and\nof the messianic prejudices, which the early Christians both shared\nthemselves, and were compelled, in confronting the Jews, to satisfy. In\nthe passage quoted from Isaiah, there was a divine declaration, in\nwhich the present Messiah was pointed to as it were with the finger,\nand which was therefore specially adapted for a heavenly annunciation\nconcerning him. How could the spirit of Christian legend be slow to\nimagine a scene, in which these words were audibly spoken from heaven\nof the Messiah. But we detect a farther motive for such a\nrepresentation of the case by observing, that in Mark and Luke, the\nheavenly voice addresses Jesus in the second person, and by comparing\nthe words which, according to the Fathers, were given in the old and\nlost gospels as those of the voice. Justin, following his Memoirs of\nthe Apostles, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, thus reports them: \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f36 \u03c3\u03cd. \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b5; [619] Thou art my Son, this day\nhave I begotten thee. In the Gospel of the Hebrews, according to\nEpiphanius; [620] this declaration was combined with that which our\nGospels contain. Clement of Alexandria [621] and Augustin [622] seem to\nhave read the words even in some copies of the latter; and it is at\nleast certain that some of our present manuscripts of Luke have this\naddition. [623] Here were words uttered by the heavenly voice, drawn,\nnot from Isaiah, but from Psalm ii. 7, a passage considered messianic\nby Jewish interpreters; [624] in Heb. i. 5, applied to Christ; and,\nfrom their being couched in the form of a direct address, containing a\nyet stronger inducement to conceive it as a voice sent to the Messiah\nfrom heaven. If then the words of the psalm were originally attributed\nto the heavenly voice, or if they were only taken in connexion with the\npassage in Isaiah (as is probable from the use of the second person, \u03c3\u1f7a\n\u03b5\u1f36, in Mark and Luke, since this form is presented in the psalm, and\nnot in Isaiah), we have a sufficient indication that this text, long\ninterpreted of the Messiah, and easily regarded as an address from\nheaven to the Messiah on earth, was the source of our narrative of the\ndivine voice, heard at the baptism of Jesus. To unite it with the\nbaptism, followed as a matter of course, when this was held to be a\nconsecration of Jesus to his office.\n\nWe proceed to the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove. In this\nexamination we must separate the descent of the Spirit from the form of\nthe dove, and consider the two particulars apart. That the Divine\nSpirit was to rest in a peculiar measure on the Messiah, was an\nexpectation necessarily resulting from the notion, that the messianic\ntimes were to be those of the outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh\n(Joel iii. 1 ff.); and in Isaiah xi. 1 f. it was expressly said of the\nstem of Jesse, that the spirit of the Lord would rest on it in all its\nfulness, as the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, of might, and of\nthe fear of the Lord. The communication of the Spirit, considered as an\nindividual act, coincident with the baptism, had a type in the history\nof David, on whom, when anointed by Samuel, the spirit of God came from\nthat day forward (1 Sam. xvi. 13). Further, in the Old Testament\nphrases concerning the imparting of the Divine Spirit to men,\nespecially in that expression of Isaiah, \u200f\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7 \u05e2\u05b4\u05dc\u05be\u200e, which best\ncorresponds to the \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 of John, there already lay the germ of a\nsymbolical representation; for that Hebrew verb is applied also to the\nhalting of armies, or, like the parallel Arabic word, even of animals.\nThe imagination, once stimulated by such an expression, would be the\nmore strongly impelled to complete the picture by the necessity for\ndistinguishing the descent of the Spirit on the Messiah,\u2014in the Jewish\nview, from the mode in which it was imparted to the prophets (e.g.\nIsaiah lxi. 1)\u2014in the Christian view, from its ordinary communication\nto the baptized (e.g. Acts xix. 1 ff). [625] The position being once\nlaid down that the Spirit was to descend on the Messiah, the question\nimmediately occurred: How would it descend? This was necessarily\ndecided according to the popular Jewish idea, which always represented\nthe Divine Spirit under some form or other. In the Old Testament, and\neven in the New (Acts ii. 3), fire is the principal symbol of the Holy\nSpirit; but it by no means follows that other sensible objects were not\nsimilarly used. In an important passage of the Old Testament (Gen. i.\n2), the Spirit of God is described as hovering (\u200f\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05ea\u200e), a word which\nsuggests, as its sensible representation, the movement of a bird,\nrather than of fire. Thus the expression \u200f\u05e8\u05b8\u05d7\u05b7\u05e3\u200e, Deut. xxxii. 11, is\nused of the hovering of a bird over its young. But the imagination\ncould not be satisfied with the general figure of a bird; it must have\na specific image, and everything led to the choice of the dove.\n\nIn the East, and especially in Syria, the dove is a sacred bird, [626]\nand it is so for a reason which almost necessitated its association\nwith the Spirit moving on the face of the primitive waters (Gen. i. 2).\nThe brooding dove was a symbol of the quickening warmth of nature;\n[627] it thus perfectly represented the function which, in the Mosaic\ncosmogony, is ascribed to the Spirit of God,\u2014the calling forth of the\nworld of life from the chaos of the first creation. Moreover, when the\nearth was a second time covered with water, it is a dove, sent by Noah,\nwhich hovers over its waves, and which, by plucking an olive leaf, and\nat length finally disappearing, announces the renewed possibility of\nliving on the earth. Who then can wonder that in Jewish writings, the\nSpirit hovering over the primeval waters is expressly compared to a\ndove, [628] and that, apart from the narrative under examination, the\ndove is taken as a symbol of the Holy Spirit? [629] How near to this\nlay the association of the hovering dove with the Messiah, on whom the\ndove-like spirit was to descend, is evident, without our having\nrecourse to the Jewish writings, which designate the Spirit hovering\nover the waters, Gen. i. 2, as the Spirit of the Messiah, [630] and\nalso connect with him its emblem, the Noachian dove. [631]\n\nWhen, in this manner, the heavenly voice, and the Divine Spirit\ndown-hovering like a dove, gathered from the cotemporary Jewish ideas,\nhad become integral parts of the Christian legend concerning the\ncircumstances of the baptism of Jesus; it followed, of course, that the\nheavens should open themselves, for the Spirit, once embodied, must\nhave a road before it could descend through the vault of heaven. [632]\n\nThe result of the preceding inquiries, viz., that the alleged\nmiraculous circumstances of the baptism of Jesus have merely a mythical\nvalue, might have been much more readily obtained, in the way of\ninference from the preceding chapter; for if, according to that, John\nhad not acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah, there could have been no\nappearances at the baptism of Jesus, demonstrative to John of his\nMessiahship. We have, however, established the mythical character of\nthe baptismal phenomena, without presupposing the result of the\nprevious chapter; and thus the two independently obtained conclusions\nmay serve to strengthen each other.\n\nSupposing all the immediate circumstances of the baptism of Jesus\nunhistorical, the question occurs, whether the baptism itself be also a\nmere mythus. Fritzsche seems not disinclined to the affirmative, for he\nleaves it undecided whether the first Christians knew historically, or\nonly supposed, in conformity with their messianic expectations, that\nJesus was consecrated to his messianic office by John, as his\nforerunner. This view may be supported by the observation, that in the\nJewish expectation, which originated in the history of David, combined\nwith the prophecy of Malachi, there was adequate inducement to assume\nsuch a consecration of Jesus by the Baptist, even without historical\nwarrant; and the mention of John\u2019s baptism in relation to Jesus (Acts\ni. 22), in a narrative, itself traditional, proves nothing to the\ncontrary. Yet, on the other hand, it is to be considered that the\nbaptism of Jesus by John furnishes the most natural basis for an\nexplanation of the messianic project of Jesus. When we have two\ncotemporaries, of whom one announces the proximity of the Messiah\u2019s\nkingdom, and the other subsequently assumes the character of Messiah;\nthe conjecture arises, even, without positive information, that they\nstood in a relation to each other\u2014that the latter owed his idea to the\nformer. If Jesus had the messianic idea excited in him by John, yet, as\nis natural, only so far that he also looked forward to the advent of\nthe messianic individual, whom he did not, in the first instance,\nidentify with himself; he would most likely submit himself to the\nbaptism of John. This would probably take place without any striking\noccurrences; and Jesus, in no way announced by it as the Baptist\u2019s\nsuperior, might, as above remarked, continue for some time to demean\nhimself as his disciple.\n\nIf we take a comparative retrospect of our evangelical documents, the\npre-eminence which has of late been sought for the fourth gospel\nappears totally unmerited. The single historical fact, the baptism of\nJesus by John, is not mentioned by the fourth Evangelist, who is\nsolicitous about the mythical adjuncts alone, and these he in reality\ngives no more simply than the synoptical writers, his omission of the\nopening heaven excepted; for the divine speech is not wanting in his\nnarrative, if we read it impartially. In the words, i. 33: He that sent\nme to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt\nsee the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which\nbaptizeth with the Holy Ghost, we have not only substantially the same\npurport as that conveyed by the heavenly voice in the synoptical\ngospels, but also a divine declaration; the only difference being, that\nhere John is addressed exclusively, and prior to the baptism of Jesus.\nThis difference originated partly in the importance which the fourth\nEvangelist attached to the relation between the Baptist and Jesus, and\nwhich required that the criteria of the messianic individual, as well\nas the proximity of his kingdom, should have been revealed to John at\nhis call to baptize; and it might be partly suggested by the narrative\nin 1 Sam. xvi., according to which Samuel, being sent by Jehovah to\nanoint a king selected from the sons of Jesse, is thus admonished by\nJehovah on the entrance of David: Arise and anoint him, for this is he\n(v. 12). The descent of the Spirit, which in David\u2019s case follows his\nconsecration, is, by the fourth Evangelist, made an antecedent sign of\nthe Messiahship of Jesus.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 52.\n\nRELATION OF THE SUPERNATURAL AT THE BAPTISM OF JESUS TO THE\nSUPERNATURAL IN HIS CONCEPTION.\n\nAt the commencement of this chapter, we enquired into the subjective\nviews of Jesus in his reception of John\u2019s baptism, or the idea which he\nentertained of its relation to his own character. We close this\ndiscussion with an inquiry into the objective purpose of the miracles\nat the baptism of Jesus, or the mode in which they were to subserve the\nmanifestation of his messiahship.\n\nThe common answer to such an inquiry is, that Jesus was thereby\ninducted to his public office, and declared to be the Messiah, [633]\ni.e. that nothing was conferred on him, and that simply the character\nwhich he already possessed was manifested to others. But, it may be\nasked, is such an abstraction intended by our narrators? A consecration\nto an office, effected by divine co-operation, was ever considered by\nantiquity as a delegation of divine powers for its fulfilment; hence,\nin the Old Testament, the kings, as soon as they are anointed, are\nfilled with the spirit of God (1 Sam. x. 6, 10, xvi. 13); and in the\nNew Testament also, the apostles, before entering on their vocation,\nare furnished with supernatural gifts (Acts ii.). It may, therefore, be\nbeforehand conjectured, that according to the original sense of the\nGospels, the consecration of Jesus at his baptism was attended with a\nsupply of higher powers; and this is confirmed by an examination of our\nnarratives. For the synoptical writers all state, that after the\nbaptism, the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness, obviously marking\nthis journey as the first effect of the higher principle infused at his\nbaptism: and in John, the words \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, applied to the\ndescending Spirit, seem to intimate, that from the time of the baptism\nthere was a relation not previously subsisting, between the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd and Jesus.\n\nThis interpretation of the marvels at the baptism of Jesus seems in\ncontradiction with the narratives of his conception. If Jesus, as\nMatthew and Luke state, was conceived by the Holy Ghost; or if, as John\npropounds, the divine \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, the word, was made flesh in him, from the\nbeginning of his earthly existence; why did he yet need, at his\nbaptism, a special intromission of the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd? Several modern\nexpositors have seen, and sought to solve, this difficulty. Olshausen\u2019s\nexplanation consists in the distinction between the potential and the\nactual; but it is self-contradictory. [634] For if the character of the\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 which was manifested act\u00fb, with the ripened manhood of Jesus,\nat his baptism, was already present potenti\u00e2 in the child and youth;\nthere must have also been an inward principle of development, by means\nof which his powers would gradually unfold themselves from within,\ninstead of being first awakened by a sudden illapse of the Spirit from\nwithout. This, however, does not preclude the possibility that the\ndivine principle, existing in Jesus, as supernaturally conceived, from\nthe moment of his birth, might need, owing to the human form of its\ndevelopment, some impulse from without; and L\u00fccke [635] has more justly\nproceeded on this contrast between external impulse and inward\ndevelopment. The \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, present in Jesus from his birth, needed, he\nthinks, however strong might be the inward bent, some external stimulus\nand vivification, in order to arrive at full activity and manifestation\nin the world; and that which awakens and guides the divine life-germ in\nthe world is, on apostolic showing, the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Allowing this,\nyet the inward disposition and the requisite force of the outward\nstimulus stand in an inverse relation to each other; so that the\nstronger the outward stimulus required, the weaker is the inward\ndisposition; but in a case where the inward disposition is\nconsummate,\u2014as it must be supposed in Jesus, engendered by the Spirit,\nor animated by the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2,\u2014the exterior impulse ought to be a minimum,\nthat is, every circumstance, even the most common, might serve as a\ndetermination of the inward tendency. But at the baptism of Jesus we\nsee the maximum of exterior impulse, in the visible descent of the\ndivine Spirit; and although we allow for the special nature of the\nmessianic task, for the fulfilment of which he must be qualified, [636]\nyet the maximum of inward disposition, which fitted him to be the \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, cannot at the same time be supposed as existing in him from his\nbirth: a consequence which L\u00fccke only escapes, by reducing the\nbaptismal scene to a mere inauguration, thus, as has been already\nshown, contradicting the evangelical records.\n\nWe must here give a similar decision to that at which we arrived\nconcerning the genealogies; viz., that in that circle of the early\nChristian church, in which the narrative of the descent of the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\non Jesus at his baptism was formed, the idea that Jesus was generated\nby the same \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 cannot have prevailed; and while, at the present\nday, the communication of the divine nature to Jesus is thought of as\ncotemporary with his conception, those Christians must have regarded\nhis baptism as the epoch of such communication. In fact, those\nprimitive Christians whom, in a former discussion, we found to have\nknown nothing, or to have believed nothing, of the supernatural\nconception of Jesus, were also those who connected the first\ncommunication of divine powers to Jesus with his baptism in the Jordan.\nFor no other doctrine did the orthodox fathers of the church more\nfiercely persecute the ancient Ebionites, [637] with their gnostic\nfellow-believer Cerinthus, [638] than for this: that the Holy Spirit\nfirst united himself with Jesus at his baptism. In the Gospel of the\nEbionites it was written that the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 not only descended on Jesus in\nthe form of a dove, but entered into him; [639] and according to\nJustin, it was the general expectation of the Jews, that higher powers\nwould first be granted to the Messiah, when he should be anointed by\nhis forerunner Elias. [640]\n\nThe development of these ideas seems to have been the following. When\nthe messianic dignity of Jesus began to be acknowledged among the Jews,\nit was thought appropriate to connect his coming into possession of the\nrequisite gifts, with the epoch from which he was in some degree known,\nand which, from the ceremony that marked it, was also best adapted to\nrepresent that anointing with the Holy Spirit, expected by the Jews for\ntheir Messiah: and from this point of view was formed the legend of the\noccurrences at the baptism. But as reverence for Jesus was heightened,\nand men appeared in the Christian church who were acquainted with more\nexalted messianic ideas, this tardy manifestation of messiahship was no\nlonger sufficient; his relation with the Holy Spirit was referred to\nhis conception: and from this point of view was formed the tradition of\nthe supernatural conception of Jesus. Here too, perhaps, the words of\nthe heavenly voice, which might originally be those of Ps. ii. 7, were\naltered after Isaiah xlii. 1. For the words, \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b5, This\nday have I begotten thee, were consistent with the notion that Jesus\nwas constituted the Son of God at his baptism; but they were no longer\nsuitable to that occasion, when the opinion had arisen that the origin\nof his life was an immediate divine act. By this later representation,\nhowever, the earlier one was by no means supplanted, but, on the\ncontrary, tradition and her recorders being large-hearted, both\nnarratives\u2014that of the miracles at the baptism, and that of the\nsupernatural conception, or the indwelling of the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 in Jesus from\nthe commencement of his life, although, strictly, they exclude each\nother, went forth peaceably side by side, and so were depicted by our\nEvangelists, not excepting even the fourth. Just as in the case of the\ngenealogies: the narrative of the imparting of the Spirit at the\nbaptism could not arise after the formation of the idea that Jesus was\nengendered by the Spirit; but it might be retained as a supplement,\nbecause tradition is ever unwilling to renounce any of its acquired\ntreasures.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 53.\n\nPLACE AND TIME OF THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. DIVERGENCIES OF THE\nEVANGELISTS ON THIS SUBJECT.\n\nThe transition from the baptism to the temptation of Jesus, as it is\nmade by the synoptical writers, is attended with difficulty in relation\nboth to place and time.\n\nWith respect to the former, it strikes us at once, that according to\nall the synoptical gospels, Jesus after his baptism was led into the\nwilderness to be tempted, implying that he was not previously in the\nwilderness, although, according to Matt. iii. 1, John, by whom he was\nbaptized, exercised his ministry there. This apparent contradiction has\nbeen exposed by the most recent critic of Matthew\u2019s gospel, for the\nsake of proving the statement that John baptized in the wilderness to\nbe erroneous. [641] But they who cannot resolve to reject this\nstatement on grounds previously laid down, may here avail themselves of\nthe supposition, that John delivered his preliminary discourses in the\nwilderness of Judea, but resorted to the Jordan for the purpose of\nbaptizing; or, if the banks of the Jordan be reckoned part of that\nwilderness, of the presumption that the Evangelists can only have\nintended that the Spirit led Jesus farther into the recesses of the\nwilderness, but have neglected to state this with precision, because\ntheir description of the scene at the baptism had obliterated from\ntheir imagination their former designation of the locality of John\u2019s\nagency.\n\nBut there is, besides, a chronological difficulty: namely, that while,\naccording to the synoptical writers, Jesus, in the plenitude of the\nSpirit, just communicated to him at the Jordan, betakes himself, in\nconsequence of that communication, for forty days to the wilderness,\nwhere the temptation occurs, and then returns into Galilee; John, on\nthe contrary, is silent concerning the temptation, and appears to\nsuppose an interval of a few days only, between the baptism of Jesus\nand his journey into Galilee; thus allowing no space for a six weeks\u2019\nresidence in the wilderness. The fourth Evangelist commences his\nnarrative with the testimony which the Baptist delivers to the\nemissaries of the Sanhedrim (i. 19); the next day (\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) he\nmakes the Baptist recite the incident which in the synoptical gospels\nis followed by the baptism (v. 29): again, the next day (\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd)\nhe causes two of his disciples to follow Jesus (v. 35); farther, the\nnext day (\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, v. 44), as Jesus is on the point of journeying\ninto Galilee, Philip and Nathanael join him; and lastly, on the third\nday, \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3 (ii. 1), Jesus is at the wedding in Cana of\nGalilee. The most natural inference is, that the baptism took place\nimmediately before John\u2019s narrative of its attendant occurrences, and\nas according to the synoptical gospels the temptation followed close on\nthe baptism, both these events must be inserted between v. 28 and 29,\nas Euthymius supposed. But between that which is narrated down to v.\n28, and the sequel from v. 29 inclusive, there is only the interval of\na morrow, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, while the temptation requires a period of forty\ndays; hence, expositors have thought it necessary to give \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd the\nwider sense of \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd afterwards; this however is inadmissible,\nbecause the expression \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3, the third day, follows in\nconnexion with \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, and restricts its meaning to the morrow. We\nmight therefore be inclined, with Kuin\u00f6l, to separate the baptism and\nthe temptation, to place the baptism after v. 28, and to regard the\nnext day\u2019s interview between Jesus and John (v. 29) as a parting visit\nfrom the former to the latter: inserting after this the journey into\nthe wilderness and the temptation. But without insisting that the first\nthree Evangelists seem not to allow even of a day\u2019s interval between\nthe baptism and the departure of Jesus into the wilderness, yet even\nlater we have the same difficulty in finding space for the forty days.\nFor it is no more possible to place the residence in the wilderness\nbetween the supposed parting visit and the direction of the two\ndisciples to Jesus, that is between v. 34 and 35, as Kuin\u00f6l attempts,\nthan between v. 28 and 29, since the former as well as the latter\npassages are connected by \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, on the morrow. Hence we must\ndescend to v. 43 and 44; but here also there is only the interval of a\nmorrow, and even chap. ii. 1, we are shut out by an \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7, third\nday, so that, proceeding in this way, the temptation would at last be\ncarried to the residence of Jesus in Galilee, in direct opposition to\nthe statement of the synoptical writers; while, in further\ncontradiction to them, the temptation is placed at a farther and\nfarther distance from the baptism. Thus neither at v. 29, nor below it,\ncan the forty days\u2019 residence of Jesus in the wilderness with the\ntemptation be intercalated: and it must therefore be referred,\naccording to the plan of L\u00fccke and others, [642] to the period before\nv. 19, which seems to allow of as large an interpolation as can be\ndesired, inasmuch as the fourth Evangelist there commences his history.\nNow it is true that what follows from v. 19 to 28 is not of a kind\nabsolutely to exclude the baptism and temptation of Jesus as earlier\noccurrences; but from v. 29 to 34, the Evangelist is far from making\nthe Baptist speak as if there had been an interval of six weeks between\nthe baptism and his narrative of its circumstances. [643] That the\nfourth Evangelist should have omitted, by chance merely, the history of\nthe temptation, important as it was in the view of the other\nEvangelists, seems improbable: it is rather to be concluded, either\nthat it was dogmatically offensive to him, so that he omitted it\ndesignedly, or that it was not current in the circle of tradition from\nwhich he drew his materials.\n\nThe period of forty days is assigned by all three of the synoptical\nwriters for the residence of Jesus in the wilderness; but to this\nagreement is annexed the not inconsiderable discrepancy, that,\naccording to Matthew, the temptation by the devil commences after the\nlapse of the forty days, while, according to the others, it appears to\nhave been going forward during this time; for the words of Mark (i.\n13), he was in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan, \u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6, and the similar\nones of Luke i. 2, can have no other meaning. Added to this, there is a\ndifference between the two latter evangelists; Mark only placing the\ntemptation generally within the duration of forty days, without naming\nthe particular acts of the tempter, which according to Matthew, were\nsubsequent to the forty days; while Luke mentions both the prolonged\ntemptation (\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) of the forty days, and the three special\ntemptations (\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76) which followed. [644] It has been thought\npossible to make the three accounts tally by supposing that the devil\ntempted Jesus during the forty days, as Mark states; that after the\nlapse of that time he approached him with the three temptations given\nby Matthew; and that Luke\u2019s narrative includes the whole. [645]\nFurther, the temptations have been distinguished into two kinds; that\nwhich is only generally mentioned, as continued through the forty days,\nbeing considered invisible, like the ordinary attempts of Satan against\nmen; and the three particularized temptations being regarded as\npersonal and visible assaults, resorted to on the failure of the first.\n[646] But this distinction is evidently built on the air; moreover, it\nis inconceivable why Luke should not specify one of the temptations of\nthe forty days, and should only mention the three subsequent ones\ndetailed by Matthew. We might conjecture that the three temptations\nnarrated by Luke did not occur after the six weeks, but were given by\nway of specimen from among the many that took place during that time;\nand that Matthew misunderstood them to be a sequel to the forty days\u2019\ntemptation. [647] But the challenge to make stones bread must in any\ncase be placed at the end of that period, for it appealed to the hunger\nof Jesus, arising from a forty days\u2019 fast (a cause omitted by Mark\nalone). Now in Luke also this is the first temptation, and if this\noccurred at the close of the forty days, the others could not have been\nearlier. For it is not to be admitted that the separate temptations\nbeing united in Luke merely by \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76, and not by \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 and \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd as in\nMatthew, we are not bound to preserve the order of them, and that\nwithout violating the intention of the third Evangelist we may place\nthe second and third temptation before the first. Thus Luke is\nconvicted of a want of historical fact; for after representing Jesus as\ntempted by the devil forty days, he has no details to give concerning\nthis long period, but narrates later temptations; hence we are not\ninclined, with the most recent critic of Matthew\u2019s Gospel, to regard\nLuke\u2019s as the original, and Matthew\u2019s as the traditional and\nadulterated narrative. [648] Rather, as in Mark the temptation is\nnoticed without farther details than that it lasted forty days, and in\nMatthew the particular cases of temptation are narrated, the hunger\nwhich induced the first rendering it necessary to place them after the\nforty days; Luke has evidently the secondary statement, for he unites\nthe two previous ones in a manner scarcely tolerable, giving the forty\ndays\u2019 process of temptation, and then superfluously bringing forward\nparticular instances as additional facts. It is not on this account to\nbe concluded that Luke wrote after Mark, and in dependence on him; but\nsupposing, on the contrary, that Mark here borrowed from Luke, he\nextracted only the first and general part of the latter Evangelist\u2019s\nnarrative, having ready, in lieu of the farther detail of single\ntemptations, an addition peculiar to himself; namely, that Jesus,\nduring his residence in the wilderness was \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, with the\nwild beasts.\n\nWhat was Mark\u2019s object in introducing the wild beasts, it is difficult\nto say. The majority of expositors are of opinion that he intended to\ncomplete the terrible picture of the wilderness; [649] but to this it\nis not without reason objected, that the clause would then have been in\ncloser connexion with the words \u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3, he was in the\nwilderness, instead of being placed after \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, tempted. [650]\nUsteri has hazarded the conjecture that this particularity may be\ndesigned to mark Christ as the antitype of Adam, who, in Paradise, also\nstood in a peculiar relation to the animals, [651] and Olshausen has\neagerly laid hold on this mystical notion; but it is an interpretation\nwhich finds little support in the context. Schleiermacher, in\npronouncing this feature of Mark\u2019s narrative extravagant, [652]\ndoubtless means that this Evangelist here, as in other instances of\nexaggeration, borders on the style of the apocryphal gospels, for whose\ncapricious fictions we are not seldom unable to suggest a cause or an\nobject, and thus we must rest contented, for the present, to penetrate\nno farther into the sense of his statement.\n\nWith respect to the difference between Matthew and Luke in the\narrangement of the several temptations, we must equally abide by\nSchleiermacher\u2019s criticism and verdict, namely, that Matthew\u2019s order\nseems to be the original, because it is founded on the relative\nimportance of the temptations, which is the main consideration,\u2014the\ninvitation to worship Satan, which is the strongest temptation, being\nmade the final one; whereas the arrangement of Luke looks like a later\nand not very happy transposition, proceeding from the\nconsideration\u2014alien to the original spirit of the narrative\u2014that Jesus\ncould more readily go with the devil from the wilderness to the\nadjacent mountain and from thence to Jerusalem, than out of the\nwilderness to the city and from thence back again to the mountain.\n[653] While the first two Evangelists close their narrative of the\ntemptation with the ministering of angels to Jesus, Luke has a\nconclusion peculiar to himself, namely, that the devil left Jesus for a\nseason, \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 (v. 13), apparently intimating that the sufferings\nof Jesus were a farther assault of the devil; an idea not resumed by\nLuke, but alluded to in John xiv. 30.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 54.\n\nTHE HISTORY OF THE TEMPTATION CONCEIVED IN THE SENSE OF THE\nEVANGELISTS.\n\nFew evangelical passages have undergone a more industrious criticism,\nor more completely run through the circle of all possible\ninterpretations, than the history in question. For the personal\nappearance of the devil, which it seems to contain, was a thorn which\nwould not allow commentators to repose on the most obvious\ninterpretation, but incessantly urged them to new efforts. The series\nof explanations hence resulting, led to critical comparisons, among\nwhich those of Schmidt, [654] Fritzsche, [655] and Usteri, [656] seem\nto have carried the inquiry to its utmost limits.\n\nThe first interpretation that suggests itself on an unprejudiced\nconsideration of the text is this; that Jesus was led by the Divine\nSpirit received at his baptism into the wilderness, there to undergo a\ntemptation by the devil, who accordingly appeared to him visibly and\npersonally, and in various ways, and at various places to which he was\nthe conductor, prosecuted his purpose of temptation; but meeting with a\nvictorious resistance, he withdrew from Jesus, and angels appeared to\nminister to him. Such is the simple exegesis of the narrative, but\nviewed as a history it is encumbered with difficulties.\n\nTo take the portions of the narrative in their proper order: if the\nDivine Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness with the design of exposing\nhim to temptation, as Matthew expressly says, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (iv. 1), of what use was this temptation?\nThat it had a vicarious and redeeming value will hardly be maintained,\nor that it was necessary for God to put Jesus to a trial; neither can\nit be consistently shown that by this temptation Jesus was to be made\nlike us, and, according to Heb. iv. 15, tempted in all things like as\nwe are; for the fullest measure of trial fell to his share in after\nlife, and a temptation, effected by the devil in person, would rather\nmake him unlike us, who are spared such appearances.\n\nThe forty days\u2019 fast, too, is singular. One does not understand how\nJesus could hunger after six weeks of abstinence from all food without\nhaving hungered long before; since in ordinary cases the human frame\ncannot sustain a week\u2019s deprivation of nourishment. It is true,\nexpositors [657] console themselves by calling the forty days a round\nnumber, and by supposing that the expression of Matthew, \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, and\neven that of Luke, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd, are not to be taken strictly, and\ndo not denote abstinence from all food, but only from that which is\ncustomary, so that the use of roots and herbs is not excluded. On no\nsupposition, however, can so much be subtracted from the forty days as\nto leave only the duration of a conceivable fast; and that nothing\nshort of entire abstinence from all nourishment was intended by the\nEvangelists Fritzsche has clearly shown, by pointing out the parallel\nbetween the fast of Jesus and that of Moses and Elias, the former of\nwhom is said to have eaten no bread and drunk no water for forty days\n(Exod. xxxiv. 28; Deut. ix. 9, 18), and the latter to have gone for the\nsame period in the strength of a meal taken before his journey (1 Kings\nxix. 8). But such a fast wants the credentials of utility, as well as\nof possibility. From the context it appears, that the fast of Jesus was\nprompted by the same Spirit which occasioned his journey to the\nwilderness, and which now moved him to a holy self-discipline, whereby\nmen of God, under the old dispensation, purified themselves, and became\nworthy of divine visions. But it could not be hidden from that Spirit,\nthat Satan, in attacking Jesus, would avail himself of this very fast,\nand make the hunger thence arising an accomplice in his temptation. And\nwas not the fast, in this case, a kind of challenge to Satan, an act of\npresumption, ill becoming even the best warranted self-confidence?\n[658]\n\nBut the personal appearance of the devil is the great stumbling-block\nin the present narrative. If, it is said, there be a personal devil, he\ncannot take a visible form; and if that were possible, he would hardly\ndemean himself as he is represented to have done in the gospels. It is\nwith the existence of the devil as with that of angels\u2014even the\nbelievers in a revelation are perplexed by it, because the idea did not\nspring up among the recipients of revelation, but was transplanted by\nthem, during exile, from a profane soil. [659] Moreover, to those who\nhave not quite shut out the lights of the present age, the existence of\na devil is become in the highest degree doubtful.\n\nOn this subject, as well as on that of angels, Schleiermacher may serve\nas an interpreter of modern opinion. He shows that the idea of a being\nsuch as the devil, is an assemblage of contradictions: that as the idea\nof angels originated in a limited observation of nature, so that of the\ndevil originated in a limited observation of self, and as our knowledge\nof human nature progresses, must recede farther into the background,\nand the appeal to the devil be henceforth regarded as the resource of\nignorance and sloth. [660] Even admitting the existence of a devil, a\nvisible and personal appearance on his part, such as is here supposed,\nhas its peculiar difficulties. Olshausen himself observes, that there\nis no parallel to it either in the Old or New Testament. Farther, if\nthe devil, that he might have some hope of deceiving Jesus, abandoned\nhis own form, and took that of a man, or of a good angel; it may be\nreasonably asked whether the passage, 2 Cor. xi. 14, Satan is\ntransformed into an angel of light, be intended literally, and if so,\nwhether this fantastic conception can be substantially true? [661]\n\nAs to the temptations, it was early asked by Julian, how the devil\ncould hope to deceive Jesus, knowing, as he must, his higher nature?\n[662] And Theodore\u2019s answer that the divinity of Jesus was then unknown\nto the devil, is contradicted by the observation, that had he not then\nbeheld a higher nature in Jesus, he would scarcely have taken the\ntrouble to appear specially to him in person. In relation to the\nparticular temptations, an assent cannot be withheld from the canon,\nthat, to be credible, the narrative must ascribe nothing to the devil\ninconsistent with his established cunning. [663] Now the first\ntemptation, appealing to hunger, we grant, is not ill-conceived; if\nthis were ineffectual, the devil, as an artful tactician, should have\nhad a yet more alluring temptation at hand; but instead of this, we\nfind him, in Matthew, proposing to Jesus the neck-breaking feat of\ncasting himself down from the pinnacle of the temple\u2014a far less\ninviting experiment than the metamorphosis of the stones. This\nproposition finding no acceptance, there follows, as a crowning effort,\na suggestion which, whatever might be the bribe, every true Israelite\nwould instantly reject with abhorrence\u2014to fall down and worship the\ndevil. So indiscreet a choice and arrangement of temptations has thrown\nmost modern commentators into perplexity. [664] As the three\ntemptations took place in three different and distant places, the\nquestion occurs: how did Jesus pass with the devil from one to the\nother? Even the orthodox hold that this change of place was effected\nquite naturally, for they suppose that Jesus set out on a journey, and\nthat the devil followed him. [665] But the expressions, the devil takes\nhim\u2014sets him, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u2014\u1f35\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, in Matthew:\ntaking, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd, brought, \u1f24\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd, set, \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, in Luke, obviously\nimply that the transportation was effected by the devil, and moreover,\nthe particular given in Luke, that the devil showed Jesus all the\nkingdoms of the world in a moment of time, points to something magical;\nso that without doubt the Evangelists intended to convey the idea of\nmagical transportations, as in Acts viii. 29, a power of carrying away,\n\u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, is attributed to the Spirit of the Lord. But it was early\nfound irreconcilable with the dignity of Jesus that the devil should\nthus exercise a magical power over him, and carry him about in the air;\n[666] an idea which seemed extravagant even to those who tolerated the\npersonal appearance of the devil. The incredibility is augmented, when\nwe consider the sensation which the appearance of Jesus on the roof of\nthe temple must have excited, even supposing it to be the roof of\nSolomon\u2019s Porch only, in which case the gilded spears on the holy of\nholies, and the prohibition to laymen to tread its roof, would not be\nan obstacle. [667] The well-known question suggested by the last\ntemptation, as to the situation of the mountain, from whose summit may\nbe seen all the kingdoms of the world, has been met by the information\nthat \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 here means no more than Palestine, and \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, its\nseveral kingdoms and tetrarchies; [668] but this is a scarcely less\nludicrous explanation than the one that the devil showed Jesus all the\nkingdoms of the world on a map! No answer remains but that such a\nmountain existed only in the ancient idea of the earth as a plain, and\nin the popular imagination, which can easily stretch a mountain up to\nheaven, and sharpen an eye to penetrate infinity.\n\nLastly, the incident with which our narrative closes, namely, that\nangels came and ministered to Jesus, is not without difficulty, apart\nfrom the above-mentioned doubts as to the existence of such beings. For\nthe expression \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd can signify no other kind of ministering than\nthat of presenting food; and this is proved not only by the context,\naccording to which Jesus had need of such tendance, but by a comparison\nof the circumstances with 1 Kings xix. 5, where an angel brings food to\nElijah. But of the only two possible suppositions, both are equally\nincongruous: that ethereal beings like angels should convey earthly\nmaterial food, or that the human body of Jesus should be nourished with\nheavenly substances, if any such exist.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 55.\n\nTHE TEMPTATION CONSIDERED AS A NATURAL OCCURRENCE EITHER INTERNAL OR\nEXTERNAL; AND ALSO AS A PARABLE.\n\nThe impossibility of conceiving the sudden removals of Jesus to the\ntemple and the mountain, led some even of the ancient commentators to\nthe opinion, that at least the locality of the second and third\ntemptations was not present to Jesus corporeally and externally, but\nmerely in a vision; [669] while some modern ones, to whom the personal\nappearance of the devil was especially offensive, have supposed that\nthe whole transaction with him passed from beginning to end within the\nrecesses of the soul of Jesus. Herewith they have regarded the forty\ndays\u2019 fast either as a mere internal representation [670] (which,\nhowever, is a most inadmissible perversion of the plainly historic\ntext: \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5, Matt. iv. 2), or\nas a real fact, in which case the formidable difficulties mentioned in\nthe preceding section remain valid. The internal representation of the\ntemptations is by some made to accompany a state of ecstatic vision,\nfor which they retain a supernatural cause, deriving it either from\nGod, or from the kingdom of darkness: [671] others ascribe to the\nvision more of the nature of a dream, and accordingly seek a natural\ncause for it, in the reflections with which Jesus was occupied during\nhis waking moments. [672] According to this theory, Jesus, in the\nsolemn mood which the baptismal scene was calculated to produce,\nreviews his messianic plan, and together with the true means for its\nexecution, he recalls their possible abuses; an excessive use of\nmiracles and a love of domination, by which man, in the Jewish mode of\nthinking, became, instead of an instrument of God, a promoter of the\nplans of the devil. While surrendering himself to such meditations, his\nfinely organized body is overcome by their exciting influence; he sinks\nfor some time into deep exhaustion, and then into a dream-like state,\nin which his mind unconsciously embodies his previous thoughts in\nspeaking and acting forms.\n\nTo support this transference of the whole scene to the inward nature of\nJesus, commentators think that they can produce some features of the\nevangelical narrative itself. The expression of Matthew (iv. 1), \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, and still more that of Luke (iv. 1),\n\u1f24\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, correspond fully to the forms: \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, Rev. i. 10, \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03ba\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, xvii. 3, and\nto similar ones in Ezekiel; and as in these passages inward intuition\nis alone referred to, neither in the evangelical ones, it is said, can\nany external occurrence be intended. But it has been with reason\nobjected, [673] that the above forms may be adapted either to a real\nexternal abduction by the Divine Spirit (as in Acts viii. 39; 2 Kings\nii. 16), or to one merely internal and visionary, as in the quotation\nfrom the Apocalypse, so that between these two possible significations\nthe context must decide; that in works replete with visions, as are the\nApocalypse and Ezekiel, the context indeed pronounces in favour of a\nmerely spiritual occurrence; but in an historical work such as our\ngospels, of an external one. Dreams, and especially visions, are always\nexpressly announced as such in the historical books of the New\nTestament: supposing, therefore, that the temptation was a vision, it\nshould have been introduced by the words \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f41\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f14\u03ba\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9,\nas in Acts ix. 12, x. 10; or \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f44\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1, as in Matt. i. 20,\nii. 13. Besides, if a dream had been narrated, the transition to a\ncontinuation of the real history must have been marked by a \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2,\nbeing awaked, as in Matt. i. 24, ii. 14, 21; whereby, as Paulus truly\nsays, much labour would have been spared to expositors.\n\nIt is further alleged against the above explanations, that Jesus does\nnot seem to have been at any other time subject to ecstasies, and that\nhe nowhere else attaches importance to a dream, or even recapitulates\none. [674] To what end God should have excited such a vision in Jesus,\nit is difficult to conceive, or how the devil should have had power and\npermission to produce it; especially in Christ. The orthodox, too,\nshould not forget that, admitting the temptation to be a dream,\nresulting from the thoughts of Jesus, the false messianic ideas which\nwere a part of those thoughts, are supposed to have had a strong\ninfluence on his mind. [675]\n\nIf, then, the history of the temptation is not to be understood as\nconfined to the soul of Jesus, and if we have before shown that it\ncannot be regarded as supernatural; nothing seems to remain but to view\nit as a real, yet thoroughly natural, event, and to reduce the tempter\nto a mere man. After John had drawn attention to Jesus as the Messiah\n(thinks the author of the Natural History of the Prophet of Nazareth),\n[676] the ruling party in Jerusalem commissioned an artful Pharisee to\nput Jesus to the test, and to ascertain whether he really possessed\nmiraculous powers, or whether he might not be drawn into the interest\nof the priesthood, and be induced to give his countenance to an\nenterprise against the Romans. This conception of the \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 is in\ndignified consistency with that of the \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, who appeared after his\ndeparture, to refresh Jesus, as an approaching caravan with provisions,\nor as soft reviving breezes. [677] But this view, as Usteri says, has\nso long completed its phases in the theological world, that to refute\nit would be to waste words.\n\nIf the foregoing discussions have proved that the temptation, as\nnarrated by the synoptical Evangelists, cannot be conceived as an\nexternal or internal, a supernatural or natural occurrence, the\nconclusion is inevitable, that it cannot have taken place in the manner\nrepresented.\n\nThe least invidious expedient is to suppose that the source of our\nhistories of the temptation was some real event in the life of Jesus,\nso narrated by him to his disciples as to convey no accurate impression\nof the fact. Tempting thoughts, which intruded themselves into his soul\nduring his residence in the wilderness, or at various seasons, and\nunder various circumstances, but which were immediately quelled by the\nunimpaired force of his will, were, according to the oriental mode of\nthought and expression, represented by him as a temptation of the\ndevil; and this figurative narrative was understood literally. [678]\nThe most prominent objection to this view, that it compromises the\nimpeccability of Jesus, [679] being founded on a dogma, has no\nexistence for the critic: we can, however, gather from the tenor of the\nevangelical history, that the practical sense of Jesus was thoroughly\nclear and just; but this becomes questionable, if he could ever feel an\ninclination corresponding to the second temptation in Matthew, or even\nif he merely chose such a form for communicating a more reasonable\ntemptation to his disciples. Further, in such a narrative Jesus would\nhave presented a confused mixture of fiction and truth out of his life,\nnot to be expected from an ingenuous teacher, as he otherwise appears\nto be, especially if it be supposed that the tempting thoughts did not\nreally occur to him after his forty days\u2019 sojourn in the wilderness,\nand that this particular is only a portion of the fictitious\ninvestiture; while if it be assumed, on the contrary, that the date is\nhistorical, there remains the forty days\u2019 fast, one of the most\ninsurmountable difficulties of the narrative. If Jesus wished simply to\ndescribe a mental exercise in the manner of the Jews, who, tracing the\neffect to the cause, ascribed evil thoughts to diabolical agency,\nnothing more was requisite than to say that Satan suggested such and\nsuch thoughts to his mind; and it was quite superfluous to depict a\npersonal devil and a journey with him, unless, together with the\npurpose of narration, or in its stead, there existed a poetical and\ndidactic intention.\n\nSuch an intention, indeed, is attributed to Jesus by those who hold\nthat the history of the temptation was narrated by him as a parable,\nbut understood literally by his disciples. This opinion is not\nencumbered with the difficulty of making some real inward experience of\nJesus the basis of the history; [680] it does not suppose that Jesus\nhimself underwent such temptations, but only that he sought to secure\nhis disciples from them, by impressing on them, as a compendium of\nmessianic and apostolic wisdom, the three following maxims: first to\nperform no miracle for their own advantage even in the greatest\nexigency; secondly, never to venture on a chimerical undertaking in the\nhope of extraordinary divine aid; thirdly, never to enter into\nfellowship with the wicked, however strong the enticement. [681] It was\nlong ago observed, in opposition to this interpretation, that the\nnarrative is not easily recognized as a parable, and that its moral is\nhard to discern. [682] With respect to the latter objection, it is true\nthat the second temptation would be an ill-chosen image; but the former\nremark is the more important one. To prove that this narrative has not\nthe characteristics of a parable, the following definition has been\nrecently given: a parable, being essentially historical in its form, is\nonly distinguishable from real history when its agents are of an\nobviously fictitious character. [683] This is the case where the\nsubjects are mere generalizations, as in the parables of the sower, the\nking, and others of a like kind; or when they are, indeed,\nindividualized, but so as to be at once recognized as unhistorical\npersons, as mere supports for the drapery of fiction, of which even\nLazarus, in the parable of the rich man, is an example, though\ndistinguished by a name. In neither species of parable is it admissible\nto introduce as a subject a person corporeally present, and necessarily\ndeterminate and historical. Thus Jesus could not make Peter or any\nother of his disciples the subject of a parable, still less himself,\nfor the reciter of a parable is pre-eminently present to his auditors;\nand hence he cannot have delivered the history of the temptation, of\nwhich he is the subject, to his disciples as a parable. To assume that\nthe history had originally another subject, for whom oral tradition\nsubstituted Jesus, is inadmissible, because the narrative, even as a\nparable, has no definite significance unless the Messiah be its\nsubject. [684]\n\nIf such a parable concerning himself or any other person, could not\nhave been delivered by Jesus, yet it is possible that it was made by\nsome other individual concerning Jesus; and this is the view taken by\nTheile, who has recently explained the history of the temptation as a\nparabolic admonition, directed by some partisan of Jesus against the\nmain features of the worldly messianic hope, with the purpose of\nestablishing the spiritual and moral view of the new economy. [685]\nHere is the transition to the mythical point of view, which the above\ntheologian shuns, partly because the narrative is not sufficiently\npicturesque (though it is so in a high degree); partly because it is\ntoo pure (though he thus imputes false ideas to the primitive\nChristians); and partly because the formation of the mythus was too\nnear the time of Jesus (an objection which must be equally valid\nagainst the early misconstruction of the parable). If it can be shown,\non the contrary, that the narrative in question is formed less out of\ninstructive thoughts and their poetical clothing, as is the case with a\nparable, than out of Old Testament passages and types, we shall not\nhesitate to designate it a mythus.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 56.\n\nTHE HISTORY OF THE TEMPTATION AS A MYTHUS.\n\nSatan, the evil being and enemy of mankind, borrowed from the Persian\nreligion, was by the Jews, whose exclusiveness limited all that was\ngood and truly human to the Israelitish people, viewed as the special\nadversary of their nation, and hence as the lord of the heathen states\nwith whom they were in hostility. [686] The interests of the Jewish\npeople being centred in the Messiah, it followed that Satan was\nemphatically his adversary; and thus throughout the New Testament we\nfind the idea of Jesus as the Messiah associated with that of Satan as\nthe enemy of his person and cause. Christ having appeared to destroy\nthe works of the devil (1 John iii. 8), the latter seizes every\nopportunity of sowing tares among the good seed (Matt. xiii. 39), and\nnot only aims, though unsuccessfully, at obtaining the mastery over\nJesus himself (John xiv. 30), but continually assails the faithful\n(Eph. vi. 11; 1 Pet. v. 8). As these attacks of the devil on the pious\nare nothing else than attempts to get them into his power, that is, to\nentice them to sin; and as this can only be done by the indirect\nsuggestion or immediate insinuation of evil, seductive thoughts, Satan\nhad the appellation of \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd, the tempter. In the prologue to the\nbook of Job, he seeks to seduce the pious man from God, by the\ninstrumentality of a succession of plagues and misfortunes: while the\nensnaring counsel which the serpent gave to the woman was early\nconsidered an immediate diabolical suggestion. (Wisdom ii. 24; John\nviii. 44; Rev. xii. 9.)\n\nIn the more ancient Hebrew theology, the idea was current that\ntemptation (\u200f\u05e0\u05b4\u05e1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, LXX. \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) was an act of God himself, who thus\nput his favourites, as Abraham (Gen. xxii. 1), and the people of Israel\n(Exod. xvi. 4, and elsewhere), to the test, or in just anger even\ninstigated men to pernicious deeds. But as soon as the idea of Satan\nwas formed, the office of temptation was transferred to him, and\nwithdrawn from God, with whose absolute goodness it began to be viewed\nas incompatible (James i. 13). Hence it is Satan, who by his\nimportunity obtains the divine permission to put Job to the severest\ntrial through suffering; hence David\u2019s culpable project of numbering\nthe people, which in the second book of Samuel was traced to the anger\nof God, is in the later chronicles (1 Chron. xxii. 1) put directly to\nthe account of the devil; and even the well-meant temptation with\nwhich, according to Genesis, God visited Abraham, in requiring from him\nthe sacrifice of his son, was in the opinion of the later Jews,\nundertaken by God at the instigation of Satan. [687] Nor was this\nenough\u2014scenes were imagined in which the devil personally encountered\nAbraham on his way to the place of sacrifice, and in which he tempted\nthe people of Israel during the absence of Moses. [688]\n\nIf the most eminent men of piety in Hebrew antiquity were thus tempted,\nin the earlier view, by God, in the later one, by Satan, what was more\nnatural than to suppose that the Messiah, the Head of all the\nrighteous, the representative and champion of God\u2019s people, would be\nthe primary object of the assaults of Satan? [689] And we find this\nactually recorded as a rabbinical opinion, [690] in the material mode\nof representation of the later Judaism, under the form of a bodily\nappearance and a personal dialogue.\n\nIf a place were demanded where Satan might probably undertake such a\ntemptation of the Messiah, the wilderness would present itself from\nmore than one quarter. Not only had it been from Azazel (Lev. xvi.\n8\u201310), and Asmodeus (Tobit viii. 3), to the demons ejected by Jesus\n(Matt. xii. 43), the fearful dwelling-place of the infernal powers: it\nwas also the scene of temptation for the people of Israel, that filius\nDei collectivus. [691] Added to this, it was the habit of Jesus to\nretire to solitary places for still meditation and prayer (Matt. xiv.\n13; Mark i. 35; Luke vi. 12; John vi. 15); to which after his\nconsecration to the messianic office he would feel more than usually\ndisposed. It is hence possible that, as some theologians [692] have\nsupposed, a residence of Jesus in the wilderness after his baptism\n(though not one of precisely forty days\u2019 duration) served as the\nhistorical foundation of our narrative; but even without this\nconnecting thread, both the already noticed choice of place and that of\ntime are to be explained by the consideration, that it seemed consonant\nwith the destiny of the Messiah that, like a second Hercules, he should\nundergo such a trial on his entrance into mature age and the messianic\noffice.\n\nBut what had the Messiah to do in the wilderness? That the Messiah, the\nsecond Saviour, should like his typical predecessor, Moses, on Mount\nSinai, submit himself to the holy discipline of fasting, was an idea\nthe more inviting, because it furnished a suitable introduction to the\nfirst temptation which presupposed extreme hunger. The type of Moses\nand that of Elias (1 Kings xix. 8), determined also the duration of\nthis fast in the wilderness, for they too had fasted forty days;\nmoreover, the number forty was held sacred in Hebrew antiquity. [693]\nAbove all, the forty days of the temptation of Jesus seem, as Olshausen\njustly observes, a miniature image of the forty years\u2019 trial in the\nwilderness, endured by the Israelitish people as a penal emblem of the\nforty days spent by the spies in the land of Canaan (Num. xiv. 34).\nFor, that in the temptations of Jesus there was a special reference to\nthe temptation of Israel in the wilderness, is shown by the\ncircumstance that all the passages cited by Jesus in opposition to\nSatan are drawn from the recapitulatory description of the journeyings\nof the Israelites in Deut. vi. and viii. The apostle Paul too, 1 Cor.\nx. 6, enumerates a series of particulars from the behaviour of the\nIsraelites in the wilderness, with the consequent judgments of God, and\nwarns Christians against similar conduct, pronouncing, v. 6 and 11, the\npunishments inflicted on the ancients to be types for the admonition of\nthe living, his cotemporaries, on whom the ends of the world were come;\nwherefore, he adds, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he\nfall. It is not probable that this was merely the private opinion of\nthe apostle\u2014it seems rather to have been a current notion that the hard\ntrials of the people led by Moses, as well as of Moses individually,\nwere types of those which awaited the followers of the Messiah in the\ncatastrophe which he was to usher in, and still more emphatically the\nMessiah himself, who here appears as the antitype of the people,\ngloriously overcoming all the temptations under which they had fallen.\n\nThe Israelites were principally tempted by hunger during their\nwanderings in the wilderness; [694] hence the first temptation of the\nMessiah was determined beforehand. The rabbins, too, among the various\ntemptations of Abraham which they recount, generally reckon hunger.\n[695] That Satan, when prompting Jesus to seek relief from his hunger\nby an exertion of his own will instead of awaiting it in faith from\nGod, should make use of the terms given in our Evangelists, cannot be\nmatter of surprise if we consider, not only that the wilderness was\nstony, but that to produce a thing from stones was a proverbial\nexpression, denoting the supply of an object altogether wanting (Matt.\niii. 9; Luke xix. 40), and that stone and bread formed a common\ncontrast (Matt. vii. 9). The reply of Jesus to this suggestion is in\nthe same train of ideas on which the entire first act of temptation is\nconstructed; for he quotes the lesson which, according to Deuteronomy\nviii. 3, the people of Israel tardily learned from the temptation of\nhunger (a temptation, however, under which they were not resigned, but\nwere provoked to murmur): namely, that man shall not live by bread\nalone, etc.\n\nBut one temptation would not suffice. Of Abraham the rabbins enumerated\nten; but this number was too large for a dramatic narrative like that\nin the gospels, and among lower numbers the sacred three must have the\npreference. Thrice during his spiritual contest in Gethsemane Jesus\nsevered himself from his disciples (Matt. xxvi.); thrice Peter denied\nhis Lord, and thrice Jesus subsequently questioned his love (John\nxxi.). In that rabbinical passage which represents Abraham as tempted\nby the devil in person, the patriarch parries three thrusts from him;\nin which particular, as well as in the manner in which Old Testament\ntexts are bandied by the parties, the scene is allied to the\nevangelical one. [696]\n\nThe second temptation (in Matthew) was not determined by its relation\nto the preceding; hence its presentation seems abrupt, and the choice\nfortuitous or capricious. This may be true with respect to its form,\nbut its substantial meaning is in close connexion with the foregoing\ntemptation, since it also has reference to the conduct of the Jewish\npeople in the wilderness. To them the warning was given in Deut vi. 16\nto tempt God no more as they had tempted him at Massah; a warning which\nwas reiterated 1 Cor. x. 9 to the members of the new covenant, though\nmore in allusion to Num. xxi. 4. To this crying sin, therefore, under\nwhich the ancient people of God had fallen, must the Messiah be\nincited, that by resisting the incitement he might compensate, as it\nwere, for the transgression of the people. Now the conduct which was\ncondemned in them as a tempting of the Lord, \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, was\noccasioned by a dearth of water, and consisted in their murmurs at this\ndeprivation. This, to later tradition, did not seem fully to correspond\nto the terms; something more suitable was sought for, and from this\npoint of view there could hardly be a more eligible choice than the one\nwe actually find in our history of the temptation, for nothing can be\nmore properly called a tempting of God than so audacious an appeal to\nhis extraordinary succour, as that suggested by Satan in his second\ntemptation. The reason why a leap from the pinnacle of the temple was\nnamed as an example of such presumption, is put into the mouth of Satan\nhimself.\n\nIt occurred to the originator of this feature in the narrative, that\nthe passage Ps. xci. 11 was capable of perversion into a motive for a\nrash act. It is there promised to one dwelling under the protection of\nJehovah (a designation under which the Messiah was pre-eminently\nunderstood), that angels should bear him up in their hands, lest at any\ntime he should dash his foot against a stone. Bearing up in their hands\nto prevent a fall, seemed to imply a precipitation from some eminence,\nand this might induce the idea that the divinely-protected Messiah\nmight hurl himself from a height with impunity. But from what height?\nThere could be no hesitation on this point. To the pious man, and\ntherefore to the head of all the pious, is appropriated, according to\nPs. xv. 1, xxiv. 3, the distinction of going up to Jehovah\u2019s holy hill,\nand standing within his holy place: hence the pinnacle of the temple,\nin the presumptuous mode of inference supposed, might be regarded as\nthe height whence the Messiah could precipitate himself unhurt.\n\nThe third temptation which Jesus underwent\u2014to worship the devil\u2014is not\napparent among the temptations of God\u2019s ancient people. But one of the\nmost fatal seductions by which the Israelites were led astray in the\nwilderness was that of idolatry; and the apostle Paul adduces it as\nadmonitory to Christians. Not only is this sin derived immediately from\nthe devil in a passage above quoted; [697] but in the later Jewish\nidea, idolatry was identical with the worship of the devil (Baruch iv.\n7; 1 Cor. x. 20). How, then, could the worship of the devil be\nsuggested to the Messiah in the form of a temptation? The notion of the\nMessiah as he who, being the King of the Jewish people, was destined to\nbe lord of all other nations, and that of Satan as the ruler of the\nheathen world [698] to be conquered by the Messiah, were here combined.\nThat dominion over the world which, in the christianized imagination of\nthe period, the Messiah was to obtain by a long and painful struggle,\nwas offered him as an easy bargain if he would only pay Satan the\ntribute of worship. This temptation Jesus meets with the maxim\ninculcated on the Israelites, Deut. vi. 13, that God alone is to be\nworshipped, and thus gives the enemy a final dismissal.\n\nMatthew and Mark crown their history of the temptation with the\nappearance of angels to Jesus, and their refreshing him with\nnourishment after his long fast and the fatigues of temptation. This\nincident was prefigured by a similar ministration to Elijah after his\nforty days\u2019 fast, and was brought nearer to the imagination by the\ncircumstance that the manna which appeased the hunger of the people in\nthe wilderness was named, \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, angels\u2019 food (Ps. lxxviii. 25,\nLXX.; Wisdom xvi. 20). [699]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nLOCALITY AND CHRONOLOGY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.\n\n\u00a7 57.\n\nDIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SYNOPTICAL WRITERS AND JOHN, AS TO THE CUSTOMARY\nSCENE OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS.\n\nAccording to the synoptical writers, Jesus, born indeed at Bethlehem in\nJudea, but brought up at Nazareth in Galilee, only absented himself\nfrom Galilee during the short interval between his baptism and the\nimprisonment of the Baptist; immediately after which, he returned\nthither and began his ministry, teaching, healing, calling disciples,\nso as to traverse all Galilee; using as the centre of his agency, his\nprevious dwelling-place, Nazareth, alternately with Capernaum, on the\nnorth-west border of the lake of Tiberias (Matt iv. 12\u201325 parall.).\nMark and Luke have many particulars concerning this ministry in Galilee\nwhich are not found in Matthew, and those which they have in common\nwith him are arranged in a different order; but as they all agree in\nthe geographical circuit which they assign to Jesus, the account of the\nfirst Evangelist may serve as the basis of our criticism. According to\nhim the incidents narrated took place in Galilee, and partly in\nCapernaum down to viii. 18, where Jesus crosses the Galilean sea, but\nis scarcely landed on the east side when he returns to Capernaum. Here\nfollows a series of scenes connected by short transitions, such as\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd (ix. 9, 27), passing from thence, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 (v. 14), then,\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (v. 18), while he spake these things; expressions\nwhich can imply no important change of place, that is, of one province\nfor another, which it is the habit of the writer to mark much more\ncarefully. The passage, ix. 35, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u1fc6\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, is evidently only a repetition\nof iv. 23, and is therefore to be understood merely of excursions in\nGalilee. The message of the Baptist (chap. xi.) is also received by\nJesus in Galilee, at least such appears to be the opinion of the\nnarrator, from his placing in immediate connexion the complaints of\nJesus against the Galilean cities. When delivering the parable in chap.\nxiii. Jesus is by the sea, doubtless that of Galilee, and, as there is\nmention of his house, \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 (v. 1), probably in the vicinity of\nCapernaum. Next, after having visited his native city Nazareth (xiii.\n53) he passes over the sea (xiv. 13), according to Luke (ix. 10), into\nthe country of Bethsaida (Julias); whence, however, after the miracle\nof the loaves, he speedily returns to the western border (xiv. 34).\nJesus then proceeds to the northern extremity of Palestine, on the\nfrontiers of Ph\u0153nicia (xv. 21); soon, however, returned to the sea of\nGalilee (v. 29), he takes ship to the eastern side, in the coast of\nMagdala (v. 39), but again departs northward into the country of\nC\u00e6sarea Philippi (xvi. 13), in the vicinity of Lebanon, among the lower\nridges of which is to be sought the mount of the transfiguration (xvii.\n1). After journeying in Galilee for some time longer with his disciples\n(xvii. 22), and once more visiting Capernaum (v. 24), he leaves Galilee\n(xix. 1) to travel (as it is most probably explained) [700] through\nPerea into Judea (a journey which, according to Luke ix. 52, he seems\nto have made through Samaria); xx. 17, he is on his way to Jerusalem;\nv. 29, he comes through Jericho; and xxi. 1, is in the neighbourhood of\nJerusalem, which, v. 10, he enters.\n\nThus, according to the synoptical writers, Jesus, from his return after\nbeing baptized by John, to his final journey to Jerusalem, never goes\nbeyond the limits of North Palestine, but traverses the countries west\nand east of the Galilean sea and the upper Jordan, in the dominions of\nHerod Antipas and Philip, without touching on Samaria to the south,\nstill less Judea, or the country under the immediate administration of\nthe Romans. And within those limits, to be still more precise, it is\nthe land west of the Jordan, and the sea of Tiberias, and therefore\nGalilee, the province of Antipas, in which Jesus is especially active;\nonly three short excursions on the eastern border of the sea, and two\nscarcely longer on the northern frontiers of the country, being\nrecorded.\n\nQuite otherwise is the theatre of the ministry of Jesus marked out in\nthe fourth gospel. It is true that here also he goes after his baptism\nby John into Galilee, to the wedding at Cana (ii. 1), and from thence\nto Capernaum (v. 12); but in a few days the approaching passover calls\nhim to Jerusalem (v. 13). From Jerusalem he proceeds into the country\nof Judea (iii. 22), and after some time exercising his ministry there\n(iv. 1) he returns through Samaria into Galilee (v. 43). Nothing is\nreported of his agency in this province but a single cure, and\nimmediately on this a new feast summons him to Jerusalem (v. 1), where\nhe is represented as performing a cure, being persecuted, and\ndelivering long discourses, until he betakes himself (vi. 1) to the\neastern shore of the sea of Tiberias, and from thence to Capernaum (v.\n17, 59). He then itinerates for some time in Galilee (vii. 1), but\nagain leaves it, on occasion of the feast of tabernacles, for Jerusalem\n(v. 2, 10). To this visit the Evangelist refers many discourses and\nvicissitudes of Jesus (vii. 10, x. 21), and moreover connects with it\nthe commencement of his public ministry at the feast of dedication,\nwithout noticing any intermediate journey out of Jerusalem and Judea\n(x. 22). After this Jesus again retires into the country of Perea,\nwhere he had first been with the Baptist (x. 40), and there remains\nuntil the death of Lazarus recalls him to Bethany, near Jerusalem (xi.\n1), whence he withdraws to Ephraim, in the vicinity of the wilderness\nof Judea, until the approach of the passover, which he visited as his\nlast (xii. 1 ff.).\n\nThus, according to John, Jesus was present at four feasts in Jerusalem,\nbefore the final one: was besides once in Bethany, and had been active\nfor a considerable time in Judea and on his journey through Samaria.\n\nWhy, it must be asked, have the synoptical writers been silent on this\nfrequent presence of Jesus in Judea and Jerusalem? Why have they\nrepresented the matter, as if Jesus, before his last fatal journey to\nJerusalem, had not overstepped the limits of Galilee and Perea? This\ndiscrepancy between the synoptical writers and John was long overlooked\nin the church, and of late it has been thought feasible to deny its\nexistence. It has been said, that Matthew, at the commencement, lays\nthe scene in Galilee and Capernaum, and pursues his narrative without\nnoticing any journey into Judea until the last; but that we are not\nhence to conclude that Matthew was unacquainted with the earlier\nministry of Jesus in Judea, for as with this Evangelist the local\ninterest is subordinate to the effort at an appropriate arrangement of\nhis events, many particulars in the former part of his history, which\nhe narrates without indicating any place, may have been known, though\nnot stated by him, to have occurred in the earlier journeys and\nresidences in Judea. [701] But this alleged subordination of the local\ninterest in Matthew, is nothing more than a fiction of the harmonist,\nas Schneckenburger has recently proved. [702] Matthew very carefully\nmarks (chap. iv.) the beginning and (chap. xix.) the end of the almost\nexclusive residence of Jesus in Galilee; all the intervening narration\nmust therefore be regarded as belonging to that residence, unless the\ncontrary be expressed; and since the Evangelist is on the alert to\nnotice the short excursions of Jesus across the lake and into the north\nof Galilee, he would hardly pass over in silence the more important,\nand sometimes prolonged visits to Judea, had they been known or\ncredited by him. Thus much only is to be allowed, that Matthew\nfrequently neglects the more precise statement of localities, as the\ndesignation of the spot or neighbourhood in which Jesus laboured from\ntime to time: but in his more general biographical statements, such as\nthe designation of the territories and provinces of Palestine, within\nthe boundaries of which Jesus exercised his ministry, he is as accurate\nas any other Evangelist.\n\nExpositors must therefore accommodate themselves to the admission of a\ndifference between the synoptical writers and John, [703] and those who\nthink it incumbent on them to harmonize the Gospels must take care lest\nthis difference be found a contradiction; which can only be prevented\nby deducing the discrepancy, not from a disparity between the ideas of\nthe Evangelists as to the sphere of the ministry of Jesus, but from the\ndifference of mental bias under which they severally wrote. Some\nsuppose that Matthew, being a Galilean, saw the most interest in\nGalilean occurrences, and hence confined his narrative to them, though\naware of the agency of Jesus at Jerusalem. [704] But what biographer,\nwho had himself accompanied his hero into various provinces, and beheld\nhis labours there, would confine his narration to what he had performed\nin his (the biographer\u2019s) native province? Such provincial\nexclusiveness would surely be quite unexampled. Hence others have\npreferred the supposition that Matthew, writing at Jerusalem, purposely\nselected from the mass of discourses and actions of Jesus with which he\nwas acquainted, those of which Galilee was the theatre, because they\nwere the least known at Jerusalem, and required narrating more than\nwhat had happened within the hearing, and was fresh in the memories of\nits inhabitants. [705] In opposition to this it has been already\nremarked, [706] that there is no proof of Matthew\u2019s gospel being\nespecially intended for the Christians of Judea and Jerusalem: that\neven assuming this, a reference to the events which had happened in the\nreader\u2019s own country could not be superfluous: and that, lastly, the\nlike limitation of the ministry of Jesus to Galilee by Mark and Luke\ncannot be thus accounted for, since these Evangelists obviously did not\nwrite for Judea (neither were they Galileans, so that this objection is\nequally valid against the first explanation); and were not in so\nservile a relation to Matthew as to have no access to independent\ninformation that might give them a more extended horizon. It is curious\nenough that these two attempts to solve the contradiction between the\nsynoptical writers and John, are themselves in the same predicament of\nmutual contradiction. For if Matthew has been silent on the incidents\nin Judea, according to one, on account of his proximity, according to\nthe other, on account of his remoteness, it follows that, two contrary\nhypotheses being made with equal ease to explain the same fact, both\nare alike inadequate.\n\nNo supposition founded on the local relations of the writers sufficing\nto explain the difference in question, higher ground must be taken, in\na consideration of the spirit and tendency of the evangelical writings.\nFrom this point of view the following proposition has been given: The\ncause which determined the difference in the contents of the fourth\ngospel and that of the synoptical ones, accounts also for their\ndivergency as to the limits they assign to the ministry of Jesus; in\nother words, the discourses delivered by Jesus in Jerusalem, and\nrecorded by John, required for their comprehension a more mature\ndevelopment of Christianity than that presented in the first apostolic\nperiod; hence they were not retained in the primitive evangelical\ntradition, of which the synoptical writers were the organs, and were\nfirst restored to the church by John, who wrote when Christianity was\nin a more advanced stage. [707] But neither is this attempt at an\nexplanation satisfactory, though it is less superficial than the\npreceding. For how could the popular and the esoteric in the teaching\nof Jesus be separated with such nicety, that the former should be\nconfined to Galilee, and the latter to Jerusalem (the harsh discourse\nin the synagogue at Capernaum alone excepted)? It may be said: in\nJerusalem he had a more enlightened public around him, and could be\nmore readily understood than in Galilee. But the Galileans could\nscarcely have misunderstood Jesus more lamentably than did the Jews\nfrom first to last, according to John\u2019s representation, and as in\nGalilee he had the most undisturbed communion with his disciples, we\nshould rather have conjectured that here would be the scene of his more\nprofound instruction. Besides, as the synoptical writers have given a\nplentiful gleaning of lucid and popular discourses from the final\nresidence of Jesus in Jerusalem, there is no ground whatever for\nbelieving that his earlier visits were devoid of such, and that his\nconverse on these occasions took throughout a higher tone. But even\nallowing that all the earlier discourses of Jesus in Judea and\nJerusalem were beyond the range of the first apostolic tradition, deeds\nwere performed there, such as the cure of the man who had had an\ninfirmity thirty-eight years, the conferring of sight on the man born\nblind, and the raising of Lazarus, which, from their imposing rank\namong the evidences of Christianity, must also have necessitated the\nmention of those early visits of Jesus to Judea during which they\noccurred.\n\nThus it is impossible to explain why the synoptical writers, if they\nknew of the earlier visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, should not have\nmentioned them, and it must be concluded that if John be right, the\nfirst three Evangelists knew nothing of an essential part of the\nearlier ministry of Jesus; if, on the other hand, the latter be right,\nthe author of the fourth gospel, or of the tradition by which he was\nguided, fabricated a large portion of what he has narrated concerning\nthe ministry of Jesus, or at least assigned to it a false locality.\n\nOn a closer examination, however, the relation between John and the\nsynoptical writers is not simply such, that the latter might not know\nwhat the former records, but such, that they must have proceeded from\npositively opposite data. For example, the synoptical writers, Matthew\nespecially, as often as Jesus leaves Galilee, from the time that he\ntakes up his abode there after the Baptist\u2019s imprisonment, seldom\nneglect to give a particular reason; such as that he wished to escape\nfrom the crowd by a passage across the sea (Matt. viii. 18), or that he\nwithdrew into the wilderness of Perea to avoid the snares of Herod\n(xiv. 13), or that he retired into the region of Tyre and Sidon on\naccount of the offence taken by the scribes at his preaching (xv. 21):\nJohn, on the contrary, generally alleges a special reason why Jesus\nleaves Judea, and retires into Galilee. Not to contend that his very\nfirst journey thither appears to be occasioned solely by the invitation\nto Cana, his departure again into Galilee after the first passover\nattended by him in his public character, is expressly accounted for by\nthe ominous attention which the increasing number of his disciples had\nexcited among the Pharisees (iv. 1 ff.). His retirement after the\nsecond feast, also, into the country east of the Sea of Tiberias (vi.\n1), must be viewed in relation to the \u1f10\u03b6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (v. 18), since immediately after, the Evangelist assigns as\na reason for the continuance of Jesus in Galilee, the malignant designs\nof his enemies, which rendered his abode in Judea perilous to his life\n(vii. 1). The interval between the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast\nof the Dedication seems to have been spent by Jesus in the capital,\n[708] no unpropitious circumstances compelling him to absent himself\n(x. 22); on the other hand, his journey into Perea (x. 40) and that\ninto Ephraim (xi. 54) are presented as effects of his persecution by\nthe Jews.\n\nThus precisely the same relation as that which exists between Matthew\nand Luke, with respect to the original dwelling-place of the parents of\nJesus is found between the first three Evangelists and the fourth, with\nrespect to the principal theatre of his ministry. As, in the former\ninstance, Matthew pre-supposes Bethlehem to be the original place of\nabode, and Nazareth the one subsequently adopted through fortuitous\ncircumstances, while Luke gives the contrary representation; so in the\nlatter, the entire statement of the synoptical writers turns on the\nidea that, until his last journey, Galilee was the chosen field of the\nlabours of Jesus, and that he only left it occasionally, from\nparticular motives and for a short time; while that of John, on the\ncontrary, turns on the supposition, that Jesus would have taught solely\nin Judea and Jerusalem had not prudence sometimes counselled him to\nretire into the more remote provinces. [709]\n\nOf these two representations one only can be true. Before they were\nperceived to be contradictory, the narrative of John was incorporated\nwith that of the synoptical writers; since they have been allowed to be\nirreconcilable, the verdict has always been in favour of the fourth\nEvangelist; and so prevalent is this custom, that even the author of\nthe Probabilia does not use the difference to the disadvantage of the\nlatter. De Wette numbers it among the objections to the authenticity of\nMatthew\u2019s gospel, that it erroneously limits the ministry of Jesus to\nGalilee, [710] and Schneckenburger has no more important ground of\ndoubt to produce against the apostolic origin of the first canonical\ngospel, than the unacquaintance of its author with the extra-Galilean\nlabours of Jesus. [711] If this decision be well founded, it must rest\non a careful consideration of the question, which of the two\nincompatible narratives has the greater corroboration from external\nsources, and the more internal verisimilitude? We have shown in the\nintroduction that the external evidence or testimony for the\nauthenticity of the fourth gospel and of the synoptical ones, that of\nMatthew emphatically, is of about equal value: that is, it determines\nnothing in either case, but leaves the decision to the internal\nevidence. In relation to this, the following question must be\nconsidered: is it more probable that, although Jesus was actually often\nin Judea and Jerusalem previous to his last journey, yet at the time\nand place whence the synoptical gospels arose, all traces of the fact\nhad disappeared: or that, on the contrary, although Jesus never entered\nJudea for the exercise of his public ministry before his last journey\nthither, yet at the time and place of the composition of the fourth\ngospel a tradition of several such visits had been formed?\n\nThe above critics seek to show that the first might be the case, in the\nfollowing manner. The first gospel, they say, [712] and more or less\nthe two middle ones, contain the tradition concerning the life of Jesus\nas it was formed in Galilee, where the memory of what Jesus did and\nsaid in that province would be preserved with a natural\npartiality\u2014while, of that part of his life which was spent out of\nGalilee, only the most critical incidents, such as his birth,\nconsecration, and especially his last journey, which issued in his\ndeath, would be retained; the remainder, including his early journeys\nto the various feasts, being either unknown or forgotten, so that any\nfragments of information concerning one or other of the previous\nresidences of Jesus at Jerusalem would be referred to the last, no\nother being known.\n\nBut John himself, in whom our theologians rest all their confidence,\nexpressly mentions (iv. 45) that at the first passover visited by Jesus\nafter his baptism (and probably at others also) the Galileans were\npresent, and apparently in great numbers, since as a consequence of\ntheir having witnessed his works in Jerusalem, Jesus found a favourable\nreception in Galilee. If we add to this, that most of the disciples who\naccompanied Jesus in his early journeys to the feasts were Galileans\n(John iv. 22, ix. 2), it is inconceivable that tidings of the ministry\nof Jesus at Jerusalem should not from the first reach Galilee. Once\nthere, could time extinguish them? We grant that it is in the nature of\ntradition to fuse and remodel its materials, and as the last journey of\nJesus to Jerusalem was pre-eminently memorable, it might absorb the\nrecollections of the previous ones. But tradition has also another\nimpulse, and it is its strongest; namely to glorify. It may indeed be\nsaid that to circumscribe the early ministry of Jesus by the frontiers\nof Galilee would serve the purpose of glorifying that province, in\nwhich the synoptical tradition had its origin. But the aim of the\nsynoptical legend was not to glorify Galilee, on which it pronounces\nsevere judgments;\u2014Jesus is the object round which it would cast a halo,\nand his greatness is proportionate to the sphere of his influence.\nHence, to show that from the beginning of his ministry he made himself\nknown beyond the Galilean angulus terr\u00e6, and that he often presented\nhimself on the brilliant theatre of the capital, especially on\noccasions when it was crowded with spectators and hearers from all\nregions, was entirely according to the bent of the legend. If,\ntherefore, there had historically been but one journey of Jesus to\nJerusalem, tradition might be tempted to create more by degrees, since\nit would argue\u2014how could so great a light as Jesus have remained so\nlong under a bushel, and not rather have early and often placed himself\non the lofty stand which Jerusalem presented? Opponents, too, might\nobject, like the unbelieving brethren of Jesus (John vii. 3, 4), that\nhe who is conscious of the power to perform something truly great, does\nnot conceal himself, but seeks publicity, in order that his\ncapabilities may be recognized; and to these opponents it was thought\nthe best answer to show that Jesus actually did seek such publicity,\nand early obtained recognition in an extended sphere. Out of this\nrepresentation would easily grow the idea which lies at the foundation\nof the fourth gospel, that not Galilee, but Judea, was the proper\nresidence of Jesus.\n\nThus, viewed from the point of the possible formation of a legend, the\nbalance inclines in favour of the synoptical writers. But is the result\nthe same when we ascend to the relations and designs of Jesus, and from\nthis point of view inquire, if it be more probable that Jesus visited\nJerusalem once only or several times during his public life?\n\nThe alleged difficulty, that the various journeys to the feasts offer\nthe principal means of accounting for the intellectual development of\nJesus is easily removed. For those journeys alone would not suffice to\nexplain the mental pre-eminence of Jesus and as the main stress must\nstill be placed on his internal gifts, we cannot pronounce whether to a\nmind like his, even Galilee might not present enough aliment for their\nmaturing; besides, an adherence to the synoptical writers would only\noblige us to renounce those journeys to the feasts which Jesus took\nafter his public appearance, so that he might still have been present\nat many feasts previous to his messianic career, without assuming a\nconspicuous character. It has been held inconceivable that Jesus, so\nlong after his assumption of the messianic character, should confine\nhimself to Galilee, instead of taking his stand in Judea and Jerusalem,\nwhich, from the higher culture and more extensive foreign intercourse\nof their population, were a much more suitable field for his labours;\nbut it has been long remarked, on the other hand, that Jesus could find\neasier access to the simple and energetic minds of Galilee, less\nfettered by priestcraft and Pharisaism, and therefore acted judiciously\nin obtaining a firm footing there by a protracted ministry, before he\nventured to Jerusalem, where, in the centre of priestly and Pharisaic\ndomination, he must expect stronger opposition.\n\nThere is a graver difficulty in the synoptical statement, considered in\nrelation to the Mosaic law and Jewish custom. The law rigorously\nrequired that every Israelite should appear before Jehovah yearly at\nthe three principal feasts (Exod. xxiii. 14 ff.), and the reverence of\nJesus for the Mosaic institutes (Matt. v. 17 ff.) renders it improbable\nthat, during the whole course of his ministry, he should have\nundertaken but one journey of observance. [713] The Gospel of Matthew,\nhowever, be our judgment what it may as to the date and place of its\ncomposition, did certainly arise in a community of Jewish Christians,\nwho well knew what the law prescribed to the devout Israelite, and must\ntherefore be aware of the contradiction to the law in which the\npractice of Jesus was involved, when, during a public ministry of\nseveral years\u2019 duration, only one attendance at Jerusalem was noticed,\nor (in case the synoptical writers supposed but a single year\u2019s\nministry, of which we shall speak below) when he was represented as\nneglecting two of the great annual feasts. If then, a circle in close\nproximity to Jewish usage found nothing offensive in the opinion that\nJesus attended but one feast, may not this authority remove all\nhesitation on the subject from our minds? Besides, on a more careful\nweighing of the historical and geographical relations, the question\nsuggests itself, whether between the distant, half Gentile Galilee, and\nJerusalem, the ecclesiastical bond was so close that the observance of\nall the feasts could be expected from a Galilean? Even according to the\nfourth gospel, Jesus omitted attending one passover that occurred in\nthe period of his public career (John vi. 4).\n\nThere is, however, one point unfavourable to the synoptical writers.\nThat Jesus in his last visit to Jerusalem should, within the short\nspace of the feast day, have brought himself into such decided\nhostility to the ruling party in the capital, that they contrived his\narrest and death, is inexplicable, if we reject the statement of John,\nthat this hostility originated and was gradually aggravated during his\nfrequent previous visits. [714] If it be rejoined, that even in\nGalilean synagogues there were stationary scribes and Pharisees (Matt\nix. 3, xii. 14), that such as were resident in the capital often\nvisited the provinces (Matt. xv. 1), and that thus there existed a\nhierarchical nexus by means of which a deadly enmity against Jesus\nmight be propagated in Jerusalem before he had ever publicly appeared\nthere; we then have precisely that ecclesiastical bond between Galilee\nand Jerusalem which renders improbable on the part of Jesus the\nnon-observance of a series of feasts. Moreover the synoptical writers\nhave recorded an expression of Jesus which tells strongly against their\nown view. The words: Jerusalem, Jerusalem\u2014how often would I have\ngathered thy children together\u2014and ye would not, have no meaning\nwhatever in Luke, who puts them into the mouth of Jesus before he had\neven seen Jerusalem during his public ministry (xiii. 34); and even\nfrom the better arrangement of Matthew (xxiii. 37) it is not to be\nunderstood how Jesus, after a single residence of a few days in\nJerusalem, could found his reproaches on multiplied efforts to win over\nits inhabitants to his cause. This whole apostrophe of Jesus has so\noriginal a character, that it is difficult to believe it incorrectly\nassigned to him; hence to explain its existence, we must suppose a\nseries of earlier residences in Jerusalem, such as those recorded by\nthe fourth Evangelist. There is only one resource,\u2014to pronounce the\nstatement of the synoptical writers unhistorical in the particular of\nlimiting the decisive visit of Jesus to Jerusalem to the few days of\nthe feast, and to suppose that he made a more protracted stay in the\ncapital. [715]\n\nIt will be seen from the foregoing discussion, whether, when so much is\nto be argued pro and contra, the unhesitating decision of the critics\nin favour of the fourth Evangelist\u2019s statement is a just one. For our\nown part, we are far from being equally hasty in declaring for the\nsynoptical writers, and are content to have submitted the actual state\nof the controversy, as to the comparative merits of John and the\nsynoptical writers, to further consideration.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 58.\n\nTHE RESIDENCE OF JESUS AT CAPERNAUM.\n\nDuring the time spent by Jesus in Judea, the capital and its environs\nrecommended themselves as the most eligible theatre for his agency; and\nwe might have conjectured that in like manner, when in Galilee, he\nwould have chosen his native city, Nazareth, as the centre of his\nlabours. Instead of this we find him, when not travelling, domesticated\nat Capernaum, as already mentioned; the synoptical writers designate\nthis place the \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 of Jesus (Matt. ix. 1, comp. Mark ii. 1);\nhere, according to them, was the \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, which Jesus was accustomed to\ninhabit (Mark ii. 1, iii. 20; Matt. xiii. 1, 36) probably that of Peter\n(Mark i. 29; Matt. viii. 14, xvii. 25; Luke iv. 38). In the fourth\ngospel, which only mentions very transient visits of Jesus to Galilee,\nCapernaum is not given as his dwelling-place, and Cana is the place\nwith which he is supposed to have the most connexion. After his baptism\nhe proceeds first to Cana (ii. 1), on a special occasion, it is true;\nafter this he makes a short stay at Capernaum (v. 12); and on his\nreturn from his first attendance at the passover, it is again Cana to\nwhich he resorts and in which the fourth Evangelist makes him effect a\ncure (iv. 46 ff.), according to the synoptical writers, performed at\nCapernaum, and after this we find him once again in the synagogue at\nCapernaum (vi. 59). The most eminent disciples, also, are said by the\nwriter of the fourth gospel, not as by the synoptical writers, to come\nfrom Capernaum, but partly from Cana (xxi. 2) and partly from Bethsaida\n(i. 45). The latter place, even in the synoptical gospels, is\nmentioned, with Chorazin, as one in which Jesus had been pre-eminently\nactive (Matt. xi. 21; Luke x. 13).\n\nWhy Jesus chose Capernaum as his central residence in Galilee, Mark\ndoes not attempt to show, but conducts him thither without comment\nafter his return into Galilee, and the calling of the two pairs of\nfishermen (i. 21). Matthew (iv. 13 ff.) alleges as a motive, that an\nOld Testament prophecy (Isa. viii. 23, ix. 1), was thereby fulfilled; a\ndogmatical motive, and therefore of no historical value. Luke thinks he\nhas found the reason in a fact, which is more worthy of notice.\nAccording to him, Jesus after his return from baptism does not\nimmediately take up his residence in Capernaum, but makes an essay to\nteach in Nazareth, and after its failure first turns to Capernaum. This\nEvangelist tells us in the most graphic style how Jesus presented\nhimself at the synagogue on the sabbath-day, and expounded a prophetic\npassage, so as to excite general admiration, but at the same time to\nprovoke malicious reflections on the narrow circumstances of his\nfamily. Jesus, in reply, is made to refer the discontent of the\nNazarenes, that he performed no miracles before them as at Capernaum,\nto the contempt which every prophet meets with in his own country, and\nto threaten them in Old Testament allusions, that the divine benefits\nwould be withdrawn from them and conferred on strangers. Exasperated by\nthis, they lead him to the brow of the hill, intending to cast him\ndown; he, however, passes unhurt through the midst of them (iv. 16\u201330).\n\nBoth the other synoptical writers are acquainted with a visit of Jesus\nto Nazareth; but they transfer it to a much later period, when Jesus\nhad been long labouring in Galilee, and resident in Capernaum (Matt.\nxiii. 54 ff.; Mark vi. 1 ff.). To reconcile their narrative with that\nof Luke, it has been customary to suppose that Jesus, notwithstanding\nhis first rough reception, as described by Luke, wished to make one\nmore experiment whether his long absence and subsequent fame might not\nhave altered the opinion of the Nazarenes\u2014an opinion worthy of a petty\ntown: but the result was equally unfavourable. [716] The two scenes,\nhowever, are too similar to be prevented from mingling with each other.\nIn both instances the teaching of Jesus in the synagogue makes the same\nimpression on the Nazarenes,\u2014that of amazement at the wisdom of the\ncarpenter\u2019s son (Luke only giving more details): in both instances\nthere is a lack of miracles on the part of Jesus, the first two\nEvangelists presenting more prominently its cause, namely, the unbelief\nof the Nazarenes, and the third dwelling more on its unfavourable\neffect: lastly in both instances, Jesus delivers the maxim (the result\nof his experience), that a prophet is the least esteemed in his own\ncountry: and to this Luke appends a more ample discourse, which\nirritates the Nazarenes to attempt an act of violence, unnoticed by the\nother Evangelists. But the fact which most decisively shows that the\ntwo narratives cannot exist in each other\u2019s presence, is that they both\nclaim to relate the first incident of the kind; [717] for in both, the\nNazarenes express their astonishment at the suddenly revealed\nintellectual gifts of Jesus, which they could not at once reconcile\nwith his known condition. [718] The first supposition that presents\nitself is, that the scene described by Luke preceded that of Matthew\nand Mark; but if so, the Nazarenes could not wonder a second time and\ninquire, whence hath this man this wisdom? since they must have had\nproof on that point on the first occasion; if, on the contrary, we try\nto give the later date to Luke\u2019s incident, it appears unnatural, for\nthe same reason that they should wonder at the gracious words which\nproceeded out of his mouth, neither could Jesus well say, This day is\nthis scripture fulfilled in your ears, without severely reflecting on\ntheir former insensibility, which had retarded that fulfilment.\n\nThese considerations have led the majority of modern commentators to\nthe opinion, that Luke and the other synoptical Evangelists have here\ngiven the same history, merely differing in the date, and in the\ncolouring of the facts; [719] and the only question among them is,\nwhich of the two narrations deserves the preference. With respect to\nthe date, that of Luke seems, at the first glance, to have the\nadvantage; it gives the desiderated motive for the change of residence,\nand the wonder of the Nazarenes appears most natural on the supposition\nthat then he first assumed the function of a public teacher; hence\nMatthew\u2019s divergency from Luke has been recently made a serious\nreproach to him, as a chronological error. [720] But there is one\nparticular in all the three narratives which is an obstacle to our\nreferring the incident to so early a period. If Jesus presented himself\nthus at Nazareth before he had made Capernaum the principal theatre of\nhis agency, the Nazarenes could not utter the words which Jesus imputes\nto them in Luke: Whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also\nhere in thy country; nor could they, according to Matthew and Mark, be\nastonished at the mighty works of Jesus, [721] for as he performed few\nif any miracles at Nazareth, that expression, notwithstanding its\nperplexing connexion with the \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, the wisdom, manifested in that\ncity, must refer to works performed elsewhere. If, then, the Nazarenes\nwondered at the deeds of Jesus at Capernaum, or were jealous of the\ndistinction conferred on that city, Jesus must have previously resided\nthere, and could not have proceeded thither for the first time in\nconsequence of the scene at Nazareth. From this, it is plain that the\nlater chronological position of the narrative is the original one, and\nthat Luke, in placing it earlier, out of mere conjecture, was honest or\ncareless enough to retain the mention of the wonders at Capernaum,\nthough only consistent with the later position. [722] If, with regard\nto the date of the incident, the advantage is thus on the side of\nMatthew and Mark, we are left in darkness as to the motive which led\nJesus to alter his abode from Nazareth to Capernaum; unless the\ncircumstance that some of his most confidential disciples had their\nhome there, and the more extensive traffic of the place, may be\nregarded as inducements to the measure.\n\nThe fulness and particularity of Luke\u2019s description of the scene,\ncontrasted with the summary style in which it is given by the other two\nEvangelists, has generally won for the former the praise of superior\naccuracy. [723] Let us look more closely, and we shall find that the\ngreater particularity of Luke shows itself chiefly in this, that he is\nnot satisfied with a merely general mention of the discourse delivered\nby Jesus in the synagogue, but cites the Old Testament passage on which\nhe enlarged, and the commencement of its application. The passage is\nfrom Isa. lxi. 1, 2, where the prophet announces the return from exile,\nwith the exception of the words to set at liberty them that are\nbruised, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, which are from Isa. lviii.\n6. To this passage Jesus gives a messianic interpretation, for he\ndeclares it to be fulfilled by his appearance. Why he selected this\ntext from among all others has been variously conjectured. It is known\nthat among the Jews at a later period, certain extracts from the Thorah\nand the Prophets were statedly read on particular sabbaths and feast\ndays, and it has hence been suggested that the above passage was the\nselection appointed for the occasion in question. It is true that the\nchapter from which the words \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. are taken, used to be\nread on the great Day of Atonement, and Bengel has made the\nsupposition, that the scene we are considering occurred on that day, a\nmain pillar of his evangelical chronology. [724] But if Jesus had\nadhered to the regular course of reading, he would not merely have\nextracted from the lesson appointed for this feast a few stray words,\nto insert them in a totally disconnected passage; and after all, it is\nimpossible to demonstrate that, so early as the time of Jesus, there\nwere prescribed readings, even from the prophets. [725] If then Jesus\nwas not thus circumstantially directed to the passage cited, did he\nopen upon it designedly or fortuitously? Many imagine him turning over\nthe leaves until he found the text which was in his mind: [726] but\nOlshausen is right in saying that the words \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03b5\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd do not imply that he found the passage after searching for\nit, but that he alighted on it under the guidance of the Divine Spirit.\n[727] This, however, is but a poor contrivance, to hide the\nimprobability, that Jesus should fortuitously open on a passage so well\nadapted to serve as a motto for his first messianic enterprize, behind\nan appeal to the Spirit, as deus ex machin\u00e2. Jesus might very likely\nhave quoted this text with reference to himself, and thus it would\nremain in the minds of the Evangelists as a prophecy fulfilled in\nJesus; Matthew would probably have introduced it in his own person with\nhis usual form, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7, and would have said that Jesus had now\nbegun his messianic annunciation, \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, that the prophecy Isa. lxi.\n1 ff. might be fulfilled; but Luke, who is less partial to this form,\nor the tradition whence he drew his materials, puts the words into the\nmouth of Jesus on his first messianic appearance, very judiciously, it\nis true, but, owing to the chances which it is necessary to suppose,\nless probably; so that I am more inclined to be satisfied with the\nindefinite statement of Matthew and Mark. The other point in which the\ndescription of Luke merits the praise of particularity, is his dramatic\npicture of the tumultuary closing scene; but this scene perplexes even\nthose who on the whole give the preference to his narrative. It is not\nto be concealed that the extremely violent expulsion of Jesus by the\nNazarenes, seems to have had no adequate provocation: [728] and we\ncannot with Schleiermacher, [729] expunge the notion that the life of\nJesus was threatened, without imputing to the writer a false addition\nof the words \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd (v. 29), and thus materially\naffecting the credibility of his entire narration. But the still more\nremarkable clause, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf (v. 30), is the\nmain difficulty. It is not to be explained (at least not in accordance\nwith the Evangelist\u2019s view) as an effect merely of the commanding\nglance of Jesus, as Hase supposes; and Olshausen is again right when he\nsays, that the Evangelist intended to signify that Jesus passed\nunharmed through the midst of his furious enemies, because his divine\npower fettered their senses and limbs, because his hour was not yet\ncome (John viii. 20), and because no man could take his life from him\nuntil he himself laid it down (John x. 18). [730] Here again we have a\ndisplay of the glorifying tendency of tradition, which loved to\nrepresent Jesus as one defended from his enemies, like Lot (Gen. xix.\n11), or Elisha (2 Kings vi. 18), by a heavenly hand, or better still,\nby the power of his own superior nature; unless there be supposed in\nthis case, as in the two examples from the Old Testament, a temporary\ninfliction of blindness, an illudere per caliginem, the idea of which\nTertullian reprobates. [731] Thus in this instance also, the less\nimposing account of the first two Evangelists is to be preferred,\nnamely that Jesus, impeded from further activity by the unbelief of the\nNazarenes, voluntarily forsook his ungrateful paternal city.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 59.\n\nDIVERGENCIES OF THE EVANGELISTS AS TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIFE OF\nJESUS. DURATION OF HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY.\n\nIn considering the chronology of the public life of Jesus, we must\ndistinguish the question of its total duration, from that of the\narrangement of its particular events.\n\nNot one of our Evangelists expressly tells us how long the public\nministry of Jesus lasted; but while the synoptical writers give us no\nclue to a decision on the subject, we find in John certain data, which\nseem to warrant one. In the synoptical gospels there is no intimation\nhow long after the baptism of Jesus his imprisonment and death\noccurred: nowhere are months and years distinguished; and though it is\nonce or twice said: \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f13\u03be or \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf (Matt. xvii. 1, 2), these\nisolated fixed points furnish us with no guidance in a sea of general\nuncertainty. On the contrary, the many journeys to the feasts by which\nthe narrative of the fourth Evangelist is distinguished from that of\nhis predecessors, furnishes us, so to speak, with chronological\nabutments, as for each appearance of Jesus at one of these annual\nfeasts, the Passover especially, we must, deducting the first, reckon a\nfull year of his ministry. We have, in the fourth gospel, after the\nbaptism of Jesus, and apparently at a short interval (comp. i. 29, 35,\n44, ii. 1, 12), a passover attended by him (ii. 13). But the next feast\nvisited by Jesus (v. 1) which is indefinitely designated a feast of the\nJews, has been the perpetual crux of New Testament chronologists. It is\nonly important in determining the duration of the public life of Jesus,\non the supposition that it was a passover; for in this case it would\nmark the close of his first year\u2019s ministry. We grant that \u1f21 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, THE feast of the Jews, might very probably denote the\nPassover, which was pre-eminent among their institutions: [732] but it\nhappens that the best manuscripts have in the present passage no\narticle, and without it, the above expression can only signify\nindefinitely one of the Jewish feasts, which the author thought it\nimmaterial to specify. [733] Thus intrinsically it might mean either\nthe feast of Pentecost, [734] Purim, [735] the Passover, [736] or any\nother; [737] but in its actual connection it is evidently not intended\nby the narrator to imply the Passover, both because he would hardly\nhave glanced thus slightly at the most important of all the feasts, and\nbecause, vi. 4, there comes another Passover, so that on the\nsupposition we are contesting, he would have passed in silence over a\nwhole year between v. 47, and vi. 1. For to give the words, \u1f26\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 (vi. 4), a retrospective meaning, is too artificial an\nexpedient of Paulus, since, as he himself confesses, [738] this phrase,\nelsewhere in John, is invariably used with reference to the immediately\napproaching feast (ii. 13, vii. 2, xi. 55), and must from its nature\nhave a prospective meaning, unless the context indicate the contrary.\nThus not until John vi. 4, do we meet with the second passover, and to\nthis it is not mentioned that Jesus resorted. [739] Then follow the\nfeast of Tabernacles and that of the Dedication, and afterwards, xi.\n55, xii. 1, the last passover visited by Jesus. According to our view\nof John v. 1, and vi. 4, therefore, we obtain two years for the public\nministry of Jesus, besides the interval between his baptism and the\nfirst Passover. The same result is found by those who, with Paulus,\nhold the feast mentioned, v. 1, to be a passover, but vi. 4, only a\nretrospective allusion; whereas the ancient Fathers of the Church,\nreckoning a separate Passover to each of the passages in question, made\nout three years. Meanwhile, by this calculation, we only get the\nminimum duration of the public ministry of Jesus possible according to\nthe fourth gospel, for the writer nowhere intimates that he has been\npunctilious in naming every feast that fell within that ministry,\nincluding those not observed by Jesus, neither, unless we regard it as\nestablished that the writer was the apostle John, have we any guarantee\nthat he knew the entire number.\n\nIt may be urged in opposition to the calculations, built on the\nrepresentations of John, that the synoptical writers give no reasons\nfor limiting the term of the public ministry of Jesus to a single year:\n[740] but this objection rests on a supposition borrowed from John\nhimself, namely that Jesus, Galilean though he was, made it a rule to\nattend every Passover: a supposition, again, which is overturned by the\nsame writer\u2019s own representation. According to him, Jesus left\nunobserved the passover mentioned, vi. 4, for from vi. 1, where Jesus\nis on the east side of the sea of Tiberias, through vi. 17 and 59,\nwhere he goes to Capernaum, and vii. 1, where he frequents Galilee, in\norder to avoid the Jews, to vii. 2 and 10, where he proceeds to\nJerusalem on occasion of the feast of Tabernacles, the Evangelist\u2019s\nnarrative is so closely consecutive that a journey to the Passover can\nnowhere be inserted. Out of the synoptical gospels, by themselves, we\ngather nothing as to the length of the public ministry of Jesus, for\nthis representation admits of our assigning him either several years of\nactivity, or only one; their restriction of his intercourse with\nJerusalem to his final journey being the sole point in which they\ncontrol our conclusion. It is true that several Fathers of the Church,\n[741] as well as some heretics, [742] speak of the ministry of Jesus as\nhaving lasted but a single year; but that the source of this opinion\nwas not the absence of early journeys to the feasts in the synoptical\ngospels, but an entirely fortuitous association, we learn from those\nFathers themselves, for they derive it from the prophetic passage Isa.\nlxi. 1 f. applied by Jesus (Luke iv.) to himself. In this passage there\nis mention of the acceptable year of the Lord, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2,\nwhich the prophet or, according to the Evangelical interpretation, the\nMessiah is sent to announce. Understanding this phrase in its strict\nchronological sense, they adopted from it the notion of a single\nmessianic year, which was more easily reconcilable with the synoptical\ngospels than with that of John, after whose statement the calculation\nof the church soon came to be regulated.\n\nIn striking contrast with this lowest computation of time, is the\ntradition, also very ancient, that Jesus was baptized in his thirtieth\nyear, but at the time of his crucifixion was not far from his fiftieth.\n[743] But this opinion is equally founded on a misunderstanding. The\nelders who had conversations with John the disciple of the Lord, in\nAsia, \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\u2014on whose testimony Iren\u00e6us relies when he says, such is\nthe tradition of John, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd,\u2014had given no\ninformation further than that Christ taught, \u00e6tatem seniorem habens.\nThat this \u00e6tas senior was the age of from forty to fifty years is\nmerely the inference of Iren\u00e6us, founded on what the Jews allege as an\nobjection to the discourse of Jesus, John viii. 57: Thou art not yet\nfifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? language which according\nto Iren\u00e6us could only be addressed to one, qui jam quadraginta annos\nexcessit, quinquagesimum autem annum nondum attigit. But the Jews might\nvery well say to a man a little more than thirty, that he was much too\nyoung to have seen Abraham, since he had not reached his fiftieth year,\nwhich, in the Jewish idea, completed the term of manhood. [744]\n\nThus we can obtain no precise information from our gospels as to how\nlong the public labours of Jesus lasted; all we can gather is, that if\nwe follow the fourth gospel we must not reckon less than two years and\nsomething over. But the repeated journeys to the feasts on which this\ncalculation is founded are themselves not established beyond doubt.\n\nOpposed to this minimum, we gain a maximum, if we understand, from Luke\niii. 1 ff. and 23, that the baptism of Jesus took place in the\nfifteenth year of Tiberius, and add to this that his crucifixion\noccurred under the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. For as Pilate was\nrecalled from his post in the year of Tiberius\u2019s death, [745] and as\nTiberius reigned rather more than seven years after the fifteenth year\nof his reign, [746] it follows that seven years are the maximum of the\npossible duration of the ministry of Jesus after his baptism. But while\none of these data, namely, that Jesus was crucified under Pilate, is\nwell attested, the other is rendered suspicious by its association with\na chronological error, so that in fact we cannot achieve here even a\nproximate, still less an accurate solution of our question.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 60.\n\nTHE ATTEMPTS AT A CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE PARTICULAR EVENTS IN\nTHE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.\n\nIn attempting a chronological arrangement of the particular events\noccurring in the interval between the baptism of Jesus and his\ncrucifixion, the peculiar relation of the synoptical writers to John,\nrenders it necessary to give them both a separate and a comparative\nexamination. As to the latter, if its result be a reconciliation of the\ntwo accounts, the journeys to the feasts in John must form the panels\nbetween which the materials of the synoptical writers must be so\ninserted, that between each pair of journeys with the incidents at\nJerusalem to which they gave rise, would fall a portion of the Galilean\nhistory. For this incorporation to be effected with any certainty, two\nthings would be essential; first, a notice of the departure of Jesus\nfrom Galilee by the first three Evangelists, as often as the fourth\nspeaks of a residence in Jerusalem; and, secondly, on the part of John,\nan intimation, if not a narration, between his accounts of the several\nfeasts, of the Galilean occurrences represented by the synoptical\nwriters as an uninterrupted train. But we have seen that the synoptical\nwriters fail in the required notice; while it is notorious that John,\nfrom the baptism of Jesus to the closing scenes of his life, is only in\ntwo or three instances in coincidence with the other Evangelists. John\nsays (iii. 24) that when Jesus began his ministry, John was not yet\ncast into prison; Matthew makes the return of Jesus into Galilee\nsubsequent to the imprisonment of the Baptist (iv. 12), hence it has\nbeen inferred that that return was from the first passover, and not\nfrom the baptism; [747] but it is undeniable that Matthew places the\ncommencement of the public ministry of Jesus in Galilee, and\npresupposes no earlier ministry at the feast in Jerusalem, so that the\ntwo statements, instead of dovetailing, as has been imagined, are\naltogether incompatible. The next, but very dubious point of contact,\noccurs in the healing of the nobleman\u2019s son, according to John iv. 46\nff., or the centurion\u2019s servant, according to Matt. viii. 5 ff., and\nLuke vii. 1 ff., which John places (v. 47) immediately after the return\nof Jesus from his prolonged residence in Judea and Samaria, during and\nafter the first passover. It was to be expected, then, that the\ncorresponding narration of the synoptical writers would be preceded by\nsome intimation of the first journey made by Jesus to a feast. Not only\nis such an intimation wanting\u2014there is not a single aperture to be\nfound for the insertion of this journey, since, according to the\nsynoptical writers, the cure in question was an immediate sequel to the\nSermon on the Mount, which Matthew and Luke represent as the\nculminating point, of an apparently uninterrupted course of teaching\nand miracles in Galilee. Thus neither at this point is the chronology\nof the first three Evangelists to be eked out by that of the fourth,\nsince they nowhere present a joint on to which the statements of the\nlatter can be articulated. Another more decided coincidence between the\ntwo parties exists in the associated narratives of the miracle of the\nloaves, and that of walking on the sea, John vi. 1\u201321, Matt. xiv. 14\u201336\nparall., which John places in the interval immediately preceding the\nsecond passover, unvisited by Jesus; but he differs so completely from\nthe synoptical writers in his account of these miracles, both in their\nintroduction and termination, that either he or they must inevitably be\nwrong. For while, according to Matthew, Jesus retires from Nazareth\nprobably, at all events from some part of Galilee, to the opposite side\nof the sea, where he effects the multiplication of the loaves;\naccording to John he sets out from Jerusalem. Further, in the first two\ngospels Jesus proceeds after the miracle of the loaves into a district\nwhere he was less known (both Matt. v. 35 and Mark v. 54 expressly\nstating that the people knew him), whereas in John he goes directly to\nCapernaum, with which of all places he was the most familiar. We know\nnot here whether to tax the synoptical writers or John with a mistake:\nand as we cannot pronounce whether he or they have placed this incident\ntoo early or too late, we are equally ignorant how much of the\nsynoptical narratives we are to place before, and how much after, the\nsecond passover, which John makes nearly cotemporary with the feeding\nof the five thousand. Here, however, the points of contact between this\nEvangelist and his predecessors are at an end, until we come to the\nlast journey of Jesus; and if they are too uncertain to promise even a\nsimple division of the synoptical materials by the two Passovers, how\ncan we hope, by the journeys of Jesus to the feast of the Jews, \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, to the feast of Tabernacles, or to the feast of\nDedication, if that be a separate journey, to classify chronologically\nthe uninterrupted series of Galilean occurrences in the first three\ngospels? Nevertheless this has been attempted by a succession of\ntheologians down to the present time, with an expenditure of acumen and\nerudition, worthy of a more fertile subject; [748] but unprejudiced\njudges have decided, that as the narrative of the first three\nEvangelists has scarcely any elements that can give certitude to such a\nclassification, not one of the harmonies of the gospels yet written has\nany claim to be considered anything more than a tissue of historical\nconjectures. [749]\n\nIt remains to estimate the chronological value of the synoptical\nwriters, apart from John. They are so frequently at variance with each\nother in the order of events, and it is so seldom that one has all the\nprobabilities on his side, that each of them may be convicted of\nnumerous chronological errors, which must undermine our confidence in\nhis accuracy. It has been maintained that, in the composition of their\nbooks, they meditated no precise chronological order, [750] and this is\npartially confirmed by their mode of narration. Throughout the interval\nbetween the baptism of Jesus and the history of the Passion, their\nnarratives resemble a collection of anecdotes, strung together mostly\non a thread of mere analogy and association of ideas. But there is a\ndistinction to be made in reference to the above opinion. It is true\nthat from the purport of their narratives, and the indecisiveness and\nuniformity of their connecting phrases, we can detect their want of\ninsight into the more accurate chronological relations of what they\nrecord; but that the authors flattered themselves they were giving a\nchronological narration, is evident from those very connecting phrases,\nwhich, however indecisive, have almost always a chronological\ncharacter, such as \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a, etc. [751]\n\nThe incidents and discourses detailed by John are, for the most part,\npeculiar to himself; he is therefore not liable to the same control in\nhis chronology from independent authors, as are the synoptical writers\nfrom each other; neither is his narration wanting in connectedness and\nsequence. Hence our decision on the merits of his chronological order\nis dependent on the answer to the following question: Is the\ndevelopment and progress of the cause and plan of Jesus, as given by\nthe fourth Evangelist, credible in itself and on comparison with\navailable data, drawn from the other gospels? The solution to this\nquestion is involved in the succeeding inquiry.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nJESUS AS THE MESSIAH. [752]\n\n\u00a7 61.\n\nJESUS, THE SON OF MAN.\n\nIn treating of the relation in which Jesus conceived himself to stand\nto the messianic idea, we can distinguish his dicta concerning his own\nperson from those concerning the work he had undertaken.\n\nThe appellation which Jesus commonly gives himself in the Gospels is,\nthe Son of man, \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5. The exactly corresponding Hebrew\nexpression \u200f\u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e is in the Old Testament a frequent designation of\nman in general, and thus we might be induced to understand it in the\nmouth of Jesus. This interpretation would suit some passages; for\nexample, Matt. xii. 8, where Jesus says: The Son of man is lord also of\nthe Sabbath day, \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5,\u2014words which will fitly enough take a general meaning, such as\nGrotius affixes to them, namely, that man is lord of the Sabbath,\nespecially if we compare Mark (ii. 27), who introduces them by the\nproposition, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\nBut in the majority of cases, the phrase in question is evidently used\nas a special designation. Thus, Matt. viii. 20, a scribe volunteers to\nbecome a disciple of Jesus, and is admonished to count the cost in the\nwords, The Son of man hath not where to lay his head, \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u1f31\u03bd\u1fc3: here some particular man must\nbe intended, nay, the particular man into whose companionship the\nscribe wished to enter, that is, Jesus himself. As a reason for the\nself-application of this term by Jesus, it has been suggested that he\nused the third person after the oriental manner, to avoid the I. [753]\nBut for a speaker to use the third person in reference to himself, is\nonly admissible, if he would be understood, when the designation he\nemploys is precise, and inapplicable to any other person present, as\nwhen a father or a king uses his appropriate title of himself; or when,\nif the designation be not precise, its relation is made clear by a\ndemonstrative pronoun, which limitation is eminently indispensable if\nan individual speak of himself under the universal designation man. We\ngrant that occasionally a gesture might supply the place of the\ndemonstrative pronoun; but that Jesus in every instance of his using\nthis habitual expression had recourse to some visible explanatory sign,\nor that the Evangelists would not, in that case, have supplied its\nnecessary absence from a written document by some demonstrative\naddition, is inconceivable. If both Jesus and the Evangelists held such\nan elucidation superfluous, they must have seen in the expression\nitself the key to its precise application. Some are of opinion that\nJesus intended by it to point himself out as the ideal man\u2014man in the\nnoblest sense of the word; [754] but this is a modern theory, not an\nhistorical inference, for there is no trace of such an interpretation\nof the expression in the time of Jesus, [755] and it would be more easy\nto show, as others have attempted, that the appellation, Son of Man, so\nfrequently used by Jesus, had reference to his lowly and despised\ncondition. [756] Apart however from the objection that this acceptation\nalso would require the addition of the demonstrative pronoun, though it\nmight be adapted to many passages, as Matt. viii. 20; John i. 51, there\nare others (such as Matt. xvii. 22, where Jesus, foretelling his\nviolent death, designates himself \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5) which demand the\ncontrast of high dignity with an ignominious fate. So in Matt. x. 23,\nthe assurance given to the commissioned disciples that before they had\ngone over the cities of Israel the Son of Man would come, could have no\nweight unless this expression denoted a person of importance; and that\nsuch was its significance is proved by a comparison of Matt. xvi. 28,\nwhere there is also a mention of an \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, a coming of the Son of\nman, but with the addition \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. As this addition can\nonly refer to the messianic kingdom, the \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 must be the\nMessiah.\n\nHow so apparently vague an appellation came to be appropriated to the\nMessiah, we gather from Matt. xxvi. 64 parall., where the Son of man is\ndepicted as coming in the clouds of heaven. This is evidently an\nallusion to Dan. vii. 13 f. where after having treated of the fall of\nthe four beasts, the writer says: I saw in the night visions, and\nbehold, one like the Son of Man (\u200f\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d0\u05b1\u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1\u200e \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, LXX.) came\nwith the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days. And there\nwas given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people,\nnations and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting\ndominion. The four beasts (v. 17 ff.) were symbolical of the four great\nempires, the last of which was the Macedonian, with its offshoot,\nSyria. After their fall, the kingdom was to be given in perpetuity to\nthe People of God, the saints of the Most High: hence, he who was to\ncome with clouds of heaven could only be, either a personification of\nthe holy people, [757] or a leader of heavenly origin under whom they\nwere to achieve their destined triumph\u2014in a word, the Messiah; and this\nwas the customary interpretation among the Jews. [758] Two things are\npredicated of this personage,\u2014that he was like the Son of man, and that\nhe came with the clouds of heaven; but the former particular is his\ndistinctive characteristic, and imports either that he had not a\nsuperhuman form, that of an angel for instance, though descending from\nheaven, or else that the kingdom about to be established presented in\nits humanity a contrast to the inhumanity of its predecessors, of which\nferocious beasts were the fitting emblems. [759] At a later period, it\nis true, the Jews regarded the coming with the clouds of heaven\n\u200f\u05e2\u05b4\u05e1\u05be\u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05d0\u200e as the more essential attribute of the Messiah, and\nhence gave him the name Anani, after the Jewish taste of making a\nmerely accessory circumstance the permanent epithet of a person or\nthing. [760] If, then, the expression \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 necessarily\nrecalled the above passage in Daniel, generally believed to relate to\nthe Messiah, it is impossible that Jesus could so often use it, and in\nconnexion with declarations evidently referring to the Messiah, without\nintending it as the designation of that personage.\n\nThat by the expression in question Jesus meant himself, without\nrelation to the messianic dignity, is less probable than the contrary\nsupposition, that he might often mean the Messiah when he spoke of the\nSon of Man, without relation to his own person. When, Matt. x. 23, on\nthe first mission of the twelve apostles to announce the kingdom of\nheaven, he comforts them under the prospect of their future\npersecutions by the assurance that they would not have gone over all\nthe cities of Israel before the coming of the Son of Man, we should\nrather, taking this declaration alone, think of a third person, whose\nspeedy messianic appearance Jesus was promising, than of the speaker\nhimself, seeing that he was already come, and it would not be\nantecedently clear how he could represent his own coming as one still\nin anticipation. So also when Jesus (Matt. xiii. 37 ff.) interprets the\nSower of the parable to be the Son of Man, who at the end of the world\nwill have a harvest and a tribunal, he might be supposed to refer to\nthe Messiah as a third person distinct from himself. This is equally\nthe case, xvi. 27 f., where, to prove the proposition that the loss of\nthe soul is not to be compensated by the gain of the whole world, he\nurges the speedy coming of the Son of Man, to administer retribution.\nLastly, in the connected discourses, Matt. xxiv., xxv. parall., many\nparticulars would be more easily conceived, if the \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\nwhose \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 Jesus describes, were understood to mean another than\nhimself.\n\nBut this explanation is far from being applicable to the majority of\ninstances in which Jesus uses this expression. When he represents the\nSon of Man, not as one still to be expected, but as one already come\nand actually present, for example, in Matt xviii. 11, where he says:\nThe Son of Man is come to save that which was lost; when he justifies\nhis own acts by the authority with which the Son of Man was invested,\nas in Matt. ix. 6; when, Mark viii. 31 ff. comp. Matt. xvi. 22, he\nspeaks of the approaching sufferings and death of the Son of Man, so as\nto elicit from Peter the exclamation, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf, this shall\nnot be unto thee; in these and similar cases he can only, by the \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, have intended himself. And even those passages, which,\ntaken singly, we might have found capable of application to a messianic\nperson, distinct from Jesus, lose this capability when considered in\ntheir entire connexion. It is possible, however, either that the writer\nmay have misplaced certain expressions, or that the ultimately\nprevalent conviction that Jesus was the Son of Man caused what was\noriginally said merely of the latter, to be viewed in immediate\nrelation to the former.\n\nThus besides the fact that Jesus on many occasions called himself the\nSon of Man, there remains the possibility that on many others, he may\nhave designed another person; and if so, the latter would in the order\nof time naturally precede the former. Whether this possibility can be\nheightened ta a reality, must depend on the answer to the following\nquestion: Is there, in the period of the life of Jesus, from which all\nhis recorded declarations are taken, any fragment which indicates that\nhe had not yet conceived himself to be the Messiah?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 62.\n\nHOW SOON DID JESUS CONCEIVE HIMSELF TO BE THE MESSIAH, AND FIND\nRECOGNITION AS SUCH FROM OTHERS?\n\nJesus held and expressed the conviction that he was the Messiah; this\nis an indisputable fact. Not only did he, according to the Evangelists,\nreceive with satisfaction the confession of the disciples that he was\nthe \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 (Matt. xvi. 16 f.) and the salutation of the people,\nHosanna to the Son of David (xxi. 15 f.); not only did he before a\npublic tribunal (Matt. xxvi. 64, comp. John xviii. 37) as well as to\nprivate individuals (John iv. 26, ix. 37, x. 25) repeatedly declare\nhimself to be the Messiah; but the fact that his disciples after his\ndeath believed and proclaimed that he was the Messiah, is not to be\ncomprehended, unless, when living, he had implanted the conviction in\ntheir minds.\n\nTo the more searching question, how soon Jesus began to declare himself\nthe Messiah and to be regarded as such by others, the Evangelists\nalmost unanimously reply, that he assumed that character from the time\nof his baptism. All of them attach to his baptism circumstances which\nmust have convinced himself, if yet uncertain, and all others who\nwitnessed or credited them, that he was no less than the Messiah; John\nmakes his earliest disciples recognise his right to that dignity on\ntheir first interview (i. 42 ff.), and Matthew attributes to him at the\nvery beginning of his ministry, in the sermon on the mount, a\nrepresentation of himself as the Judge of the world (vii. 21 ff.) and\ntherefore the Messiah.\n\nNevertheless, on a closer examination, there appears a remarkable\ndivergency on this subject between the synoptical statement and that of\nJohn. While, namely, in John, Jesus remains throughout true to his\nassertion, and the disciples and his followers among the populace to\ntheir conviction, that he is the Messiah; in the synoptical gospels\nthere is a vacillation discernible\u2014the previously expressed persuasion\non the part of the disciples and people that Jesus was the Messiah,\nsometimes vanishes and gives place to a much lower view of him, and\neven Jesus himself becomes more reserved in his declarations. This is\nparticularly striking when the synoptical statement is compared with\nthat of John; but even when they are separately considered, the result\nis the same.\n\nAccording to John (vi. 15), after the miracle of the loaves the people\nwere inclined to constitute Jesus their (messianic) King; on the\ncontrary, according to the other three Evangelists, either about the\nsame time (Luke ix. 18 f.) or still later (Matt. xvi. 13 f.; Mark viii.\n27 f.) the disciples could only report, on the opinions of the people\nrespecting their master, that some said he was the resuscitated\nBaptist, some Elias, and others Jeremiah or one of the old prophets: in\nreference to that passage of John, however, as also to the synoptical\none, Matt. xiv. 33, according to which, some time before Jesus elicited\nthe above report of the popular opinion, the people who were with him\nin the ship [761] when he had allayed the storm, fell at his feet and\nworshipped him as the Son of God, it may be observed that when Jesus\nhad spoken or acted with peculiar impressiveness, individuals, in the\nexaltation of the moment, might be penetrated with a conviction that he\nwas the Messiah, while the general and calm voice of the people yet\npronounced him to be merely a prophet.\n\nBut there is a more troublesome divergency relative to the disciples.\nIn John, Andrew, after his first interview with Jesus, says to his\nbrother, we have found the Messiah, \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd (i. 42); and\nPhilip describes him to Nathanael as the person foretold by Moses and\nthe prophets (v. 46); Nathanael salutes him as the Son of God and King\nof Israel (v. 50); and the subsequent confession of Peter appears\nmerely a renewed avowal of what had been long a familiar truth. In the\nsynoptical Evangelists it is only after prolonged intercourse with\nJesus, and shortly before his sufferings, that the ardent Peter arrives\nat the conclusion that Jesus is the \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n(Matt. xvi. 16, parall.). It is impossible that this confession should\nmake so strong an impression on Jesus that, in consequence of it, he\nshould pronounce Peter blessed, and his confession the fruit of\nimmediate divine revelation, as Matthew narrates; or that, as all the\nthree Evangelists inform us (xvi. 20, viii. 30, ix. 21), he should, as\nif alarmed, forbid the disciples to promulgate their conviction, unless\nit represented not an opinion long cherished in the circle of his\ndisciples, but a new light, which had just flashed on the mind of\nPeter, and through him was communicated to his associates.\n\nThere is a third equally serious discrepancy, relative to the\ndeclarations of Jesus concerning his Messiahship. According to John he\nsanctions the homage which Nathanael renders to him as the Son of God\nand King of Israel, in the very commencement of his public career, and\nimmediately proceeds to speak of himself under the messianic title, Son\nof Man (i. 51 f.): to the Samaritans also after his first visit to the\npassover (iv. 26, 39 ff.), and to the Jews on the second (v. 46), he\nmakes himself known as the Messiah predicted by Moses. According to the\nsynoptical writers, on the contrary, he prohibits, in the instance\nabove cited and in many others, the dissemination of the doctrine of\nhis Messiahship, beyond the circle of his adherents. Farther, when he\nasks his disciples, Whom do men say that I am? (Matt. xvi. 15) he seems\nto wish [762] that they should derive their conviction of his\nMessiahship from his discourses and actions, and when he ascribes the\navowed faith of Peter to a revelation from his heavenly Father, he\nexcludes the possibility of his having himself previously made this\ndisclosure to his disciples, either in the manner described by John, or\nin the more indirect one attributed to him by Matthew in the Sermon on\nthe Mount; unless we suppose that the disciples had not hitherto\nbelieved his assurance, and that hence Jesus referred the new-born\nfaith of Peter to divine influence.\n\nThus, on the point under discussion the synoptical statement is\ncontradictory, not only to that of John, but to itself; it appears\ntherefore that it ought to be unconditionally surrendered before that\nof John, which is consistent with itself, and one of our critics has\njustly reproached it with deranging the messianic economy in the life\nof Jesus. [763] But here again we must not lose sight of our approved\ncanon, that in glorifying narratives, such as our gospels, where\nvarious statements are confronted, that is the least probable which\nbest subserves the object of glorification. Now this is the case with\nJohn\u2019s statement; according to which, from the commencement to the\nclose of the public life of Jesus, his Messiahship shines forth in\nunchanging splendour, while, according to the synoptical writers, it is\nliable to a variation in its light. But though this criterion of\nprobability is in favour of the first three Evangelists, it is\nimpossible that the order in which they make ignorance and concealment\nfollow on plain declarations and recognitions of the Messiahship of\nJesus can be correct; and we must suppose that they have mingled and\nconfounded two separate periods of the life of Jesus, in the latter of\nwhich alone he presented himself as the Messiah. We find, in fact, that\nthe watchword of Jesus on his first appearance differed not, even\nverbally, from that of John, who professed merely to be a forerunner;\nit is the same Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt. iv.\n17) with which John had roused the Jews (iii. 2); and indicates in\nneither the one nor the other an assumption of the character of\nMessiah, with whose coming the kingdom of heaven was actually to\ncommence, but merely that of a teacher who points to it as yet future.\n[764] Hence the latest critic of the first gospel justly explains all\nthose discourses and actions therein narrated, by which Jesus\nexplicitly claims to be the Messiah, or, in consequence of which this\ndignity is attributed to him and accepted, if they occur before the\nmanifestation of himself recorded in John v., or before the account of\nthe apostolic confession (Matt. xvi.), as offences of the writer\nagainst chronology or literal truth. [765] We have only to premise,\nthat as chronological confusion prevails throughout, the position of\nthis confession shortly before the history of the Passion, in nowise\nobliges us to suppose that it was so late before Jesus was recognised\nas the Messiah among his disciples, since Peter\u2019s avowal may have\noccurred in a much earlier period of their intercourse. This, however,\nis incomprehensible\u2014that the same reproach should not attach even more\nstrongly to the fourth gospel than to the first, or to the synoptical\nwriters in general. For it is surely more pardonable that the first\nthree Evangelists should give us the pre-messianic memoirs in the wrong\nplace, than that the fourth should not give them at all; more endurable\nin the former, to mingle the two periods, than in the latter, quite to\nobliterate the earlier one.\n\nIf then Jesus did not lay claim to the Messiahship from the beginning\nof his public career, was this omission the result of uncertainty in\nhis own mind; or had he from the first a conviction that he was the\nMessiah, but concealed it for certain reasons? In order to decide this\nquestion, a point already mentioned must be more carefully weighed. In\nthe first three Evangelists, but not so exclusively that the fourth has\nnothing similar, when Jesus effects a miracle of healing he almost\ninvariably forbids the person cured to promulgate the event, in these\nor similar words, \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u1fc3\u03c2; e.g. the leper, Matt. viii. 4,\nparall.; the blind men, Matt. ix. 30; a multitude of the healed, Matt.\nxii. 16; the parents of the resuscitated damsel, Mark v. 43; above all\nhe enjoins silence on the demoniacs, Mark i. 34, iii. 12; and John v.\n13, it is said, after the cure of the man at the pool of Bethesda,\nJesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place. Thus\nalso he forbade the three who were with him on the mount of the\nTransfiguration, to publish the scene they had witnessed (Matt. xvii.\n9); and after the confession of Peter, he charges the disciples to tell\nno man the conviction it expressed (Luke ix. 21). This prohibition of\nJesus could hardly, as most commentators suppose, [766] be determined\nby various circumstantial motives, at one time having relation to the\ndisposition of the person healed, at another to the humour of the\npeople, at another to the situation of Jesus: rather, as there is an\nessential similarity in the conditions under which he lays this\ninjunction on the people, if we discern a probable motive for it on any\noccasion, we are warranted in applying the same motive to the remaining\ncases. This motive is scarcely any other than the desire that the\nbelief that he was the Messiah should not be too widely spread. When\n(Mark i. 34) Jesus would not allow the ejected demons to speak because\nthey knew him, when he charged the multitudes that they should not make\nhim known (Matt. xii. 16), he evidently intended that the former should\nnot proclaim him in the character in which their more penetrative,\ndemoniacal glance had viewed him, nor the latter in that revealed by\nthe miraculous cure he had wrought on them\u2014in short, they were not to\nbetray their knowledge that he was the Messiah. As a reason for this\nwish on the part of Jesus, it has been alleged, on the strength of John\nvi. 15, that he sought to avoid awakening the political idea of the\nMessiah\u2019s kingdom in the popular mind, with the disturbance which would\nbe its inevitable result. [767] This would be a valid reason; but the\nsynoptical writers represent the wish, partly as the effect of\nhumility; [768] Matthew, in connexion with a prohibition of the kind\nalluded to, applying to Jesus a passage in Isaiah (xlii. 1 f.) where\nthe servant of God is said to be distinguished by his stillness and\nunobtrusiveness: partly, and in a greater degree, as the effect of an\napprehension that the Messiah, at least such an one as Jesus, would be\nat once proscribed by the Jewish hierarchy.\n\nFrom all this it might appear that Jesus was restrained merely by\nexternal motives, from the open declaration of his Messiahship, and\nthat his own conviction of it existed from the first in equal strength;\nbut this conclusion cannot be maintained in the face of the\nconsideration above mentioned, that Jesus began his career with the\nsame announcement as the Baptist, an announcement which can scarcely\nhave more than one import\u2014an exhortation to prepare for a coming\nMessiah. The most natural supposition is that Jesus, first the disciple\nof the Baptist, and afterwards his successor, in preaching repentance\nand the approach of the kingdom of heaven, took originally the same\nposition as his former master in relation to the messianic kingdom,\nnotwithstanding the greater reach and liberality of his mind, and only\ngradually attained the elevation of thinking himself the Messiah. This\nsupposition explains in the simplest manner the prohibition we have\nbeen considering, especially that annexed to the confession of Peter.\nFor as often as the thought that he might be the Messiah suggested\nitself to others, and was presented to him from without, Jesus must\nhave shrunk, as if appalled, to hear confidently uttered that which he\nscarcely ventured to surmise, or which had but recently become clear to\nhimself. As, however, the Evangelist often put such prohibitions into\nthe mouth of Jesus unseasonably (witness the occasion mentioned, Matt.\nviii. 4, when, after a cure effected before a crowd of spectators, it\nwas of little avail to enjoin secrecy on the cured), [769] it is\nprobable that evangelical tradition, enamoured of the mysteriousness\nthat lay in this incognito of Jesus, [770] unhistorically multiplied\nthe instances of its adoption.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 63.\n\nJESUS, THE SON OF GOD.\n\nIn Luke i. 35, we find the narrowest and most literal interpretation of\nthe expression, \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6; namely, as derived from his conception\nby means of the Holy Ghost. On the contrary, the widest moral and\nmetaphorical sense is given to the expression in Matt. v. 45, where\nthose who imitate the love of God towards his enemies are called the\nsons of the Father in heaven. There is an intermediate sense which we\nmay term the metaphysical, because while it includes more than mere\nconformity of will, it is distinct from the notion of actual paternity,\nand implies a spiritual community of being. In this sense it is\nprofusely employed and referred to in the fourth gospel; as when Jesus\nsays that he speaks and does nothing of himself, but only what as a son\nhe has learned from the Father (v. 19, xii. 49; and elsewhere), who,\nmoreover, is in him (xvii. 21), and notwithstanding his exaltation over\nhim (xiv. 28), is yet one with him (x. 30). There is yet a fourth sense\nin which the expression is presented. When (Matt. iv. 3) the devil\nchallenges Jesus to change the stones into bread, making the\nsupposition, If thou be the Son of God; when Nathanael says to Jesus,\nThou art the Son of God, the King of Israel (John i. 49); when Peter\nconfesses, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. xvi.\n16; comp. John vi. 69); when Martha thus expresses her faith in Jesus,\nI believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God (John xi. 27); when\nthe high priest adjures Jesus to tell him if he be the Christ, the Son\nof God (Matt. xxvi. 63): it is obvious that the devil means nothing\nmore than, If thou be the Messiah; and that in the other passages the\n\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, united as it is with \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 and \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, is but an\nappellation of the Messiah.\n\nIn Hos. xi. 1; Exod. iv. 22, the people of Israel, and in 2 Sam, vii.\n14; Ps. ii. 7 (comp. lxxxix. 28), the king of that people, are called\nthe son and the first-born of God. The kings (as also the people) of\nIsrael had this appellation, in virtue of the love which Jehovah bore\nthem, and the tutelary care which he exercised over them (2 Sam. vii.\n14); and from the second psalm we gather the farther reason, that as\nearthly kings choose their sons to reign with or under them, so the\nIsraelitish kings were invested by Jehovah, the supreme ruler, with the\ngovernment of his favourite province. Thus the designation was\noriginally applicable to every Israelitish king who adhered to the\nprinciple of the theocracy; but when the messianic idea was developed,\nit was pre-eminently assigned to the Messiah, as the best-beloved Son,\nand the most powerful vicegerent of God on earth. [771]\n\nIf, then, such was the original historical signification of the\nepithet, Son of God, as applied to the Messiah, we have to ask: is it\npossible that Jesus used it of himself in this signification only, or\ndid he use it also in either of the three senses previously adduced?\nThe narrowest, the merely physical import of the term is not put into\nthe mouth of Jesus, but into that of the annunciating angel, Luke i.\n35; and for this the Evangelist alone is responsible. In the\nintermediate, metaphysical sense, implying unity of essence and\ncommunity of existence with God, it might possibly have been understood\nby Jesus, supposing him to have remodelled in his own conceptions the\ntheocratic interpretation current among his compatriots. It is true\nthat the abundant expressions having this tendency in the Gospel of\nJohn, appear to contradict those of Jesus on an occasion recorded by\nthe synoptical writers (Mark x. 17 f.; Luke xviii. 18 f.), when to a\ndisciple who accosts him as Good Master, he replies: Why callest thou\nme good? there is none good but one, that is God. Here Jesus so\ntenaciously maintains the distinction between himself and God, that he\nrenounces the predicate of (perfect) goodness, and insists on its\nappropriation to God alone. [772] Olshausen supposes that this\nrejection related solely to the particular circumstances of the\ndisciple addressed, who, regarding Jesus as a merely human teacher,\nought not from his point of view to have given him a divine epithet,\nand that it was not intended by Jesus as a denial that he was,\naccording to a just estimate of his character, actually the \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 in\nwhom the one good Being was reflected as in a mirror; but this is to\ntake for granted what is first to be proved, namely, that the\ndeclarations of Jesus concerning himself in the fourth gospel are on a\nlevel as to credibility with those recorded by the synoptical writers.\nTwo of these writers cite some words of Jesus which have an important\nbearing on our present subject: All things are delivered to me of my\nFather: and no man knoweth the Son but the Father: neither knoweth any\nman the Father, but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal\nhim, Matt. xi. 27. Taking this passage in connexion with the one before\nquoted, we must infer that Jesus had indeed an intimate communion of\nthought and will with God, but under such limitations, that the\nattribute of perfect goodness, as well as of absolute knowledge (e.g.,\nof the day and hour of the last day, Mark xiii. 32 parall.) belonged\nexclusively to God, and hence the boundary line between divine and\nhuman was strictly preserved. Even in the fourth gospel Jesus declares,\nMy Father is greater than I, \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 (xiv. 28), but\nthis slight echo of the synoptical statement does not remove the\ndifficulty of conciliating the numerous discourses of a totally\ndifferent tenor in the former, with the rejection of the epithet \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2\nin the latter. It is surprising, too, that Jesus in the fourth gospel\nappears altogether ignorant of the theocratic sense of the expression\n\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, and can only vindicate his use of it in the metaphysical\nsense, by retreating to its vague and metaphorical application. When,\nnamely (John x. 34 ff.), to justify his assumption of this title, he\nadduces the scriptural application of the term \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 to other men, such\nas princes and magistrates, we are at a loss to understand why Jesus\nshould resort to this remote and precarious argument, when close at\nhand lay the far more cogent one, that in the Old Testament, a\ntheocratic king of Israel, or according to the customary interpretation\nof the most striking passages, the Messiah, is called the Son of\nJehovah, and that therefore he, having declared himself to be the\nMessiah (v. 25), might consistently claim this appellation.\n\nWith respect to the light in which Jesus was viewed as the Son of God\nby others, we may remark that in the addresses of well-affected persons\nthe title is often so associated as to be obviously a mere synonym of\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, and this even in the fourth gospel; while on the other hand\nthe contentious \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 of this gospel seem in their objections as\nignorant as Jesus in his defence, of the theocratic, and only notice\nthe metaphysical meaning of the expression. It is true that, even in\nthe synoptical gospels, when Jesus answers affirmatively the question\nwhether he be the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. xxvi. 65,\nparall.), the high priest taxes him with blasphemy; but he refers\nmerely to what he considers the unwarranted arrogation of the\ntheocratic dignity of the Messiah, whereas in the fourth gospel, when\nJesus represents himself as the Son of God (v. 17 f., x. 30 ff.), the\nJews seek to kill him for the express reason that he thereby makes\nhimself \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7, nay even \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd. According to the synoptical\nwriters, the high priest so unhesitatingly considers the idea of the\nSon of God to pertain to that of the Messiah, that he associates the\ntwo titles as if they were interchangeable, in the question he\naddresses to Jesus: on the contrary the Jews in the Gospel of John\nregard the one idea as so far transcending the other, that they listen\npatiently to the declaration of Jesus that he is the Messiah (x. 25),\nbut as soon as he begins to claim to be the Son of God, they take up\nstones to stone him. In the synoptical gospels the reproach cast on\nJesus is, that being a common man, he gives himself out for the\nMessiah; in the fourth gospel, that being a mere man, he gives himself\nout for a divine being. Hence Olshausen and others have justly insisted\nthat in those passages of the latter gospel to which our remarks have\nreference, the \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 is not synonymous with Messiah, but is a\nname far transcending the ordinary idea of the Messiah; [773] they are\nnot, however, warranted in concluding that therefore in the first three\nEvangelists also [774] the same expression imports more than the\nMessiah. For the only legitimate interpretation of the high priest\u2019s\nquestion in Matthew makes \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 a synonym of \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, and\nthough in the parallel passage of Luke, the judges first ask Jesus if\nhe be the Christ (xxii. 67)? and when he declines a direct\nanswer,\u2014predicting that they will behold the Son of man seated at the\nright hand of God,\u2014hastily interrupt him with the question, Art thou\nthe Son of God? (v. 70); yet, after receiving what they consider an\naffirmative answer, they accuse him before Pilate as one who pretends\nto be Christ, a king (xxiii. 2), thus clearly showing that Son of man,\nSon of God, and Messiah, must have been regarded as interchangeable\nterms. It must therefore be conceded that there is a discrepancy on\nthis point between the synoptical writers and John, and perhaps also an\ninconsistency of the latter with himself; for in several addresses to\nJesus he retains the customary form, which associated Son of God with\nChrist or King of Israel, without being conscious of the distinction\nbetween the signification which \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4. \u03b8. must have in such a\nconnexion, and that in which he used it elsewhere\u2014a want of perception\nwhich habitual forms of expression are calculated to induce. We have\nbefore cited examples of this oversight in the fourth Evangelist (John\ni. 49, vi. 69, xi. 27).\n\nThe author of the Probabilia reasonably considers it suspicious that,\nin the fourth gospel, Jesus and his opponents should appear entirely\nignorant of the theocratic sense which is elsewhere attached to the\nexpression \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, and which must have been more familiar to\nthe Jews than any other, unless we suppose some of them to have\npartaken of Alexandrian culture. To such, we grant, as well as to the\nfourth Evangelist, judging from his prologue, the metaphysical relation\nof the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 to God would be the most cherished association.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 64.\n\nTHE DIVINE MISSION AND AUTHORITY OF JESUS. HIS PRE-EXISTENCE.\n\nThe four Evangelists are in unison as to the declaration of Jesus\nconcerning his divine mission and authority. Like every prophet, he is\nsent by God (Matt. x. 40; John v. 23 f., 56 f.), acts and speaks by the\nauthority, and under the immediate guidance of God (John v. 19 ff.),\nand exclusively possesses an adequate knowledge of God, which it is his\noffice to impart to men (Matt xi. 27; John iii. 13). To him, as the\nMessiah, all power is given (Matt. xi. 27); first, over the kingdom\nwhich he is appointed to found and to rule with all its members (John\nx. 29, xvii. 6); next, over mankind in general (John xvii. 2), and even\nexternal nature (Matt, xxviii. 18); consequently, should the interests\nof the messianic kingdom demand it, power to effect a thorough\nrevolution in the whole world. At the future commencement of his reign,\nJesus, as Messiah, is authorized to awake the dead (John v. 28), and to\nsit as a judge, separating those worthy to partake of the heavenly\nkingdom from the unworthy (Matt. xxv. 31 ff.; John v. 22, 29); offices\nwhich Jewish opinion attributed to the Messiah, [775] and which Jesus,\nonce convinced of his Messiahship, would necessarily transfer to\nhimself.\n\nThe Evangelists are not equally unanimous on another point. According\nto the synoptical writers, Jesus claims, it is true, the highest human\ndignity, and the most exalted relation with God, for the present and\nfuture, but he never refers to an existence anterior to his earthly\ncareer: in the fourth gospel, on the contrary, we find several\ndiscourses of Jesus which contain the repeated assertion of such a\npre-existence. We grant that when Jesus describes himself as coming\ndown from heaven (John iii. 13, xvi. 28), the expression, taken alone,\nmay be understood as a merely figurative intimation of his superhuman\norigin. It is more difficult, but perhaps admissible, to interpret,\nwith the Socinian Crell, the declaration of Jesus, Before Abraham was,\nI am, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03b3\u03c9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 (John viii. 58), as referring to a\npurely ideal existence in the pre-determination of God; but scarcely\npossible to consider the prayer to the Father (John xvii. 5) to confirm\nthe \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 (glory) which Jesus had with Him before the world was, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, as an entreaty for the communication of a glory\npredestined for Jesus from eternity. But the language of Jesus, John\nvi. 62, where he speaks of the Son of man reascending \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd where\nhe was before \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, is in its intrinsic meaning, as well\nas in that which is reflected on it from other passages, unequivocally\nsignificative of actual, not merely ideal, pre-existence.\n\nIt has been already conjectured [776] that these expressions, or at\nleast the adaptation of them to a real pre-existence, are derived, not\nfrom Jesus, but from the author of the fourth gospel, with whose\nopinions, as propounded in his introduction, they specifically agree;\nfor if the Word was in the beginning with God (\u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd),\nJesus, in whom it was made flesh, might attribute to himself an\nexistence before Abraham, and a participation of glory with the Father\nbefore the foundation of the world. Nevertheless, we are not warranted\nin adopting this view, unless it can be shown that neither was the idea\nof the pre-existence of the Messiah extant among the Jews of Palestine\nbefore the time of Jesus, nor is it probable that Jesus attained such a\nnotion, independently of the ideas peculiar to his age and nation.\n\nThe latter supposition, that Jesus spoke from his own memory of his\npre-human and pre-mundane existence, is liable to comparison with\ndangerous parallels in the history of Pythagoras, Ennius, and\nApollonius of Tyana, whose alleged reminiscences of individual states\nwhich they had experienced prior to their birth, [777] are now\ngenerally regarded either as subsequent fables, or as enthusiastic\nself-delusions of those celebrated men. For the other alternative, that\nthe idea in question was common to the Jewish nation, a presumption may\nbe found in the description, already quoted from Daniel, of the Son of\nman coming in the clouds of heaven, since the author, possibly, and, at\nall events, many readers, imagined that personage to be a superhuman\nbeing, dwelling beforehand with God, like the angels. But that every\none who referred this passage to the Messiah, or that Jesus in\nparticular, associated with it the notion of a pre-existence, is not to\nbe proved; for, if we exclude the representation of John, Jesus depicts\nhis coming in the clouds of heaven, not as if he had come as a visitant\nto earth from his home in heaven, but, according to Matt. xxvi. 65\n(comp. xxiv. 25), as if he, the earth-born, after the completion of his\nearthly course, would be received into heaven, and from thence would\nreturn to establish his kingdom: thus making the coming from heaven not\nnecessarily include the idea of pre-existence. We find in the Proverbs,\nin Sirach, and the Book of Wisdom, the idea of a personified and even\nhypostasized Wisdom of God, and in the Psalms and Prophets, strongly\nmarked personifications of the Divine word; [778] and it is especially\nworthy of note, that the later Jews, in their horror of\nanthropomorphism in the idea of the Divine being, attributed his\nspeech, appearance, and immediate agency, to the Word (\u200f\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u200e) or the\ndwelling place (\u200f\u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05d9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d0\u200e) of Jehovah, as may be seen in the venerable\n[779] Targum of Onkelos. [780] These expressions, at first mere\nparaphrases of the name of God, soon received the mystical\nsignification of a veritable hypostasis, of a being at once distinct\nfrom, and one with God. As most of the revelations and interpositions\nof God, whose organ this personified Word was considered to be, were\ndesigned in favour of the Israelitish people, it was natural for them\nto assign to the manifestation which was still awaited from Him, and\nwhich was to be the crowning benefit of Israel,\u2014the manifestation,\nnamely, of the Messiah,\u2014a peculiar relation with the Word or Shechina.\n[781] From this germ sprang the opinion that with the Messiah the\nShechina would appear, and that what was ascribed to the Shechina\npertained equally to the Messiah: an opinion not confined to the\nRabbins, but sanctioned by the Apostle Paul. According to it, the\nMessiah was, even in the wilderness, the invisible guide and benefactor\nof God\u2019s people (1 Cor. x. 4, 9); [782] he was with our first parents\nin Paradise; [783] he was the agent in creation (Col. i. 16); he even\nexisted before the creation, [784] and prior to his incarnation in\nJesus, was in a glorious fellowship with God (Phil. ii. 6).\n\nAs it is thus evident that, immediately after the time of Jesus, the\nidea of a pre-existence of the Messiah was incorporated in the higher\nJewish theology, it is no far-fetched conjecture, that the same idea\nwas afloat when the mind of Jesus was maturing, and that in his\nconception of himself as the Messiah, this attribute was included. But\nwhether Jesus were as deeply initiated in the speculations of the\nJewish schools as Paul, is yet a question, and as the author of the\nfourth gospel, versed in the Alexandrian doctrine of the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, stands\nalone in ascribing to Jesus the assertion of a pre-existence, we are\nunable to decide whether we are to put the dogma to the account of\nJesus, or of his biographer.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 65.\n\nTHE MESSIANIC PLAN OF JESUS. INDICATIONS OF A POLITICAL ELEMENT.\n\nThe Baptist pointed to a future individual, and Jesus to himself, as\nthe founder of the kingdom of heaven. The idea of that messianic\nkingdom belonged to the Israelitish nation; did Jesus hold it in the\nform in which it existed among his cotemporaries, or under\nmodifications of his own?\n\nThe idea of the Messiah grew up amongst the Jews in soil half\nreligious, half political: it was nurtured by national adversity, and\nin the time of Jesus, according to the testimony of the gospels, it was\nembodied in the expectation that the Messiah would ascend the throne of\nhis ancestor David, free the Jewish people from the Roman yoke, and\nfound a kingdom which would last for ever (Luke i. 32 f., 68 ff.; Acts\ni. 6). Hence our first question must be this. Did Jesus include this\npolitical element in his messianic plan?\n\nThat Jesus aspired to be a temporal ruler, has at all times been an\nallegation of the adversaries of Christianity, but has been maintained\nby none with so much exegetical acumen as by the author of the\nWolfenb\u00fcttel Fragments, [785] who, be it observed, by no means denies\nto Jesus the praise of aiming at the moral reformation of his nation.\nAccording to this writer, the first indication of a political plan on\nthe part of Jesus is, that he unambiguously announced the approaching\nmessianic kingdom, and laid down the conditions on which it was to be\nentered, without explaining what this kingdom was, and wherein it\nconsisted, [786] as if he supposed the current idea of its nature to be\ncorrect. Now the fact is, that the prevalent conception of the\nmessianic reign had a strong political bias; hence, when Jesus spoke of\nthe Messiah\u2019s kingdom without a definition, the Jews could only think\nof an earthly dominion, and as Jesus could not have presupposed any\nother interpretation of his words, he must have wished to be so\nunderstood. But in opposition to this it may be remarked, that in the\nParables by which Jesus shadowed forth the kingdom of heaven; in the\nSermon on the Mount, in which he illustrates the duties of its\ncitizens; and lastly, in his whole demeanour and course of action, we\nhave sufficient evidence, that his idea of the messianic kingdom was\npeculiar to himself. There is not so ready a counterpoise for the\ndifficulty, that Jesus sent the apostles, with whose conceptions he\ncould not be unacquainted, to announce the Messiah\u2019s kingdom throughout\nthe land (Matt. x.). These, who disputed which of them should be\ngreatest in the kingdom of their master (Matt, xviii. 1; Luke xxii.\n24); of whom two petitioned for the seats at the right and left of the\nmessianic king (Mark x. 35 ff.); who, even after the death and\nresurrection of Jesus, expected a restoration of the kingdom to Israel\n(Acts i. 6);\u2014these had clearly from the beginning to the end of their\nintercourse with Jesus, no other than the popular notion of the\nMessiah; when, therefore, Jesus despatched them as heralds of his\nkingdom, it seems necessarily a part of his design, that they should\ndisseminate in all places their political messianic idea.\n\nAmong the discourses of Jesus there is one especially worthy of note in\nMatt. xix. 28 (comp. Luke xxii. 30). In reply to the question of Peter,\nWe have left all and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? Jesus\npromises to his disciples that in the \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, when the Son of man\nshall sit on his throne, they also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging\nthe twelve tribes of Israel. That the literal import of this promise\nformed part of the tissue of the messianic hopes cherished by the Jews\nof that period, is not to be controverted. It is argued, however, that\nJesus spoke figuratively on this occasion, and only employed familiar\nJewish images to convey to the apostles an assurance, that the\nsacrifices they had made here would be richly compensated in their\nfuture life by a participation in his glory. [787] But the disciples\nmust have understood the promise literally, when, even after the\nresurrection of Jesus, they harboured anticipations of worldly\ngreatness; and as Jesus had had many proofs of this propensity, he\nwould hardly have adopted such language, had he not intended to nourish\ntheir temporal hopes. The supposition that he did so merely to animate\nthe courage of his disciples, without himself sharing their views,\nimputes duplicity to Jesus;\u2014a duplicity in this case quite gratuitous,\nsince, as Olshausen justly observes, Peter\u2019s question would have been\nsatisfactorily answered by any other laudatory acknowledgment of the\ndevotion of the disciples. Hence it appears a fair inference, that\nJesus himself shared the Jewish expectations which he here sanctions:\nbut expositors have made the most desperate efforts to escape from this\nunwelcome conclusion. Some have resorted to an arbitrary alteration of\nthe reading; [788] others to the detection of irony, directed against\nthe disproportion between the pretensions of the disciples, and their\ntrivial services, [789] others to different expedients, but all more\nunnatural than the admission, that Jesus, in accordance with Jewish\nideas, here promises his disciples the dignity of being his assessors\nin his visible messianic judgment, and that he thus indicates the\nexistence of a national element in his notion of the Messiah\u2019s kingdom.\nIt is observable, too, that in the Acts (i. 7), Jesus, even after his\nresurrection, does not deny that he will restore the kingdom to Israel,\nbut merely discourages curiosity as to the times and seasons of its\nrestoration.\n\nAmong the actions of Jesus, his last entry into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 1\nff.) is especially appealed to as a proof that his plan was partly\npolitical. According to the Fragmentist, all the circumstances point to\na political design: the time which Jesus chose,\u2014after a sufficiently\nlong preparation of the people in the provinces; the Passover, which\nthey visited in great numbers; the animal on which he rode, and by\nwhich, from a popular interpretation of a passage in Zechariah, he\nannounced himself as the destined King of Jerusalem; the approval which\nhe pronounces when the people receive him with a royal greeting; the\nviolent procedure which he hazards in the temple; and finally, his\nsevere philippic on the higher class of the Jews (Matt. xxiii.), at the\nclose of which he seeks to awe them into a reception of him as their\nmessianic king, by the threat that he will show himself to them no more\nin any other guise.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 66.\n\nDATA FOR THE PURE SPIRITUALITY OF THE MESSIANIC PLAN OF JESUS. BALANCE.\n\nNowhere in our evangelical narratives is there a trace of Jesus having\nsought to form a political party. On the contrary, he withdraws from\nthe eagerness of the people to make him a king (John vi. 15); he\ndeclares that the messianic kingdom comes not with observation, but is\nto be sought for in the recesses of the soul (Luke xvii. 20 f.); it is\nhis principle to unite obedience to God with obedience to temporal\nauthority, even when heathen (Matt. xxii. 21); on his solemn entry into\nthe capital, he chooses to ride the animal of peace, and afterwards\nescapes from the multitude, instead of using their excitement for the\npurposes of his ambition; lastly, he maintains before his judge, that\nhis kingdom is not from hence \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, is not of this world \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03ba\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (John xvi. 36), and we have no reason in this\ninstance to question either his or the Evangelist\u2019s veracity.\n\nThus we have a series of indications to counterbalance those detailed\nin the preceding section. The adversaries of Christianity have held\nexclusively to the arguments for a political, or rather a\nrevolutionary, project, on the part of Jesus, while the orthodox\ntheologians adhere to those only which tell for the pure spirituality\nof his plan: [790] and each party has laboured to invalidate by\nhermeneutical skill the passages unfavourable to its theory. It has of\nlate been acknowledged that both are equally partial, and that there is\nneed of arbitration between them.\n\nThis has been attempted chiefly by supposing an earlier and a later\nform of the plan of Jesus. [791] Although, it has been said, the moral\nimprovement and religious elevation of his people were from the first\nthe primary object of Jesus, he nevertheless, in the beginning of his\npublic life, cherished the hope of reviving, by means of this internal\nregeneration, the external glories of the theocracy, when he should be\nacknowledged by his nation as the Messiah, and thereby be constituted\nthe supreme authority in the state. But in the disappointment of this\nhope, he recognised the divine rejection of every political element in\nhis plan, and thenceforth refined it into pure spirituality. It is held\nto be a presumption in favour of such a change in the plan of Jesus,\nthat there is a gladness diffused over his first appearance, which\ngives place to melancholy in the latter period of his ministry; that\ninstead of the acceptable year of the Lord, announced in his initiative\naddress at Nazareth, sorrow is the burthen of his later discourses, and\nhe explicitly says of Jerusalem, that he had attempted to save it, but\nthat now its fall, both religious and political, was inevitable, As,\nhowever, the evangelists do not keep the events and discourses proper\nto these distinct periods within their respective limits, but happen to\ngive the two most important data for the imputation of a political\ndesign to Jesus (namely the promise of the twelve thrones and the\npublic entrance into the capital), near the close of his life; we must\nattribute to these writers a chronological confusion, as in the case of\nthe relation which the views of Jesus bore to the messianic idea in\ngeneral: unless as an alternative it be conceivable, that Jesus uttered\nduring the same period the declarations which seem to indicate, and\nthose which disclaim, a political design.\n\nThis, in our apprehension, is not inconceivable; for Jesus might\nanticipate a \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 for himself and his disciples, not\nregarding the means of its attainment as a political revolution, but as\na revolution to be effected by the immediate interposition of God. That\nsuch was his view may be inferred from his placing that judiciary\nappearance of his disciples in the \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1; for this was not a\npolitical revolution, any more than a spiritual regeneration,\u2014it was a\nresurrection of the dead, which God was to effect through the agency of\nthe Messiah, and which was to usher in the messianic times. [792] Jesus\ncertainly expected to restore the throne of David, and with his\ndisciples to govern a liberated people; in no degree, however, did he\nrest his hopes on the sword of human adherents (Luke xxii. 38; Matt.\nxxvi. 52), but on the legions of angels, which his heavenly Father\ncould send him (Matt. xxvi. 53). Wherever he speaks of coming in his\nmessianic glory, he depicts himself surrounded by angels and heavenly\npowers (Matt. xvi. 27, xxiv. 30 f., xxv. 31; John i. 52); before the\nmajesty of the Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven, all nations\nare to bow without the coercion of the sword, and at the sound of the\nangel\u2019s trumpet, are to present themselves, with the awakened dead,\nbefore the judgment-seat of the Messiah and his twelve apostles. All\nthis Jesus would not bring to pass of his own will, but he waited for a\nsignal from his heavenly Father, who alone knew the appropriate time\nfor this catastrophe (Mark xiii. 32), and he apparently was not\ndisconcerted when his end approached without his having received the\nexpected intimation. They who shrink from this view, merely because\nthey conceive that it makes Jesus an enthusiast, [793] will do well to\nreflect how closely such hopes corresponded with the long cherished\nmessianic idea of the Jews, [794] and how easily, in that day of\nsupernaturalism, and in a nation segregated by the peculiarities of its\nfaith, an idea, in itself extravagant, if only it were consistent, and\nhad, in some of its aspects, truth and dignity, might allure even a\nreasonable man beneath its influence.\n\nWith respect to that which awaits the righteous after\njudgment,\u2014everlasting life in the kingdom of the Father,\u2014it is true\nthat Jesus, in accordance with Jewish notions, [795] compares it to a\nfeast (Matt. viii. 11, xxii. 2 ff.), at which he hopes himself to taste\nthe fruit of the vine (Matt. xxvi. 29), and to celebrate the Passover\n(Luke xxii. 16); but his declaration that in the \u03b1\u1f30\u1f7c\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd the\norganic relation between the sexes will cease, and men will be like the\nangels (\u1f30\u03c3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, Luke xx. 35 ff.), seems more or less to reduce the\nabove discourses to a merely symbolical significance.\n\nThus we conclude that the messianic hope of Jesus was not political,\nnor even merely earthly, for he referred its fulfilment to supernatural\nmeans, and to a supermundane theatre (the regenerated earth): as little\nwas it a purely spiritual hope, in the modern sense of the term, for it\nincluded important and unprecedented changes in the external condition\nof things: but it was the national, theocratic hope, spiritualized and\nennobled by his own peculiar moral and religious views.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 67.\n\nTHE RELATION OF JESUS TO THE MOSAIC LAW.\n\nThe Mosaic institutions were actually extinguished in the church of\nwhich Jesus was the founder; hence it is natural to suppose that their\nabolition formed a part of his design:\u2014a reach of vision, beyond the\nhorizon of the ceremonial worship of his age and country, of which\napologists have been ever anxious to prove that he was possessed. [796]\nNeither are there wanting speeches and actions of Jesus which seem to\nfavour their effort. Whenever he details the conditions of\nparticipation in the kingdom of heaven, as in the Sermon on the Mount,\nhe insists, not on the observance of the Mosaic ritual, but on the\nspirit of religion and morality; he attaches no value to fasting,\npraying, and almsgiving, unless accompanied by a corresponding bent of\nmind (Matt. vi. 1\u201318); the two main elements of the Mosaic worship,\nsacrifice and the keeping of sabbaths and feasts, he not only nowhere\nenjoins, but puts a marked slight on the former, by commending the\nscribe who declared that the love of God and one\u2019s neighbour was more\nthan whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as one not far from the\nkingdom of God (Mark xii. 23 f.), [797] and he ran counter in action as\nwell as in speech to the customary mode of celebrating the Sabbath\n(Matt. xii. 1\u201313; Mark ii. 23\u201328, iii. 1\u20135; Luke vi. 1\u201310, xiii. 10\nff., xiv. 1 ff.; John v. 5 ff., vii. 22, ix. 1 ff.), of which in his\ncharacter of Son of Man he claimed to be Lord. The Jews, too, appear to\nhave expected a revision of the Mosaic law by their Messiah. [798] A\nsomewhat analogous sense is couched in the declarations attributed by\nthe fourth Evangelist to Jesus (ii. 19); Matthew (xxvi. 61) and Mark\n(xiv. 58) represent him as being accused by false witnesses of saying,\nI am able to destroy (John, destroy) the temple of God (Mark, that is\nmade with hands), and to build it in three days (Mark, I will build\nanother made without hands). The author of the Acts has something\nsimilar as an article of accusation against Stephen, but instead of the\nlatter half of the sentence it is thus added, and (he, i.e. Jesus)\nshall change the customs which Moses delivered us; and perhaps this may\nbe regarded as an authentic comment on the less explicit text. In\ngeneral it may be said that to one who, like Jesus, is so far alive to\nthe absolute value of the internal compared with the external, of the\nbent of the entire disposition compared with isolated acts, that he\npronounces the love of God and our neighbour to be the essence of the\nlaw (Matt. xxii. 36 ff.),\u2014to him it cannot be a secret, that all\nprecepts of the law which do not bear on these two points are\nunessential. But the argument apparently most decisive of a design on\nthe part of Jesus to abolish the Mosaic worship, is furnished by his\nprediction that the temple, the centre of Jewish worship (Matt. xxiv. 2\nparall.), would be destroyed, and that the adoration of God would be\nfreed from local fetters, and become purely spiritual (John iv. 21\nff.).\n\nThe above, however, presents only one aspect of the position assumed by\nJesus towards the Mosaic law; there are also data for the belief that\nhe did not meditate the overthrow of the ancient constitution of his\ncountry. This side of the question has been, at a former period, and\nfrom easily-conceived reasons, the one which the enemies of\nChristianity in its ecclesiastical form, have chosen to exhibit; [799]\nbut it is only in recent times that, the theological horizon being\nextended, the unprejudiced expositors of the church [800] have\nacknowledged its existence. In the first place, during his life Jesus\nremains faithful to the paternal law; he attends the synagogue on the\nsabbath, journeys to Jerusalem at the time of the feast, and eats of\nthe paschal lamb with his disciples. It is true that he heals on the\nsabbath, allows his disciples to pluck ears of corn (Matt. xii. 1 ff.),\nand requires no fasting or washing before meat in his society (Matt.\niv. 14, xv. 2). But the Mosaic law concerning the sabbath simply\nprescribed cessation from common labour, \u200f\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d0\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (Exod. xx. 8 ff.,\nxxxi. 12 ff., Deut. v. 12 ff.), including ploughing, reaping (Exod.\nxxxiv. 21), gathering of sticks (Num. xv. 32 ff.), and similar work,\nand it was only the spirit of petty observance, the growth of a later\nage, that made it an offence to perform cures, or pluck a few ears of\ncorn. [801] The washing of hands before eating was but a rabbinical\ncustom; [802] in the law one general yearly fast was alone prescribed\n(Lev. xvi. 29 ff., xxiii. 27 ff.) and no private fasting required;\nhence Jesus cannot be convicted of infringing the precepts of Moses.\n[803] In that very Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus exalts spiritual\nreligion so far above all ritual, he clearly presupposes the\ncontinuation of sacrifices (Matt. v. 23 f.), and declares that he is\nnot come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil (Matt. v.\n17). Even if \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, in all probability, refers chiefly to the\naccomplishment of the Old Testament prophecies, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\nmust at the same time be understood of the conservation of the Mosaic\nlaw, since in the context, perpetuity is promised to its smallest\nletter, and he who represents its lightest precept as not obligatory,\nis threatened with the lowest rank in the kingdom of heaven. [804] In\naccordance with this, the apostles adhered strictly to the Mosaic law,\neven after the feast of Pentecost; they went at the hour of prayer into\nthe temple (Acts iii. 1), clung to the synagogues and to the Mosaic\ninjunctions respecting food (x. 14), and were unable to appeal to any\nexpress declaration of Jesus as a sanction for the procedure of\nBarnabas and Paul, when the judaizing party complained of their\nbaptizing Gentiles without laying on them the burthen of the Mosaic\nlaw.\n\nThis apparent contradiction in the conduct and language of Jesus has\nbeen apologetically explained by the supposition, that not only the\npersonal obedience of Jesus to the law, but also his declarations in\nits favour, were a necessary concession to the views of his\ncotemporaries, who would at once have withdrawn their confidence from\nhim, had he announced himself as the destroyer of their holy and\nvenerated law. [805] We allow that the obedience of Jesus to the law in\nhis own person, might be explained in the same way as that of Paul,\nwhich, on his own showing, was a measure of mere expediency (1 Cor. ix.\n20, comp. Acts xvi. 3). But the strong declarations of Jesus concerning\nthe perpetuity of the law, and the guilt of him who dares to violate\nits lightest precept, cannot possibly be derived from the principle of\nconcession; for to pronounce that indispensable, which one secretly\nholds superfluous, and which one even seeks to bring gradually into\ndisuse, would, leaving honesty out of the question, be in the last\ndegree injudicious.\n\nHence others have made a distinction between the moral and the ritual\nlaw, and referred the declaration of Jesus that he wished not to\nabrogate the law, to the former alone, which he extricated from a web\nof trivial ceremonies, and embodied in his own example. [806] But such\na distinction is not found in those striking passages from the Sermon\non the Mount; rather in the \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, the law and the\nprophets, we have the most comprehensive designation of the whole\nreligious constitution of the Old Testament, [807] and under the most\ntrivial commandment, and the smallest letter of the law, alike\npronounced imperishable, we cannot well understand anything else than\nthe ceremonial precepts. [808]\n\nA happier distinction is that between really Mosaic institutes, and\ntheir traditional amplifications. [809] It is certain that the sabbath\ncures of Jesus, his neglect of the pedantic ablutions before eating,\nand the like, ran counter, not to Moses, but to later rabbinical\nrequirements, and several discourses of Jesus turn upon this\ndistinction. Matt. xv. 3 ff., Jesus places the commandment of God in\nopposition to the tradition of the elders, and Matt. xxiii. 23, he\ndeclares that where they are compatible, the former may be observed\nwithout rejecting the latter, in which case he admonishes the people to\ndo all that the scribes and Pharisees enjoin; where, on the contrary,\neither the one or the other only can be respected, he decides that it\nis better to transgress the tradition of the elders, than the\ncommandment of God as given by Moses (Matt. xv. 3 ff.). He describes\nthe mass of traditional precepts, as a burthen grievous to be borne,\nwhich he would remove from the oppressed people, substituting his own\nlight burthen and easy yoke; whence it may be seen, that with all his\nforbearance towards existing institutions, so far as they were not\npositively pernicious, it was his intention that all these commandments\nof men, as plants which his heavenly Father had not planted, should be\nrooted up (xv. 9, 13). The majority of the Pharisaical precepts\nreferred to externals, and had the effect of burying the noble morality\nof the Mosaic law under a heap of ceremonial observances; a gift to the\ntemple sufficed to absolve the giver from his filial duties (xv. 5),\nand the payment of tithe of anise and cummin superseded justice, mercy,\nand faith (xxiii. 23). Hence this distinction is in some degree\nidentical with the former, since in the rabbinical institutes it was\ntheir merely ceremonial tendency that Jesus censured, while, in the\nMosaic law, it was the kernel of religion and morality that he chiefly\nvalued. It must only not be contended that he regarded the Mosaic law\nas permanent solely in its spiritual part, for the passages quoted,\nespecially from the Sermon on the Mount, clearly show that he did not\ncontemplate the abolition of the merely ritual precepts.\n\nJesus, supposing that he had discerned morality and the spiritual\nworship of God to be the sole essentials in religion, must have\nrejected all which, being merely ritual and formal, had usurped the\nimportance of a religious obligation, and under this description must\nfall a large proportion of the Mosaic precepts; but it is well known\nhow slowly such consequences are deduced, when they come into collision\nwith usages consecrated by antiquity. Even Samuel, apparently, was\naware that obedience is better than sacrifice (1 Sam. xv. 22), and\nAsaph, that an offering of thanksgiving is more acceptable to God than\none of slain animals (Ps. 1.); yet how long after were sacrifices\nretained together with true obedience, or in its stead! Jesus was more\nthoroughly penetrated with this conviction than those ancients; with\nhim, the true commandments of God in the Mosaic law were simply, Honour\nthy father and thy mother, Thou shalt not kill, etc., and above all,\nThou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour\nas thyself. But his deep-rooted respect for the sacred book of the law,\ncaused him, for the sake of these essential contents, to honour the\nunessential; which was the more natural, as in comparison with the\nabsurdly exaggerated pedantry of the traditional observances, the\nritual of the Pentateuch must have appeared highly simple. To honour\nthis latter part of the law as of Divine origin, but to declare it\nabrogated on the principle, that in the education of the human race,\nGod finds necessary for an earlier period an arrangement which is\nsuperfluous for a later one, implies that idea of the law as a\nschoolmaster, \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 (Gal. iii. 24), which seems first to\nhave been developed by the Apostle Paul; nevertheless, its germ lies in\nthe declaration of Jesus, that God had permitted to the early Hebrews,\non account of the hardness of their hearts (Matt. xix. 8 f.), many\nthings which, in a more advanced state of culture, were inadmissible.\n\nA similar limitation of the duration of the law is involved in the\npredictions of Jesus (if indeed they were uttered by Jesus, a point\nwhich we have to discuss), that the temple would be destroyed at his\napproaching advent (Matt. xxiv. parall.), and that devotion would be\nfreed from all local restrictions (John iv.); for with these must fall\nthe entire Mosaic system of external worship. This is not contradicted\nby the declaration that the law would endure until heaven and earth\nshould pass away (Matt. v. 18), for the Hebrew associated the fall of\nhis state and sanctuary with the end of the old world or dispensation,\nso that the expressions, so long as the temple stands, and so long as\nthe world stands, were equivalent. [810] It is true that the words of\nJesus, Luke xvi. 16, \u1f41 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, seem to\nimply, that the appearance of the Baptist put an end to the validity of\nthe law; but this passage loses its depreciatory sense when compared\nwith its parallel, Matt xi. 13. On the other hand, Luke xvi. 17\ncontrols Matt. v. 18, and reduces it to a mere comparison between the\nstability of the law, and that of heaven and earth. The only question\nthen is, in which of the gospels are the two passages more correctly\nstated? As given in the first, they intimate that the law would retain\nits supremacy until, and not after, the close of the old dispensation.\nWith this agrees the prediction, that the temple would be destroyed;\nfor the spiritualization of religion, and, according to Stephen\u2019s\ninterpretation, the abolition of the Mosaic law, which were to be the\nresults of that event, were undoubtedly identified by Jesus with the\ncommencement of the \u03b1\u1f30\u1f7c\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd of the Messiah. Hence it appears, that\nthe only difference between the view of Paul and that of Jesus is this:\nthat the latter anticipated the extinction of the Mosaic system as a\nconcomitant of his glorious advent or return to the regenerated earth,\nwhile the former believed its abolition permissible on the old,\nunregenerated earth, in virtue of the Messiah\u2019s first advent. [811]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 68.\n\nSCOPE OF THE MESSIANIC PLAN OF JESUS. RELATION TO THE GENTILES.\n\nAlthough the church founded by Jesus did, in fact, early extend itself\nbeyond the limits of the Jewish people, there are yet indications which\nmight induce a belief that he did not contemplate such an extension.\n[812] When he sends the twelve on their first mission, his command is,\nGo not into the way of the Gentiles\u2014Go rather to the lost sheep of the\nhouse of Israel (Matt. x. 5 f.). That Matthew alone has this\ninjunction, and not the two other synoptists, is less probably\nexplained by the supposition that the Hebrew author of the first gospel\ninterpolated it, than by the opposite one, namely, that it was wilfully\nomitted by the Hellenistic authors of the second and third gospels.\nFor, as the judaizing tendency of Matthew is not so marked that he\nassigns to Jesus the intention of limiting the messianic kingdom to the\nJews; as, on the contrary, he makes Jesus unequivocally foretell the\ncalling of the Gentiles (viii. 11 f., xxi. 33 ff., xxii. 1 ff., xxviii.\n19 f.): he had no motive for fabricating this particularizing addition;\nbut the two other Evangelists had a strong one for its omission, in the\noffence which it would cause to the Gentiles already within the fold.\nIts presence in Matthew, however, demands an explanation, and\nexpositors have thought to furnish one by supposing the injunction of\nJesus to be a measure of prudence. [813] It is unquestionable that,\neven if the plan of Jesus comprehended the Gentiles as well as the\nJews, he must at first, if he would not for ever ruin his cause with\nhis fellow-countrymen, adopt, and prescribe to the disciples, a rule of\nnational exclusiveness. This necessity on his part might account for\nhis answer to the Canaanitish woman, whose daughter he refuses to heal,\nbecause he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel\n(Matt. xv. 24), were it not that the boon which he here denies is not a\nreception into the messianic kingdom, but a temporal benefit, such as\neven Elijah and Elisha had conferred on those who were not Israelites\n(1 Kings xvii. 9 ff.; 2 Kings v. 1 ff.)\u2014examples to which Jesus\nelsewhere appeals (Luke iv. 25 ff.). Hence the disciples thought it\nnatural and unobjectionable to grant the woman\u2019s petition, and it could\nnot be prudential considerations that withheld Jesus, for a time, from\ncompliance. That an aversion to the Gentiles may not appear to be his\nmotive, it has been conjectured [814] that Jesus, wishing to preserve\nan incognito in that country, avoided the performance of any messianic\nwork. But such a design of concealment is only mentioned by Mark (vii.\n25), who represents it as being defeated by the entreaties of the\nwoman, contrary to the inclinations of Jesus; and as this Evangelist\nomits the declaration of Jesus, that he was not sent but to the lost\nsheep of the house of Israel, we must suspect that he was guided by the\nwish to supply a less offensive motive for the conduct of Jesus, rather\nthan by historical accuracy. Had Jesus really been influenced by the\nmotive which Mark assigns, he must at once have alleged it to his\ndisciples instead of a merely ostensible one, calculated to strengthen\ntheir already rigid exclusiveness. We should therefore rather listen to\nthe opinion that Jesus sought, by his repeated refusal, to prove the\nfaith of the woman, and furnish an occasion for its exhibition, [815]\nif we could find in the text the slightest trace of mere dissimulation;\nand none of a real change of mind. [816] Even Mark, bent as he was on\nsoftening the features of the incident, cannot have thought of a\ndissimulation of this kind; otherwise, instead of omitting the harsh\nwords and making the inadequate addition, and would have no man know\nit, he would have removed the offence in the most satisfactory manner,\nby an observation such as, he said this to prove her (comp. John vi.\n6). Thus it must be allowed that Jesus in this case seems to share the\nantipathy of his countrymen towards the Gentiles, nay, his antipathy\nseems to be of a deeper stamp than that of his disciples; unless their\nadvocacy of the woman be a touch from the pencil of tradition, for the\nsake of contrast and grouping.\n\nThis narrative, however, is neutralized by another, in which Jesus is\nsaid to act in a directly opposite manner. The centurion of Capernaum,\nalso a Gentile (as we gather from the remarks of Jesus), has scarcely\ncomplained of a distress similar to that of the Canaanitish woman, when\nJesus himself volunteers to go and heal his servant (Matt. viii. 5).\nIf, then, Jesus has no hesitation, in this instance, to exercise his\npower of healing in favour of a heathen, how comes it that he refuses\nto do so in another quite analogous case? Truly if the relative\nposition of the two narratives in the gospels have any weight, he must\nhave shown himself more harsh and narrow at the later period than at\nthe earlier one. Meanwhile, this single act of benevolence to a\nGentile, standing as it does in inexplicable contradiction to the\nnarrative above examined, cannot prove, in opposition to the command\nexpressly given to the disciples, not to go to the Gentiles, that Jesus\ncontemplated their admission as such into the messianic kingdom.\n\nEven the prediction of Jesus that the kingdom of heaven would be taken\nfrom the Jews and given to the Gentiles, does not prove this. In the\nabove interview with the centurion of Capernaum, Jesus declares that\nmany shall come from the east and the west, and sit down with the\npatriarchs in the kingdom of heaven, while the children of the kingdom\n(obviously the Jews), for whom it was originally designed, will be cast\nout (Matt. viii. 11 f.). Yet more decidedly, when applying the parable\nof the husbandmen in the vineyard, he warns his countrymen that the\nkingdom of God shall be taken from them, and given to a nation bringing\nforth the fruits thereof (Matt. xxi. 43). All this may be understood in\nthe sense intended by the prophets, in their promises that the\nmessianic kingdom would extend to all nations; namely, that the\nGentiles would turn to the worship of Jehovah, embrace the Mosaic\nreligion in its entire form, and afterwards be received into the\nMessiah\u2019s kingdom. It would accord very well with this expectation,\nthat, prior to such a conversion, Jesus should forbid his disciples to\ndirect their announcement of his kingdom to the Gentiles.\n\nBut in the discourses concerning his re-appearance, Jesus regards the\npublication of the gospel to all nations as one of the circumstances\nthat must precede that event (Matt. xxiv. 14; Mark xiii. 10); and after\nhis resurrection, according to the synoptists, he gave his disciples\nthe command, Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them, etc. (Matt.\nxxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; Luke xxiv. 47); i.e. go to them with the\noffer of the Messiah\u2019s kingdom, even though they may not beforehand\nhave become Jews. Not only, however, do the disciples, after the first\nPentecost, neglect to execute this command, but when a case is thrust\non them which offers them an opportunity for compliance with it, they\nact as if they were altogether ignorant that such a direction had been\ngiven by Jesus (Acts x., xi.). The heathen centurion Cornelius, worthy,\nfrom his devout life, of a reception into the messianic community, is\npointed out by an angel to the Apostle Peter. But because it was not\nhidden from God, with what difficulty the apostle would be induced to\nreceive a heathen, without further preliminary, into the Messiah\u2019s\nkingdom, he saw it needful to prepare him for such a step by a\nsymbolical vision. In consequence of such an admonition Peter goes to\nCornelius; but to impel him to baptize him and his family, he needs a\nsecond sign, the pouring out of the Holy Ghost on these uncircumcised.\nWhen, subsequently, the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem call him to\naccount for this reception of Gentiles, Peter appeals in his\njustification solely to the recent vision, and to the Holy Ghost given\nto the centurion\u2019s family. Whatever judgment we may form of the\ncredibility of this history, it is a memorial of the many deliberations\nand contentions which it cost the apostles after the departure of\nJesus, to convince themselves of the eligibility of Gentiles for a\nparticipation in the kingdom of their Christ, and the reasons which at\nlast brought them to a decision. Now if Jesus had given so explicit a\ncommand as that above quoted, what need was there of a vision to\nencourage Peter to its fulfilment? or, supposing the vision to be a\nlegendary investiture of the natural deliberations of the disciples,\nwhy did they go about in search of the reflection, that all men ought\nto be baptized, because before God all men and all animals, as his\ncreatures, are clean, if they could have appealed to an express\ninjunction of Jesus? Here, then, is the alternative: if Jesus himself\ngave this command, the disciples cannot have been led to the admission\nof the Gentiles by the means narrated in Acts x., xi.; if, on the other\nhand, that narrative is authentic, the alleged command of Jesus cannot\nbe historical. Our canon decides for the latter proposition. For that\nthe subsequent practice and pre-eminent distinction of the Christian\nChurch, its accessibility to all nations, and its indifference to\ncircumcision or uncircumcision, should have lain in the mind of its\nfounder, is the view best adapted to exalt and adorn Jesus; while that,\nafter his death, and through the gradual development of relations, the\nchurch, which its Founder had designed for the Gentiles only in so far\nas they became Jews, should break through these limits, is in the\nsimple, natural, and therefore the probable course of things.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 69.\n\nRELATION OF THE MESSIANIC PLAN OF JESUS TO THE SAMARITANS. HIS\nINTERVIEW WITH THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA.\n\nThere is the same apparent contradiction in the position which Jesus\ntook, and prescribed to his disciples, towards the inhabitants of\nSamaria. While in his instructions to his disciples (Matt. x. 5), he\nforbids them to visit any city of the Samaritans, we read in John (iv.)\nthat Jesus himself in his journey through Samaria laboured as the\nMessiah with great effect, and ultimately stayed two days in a\nSamaritan town; and in the Acts (i. 8), that before his ascension he\ncharged the disciples to be his witnesses, not only in Jerusalem and in\nall Judea, but also in Samaria. That Jesus did not entirely shun\nSamaria, as that prohibition might appear to intimate, is evident from\nLuke ix. 52 (comp. xvii. 11), where his disciples bespeak lodgings for\nhim in a Samaritan village, when he has determined to go to Jerusalem;\na circumstance which accords with the information of Josephus, that\nthose Galileans who journeyed to the feasts usually went through\nSamaria. [817] That Jesus was not unfavourable to the Samaritans, nay,\nthat in many respects he acknowledged their superiority to the Jews, is\nevident from his parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 30 ff.); he\nalso bestows a marked notice on the case of a Samaritan, who, among ten\ncleansed, was the only one that testified his gratitude (Luke xvii.\n16); and, if we may venture on such a conclusion from John iv. 25, and\nsubsequent records, [818] the inhabitants of Samaria themselves had\nsome tincture of the messianic idea.\n\nHowever natural it may appear that Jesus should avail himself of this\nsusceptible side of the Samaritans, by opportunely announcing to them\nthe messianic kingdom; the aspect which the four Evangelists bear to\neach other on this subject must excite surprise. Matthew has no\noccasion on which Jesus comes in contact with the Samaritans, or even\nmentions them, except in the prohibition above quoted; Mark is more\nneutral than Matthew, and has not even that prohibition; Luke has two\ninstances of contact, one of them unfavourable, the other favourable,\ntogether with the parable in which Jesus presents a Samaritan as a\nmodel, and his approving notice of the gratitude of one whom he had\nhealed; John, finally, has a narrative in which Jesus appears in a very\nintimate and highly favourable relation to the Samaritans. Are all\nthese various accounts well founded? If so, how could Jesus at one time\nprohibit his disciples from including the Samaritans in the messianic\nplan, and at another time, himself receive them without hesitation?\nMoreover, if the chronological order of the Evangelists deserve regard,\nthe ministry of Jesus in Samaria must have preceded the prohibition\ncontained in his instructions to his disciples on their first mission.\nFor the scene of that mission being Galilee, and there being no space\nfor its occurrence during the short stay which, according to the fourth\nEvangelist, Jesus made in that province before the first Passover (ii.\n1\u201313), it must be placed after that Passover; and, as the visit to\nSamaria was made on his journey, after that visit also. How, then,\ncould Jesus, after having with the most desirable issue, personally\ntaught in Samaria, and presented himself as the Messiah, forbid his\ndisciples to carry thither their messianic tidings? On the other hand,\nif the scenes narrated by John occurred after the command recorded by\nMatthew, the disciples, instead of wondering that Jesus talked so\nearnestly with a woman (John iv. 27), ought rather to have wondered\nthat he held any converse with a Samaritan. [819]\n\nSince then of the two extreme narratives at least, in Matthew and John,\nneither presupposes the other, we must either doubt the authenticity of\nthe exclusive command of Jesus, or of his connexion with the\ninhabitants of Samaria.\n\nIn this conflict between the gospels, we have again the advantage of\nappealing to the Book of Acts as an umpire. Before Peter, at the divine\ninstigation, had received the firstfruits of the Gentiles into the\nMessiah\u2019s kingdom, Philip the deacon, being driven from Jerusalem by\nthe persecution of which Stephen\u2019s death was the commencement,\njourneyed to the city of Samaria, where he preached Christ, and by\nmiracles of all kinds won the Samaritans to the faith, and to the\nreception of baptism (Acts viii. 5 ff.). This narrative is a complete\ncontrast to that of the first admission of the Gentiles: while in the\none there was need of a vision, and a special intimation from the\nSpirit, to bring Peter into communication with the heathens; in the\nother, Philip, without any precedent, unhesitatingly baptizes the\nSamaritans. And lest it should be said that the deacon was perhaps of a\nmore liberal spirit than the apostle, we have Peter himself coming\nforthwith to Samaria in company with John,\u2014an incident which forms\nanother point of opposition between the two narratives; for, while the\nfirst admission of the Gentiles makes a highly unfavourable impression\non the mother church at Jerusalem, the report that Samaria had received\nthe word of God meets with so warm an approval there, that the two most\ndistinguished apostles are commissioned to confirm and consummate the\nwork begun by Philip. The tenor of this proceeding makes it not\nimprobable that there was a precedent for it in the conduct of Jesus,\nor at least a sanction in his expressions.\n\nThe narrative in the fourth Gospel (iv.) would form a perfect precedent\nin the conduct of Jesus, but we have yet to examine whether it bears\nthe stamp of historical credibility. We do not, with the author of the\nProbabilia, stumble at the designation of the locality, and the opening\nof the conversation between Jesus and the woman; [820] but from v. 16\ninclusively, there are, as impartial expositors confess, [821] many\ngrave difficulties. The woman had entreated Jesus to give her of the\nwater which was for ever to extinguish thirst, and Jesus immediately\nsays, Go, call thy husband. Why so? It has been said that Jesus, well\nknowing that the woman had no lawful husband, sought to shame her, and\nbring her to repentance. [822] L\u00fccke, disapproving the imputation of\ndissimulation to Jesus, conjectures that, perceiving the woman\u2019s\ndulness, he hoped by summoning her husband, possibly her superior in\nintelligence, to create an opportunity for a more beneficial\nconversation. But if Jesus, as it presently appears, knew that the\nwoman had not at the time any proper husband, he could not in earnest\ndesire her to summon him; and if, as L\u00fccke allows, he had that\nknowledge in a supernatural manner, it could not be hidden from him,\nwho knew what was in man, that she would be little inclined to comply\nwith his injunction. If, however, he had a prescience that what he\nrequired would not be done, the injunction was a feint, and had some\nlatent object. But that this object was the penitence of the woman\nthere is no indication in the text, for the ultimate effect on her is\nnot shame and penitence, but faith in the prophetic insight of Jesus\n(v. 19). And this was doubtless what Jesus wished, for the narrative\nproceeds as if he had attained his purpose with the woman, and the\nissue corresponded to the design. The difficulty here lies, not so much\nin what L\u00fccke terms dissimulation,\u2014since this comes under the category\nof blameless temptation (\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd), elsewhere occurring,\u2014as in the\nviolence with which Jesus wrests an opportunity for the display of his\nprophetic gifts.\n\nBy a transition equally abrupt, the woman urges the conversation to a\npoint at which the Messiahship of Jesus may become fully evident. As\nsoon as she has recognised Jesus to be a prophet, she hastens to\nconsult him on the controversy pending between the Jews and Samaritans,\nas to the place appropriated to the true worship of God (v. 20). That\nso vivid an interest in this national and religious question is not\nconsistent with the limited mental and circumstantial condition of the\nwoman, the majority of modern commentators virtually confess, by their\nadoption of the opinion, that her drift in this remark was to turn away\nthe conversation from her own affairs. [823] If then the implied query\nconcerning the place for the true worship of God, had no serious\ninterest for the woman, but was prompted by a false shame calculated to\nhinder confession and repentance, those expositors should remember what\nthey elsewhere repeat to satiety, [824] that in the Gospel of John the\nanswers of Jesus refer not so much to the ostensible meaning of\nquestions, as to the under current of feeling of which they are the\nindications. In accordance with this method, Jesus should not have\nanswered the artificial question of the woman as if it had been one of\ndeep seriousness; he ought rather to have evaded it, and recurred to\nthe already detected stain on her conscience, which she was now seeking\nto hide, in order if possible to bring her to a full conviction and\nopen avowal of her guilt. But the fact is that the object of the\nEvangelist was to show that Jesus had been recognised, not merely as a\nprophet, but as the Messiah, and he believed that to turn the\nconversation to the question of the legitimate place for the worship of\nGod, the solution of which was expected from the Messiah, [825] would\nbest conduce to that end.\n\nJesus evinces (v. 17) an acquaintance with the past history and present\nposition of the woman. The rationalists have endeavoured to explain\nthis by the supposition, that while Jesus sat at the well, and the\nwoman was advancing from the city, some passer-by hinted to him that he\nhad better not engage in conversation with her, as she was on the watch\nto obtain a sixth husband. [826] But not to insist on the improbability\nthat a passer-by should hold a colloquy with Jesus on the character of\nan obscure woman, the friends as well as the enemies of the fourth\ngospel now agree, that every natural explanation of that knowledge on\nthe part of Jesus, directly counteracts the design of the Evangelist.\n[827] For, according to him, the disclosure which Jesus makes of his\nprivity to the woman\u2019s intimate concerns, is the immediate cause, not\nonly of her own faith in him, but of that of many inhabitants of the\ncity (v. 39), and he obviously intends to imply that they were not too\nprecipitate in receiving him as a prophet, on that ground alone. Thus\nin the view of the Evangelist, the knowledge in question was an\neffluence of the higher nature of Jesus, and modern supranaturalists\nadhere to this explanation, adducing in its support the power which\nJohn attributes to him (ii. 24 f.), of discerning what is in man\nwithout the aid of external testimony. [828] But this does not meet the\ncase; for Jesus here not only knows what is in the woman,\u2014her present\nequivocal state of mind towards him who is not her husband,\u2014he has\ncognizance also of the extrinsic fact that she has had five husbands,\nof whom we cannot suppose that each had left a distinct image in her\nmind traceable by the observation of Jesus. That by means of the\npenetrative acumen with which he scrutinized the hearts of those with\nwhom he had to do, Jesus should also have a prophetic insight into his\nown messianic destiny, and the fortunes of his kingdom, may under a\ncertain view of his person appear probable, and in any case must be\ndeemed in the highest degree dignified; but that he should be\nacquainted, even to the most trivial details, with the adventitious\nhistory of obscure individuals, is an idea that degrades him in\nproportion to the exaltation of his prophetic dignity. Such empirical\nknowingness (not omniscience) would moreover annihilate the human\nconsciousness which the orthodox view supposes to co-exist in Jesus.\n[829] But the possession of this knowledge, however it may clash with\nour conception of dignity and wisdom, closely corresponds to the Jewish\nnotion of a prophet, more especially of the Messiah; in the Old\nTestament, Daniel recites a dream of Nebuchadnezzar, which that monarch\nhimself had forgotten (Dan. ii.); in the Clementine Homilies, the true\nprophet is \u1f41 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; [830] and the rabbins\nnumber such a knowledge of personal secrets among the signs of the\nMessiah, and observe that from the want of it, Bar-Cocheba was detected\nto be a pseudo-Messiah. [831]\n\nFarther on (v. 23) Jesus reveals to the woman what Hase terms the\nsublimest principle of his religion, namely, that the service of God\nconsists in a life of piety; tells her that all ceremonial worship is\nabout to be abolished; and that he is the personage who will effect\nthis momentous change, that is, the Messiah. We have already shown it\nto be improbable that Jesus, who did not give his disciples to\nunderstand that he was the Messiah until a comparatively late period,\nshould make an early and distinct disclosure on the subject to a\nSamaritan woman. In what respect was she worthy of a communication more\nexplicit than ever fell to the lot of the disciples? What could induce\nJesus to send roaming into the futurity of religious history, the\ncontemplation of a woman, whom he should rather have induced to examine\nherself, and to ponder on the corruptions of her own heart? Nothing but\nthe wish to elicit from her, at any cost, and without regard to her\nmoral benefit, an acknowledgment, not only of his prophetic gifts, but\nof his Messiahship; to which end it was necessary to give the\nconversation the above direction. But so contracted a design can never\nbe imputed to Jesus, who, on other occasions, exemplifies a more\nsuitable mode of dealing with mankind: it is the design of the\nglorifying legend, or of an idealizing biographer.\n\nMeanwhile, continues the narrative (v. 27), the disciples of Jesus\nreturned from the city with provisions, and marvelled that he talked\nwith a woman, contrary to rabbinical rule. [832] While the woman,\nexcited by the last disclosure of Jesus, hastens homeward to invite her\nfellow-citizens to come and behold the Messiah-like stranger, the\ndisciples entreat him to partake of the food they have procured; he\nanswers, I have meat to eat that ye know not of (v. 32). They,\nmisunderstanding his words, imagine that some person has supplied him\nwith food in their absence: one of those carnal interpretations of\nexpressions intended spiritually by Jesus, which are of perpetual\nrecurrence in the fourth gospel, and are therefore suspicious. Then\nfollows a discourse on sowing and reaping (v. 35 ff.), which, compared\nwith v. 37, can only mean that what Jesus has sown, the disciples will\nreap. [833] We admit that this is susceptible of the general\ninterpretation, that the germ of the kingdom of God, which blossomed\nand bore fruit under the cultivation of the apostles, was first\ndeposited in the world by Jesus: but it cannot be denied that a special\napplication is also intended. Jesus foresees that the woman, who is\nhastening towards the city, will procure him an opportunity of sowing\nthe seed of the gospel in Samaria, and he promises the disciples that\nthey at a future time shall reap the fruits of his labours. Who is not\nhere reminded of the propagation of Christianity in Samaria by Philip\nand the apostles, as narrated in the Acts? [834] That, even abstracting\nall supernaturalism from our idea of the person of Jesus, he might have\nforeseen this progress of his cause in Samaria from his knowledge of\nits inhabitants, is not to be denied; but as the above figurative\nprediction forms part of a whole more than improbable in an historical\npoint of view, it is equally liable to suspicion, especially as it is\neasy to show how it might originate without any foundation in fact.\nAccording to the prevalent tradition of the early church, as recorded\nin the synoptical gospels, Jesus laboured personally in Galilee, Judea,\nand Perea only,\u2014not in Samaria, which, however, as we learn from the\nActs, embraced the gospel at no remote period from his death. How\nnatural the tendency to perfect the agency of Jesus, by representing\nhim to have sown the heavenly seed in Samaria, thus extending his\nministry through all parts of Palestine; to limit the glory of the\napostles and other teachers to that of being the mere reapers of the\nharvest in Samaria; and to put this distinction, on a suitable\noccasion, into the mouth of Jesus!\n\nThe result, then, of our examination of John\u2019s Samaritan narrative is,\nthat we cannot receive it as a real history: and the impression which\nit leaves as a whole tends to the same conclusion. Since Heracleon and\nOrigen, [835] the more ancient commentators have seldom refrained from\ngiving the interview of Jesus with the woman of Samaria an allegorical\ninterpretation, on the ground that the entire scene has a legendary and\npoetic colouring. Jesus is seated at a well,\u2014that idyllic locality with\nwhich the old Hebrew legend associates so many critical incidents; at\nthe identical well, moreover, which a tradition, founded on Gen.\nxxxiii. 19, xlviii. 22; Josh. xxiv. 32, reported to have been given by\nJacob to his son Joseph; hence the spot, in addition to its idyllic\ninterest, has the more decided consecration of national and patriarchal\nrecollections, and is all the more worthy of being trodden by the\nMessiah. At the well Jesus meets with a woman who has come out to draw\nwater, just as, in the Old Testament, the expectant Eliezer encounters\nRebekah with her pitcher, and as Jacob meets with Rachel, the destined\nancestress of Israel, or Moses with his future wife. Jesus begs of the\nwoman to let him drink; so does Eliezer of Rebekah; after Jesus has\nmade himself known to the woman as the Messiah, she runs back to the\ncity, and fetches her neighbours: so Rebekah, after Eliezer has\nannounced himself as Abraham\u2019s steward, and Rachel, after she has\ndiscovered that Jacob is her kinsman, hasten homeward to call their\nfriends to welcome the honoured guest. It is, certainly, not one\nblameless as those early mothers in Israel, whom Jesus here encounters;\nfor this woman came forth as the representative of an impure people,\nwho had been faithless to their marriage bond with Jehovah, and were\nthen living in the practice of a false worship; while her good-will,\nher deficient moral strength, and her obtuseness in spiritual things,\nperfectly typify the actual state of the Samaritans. Thus, the\ninterview of Jesus with the woman of Samaria is only a poetical\nrepresentation of his ministry among the Samaritans narrated in the\nsequel; and this is itself a legendary prelude to the propagation of\nthe gospel in Samaria after the death of Jesus.\n\nRenouncing the event in question as unhistorical, we know nothing of\nany connexion formed by Jesus with the Samaritans, and there remain as\nindications of his views regarding them, only his favourable notice of\nan individual from among them (Luke xvii. 16); his unpropitious\nreception in one of their villages (Luke ix. 53); the prohibition with\nrespect to them, addressed to his disciples (Matt. x. 5); the\neulogistic parable (Luke x. 30 ff.); and his valedictory command, that\nthe gospel should be preached in Samaria (Acts i. 8). This express\ncommand being subsequent to the resurrection of Jesus, its reality must\nremain problematical for us until we have examined the evidence for\nthat capital fact; and it is to be questioned whether without it, and\nnotwithstanding the alleged prohibition, the unhesitating conduct of\nthe apostles, Acts viii., can be explained. Are we then to suppose on\nthe part of the apostolic history, a cancelling of hesitations and\ndeliberations that really occurred; or on the part of Matthew, an\nunwarranted ascription of national bigotry to Jesus; or, finally, on\nthe part of Jesus, a progressive enlargement of view?\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE DISCIPLES OF JESUS.\n\n\u00a7 70.\n\nCALLING OF THE FIRST COMPANIONS OF JESUS. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST\nTWO EVANGELISTS AND THE FOURTH.\n\nThe first two Evangelists agree in stating that Jesus, when walking by\nthe sea of Galilee, called, first, the two brothers Andrew and Peter,\nand immediately after, James and John, to forsake their fishing nets,\nand to follow him (Matt. iv. 18\u201322; Mark i. 16\u201320). The fourth\nEvangelist also narrates (i. 35\u201351), how the first disciples came to\nattach themselves to Jesus, and among them we find Peter and Andrew,\nand, in all probability, John, for it is generally agreed that the\nnameless companion of Andrew was that ultimately favourite apostle.\nJames is absent from this account, and instead of his vocation, we have\nthat of Philip and Nathanael. But even when the persons are the same,\nall the particulars of their meeting with Jesus are variously detailed.\nIn the two synoptical gospels, the scene is the coast of the Galilean\nsea: in the fourth, Andrew, Peter, and their anonymous friend, unite\nthemselves to Jesus in the vicinity of the Jordan; Philip and\nNathanael, on the way from thence into Galilee. In the former, again,\nJesus in two instances calls a pair of brothers; in the latter, it is\nfirst Andrew and his companion, then Peter, and anon Philip and\nNathanael, who meet with Jesus. But the most important difference is\nthis: while, in Matthew and Mark, the brethren are called from their\nfishing immediately by Jesus; in John, nothing more is said of the\nrespective situations of those who were summoned, than that they come,\nand are found, and Jesus himself calls only Philip; Andrew and his\nnameless companion being directed to him by the Baptist, Peter brought\nby Andrew, and Nathanael by Philip.\n\nThus the two narratives appear to refer to separate events; and if it\nbe asked which of those events was prior to the other, we must reply\nthat John seems to assign the earlier date to his incidents, for he\nrepresents them as taking place before the return of Jesus from the\nscene of his baptism into Galilee; while the synoptists place theirs\nafter that journey, especially if, according to a calculation often\nadopted, we regard the return into Galilee, which they make so\nimportant an epoch, as being that from the first Passover, not from the\nbaptism. It is evident, too, from the intrinsic nature of the\noccurrences reported by the fourth Evangelist, that they could not have\nsucceeded those in Matthew and Mark. For if, as these writers tells us,\nAndrew and John had already followed Jesus, they could not again be in\nthe train of the Baptist, as we see them in the fourth gospel, nor\nwould it have been necessary for that teacher to have directed their\nattention to Jesus; neither if Peter had already been called by Jesus\nhimself to become a fisher of men, was there any need for his brother\nAndrew to bring him to his already elected master. Nevertheless,\nexpositors with one voice declare that the two narratives are equally\nadapted to precede, or follow, each other. The fourth gospel, say they,\n[836] recounts merely the first introduction of these men to Jesus;\nthey did not forthwith become his constant followers, but were first\ninstalled by Jesus in their proper discipleship on the occasion which\nthe synoptists have preserved.\n\nLet us test the justness of their view. In the synoptical narrative\nJesus says to his future disciples, Come after me, \u03b4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, and\nthe result is that they follow him (\u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7). If we understand\nfrom this that the disciples thenceforth constantly followed Jesus, how\ncan we give a different interpretation to the similar expression in the\nfourth gospel, Follow me, \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9? It is therefore a laudable\nconsistency in Paulus, to see, in both instances, merely an invitation\nto a temporary companionship during a walk in the immediate\nneighbourhood. [837] But this interpretation is incompatible with the\nsynoptical history. How could Peter, at a later period, say so\nemphatically to Jesus, We have left all, and followed thee: what shall\nwe have therefore?\u2014how could Jesus promise to him and to every one who\nhad forsaken houses, etc., a hundredfold recompense (Matt. xix. 27\nff.), if this forsaking and following had been so transient and\ninterrupted? From these considerations alone it is probable that the\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 in John also denotes the commencement of a permanent\nconnexion; but there are besides the plainest indications that this is\nthe case in the context to the narrative. Precisely as in the\nsynoptical gospels, Jesus appears alone before the scene of the\nvocation, but after this on every fit occasion the attendance of his\ndisciples is mentioned: so in the fourth gospel, from the time of the\noccurrence in question, the previously solitary Jesus appears in the\ncompany of his disciples (ii. 2, xii. 17, iii. 22, iv. 8, 27, etc.). To\nsay that these disciples, acquired in Per\u00e6a, again dispersed themselves\nafter the return of Jesus into Galilee, [838] is to do violence to the\ngospels out of harmonistic zeal. But even supposing such a dispersion,\nthey could not, in the short time which it is possible to allow for\ntheir separation from Jesus, have become so completely strangers to\nhim, that he would have been obliged to re-open an acquaintance with\nthem after the manner narrated by the synoptical writers. Still less\nprobable is it that Jesus, after having distinguished Simon in the most\nindividual manner by the surname Cephas on their first interview, would\non a later occasion address to him the summons to be a fisher of men\u2014a\ndestination which was common to all the disciples.\n\nThe rationalistic commentators perceive a special advantage in their\nposition of the two narratives. It accounts, say they, for what must\notherwise be in the highest degree surprising, namely, that Jesus\nmerely in passing, and at the first glance, should choose four\nfishermen for his disciples, and that among them he should have\nalighted on the two most distinguished apostles; that, moreover, these\nfour men, actively employed in their business, should leave it on the\ninstant of their receiving an enigmatical summons from a man with whom\nthey had no intimate acquaintance, and devote themselves to him as his\nfollowers. Now on comparing the fourth gospel, we see that Jesus had\nlearned to know these men long before, and that they, too, had had\ndemonstration of his excellence, whence it is easy to understand the\nfelicity of his choice, and their readiness to follow him. But this\napparent advantage is the condemning circumstance in the above\nposition: for nothing can more directly counteract the intention of the\nfirst two Evangelists, than to suppose a previous acquaintance between\nJesus and the brethren whom he summons to follow him. In both Gospels,\ngreat stress is laid on the fact that they immediately \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 left\ntheir nets, resolved to follow Jesus: the writers must therefore have\ndeemed this something extraordinary, which it certainly was not, if\nthese men had previously been in his train. In relation to Jesus also,\nthe point of the narrative lies in his having, with a prophetic spirit,\nand at the first glance, selected the right individuals, not needing\nthat any should testify of man, for he knew what was in man, according\nto John ii. 25, and thus presenting one of the characteristics which\nthe Jews expected in their Messiah.\n\nIf, then, each of these two diverse narratives professes to describe\nthe first acquaintance of Jesus with his most distinguished disciples,\nit follows that one only can be correct, while the other is necessarily\nerroneous. [839] It is our task to inquire which has the more intrinsic\nproofs of veracity. With respect to the synoptical representation, we\nshare the difficulty which is felt by Paulus, in regarding it as a true\naccount of the first interview between the parties. A penetration into\nthe character of men at the first glance, such as is here supposed to\nhave been evinced by Jesus, transcends all that is naturally possible\nto the most fortunate and practised knowledge of mankind. The nature of\nman is only revealed by his words and actions; the gift of discerning\nit without these means, belongs to the visionary, or to that species of\nintuition for which the rabbinical designation of this messianic\nattribute, odorando judicare, [840] is not at all too monstrous.\nScarcely less improbable is the unhesitating obedience of the\ndisciples, for Jesus had not yet acquired his Galilean fame; and to\naccount for this promptitude we must suppose that the voice and will of\nJesus had a coercive influence over minds, independently of preparation\nand motives, [841] which would be to complete the incredibility of the\nnarrative by adding a magical trait to the visionary one already\nexposed.\n\nIf these negative arguments are deemed strong enough to annul the\npretensions of the narrative to an historical character, the\nalternative is to assign to it a mythical interpretation, if we can\nshow on positive grounds that it might have been constructed in a\ntraditional manner without historical foundation. As adequate\ninducements to the formation of such a legend, we may point, not only\nto the above cited Jewish notion of the Messiah as the searcher of\nhearts, but to a specific type of this vocation of the apostles,\ncontained in the narrative (1 Kings xix. 19\u201321) of the mode in which\nthe prophet Elijah summoned Elisha to become his follower. Here Jesus\ncalls the brethren from their nets and their fishing; there the prophet\ncalls his future disciple from the oxen and the plough; in both cases\nthere is a transition from simple physical labour to the highest\nspiritual office\u2014a contrast which, as is exemplified in the Roman\nhistory, tradition is apt either to cherish or to create. Further, the\nfishermen, at the call of Jesus, forsake their nets and follow him; so\nElisha, when Elijah cast his mantle over him, left the oxen, and ran\nafter Elijah. This is one apparent divergency, which is a yet more\nstriking proof of the relation between the two narratives, than is\ntheir general similarity. The prophet\u2019s disciple entreated that before\nhe attached himself entirely to Elijah, he might be permitted to take\nleave of his father and mother; and the prophet does not hesitate to\ngrant him this request, on the understood condition that Elisha should\nreturn to him. Similar petitions are offered to Jesus (Luke ix. 59 ff.;\nMatt. viii. 21 f.) by some whom he had called, or who had volunteered\nto follow him; but Jesus does not accede to these requests: on the\ncontrary, he enjoins the one who wished previously to bury his father,\nto enter on his discipleship without delay; and the other, who had\nbegged permission to bid farewell to his friends, he at once dismisses\nas unfit for the kingdom of God. In strong contrast with the divided\nspirit manifested by these feeble proselytes, it is said of the\napostles, that they, without asking any delay, immediately forsook\ntheir occupation, and, in the case of James and John, their father.\nCould anything betray more clearly than this one feature, that the\nnarrative is an embellished imitation of that in the Old Testament\nintended to show that Jesus, in his character of Messiah, exacted a\nmore decided adhesion, accompanied with greater sacrifices, than\nElijah, in his character of Prophet merely, required or was authorized\nto require? [842] The historical germ of the narrative may be this:\nseveral of the most eminent disciples of Jesus, particularly Peter,\ndwelling on the shores of the sea of Galilee, had been fishermen,\nwhence Jesus during their subsequent apostolic agency may have\nsometimes styled them fishers of men. But without doubt, their relation\nwith Jesus was formed gradually, like other human relations, and is\nonly elevated into a marvel through the obliviousness of tradition.\n\nBy removing the synoptical narrative we make room for that of John; but\nwhether we are to receive it as historical, can only be decided by an\nexamination of its matter. At the very outset, it excites no favourable\nprejudice, that John the Baptist is the one who directs the first two\ndisciples to Jesus; for if there be any truth in the representation\ngiven in a former chapter of the relation between Jesus and the\nBaptist, some disciples of the latter might, indeed, of their own\naccord attach themselves to Jesus, formerly their fellow-disciple, but\nnothing could be farther from the intention of the Baptist than to\nresign his own adherents to Jesus. This particular seems indebted for\nits existence to the apologetic interest of the fourth gospel, which\nseeks to strengthen the cause of Jesus by the testimony of the Baptist.\nFurther, that Andrew, after one evening\u2019s intercourse with Jesus,\nshould announce him to his brother with the words, We have found the\nMessiah (i. 42); that Philip too, immediately after his call, should\nspeak of him in a similar manner to Nathanael (v. 46); is an\nimprobability which I know not how to put strongly enough. We gather\nfrom the synoptical statement, which we have above decided to be\ntrustworthy, that some time was necessary for the disciples to\nrecognise Jesus as the Messiah, and openly confess their belief through\ntheir spokesman Peter, whose tardy discernment Jesus would have been\nincorrect in panegyrizing as a divine revelation, if it amounted to no\nmore than what was communicated to him by his brother Andrew at the\ncommencement of his discipleship. Equally unnatural is the manner in\nwhich Jesus is said to have received Simon. He accosts him with the\nwords, Thou art Simon, the son of Jona,\u2014a mode of salutation which\nseems, as Bengel has well remarked, [843] to imply that Jesus had a\nsupernatural acquaintance with the name and origin of a man previously\nunknown to him, analogous to his cognizance of the number of the\nSamaritan woman\u2019s husbands, and of Nathanael\u2019s presence under the\nfig-tree. Jesus then proceeds to bestow on Simon the significant\nsurname of Cephas or Peter. If we are not inclined to degrade the\nspeech of Jesus into buffoonery, by referring this appellation to the\nbodily organization of the disciple, [844] we must suppose that Jesus\nat the first glance, with the eye of him who knew hearts, penetrated\ninto the inmost nature of Simon, and discovered not only his general\nfitness for the apostleship, but also the special, individual qualities\nwhich rendered him comparable to a rock. According to Matthew, it was\nnot until after long intercourse with Jesus, and after he had given\nmany manifestations of his peculiar character, that this surname was\nconferred on Simon, accompanied by an explanation of its meaning (xvi.\n18): evidently a much more natural account of the matter than that of\nthe fourth Evangelist, who makes Jesus discern at the first glance the\nfuture value of Simon to his cause, an odorando judicare which\ntranscends the synoptical representation in the same ratio as the\ndeclaration, Thou shalt be called Cephas, presupposes a more intimate\nknowledge, than the proposal, I will make you fishers of men. Even\nafter a more lengthened conversation with Peter, such as L\u00fccke\nsupposes, [845] Jesus could not pronounce so decidedly on his\ncharacter, without being a searcher of hearts, or falling under the\nimputation of forming too precipitate a judgment. It is indeed possible\nthat the Christian legend, attracted by the significance of the name,\nmay have represented Jesus as its author, while, in fact, Simon had\nborne it from his birth.\n\nThe entire narrative concerning Nathanael is a tissue of\nimprobabilities. When Philip speaks to him of a Messiah from Nazareth,\nhe makes the celebrated answer, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth\n(v. 47)? There is no historical datum for supposing that Nazareth, when\nJesus began his ministry, was the object of particular odium or\ncontempt, [846] and there is every probability that the adversaries of\nChristianity were the first to cast an aspersion on the native city of\nthe Messiah whom they rejected. In the time of Jesus, Nazareth was only\ndepreciated by the Jews, as being a Galilean city\u2014a stigma which it\nbore in common with many others: but in this sense it could not be\ndespised by Nathanael, for he was himself a Galilean (xxi. 2). The only\nprobable explanation is that a derisive question, which, at the time of\nthe composition of the fourth gospel, the Christians had often to hear\nfrom their opponents, was put into the mouth of a cotemporary of Jesus,\nthat by the manner in which he was divested of his doubt, others might\nbe induced to comply with the invitation, to come and see. As Nathanael\napproaches Jesus, the latter pronounces this judgment on his character,\nBehold an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile (v. 48)! Paulus is of\nopinion that Jesus might have previously gathered some intimations\nconcerning Nathanael at Cana, where he had just been attending a\nmarriage of some relations. [847] But if Jesus had become acquainted\nwith Nathanael\u2019s character in a natural way, he must, in answer to the\nquestion Whence knowest thou me? either have reminded him of the\noccasion on which they had had an earlier interview, or referred to the\nfavourable report of others. Instead of this he speaks of his knowledge\nthat Nathanael had been tarrying under a fig-tree: a knowledge which\nfrom its result is evidently intended to appear supernatural. Now to\nuse information, obtained by ordinary means, so as to induce a belief\nthat it has been communicated supernaturally, is charlatanism, if\nanything deserve the name. As, however, the narrator certainly did not\nmean to impute such artifice to Jesus, it is undeniably his intention\nto ascribe to him a supernatural knowledge of Nathanael\u2019s character. As\nlittle are the words, When thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee,\nexplained by the exclamation of Paulus, \u201cHow often one sees and\nobserves a man who is unconscious of one\u2019s gaze!\u201d L\u00fccke and Tholuck are\nalso of opinion, that Jesus observed Nathanael under the fig-tree in a\nnatural manner; they add, however, the conjecture, that the latter was\nengaged in some occupation, such as prayer or the study of the law,\nwhich afforded Jesus a key to his character. But if Jesus meant to\nimply, \u201cHow can I fail to be convinced of thy virtue, having watched\nthee during thy earnest study of the law, and thy fervent prayer under\nthe fig-tree?\u201d he would not have omitted the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n(praying), or \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (reading), for want of which we can extract\nno other sense from his declaration than this: \u201cThou mayest be assured\nof my power to penetrate into thy inmost soul, from the fact that I\nbeheld thee when thou wast in a situation from which all merely human\nobservers were excluded.\u201d Here the whole stress is thrown not on any\npeculiarity in the situation of the person seen, but on the fact that\nJesus saw him, whence it is necessarily inferred that he did so by no\nordinary, natural means. To imagine that Jesus possessed such a second\nsight, is, we grant, not a little extravagant; but for that very\nreason, it is the more accordant with the then existing notions of a\nprophet, and of the Messiah. A like power of seeing and hearing beyond\nthe limits assigned to human organs, is attributed to Elisha in the Old\nTestament. When (2 Kings vi. 8, ff.) the king of Syria makes war\nagainst Israel, Elisha indicates to the king of Israel every position\nof the enemy\u2019s camp; and when the king of Syria expresses his suspicion\nthat he is betrayed by deserters, he is told that the Israelitish\nprophet knows all the words that he, the king of Syria, speaks in his\nprivate chamber. Thus also (xxi. 32), Elisha knows that Joram has sent\nout messengers to murder him. How could it be endured that the Messiah\nshould fall short of the prophet in his powers of vision? This\nparticular, too, enables our Evangelist to form a climax, in which\nJesus ascends from the penetration of one immediately present (v. 42),\nto that of one approaching for the first time (v. 48), and finally, to\nthe perception of one out of the reach of human eyesight. That Jesus\ngoes a step farther in the climax, and says, that this proof of his\nmessianic second sight is a trifle compared with what Nathanael has yet\nto see,\u2014that on him, the Son of man, the angels of God shall descend\nfrom the opened heavens (v. 51),\u2014in nowise shows, as Paulus thinks,\nthat there was nothing miraculous in that first proof, for there is a\ngradation even in miracles.\n\nThus in the narrative of John we stumble at every step on difficulties,\nin some instances greater than those with which the synoptical accounts\nare encumbered: hence we learn as little from the one as the other,\nconcerning the manner in which the first disciples attached themselves\nto Jesus. I cannot agree with the author of the Probabilia, [848] in\nderiving the divergency of the fourth Evangelist from his predecessors,\nfrom the wish to avoid mentioning the derided fishing trade of the most\ndistinguished apostles; since in chap. xxi., which Bretschneider allows\nto be by the same hand as the rest of the gospel, he unhesitatingly\nintroduces the obnoxious employment. I rather surmise that the idea of\ntheir having received their decisive apostolic call while actually\nengaged with their fishing-nets, was not afloat in the tradition from\nwhich the fourth Evangelist drew; and that this writer formed his\nscenes, partly on the probably historical report that some disciples of\nJesus had belonged to the school of the Baptist, and partly from the\nwish to represent in the most favourable light the relation between\nJesus and the Baptist, and the supernatural gifts of the former.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 71.\n\nPETER\u2019S DRAUGHT OF FISHES.\n\nWe have hitherto examined only two accounts of the vocation of Peter\nand his companions; there is a third given by Luke (v. 1\u201311). I shall\nnot dilate on the minor points of difference [849] between his\nnarrative and that of the first two Evangelists; the essential\ndistinction is, that in Luke the disciples do not, as in Matthew and\nMark, unite themselves to Jesus on a simple invitation, but in\nconsequence of a plentiful draught of fishes, to which Jesus has\nassisted Simon. If this feature be allowed to constitute Luke\u2019s\nnarrative a separate one from that of his predecessors, we have next to\ninquire into its intrinsic credibility, and then to ascertain its\nrelation to that of Matthew and Mark.\n\nJesus, oppressed by the throng of people on the shore of the Galilean\nsea, enters into a ship, that he may address them with more ease at a\nlittle distance from land. Having brought his discourse to a close, he\ndesires Simon, the owner of the boat, to launch out into the deep, and\nlet down his nets for a draught. Simon, although little encouraged by\nthe poor result of the last night\u2019s fishing, declares himself willing,\nand is rewarded by so extraordinary a draught, that Peter and his\npartners, James and John (Andrew is not here mentioned), are struck\nwith astonishment, the former even with awe, before Jesus, as a\nsuperior being. Jesus then says to Simon, Fear not; from henceforth\nthou shalt catch men, and the issue is that the three fishermen forsake\nall, and follow him.\n\nThe rationalistic commentators take pains to show that what is above\nnarrated might occur in a natural way. According to them, the\nastonishing consequence of letting down the net was the result of an\naccurate observation on the part of Jesus, assisted by a happy\nfortuity. Paulus [850] supposes that Jesus at first wished to launch\nout farther into the deep merely to escape from the crowd, and that it\nwas not until after sailing to some distance, that, descrying a place\nwhere the fish were abundant, he desired Peter to let down the net. But\nhe has fallen into a twofold contradiction of the evangelical\nnarrative. In close connexion with the command to launch out into the\ndeep, Jesus adds, Let down your nets for a draught (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b2\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03b1, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.), as if this were one of his\nobjects in changing the locality; and if he spoke thus when at a little\ndistance only from the shore, his hope of a successful draught could\nnot be the effect of his having observed a place abundant in fish on\nthe main sea, which the vessel had not yet reached. Our rationalists\nmust therefore take refuge in the opinion of the author of the Natural\nHistory of the Great Prophet of Nazareth, who says, Jesus conjectured\non general grounds, that under existing circumstances (indicative\nprobably of an approaching storm), fishing in the middle of the sea\nwould succeed better than it had done in the night. But, proceeding\nfrom the natural point of view, how could Jesus be a better judge in\nthis matter than the men who had spent half their life on the sea in\nthe employment of fishing? Certainly if the fishermen observed nothing\nwhich could give them hope of a plentiful draught, neither in a natural\nmanner could Jesus; and the agreement between his words and the result,\nmust, adhering to the natural point of view, be put down wholly to the\naccount of chance. But what senseless audacity, to promise at random a\nsuccess, which, judging from the occurrences of the past night, was\nlittle likely to follow! It is said, however, that Jesus only desires\nPeter to make another attempt, without giving any definite promise.\nBut, we must rejoin, in the emphatic injunction, which Peter\u2019s remark\non the inauspicious aspect of circumstances for fishing does not induce\nhim to revoke, there is a latent promise, and the words, Let down your\nnets, etc., in the present passage, can hardly have any other meaning\nthan that plainly expressed in the similar scene, John xxi. 6, Cast the\nnet on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. When, moreover,\nPeter retracts his objection in the words, Nevertheless at thy word I\nwill let down the net, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd, though\n\u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 may be translated by command rather than by promise, in either\ncase he implies a hope that what Jesus enjoins will not be without\nresult. If Jesus had not intended to excite this hope, he must\nimmediately have put an end to it, if he would not expose himself to\ndisgrace in the event of failure; and on no account ought he to have\naccepted the attitude and expressions of Peter as his due, if he had\nonly merited them by a piece of lucky advice given at a venture.\n\nThe drift of the narrative, then, obliges us to admit that the writer\nintended to signalize a miracle. This miracle may be viewed either as\none of power, or of knowledge. If the former, we are to conceive that\nJesus by his supernatural power, caused the fish to congregate in that\npart of the sea where he commanded Peter to cast in his net. Now that\nJesus should be able, by the immediate action of his will, to influence\nmen, in the nature of whose minds his spiritual energy might find a\nfulcrum, may to a certain extent be conceived, without any wide\ndeviation from psychological laws; but that he could thus influence\nirrational beings, and those not isolated animals immediately present\nto him, but shoals of fish in the depths of the sea, it is impossible\nto imagine out of the domain of magic. Olshausen compares this\noperation of Jesus to that of the divine omnipotence in the annual\nmigrations of fish and birds; [851] but the comparison is worse than\nlame,\u2014it lacks all parallelism; for the latter is an effect of the\ndivine agency, linked in the closest manner with all the other\noperations of God in external nature, with the change of seasons, etc.;\nwhile the former, even presupposing Jesus to be actually God, would be\nan isolated act, interrupting the chain of natural phenomena; a\ndistinction that removes any semblance of parallelism between the two\ncases. Allowing the possibility of such a miracle (and from the\nsupranaturalistic point of view, nothing is in itself impossible), did\nit subserve any apparent object, adequate to determine Jesus to so\nextravagant a use of his miraculous powers? Was it so important that\nPeter should be inspired by this incident with a superstitious fear,\nnot accordant with the spirit of the New Testament? Was this the only\npreparation for engrafting the true faith? or did Jesus believe that it\nwas only by such signs that he could win disciples? How little faith\nmust he then have had in the force of mind and of truth! how much too\nmeanly must he have estimated Peter, who, at a later period at least\n(John vi. 68), clung to his society, not on account of the miracles\nwhich he beheld Jesus perform, but for the sake of the words of eternal\nlife which came from his lips!\n\nUnder the pressure of these difficulties, refuge may be sought in the\nother supposition as the more facile one; namely, that Jesus, by means\nof his superhuman knowledge, was merely aware that in a certain place\nthere was then to be found a multitude of fishes, and that he\ncommunicated this information to Peter. If by this it be meant that\nJesus, through the possession of an omniscience such as is commonly\nattributed to God, knew at all times, all the fish, in all seas, rivers\nand lakes; there is an end to his human consciousness. If, however, it\nbe merely meant that when he crossed any water he became cognizant of\nits various tribes of fish, with their relative position; even this\nwould be quite enough to encumber the space in his mind that was due to\nmore weighty thoughts. Lastly, if it be meant that he knew this, not\nconstantly and necessarily, but as often as he wished; it is impossible\nto understand how, in a mind like that of Jesus, a desire for such\nknowledge should arise,\u2014how he, whose vocation had reference to the\ndepths of the human heart, should be tempted to occupy himself with the\nfish-frequented depths of the waters.\n\nBut before we pronounce on this narrative of Luke, we must consider it\nin relation to the cognate histories in the first two synoptical\ngospels. The chronological relation of the respective events is the\nfirst point. The supposition that the miraculous draught of fishes in\nLuke was prior to the vocation narrated by the two other Evangelists,\nis excluded by the consideration, that the firm attachment which that\nmiracle awakened in the disciples, would render a new call superfluous;\nor by the still stronger objection, that if an invitation, accompanied\nby a miracle, had not sufficed to ally the men to Jesus, he could\nhardly flatter himself that a subsequent bare summons, unsupported by\nany miracle, would have a better issue. The contrary chronological\nposition presents a better climax; but why a second invitation, if the\nfirst had succeeded? For to suppose that the brethren who followed him\non the first summons, again left him until the second, is to cut the\nknot, instead of untying it. Still more complicated is the difficulty,\nwhen we take in addition the narrative of the fourth Evangelist: for\nwhat shall we think of the connexion between Jesus and his disciples,\nif it began in the manner described by John; if, after this, the\ndisciples having from some unknown cause separated from their master,\nhe again called them, as if nothing of the kind had before occurred, on\nthe shore of the Galilean sea; and if, this invitation also producing\nno permanent adherence, he for the third time summoned them to follow\nhim, fortifying this final experiment by a miracle? The entire drift of\nLuke\u2019s narrative is such as to exclude, rather than to imply, any\nearlier and more intimate relation between Jesus and his ultimate\ndisciples. For the indifferent mention of two ships on the shore, whose\nowners were gone out of them to wash their nets, Simon being unnamed\nuntil Jesus chooses to avail himself of his boat, seems, as\nSchleiermacher has convincingly shown, [852] to convey the idea that\nthe two parties were entire strangers to each other, and that these\nincidents were preparatory to a relation yet to be formed, not\nindicative of one already existing: so that the healing of Peter\u2019s\nmother-in-law, previously recounted by Luke, either occurred, like many\nother cures of Jesus, without producing any intimate connexion, or has\ntoo early a date assigned to it by that Evangelist. The latter\nconjecture is supported by the fact that Matthew places the miracle\nlater.\n\nThus, it fares with the narrative of Luke, when viewed in relation to\nthat of Matthew and Mark, as it did with that of John, when placed in\nthe same light; neither will bear the other to precede, or to follow\nit,\u2014in short, they exclude each other. [853] Which then is the correct\nnarrative? Schleiermacher prefers that of the Evangelist on whom he has\ncommented, because it is more particular [854]; and Sieffert [855] has\nrecently asserted with great emphasis, that no one has ever yet doubted\nthe superiority of Luke\u2019s narrative, as a faithful picture of the\nentire occurrence, the number of its special, dramatic, and\nintrinsically authenticated details, advantageously distinguishing it\nfrom the account in the first (and second) gospel, which by its\nomission of the critical incident, the turning point in the narrative\n(the draught of fishes), is characterized as the recital of one who was\nnot an eye-witness. I have already presented myself elsewhere [856] to\nthis critic, as one hardy enough to express the doubt of which he\ndenies the existence, and I here repeat the question: supposing one\nonly of the two narratives to have been modified by oral tradition,\nwhich alternative is more in accordance with the nature of that means\nof transmission,\u2014that the tangible fact of a draught of fishes should\nevaporate into a mere saying respecting fishers of men, or that this\nfigurative expression should be condensed into a literal history? The\nanswer to this question cannot be dubious; for when was it in the\nnature of the legend to spiritualize? to change the real, such as the\nstory of a miracle, into the ideal, such as a mere verbal image? The\nstage of human culture to which the legend belongs, and the mental\nfaculty in which it originates, demand that it should give a stable\nbody to fleeting thought, that it should counteract the ambiguity and\nchangeableness of words, by affixing them to the permanent and\nuniversally understood symbol of action.\n\nIt is easy to show how, out of the expression preserved by the first\nEvangelist, the miraculous story of the third might be formed. If\nJesus, in allusion to the former occupation of some of his apostles,\nhad called them fishers of men; if he had compared the kingdom of\nheaven to a net cast into the sea, in which all kinds of fish were\ntaken (Matt. xiii. 47); it was but a following out of these ideas to\nrepresent the apostles as those who, at the word of Jesus, cast out the\nnet, and gathered in the miraculous multitude of fishes. [857] If we\nadd to this, that the ancient legend was fond of occupying its\nwonder-workers with affairs of fishing, as we see in the story related\nof Pythagoras by Jamblichus and Porphyry; [858] it will no longer\nappear improbable, that Peter\u2019s miraculous draught of fishes is but the\nexpression about the fishers of men, transmuted into the history of a\nmiracle, and this view will at once set us free from all the\ndifficulties that attend the natural, as well as the supranatural\ninterpretation of the narrative.\n\nA similar miraculous draught of fishes is recorded in the appendix to\nthe fourth gospel, as having occurred after the resurrection (ch.\nxxi.). Here again Peter is fishing on the Galilean sea, in company with\nthe sons of Zebedee and some other disciples, and again he has been\ntoiling all night, and has taken nothing. [859] Early in the morning,\nJesus comes to the shore, and asks, without their recognising him, if\nthey have any meat? On their answering in the negative, he directs them\nto cast the net on the right side of the ship, whereupon they have an\nextremely rich draught, and are led by this sign to recognise Jesus.\nThat this history is distinct from the one given by Luke, is, from its\ngreat similarity, scarcely conceivable; the same narrative has\ndoubtless been placed by tradition in different periods of the life of\nJesus. [860]\n\nLet us now compare these three fishing histories,\u2014the two narrated of\nJesus, and that narrated of Pythagoras,\u2014and their mythical character\nwill be obvious. That which, in Luke, is indubitably intended as a\nmiracle of power, is, in the history of Jamblichus, a miracle of\nknowledge; for Pythagoras merely tells in a supernatural manner the\nnumber of fish already caught by natural means. The narrative of John\nholds a middle place, for in it also the number of the fish (153) plays\na part; but instead of being predetermined by the worker of the\nmiracle, it is simply stated by the narrator. One legendary feature\ncommon to all the three narratives, is the manner in which the\nmultitude and weight of the fishes are described; especially as this\nsameness of manner accompanies a diversity in particulars. According to\nLuke, the multitude is so great that the net is broken, one ship will\nnot hold them, and after they have been divided between the two\nvessels, both threaten to sink. In the view of the tradition given in\nthe fourth gospel, it was not calculated to magnify the power of the\nmiraculous agent, that the net which he had so marvellously filled\nshould break; but as here also the aim is to exalt the miracle by\ncelebrating the number and weight of the fishes, they are said to be\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 (great), and it is added that the men were not able to draw the\nnet for the multitude of fishes: instead, however, of lapsing out of\nthe miraculous into the common by the breaking of the net, a second\nmiracle is ingeniously made,\u2014that for all there were so many, yet was\nnot the net broken. Jamblichus presents a further wonder (the only one\nhe has, besides the knowledge of Pythagoras as to the number of the\nfish): namely, that while the fish were being counted, a process that\nmust have required a considerable time, not one of them died. If there\nbe a mind that, not perceiving in the narratives we have compared the\nfinger-marks of tradition, and hence the legendary character of these\nevangelical anecdotes, still leans to the historical interpretation,\nwhether natural or supernatural; that mind must be alike ignorant of\nthe true character both of legend and of history, of the natural and\nthe supernatural.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 72.\n\nCALLING OF MATTHEW. CONNEXION OF JESUS WITH THE PUBLICANS.\n\nThe first gospel (ix. 9 ff.) tells of a man named Matthew, to whom,\nwhen sitting at the receipt of custom, Jesus said, Follow me. Instead\nof Matthew, the second and third gospels have Levi, and Mark adds he\nthat was the son of Alph\u00e6us (Mark ii. 14 ff.; Luke v. 27 ff.). At the\ncall of Jesus, Luke says that he left all; Matthew merely states, that\nhe followed Jesus and prepared a meal, of which many publicans and\nsinners partook, to the great scandal of the Pharisees.\n\nFrom the difference of the names it has been conjectured that the\nEvangelists refer to two different events; [861] but this difference of\nthe name is more than counterbalanced by the similarity of the\ncircumstances. In all the three cases the call of the publican is\npreceded and followed by the same occurrences; the subject of the\nnarrative is in the same situation; Jesus addresses him in the same\nwords; and the issue is the same. [862] Hence the opinion is pretty\ngeneral, that the three synoptists have in this instance detailed only\none event. But did they also understand only one person under different\nnames, and was that person the Apostle Matthew?\n\nThis is commonly represented as conceivable on the supposition that\nLevi was the proper name of the individual, and Matthew merely a\nsurname; [863] or that after he had attached himself to Jesus, he\nexchanged the former for the latter. [864] To substantiate such an\nopinion, there should be some indication that the Evangelists who name\nthe chosen publican Levi, intend under that designation no other than\nthe Matthew mentioned in their catalogues of the apostles (Mark iii.\n18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13). On the contrary, in these catalogues,\nwhere many surnames and double names occur, not only do they omit the\nname of Levi as the earlier or more proper appellation of Matthew, but\nthey leave him undistinguished by the epithet, \u1f41 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 (the\npublican), added by the first Evangelist in his catalogue (x. 3); thus\nproving that they do not consider the Apostle Matthew to be identical\nwith the Levi summoned from the receipt of custom. [865]\n\nIf then the Evangelists describe the vocation of two different men in a\nprecisely similar way, it is improbable that there is accuracy on both\nsides, since an event could hardly be repeated in its minute\nparticulars. One of the narratives, therefore, is in error; and the\nburthen has been thrown on the first Evangelist, because he places the\ncalling of Matthew considerably after the Sermon on the Mount; while\naccording to Luke (vi. 13 ff.), all the twelve had been chosen before\nthat discourse was delivered. [866] But this would only prove, at the\nmost, that the first gospel gives a wrong position to the history; not\nthat it narrates that history incorrectly. It is therefore unjust to\nimpute special difficulties to the narrative of the first Evangelist:\nneither are such to be found in that of Mark and Luke, unless it be\nthought an inconsistency in the latter to attribute a forsaking of all,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, to one whom he does not include among the constant\nfollowers of Jesus. [867] The only question is, do they not labour\nunder a common difficulty, sufficient to stamp both accounts as\nunhistorical?\n\nThe close analogy between this call and that of the two pairs of\nbrethren, must excite attention. They were summoned from their nets; he\nfrom the custom-house; as in their case, so here, nothing further is\nneeded than a simple Follow me; and this call of the Messiah has so\nirresistible a power over the mind of the called, that the publican,\nlike the fishermen, leaves all, and follows him. It is not to be\ndenied, that as Jesus had been for a considerable time exercising his\nministry in that country, Matthew must have long known him; and this is\nthe argument with which Fritzsche repels the accusation of Julian and\nPorphyry, who maintain that Matthew here shows himself rash and\ninconsiderate. But the longer Jesus had observed him, the more easily\nmight he have found opportunity for drawing him gradually and quietly\ninto his train, instead of hurrying him in so tumultuary a manner from\nthe midst of his business. Paulus indeed thinks that no call to\ndiscipleship, no sudden forsaking of a previous occupation, is here\nintended, but that Jesus having brought his teaching to a close, merely\nsignified to the friend who had given him an invitation to dinner, that\nhe was now ready to go home with him, and sit down to table. [868] But\nthe meal appears, especially in Luke, to be the consequence, and not\nthe cause, of the summons; moreover, a modest guest would say to the\nhost who had invited him, I will follow thee, \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, not\nFollow me, \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9; and in fine, this interpretation renders the\nwhole anecdote so trivial, that it would have been better omitted.\n[869] Hence the abruptness and impetuosity of the scene return upon us,\nand we are compelled to pronounce that such is not the course of real\nlife, nor the procedure of a man who, like Jesus, respects the laws and\nformalities of human society; it is the procedure of legend and poetry,\nwhich love contrasts, and effective scenes, which aim to give a graphic\nconception of a man\u2019s exit from an old sphere of life, and his entrance\ninto a new one, by representing him as at once discarding the\nimplements of his former trade, leaving the scene of his daily\nbusiness, and straightway commencing a new life. The historical germ of\nthe story may be, that Jesus actually had publicans among his\ndisciples, and possibly that Matthew was one. These men had truly left\nthe custom-house to follow Jesus; but only in the figurative sense of\nthis concise expression, not in the literal one depicted by the legend.\n\nIt is not less astonishing that the publican should have a great feast\nin readiness for Jesus immediately after his call. For that this feast\nwas not prepared until the following day, [870] is directly opposed to\nthe narratives, the two first especially. But it is entirely in the\ntone of the legend to demonstrate the joy of the publican, and the\ncondescension of Jesus, and to create an occasion for the reproaches\ncast on the latter on account of his intimacy with sinners, by\ninventing a great feast, given to the publicans at the house of their\nlate associate immediately after his call.\n\nAnother circumstance connected with this narrative merits particular\nattention. According to the common opinion concerning the author of the\nfirst gospel, Matthew therein narrates his own call. We may consider it\ngranted that there are no positive indications of this in the\nnarrative; but it is not so clear that there are no negative\nindications which render it impossible or improbable. That the\nEvangelist does not here speak in the first person, nor when describing\nevents in which he had a share in the first person plural, like the\nauthor of the Acts of the Apostles, proves nothing; for Josephus and\nother historians not less classical, write of themselves in the third\nperson, and the we of the pseudo-Matthew in the Ebionite gospel has a\nvery suspicious sound. The use of the expression, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, which the Manicheans made an objection, [871] as they did\nthe above-mentioned circumstance, is not without a precedent in the\nwritings of Xenophon, who in his Anabasis introduces himself as\nXenophon, a certain Athenian, \u039e\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. [872] The Greek,\nhowever, did not fall into this style from absorption in his subject,\nnor from unaffected freedom from egotism,\u2014causes which Olshausen\nsupposes in the Evangelist; but either from a wish not to pass for the\nauthor, as an old tradition states, [873] or from considerations of\ntaste, neither of which motives will be attributed to Matthew. Whether\nwe are therefore to consider that expression as a sign that the author\nof the first gospel was not Matthew, may be difficult to decide: [874]\nbut it is certain that this history of the publican\u2019s call is\nthroughout less clearly narrated in that gospel than in the third. In\nthe former, we are at a loss to understand why it is abruptly said that\nJesus sat at meat in the house, if the Evangelist were himself the\nhospitable publican, since it would then seem most natural for him to\nlet his joy on account of his call appear in the narrative, by telling,\nas Luke does, that he immediately made a great feast in his house. To\nsay that he withheld this from modesty, is to invest a rude Galilean of\nthat age with the affectation belonging to the most refined\nself-consciousness of modern days.\n\nTo this feast at the publican\u2019s, of which many of the same obnoxious\nclass partook, the Evangelists annex the reproaches cast at the\ndisciples by the Pharisees and Scribes, because their master ate with\npublicans and sinners. Jesus, being within hearing of the censure,\nrepelled it by the well-known text on the destination of the physician\nfor the sick, and the Son of Man for sinners (Matt. ix. 11 ff.\nparall.). That Jesus should be frequently taunted by his pharisaical\nenemies with his too great predilection for the despised class of\npublicans (comp. Matt. xi. 19), accords fully with the nature of his\nposition, and is therefore historical, if anything be so: the answer,\ntoo, which is here put into the mouth of Jesus, is from its pithy and\nconcise character well adapted for literal transmission. Further, it is\nnot improbable that the reproach in question may have been especially\ncalled forth, by the circumstance that Jesus ate with publicans and\nsinners, and went under their roofs. But that the cavils of his\nopponents should have been accompaniments of the publican\u2019s dinner, as\nthe evangelical account leads us to infer, especially that of Mark (v.\n16), is not so easily conceivable. [875] For as the feast was in the\nhouse (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3), and as the disciples also partook of it, how could\nthe Pharisees utter their reproaches to them, while the meal was going\nforward, without defiling themselves by becoming the guests of a man\nthat was a sinner,\u2014the very act which they reprehended in Jesus? (Luke\nxix. 7). It will hardly be supposed that they waited outside until the\nfeast was ended. It is difficult for Schleiermacher to maintain, even\non the representation of Luke taken singly, that the evangelical\nnarrative only implies, that the publican\u2019s feast was the cause of the\nPharisees\u2019 censure, and not that they were contemporary. [876] Their\nimmediate connexion might easily originate in a legendary manner; in\nfact, one scarcely knows how tradition, in its process of transmuting\nthe abstract into the concrete, could represent the general idea that\nthe Pharisees had taken offence at the friendly intercourse of Jesus\nwith the publicans, otherwise than thus: Jesus once feasted in a\npublican\u2019s house, in company with many publicans; the Pharisees saw\nthis, went to the disciples and expressed their censure, which Jesus\nalso heard, and parried by a laconic answer.\n\nAfter the Pharisees, Matthew makes the disciples of John approach Jesus\nwith the question, why his disciples did not fast, as they did (v. 14\nf.); in Luke (v. 33 ff.) it is still the Pharisees who vaunt their own\nfasts and those of John\u2019s disciples, as contrasted with the eating and\ndrinking of the disciples of Jesus; Mark\u2019s account is not clear (v.\n18). According to Schleiermacher, every unprejudiced person must\nperceive in the statement of Matthew compared with that of Luke, the\nconfusing emendations of a second editor, who could not explain to\nhimself how the Pharisees came to appeal to the disciples of John;\nwhereas, thinks Schleiermacher, the question would have been puerile in\nthe mouth of the latter; but it is easy to imagine that the Pharisees\nmight avail themselves of an external resemblance to the disciples of\nJohn when opposing Jesus, who had himself received baptism of that\nteacher. It is certainly surprising that after the Pharisees, who were\noffended because Jesus ate with publicans, some disciples of John\nshould step forth as if they had been cited for the purpose, to censure\ngenerally the unrestricted eating and drinking of Jesus and his\ndisciples. The probable explanation is, that evangelical tradition\nassociated the two circumstances from their intrinsic similarity, and\nthat the first Evangelist erroneously gave them the additional\nconnexion of time and place. But the manner in which the third\nEvangelist fuses the two particulars, appears a yet more artificial\ncombination, and is certainly not historical, because the reply of\nJesus could only be directed to John\u2019s disciples, or to friendly\ninquirers: to Pharisees, he would have given another and a more severe\nanswer. [877]\n\nAnother narrative, which is peculiar to Luke (xix. 1\u201310), treats of the\nsame relation as that concerning Matthew or Levi. When Jesus, on his\nlast journey to the feast, passes through Jericho, a chief among the\npublicans, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 named Zacch\u00e6us, that he might, notwithstanding\nhis short stature, get a sight of Jesus among the crowd, climbed a\ntree, where Jesus observed him, and immediately held him worthy to\nentertain the Messiah for the night. Here, again, the favour shown to a\npublican excites the discontent of the more rigid spectators; and when\nZacch\u00e6us has made vows of atonement and beneficence, Jesus again\njustifies himself, on the ground that his office had reference to\nsinners. The whole scene is very dramatic, and this might be deemed by\nsome an argument for its historical character; but there are certain\ninternal obstacles to its reception. We are not led to infer that Jesus\npreviously knew Zacch\u00e6us, or that some one pointed him out to Jesus by\nname; [878] but, as Olshausen truly says, the knowledge of Zacch\u00e6us\nthat Jesus here suddenly evinced, is to be referred to his power of\ndiscerning what was in men without the aid of testimony. We have before\ndecided that this power is a legendary attribute; hence the above\nparticular, at least, cannot be historical, and the narrative is\npossibly a variation on the same theme as that treated of in connexion\nwith the account of Matthew\u2019s call, namely, the friendly relation of\nJesus to the publicans.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 73.\n\nTHE TWELVE APOSTLES.\n\nThe men whose vocation we have been considering, namely, the sons of\nJonas and Zebedee, with Philip and Matthew (Nathanael alone being\nexcepted) form the half of that narrow circle of disciples which\nappears throughout the New Testament under the name of the twelve, \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1, the twelve disciples or apostles, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 or\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9. The fundamental idea of the New Testament writers concerning\nthe twelve, is that Jesus himself chose them (Mark iii. 13 f.; Luke vi.\n13; John vi. 70, xv. 16). Matthew does not give us the history of the\nchoice of all the twelve, but he tacitly presupposes it by introducing\nthem as a college already instituted (x. 1). Luke, on the contrary,\nnarrates how, after a night spent on the mountain in vigils and prayer,\nJesus selected twelve from the more extensive circle of his adherents,\nand then descended with them to the plain, to deliver what is called\nthe Sermon on the Mount (vi. 12). Mark also tells us in the same\nconnexion, that Jesus when on a mountain made a voluntary choice of\ntwelve from the mass of his disciples (iii. 13). According to Luke,\nJesus chose the twelve immediately before he delivered the Sermon on\nthe Mount, and apparently with reference to it; but there is no\ndiscoverable motive which can explain this mode of associating the two\nevents, for the discourse was not specially addressed to the apostles,\n[879] neither had they any office to execute during its delivery.\nMark\u2019s representation, with the exception of the vague tradition from\nwhich he sets out, that Jesus chose the twelve, seems to have been\nwrought out of his own imagination, and furnishes no distinct notion of\nthe occasion and manner of the choice. [880] Matthew has adopted the\nbest method in merely presupposing, without describing, the particular\nvocation of the apostles; and John pursues the same plan, beginning\n(vi. 67) to speak of the twelve, without any previous notice of their\nappointment.\n\nStrictly speaking, therefore, it is merely presupposed in the gospels,\nthat Jesus himself fixed the number of the apostles. Is this\npresupposition correct? There certainly is little doubt that this\nnumber was fixed during the lifetime of Jesus; for not only does the\nauthor of the Acts represent the twelve as so compact a body\nimmediately after the ascension of their master, that they think it\nincumbent on them to fill up the breach made by the apostasy of Judas\nby the election of a new member (i. 15 ff.); but the Apostle Paul also\nnotices an appearance of the risen Jesus, specially to the twelve (1\nCor. xv. 5). Schleiermacher, however, doubts whether Jesus himself\nchose the twelve, and he thinks it more probable that the peculiar\nrelation ultimately borne to him by twelve from amongst his disciples,\ngradually and spontaneously formed itself. [881] We have, indeed, no\nwarrant for supposing that the appointment of the twelve was a single\nsolemn act; on the contrary, the gospels explicitly narrate, that six\nof them were called singly, or by pairs, and on separate occasions; but\nit is still a question whether the number twelve was not determined by\nJesus, and whether he did not willingly abide by it as an expedient for\nchecking the multiplication of his familiar companions. The number is\nthe less likely to have been fortuitous, the more significant it is,\nand the more evident the inducements to its choice by Jesus. He\nhimself, in promising the disciples (Matt. xix. 28) that they shall sit\non twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, gives their\nnumber a relation to that of the tribes of his people; and it was the\nopinion of the highest Christian antiquity that this relation\ndetermined his choice. [882] If he and his disciples were primarily\nsent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. x. 6, xv. 24), it\nmight seem appropriate that the number of the shepherds should\ncorrespond to that of the shepherdless tribes (Matt. ix. 36).\n\nThe destination of the twelve is only generally intimated in John (xv.\n16); in Mark, on the contrary, it is particularly, and without doubt\naccurately, stated. He ordained twelve, it is here said, that they\nshould be with him, that is, that he might not be without\ncompanionship, aid, and attendance on his journeys; and accordingly we\nfind them helpful to him in procuring lodgings (Luke ix. 32; Matt.\nxxvi. 17 f.), food (John iv. 8), and other travelling requisites (Matt.\nxxi. 1 ff.); but above all they were in his society to become scribes\nwell instructed unto the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xiii. 52). To this\nend they had the opportunity of being present at most of the discourses\nof Jesus, and even of obtaining private elucidations of their meaning\n(Matt. xiii. 10 ff., 36 ff.); of purifying their minds by his severe\nbut friendly discipline (Matt. viii. 26, xvi. 23, xviii. 1 ff. 21 ff.;\nLuke ix. 50, 55 f.; John xiii. 12 ff. etc.), and of elevating their\nsouls by the contemplation of his example (John xiv. 19). Another\nmotive of Jesus in choosing the twelve, was, according to Mark, that he\nmight send them forth to preach, that is, to preach the kingdom of\nheaven during his life, according to the immediate meaning of Mark; but\nthe promulgation of his cause after his death, must be supposed as an\nadditional object on the part of Jesus. (Mark proceeds to enumerate the\npowers of healing and of casting out devils; but on these points we\ncannot dilate until we reach a future stage of our inquiry.)\n\nIt was this latter destination that won for them the distinguished name\nof apostles, \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 (Matt. x. 2; Mark vi. 30; Luke vii. 13, etc.).\nIt has been doubted whether Jesus himself conferred this name on the\ntwelve, according to Luke vi. 13, and it has been suggested that it was\nnot given them until later, ex eventu. [883] But that Jesus should have\ncalled them his envoys cannot be improbable, if he really sent them on\na journey to announce the approaching kingdom of the Messiah. We grant\nthat it is possible to regard this journey as an event transposed from\nthe period after the death of Jesus to his lifetime, in order that a\nsort of rehearsal of the subsequent mission of the apostles might pass\nunder the eye of Jesus; but as it is not improbable that Jesus, perhaps\neven before he had a full conviction of his own Messiahship, sent out\nmessengers to announce the Messiah\u2019s kingdom, we are not warranted to\nurge such a doubt.\n\nJohn knows nothing of this mission, recorded by the synoptists. On the\nother hand, they are ignorant of a circumstance alleged by John,\nnamely, that the disciples baptized during the life of Jesus (iv. 2).\nAccording to the synoptical Evangelists, it was not until after the\nresurrection, that Jesus gave his disciples authority to baptize (Matt.\nxxviii. 19, parall.). As, however, the rite of baptism was introduced\nby John, and we have reason to believe that Jesus, for a time, made\nthat teacher his model, it is highly probable that he and his disciples\nalso practised baptism, and hence that the positive statement of the\nfourth gospel is correct. But the negative statement that Jesus himself\nbaptised not (iv. 2), has the appearance of an after-thought, intended\nto correct the import of the previous passages (iii. 22, iv. 1), and is\nmost probably to be accounted for by the tendency of the fourth gospel\nto exalt Jesus above the Baptist, and by a corresponding dread of\nmaking Jesus exercise the function of the mere forerunner. The question\nwhether Jesus did not baptize at least the apostles, afterwards\noccasioned much demur in the church.\n\nWith the exception of the mission mentioned above, the gospels speak of\nno important separation between Jesus and his twelve disciples, for\nthere is nothing certain to be gathered from the resumption of their\nbusiness after his death (John xxi. 2 ff.). No one could detect in our\ngospels any indications of a repeated interruption to the intercourse\nof Jesus with his disciples, but theologians, whose harmonistic zeal\nwished to find room for a second and third vocation; or expositors,\nwho, in their unwearied application to details, cast about for a means\nof subsistence for so many indigent men, and thought it necessary to\nsuppose that they were occasionally provided for by a return to their\nsecular labours. As to the subsistence of Jesus and his disciples, we\nhave sufficient sources for it in the hospitality of the East, which,\namong the Jews, was especially available to the rabbins; in the\ncompanionship of rich women who ministered unto him of their substance\n(Luke viii. 2 f.); and finally in the \u03b3\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, mentioned, it is\ntrue, only by the fourth Evangelist (xii. 6, xiii. 29), which was ample\nenough to furnish assistance to the poor, as well as to supply the\nwants of the society, and in which, it is probable, presents from\nwealthy friends of Jesus were deposited. They who do not hold these\nmeans adequate without the labour of the disciples, or who think, on\nmore general grounds, that the total renunciation of their secular\nemployment on the part of the twelve, is improbable, must not try to\nforce their opinion on the Evangelists, who by the stress which they\nlay on the expression of the apostles, we have left all (Matt. xix. 27\nff.), plainly intimate the opposite view.\n\nWe gather, as to the rank of the twelve disciples of Jesus, that they\nall belonged to the lower class: four, or perhaps more (John xxi. 2),\nwere fishermen, one a publican, and for the others, it is probable from\nthe degree of cultivation they evince, and the preference always\nexpressed by Jesus for the poor \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, and the little ones, \u03bd\u03b7\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n(Matt. v. 3, xi. 5, 25), that they were of a similar grade.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 74.\n\nTHE TWELVE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY. THE THREE OR FOUR MOST CONFIDENTIAL\nDISCIPLES OF JESUS.\n\nWe have in the New Testament four catalogues of the apostles; one in\neach of the synoptical gospels, and one in the Acts (Matt. x. 2\u20134; Mark\niii. 6\u201310; Luke vi. 14\u201316; Acts i. 13). Each of these four lists may be\ndivided into three quaternions; in each corresponding quaternion the\nfirst member is the same; and in the last, the concluding member also,\nif we except Acts i. 13, where he is absent: but the intermediate\nmembers are differently arranged, and in the concluding quaternions\nthere is a difference of names or of persons.\n\nAt the head of the first quaternion in all the catalogues, and in\nMatthew with the prefix \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (the first), stands Simon Peter, the son\nof Jonas (Matt. xvi. 17); according to the fourth gospel, of Bethsaida\n(i. 45); according to the synoptists, resident in Capernaum [884]\n(Matt. viii. 14, parall.). We hear an echo of the old polemical\ndispute, when Protestant expositors ascribe this position to mere\nchance,\u2014an assumption which is opposed by the fact that all four of the\ncatalogues agree in giving the precedence to Peter, though they differ\nin other points of arrangement; or when those expositors allege, in\nexplanation, that Peter was first called, [885] which, according to the\nfourth gospel, was not the case. That this invariable priority is\nindicative of a certain pre-eminence of Peter among the twelve, is\nevident from the part he plays elsewhere in the evangelical history.\nArdent by nature, he is always beforehand with the rest of the\napostles, whether in speech (Matt. xv. 15, xvi. 16, 22, xvii. 4, xviii.\n21, xxvi. 33; John vi. 68), or in action (Matt. xiv. 28, xxvi. 58; John\nxviii. 16); and if it is not seldom the case that the speech and action\nare faulty, and that his prompt courage quickly evaporates, as his\ndenial shows, yet he is, according to the synoptical statement, the\nfirst who expresses a decided conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus\n(Matt. xvi. 16, parall.). It is true that of the eulogies and\nprerogatives bestowed on him on that occasion, that which is implied in\nhis surname is the only one that remains peculiarly his; for the\nauthority to bind and to loose, that is, to forbid and to permit, [886]\nin the newly-founded Messianic kingdom, is soon after extended to all\nthe apostles (xviii. 18). Yet more decidedly does this pre-eminence of\nPeter among the original apostles appear in the Acts, and in the\nEpistles of Paul.\n\nNext to Peter, the catalogue of the first and third gospels places his\nbrother Andrew; that of the second gospel and the Acts, James, and\nafter him, John. The first and third Evangelists are evidently guided\nby the propriety of uniting the couples of brethren; Mark and the\nauthor of the Acts, by that of preferring the two apostles next in\ndistinction to Peter to the less conspicuous Andrew, whom they\naccordingly put last in the quaternion. We have already considered the\nmanner in which these four apostles are signalized in the Christian\nlegend by a special history of their vocation. They appear together in\nother passages of Mark; first (i. 29), where Jesus, in company with the\nsons of Zebedee, enters the house of Simon and Andrew: as, however, the\nother Evangelists only mention Peter on this occasion, Mark may have\nadded the other names inferentially, concluding that the four\nfishermen, so recently called, would not be apart from Jesus, and that\nAndrew had a share in his brother\u2019s house, a thing in itself probable.\n[887] Again, Mark xiii. 3, our four apostles concur in asking Jesus\nprivately (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd) concerning the time of the destruction of the\ntemple, and of his second advent. But the parallel passages in the\nother gospels do not thus particularize any of the disciples. Matthew\nsays, The disciples came to him privately (xxiv. 3); hence it is\nprobable that Mark\u2019s limitation is an erroneous one. Possibly the words\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, being used in the document to which he referred to denote\nthe separation of the twelve from the multitude, appeared to him, from\nassociation, an introductory form, of which there are other examples\n(Matt. xvii. 1; Mark ix. 2), to a private conference of Jesus with\nPeter, James and John, to whom he might add Andrew on account of the\nfraternity. Luke, on the other hand, in his account of the miraculous\ndraught of fishes, and the vocation of the fishermen (v. 10), omits\nAndrew, though he is included in the corresponding narratives, probably\nbecause he does not elsewhere appear as one of the select apostles; for\nexcept on the occasions already noticed, he is only mentioned by John\n(vi. 9, xii. 22), and that in no very important connexion.\n\nThe two sons of Zebedee are the only disciples whose distinction rivals\nthat of Peter. Like him, they evince an ardent and somewhat rash zeal\n(Luke ix. 54; once John is named alone, Mark ix. 38; Luke ix. 49); and\nit was to this disposition, apparently, that they owed the surname Sons\nof Thunder, \u200f\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e8\u05e0\u05e9\u200e \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 (Mark iii. 17), [888] conferred on\nthem by Jesus. So high did they stand among the twelve, that either\nthey (Mark xi. 35 ff.), or their mother for them (Matt. xx. 20 ff.),\nthought they might claim the first place in the Messiah\u2019s kingdom. It\nis worthy of notice that not only in the four catalogues, but elsewhere\nwhen the two brothers are named, as in Matt. iv. 21, xvii. 1; Mark i.\n19, 29, v. 37, ix. 2, x. 35, xiii. 3, xiv. 33; Luke v. 10, ix. 54; with\nthe exception of Luke viii. 51, ix. 28; James is always mentioned\nfirst, and John is appended to him as his brother (\u1f41 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6).\nThis is surprising; because, while we know nothing remarkable of James,\nJohn is memorable as the favourite disciple of Jesus. Hence it is\nsupposed that this precedence cannot possibly denote a superiority of\nJames to John, and an explanation has been sought in his seniority.\n[889] Nevertheless, it remains a doubt whether so constant a precedence\ndo not intimate a pre-eminence on the part of James; at least, if, in\nthe apprehension of the synoptists, John had been as decidedly\npreferred as he is represented to have been in the fourth gospel, we\nare inclined to think that they would have named him before his brother\nJames, even allowing him to be the younger. This leads us to a\ndifference between the first three Evangelists and the fourth which\nrequires a closer examination.\n\nIn the synoptical gospels, as we have observed, Peter, James, and John,\nform the select circle of disciples whom Jesus admits to certain\nscenes, which the rest of the twelve were not spiritually mature enough\nto comprehend; as the transfiguration, the conflict in Gethsemane, and,\naccording to Mark (v. 37), the raising of the daughter of Jairus. [890]\nAfter the death of Jesus, also, a James, Peter and John appear as the\npillars of the church (Gal. ii. 9); this James, however, is not the son\nof Zebedee, who had been early put to death (Acts xii. 2), but James,\nthe brother of the Lord (Gal. i. 19), who even in the first apostolic\ncouncil appears to have possessed a predominant authority, and whom\nmany hold to be the second James of the apostolic catalogue given in\nActs i.. [891] It is observable from the beginning of the Acts, that\nJames the son of Zebedee is eclipsed by Peter and John. As, then, this\nJames the elder was not enough distinguished or even known in the\nprimitive church, for his early martyrdom to have drawn much lustre on\nhis name, tradition had no inducement, from subsequent events, to\nreflect an unhistorical splendour on his relation to Jesus; there is\ntherefore no reason to doubt the statement as to the prominent position\nheld by James, in conjunction with Peter and John, among the twelve\napostles.\n\nSo much the more must it excite surprise to find, in the fourth gospel\nthe triumvirate almost converted into a monarchy: James, like another\nLepidus, is wholly cast out, while Peter and John are in the position\nof Antony and Octavius, the latter having nearly stripped his rival of\nall pretensions to an equal rank with himself, to say nothing of a\nhigher. James is not even named in the fourth gospel; only in the\nappendix (xxi. 2) is there any mention of the sons of Zebedee; while\nseveral narratives of the vocations of different apostles are given,\napparently including that of John himself, no James appears in them,\nneither is there any speech of his, as of many other apostles,\nthroughout this gospel.\n\nQuite differently does the fourth Evangelist treat Peter. He makes him\none of the first who enter the society of Jesus, and gives him a\nprominent importance not less often than the synoptists; he does not\nconceal that Jesus bestowed on him an honourable surname (i. 42); he\nputs in his mouth (vi. 68 f.) a confession which seems but a new\nversion of the celebrated one in Matt. xvi. 16; according to him, Peter\nonce throws himself into the sea that he may more quickly reach Jesus\n(xxi. 7); at the last supper, and in the garden of Gethsemane, he makes\nPeter more active than even the synoptists represent him (xiii. 6 ff.,\nxviii. 10 f.); he accords him the honour of following Jesus into the\nhigh priest\u2019s palace (xviii. 15), and of being one of the first to\nvisit the grave of Jesus after the resurrection (xx. 3 ff.); nay, he\neven details a special conversation between the risen Jesus and Peter\n(xxi. 15 ff.). But these advantages of Peter are in the fourth gospel\ninvalidated in a peculiar manner, and put into the shade, in favour of\nJohn. The synoptists tell us that Peter and John were called to the\napostleship in the same way, and the former somewhat before the latter;\nthe fourth Evangelist prefers associating Andrew with the nameless\ndisciple who is taken for John, and makes Peter come to him through the\ninstrumentality of his brother. [892] He also admits the honourable\ninterpretation of the surname Peter, and the panegyric on Peter\u2019s\nconfession; but this he does in common with Mark and Luke, while the\nspeeches and the action attributed in the fourth gospel to Peter during\nthe last supper and in the garden, are to be classed as only so many\nmistakes. The more we approach the catastrophe, the more marked is the\nsubordination of Peter to John. At the last supper, indeed, Peter is\nparticularly anxious for the discovery of the traitor: he cannot,\nhowever, apply immediately to Jesus (xiii. 23 ff.), but is obliged to\nmake John, who was leaning on Jesus\u2019 bosom, his medium of\ncommunication. While, according to the synoptists, Peter alone followed\nJesus into the palace of the high priest; according to the fourth\nEvangelist, John accompanied him, and under such circumstances, that\nwithout him Peter could not have entered,\u2014John, as one known to the\nhigh priest, having to obtain admission for him (xviii. 15 f.). In the\nsynoptical gospels, not one of the disciples is bold enough to venture\nto the cross; but in the fourth, John is placed under it, and is there\nestablished in a new relation to the mother of his dying master: a\nrelation of which we elsewhere find no trace (xix. 26 f.). On the\nappearance of the risen Jesus at the Galilean sea (xxi.), Peter, as the\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, casts himself into the sea; but it is not until after John,\nas the \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (Euthymius), has recognized the Lord in the\nperson standing on the shore. In the ensuing conversation, Peter is\nindeed honoured with the commission, Feed my sheep; but this honour is\novershadowed by the dubitative question, Lovest thou me? and while the\nprospect of martyrdom is held up to him, John is promised the\ndistinction of tarrying till Jesus came again, an advantage which Peter\nis warned not to envy. Lastly, while, according to Luke (xxiv. 12),\nPeter, first among the apostles, and alone, comes to the vacant grave\nof his risen master, the fourth gospel (xx. 3), gives him a companion\nin John, who outruns Peter and arrives first at the grave. Peter goes\ninto the grave before John, it is true; but it is the latter in whose\nhonour it is recorded, that he saw and believed, almost in\ncontradiction to the statement of Luke, that Peter went home wondering\nin himself at that which was come to pass. Thus in the fourth gospel,\nJohn, both literally and figuratively, outruns Peter, for the entire\nimpression which the attentive reader must receive from the\nrepresentation there given of the relative position of Peter and John,\nis that the writer wished a comparison to be drawn in favour of the\nlatter. [893]\n\nBut John is moreover especially distinguished in the gospel which bears\nhis name, by the constant epithet, the beloved disciple, the disciple\nwhom Jesus loved, \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bd \u1f20\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1, or \u1f10\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 (xiii. 23,\nxix. 26, xx. 2, xxi. 7, 20). It is true that we have no absolute proof\nfrom the contents of the fourth gospel, whether intrinsically or\ncomparatively considered, that by the above formula, or the more\nindeterminate one, the other \u1f41 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, or another disciple, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 (x. 15 f., xx. 3, 4, 8), which, as it appears from xx. 2 f., is\nits equivalent, we are to understand the Apostle John. For neither is\nthe designation in question anywhere used interchangeably with the name\nof the apostle, nor is there anything narrated in the fourth gospel of\nthe favourite disciple, which in the three first is ascribed to John.\nBecause in xxi. 2 the sons of Zebedee are named among the assistants,\nit does not follow that the disciple mentioned in v. 7 as the one whom\nJesus loved must be John; James, or the one of the two other disciples\nmentioned in v. 2, might be meant. Nevertheless, it is the immemorial\ntradition of the church that the disciple whom Jesus loved was John,\nnor are all reasons for such a belief extinct even to us; for in the\nGreek circle from which the fourth gospel sprang, there could scarcely\nbe among the apostles whom it leaves unnamed, one so well known as to\nbe recognized under that description unless it were John, whose\nresidence at Ephesus is hardly to be rejected as a mere fable.\n\nIt may appear more doubtful whether the author intended by this title\nto designate himself, and thus to announce himself as the Apostle John.\nThe conclusion of the twenty-first chapter, v. 24, does certainly make\nthe favourite disciple the testifier and writer of the preceding\nhistory; but we may assume it as granted that this passage is an\naddition by a strange hand. [894] When, however, in the genuine text of\nthe gospel (xix. 35), the writer says of the effect produced by the\npiercing of the side of Jesus, he that saw bare record, \u1f41 \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5, no other than the favourite disciple can be intended,\nbecause he alone among all the disciples (the only parties eligible as\nwitnesses in the case), is supposed to be present at the cross. The\nprobability that the author here speaks of himself is not at all\naffected by his use of the third person; but the preterite annexed to\nit may well excite a doubt whether an appeal be not here made to the\ntestimony of John, as one distinct from the writer. [895] This mode of\nexpression, however, may be explained also in accordance with the other\nsupposition, [896] which is supported by the circumstance that the\nauthor in i. 14, 16, seems to announce himself as the eye-witness of\nthe history he narrates.\n\nWas that author, then, really the Apostle John, as he apparently wishes\nus to surmise? This is another question on which we can only pronounce\nwhen we shall have completed our investigation. We will merely allude\nto the difficulty of supposing that the Apostle John could give so\nunhistorical a sketch of the Baptist as that in the fourth gospel. But\nwe ask, is it at all probable that the real John would so unbecomingly\nneglect the well-founded claims of his brother James to a special\nnotice? and is not such an omission rather indicative of a late\nHellenistic author, who scarcely had heard the name of the brother so\nearly martyred? The designation, the disciple whom Jesus loved, which\nin xxi. 20 has the prolix addition, who also leaned on his breast at\nsupper, and said, Lord which is he that betrayeth thee? is not to be\nconsidered as an offence against modesty. [897] It is certainly far too\nlaboured and embellished for one who, without any ulterior view, wishes\nto indicate himself, for such an one would, at least sometimes, have\nsimply employed his name: but a venerator of John, issuing perhaps from\none of his schools, might very naturally be induced to designate the\nrevered apostle, under whose name he wished to write, in this half\nhonourable, half mysterious manner. [898]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 75.\n\nTHE REST OF THE TWELVE, AND THE SEVENTY DISCIPLES.\n\nThe second quaternion in all the four catalogues begins with Philip.\nThe three first gospels know nothing more of him than his name. The\nfourth alone gives his birth-place, Bethsaida, and narrates his\nvocation (i. 44 f.); in this gospel he is more than once an\ninterlocutor, but his observations are founded on mistakes (vi. 7, xiv.\n8); and he perhaps appears with most dignity, when the \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, who\nwish to see Jesus, apply immediately to him (xii. 21).\n\nThe next in the evangelical lists is Bartholomew; a name which is\nnowhere found out of the catalogues. In the synoptical gospels\nBartholomew is coupled with Philip; in the history of the vocations\ngiven by the fourth Evangelist (i. 46), Nathanael appears in company\nwith the latter and (xxi. 2) is again presented in the society of the\napostles. Nathanael, however, finds no place among the twelve, unless\nhe be identical with one otherwise named by the synoptists. If so, it\nis thought that Bartholomew is the most easily adapted to such an\nalias, as the three first gospels couple him with Philip, just as the\nfourth, which has no Bartholomew, does Nathanael; to which it may be\nadded that \u200f\u05d1\u05e8 \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u200e is a mere patronymic, which must have been\naccompanied by a proper name, such as Nathanael. [899] But we have no\nadequate ground for such an identification, since the juxtaposition of\nBartholomew and Philip is shown to be accidental, by our finding the\nformer (Acts i. 13), as well as the latter (John xxi. 2), linked with\ndifferent names; the absence of Bartholomew from the fourth gospel is\nnot peculiar to him among the twelve; finally, second names as surnames\nwere added to proper as well as to patronymic names, as Simon Peter,\nJoseph Caiaphas, John Mark, and the like; so that any other apostle not\nnamed by John might be equally well identified with Nathanael, and\nhence the supposed relation between the two appellations is altogether\nuncertain.\n\nIn the catalogue given in the Acts, Philip is followed, not by\nBartholomew, but by Thomas, who in the list of the first gospel comes\nafter Bartholomew, in that of the others, after Matthew. Thomas, in\nGreek \u0394\u03af\u03b4\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, appears in the fourth gospel, on one occasion, in the\nguise of mournful fidelity (xi. 16); on another, in the more noted one\nof incredulity (xx. 24 ff.); and once again in the appendix (xxi. 2).\nMatthew, the next in the series, is found nowhere else except in the\nhistory of his vocation.\n\nThe third quaternion is uniformly opened by James the son of Alpheus,\nof whom we have already spoken. After him comes in both Luke\u2019s lists,\nSimon, whom he calls Zelotes, or the zealot, but whom Matthew and Mark\n(in whose catalogues he is placed one degree lower) distinguish as the\nCannanite \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (from \u200f\u05e7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, to be zealous). This surname seems\nto mark him as a former adherent of the Jewish sect of zealots for\nreligion, [900] a party which, it is true, did not attain consistence\nuntil the latest period of the Jewish state, but which was already in\nthe process of formation. In all the lists that retain the name of\nJudas Iscariot, he occupies the last place, but of him we must not\nspeak until we enter on the history of the Passion. Luke, in his\nfilling up of the remaining places of this quaternion, differs from the\ntwo other Evangelists, and perhaps these also differ from each other;\nLuke has a second Judas, whom he styles the brother of James; Matthew,\nLebbeus; and Mark, Thaddeus. It is true that we now commonly read in\nMatthew, Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus; but the vacillation in\nthe early readings seems to betray these words to be a later addition\nintended to reconcile the first two Evangelists; [901] an attempt which\nothers have made by pointing out a similarity of meaning between the\ntwo names, though such a similarity does not exist. [902] But allowing\nvalidity to one or other of these harmonizing efforts, there yet\nremains a discrepancy between Matthew and Mark with their\nLebbeus-Thaddeus, and Luke with his Judas, the brother of James.\nSchleiermacher justly disapproves the expedients, almost all of them\nconstrained and unnatural, which have been resorted to for the sake of\nproving that here also, we have but one person under two different\nnames. He seeks to explain the divergency, by supposing, that during\nthe lifetime of Jesus, one of the two men died or left the circle of\nthe apostles, and the other took his place; so that one list gives the\nearlier, the other the later member. [903] But it is scarcely possible\nto admit that any one of our catalogues was drawn up during the life of\nJesus; and after that period, no writer would think of including a\nmember who had previously retired from the college of apostles; those\nonly would be enumerated who were ultimately attached to Jesus. It is\nthe most reasonable to allow that there is a discrepancy between the\nlists, since it is easy to account for it by the probability that while\nthe number of the apostles, and the names of the most distinguished\namong them, were well known, varying traditions supplied the place of\nmore positive data concerning the less conspicuous.\n\nLuke makes us acquainted with a circle of disciples, intermediate to\nthe twelve and the mass of the partisans of Jesus. He tells us (x. 1\nff.) that besides the twelve, Jesus chose other seventy also, and sent\nthem two and two before him into all the districts which he intended to\nvisit on his last journey, that they might proclaim the approach of the\nkingdom of heaven. As the other Evangelists have no allusion to this\nevent, the most recent critics have not hesitated to make their silence\non this head a reproach to them, particularly to the first Evangelist,\nin his supposed character of apostle. [904] But the disfavour towards\nMatthew on this score ought to be moderated by the consideration, that\nneither in the other gospels, nor in the Acts, nor in any apostolic\nepistle, is there any trace of the seventy disciples, who could\nscarcely have passed thus unnoticed, had their mission been as fruitful\nin consequences, as it is commonly supposed. It is said, however, that\nthe importance of this appointment lay in its significance, rather than\nin its effects. As the number of the twelve apostles, by its relation\nto that of the tribes of Israel, shadowed forth the destination of\nJesus for the Jewish people; so the seventy, or as some authorities\nhave it, the seventy-two disciples, were representatives of the seventy\nor seventy-two peoples, with as many different tongues, which,\naccording to the Jewish and early Christian view, formed the sum of the\nearth\u2019s inhabitants, [905] and hence they denoted the universal\ndestination of Jesus and his kingdom. [906] Moreover, seventy was a\nsacred number with the Jewish nation; Moses deputed seventy elders\n(Num. xi. 16, 25); the Sanhedrim had seventy members; [907] the Old\nTestament, seventy translators.\n\nHad Jesus, then, under the pressing circumstances that mark his public\ncareer, nothing more important to do than to cast about for significant\nnumbers, and to surround himself with inner and outer circles of\ndisciples, regulated by these mystic measures? or rather, is not this\nconstant preference for sacred numbers, this assiduous development of\nan idea to which the number of the apostles furnished the suggestion,\nwholly in the spirit of the primitive Christian legend? This, supposing\nit imbued with Jewish prepossessions, would infer, that as Jesus had\nrespect to the twelve tribes in fixing the number of his apostles, he\nwould extend the parallel by appointing seventy subordinate disciples,\ncorresponding to the seventy elders; or, supposing the legend animated\nby the more universal sentiments of Paul, it could not escape the\npersuasion that to the symbol of the relation of his office to the\nIsraelitish people, Jesus would annex another, significative of its\ndestination for all the kindreds of the earth. However agreeable this\nclass of seventy disciples may have always been to the church, as a\nseries of niches for the reception of men who, without belonging to the\ntwelve, were yet of importance to her, as Mark, Luke and Matthew; we\nare compelled to pronounce the decision of our most recent critic\nprecipitate, and to admit that the Gospel of Luke, by its acceptance of\nsuch a narrative, destitute as it is of all historical confirmation,\nand of any other apparent source than dogmatical interests, is placed\nin disadvantageous comparison with that of Matthew. We gather, indeed,\nfrom Acts i. 21 f. that Jesus had more than the twelve as his constant\ncompanions; but that these formed a body of exactly seventy, or that\nthat number was selected from them, does not seem adequately warranted\n[908].\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS. [909]\n\n\u00a7 76.\n\nTHE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.\n\nIn reviewing the public life of Jesus, we may separate from the events\nthose discourses which were not merely incidental, but which stand\nindependent and entire. This distinction, however, is not precise, for\nmany discourses, owing to the occurrences that suggested them, may be\nclassed as events; and many events, from the explanations annexed to\nthem, seem to range themselves with the discourses. The discourses of\nJesus given in the synoptical gospels, and those attributed to him in\nthe fourth, differ widely both in form and matter, having only a few\nisolated sentences in common: they must, therefore, be subjected to a\nseparate examination. Again, there is a dissimilitude between the three\nfirst Evangelists: Matthew affects long discourses, and collects into\none mass a number of sayings, which in Luke are distributed among\nvarious places and occasions; each of these two Evangelists has also\nsome discourses peculiar to himself. In Mark, the element of discourses\nexists in a very small proportion. Our purpose will, therefore, be best\nanswered, if we make Matthew\u2019s comprehensive discourses our starting\npoint; ascertain all the corresponding ones in the other gospels;\ninquire which amongst them has the best arrangement and representation\nof these discourses; and, finally, endeavour to form a judgment as to\nhow far they really proceeded from the lips of Jesus.\n\nThe first long discourse in Matthew is that known as the Sermon on the\nMount (v.\u2013vii.). The Evangelist, having recorded the return of Jesus\nafter his baptism into Galilee, and the calling of the fishermen,\ninforms us, that Jesus went through all Galilee, teaching and healing;\nthat great multitudes followed him from all parts of Palestine; and\nthat for their instruction he ascended a mountain, and delivered the\nsermon in question (iv. 23 ff.). We seek in vain for its parallel in\nMark, but Luke (vi. 20\u201349) gives a discourse which has the same\nintroduction and conclusion, and presents in its whole tenor the most\nstriking similarity with that of Matthew; moreover, in both cases,\nJesus, at the termination of his discourse, goes to Capernaum, and\nheals the centurion\u2019s servant. It is true that Luke gives a later\ninsertion to the discourse, for previous to it he narrates many\njourneyings and cures of Jesus, which Matthew places after it; and\nwhile the latter represents Jesus as ascending a mountain, and being\nseated there during delivery of his discourse, Luke says, almost in\ncontradiction to him, that Jesus came down and stood in the plain.\nFurther, the sermon in Luke contains but a fourth part of that in\nMatthew, while it has some elements peculiarly its own.\n\nTo avoid the unpleasant admission that one of two inspired Evangelists\nmust be in error,\u2014which is inevitable if in relation to the same\ndiscourse one of them makes Jesus deliver it on the mountain, the other\nin the plain; the one sitting, the other standing; the one earlier, the\nother later; if either the one has made important omissions, or the\nother as important additions;\u2014the ancient harmonists pronounced these\ndiscourses to be distinct, [910] on the plea that Jesus must frequently\nhave treated of the essential points of his doctrine, and may therefore\nhave repeated word for word certain impressive enunciations. This may\nbe positively denied with respect to long discourses, and even concise\nmaxims will always be reproduced in a new guise and connexion by a\ngifted and inventive teacher; to say the least, it is impossible that\nany but a very barren mind should repeat the same formal exordium, and\nthe same concluding illustration, on separate occasions.\n\nThe identity of the discourses being established, the first effort was\nto conciliate or to explain the divergencies between the two accounts\nso as to leave their credibility unimpeached. In reference to the\ndifferent designation of the locality, Paulus insists on the \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 of\nLuke, which he interprets to imply that Jesus stood over the plain, and\ntherefore on a hill. Tholuck, more happily, distinguishes the level\nspace, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2, from the plain properly so called, and regards it\nas a less abrupt part of the mountain. But as one Evangelist makes\nJesus ascend the mountain to deliver his discourse, while the other\nmakes him descend for the same purpose, these conciliators ought to\nadmit, with Olshausen, that if Jesus taught in the plain, according to\nLuke, Matthew has overlooked the descent that preceded the discourse;\nor if, as Matthew says, Jesus taught seated on the mountain, Luke has\nforgotten to mention that after he had descended, the pressure of the\ncrowd induced him to reascend before he commenced his harangue. And\nwithout doubt each was ignorant of what he omits, but each knew that\ntradition associated this discourse with a sojourn of Jesus on a\nmountain. Matthew thought the mountain a convenient elevation for one\naddressing a multitude; Luke, on the contrary, imagined a descent\nnecessary for the purpose: hence the double discrepancy, for he who\nteaches from a mountain is sufficiently elevated over his hearers to\nsit, but he who teaches in a plain will naturally stand. The\nchronological divergencies, as well as the local, must be admitted, if\nwe would abstain from fruitless efforts at conciliation. [911]\n\nThe difference as to the length and contents of the discourse is\nsusceptible of three explanations: either the concise record of Luke is\na mere extract from the entire discourse which Matthew gives without\nabridgment; or Matthew has incorporated many sayings belonging properly\nto other occasions; or, lastly, both these causes of variety have\nconcurred. He who, with Tholuck, wishes to preserve intact the fides\ndivina, or with Paulus, the fides humana of the Evangelists, will\nprefer the first supposition, because to withhold the true is more\ninnocent than to add the false. The above theologians hold that the\ntrain of thought in the Sermon on the Mount, as given by Matthew, is\nclosely consecutive, and that this is a proof of its original unity.\nBut any compiler not totally devoid of ability, can give a tolerable\nappearance of connectedness to sayings which did not originally belong\nto each other; and even these commentators are obliged to admit [912]\nthat the alleged consecutiveness extends over no more than half the\nsermon, for from vi. 19 it is a string of more or less isolated\nsentences, some of them very unlikely to have been uttered on the\noccasion. More recent criticism has therefore decided that the shorter\naccount of Luke presents the discourse of Jesus in its original form,\nand that Matthew has taken the licence of incorporating with this much\nthat was uttered by Jesus at various times, so as to retain the general\nsketch\u2014the exordium, peroration, and essential train of thought; while\nbetween these compartments he inserted many sayings more or less\nanalogous borrowed from elsewhere. [913] This view is especially\nsupported by the fact that many of the sentences, which in Matthew make\npart of the Sermon on the Mount, are in Mark and Luke dispersed through\na variety of scenes. Compelled to grant this, yet earnestly solicitous\nto avert from the Evangelist an imputation that might invalidate his\nclaim to be considered an eye-witness, other theologians maintain that\nMatthew did not compile the discourse under the idea that it was\nactually spoken on a single occasion, but with the clearest knowledge\nthat such was not the case. [914] It is with justice remarked in\nopposition to this, that when Matthew represents Jesus as ascending the\nmountain before he begins his discourse, and descending after its\nclose, he obviously makes these two incidents the limits of a single\naddress; and that when he speaks of the impression which the discourse\nproduced on the multitude, whose presence he states as the inducement\nto its delivery, he could not but intend to convey the idea of a\ncontinuous harangue. [915] As to Luke\u2019s edition of the sermon, there\nare parts in which the interrupted connexion betrays deficiencies, and\nthere are additions which do not look genuine; [916] it is also\ndoubtful whether he assigns a more appropriate connexion to the\npassages in the position of which he differs from Matthew; [917] and\nhence, as we shall soon see more fully, he has in this instance no\nadvantage over his predecessor.\n\nThe assemblage to whom the Sermon on the Mount was addressed, might\nfrom Luke\u2019s account be supposed a narrow circle, for he states that the\nchoice of the apostles immediately preceded the discourse, and that at\nits commencement Jesus lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and he does\nnot, like Matthew, note the multitude, \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, as part of the audience.\nOn the other hand, Matthew also mentions that before the sermon the\ndisciples gathered round Jesus and were taught by him; and Luke\nrepresents the discourse as being delivered in the audience of the\npeople (vii. 1); it is therefore evident that Jesus spoke to the crowd\nin general, but with a particular view to the edification of his\ndisciples. [918] We have no reason to doubt that a real harangue of\nJesus, more than ordinarily solemn and public, was the foundation of\nthe evangelical accounts before us.\n\nLet us now proceed to an examination of particulars. In both editions,\nthe Sermon on the Mount is opened by a series of beatitudes; in Luke,\nhowever, not only are several wanting which we find in Matthew, but\nmost of those common to both are in the former taken in another sense\nthan in the latter. [919] The poor, \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u1f76, are not specified as in\nMatthew by the addition, in spirit, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9; they are therefore not\nthose who have a deep consciousness of inward poverty and misery, but\nthe literally poor; neither is the hunger of the \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (hungering)\nreferred to \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd (righteousness); it is therefore not\nspiritual hunger, but bodily; moreover, the adverb \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd, now, definitely\nmarks out those who hunger and those who weep, the \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 and\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Thus in Luke the antithesis is not, as in Matthew, between\nthe present sorrows of pious souls, whose pure desires are yet\nunsatisfied, and their satisfaction about to come; but between present\nsuffering and future well-being in general. [920] This mode of\ncontrasting the \u03b1\u1f30\u1f7c\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 and the \u03b1\u1f30\u1f7c\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, the present age and the\nfuture, is elsewhere observable in Luke, especially in the parable of\nthe rich man; and without here inquiring which of the two\nrepresentations is probably the original, I shall merely remark, that\nthis of Luke is conceived entirely in the spirit of the Ebionites,\u2014a\nspirit which has of late been supposed discernible in Matthew. It is a\ncapital principle with the Ebionites, as they are depicted in the\nClementine Homilies, that he who has his portion in the present age,\nwill be destitute in the age to come; while he who renounces earthly\npossessions, thereby accumulates heavenly treasures. [921] The last\nbeatitude relates to those who are persecuted for the sake of Jesus.\nLuke in the parallel passage has, for the Son of man\u2019s sake; hence the\nwords for my sake in Matthew, must be understood to refer to Jesus\nsolely in his character of Messiah. [922]\n\nThe beatitudes are followed in Luke by as many woes \u03bf\u1f50\u03b1\u1f76, which are\nwanting in Matthew. In these the opposition established by the\nEbionites between this world and the other, is yet more strongly\nmarked; for woe is denounced on the rich, the full, and the joyous,\nsimply as such, and they are threatened with the evils corresponding to\ntheir present advantages, under the new order of things to be\nintroduced by the Messiah; a view that reminds us of the Epistle of\nJames, v. 1 ff. The last woe is somewhat stiffly formed after the model\nof the last beatitude, for it is evidently for the sake of the contrast\nto the true prophets, so much calumniated, that the false prophets are\nsaid, without any historical foundation, to have been spoken well of by\nall men. We may therefore conjecture, with Schleiermacher, [923] that\nwe are indebted for these maledictions to the inventive fertility of\nthe author of the third gospel. He added this supplement to the\nbeatitudes, less because, as Schleiermacher supposes, he perceived a\nchasm, which he knew not how to fill, than because he judged it\nconsistent with the character of the Messiah, that, like Moses of old,\nhe should couple curses with blessings. The Sermon on the Mount is\nregarded as the counterpart of the law, delivered on Mount Sinai; but\nthe introduction, especially in Luke, reminds us more of a passage in\nDeuteronomy, in which Moses commands that on the entrance of the\nIsraelitish people into the promised land, one half of them shall take\ntheir stand on Mount Gerizim, and pronounce a manifold blessing on the\nobservers of the law, the other half on Mount Ebal, whence they were to\nfulminate as manifold a curse on its transgressors. We read in Josh.\nviii. 33 ff. that this injunction was fulfilled. [924]\n\nWith the beatitudes, Matthew suitably connects the representation of\nthe disciples as the salt of the earth, and the light of the world (v.\n13 ff.). In Luke, the discourse on the salt is, with a rather different\nopening, introduced in another place (xiv. 34 f.), where Jesus\nadmonishes his hearers to ponder the sacrifices that must be made by\nthose who would follow him, and rather to abstain from the profession\nof discipleship than to maintain it dishonourably; and to this succeeds\naptly enough the comparison of such degenerate disciples to salt that\nhas lost its savour. Thus the dictum accords with either context, and\nfrom its aphoristical conciseness would be likely to recur, so that it\nmay have been really spoken in both discourses. On the contrary, it\ncannot have been spoken in the sequence in which it is placed by Mark\n(ix. 50): for the idea that every one shall be salted with fire (in\nallusion to hell), has no internal connexion with the comparison of the\ntrue disciples of Jesus to salt, denoting their superiority: the\nconnexion is merely external, resulting from the verbal affinity of\n\u1f01\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2,\u2014it is the connexion of the dictionary. [925] The\naltered sequel which Mark gives to the apothegm (have salt in\nyourselves, and be at peace with one another) might certainly be united\nto it without incongruity, but it would accord equally well with quite\na different train of thought. The apothegm on the light which is not to\nbe hidden, as the salt is not to be without savour, is also wanting in\nthe Sermon on the Mount as given by Luke; who, however, omitting the\nspecial application to the disciples, has substantially the same\ndoctrine in two different places. We find it first (viii. 16)\nimmediately after the interpretation of the parable of the sower, where\nit also occurs in Mark (iv. 21), It must be admitted that there is no\nincoherence in associating the shining of the light with the\nfructification of the seed; still, a judicious teacher will pause on\nthe interpretation of a parable, and will not disturb its effect by a\nhasty transition to new images. At any rate there is no intrinsic\nconnexion between the shining of the inward light, and the declaration\nappended to it by Luke, that all secrets shall be made manifest. We\nhave here a case which is of frequent recurrence with this Evangelist;\nthat, namely, of a variety of isolated sayings being thrown confusedly\ntogether between two independent discourses or narratives. Thus between\nthe parable of the sower and the narrative of the visit paid to Jesus\nby his mother and brethren, the apothegm on the light is inserted on\naccount of its internal analogy with the parable; then, because in this\napothegm there occurs the opposition between concealment and\nmanifestation, it suggested to the writer the otherwise heterogeneous\ndiscourse on the revelation of all secrets; whereupon is added, quite\nirrelevantly to the context, but with some relation to the parable, the\ndeclaration, Whosoever hath, to him shall be given. In the second\npassage on the manifestation of the light (xi. 33), the subject has\nabsolutely no connexion, unless we interpolate one [926] with that of\nthe context, which turns on the condemnation of the cotemporaries of\nJesus by the Ninevites. The fact is, that here again, between the\ndiscourses against the demand for signs and those at the Pharisee\u2019s\ndinner, we have a chasm filled up with disjointed fragments of\nharangues.\n\nAt v. 17 ff. follows the transition to the main subject of the sermon;\nthe assurance of Jesus that he came not to destroy the law and the\nprophets, but to fulfil, etc. Now as Jesus herein plainly presupposes\nthat he is himself the Messiah, to whom was ascribed authority to\nabolish a part of the law, this declaration cannot properly belong to a\nperiod in which, if Matt. xvi. 13 ff. be rightly placed, he had not yet\ndeclared himself to be the Messiah. Luke (xvi. 17) inserts this\ndeclaration together with the apparently contradictory one, that the\nlaw and the prophets were in force until the coming of John. These are\ntwo propositions that we cannot suppose to have been uttered\nconsecutively; and the secret of their conjunction in Luke\u2019s gospel\nlies in the word \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, law, which happens to occur in both. [927] It\nis to be observed that between the parable of the steward and that of\nthe rich man, we have another of those pauses in which Luke is fond of\nintroducing his fragments.\n\nSo little, it appears from v. 20, is it the design of Jesus to\ninculcate a disregard of the Mosaic law, that he requires a far\nstricter observance of its precepts than the Scribes and Pharisees, and\nhe makes the latter appear in contrast to himself as the underminers of\nthe law. Then follows a series of Mosaic commandments, on which Jesus\ncomments so as to show that he penetrates into the spirit of the law,\ninstead of cleaving to the mere letter, and especially discerns the\nworthlessness of the rabbinical glosses (48). This section, in the\norder and completeness in which we find it in Matthew, is wanting in\nLuke\u2019s Sermon on the Mount; a decisive proof that the latter has\ndeficiencies. For not only does this chapter contain the fundamental\nthought of the discourse as given by Matthew, but the desultory sayings\nwhich Luke gives, concerning the love of enemies, mercifulness and\nbeneficence, only acquire a definite purpose and point of union in the\ncontrast between the spiritual interpretation of the law given by\nJesus, and the carnal one given by the doctors of the time. The words,\ntoo, with which Luke makes Jesus proceed after the last woe: But I say\nunto you, and those at v. 39, And he spake a parable unto them, have\nbeen correctly pointed out as indicative of chasms. [928] As regards\nthe isolated parallel passages, the admonition to a quick\nreconciliation with an adversary (v. 25 f.), is, to say the least, not\nso easily brought into connexion with the foregoing matter in Luke\n(xii. 58) as in Matthew. [929] It is still worse with the passage in\nLuke which is parallel with Matt. v. 32; this text (relative to\ndivorce), which in Matthew is linked in the general chain of ideas, is\nin Luke (xvi. 18) thrust into one of the apertures we have noticed,\nbetween the assurance of the perpetuity of the law and the parable of\nthe rich man. Olshausen tries to find a thread of connexion between the\npassage and the one preceding it, by interpreting adultery, \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\nallegorically, as faithlessness to the divine law; and Schleiermacher\n[930] attaches it to the succeeding parable by referring it to the\nadulterous Herod: but such interpretations are altogether visionary.\n[931] Probably tradition had apprized the Evangelist that Jesus, after\nthe foregoing declaration as to the perpetuity of the Mosaic law, had\nenunciated his severe principle on the subject of divorce, and hence he\ngave it this position, not knowing more of its original connexion. In\nMatt. xix. 9, we find a reiteration of this principle on an occasion\nvery likely to call it forth. The exhortations to patience and\nsubmissiveness, form, in Matthew, the spiritual interpretation of the\nold rule, an eye for an eye, etc., and are therefore a following out of\nthe previous train of thought. In Luke (vi. 29), they are introduced\nwith much less precision by the command concerning love to enemies:\nwhich command is also decidedly better given in Matthew as the\nrectification of the precept, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate\nthine enemy (43 ff.). Again: the observation that to love friends is\nnothing more than bad men can do, is, in Matthew, made, in order to\ncontrovert the traditional perversion of the Mosaic injunction to love\none\u2019s neighbour, into a permission to hate enemies: in Luke, the\nobservation follows the rule, Whatsoever ye would that men should do to\nyou, etc., which in Matthew occurs farther on (vii. 12) without any\nconnexion. On the whole, if the passage in Luke from vi. 2\u201336, be\ncompared with the corresponding one in Matthew, there will be found in\nthe latter an orderly course of thought; in the former, considerable\nconfusion. [932]\n\nThe warnings against Pharisaic hypocrisy (vi. 1\u20136) are without a\nparallel in Luke; but he has one of the model prayer, which recent\ncriticism has turned not a little to the disadvantage of Matthew. The\nancient harmonists, it is true, had no hesitation in supposing that\nJesus delivered this prayer twice,\u2014in the connexion in which it is\ngiven by Matthew, as well as under the circumstances narrated by Luke\n(xi. ff.). [933] But if Jesus had already in the Sermon on the Mount\ngiven a model prayer, his disciples would scarcely have requested one\nafterwards, as if nothing of the kind had occurred; and it is still\nmore improbable that Jesus would repeat the same formulary, without any\nrecollection that he had delivered it to these disciples long before.\nHence our most recent critics have decided that Luke alone has\npreserved the natural and true occasion on which this prayer was\ncommunicated, and that like many other fragments, it was interpolated\nin Matthew\u2019s Sermon on the Mount by the writer. [934] But the vaunted\nnaturalness of Luke\u2019s representation, I, for one, cannot discover.\nApart from the improbability, admitted even by the above critics, that\nthe disciples of Jesus should have remained without any direction to\npray until the last journey, in which Luke places the scene; it is\nanything but natural that Jesus should abstain from giving his\ndisciples the exemplar which was in his mind until they sought for it,\nand that then he should forthwith fall into prayer. He had, doubtless,\noften prayed in their circle from the commencement of their\nintercourse; and if so, their request was superfluous, and must, as in\nJohn xiv. 9, have produced only an admonition to recollect what they\nhad long seen and heard in his society. The account of Luke seems to\nhave been framed on mere conjecture; it was known that the above prayer\nproceeded from Jesus, and the further question as to the motive for its\ncommunication, received the gratuitous answer: without doubt his\ndisciples had asked him for such an exemplar. Without, therefore,\nmaintaining that Matthew has preserved to us the connexion in which\nthis prayer was originally uttered by Jesus, we are not the less in\ndoubt whether it has a more accurate position in Luke. [935] With\nregard to the elements of the prayer, it is impossible to deny what\nWetstein says: tota h\u00e6c oratio ex formulis Hebr\u00e6orum concinnata est;\n[936] but Fritzsche\u2019s observation is also just, that desires of so\ngeneral a nature might be uttered in the prayers of various persons,\neven in similar phraseology, without any other cause than the broad\nuniformity of human feeling. [937] We may add that the selection and\nallocation of the petitions in the prayer are entirely original, and\nbear the impress of that religious consciousness which Jesus possessed\nand sought to impart to his followers. [938] Matthew inserts after the\nconclusion of the prayer two propositions, which are properly the\ncorollary of the third petition, but which seem inaptly placed, not\nonly because they are severed by the concluding petition from the\npassage to which they have reference, but because they have no point of\ncoincidence with the succeeding censures and admonitions which turn on\nthe hypocrisy of the Pharisaic fasts. Mark, however, has still more\ninfelicitously appended these propositions to the discourse of Jesus on\nthe efficacy of believing prayer (xi. 25). [939]\n\nAt vi. 19, the thread of strict connexion is broken, according to the\nadmission of Paulus, and so far all expositors are bound to agree with\nhim. But his position, that notwithstanding the admitted lack of\ncoherence in the succeeding collection of sentences, Jesus spoke them\nconsecutively, is not equally tenable; on the contrary, our more recent\ncritics have all the probabilities on their side when they suppose,\nthat in this latter half of the Sermon on the Mount Matthew has\nincorporated a variety of sayings uttered by Jesus on different\noccasions. First stands the apothegm on earthly and heavenly treasures\n(19\u201321), which Luke, with more apparent correctness, inserts in a\ndiscourse of Jesus, the entire drift of which is to warn his adherents\nagainst earthly cares (xii. 33 f.). It is otherwise with the next\nsentence, on the eye being the light of the body. Luke annexes this to\nthe apothegm already mentioned on the light that is to be exhibited;\nnow as the light \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, placed on a candlestick, denotes something\nquite distinct from what is intended by the comparison of the eye to a\nlight, \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, the only reason for combining the two apothegms lies in\nthe bare word \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2: a rule of association which belongs properly to\nthe dictionary, and which, beyond it, is worse than none. Then follows,\nalso without any apparent connexion, the apothegm on the two masters,\nappended by Luke to the parable of the steward, with which it happens\nto have the word Mammon, \u03bc\u03b1\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2, in common. Next comes, in Matthew v.\n25\u201334, a dissuasion from earthly solicitude, on the ground that natural\nobjects flourish and are sustained without anxiety on their part; in\nLuke, this doctrine is consistently united with the parable (found only\nin the third gospel) of the man who, in the midst of amassing earthly\ntreasures, is summoned away by death (xii. 22 ff.). [940] The warning\nnot to be blind to our own faults while we are sharp-sighted and severe\ntowards those of others (vii. 1\u20135), would, if we rejected the passage\nfrom v. 19, of chap, vi. to the end, form a suitable continuation to\nthe previous admonition against Pharisaic sanctimoniousness (vi.\n16\u201318), and might, therefore, have belonged to the original body of the\ndiscourse. [941] This is the more probable because Luke has the same\nwarning in his Sermon on the Mount (37 f., 41 f.), where it happens to\nassort very well with the preceding exhortation to mercifulness; but at\nv. 39 and 40, and part of 38, it is interrupted by subjects altogether\nirrelevant. The text, With what measure ye mete, etc., is very\ninappropriately interposed by Mark (iv. 24), in a passage similar in\nkind to one of Luke\u2019s intermediate miscellanies. V. 6, in Matthew, is\nequally destitute of connexion and parallel; but the succeeding\nassurances and arguments as to the efficacy of prayer (v. 7\u201311), are\nfound in Luke xi. 9, very fitly associated with another parable\npeculiar to that Evangelist: that of the friend awaked at midnight The\napothegm, What ye would that men should do unto you, etc., is quite\nisolated in Matthew; in Luke, it has only an imperfect connexion. [942]\nThe following passage (v. 13 f.) on the strait gate \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 is\nintroduced in Luke (xiii. 23) by the question addressed to Jesus: Are\nthere few that be saved? \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u03c9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9; which seems likely\nenough to have been conceived by one who knew that Jesus had uttered\nsuch a saying as the above, but was at a loss for an occasion that\nmight prompt the idea; moreover, the image is far less completely\ncarried out in Luke than in Matthew, and is blended with parabolical\nelements. [943] The apothegm on the tree being known by its fruits (v.\n16\u201320), appears in Luke (vi. 43 ff.), and even in Matthew, farther on\n(xii. 33 ff.), to have a general application, but in Matthew\u2019s Sermon\non the Mount, it has a special relation to the false prophets; in Luke,\nit is in the last degree misplaced. The denunciation of those who say\nto Jesus, Lord, Lord, but who, on account of their evil deeds will be\nrejected by him at the day of judgment (21\u201323), decidedly presupposes\nthe Messiahship of Jesus, and cannot therefore, have well belonged to\nso early a period as that of the Sermon on the Mount; hence it is more\nappropriately placed by Luke (xiii. 25 ff.). The peroration of the\ndiscourse is, as we have mentioned, common to both Evangelists.\n\nThe foregoing comparison shows us that the discourses of Jesus, like\nfragments of granite, could not be dissolved by the flood of oral\ntradition; but they were not seldom torn from their natural connexion,\nfloated away from their original situation, and deposited in places to\nwhich they did not properly belong. Relative to this effect, there is\nthis distinction between the three first Evangelists; Matthew, like an\nable compiler, though far from being sufficiently informed to give each\nrelic in its original connexion, has yet for the most part succeeded in\njudiciously associating analogous materials; while the two other\nEvangelists have left many small fragments just where chance threw\nthem, in the intervals between longer discourses. Luke has laboured in\nsome instances to combine these fragments artificially, but he could\nnot thus compensate for the absence of natural connexion.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 77.\n\nINSTRUCTIONS TO THE TWELVE. LAMENTATIONS OVER THE GALILEAN CITIES. JOY\nOVER THE CALLING OF THE SIMPLE.\n\nThe first gospel (x.) reports another long discourse as having been\ndelivered by Jesus, on the occasion of his sending out the twelve to\npreach the kingdom of heaven. Part of this discourse is peculiar to the\nfirst gospel; that portion of it which is common to the two other\nsynoptists is only partially assigned by them to the same occasion,\nLuke introducing its substance in connexion with the mission of the\nseventy (x. 2 ff.), and in a subsequent conversation with the disciples\n(xii. 2 ff.). Some portion of the discourse is also found repeated both\nin Matthew and the other Evangelists, in the prophetic description\ngiven by Jesus of his second advent.\n\nIn this instance again, while the older harmonists have no hesitation\nin supposing a repetition of the same discourse, [944] our more recent\ncritics are of opinion that Luke only has the true occasions and the\noriginal arrangement of the materials, and that Matthew has assembled\nthem according to his own discretion. [945] Those expositors who are\napologetically inclined, maintain that Matthew was not only conscious\nof here associating sayings uttered at various times, but presumed that\nthis would be obvious to his readers. [946] On the other hand, it is\njustly observed that the manner in which the discourse is introduced by\nthe words: These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them (v. 5);\nand closed by the words: when Jesus made an end of commanding his\ntwelve disciples, etc. (xi. 1); proves clearly enough that it was the\nintention of the Evangelist to give his compilation the character of a\ncontinuous harangue. [947]\n\nMuch that is peculiar to Matthew in this discourse, appears to be\nmerely an amplification on thoughts which are also found in the\ncorresponding passages of the two other synoptists; but there are two\nparticulars in the opening of the instructions as detailed by the\nformer, which differ specifically from anything presented by his fellow\nEvangelists. These are the limitation of the agency of the disciples to\nthe Jews (v. 5, 6), and the commission (associated with that to\nannounce the kingdom of heaven and heal the sick, of which Luke also\nspeaks, ix. 2), to raise the dead: a surprising commission, since we\nknow of no instances previous to the departure of Jesus, in which the\napostles raised the dead; and to suppose such when they are not\nnarrated, after the example of Olshausen, is an expedient to which few\nwill be inclined.\n\nAll that the synoptists have strictly in common in the instructions to\nthe twelve, are the rules for their external conduct; how they were to\njourney, and how to behave under a variety of circumstances (Matt. v.\n9\u201311, 14; Mark vi. 8\u201311; Luke ix. 3\u20135). Here, however, we find a\ndiscrepancy; according to Matthew and Luke, Jesus forbids the disciples\nto take with them, not only gold, a scrip, and the like, but even\nshoes, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, and a staff, \u1fe5\u03ac\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd; according to Mark, on the\ncontrary, he merely forbids their taking more than a staff and sandals,\n\u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1fe5\u03ac\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and \u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1. This discrepancy is most easily\naccounted for by the admission, that tradition only preserved a\nreminiscence of Jesus having signified the simplicity of the apostolic\nequipment by the mention of the staff and shoes, and that hence one of\nthe Evangelists understood that Jesus had interdicted all travelling\nrequisites except these; the other, that these also were included in\nhis prohibition. It was consistent with Mark\u2019s love of the picturesque\nto imagine a wandering apostle furnished with a staff, and therefore to\ngive the preference to the former view.\n\nIt is on the occasion of the mission of the seventy, that Luke (x. 2)\nputs into the mouth of Jesus the words which Matthew gives (ix. 37 f.)\nas the motive for sending forth the twelve, namely, the apothegm, The\nharvest truly is ready, but the labourers are few; also the declaration\nthat the labourer is worthy of his hire (v. 7, comp. Matt x. 10); the\ndiscourse on the apostolic salutation and its effect (Matt. v. 12 f.;\nLuke v. 5 f.); the denunciation of those who should reject the apostles\nand their message (Matt. v. 15; Luke v. 12); and finally, the words,\nBehold, I send you forth as lambs, etc. (Matt. v. 16; Luke v. 3). The\nsequence of these propositions is about equally natural in both cases.\nTheir completeness is alternately greater in the one than in the other;\nbut Matthew\u2019s additions generally turn on essentials, as in v. 16;\nthose of Luke on externals, as in v. 7, 8, and in v. 4, where there is\nthe singular injunction to salute no man by the way, which might appear\nan unhistorical exaggeration of the urgency of the apostolic errand,\ndid we not know that the Jewish greetings of that period were not a\nlittle ceremonious. [948] Sieffert observes that the instructions which\nJesus gave\u2014according to Matthew, to the twelve, according to Luke, to\nthe seventy\u2014might, so far as their tenor is concerned, have been\nimparted with equal fitness on either occasion; but I doubt this, for\nit seems to me improbable that Jesus should, as Luke states, dismiss\nhis more confidential disciples with scanty rules for their outward\nconduct, and that to the seventy he should make communications of much\ngreater moment and pathos. [949] The above critic at length decides in\nfavour of Luke, whose narrative appears to him more precise, because it\ndistinguishes the seventy from the twelve. We have already discussed\nthis point, and have found that a comparison is rather to the advantage\nof Matthew. The blessing pronounced on him who should give even a cup\nof cold water to the disciples of Jesus (v. 42), is at least more\njudiciously inserted by Matthew as the conclusion of the discourse of\ninstructions, than in the endless confusion of the latter part of Mark\nix. (v. 41), where \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd (if), and \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd (whosoever), seem to form the\nonly tie between the successive propositions.\n\nThe case is otherwise when we regard those portions of the discourse\nwhich Luke places in his twelfth chapter, and even later, and which in\nMatthew are distinguishable as a second part of the same discourse.\nSuch are the directions to the apostles as to their conduct before\ntribunals (Matt. x. 19 f.; Luke xii. 11); the exhortation not to fear\nthose who can only kill the body (Matt. v. 28; Luke v. 4 f.); the\nwarning against the denial of Jesus (Matt. v. 32 f.; Luke v. 8 f.); the\ndiscourse on the general disunion of which he would be the cause (Matt.\nv. 34 ff.; Luke v. 51 ff.); a passage to which Matthew, prompted\napparently by the enumeration of the members of a family, attaches the\ndeclaration of Jesus that these are not to be valued above him, that\nhis cross must be taken, etc., which he partly repeats on a subsequent\noccasion, and in a more suitable connexion (xvi. 24 f.); further,\npredictions which recur in the discourse on the Mount of Olives,\nrelative to the universal persecution of the disciples of Jesus (v. 17\nf. 22, comp. xxiv. 9, 13); the saying which Luke inserts in the Sermon\non the Mount (vi. 40), and which also appears in John (xv. 20), that\nthe disciple has no claim to a better lot than his master (v. 24 f.);\nlastly, the direction, which is peculiar to the discourse in Matthew,\nto flee from one city to another, with the accompanying consolation (v.\n23). These commands and exhortations have been justly pronounced by\ncritics [950] to be unsuitable to the first mission of the twelve,\nwhich, like the alleged mission of the seventy, had no other than happy\nresults (Luke ix. 10, x. 17); they presuppose the troublous\ncircumstances which supervened after the death of Jesus, or perhaps in\nthe latter period of his life. According to this, Luke is more correct\nthan Matthew in assigning these discourses to the last journey of\nJesus; [951] unless, indeed, such descriptions of the subsequent fate\nof the apostles and other adherents of Jesus were produced ex eventu,\nafter his death, and put into his mouth in the form of prophecies; a\nconjecture which is strongly suggested by the words, He who taketh not\nup his cross, etc. (v. 38). [952]\n\nThe next long discourse of Jesus in Matthew (chap. xi.) we have already\nconsidered, so far as it relates to the Baptist. From v. 20\u201324, there\nfollow complaints and threatenings against the Galilean cities, in\nwhich most of his mighty works were done, and which, nevertheless,\nbelieved not. Our modern critics are perhaps right in their opinion\nthat these apostrophes are less suitable to the period of his Galilean\nministry, in which Matthew places them, than to that in which they are\nintroduced by Luke (x. 13 ff.); namely, when Jesus had left Galilee,\nand was on his way to Judea and Jerusalem, with a view to his final\nexperiment. [953] But a consideration of the immediate context seems to\nreverse the probability. In Matthew, the description of the ungracious\nreception which Jesus and John had alike met with, leads very naturally\nto the accusations against those places which had been the chief\ntheatres of the ministry of the former; but it is difficult to suppose,\naccording to Luke, that Jesus would speak of his past sad experience to\nthe seventy, whose minds must have been entirely directed to the\nfuture, unless we conceive that he chose a subject so little adapted to\nthe exigencies of those whom he was addressing, in order to unite the\nthreatened judgment on the Galilean cities, with that which he had just\ndenounced against the cities that should reject his messengers. But it\nis more likely that this association proceeded solely from the writer,\nwho, by the comparison of a city that should prove refractory to the\ndisciples of Jesus, to Sodom, was reminded of the analogous comparison\nto Tyre and Sidon, of places that had been disobedient to Jesus\nhimself, without perceiving the incongruity of the one with the\ncircumstances which had dictated the other. [954]\n\nThe joy, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, expressed by Jesus (v. 25\u201327) on account of the\ninsight afforded to babes, \u03bd\u03b7\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, is but loosely attached by Matthew\nto the preceding maledictions. As it supposes a change in the mental\nframe of Jesus, induced by pleasing circumstances, Luke (x. 17, 21\nff.), would have all the probabilities on his side, in making the\nreturn of the seventy with satisfactory tidings the cause of the above\nexpression; were it not that the appointment of the seventy, and\nconsequently their return, are altogether problematical; besides, it is\npossible to refer the passage in question to the return of the twelve\nfrom their mission. Matthew connects with this rejoicing of Jesus his\ninvitation to the weary and heavy laden (v. 28\u201330). This is wanting in\nLuke, who, instead, makes Jesus turn to his disciples privately, and\npronounce them blessed in being privileged to see and hear things which\nmany prophets and kings yearned after in vain (23 f.): an observation\nwhich does not so specifically agree with the preceding train of\nthought, as the context assigned to it by Matthew, and which is\nmoreover inserted by the latter Evangelist in a connexion (xiii. 16 f.)\nthat may be advantageously confronted with that of Luke.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 78.\n\nTHE PARABLES.\n\nAccording to Matthew (chap. xiii.), Jesus delivered seven parables, all\nrelating to the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd. Modern criticism, however, has\ndoubted whether Jesus really uttered so many of these symbolical\ndiscourses on one occasion. [955] The parable, it has been observed, is\na kind of problem, to be solved by the reflection of the hearer; hence\nafter every parable a pause is requisite, if it be the object of the\nteacher to convey real instruction, and not to distract by a\nmultiplicity of ill-understood images. [956] It will, at least, be\nadmitted, with Neander, that parables on the same or closely-related\nsubjects can only be spoken consecutively, when, under manifold forms,\nand from various points of view, they lead to the same result. [957]\nAmong the seven parables in question, those of the mustard-seed and the\nleaven have a common fundamental idea, differently shadowed forth\u2014the\ngradual growth and ultimate prevalence of the kingdom of God: those of\nthe net and the tares represent the mingling of the good with the bad\nin the kingdom of God; those of the treasure and the pearl inculcate\nthe inestimable and all-indemnifying value of the kingdom of God; and\nthe parable of the sower depicts the unequal susceptibility of men to\nthe preaching of the kingdom of God. Thus there are no less than four\nseparate fundamental ideas involved in this collection of\nparables\u2014ideas which are indeed connected by their general relation to\nthe kingdom of God, but which present this object under aspects so\nwidely different, that for their thorough comprehension a pause after\neach was indispensable. Hence, it has been concluded, Jesus would not\nmerit the praise of being a judicious teacher, if, as Matthew\nrepresents, he had spoken all the above parables in rapid succession.\n[958] If we suppose in this instance, again, an assemblage of\ndiscourses similar in kind, but delivered on different occasions, we\nare anew led to the discussion as to whether Matthew was aware of the\nlatter circumstance, or whether he believed that he was recording a\ncontinuous harangue. The introductory form, And he spake many things to\nthem in parables (v. 3): \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, and\nthe concluding one, when Jesus had finished these parables (v. 53): \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5\n\u1f10\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, seem to be a clear proof that\nhe did not present the intermediate matter as a compilation. Mark,\nindeed, narrates (iv. 10), that at the close of the first parable, the\ndisciples being again, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, in private, with Jesus, asked him for\nits interpretation; and hence it has been contended [959] that there\nwas an interruption of the discourse at this point; but this cannot\nserve to explain the account of Matthew, for he represents the request\nof the disciples as being preferred on the spot, without any previous\nretirement from the crowd; thus proving that he did not suppose such an\ninterruption. The concluding form which Matthew inserts after the\nfourth parable (v. 34 f.), might, with better reason, be adduced as\nintimating an interruption, for he there comprises all the foregoing\nparables in one address by the words, All these things spake Jesus in\nparables, etc., \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., and\nmakes the pause still more complete by the application of an Old\nTestament prophecy; moreover, Jesus is here said (36) to change his\nlocality, to dismiss the multitude to whom he had hitherto been\nspeaking on the shore of the Galilean sea, and enter the house, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, where he gives three new parables, in addition to the\ninterpretation which his disciples had solicited of the second. But\nthat the delivery of the last three parables was separated from that of\nthe preceding ones by a change of place, and consequently by a short\ninterval of time, very little alters the state of the case. For it is\nhighly improbable that Jesus would without intermission tax the memory\nof the populace, whose minds it was so easy to overburthen, with four\nparables, two of which were highly significant; and that he should\nforthwith overwhelm his disciples, whose power of comprehension he had\nbeen obliged to aid in the application of the first two parables, with\nthree new ones, instead of ascertaining if they were capable of\nindependently expounding the third and fourth. Further, we have only to\nlook more closely at Matthew\u2019s narrative, in order to observe that he\nhas fallen quite involuntarily on the interruption at v. 34 ff. If it\nwere his intention to communicate a series of parables, with the\nexplanations that Jesus privately gave to his disciples of the two\nwhich were most important, and were therefore to be placed at the head\nof the series, there were only three methods on which he could proceed.\nFirst, he might make Jesus, immediately after the enunciation of a\nparable, give its interpretation to his disciples in the presence of\nthe multitude, as he actually does in the case of the first parable\n(10\u201323). But the representation is beset with the difficulty of\nconceiving how Jesus, surrounded by a crowd, whose expectation was on\nthe stretch, could find leisure for a conversation aside with his\ndisciples. [960] This inconvenience Mark perceived, and therefore chose\nthe second resource that was open to him\u2014that of making Jesus with his\ndisciples withdraw after the first parable into the house, and there\ndeliver its interpretation. But such a proceeding would be too great a\nhindrance to one who proposed publicly to deliver several parables one\nafter the other; for if Jesus returned to the house immediately after\nthe first parable, he had left the scene in which the succeeding ones\ncould be conveniently imparted to the people. Consequently, the\nnarrator in the first gospel cannot, with respect to the interpretation\nof the second parable, either repeat his first plan, or resort to the\nsecond; he therefore adopts a third, and proceeding uninterruptedly\nthrough two further parables, it is only at their close that he\nconducts Jesus to the house, and there makes him impart the arrear of\ninterpretation. Herewith there arose in the mind of the narrator a sort\nof rivalry between the parables which he had yet in reserve, and the\ninterpretation, the arrear of which embarrassed him; as soon as the\nformer were absent from his recollection, the latter would be present\nwith its inevitably associated form of conclusion and return homeward;\nand when any remaining parables recurred to him, he was obliged to make\nthem the sequel of the interpretation. Thus it befel with the three\nlast parables in Matthew\u2019s narration; so that he was reduced almost\nagainst his will to make the disciples their sole participants, though\nit does not appear to have been the custom of Jesus thus to clothe his\nprivate instructions; and Mark (v. 33 f.) plainly supposes the parables\nwhich follow the interpretation of the second, to be also addressed to\nthe people. [961]\n\nMark, who (iv. 1) depicts the same scene by the sea-side, as Matthew,\nhas in connexion with it only three parables, of which the first and\nthird correspond to the first and third of Matthew, but the middle one\nis commonly deemed peculiar to Mark. [962] Matthew has in its place the\nparable wherein the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man who sowed\ngood seed in his field; but while men slept, the enemy came and sowed\ntares among it, which grew up with the wheat. The servants know not\nfrom whence the tares come, and propose to root them up; but the master\ncommands them to let both grow together until the harvest, when it will\nbe time enough to separate them. In Mark, Jesus compares the kingdom of\nheaven to a man who casts seed into the ground, and while he sleeps and\nrises again, the seed passes, he knows not how, from one stage of\ndevelopment to another: and when it is ripe, he puts in the sickle,\nbecause the harvest is come. In this parable there is wanting what\nconstitutes the dominant idea in that of Matthew, the tares, sown by\nthe enemy; but as, nevertheless, the other ideas, of sowing, sleeping,\ngrowing one knows not how, and harvest, wholly correspond, it may be\nquestioned whether Mark does not here merely give the same parable in a\ndifferent version, which he preferred to that of Matthew, because it\nseemed more intermediate between the first parable of the sower, and\nthe third of the mustard-seed.\n\nLuke, also, has only three of the seven parables given in Matt. xiii.;\nnamely, those of the sower, the mustard-seed, and the leaven; so that\nthe parables of the buried treasure, the pearl, and the net, as also\nthat of the tares in the field, are peculiar to Matthew. The parable of\nthe sower is placed by Luke (viii. 4 ff.) somewhat earlier, and in\nother circumstances, than by Matthew, and apart from the two other\nparables which he has in common with the first Evangelist\u2019s series.\nThese he introduces later, xiii. 18\u201321; a position which recent critics\nunanimously acknowledge as the correct one. [963] But this decision is\none of the most remarkable to which the criticism of the present age\nhas been led by its partiality to Luke. For if we examine the vaunted\nconnectedness of this Evangelist\u2019s passages, we find that Jesus, having\nhealed a woman bowed down by a spirit of infirmity, silences the\npunctilious ruler of the synagogue by the argument about the ox and\nass, after which it is added (v. 17), And when he had said these\nthings, all his adversaries were ashamed; and all the people rejoiced\nfor all the glorious things that were done by him. Surely so complete\nand marked a form of conclusion is intended to wind up the previous\nnarrative, and one cannot conceive that the sequel went forward in the\nsame scene; on the contrary, the phrases, then said he, and again he\nsaid, by which the parables are connected, indicate that the writer had\nno longer any knowledge of the occasion on which Jesus uttered them,\nand hence inserted them at random in this indeterminate manner, far\nless judiciously than Matthew, who at least was careful to associate\nthem with analogous materials. [964]\n\nWe proceed to notice the other evangelical parables, [965] and first\namong them, those which are peculiar to one Evangelist. We come\nforemost in Matthew to the parable of the servant (xviii. 23 ff.) who,\nalthough his lord had forgiven him a debt of ten thousand talents, had\nno mercy on his fellow-servant who owed him a hundred; tolerably well\nintroduced by an exhortation to placability (v. 15), and the question\nof Peter, How oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?\nLikewise peculiar to Matthew is the parable of the labourers in the\nvineyard (xx. 1 ff.), which suitably enough forms a counterpoise to the\nforegoing promise of a rich recompense to the disciples. Of the\nsentences which Matthew appends to this parable (v. 16), the first, So\nthe last shall be first, and the first last, by which he had also\nprefaced it (xix. 30), is the only one with which it has any internal\nconnexion; the other, for many are called, but few chosen, rather gives\nthe moral of the parable of the royal feast and the wedding garment, in\nconnexion with which Matthew actually repeats it (xxii. 14). It was\nwell adapted, however, even torn from this connexion, to circulate as\nan independent apothegm, and as it appeared fitting to the Evangelist\nto annex one or more short sentences to the end of a parable, he might\nbe induced, by some superficial similarity to the one already given, to\nplace them in companionship. Farther, the parable of the two sons sent\ninto the vineyard, is also peculiar to Matthew (xxi. 28 ff.), and is\nnot ill-placed in connexion with the foregoing questions and retorts\nbetween Jesus and the Pharisees; its anti-Pharisaic significance is\nalso well brought out by the sequel (31 f.).\n\nAmong the parables which are peculiar to Luke, that of the two debtors\n(vii. 41 ff.); that of the good Samaritan (x. 30 ff.); that of the man\nwhose accumulation of earthly treasure is interrupted by death (xii. 16\nff. comp. Wis. xi. 17 ff.); and also the two which figure the efficacy\nof importunate prayer (xi. 5 ff., xviii. 2 ff.); have a definite, clear\nsignification, and with the exception of the last, which is introduced\nabruptly, a tolerably consistent connexion. We may learn from the two\nlast parables, that it is often necessary entirely to abstract\nparticular features from the parables of Jesus, seeing that in one of\nthem God is represented by a lukewarm friend, in the other by an unjust\njudge. To the latter is annexed the parable of the Pharisee and\nPublican (9\u201314), of which only Schleiermacher, on the strength of a\nconnexion, fabricated by himself between it and the foregoing, can deny\nthe antipharisaic tendency. [966] The parables of the lost sheep, the\npiece of silver, and the prodigal son (Luke xv. 3\u201332), have the same\ndirection. Matthew also has the first of these (xviii. 12 ff.), but in\na different connexion, which determines its import somewhat\ndifferently, and without doubt, as will presently be shown, less\ncorrectly. It is easy to imagine that these three parables were spoken\nin immediate succession, because the second is merely a variation of\nthe first, and the third is an amplification and elucidation of them\nboth. Whether, according to the opinion of modern criticism, the two\nsucceeding parables also belong with the above to one continuous\ndiscourse, [967] must be determined by a closer examination of their\ncontents, which are in themselves noteworthy.\n\nThe parable of the unjust steward, notoriously the crux interpretum, is\nyet without any intrinsic difficulty. If we read to the end of the\nparable, including the moral (v. 9), we gather the simple result, that\nthe man who without precisely using unjust means to obtain riches, is\nyet in the sight of God an unprofitable servant, \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 (Luke\nxvii. 10), and, in the employment of the gifts intrusted to him by God,\na steward of injustice, \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, may best atone for this\npervading unfaithfulness by lenity and beneficence towards his\nfellow-men, and may by their intervention procure a place in heaven. It\nis true that the beneficence of the fictitious steward is a fraud; but\nwe must abstract this particular, as, in the case of two previous\nparables, we have to abstract the lukewarmness of the friend, and the\ninjustice of the judge: nay, the necessity for such an abstraction is\nintimated in the narrative itself, for from v. 8 we gather that what\nthe steward did in a worldly spirit is, in the application, to be\nunderstood in a more exalted sense of the children of light. Certainly,\nif we suppose the words, He that is faithful in that which is least,\netc. (10\u201312) to have been uttered in their present connexion, it\nappears as if the steward were set forth as a model, deserving in some\nsense or other the praise of faithfulness; and when (v. 13) it is said\nthat no servant can serve two masters, the intended inference seems to\nbe that this steward had held to the rightful one. Hence we have\nexpositions such as that of Schleiermacher, who under the master\nunderstands the Romans; under the debtors, the Jewish people; under the\nsteward, the publicans, who were generous to the latter at the expense\nof the former; thus, in the most arbitrary manner, transforming the\nmaster into a violent man, and justifying the steward. [968] Olshausen\ncarries the perversion of the parable to the extreme, for he degrades\nthe master, who, by his judicial position evidently announces himself\nas the representative of God, into \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, the prince\nof this world, while he exalts the steward into the image of a man who\napplies the riches of this world to spiritual objects. But as in the\nmoral (v. 9) the parable has a consistent ending; and as inaccurate\nassociation is by no means unexampled in Luke; it is not admissible to\nconcede to the following verses any influence over the interpretation\nof the parable, unless a close relation of idea can be made manifest.\nNow the fact is, that the very opposite, namely, the most perplexing\ndiversity, exists. Moreover, it is not difficult to show what might\nhave seduced Luke into a false association. In the parable there was\nmention of the mammon of unrighteousness, \u03bc\u03b1\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; this\nsuggested to him the saying of Jesus, that he who proves faithful in\nthe \u1f00\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u1fb7, the unrighteous mammon, as that which is least, may\nalso have the true riches committed to his trust. But the word mammon\nhaving once taken possession of the writer\u2019s mind, how could he avoid\nrecollecting the well-known aphorism of Jesus on God and Mammon, as two\nincompatible masters, and adding it (v. 13), however superfluously, to\nthe preceding texts? [969] That by this addition the previous parable\nwas placed in a thoroughly false light, gave the writer little concern,\nperhaps because he had not seized its real meaning, or because, in the\nendeavour completely to disburthen his evangelical meaning, he lost all\nsolicitude about the sequence of his passages. It ought, in general, to\nbe more considered, that those of our Evangelists who, according to the\nnow prevalent opinion, noted down oral traditions, must, in the\ncomposition of their writings, have exerted their memory to an extent\nthat would repress the activity of reflection; consequently the\narrangement of the materials in their narratives is governed by the\nassociation of ideas, the laws of which are partly dependent on\nexternal relations; and we need not be surprised to find many passages,\nespecially from the discourses of Jesus, ranged together for the sole\ncause that they happen to have in common certain striking consonant\nwords.\n\nIf from hence we glance back on the position, that the parable of the\nunjust steward must have been spoken in connexion with the foregoing\none of the prodigal son, we perceive that it rests merely on a false\ninterpretation. According to Schleiermacher, it is the defence of the\npublicans against the Pharisees, that forms the bond; but there is no\ntrace of publicans and Pharisees in the latter parable. According to\nOlshausen, the compassionate love of God, represented in the foregoing\nparable, is placed in juxtaposition with the compassionate love of man,\nrepresented in the succeeding one; but simple beneficence is the sole\nidea on which the latter turns, and a parallel between this and the\nmanner in which God meets the lost with pardon, is equally remote from\nthe intention of the teacher and the nature of the subject. The remark\n(v. 14) that the Pharisees heard all these things, and, being covetous,\nderided Jesus, does not necessarily refer to the individuals mentioned\nxv. 2, so as to imply that they had listened to the intermediate matter\nas one continuous discourse; and even if that were the case, it would\nonly show the view of the writer with respect to the connectedness of\nthe parables; a view which, in the face of the foregoing investigation,\ncannot possibly be binding on us. [970]\n\nWe have already discussed the passage from v. 15 to 18; it consists of\ndisconnected sayings, and to the last, on adultery, is annexed the\nparable of the rich man, in a manner which, as we have already noticed,\nit is attempted in vain to show as a real connexion. It must, however,\nbe conceded to Schleiermacher, that if we separate them, the\nalternative, namely, the common application of the parable to the penal\njustice of God, is attended with great difficulties. [971] For there is\nno indication throughout the parable, of any actions on the part of the\nrich man and Lazarus, that could, according to our notions, justify the\nexaltation of the one to a place in Abraham\u2019s bosom, and the\ncondemnation of the other to torment; the guilt of the one appears to\nlie in his wealth, the merit of the other in his poverty. It is indeed\ngenerally supposed of the rich man, that he was immoderate in his\nindulgence, and that he had treated Lazarus unkindly. [972] But the\nlatter is nowhere intimated; for the picture of the beggar lying at the\ndoor of the rich man, is not intended in the light of a reproach to the\nlatter, because he might easily have tendered his aid, and yet\nneglected to do so; it is designed to exhibit the contrast, not only\nbetween the earthly condition of the two parties, but between their\nproximity in this life, and their wide separation in another. So the\nother particular, that the beggar was eager for the crumbs that fell\nfrom the rich man\u2019s table, does not imply that the rich man denied him\nthis pittance, or that he ought to have given him more than the mere\ncrumbs; it denotes the deep degradation of the earthly lot of Lazarus\ncompared with that of the rich man, in opposition to their reversed\nposition after death, when the rich man is fain to entreat for a drop\nof water from the hand of Lazarus. On the supposition that the rich man\nhad been wanting in compassion towards Lazarus, the Abraham of the\nparable could only reply in the following manner: \u201cThou hadst once easy\naccess to Lazarus, and yet thou didst not relieve him; how then canst\nthou expect him to traverse a long distance to give thee alleviation?\u201d\nThe sumptuous life of the rich man, likewise, is only depicted as a\ncontrast to the misery of the beggar; for if he had been supposed\nguilty of excess, Abraham must have reminded him that he had taken too\nmuch of the good things of this life, not merely that he had received\nhis share of them. Equally groundless is it, on the other hand, to\nsuppose high moral excellencies in Lazarus, since there is no\nintimation of such in the description of him, which merely regards his\noutward condition,\u2014neither are such ascribed to him by Abraham; his\nsole merit is, the having received evil in this life. Thus, in this\nparable the measure of future recompense is not the amount of good\ndone, or wickedness perpetrated, but of evil endured, and fortune\nenjoyed, [973] and the aptest motto for this discourse is to be found\nin the Sermon on the Mount, according to Luke\u2019s edition: Blessed be ye\npoor, for yours is the kingdom of God! Woe to you that are rich! for ye\nhave received your consolation; a passage concerning which we have\nalready remarked, that it accords fully with the Ebionite view of the\nworld. A similar estimation of external poverty is ascribed to Jesus by\nthe other synoptists, in the narrative of the rich young man, and in\nthe aphorisms on the camel and the needle\u2019s eye (Matt. xix. 16 ff.;\nMark x. 17 ff.; comp. Luke xviii. 18 ff.). Whether this estimation\nbelong to Jesus himself, or only to the synoptical tradition concerning\nhim, it was probably generated by the notions of the Essenes. [974] We\nhave hitherto considered the contents of the parable down to v. 27:\nfrom whence to the conclusion the subject is, the writings of the Old\nTestament as the adequate and only means of grace.\n\nIn conclusion, we turn to a group of parables, among which some, as\nrelating to the death and return of Christ, ought, according to our\nplan, to be excepted from the present review; but so far as they are\nconnected with the rest, it is necessary to include them. They are the\nthree parables of the rebellious husbandmen in the vineyard (Matt. xxi.\n33 ff. parall.), of the talents or min\u00e6 (Matt. xxv. 14 ff.; Luke xix.\n12 ff.), and the marriage feast (Matt. xxii. 2ff.; Luke xiv. 16 ff.).\nOf these the parable of the husbandmen in all the accounts, that of the\ntalents in Matthew, and that of the marriage feast in Luke, are simple\nparables, unattended with difficulty. Not so the parable of the min\u00e6 in\nLuke, and of the marriage feast in Matthew. That the former is\nfundamentally the same with that of the talents in Matthew, is\nundeniable, notwithstanding the many divergencies. In both are found\nthe journey of a master; the assembling of the servants to entrust them\nwith a capital, to be put into circulation; after the return of the\nmaster, a reckoning in which three servants are signalized, two of them\nas active, the third as inactive, whence the latter is punished, and\nthe former rewarded; and in the annunciation of this issue the words of\nthe master are nearly identical in the two statements. The principal\ndivergency is, that besides the relation between the master who\njourneys into a far country and his servants, in Luke there is a second\nrelation between the former and certain rebellious citizens; and\naccordingly, while in Matthew the master is simply designated \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2,\na man, in Luke he is styled \u1f05\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2, a nobleman, and a kingdom\nis assigned to him, the object of his journey being to receive for\nhimself a kingdom: an object of which there is no mention in Matthew.\nThe subjects of this personage, it is further said, hated him, and\nafter his departure renounced their allegiance. Hence at the return of\nthe lord, the rebellious citizens, as well as the slothful servant, are\npunished; but in their case the retribution is that of death: the\nfaithful servants, on the other hand, are not only rewarded generally\nby an entrance into the joy of their Lord, but royally, by the gift of\na number of cities. There are other divergencies of less moment between\nLuke and Matthew; such as, that the number of servants is undetermined\nby the one, and limited to ten by the other; that in Matthew they\nreceive talents, in Luke min\u00e6; in the one unequal sums, in the other\nequal; in the one, they obtain unequal profits from unequal sums by an\nequal expenditure of effort, and are therefore equally rewarded; in the\nother, they obtain unequal profits from equal sums by an unequal\nexpenditure of effort, and are therefore unequally rewarded.\n\nSupposing this parable to have proceeded from the lips of Jesus on two\nseparate occasions, and that Matthew and Luke are right in their\nrespective arrangements, he must have delivered it first in the more\ncomplex form given by Luke, and then in the simple one given by\nMatthew; [975] since the former places it before, the latter after the\nentrance into Jerusalem. But this would be contrary to all analogy. The\nfirst presentation of an idea is, according to the laws of thought, the\nmost simple; with the second new relations may be perceived, the\nsubject may be viewed under various aspects, and brought into manifold\ncombinations. There is, therefore, a foundation for Schleiermacher\u2019s\nopinion, that contrary to the arrangement in the Gospels, Jesus first\ndelivered the parable in the more simple form, and amplified it on a\nsubsequent occasion. [976] But for our particular case this order is\nnot less inconceivable than the other. The author of a composition such\nas a parable, especially when it exists only in his mind and on his\nlips, and is not yet fixed in writing, remains the perfect master of\nhis materials even on their second and more elaborate presentation; the\nform which he had previously given to them is not rigid and inflexible,\nbut pliant, so that he can adapt the original thoughts and images to\nthe additional ones, and thus give unity to his production. Hence, had\nhe who gave the above parable the form which it has in Luke, been its\nreal author, he would, after having transformed the master into a king,\nand inserted the particulars respecting the rebellious citizens, have\nintrusted arms to the servants instead of money (comp. Luke xxii. 36),\n[977] and would have made them show their fidelity rather by conflict\nwith the rebels, than by increasing their capital; or in general would\nhave introduced some relation between the two classes of persons in the\nparable, the servants and the citizens; instead of which, they are\ntotally unconnected throughout, and form two ill-cemented divisions.\n[978] This shows very decisively that the parable was not enriched with\nthese additional particulars by the imagination of its author, but that\nit was thus amplified by another in the process of transmission. This\ncannot have been effected in a legendary manner, by the gradual filling\nup of the original sketch, or the development of the primitive germ;\nfor the idea of rebellious citizens could never be evolved from that of\nservants and talents, but must have been added from without, and\ntherefore have previously existed as part of an independent whole. This\namounts to the position that we have here an example of two originally\ndistinct parables, the one treating of servants and talents, the other\nof rebellious citizens, flowing together in consequence of their\nmutually possessing the images of a ruler\u2019s departure and return. [979]\nThe proof of our proposition must depend on our being able easily to\ndisentangle the two parables; and this we can effect in the most\nsatisfactory manner, for by extracting v. 12, 14, 15, and 27, and\nslightly modifying them, we get in a rather curtailed but consistent\nform, the parable of the rebellious citizens, and we then recognise the\nsimilarity of its tendency with that of the rebellious husbandmen in\nthe vineyard. [980]\n\nA similar relation subsists between the form in which the parable of\nthe marriage feast is given by Luke (xiv. 16 ff.), and that in which it\nis given by Matthew (xxii. 2 ff.); only that in this case Luke, as in\nthe other, Matthew, has the merit of having preserved the simple\noriginal version. On both sides, the particulars of the feast, the\ninvitation, its rejection, and the consequent bidding of other guests,\ntestify the identity of the two parables; but, on the other hand, the\nhost who in Luke is merely a certain man, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, is in Matthew a\nking, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, whose feast is occasioned by the marriage of his son;\nthe invited guests, who in Luke excuse themselves on various pleas to\nthe messenger only once sent out to them, in Matthew refuse to come on\nthe first invitation, and on the second more urgent one some go to\ntheir occupations, while others maltreat and kill the servants of the\nking, who immediately sends forth his armies to destroy those\nmurderers, and burn up their city. Nothing of this is to be found in\nLuke; according to him, the host merely causes the poor and afflicted\nto be assembled in place of the guests first invited, a particular\nwhich Matthew also appends to his fore-mentioned incidents. Luke closes\nthe parable with the declaration of the host, that none of the first\nbidden guests shall partake of his supper; but Matthew proceeds to\nnarrate how, when the house was full, and the king had assembled his\nguests, one was discovered to be without a wedding garment, and was\nforthwith carried away into outer darkness.\n\nThe maltreatment and murder of the king\u2019s messengers are features in\nthe narrative of Matthew which at once strike us as inconsistent\u2014as a\ndeparture from the original design. Disregard of an invitation is\nsufficiently demonstrated by the rejection of it on empty pretexts such\nas Luke mentions; the maltreatment and even the murder of those who\ndeliver the invitation, is an exaggeration which it is less easy to\nattribute to Jesus than to the Evangelist. The latter had immediately\nbefore communicated the parable of the rebellious husbandmen; hence\nthere hovered in his recollection the manner in which they were said to\nhave used the messengers of their lord, beating one, killing and\nstoning others (\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f43\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f43\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f43\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd), and he was thus led to incorporate\nsimilar particulars into the present parable (\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd), overlooking the circumstance that what\nmight have been perpetrated with sufficient motive against servants who\nappeared with demands and authority to enforce them, had in the latter\ncase no motive whatever. That hereupon, the king, not satisfied with\nexcluding them from the feast, sends out his armies to destroy them and\nburn up their city, necessarily follows from the preceding incidents,\nbut appears, like them, to be the echo of a parable which presented the\nrelation between the master and the dependents, not in the milder form\nof a rejected invitation, but in the more severe one of an\ninsurrection; as in the parable of the husbandmen in the vineyard, and\nthat of the rebellious citizens, which we have above separated from the\nparable of the min\u00e6. Yet more decidedly does the drift of the last\nparticular in Matthew\u2019s parable, that of the wedding garment, betray\nthat it was not originally associated with the rest. For if the king\nhad commanded that all, both bad and good, who were to be found in the\nhighways, should be bidden to the feast, he could not wonder that they\nhad not all wedding attire. To assume that those thus suddenly summoned\nwent home to wash, and adjust their dress, is an arbitrary emendation\nof the text. [981] Little preferable is the supposition that, according\nto oriental manners, the king had ordered a caftan to be presented to\neach guest, and might therefore justly reproach the meanest for not\navailing himself of the gift; [982] for it is not to be proved that\nsuch a custom existed at the period, [983] and it is not admissible to\npresuppose it merely because the anger of the king appears otherwise\nunfounded. But the addition in question is not only out of harmony with\nthe imagery, but with the tendency of this parable. For while hitherto\nits aim had been to exhibit the national contrast between the\nperversity of the Jews, and the willingness of the Gentiles: it all at\nonce passes to the moral one, to distinguish between the worthy and the\nunworthy. That after the Jews had contemned the invitation to partake\nof the kingdom of God, the heathens would be called into it, is one\ncomplete idea, with which Luke very properly concludes his parable;\nthat he who does not prove himself worthy of the vocation by a\ncorresponding disposition, will be again cast out of the kingdom, is\nanother idea, which appears to demand a separate parable for its\nexhibition. Here again it may be conjectured that the conclusion of\nMatthew\u2019s parable is the fragment of another, which, from its also\nreferring to a feast, might in tradition, or in the memory of an\nindividual, be easily mingled with the former, preserved in its purity\nby Luke. [984] This other parable must have simply set forth, that a\nking had invited various guests to a wedding feast, with the tacit\ncondition that they should provide themselves with a suitable dress,\nand that he delivered an individual who had neglected this observance\nto his merited punishment. Supposing our conjectures correct, we have\nhere a still more compound parable than in the former case: a parable\nin which, 1stly, the narrative of the ungrateful invited parties (Luke\nxiv.) forms the main tissue, but so that, 2ndly, a thread from the\nparable of the rebellious husbandmen is interwoven; while, 3rdly, a\nconclusion is stitched on, gathered apparently from an unknown parable\non the wedding garment.\n\nThis analysis gives us an insight into the procedure of evangelical\ntradition with its materials, which must be pregnant with results.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 79.\n\nMISCELLANEOUS INSTRUCTIONS AND CONTROVERSIES OF JESUS.\n\nAs the discourses in Matthew xv. 1\u201320 have been already considered, we\nmust pass on to xviii. 1 ff., Mark ix. 33 ff., Luke ix. 46 ff., where\nvarious discourses are connected with the exhibition of a little child,\noccasioned by a contention for pre-eminence among the disciples. The\nadmonition to become as a little child, and to humble one\u2019s self as a\nlittle child, in Matthew, forms a perfectly suitable comment on the\nsymbolical reproof (v. 3, 4,); but the connexion between this and the\nfollowing declaration of Jesus, that whosoever receives one such little\nchild in his name, receives him, is not so obvious. For the child was\nset up to teach the disciples in what they were to imitate it, not how\nthey were to behave towards it, and how Jesus could all at once lose\nsight of his original object, it is difficult to conceive. But yet more\nglaring is the irrelevance of the declaration in Mark and Luke; for\nthey make it follow immediately on the exhibition of the child, so\nthat, according to this, Jesus must, in the very act, have forgotten\nits object, namely, to present the child to his ambitious disciples as\nworthy of imitation, not as in want of reception. [985] Jesus was\naccustomed to say of his disciples, that whosoever received them,\nreceived him, and in him, the Father who had sent him (Matt. x. 40 ff.;\nLuke x. 16; John xiii. 20). Of children he elsewhere says merely, that\nwhosoever does not receive the kingdom of heaven as a little child\ncannot enter therein (Mark x. 15; Luke xviii. 17). This declaration\nwould be perfectly adapted to the occasion in question, and we may\nalmost venture to conjecture that \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, was the original passage, and that the actual one\nis the result of its confusion with Matthew x. 40, \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f13\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nClosely connected by the word \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, answering, with the sentences\njust considered, Mark (ix. 38 f.) and Luke (ix. 49 f.) introduce the\ninformation which John is said to give to Jesus, that the disciples\nhaving seen one casting out devils in the name of Jesus, without\nattaching himself to their society, had forbidden him. Schleiermacher\nexplains the connexion thus: because Jesus had commanded the reception\nof children in his name, John was led to the confession, that he and\nhis associates had hitherto been so far from regarding the performance\nof an act in the name of Jesus as the point of chief importance, that\nthey had interdicted the use of his name to one who followed not with\nthem. [986] Allowing this explanation to be correct, we must believe\nthat John, arrested by the phrase, in my name (which yet is not\nprominent in the declaration of Jesus, and which must have been thrown\nstill further into the background by the sight of the child set up in\nthe midst), drew from it the general inference, that in all actions the\nessential point is to perform them in the name of Jesus; and with equal\nrapidity, leaped to the remote reflection, that the conduct of the\ndisciples towards the exorcist was in contradiction with this rule. But\nall this supposes the facility of combination which belongs to a\nSchleiermacher, not the dulness which still characterized the\ndisciples. Nevertheless, the above critic has unquestionably opened on\nthe true vein of connexion between the preceding apothegm and this\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of John; he has only failed to perceive that this connexion\nis not intrinsic and original, but extrinsic and secondary. It was\nquite beyond the reach of the disciples to apply the words in my name,\nby a train of deductions, to an obliquely connected case in their own\nexperience; but, according to our previous observations, nothing could\nbe more consistent with the habit of association that characterizes the\nwriter of the evangelical tradition in the third gospel, whence the\nsecond Evangelist seems to have borrowed, than that he should be\nreminded by the striking phrase, in my name, in the preceding discourse\nof Jesus, of an anecdote containing the same expression, and should\nunite the two for the sake of that point of external similarity alone.\n[987]\n\nTo the exhortation to receive such little children, Matthew annexes the\nwarning against offending one of these little ones, \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, an epithet which, in x. 42, is applied to the\ndisciples of Jesus, but in this passage, apparently, to children. [988]\nMark (v. 42) has the same continuation, notwithstanding the\ninterruption above noticed, probably because he forsook Luke (who here\nbreaks off the discourse, and does not introduce the admonition against\noffences until later, xvii. 1 f., and apart from any occasion that\nmight prompt it), and appealed to Matthew. [989] Then follows in\nMatthew (v. 8 f.) and Mark (v. 43 f.) a passage which alone ought to\nopen the eyes of commentators to the mode in which the synoptists\narrange the sayings of Jesus. To the warning against the offending,\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, of the little ones, and the woe pronounced on those by\nwhom offences come, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, they annex the apothegm on\nthe offending, \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, of the hand, eye, etc. Jesus could not\nproceed thus,\u2014for the injunctions: Mislead not the little ones! and,\nLet not your sensuality mislead you! have nothing in common but the\nword mislead. It is easy, however, to account for their association by\nthe writer of the first gospel. [990] The word \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd recalled to\nhis mind all the discourses of Jesus containing a similar expression\nthat had come to his knowledge, and although he had previously\npresented the admonitions concerning seduction by the members, in a\nbetter connexion, as part of the Sermon on the Mount, he could not\nresist the temptation of reproducing them here, for the sake of this\nslight verbal affinity with the foregoing text. But at v. 10 he resumes\nthe thread which he had dropped at v. 7, and adds a further discourse\non the little ones, \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2. Matthew makes Jesus confirm the value of\nthe little ones by the declaration, that the Son of man was come to\nseek the lost, and by the parable of the lost sheep (v. 11\u201314). It is\nnot, however, evident why Jesus should class the \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 with the\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 (lost); and both the declaration and the parable seem to be\nbetter placed by Luke, who introduces the former in the narrative of\nthe calling of Zaccheus (xix. 10), and the latter, in a reply to the\nobjections of the Pharisees against the amity of Jesus with the\npublicans (xv. 3 ff.). Matthew seems to have placed them here, merely\nbecause the discourse on the little ones reminded him of that on the\nlost\u2014both exemplifying the mildness and humility of Jesus.\n\nBetween the moral of the above parable (v. 14) and the following rules\nfor the conduct of Christians under injuries (v. 15 ff.), there is\nagain only a verbal connexion, which may be traced by means of the\nwords, \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, should perish, and \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, thou hast gained; for\nthe proposition: God wills not that one of these little ones should\nperish, might recall the proposition: We should endeavour to win over\nour brother, by showing a readiness to forgive. The direction to bring\nthe offender before the church, \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, is generally adduced as a\nproof that Jesus intended to found a church. But he here speaks of the\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 as an institution already existing: hence we must either refer\nthe expression to the Jewish synagogue, an interpretation which is\nfavoured by the analogy of this direction with Jewish precepts; or if,\naccording to the strict meaning of the word and its connexion, \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\nmust be understood as the designation of the Christian community, which\ndid not then exist, it must be admitted that we have here, at least in\nthe form of expression, an anticipation of a subsequent state of\nthings. [991] The writer certainly had in view the new church,\neventually to be founded in the name of Jesus, when, in continuation,\nhe represented the latter as imparting to the body of the disciples the\nauthority to bind and to loose, previously given to Peter, and thus to\nform a messianic religious constitution. The declarations concerning\nthe success of unanimous prayer, and the presence of Jesus among two or\nthree gathered together in his name, accord with this prospective idea.\n[992]\n\nThe next discourse that presents itself (Matt. xix. 3\u201312, Mark x.\n2\u201312), though belonging, according to the Evangelists, to the last\njourney of Jesus, is of the same stamp with the disputations which\nthey, for the most part, assign to the last residence of Jesus in\nJerusalem. Some Pharisees propose to Jesus the question, at that time\nmuch discussed in the Jewish schools, [993] whether it be lawful for a\nman to put away his wife for every cause. To avoid a contradiction\nbetween modern practice and the dictum of Jesus, it has been alleged\nthat he here censures the species of divorce which was the only one\nknown at that period, namely, the arbitrary dismissal of a wife; but\nnot the judicial separation resorted to in the present day. [994] But\nthis very argument involves the admission, that Jesus denounced all the\nforms of divorce known to him; hence the question still remains\nwhether, if he could have had cognizance of the modern procedure in\ndissolving matrimony, he would have held it right to limit his general\ncensure. Of the succeeding declaration, prompted by a question of the\ndisciples, [995] namely, that celibacy may be practised for the kingdom\nof heaven\u2019s sake, Jesus himself says, that it cannot be understood by\nall, but only by those to whom it is given (v. 11). That the doctrine\nof Jesus may not run counter to modern opinion, it has been eagerly\nsuggested, that his panegyric on celibacy had relation solely to the\ncircumstances of the coming time, or to the nature of the apostolic\nmission, which would be impeded by family ties. [996] But there is even\nless intimation of this special bearing in the text, than in the\nanalogous passage 1 Cor. vii. 25 ff., [997] and, adhering to a simple\ninterpretation, it must be granted that we have here one of the\ninstances in which ascetic principles, such as were then prevalent,\nespecially among the Essenes, [998] manifest themselves in the teaching\nof Jesus, as represented in the synoptical gospels.\n\nThe controversial discourses which Matthew, almost throughout in\nagreement with the other synoptists, places after the entrance of Jesus\ninto Jerusalem (xxi. 23\u201327; xxii. 15\u201346), [999] are certainly\npre-eminently genuine fragments, having precisely the spirit and tone\nof the rabbinical dialectics in the time of Jesus. The third and fifth\namong them are particularly worthy of note, because they exhibit Jesus\nas an interpreter of Scripture. With respect to the former, wherein\nJesus endeavours to convince the Sadducees that there will be a\nresurrection of the dead, from the Mosaic designation of God as the God\nof Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, maintaining that he is not the God\nof the dead, but of the living (Matt. xxii. 31\u201333 parall.): Paulus\nadmits that Jesus here argues subtilly, while he contends that the\nconclusion is really involved in the premises. But in the expression\n\u200f\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05d4\u05b5\u05d9\u05be\u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05dd\u200e the God of Abraham, etc., which had become a mere formula,\nnothing more is implied than that Jehovah, as he had been the\nprotecting Deity of these men, would for ever continue such to their\nposterity. An individual relation subsisting between Jehovah and the\npatriarchs after their death, is nowhere else alluded to in the Old\nTestament, and could only be discovered in the above form by rabbinical\ninterpreters, at a time when it was thought desirable, at any cost, to\nshow that the idea of immortality, which had become prevalent, was\ncontained in the law; where, however, it is not to be met with by\nunprejudiced eyes. We find the relation of God to Abraham, Isaac, and\nJacob, adduced as a guarantee of immortality elsewhere in rabbinical\nargumentations, all of which could hardly have been modelled on this\none of Jesus. [1000] If we look into the most recent commentaries, we\nnowhere find a candid confession as to the real character of the\nargumentation in question. Olshausen has wonders to tell of the deep\ntruth contained in it, and thinks that he can deduce from it, in the\nshortest way, the authenticity and divinity of the Pentateuch. Paulus\nsees the validity of the proof between the lines of the text; Fritzsche\nis silent. Wherefore these evasions? Why is the praise of having seen\nclearly, and spoken openly, in this matter, abandoned to the\nWolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist? [1001] What spectres and double-sighted\nbeings, must Moses and Jesus have been, if they mixed with their\ncotemporaries without any real participation in their opinions and\nweaknesses, their joys and griefs: if, mentally dwelling apart from\ntheir age and nation, they conformed to these relations only externally\nand by accommodation, while, internally and according to their nature,\nthey stood among the foremost ranks of the enlightened in modern times!\nFar more noble were these men, nay, they would then only engage our\nsympathy and reverence, if, in a genuinely human manner, struggling\nwith the limitations and prejudices of their age, they succumbed to\nthem in a hundred secondary matters, and only attained perfect freedom\nin relation to the one point by which each was destined to contribute\nto the advancement of mankind.\n\nA controversial question concerning the Messiah is proposed (v. 41\u201346)\nto the Pharisees by Jesus, namely, How can the same personage be at\nonce the Lord and the son of David? Paulus maintains that this is a\nmodel of interpretation in conformity with the text; [1002] an\nassertion which is no good augury that his own possesses that\nqualification. According to him, Jesus, in asking how David could call\nthe Messiah, Lord, when in the general opinion he was his son, intended\nto apprise the Pharisees, that in this Psalm it is not David who is\nspeaking of the Messiah, but another poet who is speaking of David as\nhis lord, so that to suppose this warlike psalm a messianic one, is a\nmistake. Why, asks Paulus, should not Jesus have found out this\ninterpretation, since it is the true one? But this is the grand error\nof his entire scheme of interpretation\u2014to suppose that what is truth in\nitself, or more correctly, for us, must, even to the minutest details,\nhave been truth for Jesus and the apostles. The majority of ancient\nJewish interpreters apply this psalm to the Messiah; [1003] the\napostles use it as a prophecy concerning Christ (Acts ii. 34 f.; 1 Cor.\nxv. 25); Jesus himself, according to Matthew and Mark, adds \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\nto \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, thus plainly giving his approval to the\nnotion that it is David who there speaks, and that the Messiah is his\nsubject: how then can it be thought that he held the contrary opinion?\nIt is far more probable, as Olshausen has well shown, that Jesus\nbelieved the psalm to be a messianic one: while, on the other hand,\nPaulus is equally correct in maintaining that it originally referred,\nnot to the Messiah, but to some Jewish ruler, whether David or another.\nThus we find that Jesus here gives a model of interpretation, in\nconformity, not with the text, but with the spirit of his time: a\ndiscovery which, if the above observations be just, ought to excite no\nsurprise. The solution of the enigma which Jesus here proposes to the\nPharisees, lay without doubt, according to his idea, in the doctrine of\nthe higher nature of the Messiah; whether he held that, in virtue of\nthis, he might be styled the Lord of David, while, in virtue of his\nhuman nature, he might also be regarded as his son; or whether he\nwished to remove the latter notion as erroneous. [1004] The result,\nhowever, and perhaps also the intention of Jesus with respect to the\nPharisees, was merely to convince them that he was capable of\nretaliating on them, in their own way, by embarrassing them with\ncaptious questions, and that with better success than they had obtained\nin their attempts to entrap him. Hence the Evangelists place this\npassage at the close of the disputations prompted by the Pharisees, and\nMatthew adds, Neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any\nmore questions: a concluding form which is more suitable here than\nafter the lesson administered to the Sadducees, where it is placed by\nLuke (xx. 40), or than after the discussion on the greatest\ncommandment, where it is introduced by Mark (xii. 34).\n\nImmediately before this question of Jesus, the first two Evangelists\nnarrate a conversation with a lawyer, \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, or scribe, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2,\nconcerning the greatest commandment. (Matt. xxii. 34 ff.; Mark xii. 28\nff.) Matthew annexes this conversation to the dispute with the\nSadducees, as if the Pharisees wished, by their question as to the\ngreatest commandment, to avenge the defeat of the Sadducees. It is well\nknown, however, that these sects were not thus friendly; on the\ncontrary, we read in the Acts (xxiii. 7), that the Pharisees were\ninclined to go over to the side of one whom they had previously\npersecuted, solely because he had had the address to take the position\nof an opponent towards the Sadducees. We may here quote\nSchneckenburger\u2019s observation, [1005] that Matthew not seldom (iii. 7,\nxvi. 1) places the Pharisees and Sadducees side by side in a way that\nrepresents, not their real hostility, but their association in the\nmemory of tradition, in which one opposite suggested another. In this\nrespect, Mark\u2019s mode of annexing this conversation to the foregoing, is\nmore consistent; but all the synoptists seem to labour under a common\nmistake in supposing that these discussions, grouped together in\ntradition on account of their analogy, followed each other so closely\nin time, that one colloquy elicited another. Luke does not give the\nquestion concerning the greatest commandment in connexion with the\ncontroversies on the resurrection and on the Messiah; but he has a\nsimilar incident earlier, in his narrative of the journey to Jerusalem\n(x. 25 ff.). The general opinion is that the first two Evangelists\nrecount the same occurrence and the third, a distinct one. [1006] It is\ntrue that the narrative of Luke differs from that of Matthew and Mark,\nin several not immaterial points. The first difference, which we have\nalready noticed, relates to chronological position, and this has been\nthe chief inducement to the supposition of two events. The next\ndifference lies in the nature of the question, which, in Luke, turns on\nthe rule of life calculated to insure the inheritance of eternal life,\nbut, in the other Evangelists, on the greatest commandment. The third\ndifference is in the subject who pronounces this commandment, the first\ntwo synoptists representing it to be Jesus, the third, the lawyer.\nLastly, there is a difference as to the issue, the lawyer in Luke\nputting a second, self-vindicatory, question, which calls forth the\nparable of the good Samaritan; while in the two other Evangelists, he\nretires either satisfied, or silenced by the answer to the first.\nMeanwhile, even between the narrative of Matthew and that of Mark,\nthere are important divergencies. The principal relates to the\ncharacter of the querist, who in Matthew proposes his question with a\nview to tempt Jesus (\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd); in Mark, with good intentions, because\nhe had perceived that Jesus had answered the Sadducees well. Paulus,\nindeed, although he elsewhere (Luke x. 25) considers the act of\ntempting (\u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd) as the putting a person to the proof to subserve\ninterested views, pronounces that the word \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd in this instance\ncan only be intended in a good sense. But the sole ground for this\ninterpretation lies, not in Matthew, but in Mark, and in the unfounded\nsupposition that the two writers could not have a different idea of the\ncharacter and intention of the inquiring doctor of the law. Fritzsche\nhas correctly pointed out the difficulty of conciliating Matthew and\nMark as lying, partly in the meaning of the word \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd, and partly\nin the context, it being inadmissible to suppose one among a series of\nmalevolent questions, friendly, without any intimation of the\ndistinction on the part of the writer. With this important diversity is\nconnected the minor one, that while in Matthew, the scribe, after Jesus\nhas recited the two commandments, is silent, apparently from shame,\nwhich is no sign of a friendly disposition on his part towards Jesus;\nin Mark, he not only bestows on Jesus the approving expression, Well,\nMaster, thou hast said the truth, but enlarges on his doctrine so as to\ndraw from Jesus the declaration that he has answered discreetly, and\nis, not far from the kingdom of God. It may be also noticed that while\nin Matthew Jesus simply repeats the commandment of love, in Mark he\nprefaces it by the words, Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord.\nThus, if it be held that the differences between the narrative of Luke,\nand that of the two other Evangelists, entail a necessity for supposing\nthat they are founded on two separate events; the no slighter\ndifferences between Mark and Matthew must in all consistency be made a\nreason for supposing a third. But it is so difficult to credit the\nreality of three occurrences essentially alike, that the other\nalternative, of reducing them to one, must, prejudice apart, be always\npreferred. The narratives of Matthew and Mark are the most easily\nidentified; but there are not wanting points of contact between Matthew\nand Luke, for in both the lawyer \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 appears as a tempter\n(\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd), and is not impressed in favour of Jesus by his answer; nor\neven between Luke and Mark, for these agree in appending explanatory\nremarks to the greatest commandment, as well as in the insertion of\nforms of assent, such as, Thou hast answered right, Thou hast said the\ntruth. Hence it is evident that to fuse only two of their narratives is\na half measure, and that we must either regard all three as\nindependent, or all three as identical: whence again we may observe the\nfreedom which was used by the early Christian legend, in giving various\nforms to a single fact or idea\u2014the fundamental fact in the present case\nbeing, that, out of the whole Mosaic code, Jesus had selected the two\ncommandments concerning the love of God and our neighbour as the most\nexcellent. [1007]\n\nWe come now to the great anti-pharisaic discourse, which Matthew gives\n(xxiii.) as a sort of pitched battle after the skirmishing of the\npreceding disputations. Mark (xii. 38 ff.) and Luke (xx. 45 ff.) have\nalso a discourse of Jesus against the scribes, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, but\nextending no farther than a few verses. It is however highly probable,\nas our modern critics allow, [1008] that Jesus should launch out into\nfuller invectives against that body of men under the circumstances in\nwhich Matthew places that discourse, and it is almost certain that such\nsharp enunciations must have preceded the catastrophe; so that it is\nnot admissible to control the account of the first Evangelist by the\nmeagre one of the two other synoptists, [1009] especially as the former\nis distinguished by connectedness and unity. It is true that much of\nwhat Matthew here presents as a continuous address, is assigned by Luke\nto various scenes and occasions, and it would hence follow that the\nformer has, in this case again, blended the original elements of the\ndiscourse with kindred matter, belonging to the discourses of various\nperiods, [1010] if it could be shown that the arrangement of Luke is\nthe correct one: a position which must therefore be examined. Those\nparts of the anti-pharisaic harangue which Luke has in common with\nMatthew, are, excepting the couple of verses which he places in the\nsame connexion as Matthew, introduced by him as concomitant with two\nentertainments to which he represents Jesus as being invited by\nPharisees (xi. 37 ff.; xiv. 1 ff.)\u2014a politeness on their part which\nappears in no other gospel. The expositors of the present day, almost\nwith one voice, concur in admiring the naturalness and faithfulness\nwith which Luke has preserved to us the original occasions of these\ndiscourses. [1011] It is certainly natural enough that, in the second\nentertainment, Jesus, observing the efforts of the guests to obtain the\nhighest places for themselves, should take occasion to admonish them\nagainst assuming the precedence at feasts, even on the low ground of\nprudential considerations; and this admonition appears in a curtailed\nform, and without any special cause in the final anti-pharisaic\ndiscourse in Matthew, Mark, and even in Luke again (xx. 46). But it is\notherwise with the discourse which Luke attaches to the earlier\nentertainment in the Pharisee\u2019s house. In the very commencement of this\nrepast, Jesus not only speaks of the ravening, \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03ae, and wickedness,\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, with which the Pharisees fill the cup and platter, and honours\nthem with the title of fools, \u1f04\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, but breaks forth into a\ndenunciation of woe, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b1\u1f76, against them and the scribes and doctors of\nthe law, threatening them with retribution for all the blood that had\nbeen shed by their fathers, whose deeds they approved. We grant that\nAttic urbanity is not to be expected in a Jewish teacher, but even\naccording to the oriental standard, such invectives uttered at table\nagainst the host and his guests, would be the grossest dereliction of\nwhat is due to hospitality. This was obvious to Schleiermacher\u2019s acute\nperception; and he therefore supposes that the meal passed off\namicably, and that it was not until its close, when Jesus was again out\nof the house, that the host expressed his surprise at the neglect of\nthe usual ablutions by Jesus and his disciples, and that Jesus answered\nwith so much asperity. [1012] But to assume that the writer has not\ndescribed the meal itself and the incidents that accompanied it, and\nthat he has noticed it merely for the sake of its connexion with the\nsubsequent discourse, is an arbitrary mode of overcoming the\ndifficulty. For the text runs thus: And he went in and sat down to\nmeat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first\nwashed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7\n\u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f41\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u2014\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41\n\u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd. It is manifestly impossible to thrust in between\nthese sentences the duration of the meal, and it must have been the\nintention of the writer to attach he marvelled \u1f10\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd to he sat down\nto meat \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, and he said \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd to he marvelled \u1f10\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. But if\nthis could not really have been the case, unless Jesus violated in the\ngrossest manner the simplest dictates of civility, there is an end to\nthe vaunted accuracy of Luke in his allocation of this discourse: and\nwe have only to inquire how he could be led to give it so false a\nposition. This is to be discovered by comparing the manner in which the\ntwo other synoptists mention the offence of the Pharisees, at the\nomission of the ablutions before meals by Jesus and his disciples: a\ncircumstance to which they annex discourses different from those given\nby Luke. In Matthew (xv. 1 ff), scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem\nask Jesus why his disciples do not observe the custom of washing before\nmeat? It is thus implied that they knew of this omission, as may easily\nbe supposed, by report. In Mark (vii. 1 ff.), they look on (\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,)\nwhile some disciples of Jesus eat with unwashen hands, and call them to\naccount for this irregularity. Lastly, in Luke, Jesus himself dines\nwith a Pharisee, and on this occasion it is observed that he neglects\nthe usual washings. This is an evident climax: hearing, witnessing,\ntaking food together. Was it formed, in the descending gradation, from\nLuke to Matthew, or, in the ascending one, from Matthew to Luke? From\nthe point of view adopted by the recent critics of the first gospel,\nthe former mode will be held the most probable, namely, that the memory\nof the original scene, the repast in the Pharisee\u2019s house, was lost in\nthe process of tradition, and is therefore wanting in the first gospel.\nBut, apart from the difficulty of conceiving that this discourse was\nuttered under the circumstances with which it is invested by Luke, it\nis by no means in accordance with the course of tradition, when once in\npossession of so dramatic a particular as a feast, to let it fall\nagain, but rather to supply it, if lacking. The general tendency of the\nlegend is to transform the abstract into the concrete, the mediate into\nthe immediate, hearsay into vision, the spectator into the\nparticipator; and as the offence taken against Jesus by the Pharisees\nreferred, among other things, to the usages of the table, nothing was\nmore natural than for legend to associate the origin of the offence\nwith a particular place and occasion, and for this purpose to imagine\ninvitations given to Jesus by Pharisees\u2014invitations which would be\nhistorically suspicious, if for no other reason than that Luke alone\nknows anything of them. Here, then, we again find Luke in his favourite\nemployment of furnishing a frame to the discourses of Jesus which\ntradition had delivered to him; a procedure much farther removed from\nhistoric faithfulness, than the effort of Matthew to give unity to\ndiscourses gathered from different periods, without adding matter of\nhis own. The formation of the climax above displayed, can only be\nconceived, in accordance with the general relation between the\nsynoptists, in the following manner: Mark, who in this instance\nevidently had Matthew before him, enriched his account with the\ndramatic expression \u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; while Luke, independent of both, has added\na repast, \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, whether presented to him by a more developed\ntradition, or invented by his own more fertile imagination. Together\nwith this unhistorical position, the proportions themselves seem to be\ndisfigured in Luke (xi. 39\u201341, 49), and the observation of the lawyer,\nMaster, thus saying thou reproachest us also (xi. 45), too much\nresembles an artificial transition from the philippic against the\nPharisees, to that against the doctors of the law. [1013]\n\nAnother passage in this discourse has been the subject of much\ndiscussion. It is that (v. 35) in which Jesus threatens his\ncotemporaries, that all the innocent blood shed from that of Abel to\nthat of Zacharias, the son of Barachias, slain in the temple, will be\nrequired of their generation. The Zacharias of whom such an end is\nnarrated 2 Chron. xxiv. 20 ff. was a son, not of Barachias, but of\nJehoiada. On the other hand, there was a Zacharias, the son of Baruch,\nwho came to a similar end in the Jewish war. [1014] Moreover, it\nappears unlikely that Jesus would refer to a murder which took place\n850 B.C. as the last. Hence it was at first supposed that we have in v.\n35 a prophecy, and afterwards, a confusion of the earlier with the\nlater event; and the latter notion has been used as an accessory proof\nthat the first gospel is a posterior compilation. [1015] It is,\nhowever, equally probable, that the Zacharias, son of Jehoiada, whose\ndeath is narrated in the Chronicles, has been confounded with the\nprophet Zechariah, who was a son of Barachias (Zech. i. 1; LXX.;\nBaruch, in Josephus, is not the same name); [1016] especially as a\nTargum, evidently in consequence of a like confusion with the prophet\nwho was a grandson of Iddo, calls the murdered Zechariah a son of Iddo.\n[1017] The murder of a prophet, mentioned by Jeremiah (xxvi. 23), was\ndoubtless subsequent to that of Zechariah, but in the Jewish order of\nthe canonical books, Jeremiah precedes the Chronicles; and to oppose a\nmurder revealed in the first canonical book, to one recorded in the\nlast, was entirely in the style of Jewish parlance. [1018]\n\nAfter having considered all the discourses of Jesus given by Matthew,\nand compared them with their parallels, with the exception of those\nwhich had come before us in previous discussions, or which have yet to\ncome before us in our examination of single incidents in the public\nministry, or of the history of the passion: it might appear requisite\nto the completeness of our criticism, that we should also give a\nseparate investigation to the connexion in which the two other\nsynoptists give the discourses of Jesus, and from this point review the\nparallels in Matthew. But we have already cast a comparative glance\nover the most remarkable discourses in Luke and Mark, and gone through\nthe parables which are peculiar to each; and as to the remainder of\nwhat they offer in the form of discourses, it will either come under\nour future consideration, or if not, the point of view from which it is\nto be criticised, has been sufficiently indicated in the foregoing\ninvestigations.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nDISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL.\n\n\u00a7 80.\n\nCONVERSATION OF JESUS WITH NICODEMUS.\n\nThe first considerable specimen which the fourth gospel gives of the\nteaching of Jesus, is his conversation with Nicodemus (iii. 1\u201321). In\nthe previous chapter (23\u201325) it is narrated, that during the first\npassover attended by Jesus after his entrance on his public ministry,\nhe had won many to faith in him by the miracles, \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, which he\nperformed, but that he did not commit himself to them because he saw\nthrough them: he was aware, that is, of the uncertainty and impurity of\ntheir faith. Then follows in our present chapter, as an example, not\nonly of the adherents whom Jesus had found even thus early, but also of\nthe wariness with which he tested and received them, a more detailed\naccount how Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews and a Pharisee, applied to\nhim, and how he was treated by Jesus.\n\nIt is through the Gospel of John alone that we learn anything of this\nNicodemus, who in vii. 50 f. appears as the advocate of Jesus, so far\nas to protest against his being condemned without a hearing, and in\nxix. 39 as the partaker with Joseph of Arimathea of the care of\ninterring Jesus. Modern criticism, with reason, considers it surprising\nthat Matthew (with the other synoptists) does not even mention the name\nof this remarkable adherent of Jesus, and that we have to gather all\nour knowledge of him from the fourth gospel; since the peculiar\nrelation in which Nicodemus stood to Jesus, and his participation in\nthe care of his interment, must have been as well known to Matthew as\nto John. This difficulty has been numbered among the arguments which\nare thought to prove that the first gospel was not written by the\nApostle Matthew, but was the product of a tradition considerably more\nremote from the time and locality of Jesus. [1019] But the fact is that\nthe common fund of tradition on which all the synoptists drew had\npreserved no notice of this Nicodemus. With touching piety the\nChristian legend has recorded in the tablets of her memory, the names\nof all the others who helped to render the last honours to their\nmurdered master\u2014of Joseph of Arimathea and the two Marys (Matt. xxvii.\n57\u201361 parall.); why then was Nicodemus the only neglected one\u2014he who\nwas especially distinguished among those who tended the remains of\nJesus, by his nocturnal interview with the teacher sent from God, and\nby his advocacy of him among the chief priests and Pharisees? It is so\ndifficult to conceive that the name of this man, if he had really\nassumed such a position, would have vanished from the popular\nevangelical tradition without leaving a single trace, that one is\ninduced to inquire whether the contrary supposition be not more capable\nof explanation: namely, that such a relation between Nicodemus and\nJesus might have been fabricated by tradition, and adopted by the\nauthor of the fourth gospel without having really subsisted.\n\nJohn xii. 42, it is expressly said that many among the chief rulers\nbelieved on Jesus, but concealed their faith from dread of\nexcommunication by the Pharisees, because they loved the praise of men\nmore than the praise of God. [1020] That towards the end of his career\nmany people of rank believed in Jesus, even in secret only, is not very\nprobable, since no indication of it appears in the Acts of the\nApostles; for that the advice of Gamaliel (Acts v. 34 ff.) did not\noriginate in a positively favourable disposition towards the cause of\nJesus, seems to be sufficiently demonstrated by the spirit of his\ndisciple Saul. Moreover the synoptists make Jesus declare in plain\nterms that the secret of his Messiahship had been revealed only to\nbabes, and hidden from the wise and prudent (Matt. xi. 25; Luke x. 21),\nand Joseph of Arimathea is the only individual of the ruling class whom\nthey mention as an adherent of Jesus. How, then, if Jesus did not\nreally attach to himself any from the upper ranks, came the case to be\nrepresented differently at a later period? In John vii. 48 f. we read\nthat the Pharisees sought to disparage Jesus by the remark that none of\nthe rulers or of the Pharisees, but only the ignorant populace,\nbelieved on him; and even later adversaries of Christianity, for\nexample, Celsus, laid great stress on the circumstance that Jesus had\nhad as his disciples \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. [1021] This reproach was a thorn in the side of the early\nchurch, and though as long as her members were drawn only from the\npeople, she might reflect with satisfaction on the declarations of\nJesus, in which he had pronounced the poor, \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, and simple,\n\u03bd\u03b7\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, blessed: yet so soon as she was joined by men of rank and\neducation, these would lean to the idea that converts like themselves\nhad not been wanting to Jesus during his life. But, it would be\nobjected, nothing had been hitherto known of such converts. Naturally\nenough, it might be answered; since fear of their equals would induce\nthem to conceal their relations with Jesus. Thus a door was opened for\nthe admission of any number of secret adherents among the higher class\n(John xii. 42 f.). But, it would be further urged, how could they have\nintercourse with Jesus unobserved? Under the veil of the night, would\nbe the answer; and thus the scene was laid for the interviews of such\nmen with Jesus (xix. 39). This, however, would not suffice; a\nrepresentative of this class must actually appear on the scene: Joseph\nof Arimathea might have been chosen, his name being still extant in the\nsynoptical tradition; but the idea of him was too definite, and it was\nthe interest of the legend to name more than one eminent friend of\nJesus. Hence a new personage was devised, whose Greek name \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\nseems to point him out significantly as the representative of the\ndominant class. [1022] That this development of the legend is confined\nto the fourth gospel, is to be explained, partly by the generally\nadmitted lateness of its origin, and partly on the ground that in the\nevidently more cultivated circle in which it arose, the limitation of\nthe adherents of Jesus to the common people would be more offensive,\nthan in the circle in which the synoptical tradition was formed. Thus\nthe reproach which modern criticism has cast on the first gospel, on\nthe score of its silence respecting Nicodemus, is turned upon the\nfourth, on the score of its information on the same subject.\n\nThese considerations, however, should not create any prejudice against\nthe ensuing conversation, which is the proper object of our\ninvestigations. This may still be in the main genuine; Jesus may have\nheld such a conversation with one of his adherents, and our Evangelist\nmay have embellished it no further than by making this interlocutor a\nman of rank. Neither will we, with the author of the Probabilia, take\numbrage at the opening address of Nicodemus, nor complain, with him,\nthat there is a want of connexion between that address and the answer\nof Jesus. [1023] The requisition of a new birth (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd), as\na condition of entrance into the kingdom of heaven, does not differ\nessentially from the summons with which Jesus opens his ministry in the\nsynoptical gospels, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.\nNew birth, or new creation, was a current image among the Jews,\nespecially as denoting the conversion of an idolater into a worshipper\nof Jehovah. It was customary to say of Abraham, that when, according to\nthe Jewish supposition, he renounced idolatry for the worship of the\ntrue God, he became a new creature (\u200f\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d4\u200e). [1024] The proselyte,\ntoo, in allusion to his relinquishing all his previous associations,\nwas compared to a new-born child. [1025] That such phraseology was\ncommon among the Jews at that period, is shown by the confidence with\nwhich Paul applies, as if it required no explanation, the term new\ncreation, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, to those truly converted to Christ. Now, if\nJesus required, even from the Jews, as a condition of entrance into the\nmessianic kingdom, the new birth which they ascribed to their heathen\nproselytes, Nicodemus might naturally wonder at the requisition, since\nthe Israelite thought himself, as such, unconditionally entitled to\nthat kingdom: and this is the construction which has been put upon his\nquestion v. 4. [1026] But Nicodemus does not ask, How canst thou say\nthat a Jew, or a child of Abraham, must be born again? His ground of\nwonder is that Jesus appears to suppose it possible for a man to be\nborn again, and that when he is old. It does not, therefore, astonish\nhim that spiritual new birth should be expected in a Jew, but corporeal\nnew birth in a man. How an oriental, to whom figurative speech in\ngeneral\u2014how a Jew, to whom the image of the new birth in particular\nmust have been familiar\u2014how especially a master of Israel, in whom the\nmisconstruction of figurative phrases cannot, as in the apostles (e.g.\nMatt. xv. 15 f.; xvi. 7), be ascribed to want of education\u2014could\nunderstand this expression literally, has been matter of extreme\nsurprise to expositors of all parties, as well as to Jesus (v. 10).\nHence some have supposed that the Pharisee really understood Jesus, and\nonly intended by his question to test the ability of Jesus to interpret\nhis figurative expression into a simple proposition: [1027] but Jesus\ndoes not treat him as a hypocrite, as in that case he must have done\u2014he\ncontinues to instruct him, as one really ignorant \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (v.\n10). Others give the question the following turn: This cannot be meant\nin a physical sense, how then otherwise? [1028] But the true drift of\nthe question is rather the contrary: By these words I can only\nunderstand physical new birth, but how is this possible? Our wonder at\nthe ignorance of the Jewish doctor, therefore, returns upon us; and it\nis heightened when, after the copious explanation of Jesus (v. 5\u20138),\nthat the new birth which he required was a spiritual birth, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Nicodemus has made no advance in comprehension, but\nasks with the same obtuseness as before (v. 9), How can these things\nbe? By this last difficulty L\u00fccke is so straitened, that, contrary to\nhis ordinary exegetical tact, he refers the continued amazement of\nNicodemus (as other expositors had referred his original question) to\nthe circumstance that Jesus maintained the necessity of new birth even\nfor Israelites. But, in that case, Nicodemus would have inquired\nconcerning the necessity, not the possibility, of that birth; instead\nof asking, How can these things be? he would have asked, Why must these\nthings be? This inconceivable mistake in a Jewish doctor is not then to\nbe explained away, and our surprise must become strong suspicion so\nsoon as it can be shown, that legend or the Evangelist had inducements\nto represent this individual as more simple than he really was. First,\nthen, it must occur to us, that in all descriptions and recitals,\ncontrasts are eagerly exhibited; hence in the representation of a\ncolloquy in which one party is the teacher, the other the taught, there\nis a strong temptation to create a contrast to the wisdom of the former\nby exaggerating the simplicity of the latter. Further, we must remember\nthe satisfaction it must give to a Christian mind of that age, to place\na master of Israel in the position of an unintelligent person, by the\nside of the Master of the Christians. Lastly, it is, as we shall\npresently see more clearly, the constant method of the fourth\nEvangelist in detailing the conversations of Jesus, to form the knot\nand the progress of the discussion, by making the interlocutors\nunderstand literally what Jesus intended figuratively.\n\nIn reply to the second query of Nicodemus, Jesus takes entirely the\ntone of the fourth Evangelist\u2019s prologue (v. 11\u201313). [1029] The\nquestion hence arises, whether the Evangelist borrowed from Jesus, or\nlent to him his own style. A previous investigation has decided in\nfavour of the latter alternative. [1030] But this inquiry referred\nmerely to the form of the discourses; in relation to their matter, its\nanalogy with the ideas of Philo, does not authorize us at once to\nconclude that the writer here puts his Alexandrian doctrine of the\nLogos into the mouth of Jesus; [1031] because the expressions, We speak\nthat we do know, etc. \u1f43 \u03bf\u1f34\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., and, No man hath\nascended up to heaven, etc. \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., have an analogy\nwith Matt. xi. 27; and the idea of the pre-existence of the Messiah\nwhich is here propounded, is, as we have seen, not foreign to the\nApostle Paul.\n\nV. 14 and 15 Jesus proceeds from the more simple things of the earth,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, the communications concerning the new birth, to the more\ndifficult things of heaven, \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, the announcement of the\ndestination of the Messiah to a vicarious death. The Son of Man, he\nsays, must be lifted up (\u1f51\u03c8\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, which, in John\u2019s phraseology,\nsignifies crucifixion, with an allusion to a glorifying exaltation), in\nthe same way, and with the same effect, as the brazen serpent Num. xxi.\n8, 9. Here many questions press upon us. Is it credible, that Jesus\nalready, at the very commencement of his public ministry, foresaw his\ndeath, and in the specific form of crucifixion? and that long before he\ninstructed his disciples on this point, he made a communication on the\nsubject to a Pharisee? Can it be held consistent with the wisdom of\nJesus as a teacher, that he should impart such knowledge to Nicodemus?\nEven L\u00fccke [1032] puts the question why, when Nicodemus had not\nunderstood the more obvious doctrine, Jesus tormented him with the more\nrecondite, and especially with the secret of the Messiah\u2019s death, which\nwas then so remote? He answers: it accords perfectly with the wisdom of\nJesus as a teacher, that he should reveal the sufferings appointed for\nhim by God as early as possible, because no instruction was better\nadapted to cast down false worldly hopes. But the more remote the idea\nof the Messiah\u2019s death from the conceptions of his cotemporaries, owing\nto the worldliness of their expectations, the more impressively and\nunequivocally must Jesus express that idea, if he wished to promulgate\nit; not in an enigmatical form which he could not be sure that\nNicodemus would understand. L\u00fccke continues: Nicodemus was a man open\nto instruction; one of whom good might be expected. But in this very\nconversation, his dulness of comprehension in earthly things, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1,\nhad evinced that he must have still less capacity for heavenly things,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1; and, according to v. 12, Jesus himself despaired of\nenlightening him with respect to them. L\u00fccke, however, observes, that\nit was a practice with Jesus to follow up easy doctrine which had not\nbeen comprehended, by difficult doctrine which was of course less\ncomprehensible; that he purposed thus to give a spur to the minds of\nhis hearers, and by straining their attention, engage them to reflect.\nBut the examples which L\u00fccke adduces of such proceeding on the part of\nJesus, are all drawn from the fourth gospel. Now the very point in\nquestion is, whether that gospel correctly represents the teaching of\nJesus; consequently L\u00fccke argues in a circle. We have seen a similar\nprocedure ascribed to Jesus in his conversation with the woman of\nSamaria, and we have already declared our opinion that such an\noverburthening of weak faculties with enigma on enigma, does not accord\nwith the wise rule as to the communication of doctrine, which the same\ngospel puts into the mouth of Jesus, xvi. 12. It would not stimulate,\nbut confuse, the mind of the hearer, who persisted in a misapprehension\nof the well-known figure of the new birth, to present to him the novel\ncomparison of the Messiah and his death, to the brazen serpent and its\neffects; a comparison quite incongruous with his Jewish ideas. [1033]\nIn the first three Gospels Jesus pursues an entirely different course.\nIn these, where a misconstruction betrays itself on the part of the\ndisciples, Jesus (except where he breaks off altogether, or where it is\nevident that the Evangelist unhistorically associates a number of\nmetaphorical discourses) applies himself with the assiduity of an\nearnest teacher to the thorough explanation of the difficulty, and not\nuntil he has effected this does he proceed, step by step, to convey\nfurther instruction (e.g. Matt. xiii. 10 ff., 36 ff., xv. 16, xvi. 8\nff.). [1034] This is the method of a wise teacher; on the contrary, to\nleap from one subject to another, to overburthen and strain the mind of\nthe hearer, a mode of instruction which the fourth Evangelist\nattributes to Jesus, is wholly inconsistent with that character. To\nexplain this inconsistency, we must suppose that the writer of the\nfourth gospel thought to heighten in the most effective manner the\ncontrast which appears from the first, between the wisdom of the one\nparty and the incapacity of the other, by representing the teacher as\noverwhelming the pupil, who put unintelligent questions on the most\nelementary doctrine, with lofty and difficult themes, beneath which his\nfaculties are laid prostrate.\n\nFrom v. 16, even those commentators who pretend to some ability in this\ndepartment, lose all hope of showing that the remainder of the\ndiscourse may have been spoken by Jesus. Not only does Paulus make this\nconfession, but even Olshausen, with a concise statement of his\nreasons. [1035] At the above verse, any special reference to Nicodemus\nvanishes, and there is commenced an entirely general discourse on the\ndestination of the Son of God, to confer a blessing on the world, and\non the manner in which unbelief forfeits this blessing. Moreover, these\nideas are expressed in a form, which at one moment appears to be a\nreminiscence of the Evangelist\u2019s introduction, and at another has a\nstriking similarity with passages in the first Epistle of John. [1036]\nIn particular, the expression, the only begotten Son, \u1f41 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2,\nwhich is repeatedly (v. 16 and 18) attributed to Jesus as a designation\nof his own person, is nowhere else found in his mouth, even in the\nfourth gospel; this circumstance, however, marks it still more\npositively as a favourite phrase of the Evangelist (i. 14\u201318), and of\nthe writer of the Epistles (1 John iv. 9). Further, many things are\nspoken of as past, which at the supposed period of this conversation\nwith Nicodemus were yet future. For even if the words, he gave, \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd,\nrefer not to the giving over to death, but to the sending of the\nMessiah into the world; the expressions, men loved darkness, \u1f21\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, and, their deeds were evil, \u1fc6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 (v. 19), as L\u00fccke also remarks, could only be used after the\ntriumph of darkness had been achieved in the rejection and execution of\nJesus: they belong then to the Evangelist\u2019s point of view at the time\nwhen he wrote, not to that of Jesus when on the threshold of his public\nministry. In general the whole of this discourse attributed to Jesus,\nwith its constant use of the third person to designate the supposed\nspeaker; with its dogmatical terms only begotten, light, and the like,\napplied to Jesus; with its comprehensive view of the crisis and its\nresults, which the appearance of Jesus produced, is far too objective\nfor us to believe that it came from the lips of Jesus. Jesus could not\nspeak thus of himself, but the Evangelist might speak thus of Jesus.\nHence the same expedient has been adopted, as in the case of the\nBaptist\u2019s discourse already considered, and it has been supposed that\nJesus is the speaker down to v. 16, but that from that point the\nEvangelist appends his own dogmatic reflections. [1037] But there is\nagain here no intimation of such a transition in the text; rather, the\nconnecting word for, \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 (v. 16), seems to indicate a continuation of\nthe same discourse. No writer, and least of all the fourth Evangelist\n(comp. vii. 39, xi. 51 f., xii. 16, xxxiii. 37 ff.), would scatter his\nown observations thus undistinguishingly, unless he wished to create a\nmisapprehension. [1038]\n\nIf then it be established that the evangelist, from v. 16 to the end of\nthe discourse, means to represent Jesus as the speaker, while Jesus can\nnever have so spoken, we cannot rest satisfied with the half measure\nadopted by L\u00fccke, when he maintains that it is really Jesus who\ncontinues to speak from the above passage, but that the Evangelist has\ninwoven his own explanations and amplifications more liberally than\nbefore. For this admission undermines all certainty as to how far the\ndiscourse belongs to Jesus, and how far to the Evangelist; besides, as\nthe discourse is distinguished by the closest uniformity of thought and\nstyle, it must be ascribed either wholly to Jesus or wholly to the\nEvangelist. Of these two alternatives the former is, according to the\nabove considerations, impossible; we are therefore restricted to the\nlatter, which we have observed to be entirely consistent with the\nmanner of the fourth Evangelist.\n\nBut not only on the passage v. 16\u201321 must we pass this judgment: v. 14\nhas appeared to us out of keeping with the position of Jesus; and the\nbehaviour of Nicodemus, v. 4 and 9, altogether inconceivable. Thus in\nthe very first sample, when compared with the observations which we\nhave already made on John iii. 22 ff., iv. 1 ff., the fourth gospel\npresents to us all the peculiarities which characterize its mode of\nreporting the discourses of Jesus. They are usually commenced in the\nform of dialogue, and so far as this extends, the lever that propels\nthe conversation is the striking contrast between the spiritual sense\nand the carnal interpretation of the language of Jesus; generally,\nhowever, the dialogue is merged into an uninterrupted discourse, in\nwhich the writer blends the person of Jesus with his own, and makes the\nformer use concerning himself, language which could only be used by\nJohn concerning Jesus.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 81.\n\nTHE DISCOURSES OF JESUS, JOHN V.\u2013XII.\n\nIn the fifth chapter of John, a long discourse of Jesus is connected\nwith a cure wrought by him on the sabbath (19\u201347). The mode in which\nJesus at v. 17 defends his activity on the sabbath, is worthy of\nnotice, as distinguished from that adopted by him in the earlier\ngospels. These ascribe to him, in such cases, three arguments: the\nexample of David, who ate the shew-bread; the precedent of the\nsabbatical labours of the priests in the temple, quoted also in John\nvii. 23 (Matt. xii. 3 ff. parall.); and the course pursued with respect\nto an ox, sheep, or ass, that falls into the pit (Matt. xii. 11,\nparall.), or is led out to watering on the sabbath (Luke xiii. 18): all\nwhich arguments are entirely in the practical spirit that characterizes\nthe popular teaching of Jesus. The fourth Evangelist, on the contrary,\nmakes him argue from the uninterrupted activity of God, and reminds us\nby the expression which he puts into the mouth of Jesus, My Father\nworketh hitherto, \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, of a principle in the\nAlexandrian metaphysics, viz. God never ceases to act, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9: [1039] a metaphysical proposition more likely to be\nfamiliar to the author of the fourth gospel than to Jesus. In the\nsynoptical gospels, miracles of healing on the sabbath are followed up\nby declarations respecting the nature and design of the sabbatical\ninstitution, a species of instruction of which the people were greatly\nin need; but in the present passage, a digression is immediately made\nto the main theme of the gospel, the person of Christ and his relation\nto the Father. The perpetual recurrence of this theme in the fourth\ngospel has led its adversaries, not without reason, to accuse it of a\ntendency purely theoretic, and directed to the glorification of Jesus.\nIn the matter of the succeeding discourse there is nothing to create a\ndifficulty, nothing that Jesus might not have spoken, for it treats,\nwith the strictest coherence, of things which the Jews expected of the\nMessiah, or which Jesus attributed to himself, according to the\nsynoptists also: as, for instance, the raising of the dead, and the\noffice of judging the world. But this consistency in the matter only\nheightens the difficulty connected with the form and phraseology in\nwhich it is expressed. For the discourse, especially its latter half\n(from v. 31), is full of the closest analogies with the first epistle\nof John, and with passages in the gospel in which either the author\nspeaks, or John the Baptist. [1040] One means of explaining the former\nresemblance is to suppose, that the Evangelist formed his style by\nclosely imitating that of Jesus. That this is possible, is not to be\ndisputed; but it is equally certain that it could proceed only from a\nmind destitute of originality and self-confidence,\u2014a character which\nthe fourth Evangelist in nowise exhibits. Further, as in the other\ngospels Jesus speaks in a thoroughly different tone and style, it would\nfollow, if he really spoke as he is represented to have done by John,\nthat the manner attributed to him by the synoptists is fictitious. Now,\nthat this manner did not originate with the Evangelists is plain from\nthe fact, that each of them is so little master of his matter. Neither\ncould the bulk of the discourses have been the work of tradition, not\nonly because they have a highly original cast, but because they bear\nthe impress of the alleged time and locality. On the contrary, the\nfourth Evangelist, by the ease with which he disposes his materials,\nawakens the suspicion that they are of his own production; and some of\nhis favourite ideas and phrases, such as, The Father showeth the Son\nall that himself doeth, [1041] and those already quoted, seem to have\nsprung from an Hellenistic source, rather than from Palestine. But the\nchief point in the argument is, that in this gospel John the Baptist\nspeaks, as we have seen, in precisely the same strain as the author of\nthe gospels, and his Jesus. It cannot be supposed, that not only the\nEvangelist, but the Baptist, whose public career was prior to that of\nJesus, and whose character was strongly marked, modelled his\nexpressions with verbal minuteness on those of Jesus. Hence only two\ncases are possible: either the Baptist determined the style of Jesus\nand the Evangelist (who indeed appears to have been the Baptist\u2019s\ndisciple); or the Evangelist determined the style of the Baptist and\nJesus. The former alternative will be rejected by the orthodox, on the\nground of the higher nature that dwelt in Christ; and we are equally\ndisinclined to adopt it, for the reason that Jesus, even though he may\nhave been excited to activity by the Baptist, yet appears as a\ncharacter essentially distinct from him, and original; and for the\nstill more weighty consideration, that the style of the Evangelist is\nmuch too feeble for the rude Baptist,\u2014too mystical for his practical\nmind. There remains, then, but the latter alternative, namely, that the\nEvangelist has given his own style both to Jesus and to the Baptist: an\nexplanation in itself more natural than the former, and supported by a\nmultitude of examples from all kinds of historical writers. If however\nthe Evangelist is thus responsible for the form of this discourse, it\nis still possible that the matter may have belonged to Jesus, but we\ncannot pronounce to what extent this is the case, and we have already\nhad proof that the Evangelist, on suitable opportunities, very freely\npresents his own reflections in the form of a discourse from Jesus.\n\nIn chap. vi., Jesus represents himself, or rather his Father, v. 27\nff., as the giver of the spiritual manna. This is analogous to the\nJewish idea above quoted, that the second Go\u00ebl, like the first, would\nprovide manna; [1042] and to the invitation of Wisdom in the Proverbs,\nix. 5, Come, eat of my bread: \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. But the\nsucceeding declaration, that he is himself the bread of life that\ncometh down from heaven, \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2 (v. 33\nand 35) appears to find its true analogy only in the idea of Philo,\nthat the divine word, \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, is that which nourishes the soul, \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd. [1043] From v. 51, the difficulty becomes still\ngreater. Jesus proceeds to represent his flesh as the bread from\nheaven, which he will give for the life of the world, and to eat the\nflesh of the Son of Man, and to drink his blood, he pronounces to be\nthe only means of attaining eternal life. The similarity of these\nexpressions to the words which the synoptists and Paul attribute to\nJesus, at the institution of the Lord\u2019s Supper, led the older\ncommentators generally to understand this passage as having reference\nto the Sacramental supper, ultimately to be appointed by Jesus. [1044]\nThe chief objection to this interpretation is, that before the\ninstitution of the supper, such an allusion would be totally\nunintelligible. Still the discourse might have some sense, however\nerroneous, for the hearers, as indeed it had, according to the\nnarrator\u2019s statement; and the impossibility of being understood is not,\nin the fourth gospel, so shunned by Jesus, that that circumstance alone\nwould suffice to render this interpretation improbable. It is certainly\nsupported by the analogy between the expressions in the discourse, and\nthe words associated with the institution of the supper, and this\nanalogy has wrung from one of our recent critics the admission, that\neven if Jesus himself, in uttering the above expressions, did not refer\nto the supper, the Evangelist, in choosing and conveying this discourse\nof Jesus might have had that institution in his mind, and might have\nsupposed that Jesus here gave a premonition of its import. [1045] In\nthat case, however, he could scarcely have abstained from modifying the\nlanguage of Jesus; so that, if the choice of the expression eat the\nflesh, etc., can only be adequately explained on the supposition of a\nreference to the Lord\u2019s Supper, we owe it, without doubt, to the\nEvangelist alone. Having once said, apparently in accordance with\nAlexandrian ideas, that Jesus had described himself as the bread of\nlife, how could he fail to be reminded of the bread, which in the\nChristian community was partaken of as the body of Christ, together\nwith a beverage, as his blood? He would the more gladly seize the\nopportunity of making Jesus institute the supper prophetically, as it\nwere; because, as we shall hereafter see, he knew nothing definite of\nits historical institution by Jesus. [1046]\n\nThe discourse above considered, also bears the form of a dialogue, and\nit exhibits strikingly the type of dialogue which especially belongs to\nthe fourth gospel: that, namely, in which language intended\nspiritually, is understood carnally. In the first place (v. 34), the\nJews (as the woman of Samaria in relation to the water) suppose that by\nthe bread which cometh down from heaven, Jesus means some material\nfood, and entreat him evermore to supply them with such. Such a\nmisapprehension was certainly natural; but one would have thought that\nthe Jews, before they carried the subject farther, would have\nindignantly protested against the assertion of Jesus (v. 32), that\nMoses had not given them heavenly bread. When Jesus proceeds to call\nhimself the bread from heaven, the Jews in the synagogue at Capernaum\nmurmur that he, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother they knew,\nshould arrogate to himself a descent from heaven (v. 41); a reflection\nwhich the synoptists with more probability attribute to the people of\nNazareth, the native city of Jesus, and to which they assign a more\nnatural cause. That the Jews should not understand (v. 53) how Jesus\ncould give them his flesh to eat is very conceivable; and for that\nreason, as we have observed, it is the less so that Jesus should\nexpress himself thus unintelligibly. Neither is it surprising that this\nhard saying, \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, should cause many disciples to fall away\nfrom him, nor easy to perceive how Jesus could, in the first instance,\nhimself give reason for the secession, and then, on its occurrence,\nfeel so much displeasure as is implied in v. 61 and 67. It is indeed\nsaid, that Jesus wished to sift his disciples, to remove from his\nsociety the superficial believers, the earthly-minded, whom he could\nnot trust; but the measure which he here adopted was one calculated to\nalienate from him even his best and most intelligent followers. For it\nis certain that the twelve, who on other occasions knew not what was\nmeant by the leaven of the Pharisees (Matt. xvi. 7), or by the\nopposition between what goes into the mouth, and what comes out of it\n(Matt. xv. 15), would not understand the present discourse; and the\nwords of eternal life, for the sake of which they remained with him (v.\n68), were assuredly not the words of this sixth chapter. [1047]\n\nThe further we read in the fourth gospel, the more striking is the\nrepetition: of the same ideas and expressions. The discourses of Jesus\nduring the Feast of Tabernacles, ch. vii. and viii. are, as L\u00fccke has\nremarked, mere repetitions and amplifications of the oppositions\npreviously presented (especially in ch. v.), of the coming, speaking,\nand acting, of Jesus, and of God (vii. 17, 28 f., viii. 28 f., 38, 40,\n42, compare with v. 30, 43, 38); of being from above, \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9,\nand from beneath, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 (viii. 23, comp. iii. 31); of bearing\nwitness of one\u2019s self, and receiving witness from God (viii. 13\u201319,\ncomp. v. 31\u201337); of light and darkness (viii. 12, comp. iii. 10, ff.,\nalso xii. 35 f.); of true and false judgment (viii. 15 f., comp. v.\n30). All that is new in these chapters, is quickly repeated, as the\nmention of the departure of Jesus whither the Jews cannot follow him\n(vii. 33 f., viii. 21, comp. xiii. 33, xiv. 2 ff., xvi. 16 ff.); a\ndeclaration, to which are attached, in the first two instances, very\nimprobable misapprehensions or perversions on the part of the Jews,\nwho, although Jesus had said, I go unto him that sent me, are\nrepresented as imagining, at one time, that he purposed journeying to\nthe dispersed among the Gentiles, at another, that he meditated\nsuicide. How often, again, in this chapter are repeated the\nasseverations, that he seeks not his own honour, but the honour of the\nFather (vii. 17 f., viii. 50, 54); that the Jews neither know whence he\ncame, nor the father who sent him (vii. 28, viii. 14, 19, 54); that\nwhosoever believeth in him shall have eternal life, shall not see\ndeath, while whosoever believeth not must die in his sins, having no\nshare in eternal life (viii. 21, 24, 51, comp. iii. 36, vi. 40).\u2014The\nninth chapter, consisting chiefly of the deliberations of the Sanhedrim\nwith the man born blind, whom Jesus had restored to sight, has of\ncourse the form of conversation, but as Jesus is less on the scene than\nheretofore, there is not the usual amount of artificial contrast; in\nits stead, however, there is, as we shall presently find, another\nevidence of artistic design in the narrator.\n\nThe tenth chapter commences with the well-known discourse on the Good\nShepherd; a discourse which has been incorrectly called a parable.\n[1048] Even the briefest among the other parables of Jesus, such as\nthat of the leaven and of the mustard-seed, contain the outline of a\nhistory that develops itself, having a commencement, progress, and\nconclusion. Here, on the contrary, there is no historical development;\neven the particulars that have an historical character are stated\ngenerally, as things that are wont to happen, not as things that once\nhappened, and they are left without further limitation; moreover, the\ndoor usurps the place of the Shepherd, which is at first the principal\nimage; so that we have here, not a parable, but an allegory. Therefore\nthis passage at least\u2014(and we shall find no other, for the similitude\nof the vine, ch. xv., comes, as L\u00fccke confesses, under the same\ncategory as the one in question)\u2014furnishes no argument against the\nallegation by which recent critics have justified their suspicions as\nto the authenticity of the fourth gospel; namely, that its author seems\nignorant of the parabolic mode of teaching which, according to the\nother Evangelists, was habitual with Jesus. It does not however appear\ntotally unknown to the fourth Evangelist that Jesus was fond of\nteaching by parables, for he attempts to give examples of this method,\nboth in ch. x. and xv., the first of which he expressly styles a\nparable, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1. But it is obvious that the parabolic form was not\naccordant with his taste, and that he was too deficient in the faculty\nof depicting external things, to abstain from the intermixture of\nreflections, whence the parable in his hand became an allegory.\n\nThe discourses of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles extend to x. 18.\nFrom v. 25, the Evangelist professes to record sayings which were\nuttered by Jesus three months later, at the Feast of Dedication. When,\non this occasion, the Jews desire from him a distinct declaration\nwhether he be the Messiah, his immediate reply is, that he has already\ntold them this sufficiently, and he repeats his appeal to the testimony\nof the Father, as given in the works, \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1, done by Jesus in his name\n(as in v. 36). Hereupon he observes that his unbelieving interrogators\nare not of his sheep, whence he reverts to the allegory of the\nshepherd, which he had abandoned, and repeats part of it word for word.\n[1049] But Jesus had not recently abandoned this allegory; for since\nits delivery three months are supposed to have elapsed, and it is\ncertain that in the interim much must have been spoken, done, and\nexperienced by Jesus, that would thrust this figurative discourse into\nthe background of his memory, so that he would be very unlikely to\nrecur to it, and in no case would he be able to repeat it, word for\nword. He who had just quitted the allegory was the Evangelist, to whom\nthree months had not intervened between the inditing of the first half\nof this chapter, and that of the second. He wrote at once what,\naccording to his statement, was chronologically separated by a wide\ninterval; and hence the allegory of the shepherd might well leave so\ndistinct an echo in his memory, though not in that of Jesus. If any\nthink that they can solve this difficulty by putting only the verbal\nsimilarity of the later discourse to the earlier one to the account of\nthe Evangelist, such an opinion cannot be interdicted to them. For\nothers, this instance, in connexion with the rest, will be a positive\nproof that the discourses of Jesus in the fourth gospel are to a great\nextent the free compositions of the Evangelist.\n\nThe same conclusion is to be drawn from the discourse with which the\nfourth Evangelist represents Jesus as closing his public ministry (xii.\n44\u201350). This discourse is entirely composed of reminiscences out of\nprevious chapters, [1050] and, as Paulus expresses it, [1051] is a mere\necho of some of the principal apophthegms of Jesus occurring in the\nformer part of the gospel. One cannot easily consent to let the\nministry of Jesus close with a discourse so little original, and the\nmajority of recent commentators are of opinion that it is the intention\nof the Evangelist here to give us a mere epitome of the teaching of\nJesus. [1052] According to our view also, the Evangelist is the real\nspeaker; but we must contend that his introductory words, Jesus cried\nand said, \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, are intended to imply that what\nfollows is an actual harangue, from the lips of Jesus. This\ncommentators will not admit, and they can appeal, not without a show of\nreason, to the statement of the Evangelist, v. 36, that Jesus withdrew\nhimself from the public eye, and to his ensuing observations on the\nobstinate unbelief of the Jews, in which he seems to put a period to\nthe public career of Jesus; whence it would be contrary to his plan to\nmake Jesus again step forward to deliver a valedictory discourse. I\nwill not, with the older expositors, oppose to these arguments the\nsupposition that Jesus, after his withdrawal, returned to pronounce\nthese words in the ears of the Jews; but I hold fast to the proposition\nthat by the introduction above quoted, the Evangelist can only have\nintended to announce an actual harangue. It is said, indeed, that the\naorist in \u1f14\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03b5 and \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5 has the signification of the pluperfect, and\nthat we have here a recapitulation of the previous discourses of Jesus,\nnotwithstanding which the Jews had not given him credence. But to give\nthis retrospective signification there ought to be a corresponding\nindication in the words themselves, or in the context, whereas this is\nfar less the case than e.g. in John xviii. 24. Hence the most probable\nview of the question is this: John had indeed intended to close the\nnarrative of the public ministry of Jesus at v. 36, but his concluding\nobservations, v. 37 ff., with the categories of faith, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, and\nunbelief, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1, reminded him of discourses which he had already\nrecorded, and he could not resist the temptation of making Jesus\nrecapitulate them with additional emphasis in a parting harangue.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 82.\n\nISOLATED MAXIMS OF JESUS, COMMON TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE\nSYNOPTICAL ONES.\n\nThe long discourses of Jesus above examined are peculiar to the fourth\ngospel; it has only a few brief maxims to which the synoptists present\nparallels. Among the latter, we need not give a special examination to\nthose which are placed by John in an equally suitable connexion, with\nthat assigned to them by the other Evangelists (as xii. 25, comp. with\nMatt. x. 39, xvi. 25; and xiii. 16, comp. with Matt. x. 24); and as the\npassage ii. 19 compared with Matt. xxvi. 61, must be reserved until we\ntreat of the history of the Passion, there remain to us only three\npassages for our present consideration.\n\nThe first of these is iv. 44, where the Evangelist, after having\nmentioned that Jesus departed from Samaria into Galilee, adds, For\nJesus himself testified that a prophet has no honour in his own\ncountry, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41 \u1f38. \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9. We find the same idea in Matthew xiii. 57 (Mark vi. 4;\nLuke iv. 24), A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country\nand in his own house, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\n\u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. But while in the latter case it stands in\na highly appropriate connexion, as a remark prompted by the ungracious\nreception which Jesus met with in his native city, and which caused him\nto leave it again: in John, on the contrary, it is given as a motive\nfor the return of Jesus into his own country, Galilee, where, moreover,\nhe is immediately said to be warmly received. The experience stated in\nthe above sentence would rather have disinclined than induced Jesus to\nundertake a journey into Galilee; hence the expedient of translating\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 by although, is the best adapted to the necessity of the case, and\nhas even been embraced by Kuin\u00f6l, except that, unhappily, it is an open\ndefiance of the laws of language. [1053] Unquestionably, if Jesus knew\nthat the prophet held this unfavourable position in his native country,\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c2, it is not probable that he would regard it as a reason for\ngoing thither. Some expositors, therefore, have been induced to\nunderstand \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c2, not as the province, but in a narrower sense, as the\nnative city, and to supply, after the statement that Jesus went into\nGalilee, the observation, which they assume the Evangelist to have\nomitted, that he avoided his native city, Nazareth, for the reason\ngiven in the ensuing verse. But an ellipsis such as this explanation\nrequires us to suppose, belongs not less to the order of\nimpossibilities than the transmutation of \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 into though. The attempt\nto introduce the desiderated statement that Jesus did not visit his own\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c2 into the present passage has been therefore renounced: but it\nhas yet been thought possible to discover there an intimation that he\ndid not soon return thither; a delay for which the maxim, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. might consistently be quoted as a reason. [1054] But to render\nthis interpretation admissible, the entire period of the absence of\nJesus from Galilee must have been mentioned immediately before the\nnotice of his return; instead of this, however, only the short time\nthat Jesus had tarried in Samaria is given (v. 45), so that in\nludicrous disproportion of cause and effect, the fear of the contempt\nof his fellow country men would on the above supposition, be made the\nreason for delaying his return into Galilee, not until after a\nresidence of some months in Judea, but until after the lapse of two\ndays spent in Samaria. So long, therefore, as Galilee and Nazareth are\nadmitted to be the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c2 of Jesus, the passage in question cannot be\nvindicated from the absurdity of representing, that Jesus was\ninstigated to return thither by the contempt which he knew to await\nhim. Consequently, it becomes the interest of the expositor to\nrecollect, that Matthew and Luke pronounce Bethlehem to be the\nbirthplace of Jesus, whence it follows that Judea was his native\ncountry, which he now forsook on account of the contempt he had there\nexperienced. [1055] But according to iv. 1, comp. ii. 23, iii. 26 ff.,\nJesus had won a considerable number of adherents in Judea, and could\nnot therefore complain of a lack of honour, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae; moreover the enmity\nof the Pharisees, hinted at in iv. 1, was excited by the growing\nconsequence of Jesus in Judea, and was not at all referable to such a\ncause as that indicated in the maxim: \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Further, the\nentrance into Galilee is not connected in our passage with a departure\nfrom Judea, but from Samaria; and as, according to the import of the\ntext, Jesus departed from Samaria and went into Galilee, because he had\nfound that a prophet has no honour in his own country, Samaria might\nrather seem to be pointed out as his native country, in conformity with\nthe reproach cast on him by the Jews, viii. 48; though even this\nsupposition would not give consistency to the passage, for in Samaria\nalso Jesus is said, iv. 39, to have had a favourable reception.\nBesides, we have already seen, [1056] that the fourth Evangelist knows\nnothing of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, but on all occasions\npresupposes him to be a Galilean and a Nazarene. From the above\nconsiderations we obtain only the negative result, that it is\nimpossible to discover any consistent relation between the maxim in\nquestion and the context. A positive result,\u2014namely, how the maxim came\nto occupy its actual position, notwithstanding this want of relation,\nwill perhaps be obtained when we have examined the two other passages\nbelonging to the present head of our inquiry.\n\nThe declaration xiii. 20, He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he\nthat receiveth me receiveth him that sent me, has an almost verbal\nparallel in Matt. x. 40. In John, it is preceded by the prediction of\nthe betrayal of Jesus, and his explanation to his disciples that he had\ntold them this before it came to pass, in order that when his\nprediction was fulfilled, they might believe in him as the Messiah.\nWhat is the connexion between these subjects and the above declaration,\nor between the latter and its ensuing context, where Jesus recurs to\nhis betrayer? It is said that Jesus wished to impress on his disciples\nthe high dignity of a messianic missionary, a dignity which the\nbetrayer thought lightly of losing; [1057] but the negative idea of\nloss, on which this supposition turns, is not intimated in the text.\nOthers are of opinion that Jesus, observing the disciples to be\ndisheartened by the mention of the betrayer, sought to inspire them\nwith new courage by representing to them their high value; [1058] but\nin that case he would hardly have reverted immediately after to the\ntraitor. Others, again, conjecture that some intermediate sentences\nhave been omitted by the writer; [1059] but this expedient is not much\nhappier than that of Kuin\u00f6l, who supposes the passage to be a gloss\ntaken from Matt. x. 40, united originally to v. 16 of chap. xiii. of\nJohn, but by some chance transposed to the end of the paragraph.\nNevertheless, the indication of v. 16 is an useful way-mark. This\nverse, as well as v. 20, has a parallel in the discourse of\ninstructions in Matthew (x. 24); if a few fragments of this discourse\nhad reached the author of the fourth gospel through the medium of\ntradition, it is very probable that one of them would bring the others\nto his recollection. In v. 16 there is mention of the sent, \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\nand of him who sent him, \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd; so in v. 20, of those whom Jesus\nwill send, and of Him who sent Jesus. It is true, that the one passage\nhas a humiliating, the other an encouraging tendency, and their\naffinity lies, therefore, not in the sense, but in the words; so that\nas soon as the fourth Evangelist puts down, from memory, traditional\nsayings of Jesus, we see him subject to the same law of association as\nthe synoptists. It would have been the most natural arrangement to\nplace v. 20 immediately after v. 16; but the thought of the traitor was\nuppermost in the mind of the writer, and he could easily postpone the\ninsertion of an apophthegm that had only a verbal connexion with his\nprevious matter.\n\nOur third passage, xiv. 31, lies yet farther within the domain of the\nhistory of the Passion than the one last examined, but as, like this,\nit can be viewed quite independently, we shall not be anticipating if\nwe include it in our present chapter. In the above passage, the words\nArise, let us go hence, \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, \u1f04\u03b3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, remind us of those\nby which Jesus, Matt. xxvi. 46; Mark xiv. 42, summons his disciples to\njoin him in encountering the traitor: Rise, let us be going, \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. The position of the words in John is perplexing, because the\nsummons to depart has no effect; Jesus, as if he had said nothing of\nthe kind, immediately continues (xv. 1), I am the true vine, etc., and\ndoes not take his departure with his disciples until after he has\nconsiderably prolonged his discourse. Expositors of every hue have been\nsingularly unanimous in explaining the above words by the supposition,\nthat Jesus certainly intended at the moment to depart and betake\nhimself to Gethsemane, but love for his disciples, and a strong desire\nto impart to them still further admonition and comfort, detained him;\nthat hence, the first part of the summons, Arise, was executed, but\nthat, standing in the room in which he had supped, he pursued his\ndiscourse, until, later (xviii. 1), he also put into effect the words,\nlet us go hence. [1060] It is possible that the circumstances were\nsuch; it is also possible that the image of this last evening, with all\nits details, might be engraven so deeply and accurately in the memory\nof a disciple, that he might narrate how Jesus arose, and how\ntouchingly he lingered. But one who wrote under the influence of a\nrecollection thus lively, would note the particulars which were most\napparent; the rising to depart and the delay,\u2014not the mere words, which\nwithout the addition of those circumstances are altogether\nunintelligible. Here again, then, the conjecture arises that a\nreminiscence of the evangelical tradition presented itself to the\nwriter, and that he inserted it just where it occurred to him, not, as\nit happened, in the best connexion; and this conjecture assumes\nprobability so soon as we discover what might have reminded him of the\nabove expression. In the synoptical parallels the command, Rise, let us\nbe going, is connected with the announcement, Behold the hour is at\nhand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners\u2014behold\nhe is at hand that doth betray me; with the announcement, that is, of\nthe hostile power which is approaching, before which, however, Jesus\nexhibits no fear, but goes to encounter the danger with the decision\nimplied in that command. In John\u2019s gospel, also, Jesus, in the passage\nunder our notice, had been speaking of a hostile power when he said,\nThe Prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me. It makes little\ndifference that in John it is the power that dwells in the betrayer,\nand in those led by him, while, in the synoptical gospels, it is the\nbetrayer who is impelled by that power, that is said to approach. If\nthe author of the fourth gospel knew by tradition that Jesus had united\nwith the announcement of an approaching danger the words, Rise, let us\nbe going, this expression would be likely to occur to him on the\nmention of the prince of this world; and as in that stage of his\nnarrative he had placed Jesus and his disciples in the city and within\ndoors, so that a considerable change of place was necessary before they\ncould encounter the enemy, he added to \u1f04\u03b3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd (let us go), \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n(hence). As, however, this traditional fragment had intruded itself\nunawares into the train of thought, which he designed to put as a\nfarewell discourse into the mouth of Jesus, it was immediately lost\nsight of, and a free course was given to the stream of valedictory\ninstruction, not yet exhausted.\n\nIf, from the point of view now attained, we glance back on our first\npassage, iv. 44, it is easy to see how the Evangelist might be led to\ninsert in so unsuitable a connexion the testimony of Jesus as to the\ntreatment of a prophet in his own country. It was known to him\ntraditionally, and he appears to have applied it to Galilee in general,\nbeing ignorant of any unfavourable contact of Jesus with the Nazarenes.\nAs, therefore, he knew of no special scene by which this observation\nmight have been prompted, he introduced it where the simple mention of\nGalilee suggested it, apparently without any definite idea of its\nbearing.\n\nThe result of the above investigation is this: the fourth Evangelist\nsucceeds in giving connectedness to his materials, when he presents his\nown thoughts in the form of discourses delivered by Jesus; but he often\nfails lamentably in that particular, when he has to deal with the real\ntraditional sayings of Jesus. In the above instances, when he has the\nsame problem before him as the synoptists, he is as unfortunate in its\nsolution as they; nay, he is in a yet more evil case, for his narrative\nis not homogeneous with the common evangelical tradition, and presented\nfew places where a genuine traditional relic could be inserted.\nBesides, he was accustomed to cast his metal, liquid from his own\ninvention, and was little skilled in the art of adapting independent\nfragments to each other, so as to form an harmonious mosaic.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 83.\n\nTHE MODERN DISCUSSIONS ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DISCOURSES IN THE\nGOSPEL OF JOHN. RESULT.\n\nThe foregoing examination of the discourses of Jesus in the fourth\ngospel, has sufficiently prepared us to form a judgment on the\ncontroversy of which they have recently been the subject. Modern\ncriticism views these discourses with suspicion, partly on account of\ntheir internal contexture, which is at variance with certain generally\nreceived rules of historical probability, and partly on account of\ntheir external relation to other discourses and narratives. On the\nother hand, this gospel has had numerous defenders.\n\nWith respect to the internal contexture of the above discourses, there\narises a twofold question: Does it correspond to the laws, first of\nverisimilitude, and secondly, of memory?\n\nIt is alleged by the friends of the fourth gospel that its discourses\nare distinguished by a peculiar stamp of truth and credibility; that\nthe conversations which it represents Jesus as holding with men of the\nmost diverse disposition and capacity, are faithful delineations of\ncharacter, satisfying the strictest demands of psychological criticism.\n[1061] In opposition to this, it is maintained to be in the highest\ndegree improbable, that Jesus should have adopted precisely the same\nstyle of teaching to persons differing widely in their degrees of\ncultivation; that he should have spoken to the Galileans in the\nsynagogue at Capernaum not more intelligibly than to a master of\nIsrael; that the matter of his discourses should have turned almost\nentirely on one doctrine\u2014the dignity of his person; and that their form\nshould have been such as to seem selected with a view to perplex and\nrepel his hearers. Neither, it is further urged, do the interlocutors\nexpress themselves in conformity with their position and character. The\nmost educated Pharisee has no advantage in intelligence over a\nSamaritan woman of the lowest grade; the one, as well as the other, can\nonly put a carnal interpretation on the discourse which Jesus intends\nspiritually; their misconstructions, too, are frequently so glaring, as\nto transcend all belief, and so uniform that they seem to belong to a\nstanding set of features with which the author of the fourth gospel has\nchosen, for the sake of contrast, to depict those whom he brings into\nconversation with Jesus. [1062] Hence, I confess, I understand not what\nis the meaning of verisimilitude in the mind of those who ascribe it to\nthe discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John.\n\nAs to the second point, regarding the powers of memory, it is pretty\ngenerally agreed that discourses of the kind peculiar to John\u2019s\ngospel,\u2014in contradistinction to the apophthegms and parables, either\nisolated or strung together, in the synoptical gospels,\u2014namely, series\nof dependent propositions, or prolonged dialogues, are among the most\ndifficult to retain and reproduce with accuracy. [1063] Unless such\ndiscourses were reduced to writing at the moment of their delivery, all\nhope of their faithful reproduction must be abandoned. Hence Dr. Paulus\nonce actually entertained the idea, that in the judgment-halls of the\ntemple or the synagogues at Jerusalem, there were stationed a sort of\nshorthand writers, whose office it was to draw up verbal processes, and\nthat from their records the Christians, after the death of Christ, made\ntranscripts. [1064] In like manner, Bertholdt was of opinion, that our\nEvangelist, during the lifetime of Jesus, took down most of the\ndiscourses of Jesus in the Aram\u00e6an language, and made these notes the\nfoundation of his gospel, composed at a much later period. [1065] These\nmodern hypotheses are clearly unhistorical; [1066] nevertheless, their\npropounders were able to adduce many reasons in their support. The\nprophetic declarations of Jesus relative to his death and resurrection,\nsaid Bertholdt, are more indefinite in John than in the synoptical\ngospels, a sure sign that they were recorded before their fulfilment,\nfor otherwise the writer\u2019s experience of the event would have reflected\nmore clearness on the predictions. To this we may add the kindred\nargument, by which Henke thought it possible to establish the\ngenuineness of the discourses in John: namely, that the fourth\nEvangelist not seldom appends explanatory remarks, often indeed\nerroneous, to the obscure expressions of Jesus, thus proving that he\nwas scrupulously conscientious in reporting the discourses, for\notherwise he would have mingled his comments with their original\nmatter. [1067] But it is with justice objected, that the obscurity of\nthe predictions in the fourth gospel is in perfect harmony with the\nmystical spirit that pervades the work, and as, besides, the author,\ntogether with his fondness for the obscure and enigmatical,\nindisputably possessed taste, he must have been conscious that a\nprophecy would only be the more piquant and genuine-looking, the more\ndarkly it was delivered: hence, though he put those predictions into\nthe mouth of Jesus long after the events to which they refer, he might\nyet choose to give them an indefinite form. This observation helps to\nexplain why the Evangelist, when elucidating some obscure expressions\nof Jesus, adds that his disciples did not understand them until after\nhis resurrection, or after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (ii. 22,\nvii. 39); for the opposition of the darkness in which the disciples at\none time groped, to the light which ultimately arose on them, belongs\nto that order of contrasts with which this gospel abounds. Another\nargument, adopted by Bertholdt and approved by Tholuck, is, that in the\ndiscourses of the fourth gospel there sometimes occur observations,\nwhich, having no precise meaning in themselves, nor any connexion with\nthe rest of the discourse, must have been occasioned by some external\ncircumstance, and can only be accounted for on the supposition of\nprompt, nay, of immediate reduction to writing; and among their\nexamples the passage, Arise, let us go hence (xiv. 31), is one of the\nmost important. [1068] But the origin of such digressive remarks has\nbeen above explained in a manner that renders the hypothesis of\ninstantaneous notetaking superfluous.\n\nThus commentators had to excogitate some other means of certifying the\ngenuineness of the discourses of Jesus in the fourth gospel. The\ngeneral argument, so often adduced, founded on what a good memory might\nachieve, especially among men of simple lives, unused to writing, lies\nin the region of abstract possibility, where, as L\u00fccke remarks, [1069]\nthere may always be nearly as much said against as for a theory. It has\nbeen thought more effectual to adopt an argument resting on a narrower\nbasis, and to appeal to the individual distinctions of the Apostle\nJohn,\u2014to his intimate and peculiar relation to Jesus as the favourite\ndisciple,\u2014to his enthusiasm for his master, which must surely have\nstrengthened his memory, and have enabled him to preserve in the most\nlively recollection all that came from the lips of his divine friend.\n[1070] Although this peculiar relation of John to Jesus rests on the\nauthority of John\u2019s gospel alone, we might, without reasoning in a\ncircle, draw from it conclusions as to the credibility of the\ndiscourses communicated by him, were the faults of which his gospel is\naccused only such as proceed from the inevitable fading of the memory;\nbecause the positive notices of that relation could never flow from\nthis negative cause. As, however, the suspicion which has arisen to the\nprejudice of the fourth Evangelist has gone far beyond those limits,\neven to the extent of taxing him with free invention, no fact resting\non the word of John can be used in support of the discourses which he\ncommunicates. But neither the above relation, if admitted, nor the\nremark that John apparently attached himself to Jesus in early youth,\nwhen impressions sink deepest, and from the time of his master\u2019s death\nlived in a circle where the memory of his words and deeds was\ncherished, [1071] suffices to render it probable that John could retain\nin his mind long series of ideas, and complicated dialogues, until the\nperiod in which the composition of his gospel must be placed. For\ncritics are agreed that the tendency of the fourth gospel, its evident\naim to spiritualize the common faith of Christians into the Gnosis, and\nthus to crush many errors which had sprung up, is a decisive\nattestation that it was composed at a period when the church had\nattained a degree of maturity, and consequently in the extreme old age\nof the apostle. [1072]\n\nHence the champions of the discourses in question are fain to bring\nforward, as a forlorn hope, the supernatural assistance of the\nParaclete, which was promised to the disciples, and which was to\nrestore all that Jesus had said to their remembrance. This is done by\nTholuck with great confidence, [1073] by L\u00fccke with some diffidence,\n[1074] which Tholuck\u2019s Anzeiger severely censures, but which we\nconsider laudable, because it implies a latent consciousness of the\ncircle that is made, in attempting to prove the truthfulness of the\ndiscourses in John, by a promise which appears nowhere but in those\ndiscourses; [1075] and of the inadequacy of an appeal, in a scientific\ninquiry, to a popular notion, such as that of the aid of the Holy\nSpirit. The consciousness of this inadequacy shows itself indirectly in\nTholuck, for he ekes out the assistance of the Paraclete by early\nnotes; and in L\u00fccke also, for he renounces the verbal authenticity of\nthe discourses in John, and only contends for their substantial\nveracity on grounds chiefly connected with the relation which they bear\nto other discourses.\n\nThe external relation of the discourses of Jesus in John\u2019s gospel is\nalso twofold; for they may be compared both with those discourses which\nthe synoptists put into the mouth of Jesus, and with the manner in\nwhich the author of the fourth gospel expresses himself when he is\navowedly the speaker.\n\nAs a result of the former comparison, critics have pointed out the\nimportant difference that exists between the respective discourses in\ntheir matter, as well as in their form. In the first three gospels,\nJesus closely adapts his teaching to the necessities of his\nshepherdless people, contrasting, at one time, the corrupt institutions\nof the Pharisees with the moral and religious precepts of the Mosaic\nlaw; at another, the carnal messianic hopes of the age with the purely\nspiritual nature of his kingdom, and the conditions of entrance\ntherein. In the fourth gospel, on the contrary, he is perpetually\ndilating, and often in a barren, speculative manner, on the doctrine of\nhis person and higher nature: so that in opposition to the diversified\ndoctrinal and practical materials of the synoptical discourses, we have\nin John a one-sided dogmatism. [1076] That this opposition does not\nhold invariably, and that in the discourses of the synoptical gospels\nthere are passages which have more affinity with those of John, and\nvice vers\u00e2, must be granted to judicious critics; [1077] but the\nimportant preponderance of the dogmatical element on the one side, and\nof the practical on the other, is a difficulty that demands a thorough\nexplanation. In answer to this requisition, it is common to adduce the\nend which John is supposed to have had in view in the composition of\nhis gospel: namely, to furnish a supplement to the first three gospels,\nand to supply their omissions. But if Jesus taught first in one style,\nthen in another, how was it that the synoptists selected almost\nexclusively the practical and popular, John, nearly without exception,\nthe dogmatic and speculative portions of his discourse? This is\naccounted for in a manner intrinsically probable. In the oral\ntradition, it is observed, on which the first three gospels were\nfounded, the simple and popular, the concise and sententious discourses\nof Jesus, being the most easy of retention, would alone be propagated,\nwhile his more profound, subtle and diffuse discourses would be lost.\n[1078] But according to the above supposition, the fourth Evangelist\ncame as a gleaner after the synoptists: now it is certain that all the\ndiscourses of Jesus having a practical tendency had not been preserved\nby them; hence, that the former has almost invariably avoided giving\nany relic of such discourses, can only be explained by his preference\nfor the dogmatic and speculative vein: a preference which must have had\nboth an objective and a subjective source, the necessities of his time\nand circumstances, and the bent of his own mind. This is admitted even\nby critics who are favourable to the authenticity of the fourth gospel,\n[1079] with the reservation, that the preference betrays itself only\nnegatively, by omission, not positively, by addition.\n\nThere is a further difference between the synoptical gospels and the\nfourth, as to the form of teaching adopted by Jesus; in the one, it is\naphoristic and parabolic, in the other, dialectic. [1080] We have seen\nthat the parable is altogether wanting in the fourth gospel, and it is\nnatural to ask why, since Luke, as well as Matthew, has many admirable\nparables peculiar to himself, John has not been able to make a rich\ngleaning, even after those two predecessors? It is true that isolated\napothegms and sentences, similar to the synoptical ones, are not\nentirely absent from the fourth gospel: but, on the other hand, it must\nbe admitted that the prevailing aphoristic and parabolic form of\ninstruction, ascribed to Jesus by the synoptists, is more suited to the\ncharacter of a popular teacher of Palestine, than the dialectic form\nwhich he is made to adopt by John. [1081]\n\nBut the relation of the discourses of Jesus in the gospel of John, to\nthe Evangelist\u2019s own style of thinking and writing, is decisive. Here\nwe find a similarity, [1082] which, as it extends to the discourses of\na third party, namely, the Baptist, cannot be explained by supposing\nthat the disciple had formed his style on that of the master, [1083]\nbut requires us to admit that the Evangelist has lent his own style to\nthe principal characters in his narrative. The latest commentator on\nJohn has not only acknowledged this with regard to the colouring of the\nexpression; he even thinks that in the matter itself he can here and\nthere detect the explanatory amplifications of the Evangelist, who, to\nuse his own phrase, has had a hand in the composition of the longer and\nmore difficult discourses. [1084] But since the Evangelist does not\nplainly indicate his additions, what is to assure us that they are not\nthroughout interwoven with the ideas of Jesus, nay, that all the\ndiscourses which he communicates are not entirely his own productions?\nThe style furnishes no guidance, for this is everywhere the same, and\nis admitted to be the Evangelist\u2019s own; neither does the sense, for in\nit also there is no essential difference whether the Evangelist speaks\nin his own name or in that of Jesus: where then is the guarantee that\nthe discourses of Jesus are not, as the author of the Probabilia\nmaintains, free inventions of the fourth Evangelist?\n\nL\u00fccke adduces some particulars, which on this supposition would be in\nhis opinion inexplicable. [1085] First, the almost verbal agreement of\nJohn with the synoptists in isolated sayings of Jesus. But as the\nfourth Evangelist was within the pale of the Christian community, he\nmust have had at his command a tradition, from which, though drawing\ngenerally on his own resources, he might occasionally borrow isolated,\nmarked expressions, nearly unmodified. Another argument of L\u00fccke is yet\nmore futile. If, he says, John had really had the inclination and\nability to invent discourses for Jesus, he would have been more liberal\nin long discourses; and the alternation of brief remarks with prolonged\naddresses, is not to be explained on the above supposition. But this\nwould follow only if the author of the fourth gospel appeared to be a\ntasteless writer, whose perception did not tell him, that to one\noccasion a short discourse was suitable, to another a long one, and\nthat the alternation of diffuse harangues with concise sentences was\nadapted to produce the best impression. Of more weight is the\nobservation of Paulus, that if the fourth Evangelist had given the rein\nto his invention in attributing discourses to Jesus, he would have\nobtruded more of his own views, of which he has given an abstract in\nhis prologue; whereas the scrupulousness with which he abstains from\nputting his doctrine of the Logos into the mouth of Jesus, is a proof\nof the faithfulness with which he confined himself to the materials\npresented by his memory or his authorities. [1086] But the doctrine of\nthe Logos is substantially contained in the succeeding discourse of\nJesus; and that the form in which it is propounded by the evangelist in\nhis preface, does not also reappear, is sufficiently explained by the\nconsideration, that he must have known that form to be altogether\nforeign to the teaching of Jesus.\n\nWe therefore hold it to be established, that the discourses of Jesus in\nJohn\u2019s gospel are mainly free compositions of the Evangelist; but we\nhave admitted that he has culled several sayings of Jesus from an\nauthentic tradition, and hence we do not extend this proposition to\nthose passages which are countenanced by parallels in the synoptical\ngospels. In these compilations we have an example of the vicissitudes\nwhich befal discourses, that are preserved only in the memory of a\nsecond party. Severed from their original connexion, and broken up into\nsmaller and smaller fragments, they present when reassembled the\nappearance of a mosaic, in which the connexion of the parts is a purely\nexternal one, and every transition an artificial juncture. The\ndiscourses of Jesus in John present just the opposite appearance. Their\ngradual transitions, only rendered occasionally obscure by the mystical\ndepths of meaning in which they lie,\u2014transitions in which one thought\ndevelops itself out of another, and a succeeding proposition is\nfrequently but an explanatory amplification of the preceding,\n[1087]\u2014are indicative of a pliable, unresisting mass, such as is never\npresented to a writer by the traditional sayings of another, but such\nas proceeds from the stores of his own thought, which he moulds\naccording to his will. For this reason the contributions of tradition\nto these stores of thought (apart from the sayings which are also found\nin the earlier gospels) were not so likely to have been particular,\nindependent dicta of Jesus, as rather certain ideas which formed the\nbasis of many of his discourses, and which were modified and developed\naccording to the bent of a mind of Alexandrian or Greek culture. Such\nare the correlative ideas of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 and \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 (father and son), \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 and\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (light and darkness), \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 and \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (life and death), \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 and\n\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 (above and beneath), \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be and \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 (flesh and spirit); also some\nsymbolical expressions, as \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2 (bread of life), \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03b7\n(water of life). These and a few other ideas, variously combined by an\ningenious author, compose the bulk of the discourses attributed to\nJesus by John; a certain uniformity necessarily attending this\nelemental simplicity.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nEVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS, EXCLUDING THE MIRACLES.\n\n\u00a7 84.\n\nGENERAL COMPARISON OF THE MANNER OF NARRATION THAT DISTINGUISHES THE\nSEVERAL EVANGELISTS.\n\nIf, before proceeding to the consideration of details, we compare the\ngeneral character and tone of the historical narration in the various\ngospels, we find differences, first, between Matthew and the two other\nsynoptists; secondly, between the three first evangelists collectively\nand the fourth.\n\nAmong the reproaches which modern criticism has heaped on the gospel of\nMatthew, a prominent place has been given to its want of individualized\nand dramatic life; a want which is thought to prove that the author was\nnot an eye-witness, since an eye-witness is ordinarily distinguished by\nthe precision and minuteness of his narration. [1088] Certainly, when\nwe read the indefinite designation of times, places and persons, the\nperpetually recurring \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5, then, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, departing from\nthence, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, a man, which characterize this gospel; when we\nrecollect its wholesale statements, such as that Jesus went through all\nthe cities and villages (ix. 35, xi. 1, comp. iv. 23); that they\nbrought to him all sick people, and that he healed them all (iv. 24 f.,\nxiv. 35 f., comp. xv. 29 ff.); and finally, the bareness and brevity of\nmany isolated narratives: we cannot disapprove the decision of this\ncriticism, that Matthew\u2019s whole narrative resembles a record of events\nwhich, before they were committed to writing, had been long current in\noral tradition, and had thus lost the impress of particularity and\nminuteness. But it must be admitted, that this proof, taken alone, is\nnot absolutely convincing; for in most cases we may verify the remark,\nthat even an eye-witness may be unable graphically to narrate what he\nhas seen. [1089]\n\nBut our modern critics have not only measured Matthew by the standard\nof what is to be expected from an eye-witness, in the abstract; they\nhave also compared him with his fellow-evangelists. They are of\nopinion, not only that John decidedly surpasses Matthew in the power of\ndelineation, both in their few parallel passages and in his entire\nnarrative, but also that the two other synoptists, especially Mark, are\ngenerally far clearer and fuller in their style of narration. [1090]\nThis is the actual fact, and it ought not to be any longer evaded. With\nrespect to the fourth Evangelist, it is true that, as one would have\nanticipated, he is not devoid of general, wholesale statements, such\nas, that Jesus during the feast did many miracles, that hence many\nbelieved on him (ii. 23), with others of a similar kind (iii. 22, vii.\n1): and he not seldom designates persons indecisively. Sometimes,\nhowever, he gives the names of individuals whom Matthew does not\nspecify (xii. 3, 4, comp. with Matt. xxvi. 7, 8; and xviii. 10 with\nMatt. xxvi. 51; also vi. 5 ff. with Matt. xiv. 16 f.); and he generally\nlets us know the district or country in which an event happened. His\ncareful chronology we have already noticed; but the point of chief\nimportance is that his narratives (e.g. that of the man born blind, and\nthat of the resurrection of Lazarus) have a dramatic and life-like\ncharacter, which we seek in vain in the first gospel. The two\nintermediate Evangelists are not free from indecisive designations of\ntime (e.g. Mark viii. 1; Luke v. 17, viii. 22); of place (Mark iii. 13;\nLuke vi. 12); and of persons (Mark x. 17; Luke xiii. 23); nor from\nstatements that Jesus went through all cities, and healed all the sick\n(Mark i. 32 ff., 38 f.; Luke iv. 40 f.); but they often give us the\ndetails of what Matthew has only stated generally. Not only does Luke\nassociate many discourses of Jesus with special occasions concerning\nwhich Matthew is silent, but both he and Mark notice the office or\nnames of persons, to whom Matthew gives no precise designation (Matt.\nix. 18; Mark v. 22; Luke viii. 41; Matt. xix. 16; Luke xviii. 18; Matt.\nxx. 30; Mark x. 46). But it is chiefly in the lively description of\nparticular incidents, that we perceive the decided superiority of Luke,\nand still more of Mark, over Matthew. Let the reader only compare the\nnarrative of the execution of John the Baptist in Matthew and Mark\n(Matt. xiv. 3; Mark vi. 17), and that of the demoniac or demoniacs of\nGadara (Matt. viii. 28 ff. parall.).\n\nThese facts are, in the opinion of our latest critics, a confirmation\nof the fourth Evangelist\u2019s claim to the character of an eye-witness,\nand of the greater proximity of the second and third Evangelists to the\nscenes they describe, than can be attributed to the first. But, even\nallowing that one who does not narrate graphically cannot be an\neye-witness, this does not involve the proposition that whoever does\nnarrate graphically must be an eye-witness. In all cases in which there\nare extant two accounts of a single fact, the one full, the other\nconcise, opinions may be divided as to which of them is the original.\n[1091] When these accounts have been liable to the modifications of\ntradition, it is important to bear in mind that tradition has two\ntendencies: the one, to sublimate the concrete into the abstract, the\nindividual into the general; the other, not less essential, to\nsubstitute arbitrary fictions for the historical reality which is lost.\n[1092] If then we put the want of precision in the narrative of the\nfirst Evangelist to the account of the former function of the legend,\nought we at once to regard the precision and dramatic effect of the\nother gospels, as a proof that their authors were eye-witnesses? Must\nwe not rather examine whether these qualities be not derived from the\nsecond function of the legend? [1093] The decision with which the other\ninference is drawn, is in fact merely an after-taste of the old\northodox opinion, that all our gospels proceed immediately from\neye-witnesses, or at least through a medium incapable of error. Modern\ncriticism has limited this supposition, and admitted the possibility\nthat one or the other of our gospels may have been affected by oral\ntradition. Accordingly it maintains, not without probability, that a\ngospel in which the descriptions are throughout destitute of colouring\nand life, cannot be the production of an eye-witness, and must have\nsuffered from the effacing fingers of tradition. But the counter\nproposition, that the other gospels, in which the style of narration is\nmore detailed and dramatic, rest on the testimony of eye-witnesses,\nwould only follow from the supposed necessity that this must be the\ncase with some of our gospels. For if such a supposition be made with\nrespect to several narratives of both the above kinds, there is no\nquestion that the more graphic and vivid ones are with preponderant\nprobability to be referred to eye-witnesses. But this supposition has\nmerely a subjective foundation. It was an easier transition for\ncommentators to make from the old notion that all the gospels were\nimmediately or mediately autoptical narratives, to the limited\nadmission that perhaps one may fall short of this character, than to\nthe general admission that it may be equally wanting to all. But,\naccording to the rigid rules of consequence, with the orthodox view of\nthe scriptural canon, falls the assumption of pure ocular testimony,\nnot only for one or other of the gospels, but for all; the possibility\nof the contrary must be presupposed in relation to them all, and their\npretensions must be estimated according to their internal character,\ncompared with the external testimonies. From this point of view\u2014the\nonly one that criticism can consistently adopt\u2014it is as probable,\nconsidering the nature of the external testimonies examined in our\nIntroduction, that the three last Evangelists owe the dramatic effect\nin which they surpass Matthew, to the embellishments of a more mature\ntradition, as that this quality is the result of a closer communication\nwith eye-witnesses.\n\nThat we may not anticipate, let us, in relation to this question, refer\nto the results we have already obtained. The greater particularity by\nwhich Luke is distinguished from Matthew in his account of the\noccasions that suggested many discourses of Jesus, has appeared to us\noften to be the result of subsequent additions; and the names of\npersons in Mark (xiii. 3 comp. v. 37; Luke viii. 51) have seemed to\nrest on a mere inference of the narrator. Now, however, that we are\nabout to enter on an examination of particular narratives, we will\nconsider, from the point of view above indicated, the constant forms of\nintroduction, conclusion, and transition, already noticed, in the\nseveral gospels. Here we find the difference between Matthew and the\nother synoptists, as to their more or less dramatic style, imprinted in\na manner that can best teach us how much this style is worth.\n\nMatthew (viii. 16 f.) states in general terms, that on the evening\nafter the cure of Peter\u2019s mother-in-law, many demoniacs were brought to\nJesus, all of whom, together with others that were sick, he healed.\nMark (i. 32) in a highly dramatic manner, as if he himself had\nwitnessed the scene, tells, that on the same occasion, the whole city\nwas gathered together at the door of the house in which Jesus was; at\nanother time, he makes the crowd block up the entrance (ii. 2); in two\nother instances, he describes the concourse as so great, that Jesus and\nhis disciples could not take their food (iii. 20, vi. 31); and Luke on\none occasion states, that the people even gathered together in\ninnumerable multitudes so that they trode one upon another (xii. 1).\nAll highly vivid touches, certainly: but the want of them can hardly be\nprejudicial to Matthew, for they look thoroughly like strokes of\nimagination, such as abound in Mark\u2019s narrative, and often, as\nSchleiermacher observes, [1094] give it almost an apocryphal\nappearance. In detailed narratives, of which we shall presently notice\nmany examples, while Matthew simply tells what Jesus said on a certain\noccasion, the two other Evangelists are able to describe the glance\nwith which his words were accompanied (Mark iii. 5, x. 21; Luke vi.\n10). On the mention of a blind beggar of Jericho, Mark is careful to\ngive us his name, and the name of his father (x. 46). From these\nparticulars we might already augur, what the examination of single\nnarratives will prove: namely, that the copiousness of Mark and Luke is\nthe product of the second function of the legend, which we may call the\nfunction of embellishment. Was this embellishment gradually wrought out\nby oral tradition, or was it the arbitrary addition of our Evangelists?\nConcerning this, there may be a difference of opinion, and a degree of\nprobability in relation to particular passages is the nearest approach\nthat can be made to a decision. In any case, not only must it be\ngranted, that a narrative adorned by the writer\u2019s own additions is more\nremote from primitive truth than one free from such additions; but we\nmay venture to pronounce that the earlier efforts of the legend are\nrapid sketches, tending to set off only the leading points whether of\nspeech or action, and that at a later period it aims rather to give a\nsymmetrical effect to the whole, including collateral incidents; so\nthat, in either view, the closest approximation to truth remains on the\nside of the first gospel.\n\nWhile the difference as to the more or less dramatic style of\nconcluding and connecting forms, lies chiefly between Matthew and the\nother synoptists; another difference with respect to these forms,\nexists between all the synoptists and John. While most of the\nsynoptical anecdotes from the public life of Jesus are wound up by a\npanegyric, those of John generally terminate, so to speak, polemically.\nIt is true that the three first Evangelists sometimes mention, by way\nof conclusion, the offence that Jesus gave to the narrow-hearted, and\nthe machinations of his enemies against him (Matt. viii. 34, xii. 14,\nxxi. 46, xxvi. 3 f.; Luke iv. 28 f., xi. 53 f.); and, on the other\nhand, the fourth Evangelist closes some discourses and miracles by the\nremark, that in consequence of them, many believed on Jesus (ii. 23,\niv. 39, 53, vii. 31, 40 f., viii. 30, x. 42, xi. 45). But in the\nsynoptical gospels, throughout the period previous to the residence of\nJesus in Jerusalem, we find forms implying that the fame of Jesus had\nextended far and wide (Matt. iv. 24, ix. 26, 31; Mark i. 28, 45, v. 20,\nvii. 36; Luke iv. 37, v. 15, vii. 17, viii. 39); that the people were\nastonished at his doctrine (Matt. vii. 28; Mark i. 22, xi. 18; Luke\nxix. 48), and miracles (Matt. viii. 27, ix. 8, xiv. 33, xv. 31), and\nhence followed him from all parts (Matt. iv. 25, viii. 1, ix. 36, xii.\n15, xiii. 2, xiv. 13). In the fourth gospel, on the contrary, we are\ncontinually told that the Jews sought to kill Jesus (v. 18, vii. 1);\nthe Pharisees wish to take him, or send out officers to seize him (vii.\n30, 32, 44; comp. viii. 20, x. 39); stones are taken up to cast at him\n(viii. 59, x. 31); and even in those passages where there is mention of\na favourable disposition on the part of the people, the Evangelist\nlimits it to one portion of them, and represents the other as inimical\nto Jesus (vii. 11\u201313). He is especially fond of drawing attention to\nsuch circumstances, as that before the final catastrophe all the guile\nand power of the enemies of Jesus were exerted in vain, because his\nhour was not yet come (vii. 30, viii. 20); that the emissaries sent out\nagainst him, overcome by the force of his words, and the dignity of his\nperson, retired without fulfilling their errand (vii. 32, 44 ff.); and\nthat Jesus passed unharmed through the midst of an exasperated crowd\n(viii. 59, x. 39; comp. Luke iv. 30). The writer, as we have above\nremarked, certainly does not intend us in these instances to think of a\nnatural escape, but of one in which the higher nature of Jesus, his\ninvulnerability so long as he did not choose to lay down his life, was\nhis protection. And this throws some light on the object which the\nfourth Evangelist had in view, in giving prominence to such traits as\nthose just enumerated: they helped him to add to the number of the\ncontrasts, by which, throughout his works, he aims to exalt the person\nof Jesus. The profound wisdom of Jesus, as the divine Logos, appeared\nthe more resplendent, from its opposition to the rude\nunapprehensiveness of the Jews; his goodness wore a more touching\naspect, confronted with the inveterate malice of his enemies; his\nappearance gained in impressiveness, by the strife he excited among the\npeople; and his power, as that of one who had life in himself,\ncommanded the more reverence, the oftener his enemies and their\ninstruments tried to seize him, and, as if restrained by a higher\npower, were not able to lay hands on him,\u2014the more marvellously he\npassed through the ranks of adversaries prepared to take away his life.\nIt has been made matter of praise to the fourth Evangelist, that he\nalone presents the opposition of the pharisaic party to Jesus, in its\nrise and gradual progress: but there are reasons for questioning\nwhether the course of events described by him, be not rather fictitious\nthan real. Partially fictitious, it evidently is; for he appeals to the\nsupernatural for a reason why the Pharisees so long effected nothing\nagainst Jesus: whereas the synoptists preserve the natural sequence of\nthe facts by stating as a cause, that the Jewish hierarchy feared the\npeople, who were attached to Jesus as a prophet (Matt. xxi. 46; Mark\nxii. 12; Luke xx. 19). If then the fourth Evangelist was so far guided\nby his dogmatical interest, that for the escape of Jesus from the more\nearly snares and assaults of his enemies, he invented such a reason as\nbest suited his purpose; what shall assure us that he has not also, in\nconsistency with the characteristics which we have already discerned in\nhim, fabricated, for the sake of that interest, entire scenes of the\nkind above noticed? Not that we hold it improbable, that many futile\nplots and attacks of the enemies of Jesus preceded the final\ncatastrophe of his fate:\u2014we are only dubious whether these attempts\nwere precisely such as the gospel of John describes.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 85.\n\nISOLATED GROUPS OF ANECDOTES. IMPUTATION OF A LEAGUE WITH BEELZEBUB,\nAND DEMAND OF A SIGN.\n\nIn conformity with the aim of our criticism, we shall here confine our\nattention to those narratives, in which the influence of the legend may\nbe demonstrated. The strongest evidence of this influence is found\nwhere one narrative is blended with another, or where the one is a mere\nvariation of the other: hence, chronology having refused us its aid, we\nshall arrange the anecdotes about to be considered according to their\nmutual affinity.\n\nTo begin with the more simple form of legendary influence: Schulz has\nalready complained, that Matthew mentions two instances, in which a\nleague with Beelzebub was imputed to Jesus, and a sign demanded from\nhim; circumstances which in Mark and Luke happen only once. [1095] The\nfirst time the imputation occurs (Matt. ix. 32 ff.), Jesus has cured a\ndumb demoniac; at this the people marvel, but the Pharisees observe, He\ncasts out demons through the prince (\u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd) of the demons. Matthew does\nnot here say that Jesus returned any answer to this accusation. On the\nsecond occasion (xii. 22 ff.), it is a blind and dumb demoniac whom\nJesus cures; again the people are amazed, and again the Pharisees\ndeclare that the cure is effected by the help of Beelzebub, the \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd\nof the demons, whereupon Jesus immediately exposes the absurdity of the\naccusation. That it should have been alleged against Jesus more than\nonce when he cast out demons, is in itself probable. It is however\nsuspicious that the demoniac who gives occasion to the assertion of the\nPharisees, is in both instances dumb (in the second only, blindness is\nadded). Demoniacs were of many kinds, every variety of malady being\nascribed to the influence of evil spirits; why, then, should the above\nimputation be not once attached to the cure of another kind of\ndemoniac, but twice to that of a dumb one? The difficulty is heightened\nif we compare the narrative of Luke (xi. 14 f.), which, in its\nintroductory description of the circumstances, corresponds not to the\nsecond narrative in Matthew, but to the first; for as there, so in\nLuke, the demoniac is only dumb, and his cure and the astonishment of\nthe people are told with precisely the same form of expression:\u2014in all\nwhich points, the second narrative of Matthew is more remote from that\nof Luke. But with this cure of the dumb demoniac, which Matthew\nrepresents as passing off in silence on the part of Jesus, Luke\nconnects the very discourse which Matthew appends to the cure of the\none both blind and dumb; so that Jesus must on both these successive\noccasions, have said the same thing. This is a very unlikely\nrepetition, and united with the improbability, that the same accusation\nshould be twice made in connexion with a dumb demoniac, it suggests the\nquestion, whether legend may not here have doubled one and the same\nincident? How this can have taken place, Matthew himself shows us, by\nrepresenting the demoniac as, in the one case, simply dumb, in the\nother, blind also. Must it not have been a striking cure which excited,\non the one hand, the astonishment of the people, on the other, this\ndesperate attack of the enemies of Jesus? Dumbness alone might soon\nappear an insufficient malady for the subject of the cure, and the\nlegend, ever prone to enhance, might deprive him of sight also. If\nthen, together with this new form of the legend, the old one too was\nhanded down, what wonder that a compiler, more conscientious than\ncritical, such as the author of the first gospel, adopted both as\ndistinct histories, merely omitting on one occasion the discourse of\nJesus, for the sake of avoiding repetition. [1096]\n\nMatthew, having omitted (ix. 34) the discourse of Jesus, was obliged\nalso to defer the demand of a sign, which required a previous rejoinder\non the part of Jesus, until his second narration of the charge\nconcerning Beelzebub; and in this point again the narrative of Luke,\nwho also attaches the demand of a sign to the accusation, is parallel\nwith the later passage of Matthew. [1097] But Matthew not only has,\nwith Luke, a demand of a sign in connexion with the above charge; he\nhas also another, after the second feeding of the multitude (xvi. 1\nff.), and this second demand Mark also has (viii. 11 f.), while he\nomits the first. Here the Pharisees come to Jesus (according to\nMatthew, in the unlikely companionship of Sadducees), and tempt him by\nasking for a sign from heaven, \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6. To this Jesus\ngives an answer, of which the concluding proposition, a wicked and\nadulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be\ngiven unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas; \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03bd\u1fb6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, in Matthew, agrees word for word with the\nopening of the earlier refusal. It is already improbable enough, that\nJesus should have twice responded to the above requisition with the\nsame enigmatical reference to Jonah; but the words (v. 2, 3) which, in\nthe second passage of Matthew, precede the sentence last quoted, are\ntotally unintelligible. For why Jesus, in reply to the demand of his\nenemies that he would show them a sign from heaven, should tell them\nthat they were indeed well versed in the natural signs of the heavens,\nbut were so much the more glaringly ignorant of the spiritual signs of\nthe messianic times, is so far from evident, that the otherwise\nunfounded omission of v. 2 and 3, seems to have arisen from despair of\nfinding any connexion for them. [1098] Luke, who also has (xii. 54 f.),\nin words only partly varied, this reproach of Jesus that his\ncotemporaries understood better the signs of the weather than of the\ntimes, gives it another position, which might be regarded as the\npreferable one; since after speaking of the fire which he was to\nkindle, and the divisions which he was to cause, Jesus might very aptly\nsay to the people: You take no notice of the unmistakable prognostics\nof this great revolution which is being prepared by my means, so ill do\nyou understand the signs of the times. [1099] But on a closer\nexamination, Luke\u2019s arrangement appears just as abrupt here, as in the\ncase of the two parables (xiii. 18). [1100] If from hence we turn again\nto Matthew, we easily see how he was led to his mode of representation.\nHe may have been induced to double the demand of a sign, by the verbal\nvariation which he met with, the required sign being at one time called\nsimply a \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, at another a \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6. And if he knew\nthat Jesus had exhorted the Jews to study the signs of the times, as\nthey had hitherto studied the appearance of the heavens, the conjecture\nwas not very remote, that the Jews had given occasion for this\nadmonition by demanding a sign from heaven, \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6.\nThus Matthew here presents us, as Luke often does elsewhere, with a\nfictitious introduction to a discourse of Jesus; a proof of the\nproposition, advanced indeed, but too little regarded by Sieffert:\n[1101] that it is in the nature of traditional records, such as the\nthree first gospels, that one particular should be best preserved in\nthis narrative, another in that; so that first one, and then the other,\nis at a disadvantage, in comparison with the rest.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 86.\n\nVISIT OF THE MOTHER AND BRETHREN OF JESUS. THE WOMAN WHO PRONOUNCES THE\nMOTHER OF JESUS BLESSED.\n\nAll the synoptists mention a visit of the mother and brethren of Jesus,\non being apprised of which Jesus points to his disciples, and declares\nthat they who do the will of God are his mother and his brethren (Matt.\nxii. 46 ff.; Mark iii. 31 ff.; Luke viii. 19 ff.). Matthew and Luke do\nnot tell us the object of this visit, nor, consequently, whether this\ndeclaration of Jesus, which appears to imply a disowning of his\nrelatives, was occasioned by any special circumstance. On this subject\nMark gives us unexpected information; he tells us (v. 21) that while\nJesus was teaching among a concourse of people, who even prevented him\nfrom taking food, his relatives, under the idea that he was beside\nhimself, went out to seize him, and take him into the keeping of his\nfamily. [1102] In describing this incident, the Evangelist makes use of\nthe expression, \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 (they said, he is beside himself),\nand it was merely this expression, apparently, that suggested to him\nwhat he next proceeds to narrate: \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u0392\u03b5\u03b5\u03bb\u03b6\u03b5\u03b2\u03bf\u1f7a\u03bb\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (the scribes said, he hath Beelzebub, etc., comp. John x.\n20). With this reproach, which however he does not attach to an\nexpulsion of demons, he connects the answer of Jesus; he then recurs to\nthe relatives, whom he now particularizes as the mother and brethren of\nJesus, supposing them to have arrived in the meantime; and he makes\ntheir announcement call forth from Jesus the answer of which we have\nabove spoken.\n\nThese particulars imparted by Mark are very welcome to commentators, as\na means of explaining and justifying the apparent harshness of the\nanswer which Jesus returns to the announcement of his nearest\nrelatives, on the ground of the perverted object of their visit. But,\napart from the difficulty that, on the usual interpretation of the\naccounts of the childhood of Jesus, it is not to be explained how his\nmother could, after the events therein described, be thus mistaken in\nher son, it is very questionable whether we ought to accept this\ninformation of Mark\u2019s. In the first place, it is associated with the\nobvious exaggeration, that Jesus and his disciples were prevented even\nfrom taking food by the throng of people; and in the second place, it\nhas in itself a strange appearance, from its want of relation to the\ncontext. If these points are considered, it will scarcely be possible\nto avoid agreeing with the opinion of Schleiermacher, that no\nexplanation of the then existing relations of Jesus with his family is\nto be sought in this addition; that it rather belongs to those\nexaggerations to which Mark is so prone, as well in his introductions\nto isolated incidents, as in his general statements. [1103] He wished\nto make it understood why Jesus returned an ungracious answer to the\nannouncement of his relatives; for this purpose he thought it necessary\nto give their visit an object of which Jesus did not approve, and as he\nknew that the Pharisees had pronounced him to be under the influence of\nBeelzebub, he attributed a similar opinion to his relatives.\n\nIf we lay aside this addition of Mark\u2019s, the comparison of the three\nvery similar narratives presents no result as it regards their matter;\n[1104] but there is a striking difference between the connexions in\nwhich the Evangelists place the event. Matthew and Mark insert it after\nthe defence against the suspicion of diabolical aid, and before the\nparable of the sower; whereas Luke makes the visit considerably prior\nto that imputation, and places the parable even before the visit. It is\nworthy of notice, however, that Luke has, after the defence against the\naccusation of a league with Beelzebub, in the position which the two\nother Evangelists give to the visit of the relatives of Jesus, an\nincident which issues in a declaration, precisely similar to that which\nthe announcement calls forth. After the refutation of the Pharisaic\nreproach, and the discourse on the return of the unclean spirit, a\nwoman in the crowd is filled with admiration, and pronounces the mother\nof Jesus blessed, on which Jesus, as before on the announcement of his\nmother, replies; Yea, rather blessed are they who hear the word of God\nand keep it! [1105] Schleiermacher here again prefers the account of\nLuke: he thinks this little digression on the exclamation of the woman\nespecially evinces a fresh and lively recollection, which has inserted\nit in its real place and circumstances; whereas Matthew, confounding\nthe answer of Jesus to the ejaculation of the woman, with the very\nsimilar one to the announcement of his relatives, gives to the latter\nthe place of the former, and thus passes over the scene with the woman.\n[1106] But how the woman could feel herself hurried away into so\nenthusiastic an exclamation, precisely on hearing the abstruse\ndiscourse on the return of the expelled demons, or even the foregoing\nreprehensive reply to the Pharisees, it is difficult to understand, and\nthe contrary conjecture to that of Schleiermacher might rather be\nestablished; namely, that in the place of the announcement of the\nrelatives, the writer of the third gospel inserted the scene with the\nwoman, from its having a like termination. The evangelical tradition,\nas we see from Matthew and Mark, whether from historical or merely\naccidental motives, had associated the above visit and the saying about\nthe spiritual relatives, with the discourse of Jesus on the accusation\nof a league with Beelzebub, and on the return of the unclean spirit;\nand Luke also, when he came to the conclusion of that discourse, was\nreminded of the anecdote of the visit and its point\u2014the extolling of a\nspiritual relationship to Jesus. But he had already mentioned the\nvisit; [1107] he therefore seized on the scene with the woman, which\npresented a similar termination. From the strong resemblance between\nthe two anecdotes, I can scarcely believe that they are founded on two\nreally distinct incidents; rather, it is more likely that the memorable\ndeclaration of Jesus, that he preferred his spiritual before his bodily\nrelatives, had in the legend received two different settings or frames.\nAccording to one, it seemed the most natural that such a depreciation\nof his kindred should be united with an actual rejection of them; to\nanother, that the exaltation of those who were spiritually near to him,\nshould be called forth by a blessing pronounced on those who were\nnearest to him in the flesh. Of these two forms of the legend, Matthew\nand Mark give only the first; Luke, however, had already disposed of\nthis on an earlier occasion; when, therefore, he came to the passage\nwhere, in the common evangelical tradition, that anecdote occurred, he\nwas induced to supply its place by the second form.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 87.\n\nCONTENTIONS FOR PRE-EMINENCE AMONG THE DISCIPLES. THE LOVE OF JESUS FOR\nCHILDREN.\n\nThe three first Evangelists narrate several contentions for\npre-eminence which arose among the disciples, with the manner in which\nJesus composed these differences. One such contention, which is said to\nhave arisen among the disciples after the transfiguration, and the\nfirst prediction of the passion, is common to all the gospels (Matt.\nxviii. 1 ff.; Mark ix. 33 ff.; Luke ix. 46 ff.). There are indeed\ndivergencies in the narratives, but the identity of the incident on\nwhich they are founded is attested by the fact, that in all of them,\nJesus sets a little child before his disciples as an example; a scene\nwhich, as Schleiermacher remarks, [1108] would hardly be repeated.\nMatthew and Mark concur in mentioning a dispute about pre-eminence,\nwhich was excited by the two sons of Zebedee. These disciples\n(according to Mark), or their mother for them (according to Matthew),\npetitioned for the two first places next to Jesus in the messianic\nkingdom (Matt. xx. 20 ff.; Mark x. 35 ff.). [1109] Of such a request on\nthe part of the sons of Zebedee, the third Evangelist knows nothing;\nbut apart from this occasion, there is a further contention for\npre-eminence, on which discourses are uttered, similar to those which\nthe two first Evangelists have connected with the above petition. At\nthe last supper of which Jesus partook with his disciples before his\npassion, Luke makes the latter fall into a \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 (dispute) which\namong them shall be the greatest; a dispute which Jesus seeks to quell\nby the same reasons, and partly with the same words, that Matthew and\nMark give in connexion with the \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, (indignation), excited in\nthe disciples generally by the request of the sons of Zebedee. Luke\nhere reproduces a sentence which he, in common with Mark, had\npreviously given almost in the same form, as accompanying the\npresentation of the child; and which Matthew has, not only on the\noccasion of Salome\u2019s prayer, but also in the great anti-pharisaic\ndiscourse (comp. Luke xxii. 26; Mark ix. 35; Luke ix. 48; Matt. xx. 26\nf., xxiii. 11). However credible it may be that with the worldly\nmessianic hopes of the disciples, Jesus should often have to suppress\ndisputes among them on the subject of their future rank in the\nMessiah\u2019s kingdom, it is by no means probable that, for example, the\nsentence, Whosoever will be great among you, let him be the servant of\nall: should be spoken, 1st, on the presentation of the child; 2ndly, in\nconnexion with the prayer of the sons of Zebedee; 3rdly, in the\nanti-pharisaic discourse, and 4thly, at the last supper. There is here\nobviously a traditional confusion, whether it be (as Sieffert in such\ncases is fond of supposing) that several originally distinct\noccurrences have been assimilated by the legend, i.e. the same\ndiscourse erroneously repeated on various occasions; or that out of one\nincident the legend has made many, i.e. has invented various occasions\nfor the same discourse. Our decision between these two possibilities\nmust depend on the answer to the following question: Have the various\nfacts, to which the analogous discourses on humility are attached, the\ndependent appearance of mere frames to the discourses, or the\nindependent one of occurrences that carry their truth and significance\nin themselves?\n\nIt will not be denied that the petition of the sons of Zebedee, is in\nitself too specific and remarkable to be a mere background to the\nensuing discourse; and the same judgment must be passed on the scene\nwith the child: so that we have already two cases of contention for\npre-eminence subsisting in themselves. If we would assign to each of\nthese occurrences its appropriate discourses, the declarations which\nMatthew connects with the presentation of the child: Unless ye become\nas this child, etc., and Whosoever shall humble himself as this child,\netc., evidently belong to this occasion. On the other hand, the\nsentences on ruling and serving in the world and in the kingdom of\nJesus, seem to be a perfectly suitable comment on the petition of the\nsons of Zebedee, with which Matthew associates them: also the saying\nabout the first and the last, the greatest and the least, which Mark\nand Luke give so early as at the scene with the child, Matthew seems\nrightly to have reserved for the scene with the sons of Zebedee. It is\notherwise with the contention spoken of by Luke (xxii. 24 ff.). This\ncontention originates in no particular occasion, nor does it issue in\nany strongly marked scene (unless we choose to insert here the washing\nof the disciples\u2019 feet, described by John, who, for the rest, mentions\nno dispute;\u2014of which scene, however, we cannot treat until we come to\nthe history of the Passion). On the contrary, this contention is\nushered in merely by the words, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2,\u2014nearly the same by which the first contention is introduced,\nix. 46,\u2014and leads to a discourse from Jesus, which, as we have already\nnoticed, Matthew and Mark represent him to have delivered in connexion\nwith the earlier instances of rivalry; so that this passage of Luke has\nnothing peculiarly its own, beyond its position, at the last supper.\nThis position, however, is not very secure; for that immediately after\nthe discourse on the betrayer, so humiliating to the disciples, pride\nshould so strongly have taken possession of them, is as difficult to\nbelieve, as it is easy to discover, by a comparison of v. 23 and 24,\nhow the writer might be led, without historical grounds, to insert here\na contention for pre-eminence. It is clear that the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\n\u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78, \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; suggested to him the similar ones, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd; that is, the disputes about\nthe betrayer called to his remembrance the disputes about pre-eminence.\nOne such dispute indeed, he had already mentioned, but had only\nconnected with it, one sentence excepted, the discourses occasioned by\nthe exhibition of the child; he had yet in reserve those which the two\nfirst Evangelists attach to the petition of the sons of Zebedee, an\noccasion which seems not to have been present to the mind of the third\nEvangelist, whence he introduces the discourses pertaining to it here,\nwith the general statement that they originated in a contention for\npre-eminence, which broke out among the disciples. Meanwhile the\nchronological position, also, of the two first-named disputes about\nrank, has very little probability; for in both instances, it is after a\nprediction of the passion, which, like the prediction of the betrayal,\nwould seem calculated to suppress such thoughts of earthly ambition.\n[1110] We therefore welcome the indication which the evangelical\nnarrative itself presents, of the manner in which the narrators were\nled unhistorically to such an arrangement. In the answer of Jesus to\nthe prayer of Salome, the salient point was the suffering that awaited\nhim and his disciples; hence by the most natural association of ideas,\nthe ambition of the two disciples, the antidote to which was the\nannouncement of approaching trial, was connected with the prediction of\nthe passion. Again, on the first occasion of rivalry, the preceding\nprediction of the passion leads in Mark and Luke to the observation,\nthat the disciples did not understand the words of Jesus, and yet\nfeared to ask him concerning them, whence it may be inferred that they\ndebated and disputed on the subject among themselves; here, then, the\nassociation of ideas caused the Evangelists to introduce the contention\nfor pre-eminence, also carried on in the absence of Jesus. This\nexplanation is not applicable to the narrative of Matthew, for there,\nbetween the prediction of the passion and the dispute of the disciples,\nthe anecdote of the coin angled for by Peter, intervenes.\n\nWith the above contentions for pre-eminence, another anecdote is\nindirectly connected by means of the child which is put forward on one\nof those occasions. Children are brought to Jesus that he may bless\nthem; the disciples wish to prevent it, but Jesus speaks the\nencouraging words, Suffer little children to come unto me, and adds\nthat only for children, and those who resemble children, is the kingdom\nof heaven destined (Matt. xix. 13 ff.; Mark x. 13 ff.; Luke xviii. 15\nff.). This narrative has many points of resemblance to that of the\nchild placed in the midst of the disciples. Firstly, in both, Jesus\npresents children as a model, and declares that only those who resemble\nchildren can enter the kingdom of God; secondly, in both, the disciples\nappear in the light of opposition to children; and, thirdly, in both,\nMark says, that Jesus took the children in his arms (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2).\nIf these points of resemblance be esteemed adequate ground for reducing\nthe two narratives to one, the latter must, beyond all question, be\nretained as the nearest to truth, because the saying of Jesus, Suffer\nlittle children, etc., which from its retaining this original form in\nall the narratives, bears the stamp of genuineness, could scarcely have\nbeen uttered on the other occasion; whereas, the sentences on children\nas patterns of humility, given in connexion with the contention about\nrank, might very well have been uttered under the circumstances above\ndescribed, in retrospective allusion to previous contentions about\nrank. Nevertheless, this might rather be the place for supposing an\nassimilation of originally diverse occurrences, since it is at least\nevident, that Mark has inserted the expression \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 in both,\nsimply on account of the resemblance between the two scenes.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 88.\n\nTHE PURIFICATION OF THE TEMPLE.\n\nJesus, during his first residence in Jerusalem, according to John (ii.\n14 ff.), according to the synoptists, during his last (Matt. xxi. 12\nff. parall.), undertook the purification of the temple. The ancient\ncommentators thought, and many modern ones still think, [1111] that\nthese were separate events, especially as, besides the chronological\ndifference, there is some divergency between the three first\nEvangelists and the fourth in their particulars. While, namely, the\nformer, in relation to the conduct of Jesus, merely speak in general\nterms of an expulsion, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, John says that he made a scourge of\nsmall cords, \u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, for this purpose: again, while\naccording to the former, he treats all the sellers alike, he appears,\naccording to John, to make some distinction, and to use the sellers of\ndoves somewhat more mildly; moreover, John does not say that he drove\nout the buyers, as well as the sellers. There is also a difference as\nto the language used by Jesus on the occasion; in the synoptical\ngospels, it is given in the form of an exact quotation from the Old\nTestament; in John, merely as a free allusion. But, above all, there is\na difference as to the result: in the fourth gospel, Jesus is\nimmediately called to account; in the synoptical gospels, we read\nnothing of this, and according to them, it is not until the following\nday that the Jewish authorities put to Jesus a question, which seems to\nhave reference to the purification of the temple (Matt. xxi. 23 ff.),\nand to which Jesus replies quite otherwise than to the remonstrance in\nthe fourth gospel. To explain the repetition of such a measure, it is\nremarked that the abuse was not likely to cease on the first expulsion,\nand that on every revival of it, Jesus would feel himself anew called\non to interfere; that, moreover, the temple purification in John is\nindicated to be an earlier event than that in the synoptical gospels,\nby the circumstance, that the fourth Evangelist represents Jesus as\nbeing immediately called to account, while his impunity in the other\ncase appears a natural consequence of the heightened consideration\nwhich he had in the meantime won.\n\nBut allowing to these divergencies their full weight, the agreement\nbetween the two narratives preponderates. We have in both the same\nabuse, the same violent mode of checking it, by casting out (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd)\nthe people, and overthrowing (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) the tables; nay, virtually,\nthe same language in justification of this procedure, for in John, as\nwell as in the other gospels, the words of Jesus contain a reference,\nthough not a verbally precise one, to Isa. lvi. 7; Jer. vii. 11. These\nimportant points of resemblance must at least extort such an admission\nas that of Sieffert, [1112] namely, that the two occurrences,\noriginally but little alike, were assimilated by tradition, the\nfeatures of the one being transferred to the other. But thus much seems\nclear; the synoptists know as little of an earlier event of this kind,\nas in fact of an earlier visit of Jesus to Jerusalem: and the fourth\nEvangelist seems to have passed over the purification of the temple\nafter the last entrance of Jesus into the metropolis, not because he\npresumed it to be already known from the other gospels, but because he\nbelieved that he must give an early date to the sole act of the kind\nwith which he was acquainted. If then each of the Evangelists knew only\nof one purification of the temple, we are not warranted either by the\nslight divergencies in the description of the event, or by the\nimportant difference in its chronological position, to suppose that\nthere were two; since chronological differences are by no means rare in\nthe gospels, and are quite natural in writings of traditional origin.\nIt is therefore with justice that our most modern interpreters have,\nafter the example of some older ones, declared themselves in favour of\nthe identity of the two histories. [1113]\n\nOn which side lies the error? We may know beforehand how the criticism\nof the present day will decide on this question: namely, in favour of\nthe fourth gospel. According to L\u00fccke, the scourge, the diversified\ntreatment of the different classes of traders, the more indirect\nallusion to the Old Testament passage, are so many indications that the\nwriter was an eye and ear witness of the scene he describes; while as\nto chronology, it is well known that this is in no degree regarded by\nthe synoptists, but only by John, whence, according to Sieffert, [1114]\nto surrender the narrative of the latter to that of the former, would\nbe to renounce the certain for the uncertain. As to John\u2019s dramatic\ndetails, we may match them by a particular peculiar to Mark, And they\nwould not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the\ntemple (v. 16), which besides has a support in the Jewish custom which\ndid not permit the court of the temple to be made a thoroughfare.\n[1115] If, nevertheless, this particular is put to the account of\nMark\u2019s otherwise ascertained predilection for arbitrary embellishment,\n[1116] what authorizes us to regard similar artistic touches from the\nfourth Evangelist, as necessary proofs of his having been an\neye-witness? To appeal here to his character of eye-witness as a\nrecognized fact, [1117] is too glaring a petitio principii, at least in\nthe point of view taken by a comparative criticism, in which the\ndecision as to whether the artistic details of the fourth Evangelist\nare mere embellishments, must depend solely on intrinsic probability.\nAlthough the different treatment of the different classes of men is in\nitself a probable feature, and the freer allusion to the Old Testament\nis at least an indifferent one; it is quite otherwise with the most\nstriking feature in the narrative of John. Origen has set the example\nof objecting to the twisting and application of the scourge of small\ncords, as far too violent and disorderly a procedure. [1118] Modern\ninterpreters soften the picture by supposing that Jesus used the\nscourge merely against the cattle [1119] (a supposition, however,\nopposed to the text, which represents all \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 as being driven out by\nthe scourge); yet still they cannot avoid perceiving the use of a\nscourge at all to be unseemly in a person of the dignity of Jesus, and\nonly calculated to aggravate the already tumultuary character of the\nproceeding. [1120] The feature peculiar to Mark is encumbered with no\nsuch difficulties, and while it is rejected, is this of John to be\nreceived? Certainly not, if we can only find an indication in what way\nthe fourth Evangelist might be led to the free invention of such a\nparticular. Now it is evident from the quotation v. 17, which is\npeculiar to him, that he looked on the act of Jesus as a demonstration\nof holy zeal\u2014a sufficient temptation to exaggerate the traits of\nzealousness in his conduct.\n\nIn relation to the chronological difference, we need only remember how\nthe fourth Evangelist antedates the acknowledgment of Jesus as the\nMessiah by the disciples, and the conferring of the name of Peter on\nSimon, to be freed from the common assumption of his pre-eminent\nchronological accuracy, which is alleged in favour of his position of\nthe purification of the temple. For this particular case, however, it\nis impossible to show any reason why the occurrence in question would\nbetter suit the time of the first than of the last passover visited by\nJesus, whereas there are no slight grounds for the opposite opinion. It\nis true that nothing in relation to chronology is to be founded on the\nimprobability that Jesus should so early have referred to his death and\nresurrection, as he must have done, according to John\u2019s interpretation\nof the saying about the destruction and rebuilding of the temple;\n[1121] for we shall see, in the proper place, that this reference to\nthe death and resurrection, owes its introduction into the declaration\nof Jesus to the Evangelist alone. But it is no inconsiderable argument\nagainst John\u2019s position of the event, that Jesus, with his prudence and\ntact, would hardly have ventured thus early on so violent an exercise\nof his messianic authority. [1122] For in that first period of his\nministry he had not given himself out as the Messiah, and under any\nother than messianic authority, such a step could then scarcely have\nbeen hazarded; moreover, he in the beginning rather chose to meet his\ncotemporaries on friendly ground, and it is therefore hardly credible\nthat he should at once, without trying milder means, have adopted an\nappearance so antagonistic. But to the last week of his life such a\nscene is perfectly suited. Then, after his messianic entrance into\nJerusalem, it was his direct aim in all that he did and said, to assert\nhis messiahship, in defiance of the contradiction of his enemies; then,\nall lay so entirely at stake, that nothing more was to be lost by such\na step.\n\nAs regards the nature of the event, Origen long ago thought it\nincredible, that so great a multitude should have unresistingly\nsubmitted to a single man,\u2014one, too, whose claims had ever been\nobstinately contested: his only resource in this exigency is to appeal\nto the superhuman power of Jesus, by virtue of which he was able\nsuddenly to extinguish the wrath of his enemies, or to render it\nimpotent; and hence Origen ranks this expulsion among the greatest\nmiracles of Jesus. [1123] Modern expositors decline the miracle, [1124]\nbut Paulus is the only one among them who has adequately weighed\nOrigen\u2019s remark, that in the ordinary course of things the multitude\nwould have opposed themselves to a single person. Whatever may be said\nof the surprise caused by the suddenness of the appearance of Jesus\n[1125] (if, as John relates, he made himself a scourge of cords, he\nwould need some time for preparation), of the force of right on his\nside [1126] (on the side of those whom he attacked, however, there was\nestablished usage); or, finally, of the irresistible impression\nproduced by the personality of Jesus [1127] (on usurers and\ncattle-dealers\u2014on brute men, as Paulus calls them?): still, such a\nmultitude, certain as it might be of the protection of the priesthood,\nwould not have unresistingly allowed themselves to be driven out of the\ntemple by a single man. Hence Paulus is of opinion that a number of\nothers, equally scandalized by the sacrilegious traffic, made common\ncause with Jesus, and that to their united strength the buyers and\nsellers were compelled to yield. [1128] But this supposition is fatal\nto the entire incident, for it makes Jesus the cause of an open tumult;\nand it is not easy either to reconcile this conduct with his usual\naversion to everything revolutionary, or to explain the omission of his\nenemies to use it as an accusation against him. For that they held\nthemselves bound in conscience to admit that the conduct of Jesus was\njustifiable in this case, is the less credible, since, according to a\nrabbinical authority, [1129] the Jews appear to have been so far from\ntaking umbrage at the market in the court of the Gentiles (and this is\nall we are to understand by the word \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd), [1130] that the absence of\nit seemed to them like a melancholy desolation of the temple. According\nto this, it is not surprising that Origen casts a doubt on the\nhistorical value of this narrative, by the expression, \u03b5\u1f34\u03b3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (if it really happened), and at most admits that the\nEvangelist, in order to present an idea allegorically, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 (also borrowed the form of an actual occurrence).\n[1131]\n\nBut in order to contest the reality of this history, in defiance of the\nagreement of all the four Evangelists, the negative grounds hitherto\nadduced must be seconded by satisfactory positive ones, from whence it\nmight be seen how the primitive Christian legend could be led to the\ninvention of such a scene, apart from any historical foundation. But\nthese appear to be wanting. For our only positive data in relation to\nthis occurrence are the passages cited by the synoptists from Isaiah\nand Jeremiah, prohibiting that the temple should be made a den of\nrobbers; and the passage from Malachi iii. 1\u20133, according to which it\nwas expected that in the messianic times Jehovah would suddenly come to\nhis temple, that no one would stand before his appearing, and that he\nwould undertake a purification of the people and the worship. Certainly\nthese passages seem to have some bearing on the irresistible reforming\nactivity of Jesus in the temple, as described by our Evangelists; but\nthere is so little indication that they had reference in particular to\nthe market in the outer court of the temple, that it seems necessary to\nsuppose an actual opposition on the part of Jesus to this abuse, in\norder to account for the fulfilment of the above prophecies by him\nbeing represented under the form of an expulsion of buyers and sellers.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 89.\n\nNARRATIVES OF THE ANOINTING OF JESUS BY A WOMAN.\n\nAn occasion on which Jesus was anointed by a woman as he sat at meat,\nis mentioned by all the Evangelists (Matt. xxvi. 6 ff.; Mark xiv. 3\nff.; Luke vii. 36 ff.; John xii. 1 ff.), but with some divergencies,\nthe most important of which lie between Luke and the other three.\nFirst, as to the chronology; Luke places the incident in the earlier\nperiod of the life of Jesus, before his departure from Galilee, while\nthe other three assign it to the last week of his life; secondly, as to\nthe character of the woman who anoints Jesus: she is, according to\nLuke, a woman who was a sinner, \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2; according to the two\nother synoptists, a person of unsullied reputation; according to John,\nwho is more precise, Mary of Bethany. From the second point of\ndifference it follows, that in Luke the objection of the spectators\nturns on the admission of so infamous a person, in the other gospels,\non the wastefulness of the woman; from both, it follows, that Jesus in\nhis defence dwells, in the former, on the grateful love of the woman,\nas contrasted with the haughty indifference of the Pharisees, in the\nlatter, on his approaching departure, in opposition to the constant\npresence of the poor. There are yet the minor differences, that the\nplace in which the entertainment and the anointing occur, is by the two\nfirst and the fourth Evangelists called Bethany, which according to\nJohn xi. 1, was a \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7 (town), by Luke a \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 (city), without any more\nprecise designation; further, that the objection, according to the\nthree former, proceeds from the disciples, according to Luke, from the\nentertainer. Hence the majority of commentators distinguish two\nanointings, of which one is narrated by Luke the other by the three\nremaining Evangelists. [1132]\n\nBut it must be asked, if the reconciliation of Luke with the other\nthree Evangelists is despaired of, whether the agreement of the latter\namongst themselves is so decided, and whether we must not rather\nproceed, from the distinction of two anointings, to the distinction of\nthree, or even four? To four certainly it will scarcely extend; for\nMark does not depart from Matthew, except in a few touches of his\nwell-known dramatic manner; but between these two Evangelists on the\none side, and John on the other, there are differences which may fairly\nbe compared with those between Luke and the rest. The first difference\nrelates to the house in which the entertainment is said to have been\ngiven; according to the two first Evangelists, it was the house of\nSimon the leper, a person elsewhere unnoticed; the fourth does not, it\nis true, expressly name the host, but since he mentions Martha as the\nperson who waited on the guests, and her brother Lazarus as one of\nthose who sat at meat, there is no doubt that he intended to indicate\nthe house of the latter as the locality of the repast. [1133] Neither\nis the time of the occurrence precisely the same, for according to\nMatthew and Mark the scene takes place after the solemn entrance of\nJesus into Jerusalem, only two days at the utmost before the passover;\naccording to John, on the other hand, before the entrance, as early as\nsix days prior to the passover. [1134] Further, the individual whom\nJohn states to be that Mary of Bethany so intimately united to Jesus,\nis only known to the two first evangelists as a woman, \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74; [1135]\nneither do they represent her as being, like Mary, in the house, and\none of the host\u2019s family, but as coming, one knows not whence, to\nJesus, while he reclined at table. Moreover, the act of anointing is in\nthe fourth gospel another than in the two first. In the latter, the\nwoman pours her ointment of spikenard on the head of Jesus; in John, on\nthe contrary, she anoints his feet, and dries them with her hair,\n[1136] a difference which gives the whole scene a new character.\nLastly, the two synoptists are not aware that it was Judas who gave\nutterance to the censure against the woman; Matthew attributing it to\nthe disciples, Mark, to the spectators generally. [1137]\n\nThus between the narrative of John, and that of Matthew and Mark, there\nis scarcely less difference than between the account of these three\ncollectively, and that of Luke: whoever supposes two distinct\noccurrences in the one case, must, to be consistent, do so in the\nother; and thus, with Origen, hold, at least conditionally, that there\nwere three separate anointings. So soon, however, as this consequence\nis more closely examined, it must create a difficulty, for how\nimprobable is it that Jesus should have been expensively anointed three\ntimes, each time at a feast, each time by a woman, that woman being\nalways a different one; that moreover Jesus should, in each instance,\nhave had to defend the act of the woman against the censures of the\nspectators! [1138] Above all, how is it to be conceived that after\nJesus, on one and even on two earlier occasions, had so decidedly given\nhis sanction to the honour rendered to him, the disciples, or one of\nthem, should have persisted in censuring it? [1139]\n\nThese considerations oblige us to think of reductions, and it is the\nmost natural to commence with the narratives of the two first\nsynoptists and of John, for these agree not only in the place, Bethany,\nbut also, generally, in the time of the event, the last week of the\nlife of Jesus; above all, the censure and the reply are nearly the same\non both sides. In connexion with these similarities the differences\nlose their importance, partly from the improbability that an incident\nof this kind should be repeated; partly from the probability, that in\nthe traditional propagation of the anecdote such divergencies should\nhave insinuated themselves. But if in this case the identity of the\noccurrences be admitted, in consideration of the similarities, and in\nspite of the dissimilarities; then, on the other hand, the divergencies\npeculiar to the narrative of Luke can no longer hinder us from\npronouncing it to be identical with that of the three other\nEvangelists, provided that there appear to be only a few important\npoints of resemblance between the two. And such really exist, for Luke\nnow strikingly accords with Matthew and Mark, in opposition to John:\nnow, with the latter, in opposition to the former. Luke gives the\nentertainer the same name as the two first synoptists, namely, Simon,\nthe only difference being, that the former calls him a Pharisee, while\nthe latter style him the leper. Again, Luke agrees with the other\nsynoptists in opposition to John, in representing the woman who anoints\nJesus as a nameless individual, not belonging to the house; and\nfurther, in making her appear with a box of ointment, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5,\nwhile John speaks only of a pound of ointment, \u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, without\nspecifying the vessel. On the other hand, Luke coincides in a\nremarkable manner with John, and differs from the two other\nEvangelists, as to the mode of the anointing. While, namely, according\nto the latter, the ointment is poured on the head of Jesus, according\nto Luke, the woman, who was a sinner, as, according to John, Mary,\nanoints the feet of Jesus; and even the striking particular, that she\ndried them with her hair, [1140] is given by both in nearly the same\nwords; excepting that in Luke, where the woman is described as a\nsinner, it is added that she bathed the feet of Jesus with her tears,\nand kissed them. Thus, without doubt, we have here but one history\nunder three various forms; and this seems to have been the real\nconclusion of Origen, as well as recently of Schleiermacher.\n\nIn this state of the case, the effort is to escape as cheaply as\npossible, and to save the divergencies of the several Evangelists at\nleast from the appearance of contradiction. First, with regard to the\ndifferences between the two first Evangelists and the last, it has been\nattempted to reconcile the discrepant dates by the supposition, that\nthe meal at Bethany was held really, as John informs us, six days\nbefore Easter; but that Matthew, after whom Mark wrote, has no\ncontradictory date; that rather he has no date at all; for though he\ninserts the narrative of the meal and the anointing after the\ndeclaration of Jesus, that after two days is the feast of the Passover,\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, this does not prove that he\nintended to place it later as to time, for it is probable that he gave\nit this position simply because he wished to note here, before coming\nto the betrayal by Judas, the occasion on which the traitor first\nembraced his black resolve, namely, the repast at which he was incensed\nby Mary\u2019s prodigality, and embittered by the rebuke of Jesus. [1141]\nBut in opposition to this, modern criticism has shown that, on the one\nhand, in the mild and altogether general reply of Jesus there could lie\nnothing personally offensive to Judas; and that, on the other hand, the\ntwo first gospels do not name Judas as the party who censured the\nanointing, but the disciples or the bystanders generally: whereas, if\nthey had noted this scene purely because it was the motive for the\ntreachery of Judas, they must have especially pointed out the\nmanifestation of his feeling. [1142] There remains, consequently, a\nchronological contradiction in this instance between the two first\nsynoptists and John: a contradiction which even Olshausen admits.\n[1143]\n\nIt has been attempted in a variety of ways to evade the farther\ndifference as to the person of the host. As Matthew and Mark speak only\nof the house of Simon the leper, \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 \u03a3\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, some have\ndistinguished the owner of the house, Simon, from the giver of the\nentertainment, who doubtless was Lazarus, and have supposed that hence,\nin both cases without error, the fourth Evangelist mentions the latter,\nthe two first synoptists the former. [1144] But who would distinguish\nan entertainment by the name of the householder, if he were not in any\nway the giver of the entertainment? Again, since John does not\nexpressly call Lazarus the host, but merely one of the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n(those sitting at the table), and since the inference that he was the\nhost is drawn solely from the circumstance that his sister Martha\nserved, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9; others have regarded Simon as the husband of Martha,\neither separated on account of his leprosy, or already deceased, and\nhave supposed that Lazarus then resided with his widowed sister: [1145]\nan hypothesis which it is more easy to reconcile with the narratives\nthan the former, but which is unsupported by any certain information.\n\nWe come next to the divergency relative to the mode of anointing;\naccording to the two first Evangelists, the ointment was poured on the\nhead of Jesus; according to the fourth, on his feet. The old, trivial\nmode of harmonizing the two statements, by supposing that both the head\nand the feet were anointed, has recently been expanded into the\nconjecture that Mary indeed intended only to anoint the feet of Jesus\n(John), but as she accidentally broke the vessel (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1, Mark),\nthe ointment flowed over his head also (Matt.). [1146] This attempt at\nreconciliation falls into the comic, for as we cannot imagine how a\nwoman who was preparing to anoint the feet of Jesus could bring the\nvessel of ointment over his head, we must suppose that the ointment\nspirted upwards like an effervescing draught. So that here also the\ncontradiction remains, and not only between Matthew and John, where it\nis admitted even by Schneckenburger, but also between the latter\nEvangelist and Mark.\n\nThe two divergencies relative to the person of the woman who anoints\nJesus, and to the party who blames her, were thought to be the most\nreadily explained. That what John ascribes to Judas singly, Matthew and\nMark refer to all the disciples or spectators, was believed to be\nsimply accounted for by the supposition, that while the rest manifested\ntheir disapprobation by gestures only, Judas vented his in words.\n[1147] We grant that the word \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd (they said), preceded as it is in\nMark by the words \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 (having indignation within\nthemselves), and followed, as in Matthew, by the words \u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 (but Jesus knowing), does not necessarily imply that all the\ndisciples gave audible expression to their feelings; as, however, the\ntwo first Evangelists immediately after this meal narrate the betrayal\nby Judas, they would certainly have named the traitor on the above\noccasion, had he, to their knowledge, made himself conspicuous in\nconnection with the covetous blame which the woman\u2019s liberality drew\nforth. That John particularizes the woman, whose name is not given by\nthe synoptists, as Mary of Bethany, is, in the ordinary view, only an\nexample how the fourth Evangelist supplies the omissions of his\npredecessors. [1148] But as the two first synoptists attach so much\nimportance to the deed of the woman, that they make Jesus predict the\nperpetuation of her memory on account of it\u2014a particular which John has\nnot\u2014they would assuredly have also given her name had they known it; so\nthat in any case we may conclude thus much: they knew not who the woman\nwas, still less did they conceive her to be Mary of Bethany.\n\nThus if the identity only of the last Evangelist\u2019s narrative with that\nof the two first be acknowledged, it must be confessed that we have, on\nthe one side or the other, an account which is inaccurate, and\ndisfigured by tradition. It is, however, not only between these, but\nalso between Luke and his fellow Evangelists collectively, that they\nwho suppose only one incident to be the foundation of their narratives,\nseek to remove as far as possible the appearance of contradiction.\nSchleiermacher, whose highest authority is John, but who will on no\naccount renounce Luke, comes in this instance, when the two so widely\ndiverge, into a peculiar dilemma, from which he must have thought that\nhe could extricate himself with singular dexterity, since he has not\nevaded it, as he does others of a similar kind, by the supposition of\ntwo fundamental occurrences. It is true that he finds himself\nconstrained to concede, in favour of John, that Luke\u2019s informant could\nnot in this case have been an eyewitness; whence minor divergencies, as\nfor instance those relative to the locality, are to be explained. On\nthe other hand, the apparently important differences that, according to\nLuke, the woman is a sinner, according to John, Mary of Bethany; that\naccording to the former, the host, according to the latter, the\ndisciples, make objections; and that the reply of Jesus is in the\nrespective narrations totally different\u2014these, in Schleiermacher\u2019s\nopinion, have their foundation in the fact that the occurrence may be\nregarded from two points of view. The one aspect of the occurrence is\nthe murmuring of the disciples, and this is given by Matthew; the\nother, namely, the relations of Jesus with the pharisaic host, is\nexhibited by Luke; and John confirms both representations. The most\ndecided impediment to the reconciliation of Luke with the other\nevangelists, his designation of the woman as a sinner, \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2,\nSchleiermacher invalidates, by calling it a false inference of the\nnarrator from the address of Jesus to Mary, Thy sins are forgiven thee,\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9. This Jesus might say to Mary in allusion to\nsome error, unknown to us, but such as the purest are liable to,\nwithout compromising her reputation with the spectators, who were well\nacquainted with her character; and it was only the narrator who\nerroneously concluded from the above words of Jesus, and from his\nfurther discourse, that the woman concerned was a sinner in the\nordinary sense of the word, whence he has incorrectly amplified the\nthoughts of the host, v. 39. [1149] It is not, however, simply of sins,\n\u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, but of many sins, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, that Jesus speaks in\nrelation to the woman; and if this also be an addition of the narrator,\nto be rejected as such because it is inconsistent with the character of\nMary of Bethany, then has the entire speech of Jesus from v. 40\u201348,\nwhich turns on the opposition between forgiving and loving little and\nmuch, been falsified or misrepresented by the Evangelist: and on the\nside of Luke especially, it is in vain to attempt to harmonize the\ndiscordant narratives.\n\nIf, then, the four narratives can be reconciled only by the supposition\nthat several of them have undergone important traditional\nmodifications: the question is, which of them is the nearest to the\noriginal fact? That modern critics should unanimously decide in favour\nof John, cannot surprise us after our previous observations; and as\nlittle can the nature of the reasoning by which their judgment is\nsupported. The narrative of John, say they (reasoning in a circle),\nbeing that of an eye-witness, must be at once supposed the true one,\n[1150] and this conclusion is sometimes rested for greater security on\nthe false premiss, that the more circumstantial and dramatic narrator\nis the more accurate reporter\u2014the eye-witness. [1151] The breaking of\nthe box of ointment, in Mark, although a dramatic particular, is\nreadily rejected as a mere embellishment; but does not John\u2019s statement\nof the quantity of spikenard as a pound, border on exaggeration? and\nought not the extravagance which Olshausen, in relation to this\ndisproportionate consumption of ointment, attributes to Mary\u2019s love, to\nbe rather referred to the Evangelist\u2019s imagination, which would then\nalso have the entire credit of the circumstance, that the house was\nfilled with the odour of the ointment? It is worthy of notice, that the\nestimate of the value of the perfume at 300 denarii, is given by John\nand Mark alone; as also at the miraculous feeding of the multitude, it\nis these two Evangelists who rate the necessary food at 200 denarii. If\nMark only had this close estimate, how quickly would it be pronounced,\nat least by Schleiermacher, a gratuitous addition of the narrator! What\nthen is it that, in the actual state of the case, prevents the\nutterance of this opinion, even as a conjecture, but the prejudice in\nfavour of the fourth gospel? Even the anointing of the head, which is\nattested by two of the synoptists, is, because John mentions the feet\ninstead of the head, rejected as unusual, and incompatible with the\nposition of Jesus at a meal: [1152] whereas the anointing of the feet\nwith precious oil was far less usual; and this the most recent\ncommentator on the fourth gospel admits. [1153]\n\nBut peculiar gratitude is rendered to the eye-witness John, because he\nhas rescued from oblivion the names, both of the anointing woman, and\nof the censorious disciple. [1154] It has been supposed that the\nsynoptists did in fact know the name of the woman, but withheld it from\nthe apprehension that danger might possibly accrue to the family of\nLazarus, while John, writing later, was under no such restraint; [1155]\nbut this expedient rests on mere assumptions. Our former conclusion\ntherefore subsists, namely, that the earlier Evangelists knew nothing\nof the name of the woman; and the question arises, how was this\npossible? Jesus having expressly promised immortal renown to the deed\nof the woman, the tendency must arise to perpetuate her name also, and\nif this were identical with the known and oft-repeated name of Mary of\nBethany, it is not easy to understand how the association of the deed\nand the name could be lost in tradition, and the woman who anointed\nJesus become nameless. It is perhaps still more incomprehensible,\nsupposing the covetous blame cast upon the woman to have been really\nuttered by him who proved the betrayer, that this should be forgotten\nin tradition, and the expression of blame attributed to the disciples\ngenerally. When a fact is narrated of a person otherwise unknown, or\neven when the person being known, the fact does not obviously accord\nwith his general character, it is natural that the name should be lost\nin tradition; but when the narrated word or work of a person agrees so\nentirely with his known character, as does the covetous and\nhypocritical blame in question with the character of the traitor, it is\ndifficult to suppose that the legend would sever it from his name.\nMoreover, the history in which this blame occurs, verges so nearly on\nthe moment of the betrayal (especially according to the position given\nto it by the two first Evangelists), that had the blame really\nproceeded from Judas, the two facts would have been almost inevitably\nassociated. Nay, even if that expression of latent cupidity had not\nreally belonged to Judas, there must have been a temptation eventually\nto ascribe it to him, as a help to the delineation of his character,\nand to the explanation of his subsequent treachery. Thus the case is\nreversed, and the question is whether, instead of praising John that he\nhas preserved to us this precise information, we ought not rather to\ngive our approbation to the synoptists, that they have abstained from\nso natural but unhistorical a combination. We can arrive at no other\nconclusion with respect to the designation of the woman who anoints\nJesus as Mary of Bethany. On the one hand, it is inconceivable that the\ndeed, if originally hers, should be separated from her celebrated name;\non the other, the legend, in the course of its development, might\nnaturally come to attribute to one whose spiritual relations with Jesus\nhad, according to the third and fourth gospels, early obtained great\ncelebrity in the primitive church, an act of devoted love towards him,\nwhich originally belonged to another and less known person.\n\nBut from another side also we find ourselves induced to regard the\nnarratives of Matthew and Mark, who give no name to the woman, rather\nthan that of John, who distinguishes her as Mary of Bethany, as the\nparent stem of the group of anecdotes before us. Our position of the\nidentity of all the four narratives must, to be tenable, enable us also\nto explain how Luke\u2019s representation of the facts could arise. Now,\nsupposing the narrative of John to be the nearest to the truth, it is\nnot a little surprising that in the legend, the anointing woman should\ndoubly descend from the highly honoured Mary, sister of Lazarus, to an\nunknown, nameless individual, and thence even to a notorious sinner; it\nappears far more natural to give the intermediate position to the\nindifferent statement of the synoptists, out of whose equivocal\nnameless woman might equally be made, either in an ascending scale, a\nMary; or, in a descending one, a sinner.\n\nThe possibility of the first transformation has been already shown: it\nmust next be asked, where could be an inducement, without historical\ngrounds, gradually to invest the anointing woman with the character of\na sinner? In the narrative itself our only clue is a feature which the\ntwo first synoptists have not, but which John has in common with Luke;\nnamely, that the woman anointed the feet of Jesus. To the fourth\nEvangelist, this tribute of feeling appeared in accordance with the\nsensitive, devoted nature of Mary, whom he elsewhere also (xi. 32),\nrepresents as falling at the feet of Jesus; but by another it might be\ntaken, as by Luke, for the gesture of contrition; an idea which might\nfavour the conception of the woman as a sinner\u2014might favour, we say,\nnot cause: for a cause, we must search elsewhere.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 90.\n\nTHE NARRATIVES OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY, AND OF MARY AND MARTHA.\n\nIn the Gospel of John (viii. 1\u201311), the Pharisees and scribes bring a\nwoman taken in adultery to Jesus, that they may obtain his opinion as\nto the procedure to be observed against her; whereupon Jesus, by\nappealing to the consciences of the accusers, liberates the woman, and\ndismisses her with an admonition. The genuineness of this passage has\nbeen strongly contested, nay, its spuriousness might be regarded as\ndemonstrated, were it not that even the most thorough investigations on\nthe subject [1156] indirectly betray a design, which Paulus openly\navows, of warding off the dangerous surmises as to the origin of the\nfourth gospel, which are occasioned by the supposition that this\npassage, encumbered as it is with improbabilities, is a genuine portion\nof that gospel. For in the first place, the scribes say to Jesus: Moses\nin the law commanded us that such should be stoned: now in no part of\nthe Pentateuch is this punishment prescribed for adultery, but simply\ndeath, the mode of inflicting it being left undetermined (Lev. xx. 10;\nDeut. xxii. 22); nor was stoning for adultery a latter institution of\nthe Talmud, for according to the canon: omne mortis supplicium, in\nscriptur\u00e2 absolute positum esse strangulationem, [1157] the punishment\nappointed for this offence in the Talmud is strangulation. [1158]\nFurther, it is difficult to discover what there was to ensnare Jesus in\nthe question proposed to him; [1159] the scribes quoted to him the\ncommandment of the law, as if they would warn him, rather than tempt\nhim, for they could not expect that he would decide otherwise than\nagreeably to the law. Again, the decision of Jesus is open to the\nstricture, that if only he who is conscious of perfect purity were\nauthorized to judge and punish, all social order would be at an end.\nThe circumstance of Jesus writing on the ground has a legendary and\nmystical air, for even if it be not correctly explained by the gloss of\nJerome: eorum videlicet, qui accusabant, et omnium mortalium peccata,\nit yet seems to imply something more mysterious than a mere\nmanifestation of contempt for the accusers. Lastly, it is scarcely\nconceivable that every one of those men who dragged the woman before\nJesus, zealous for the law, and adverse to his cause as they are\nsupposed to be, should have had so tender a conscience, as on the\nappeal of Jesus to retire without prosecuting their design, and leave\nthe woman behind them uninjured; this rather appears to belong merely\nto the legendary or poetical embellishment of the scene. Yet however\nimprobable it may appear, from these observations, that the occurrence\nhappened precisely as it is here narrated, this, as Bretschneider\njustly maintains, [1160] proves nothing against the genuineness of the\npassage, since it is arguing in a circle to assume the apostolic\ncomposition of the fourth gospel, and the consequent impossibility that\na narrative containing contradictions should form a portion of it,\nprior to an examination of its several parts. Nevertheless, on the\nother hand, the absence of the passage in the oldest authorities is so\nsuspicious, that a decision on the subject cannot be hazarded.\n\nIn any case, the narrative of an interview between Jesus and a woman of\nthe above character must be very ancient, since, according to Eusebius,\nit was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and in the writings of\nPapias. [1161] It was long thought that the woman mentioned in the\nHebrew gospel and by Papias was identical with the adulteress in John;\nbut against this it has been justly observed, that one who had the\nreproach of many sins, must be distinct from her who was detected in\nthe one act of adultery. [1162] I wonder, however, that no one has, to\nmy knowledge, thought, in connexion with the passage of Eusebius, of\nthe woman in Luke of whom Jesus says that her many sins, \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76, are forgiven. It is true that the word \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 does not\nfully agree with this idea, for Luke does not speak of actual\nexpressions of the Pharisee in disparagement of the woman, but merely\nof the unfavourable thoughts which he had concerning her; and in this\nrespect the passage in Eusebius would agree better with the narrative\nof John, which has an express denunciation, a \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nThus we are led on external grounds, by the doubt whether an ancient\nnotice refer to the one or the other of the two narratives, to a\nperception of their affinity, [1163] which is besides evident from\ninternal reasons. In both we have a woman, a sinner, before Jesus; in\nboth, this woman is regarded with an evil eye by Pharisaic\nsanctimoniousness, but is taken into protection by Jesus, and dismissed\nwith a friendly \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5, go. These were precisely the features, the\norigin of which we could not understand in the narrative of Luke,\nviewed as a mere variation of the history of the anointing given by the\nother Evangelists. Now, what is more natural than to suppose that they\nwere transferred into Luke\u2019s history of the anointing, from that of the\nforgiven sinner? If the Christian legend possessed, on the one side, a\nwoman who had anointed Jesus, who was on this account reproached, but\nwas defended by Jesus; and on the other side a woman who was accused\nbefore him of many sins, but whom he pardoned; how easily, aided by the\nidea of an anointing of the feet of Jesus, which bears the\ninterpretation of an act of penitence, might the two histories flow\ntogether\u2014the anointing woman become also a sinner, and the sinner also\nan anointer? Then, that the scene of the pardon was an entertainment,\nwas a feature also drawn from the history of the anointing: the\nentertainer must be a Pharisee, because the accusation of the woman\nought to proceed from a Pharisaic party, and because, as we have seen,\nLuke has a predilection for Pharisaic entertainments. Lastly, the\ndiscourse of Jesus may have been borrowed, partly from the original\nnarrative of the woman who was a sinner, partly from analogous\noccasions. If these conjectures be correct, the narratives are\npreserved unmixed, on the one hand, by the two first Evangelists; on\nthe other, by the fourth, or whoever was the author of the passage on\nthe adulteress; for if the latter contains much that is legendary, it\nis at least free from any admixture of the history of the anointing.\n\nHaving thus accounted for one modification of the narrative concerning\nthe anointing woman, namely, her degradation into a sinner, by the\ninfluence of another and somewhat similar anecdote, which was current\nin the first age of Christianity, we may proceed to consider,\nexperimentally, whether a like external influence may not have helped\nto produce the opposite modification of the unknown into Mary of\nBethany: a modification which, for the rest, we have already seen to be\neasy of explanation. Such an influence could only proceed from the sole\nnotice of Mary (with the exception of her appearance at the\nresurrection of Lazarus) which has been preserved to us, and which is\nrendered memorable by the declaration of Jesus, One thing is needful,\nand Mary hath chosen, etc. (Luke x. 38 ff.). We have, in fact, here as\nwell as there, Martha occupied in serving (John xii. 2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03b8\u03b1\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9; Luke x. 40, \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd);\nhere, Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus, there, anointing his feet;\nhere, blamed by her sister, there by Judas, for her useless conduct,\nand in both cases, defended by Jesus. It is surely unavoidable to say,\nif once the narrative of the anointing of Jesus by a woman were current\ntogether with that of Mary and Martha, it was very natural, from the\nnumerous points of resemblance between them, that they should be\nblended in the legend, or by some individual, into one story; that the\nunknown woman who anointed the feet of Jesus, who was blamed by the\nspectators, and vindicated by Jesus, should be changed into Mary, whom\ntradition had depicted in a similar situation; the task of serving at\nthe meal with which the anointing was connected attributed to Mary\u2019s\nsister, Martha; and finally, her brother Lazarus made a partaker of the\nmeal:\u2014so that here the narrative of Luke on the one side, and that of\nthe two synoptists on the other, appear to be pure anecdotes, that of\nJohn a mixed one.\n\nFurther, in Luke\u2019s narrative of the visit of Jesus to the two sisters,\nthere is no mention of Lazarus, with whom, however, according to John\n(xi. and xii.), Mary and Martha appear to have dwelt; nay, Luke speaks\nprecisely as if the presence or existence of this brother, whom indeed\nneither he nor either of the other synoptists anywhere notices, were\nentirely unknown to him. For had he known anything of Lazarus, or had\nhe thought of him as present, he could not have said: A certain woman,\nnamed Martha, received him into her house; he must at least have named\nher brother also, especially as, according to John, the latter was an\nintimate friend of Jesus. This silence is remarkable, and commentators\nhave not succeeded in finding a better explanation of it than that\ngiven in the Natural History of the Prophet of Nazareth, where the\nshortly subsequent death of Lazarus is made available for the\nsupposition that he was, about the time of that visit of Jesus, on a\njourney for the benefit of his health. [1164] Not less striking is\nanother point relative to the locality of this scene. According to\nJohn, Mary and Martha dwelt in Bethany, a small town in the immediate\nvicinity of Jerusalem; whereas Luke, when speaking of the visit of\nJesus to these sisters, only mentions a certain town, \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70, which\nis thought, however, to be easily reconciled with the statement of\nJohn, by the observation, that Luke assigns the visit to the journey of\nJesus to Jerusalem, and to one travelling thither out of Galilee,\nBethany would lie in the way. But it would lie quite at the end of this\nway, so that the visit of Jesus must fall at the close of his journey,\nwhereas Luke places it soon after the departure out of Galilee, and\nseparates it from the entrance into Jerusalem by a multitude of\nincidents filling eight entire chapters. Thus much then is clear: the\nauthor or editor of the third gospel was ignorant that that visit was\npaid in Bethany, or that Mary and Martha dwelt there, and it is only\nthat Evangelist who represents Mary as the anointing woman, who also\nnames Bethany as the home of Mary: the same place where, according to\nthe two first synoptists, the anointing occurred. If Mary were once\nmade identical with the anointing woman, and if the anointing were\nknown to have happened in Bethany, it would naturally follow that this\ntown would be represented as Mary\u2019s home. Hence it is probable that the\nanointing woman owes her name to the current narrative of the visit of\nJesus to Martha and Mary, and that Mary owes her home to the narrative\nof the meal at Bethany.\n\nWe should thus have a group of five histories, among which the\nnarrative given by the two first synoptists of the anointing of Jesus\nby a woman, would form the centre, that in John of the adulteress, and\nthat in Luke of Mary and Martha, the extremes, while the anointing by\nthe sinner in Luke, and that by Mary in John, would fill the\nintermediate places. It is true that all the five narratives might with\nsome plausibility be regarded as varied editions of one historical\nincident; but from the essential dissimilarity between the three to\nwhich I have assigned the middle and extreme places, I am rather of\nopinion that these are each founded on a special incident, but that the\ntwo intermediate narratives are secondary formations which owe their\nexistence to the intermixture of the primary ones by tradition.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nMIRACLES OF JESUS.\n\n\u00a7 91.\n\nJESUS CONSIDERED AS A WORKER OF MIRACLES.\n\nThat the Jewish people in the time of Jesus expected miracles from the\nMessiah is in itself natural, since the Messiah was a second Moses and\nthe greatest of the prophets, and to Moses and the prophets the\nnational legend attributed miracles of all kinds: by later Jewish\nwritings it is rendered probable; [1165] by our gospels, certain. When\nJesus on one occasion had (without natural means) cured a blind and\ndumb demoniac, the people were hereby led to ask: Is not this the son\nof David? (Matt. xii. 23), a proof that a miraculous power of healing\nwas regarded as an attribute of the Messiah. John the Baptist, on\nhearing of the works of Jesus (\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1), sent to him with the inquiry, Art\nthou he that should come (\u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2)? Jesus, in proof of the\naffirmative, merely appealed again to his miracles (Matt. xi. 2 ff.\nparall.). At the Feast of Tabernacles, which was celebrated by Jesus in\nJerusalem, many of the people believed on him, saying, in justification\nof their faith, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these\nwhich this man hath done? (John vii. 31).\n\nBut not only was it predetermined in the popular expectation that the\nMessiah should work miracles in general,\u2014the particular kinds of\nmiracles which he was to perform were fixed, also in accordance with\nOld Testament types and declarations. Moses dispensed meat and drink to\nthe people in a supernatural manner (Exod. xvi. 17): the same was\nexpected, as the rabbins explicitly say, from the Messiah. At the\nprayer of Elisha, eyes were in one case closed, in another, opened\nsupernaturally (2 Kings vi.): the Messiah also was to open the eyes of\nthe blind. By this prophet and his master, even the dead had been\nraised (1 Kings xvii.; 2 Kings iv.): hence to the Messiah also power\nover death could not be wanting. [1166] Among the prophecies, Isa.\nxxxv. 5, 6 (comp. xlii. 7) was especially influential in forming this\nportion of the messianic idea. It is here said of the messianic times:\nThen shall the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf\nunstopped; then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of\nthe dumb shall sing. These words, it is true, stand in Isaiah in a\nfigurative connexion, but they were early understood literally, as is\nevident from the circumstance that Jesus describes his miracles to the\nmessengers of John (Matt. xi. 5) with an obvious allusion to this\nprophetic passage.\n\nJesus, in so far as he had given himself out and was believed to be the\nMessiah, or even merely a prophet, had to meet this expectation when,\naccording to several passages already considered (Matt. xii. 38, xvi.\n1, parall.), his Pharisaic enemies required a sign from him; when,\nafter the violent expulsion of the traders and money-changers from the\ntemple, the Jews desired from him a sign that should legitimate such an\nassumption of authority (John ii. 18); and when the people in the\nsynagogue at Capernaum, on his requiring faith in himself as the sent\nof God, made it a condition of this faith that he should show them a\nsign (John vi. 30).\n\nAccording to the gospels, Jesus more than satisfied this demand made by\nhis cotemporaries on the Messiah. Not only does a considerable part of\nthe evangelical narratives consist of descriptions of his miracles; not\nonly did his disciples after his death especially call to their own\nremembrance and to that of the Jews the \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 (miracles) \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\n(signs) and \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 (wonders) wrought by him (Acts ii. 22; comp. Luke\nxxiv. 19): but the people also were, even during his life, so well\nsatisfied with this aspect of his character that many believed on him\nin consequence (John ii. 23; comp. vi. 2), contrasted him with the\nBaptist who gave no sign (John x. 41), and even believed that he would\nnot be surpassed in this respect by the future Messiah (John vii. 31).\nThe above demands of a sign do not appear to prove that Jesus had\nperformed no miracles, especially as several of them occur immediately\nafter important miracles, e.g. after the cure of a demoniac, Matt. xii.\n38; and after the feeding of the five thousand, John vi. 30. This\nposition indeed creates a difficulty, for how the Jews could deny to\nthese two acts the character of proper signs it is not easy to\nunderstand; the power of expelling demons, in particular, being rated\nvery highly (Luke x. 17). The sign demanded on these two occasions must\ntherefore be more precisely defined according to Luke xi. 16 (comp.\nMatt xvi. 1; Mark viii. 11), as a sign from heaven, \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6,\nand we must understand it to be the specifically messianic sign of the\nSon of Man in heaven, \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 (Matt.\nxxiv. 30). If however it be preferred to sever the connexion between\nthese demands of a sign and the foregoing miracles, it is possible that\nJesus may have wrought numerous miracles, and yet that some hostile\nPharisees, who had not happened to be eyewitnesses of any of them, may\nstill have desired to see one for themselves.\n\nThat Jesus censures the seeking for miracles (John iv. 48) and refuses\nto comply with any one of the demands for a sign, does not in itself\nprove that he might not have voluntarily worked miracles in other\ncases, when they appeared to him to be more seasonable. When in\nrelation to the demand of the Pharisees, Mark viii. 12, he declares\nthat there shall be no sign given to this generation \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc7, or\nMatt xii. 39 f., xvi. 4; Luke xi. 29 f., that there shall no sign be\ngiven to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet, it would appear that by\nthis generation, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70, which in Matthew and Luke he characterizes as\nevil and adulterous, he could only mean the Pharisaic part of his\ncotemporaries who were hostile to him, and that he intended to declare,\nthat to these should be granted either no sign at all, or merely the\nsign of Jonas, that is, as he interprets it in Matthew, the miracle of\nhis resurrection, or as modern expositors think, the impressive\nmanifestation of his person and teaching. But if we take the words \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 in the sense that his enemies were to obtain no sign\nfrom him, we encounter two difficulties: on the one hand, things must\nhave chanced singularly if among the many miracles wrought by Jesus in\nthe greatest publicity, not one fell under the observation of Pharisees\n(moreover Matt. xii. 24 f. parall. contradicts this, for there\nPharisees are plainly supposed to be present at the cure of the blind\nand dumb demoniac): on the other hand, if signs personally witnessed\nare here intended, the enemies of Jesus certainly did not see his\nresurrection, or his person after he was risen. Hence the above\ndeclaration cannot well mean merely that his enemies should be excluded\nfrom an actual sight of his miracles. There is yet another expedient,\nnamely, to suppose that the expression \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 refers to a\nsign which should conduce to the good of the subject of which it is\npredicated: but all the miracles of Jesus happened equally with his\noriginal mission and his resurrection at once for the benefit of that\nsubject and the contrary, namely, in their object for its benefit, in\ntheir result not so. Nothing therefore remains but to understand the\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70 of the cotemporaries of Jesus generally, and the \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 to\nrefer to observation generally, mediate or immediate: so that thus\nJesus would appear to have here repudiated the working of miracles in\ngeneral.\n\nThis is not very consistent with the numerous narratives of miracles in\nthe gospels, but it accords fully with the fact that in the preaching\nand epistles of the apostles, a couple of general notices excepted\n(Acts ii. 22, x. 38 f.), the miracles of Jesus appear to be unknown,\nand everything is built on his resurrection: on which the remark may be\nventured that it could neither have been so unexpected nor could it\nhave formed so definite an epoch, if Jesus had previously raised more\nthan one dead person, and had wrought the most transcendent miracles of\nall kinds. This then is the question: Ought we, on account of the\nevangelical narratives of miracles, to explain away that expression of\nJesus, or doubt its authenticity; or ought we not, rather, on the\nstrength of that declaration, and the silence of the apostolic\nwritings, to become distrustful of the numerous histories of miracles\nin the gospels?\n\nThis can only be decided by a close examination of these narratives,\namong which, for a reason that will be obvious hereafter, we give the\nprecedence to the expulsions of demons.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 92.\n\nTHE DEMONIACS, CONSIDERED GENERALLY.\n\nWhile in the fourth gospel, the expressions \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd to have a\ndemon, and \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, being a demoniac, appear nowhere except in\nthe accusations of the Jews against Jesus, and as parallels to\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, to be mad (viii. 48 f., x. 20 f.; comp. Mark iii. 22, 30;\nMatt. xi. 18), the synoptists may be said to represent demoniacs as the\nmost frequent objects of the curative powers of Jesus. When they\ndescribe the commencement of his ministry in Galilee, they give the\ndemoniacs \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 [1167] a prominent place among the sufferers\nwhom Jesus healed (Matt iv. 24; Mark i. 34), and in all their summary\nnotices of the ministry of Jesus in certain districts, demoniacs play a\nchief part (Matt. viii. 16 f.; Mark i. 39, iii. 11 f.; Luke vi. 18).\nThe power to cast out devils is before anything else imparted by Jesus\nto his disciples (Matt. x. 1, 8; Mark iii. 15, vi. 7; Luke ix. 1), who\nto their great joy succeed in using it according to their wishes (Luke\nx. 17, 20; Mark vi. 13).\n\nBesides these summary notices, however, several cures of demoniacs are\nnarrated to us in detail, so that we can form a tolerably accurate idea\nof their peculiar condition. In the one whose cure in the synagogue at\nCapernaum is given by the Evangelists as the first of this kind (Mark\ni. 23 ff.; Luke iv. 33 ff.), we find, on the one hand, a disturbance of\nthe self-consciousness, causing the possessed individuals to speak in\nthe person of the demon, which appears also in other demoniacs, as for\nexample, the Gadarenes (Matt. viii. 29 f. parall.); on the other hand,\nspasms and convulsions with savage cries. This spasmodic state has, in\nthe demoniac who is also called a lunatic (Matt. xvii. 14 ff. parall.),\nreached the stage of manifest epilepsy; for sudden falls, often in\ndangerous places, cries, gnashing of the teeth, and foaming, are known\nsymptoms of that malady. [1168] The other aspect of the demoniacal\nstate, namely, the disturbance of the self-consciousness, amounts in\nthe demoniac of Gadara, by whose lips a demon, or rather a plurality of\nthese evil spirits, speaks as a subject, to misanthropic madness, with\nattacks of maniacal fury against himself and others. [1169] Moreover,\nnot only the insane and epileptic, but the dumb (Matt. ix. 32; Luke xi.\n14; Matt. xii. 22, the dumb demoniac is also blind) and those suffering\nfrom a gouty contraction of the body (Luke xiii. 11 ff.), are by the\nevangelists designated more or less precisely as demoniacs.\n\nThe idea of these sufferers presupposed in the gospels and shared by\ntheir authors, is that a wicked, unclean spirit (\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd), or several have taken possession of them (hence their\ncondition is described by the expressions \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, to have a demon, to be a demoniac), speak through their\norgans (thus Matt. viii. 31, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2),\nand put their limbs in motion at pleasure (thus Mark ix. 20, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd), until, forcibly expelled by a cure, they depart from\nthe patient (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9). According to the representation of\nthe Evangelists, Jesus also held this view of the matter. It is true\nthat when, as a means of liberating the possessed, he addresses the\ndemons within them (as in Mark ix. 25; Matt. viii. 32; Luke iv. 35), we\nmight with Paulus [1170] regard this as a mode of entering into the\nfixed idea of these more or less insane persons, it being the part of a\nphysical physician, if he would produce any effect, to accommodate\nhimself to this idea, however strongly he may in reality be convinced\nof its groundlessness. But this is not all; Jesus, even in his private\nconversations with his disciples, not only says nothing calculated to\nundermine the notion of demoniacal possession, but rather speaks\nrepeatedly on a supposition of its truth; as e.g. in Matt. x. 8, where\nhe gives the commission, Cast out devils; in Luke x. 18 ff.; and\nespecially in Matt. xvii. 21, parall., where he says, This kind goeth\nnot out but by prayer and fasting. Again, in a purely theoretical\ndiscourse, perhaps also in the more intimate circle of his disciples,\nJesus gives a description quite accordant with the idea of his\ncotemporaries of the departure of the unclean spirit, his wandering in\nthe wilderness, and his return with a reinforcement (Matt. xii. 43\nff.). With these facts before us, the attempt made by generally\nunprejudiced inquirers, such as Winer, [1171] to show that Jesus did\nnot share the popular opinion on demoniacal possession, but merely\naccommodated his language to their understanding, appears to us a mere\nadjustment of his ideas by our own. A closer examination of the\nlast-mentioned passage will suffice to remove every thought of a mere\naccommodation on the part of Jesus. It is true that commentators have\nsought to evade all that is conclusive in this passage, by interpreting\nit figuratively, or even as a parable, [1172] in every explanation of\nwhich (if we set aside such as that given by Olshausen [1173] after\nCalmet), the essential idea is, that superficial conversion to the\ncause of Jesus is followed by a relapse into aggravated sin. [1174]\nBut, I would fain know, what justifies us in abandoning the literal\ninterpretation of this discourse? In the propositions themselves there\nis no indication of a figurative meaning, nor is it rendered probable\nby the general style of teaching used by Jesus, for he nowhere else\npresents moral relations in the garb of demoniacal conditions; on the\ncontrary, whenever he speaks, as here, of the departure of evil\nspirits, e.g. in Matt. xvii. 21, he evidently intends to be understood\nliterally. But does the context favour a figurative interpretation?\nLuke (xi. 24 ff.) places the discourse in question after the defence of\nJesus against the Pharisaic accusation, that he cast out devils by\nBeelzebub: a position which is undoubtedly erroneous, as we have seen,\nbut which is a proof that he at least understood Jesus to speak\nliterally\u2014of real demons. Matthew also places the discourse near to the\nabove accusation and defence, but he inserts between them the demand of\na sign, together with its refusal, and he makes Jesus conclude with the\napplication, Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation. This\naddition, it is true, gives the discourse a figurative application to\nthe moral and religious condition of his cotemporaries, but only thus:\nJesus intended the foregoing description of the expelled and returning\ndemon literally, though he made a secondary use of this event as an\nimage of the moral condition of his cotemporaries. At any rate Luke,\nwho has not the same addition, gives the discourse of Jesus, to use the\nexpression of Paulus, as a warning against demoniacal relapses. That\nthe majority of theologians in the present day, without decided support\non the part of Matthew, and in decided contradiction to Luke, advocate\nthe merely figurative interpretation of this passage, appears to be\nfounded in an aversion to ascribe to Jesus so strongly developed a\ndemonology, as lies in his words literally understood. But this is not\nto be avoided, even leaving the above passage out of consideration. In\nMatt. xii. 25 f. 29, Jesus speaks of a kingdom and household of the\ndevil, in a manner which obviously outsteps the domain of the merely\nfigurative: but above all, the passage already quoted, Luke x. 18\u201320,\nis of such a nature as to compel even Paulus, who is generally so fond\nof lending to the hallowed personages of primitive Christian history\nthe views of the present age, to admit that the kingdom of Satan was\nnot merely a symbol of evil to Jesus, and that he believed in actual\ndemoniacal possession. For he says very justly, that as Jesus here\nspeaks, not to the patient or to the people, but to those who\nthemselves, according to his instructions, cured demoniacs, his words\nare not to be explained as a mere accommodation, when he confirms their\nbelief that the spirits are subject unto them, and describes their\ncapability of curing the malady in question, as a power over the power\nof the enemy. [1175] In answer also to the repugnance of those with\nwhose enlightenment a belief in demoniacal possession is inconsistent,\nto admit that Jesus held that belief, the same theologian justly\nobserves that the most distinguished mind may retain a false idea,\nprevalent among his cotemporaries, if it happen to lie out of his\npeculiar sphere of thought. [1176]\n\nSome light is thrown on the evangelical conception of the demoniacs, by\nthe opinions on this subject which we find in writers more or less\ncotemporary. The general idea that evil spirits had influence on men,\nproducing melancholy, insanity, and epilepsy, was early prevalent among\nthe Greeks [1177] as well as the Hebrews; [1178] but the more distinct\nidea that evil spirits entered into the human body and took possession\nof its members was not developed until a considerably later period, and\nwas a consequence of the dissemination of the Oriental, particularly\nthe Persian pneumatology among both Hebrews and Greeks. [1179] Hence we\nfind in Josephus the expressions \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b4\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, [1180]\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 [1181] (demons entering into the living, settling\nthemselves there), and the same ideas in Lucian [1182] and\nPhilostratus. [1183]\n\nOf the nature and origin of these spirits nothing is expressly stated\nin the gospels, except that they belong to the household of Satan\n(Matt. xii. 26 ff. parall.), whence the acts of one of them are\ndirectly ascribed to Satan (Luke xiii. 16). But from Josephus, [1184]\nJustin Martyr, [1185] and Philostratus, [1186] with whom rabbinical\nwritings agree, [1187] we learn that these demons were the disembodied\nsouls of wicked men; and modern theologians have not scrupled to\nattribute this opinion on their origin to the New Testament also.\n[1188] Justin and the rabbins more nearly particularize, as spirits\nthat torment the living, the souls of the giants, the offspring of\nthose angels who allied themselves to the daughters of men; the rabbins\nfurther add the souls of those who perished in the deluge, and of those\nwho participated in building the tower of Babel; [1189] and with this\nagree the Clementine Homilies, for, according to them also, these souls\nof the giants, having become demons, seek to attach themselves, as the\nstronger, to human souls, and to inhabit human bodies. [1190] As,\nhowever, in the continuation of the passage first cited, Justin\nendeavours to convince the heathens of immortality from their own\nideas, the opinion which he there expresses, of demons being the souls\nof the departed in general, can scarcely be regarded as his, especially\nas his pupil Tatian expressly declares himself against it; [1191] while\nJosephus affords no criterion as to the latent idea of the New\nTestament, since his Greek education renders it very uncertain whether\nhe presents the doctrine of demoniacal possession in its original\nJewish, or in a Grecian form. If it must be admitted that the Hebrews\nowed their doctrine of demons to Persia, we know that the Deves of the\nZend mythology were originally and essentially wicked beings, existing\nprior to the human race; of these two characteristics, Hebraism as such\nmight be induced to expunge the former, which pertained to Dualism, but\ncould have no reason for rejecting the latter. Accordingly, in the\nHebrew view, the demons were the fallen angels of Gen. vi., the souls\nof their offspring the giants, and of the great criminals before and\nimmediately after the deluge, whom the popular imagination gradually\nmagnified into superhuman beings. But in the ideas of the Hebrews,\nthere lay no motive for descending beyond the circle of these souls,\nwho might be conceived to form the court of Satan. Such a motive was\nonly engendered by the union of the Gr\u00e6co-roman culture with the\nHebraic: the former had no Satan, and consequently no retinue of\nspirits devoted to his service, but it had an abundance of Manes,\nLemures, and the like,\u2014all names for disembodied souls that disquieted\nthe living. Now, the combination of these Gr\u00e6co-roman ideas with the\nabove-mentioned Jewish ones, seems to have been the source of the\ndemonology of Josephus, of Justin, and also of the later rabbins; but\nit does not follow that the same mixed view belongs to the New\nTestament. Rather, as this Gr\u00e6cised form of the doctrine in question is\nnowhere positively put forth by the evangelical writers, while on the\ncontrary the demons are in some passages represented as the household\nof Satan: there is nothing to contravene the inference to be drawn from\nthe unmixedly Jewish character of thought which reigns in the\nsynoptical gospels on all other subjects (apart from Christian\nmodifications); namely, that we must attribute to them the pure and\noriginal Jewish conception of the doctrine of demons.\n\nIt is well known that the older theology, moved by a regard for the\nauthority of Jesus and the Evangelists, espoused the belief in the\nreality of demoniacal possession. The new theology, on the contrary,\nespecially since the time of Semler, [1192] in consideration of the\nsimilarity between the condition of the demoniacs in the New Testament\nand many naturally diseased subjects of our own day, has begun to refer\nthe malady of the former also to natural causes, and to ascribe the\nevangelical supposition of supernatural causes to the prejudices of\nthat age. In modern days, on the occurrence of epilepsy, insanity, and\neven a disturbance of the self-consciousness resembling the condition\nof the possessed described in the New Testament, it is no longer the\ncustom to account for them by the supposition of demoniacal influence:\nand the reason of this seems to be, partly that the advancement in the\nknowledge of nature and of mind has placed at command a wider range of\nfacts and analogies, which may serve to explain the above conditions\nnaturally: partly that the contradiction, involved in the idea of\ndemoniacal possession, is beginning to be at least dimly perceived.\nFor\u2014apart from the difficulties which the notion of the existence of a\ndevil and demons entails\u2014whatever theory may be held as to the relation\nbetween the self-consciousness and the bodily organs, it remains\nabsolutely inconceivable how the union between the two could be so far\ndissolved, that a foreign self-consciousness could gain an entrance,\nthrust out that which belonged to the organism, and usurp its place.\nHence for every one who at once regards actual phenomena with\nenlightened eyes, and the New Testament narratives with orthodox ones,\nthere results the contradiction, that what now proceeds from natural\ncauses, must in the time of Jesus have been caused supernaturally.\n\nIn order to remove this inconceivable difference between the conditions\nof one age and another, avoiding at the same time any imputation on the\nNew Testament, Olshausen, whom we may fairly take as the representative\nof the mystical theology and philosophy of the present day, denies both\nthat all states of the kind in question have now a natural cause, and\nthat they had in the time of Jesus invariably a supernatural cause.\nWith respect to our own time he asks, if the apostles were to enter our\nmad-houses, how would they name many of the inmates? [1193] We answer,\nthey would to a certainty name many of them demoniacs, by reason of\ntheir participation in the ideas of their people and their age, not by\nreason of their apostolic illumination; and the official who acted as\ntheir conductor would very properly endeavour to set them right:\nwhatever names therefore they might give to the inmates of our asylums,\nour conclusions as to the naturalness of the disorders of those inmates\nwould not be at all affected. With respect to the time of Jesus, this\ntheologian maintains that the same forms of disease were, even by the\nJews, in one case held demoniacal, in another not so, according to the\ndifference in their origin: for example, one who had become insane\nthrough an organic disorder of the brain, or dumb through an injury of\nthe tongue, was not looked on as a demoniac, but only those, the cause\nof whose condition was more or less psychical. Of such a distinction in\nthe time of Jesus, Olshausen is manifestly bound to give us instances.\nWhence could the Jews of that age have acquired their knowledge of the\nlatent natural causes of these conditions\u2014whence the criterion by which\nto distinguish an insanity or imbecility originating in a malformation\nof the brain, from one purely psychical? Was not their observation\nlimited to outward phenomena, and those of the coarsest character? The\nnature of their distinctions seems to be this: the state of an\nepileptic with his sudden falls and convulsions, or of a maniac in his\ndelirium, especially if, from the reaction of the popular idea\nrespecting himself he speaks in the person of another, seems to point\nto an external influence which governs him; and consequently, so soon\nas the belief in demoniacal possession existed among the people, all\nsuch states were referred to this cause, as we find them to be in the\nNew Testament: whereas in dumbness and gouty contraction or lameness,\nthe influence of an external power is less decidedly indicated, so that\nthese afflictions were at one time ascribed to a possessing demon, at\nanother not so. Of the former case we find an example in the dumb\npersons already mentioned, Matt. ix. 32, xii. 22, and in the woman, who\nwas bowed down, Luke xiii. 11; of the latter, in the man who was deaf\nand had an impediment in his speech, Mark vii. 32 ff., and in the many\nparalytics mentioned in the gospels. The decision for the one opinion\nor the other was however certainly not founded on an investigation into\nthe origin of the disease, but solely on its external symptoms. If then\nthe Jews, and with them the Evangelists, referred the two chief classes\nof these conditions to demoniacal influence, there remains for him who\nbelieves himself bound by their opinion, without choosing to shut out\nthe lights of modern science, the glaring inconsistency of considering\nthe same diseases as in one age natural, in another supernatural.\n\nBut the most formidable difficulty for Olshausen, in his attempted\nmediation between the Judaical demonology of the New Testament and the\nintelligence of our own day, arises from the influence of the latter on\nhis own mind\u2014an influence which renders him adverse to the idea of\npersonal demons. This theologian, initiated in the philosophy of the\npresent age, endeavours to resolve the host of demons, which in the New\nTestament are regarded as distinct individuals, into a system of\nemanations, forming the continuity of a single substance, which indeed\nsends forth from itself separate powers, not, however, to subsist as\nindependent individuals, but to return as accidents into the unity of\nthe substance. This cast of thought we have already observed in the\nopinions of Olshausen concerning angels, and it appears still more\ndecidedly in his demonology. Personal demons are too repugnant, and as\nOlshausen himself expresses it, [1194] the comprehension of two\nsubjects in one individual is too inconceivable to find a ready\nacceptation. Hence it is everywhere with vague generality that a\nkingdom of evil and darkness is spoken of; and though a personal prince\nis given to it, its demons are understood to be mere effluxes and\noperations, by which the evil principle manifests itself. But the most\nvulnerable point of Olshausen\u2019s opinion concerning demons is this: it\nis too much for him to believe that Jesus asked the name of the demon\nin the Gadarene; since he himself doubts the personality of those\nemanations of the kingdom of darkness, it cannot, he thinks, have been\nthus decidedly supposed by Christ;\u2014hence he understands the question,\nWhat is thy name? (Mark v. 9) to be addressed, not to the demon, but to\nthe man, [1195] plainly in opposition to the whole context, for the\nanswer, Legion, appears to be in no degree the result of a\nmisunderstanding, but the right answer\u2014the one expected by Jesus.\n\nIf, however, the demons are, according to Olshausen\u2019s opinion,\nimpersonal powers, that which guides them and determines their various\nfunctions is the law which governs the kingdom of darkness in relation\nto the kingdom of light. On this theory, the worse a man is morally,\nthe closer must be the connexion between him and the kingdom of evil,\nand the closest conceivable connexion\u2014the entrance of the power of\ndarkness into the personality of the man, i.e. possession\u2014must always\noccur in the most wicked. But historically this is not so: the\ndemoniacs in the gospels appear to be sinners only in the sense that\nall sick persons need forgiveness of sins; and the greatest sinners\n(Judas for example) are spared the infliction of possession. The common\nopinion, with its personal demons, escapes this contradiction. It is\ntrue that this opinion also, as we find for instance, in the Clementine\nHomilies, firmly maintains it to be by sin only that man subjects\nhimself to the ingress of the demon; [1196] but here there is yet scope\nfor the individual will of the demon, who often, from motives not to be\ncalculated, passes by the worst, and holds in chase the less wicked.\n[1197] On the contrary, if the demons are considered, as by Olshausen,\nto be the actions of the power of evil in its relation to the power of\ngoodness; this relation being regulated by laws, everything arbitrary\nand accidental is excluded. Hence it evidently costs that theologian\nsome pains to disprove the consequence, that according to his theory\nthe possessed must always be the most wicked. Proceeding from the\napparent contest of two powers in the demoniacs, he adopts the position\nthat the state of demoniacal possession does not appear in those who\nentirely give themselves up to evil, and thus maintain an internal\nunity of disposition, but only in those in whom there exists a struggle\nagainst sin. [1198] In that case, however, the above state, being\nreduced to a purely moral phenomenon, must appear far more frequently;\nevery violent inward struggle must manifest itself under this form, and\nespecially those who ultimately give themselves up to evil must, before\narriving at this point, pass through a period of conflict, that is of\npossession. Olshausen therefore adds a physical condition, namely, that\nthe preponderance of evil in the man must have weakened his corporeal\norganization, particularly the nervous system, before he can become\nsusceptible of the demoniacal state. But since such disorders of the\nnervous system may occur without any moral fault, who does not see that\nthe state which it is intended to ascribe to demoniacal power as its\nproper source, is thus referred chiefly to natural causes, and that\ntherefore the argument defeats its own object? Hence Olshausen quickly\nturns away from this side of the question, and lingers on the\ncomparison of the \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (demoniac) with the \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 (wicked);\nwhereas he ought rather to compare the former with the epileptic and\ninsane, for it is only by this means that any light can be thrown on\nthe nature of possession. This shifting of the question from the ground\nof physiology and psychology to that of morality and religion, renders\nthe discussion concerning the demoniacs one of the most useless which\nOlshausen\u2019s work contains. [1199]\n\nLet us then relinquish the ungrateful attempt to modernize the New\nTestament conception of the demoniacs, or to judaize our modern\nideas;\u2014let us rather, in relation to this subject, understand the\nstatements of the New Testament as simply as they are given, without\nallowing our investigations to be restricted by the ideas therein\npresented, which belonged to the age and nation of its writers. [1200]\n\nThe method adopted for the cure of the demoniacal state was, especially\namong the Jews, in conformity with what we have ascertained to have\nbeen the idea of its nature. The cause of the malady was not supposed\nto be, as in natural diseases, an impersonal object or condition, such\nas an impure fluid, a morbid excitement or debility, but a\nself-conscious being; hence it was treated, not mechanically or\nchemically, but logically, i.e. by words. The demon was enjoined to\ndepart; and to give effect to this injunction, it was coupled with the\nnames of beings who were believed to have power over demons. Hence the\nmain instrument against demoniacal possession was conjuration, [1201]\neither in the name of God, or of angels, or of some other potent being,\ne.g. the Messiah (Acts xix. 13), with certain forms which were said to\nbe derived from Solomon. [1202] In addition to this, certain roots,\n[1203] stones, [1204] fumigations and amulets [1205] were used, in\nobedience to traditions likewise believed to have been handed down from\nSolomon. Now as the cause of the malady was not seldom really a\npsychical one, or at least one lying in the nervous system, which may\nbe acted on to an incalculable extent by moral instrumentality, this\npsychological treatment was not altogether illusory! for by exciting in\nthe patient the belief that the demon by which he was possessed, could\nnot retain his hold before a form of conjuration, it might often effect\nthe removal of the disorder. Jesus himself admits that the Jewish\nexorcists sometimes succeeded in working such cures (Matt. xii. 27).\nBut we read of Jesus that without conjuration by any other power, and\nwithout the appliance of any further means, he expelled the demons by\nhis word. The most remarkable cures of this kind, of which the gospels\ninform us, we are now about to examine.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 93.\n\nCASES OF THE EXPULSION OF DEMONS BY JESUS, CONSIDERED SINGLY.\n\nAmong the circumstantial narratives which are given us in the three\nfirst gospels of cures wrought by Jesus on demoniacs, three are\nespecially remarkable: the cure of a demoniac in the synagogue at\nCapernaum, that of the Gadarenes possessed by a multitude of demons,\nand lastly, that of the lunatic whom the disciples were unable to cure.\n\nIn John the conversion of water into wine is the first miracle\nperformed by Jesus after his return from the scene of his baptism into\nGalilee; but in Mark (i. 23 ff.) and Luke (iv. 33 ff.) the cure of a\ndemoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum has this position. Jesus had\nproduced a deep impression by his teaching, when suddenly, a demoniac\nwho was present, cried out in the character of the demon that possessed\nhim, that he would have nothing to do with him, that he knew him to be\nthe Messiah who was come to destroy them\u2014the demons; whereupon Jesus\ncommanded the demon to hold his peace and come out of the man, which\nhappened amid cries and convulsions on the part of the demoniac, and to\nthe great astonishment of the people at the power thus exhibited by\nJesus.\n\nHere we might, with rationalistic commentators, represent the case to\nourselves thus: the demoniac, during a lucid interval, entered the\nsynagogue, was impressed by the powerful discourse of Jesus, and\noverhearing one of the audience speak of him as the Messiah, was seized\nwith the idea that the unclean spirit by which he was possessed, could\nnot maintain itself in the presence of the holy Messiah; whence he fell\ninto a paroxysm, and expressed his awe of Jesus in the character of the\ndemon. When Jesus perceived this, what was more natural than that he\nshould make use of the man\u2019s persuasion of his power, and command the\ndemon to come out of him, thus laying hold of the maniac by his fixed\nidea; which according to the laws of mental hygiene, might very\nprobably have a favourable effect. It is under this view that Paulus\nregards the occasion as that on which the thought of using his\nmessianic fame as a means of curing such sufferers, first occurred to\nJesus. [1206]\n\nBut many difficulties oppose themselves to this natural conception of\nthe case. The demoniac is supposed to learn that Jesus was the Messiah\nfrom the people in the synagogue. On this point the text is not merely\nsilent, but decidedly contradicts such an opinion. The demon, speaking\nthrough the man, evidently proclaims his knowledge of the Messiahship\nof Jesus, in the words, \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03ac \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., not as information\ncasually imparted by man, but as an intuition of his demoniacal nature.\nFurther, when Jesus cries, Hold thy peace! he refers to what the demon\nhad just uttered concerning his messiahship; for it is related of Jesus\nthat he suffered not the demons to speak because they knew him (Mark i.\n34; Luke iv. 41), or because they made him known (Mark iii. 12). If\nthen Jesus believed that by enjoining silence on the demon he could\nhinder the promulgation of his messiahship, he must have been of\nopinion, not that the demoniac had heard something of it from the\npeople in the synagogue, but contrariwise that the latter might learn\nit from the demoniac; and this accords with the fact, that at the time\nof the first appearance of Jesus, in which the Evangelists place the\noccurrence, no one had yet thought of him as the Messiah.\n\nIf it be asked, how the demoniac could discover that Jesus was the\nMessiah, apart from any external communication, Olshausen presses into\nhis service the preternaturally heightened activity of the nervous\nsystem, which, in demoniacs as in somnambules, sharpens the presentient\npower, and produces a kind of clear-sightedness, by means of which such\na man might very well discern the importance of Jesus as regarded the\nwhole realm of spirits. The evangelical narrative, it is true, does not\nascribe that knowledge to a power of the patient, but of the demon\ndwelling within him, and this is the only view consistent with the\nJewish ideas of that period. The Messiah was to appear, in order to\noverthrow the demoniacal kingdom (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, comp. 1 John iii. 8;\nLuke x. 18 f.) [1207] and to cast the devil and his angels into the\nlake of fire (Matt. xxv. 41; Rev. xx. 10) [1208]: it followed of course\nthat the demons would recognize him who was to pass such a sentence on\nthem. [1209] This however might be deducted as an admixture of the\nopinion of the narrator, without damage to the rest of the narrative;\nbut it must first be granted admissible to ascribe so extensive a\npresentient power to demoniacal subjects. Now, as it is in the highest\ndegree improbable that a nervous patient, however intensely excited,\nshould recognize Jesus as the Messiah, at a time when he was not\nbelieved to be such by any one else, perhaps not even by himself; and\nas on the other hand this recognition of the Messiah by the demon so\nentirely agrees with the popular ideas;\u2014we must conjecture that on this\npoint the evangelical tradition is not in perfect accordance with\nhistorical truth, but has been attuned to those ideas. [1210] There was\nthe more inducement to this, the more such a recognition of Jesus on\nthe part of the demons would redound to his glory. As when adults\ndisowned him, praise was prepared for him out of the mouth of babes\n(Matt. xxi. 16)\u2014as he was convinced that if men were silent, the very\nstones would cry out (Luke xix. 40): so it must appear fitting, that\nwhen his people whom he came to save would not acknowledge him, he\nshould have the involuntary homage of demons, whose testimony, since\nthey had only ruin to expect from him, must be impartial, and from\ntheir higher spiritual nature was to be relied on.\n\nIn the above history of the cure of a demoniac, we have a case of the\nsimplest kind; the cure of the possessed Gadarenes on the contrary\n(Matt. viii. 28 ff.; Mark v. 1 ff.; Luke viii. 26 ff.) is a very\ncomplex one, for in this instance we have, together with several\ndivergencies of the Evangelists, instead of one demon, many, and\ninstead of a simple departure of these demons, their entrance into a\nherd of swine.\n\nAfter a stormy passage across the sea of Galilee to its eastern shore,\nJesus meets, according to Mark and Luke, a demoniac who lived among the\ntombs, [1211] and was subject to outbreaks of terrific fury against\nhimself [1212] and others; according to Matthew, there were two. It is\nastonishing how long harmonists have resorted to miserable expedients,\nsuch as that Mark and Luke mention only one because he was particularly\ndistinguished by wildness, or Matthew two, because he included the\nattendant who guarded the maniac, [1213] rather than admit an essential\ndifference between the two narratives. Since this step has been gained,\nthe preference has been given to the statement of the two intermediate\nEvangelists, from the consideration that maniacs of this class are\ngenerally unsociable; and the addition of a second demoniac by Matthew\nhas been explained by supposing that the plurality of the demons spoken\nof in the narratives became in his apprehension a plurality of\ndemoniacs. [1214] But the impossibility that two maniacs should in\nreality associate themselves, or perhaps be associated merely in the\noriginal legend, is not so decided as to furnish in itself a ground for\npreferring the narrative in Mark and Luke to that in Matthew. At least\nif it be asked, which of the two representations could the most easily\nhave been formed from the other by tradition, the probability on both\nsides will be found equal. For if according to the above supposition,\nthe plurality of demons might give rise to the idea of a plurality of\ndemoniacs, it may also be said, conversely: the more accurate\nrepresentation of Matthew, in which a plurality of demoniacs as well as\nof demons was mentioned, did not give prominence to the specifically\nextraordinary feature in the case, namely, that one man was possessed\nby many demons; and as, in order to exhibit this, the narrative when\nreproduced must be so expressed as to make it clear that many demons\ninhabited one man, this might easily occasion by degrees the opposition\nof the demoniac in the singular to the plural number of the demons. For\nthe rest, the introduction of Matthew\u2019s narrative is concise and\ngeneral, that of the two others circumstantially descriptive; another\ndifference from which the greater originality of the latter has been\ndeduced. [1215] But it is quite as probable that the details which Luke\nand Mark have in common, namely, that the possessed would wear no\nclothing, broke all fetters, and wounded himself with stones, are an\narbitrary enlargement on the simple characteristic, exceeding fierce,\nwhich Matthew gives, with the consequence that no one could pass by\nthat way,\u2014as that the latter is a vague abridgment of the former.\n\nThis scene between Jesus and the demoniac or demoniacs opens, like the\nother, with a cry of terror from the latter, who, speaking in the\nperson of the possessing demon, exclaims that he wishes to have nothing\nto do with Jesus, the Messiah, from whom he has to expect only torment.\nTwo hypotheses have been framed, to explain how the demoniac came at\nonce to recognize Jesus as the Messiah: according to one, Jesus was\neven then reputed to be the Messiah on the Per\u00e6an shore; [1216]\naccording to the other, some of those who had come across the sea with\nJesus had said to the man (whom on account of his fierceness no one\ncould come near!) that the Messiah had just landed at such a spot:\n[1217] but both are alike groundless, for it is plain that in this\nnarrative, as in the former, the above feature is a product of the\nJewish-Christian opinion respecting the relation of the demons to the\nMessiah. [1218] Here, however, another difference meets us. According\nto Matthew, the possessed, when they see Jesus, cry: What have we to do\nwith thee? Art thou come to torment us?\u2014according to Luke, the demoniac\nfalls at the feet of Jesus and says beseechingly, Torment me not; and\nlastly, according to Mark, he runs from a distance to meet Jesus, falls\nat his feet and adjures him by God not to torment him. Thus we have\nagain a climax: in Matthew, the demoniac, stricken with terror,\ndeprecates the unwelcome approach of Jesus; in Luke, he accosts Jesus,\nwhen arrived, as a suppliant; in Mark, he eagerly runs to meet Jesus,\nwhile yet at a distance. Those commentators who here take Mark\u2019s\nnarrative as the standard one, are obliged themselves to admit, that\nthe hastening of a demoniac towards Jesus whom he all the while\ndreaded, is somewhat of a contradiction; and they endeavour to relieve\nthemselves of the difficulty, by the supposition that the man set off\nto meet Jesus in a lucid moment, when he wished to be freed from the\ndemon, but being heated by running, [1219] or excited by the words of\nJesus, [1220] he fell into the paroxysm in which, assuming the\ncharacter of the demon, he entreated that the expulsion might be\nsuspended. But in the closely consecutive phrases of Mark, Seeing\u2014he\nran\u2014and worshipped\u2014and cried\u2014and said, \u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd\u2014\u1f14\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2\u2014\u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u00b7 there is no trace of a change in the state of the\ndemoniac, and the improbability of his representation subsists, for one\nreally possessed, if he had recognized the Messiah at a distance, would\nhave anxiously avoided, rather than have approached him; and even\nsetting this aside, it is impossible that one who believed himself to\nbe possessed by a demon inimical to God, should adjure Jesus by God, as\nMark makes the demoniac do. [1221] If then his narrative cannot be the\noriginal one, that of Luke, which is only so far the simpler that it\ndoes not represent the demoniac as running towards Jesus and adjuring\nhim, is too closely allied to it to be regarded as the nearest to the\nfact. That of Matthew is without doubt the purest, for the\nterror-stricken question, Art thou come to destroy us before the time?\nis better suited to a demon, who, as the enemy of the Messiah\u2019s\nkingdom, could expect no forbearance from the Messiah than the entreaty\nfor clemency in Mark and Luke; though Philostratus, in a narrative\nwhich might be regarded as an imitation of this evangelical one, has\nchosen the latter form. [1222]\n\nFrom the course of the narratives hitherto, it would appear that the\ndemons, in this as in the first narrative, addressed Jesus in the\nmanner described, before anything occurred on his part; yet the two\nintermediate Evangelists go on to state, that Jesus had commanded the\nunclean spirit to come out of the man. When did Jesus do this? The most\nnatural answer would be: before the man spoke to him. Now in Luke the\naddress of the demoniac is so closely connected with the word\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5, he fell down, and then again with \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2, having cried\nout, that it seems necessary to place the command of Jesus before the\ncry and the prostration, and hence to consider it as their cause. Yet\nLuke himself rather gives the mere sight of Jesus as the cause of those\ndemonstrations on the part of the demoniac, so that his representation\nleaves us in perplexity as to where the command of Jesus should find\nits place. The case is still worse in Mark, for here a similar\ndependence of the successive phrases thrusts back the command of Jesus\neven before the word \u1f14\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5, he ran, so that we should have to imagine\nrather strangely that Jesus cried to the demon, \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5, Come out, from\na distance. Thus the two intermediate Evangelists are in an error with\nregard either to the consecutive particulars that precede the command\nor to the command itself, and our only question is, where may the error\nbe most probably presumed to lie? Here Schleiermacher himself admits,\nthat if in the original narrative an antecedent command of Jesus had\nbeen spoken of, it would have been given in its proper place, before\nthe prayer of the demons, and as a quotation of the precise words of\nJesus; whereas the supplementary manner in which it is actually\ninserted, with its abbreviated and indirect form (in Luke; Mark changes\nit after his usual style, into a direct address), is a strong\nfoundation for the opinion that it is an explanatory addition furnished\nby the narrator from his own conjecture. [1223] And it is an extremely\nawkward addition, for it obliges the reader to recast his conception of\nthe entire scene. At first the pith of the incident seems to be, that\nthe demoniac had instantaneously recognized and supplicated Jesus; but\nthe narrator drops this original idea, and reflecting that the prayer\nof the demon must have been preceded by a severe command from Jesus, he\ncorrects his previous omission, and remarks that Jesus had given his\ncommand in the first instance.\n\nTo their mention of this command, Mark and Luke annex the question put\nby Jesus to the demon: What is thy name? In reply, a multitude of\ndemons make known their presence, and give as their name, Legion. Of\nthis episode Matthew has nothing. In the above addition we have found a\nsupplementary explanation of the former part of the narrative: what if\nthis question and answer were an anticipatory introduction to the\nsequel, and likewise the spontaneous production of the legend or the\nnarrator? Let us examine the reasons that render it probable: the wish\nimmediately expressed by the demons to enter the herd of swine, does\nnot in Matthew presuppose a multitude of demons in each of the two\npossessed, since we cannot know whether the Hebrews were not able to\nbelieve that even two demons only could possess a whole herd of swine:\nbut a later writer might well think it requisite to make the number of\nthe evil spirits equal the number of the swine. Now, what a herd is in\nrelation to animals, an army or a division of an army is in relation to\nmen and superior beings, and as it was required to express a large\ndivision, nothing could more readily suggest itself than the Roman\nlegion, which term in Matt. xxvi. 53, is applied to angels, as here to\ndemons. But without further considering this more precise estimate of\nthe Evangelists, we must pronounce it inconceivable that several demons\nhad set up their habitation in one individual. For even if we had\nattained so far as to conceive how one demon by a subjection of the\nhuman consciousness could possess himself of a human organization,\nimagination would still fail us to conceive that many personal demons\ncould at once possess one man. For as possession means nothing else,\nthan that the demon constitutes himself the subject of the\nconsciousness, and as consciousness can in reality have but one focus,\none central point: it is under every condition absolutely inconceivable\nthat several demons should at the same time take possession of one man.\nManifold possession could only exist in the sense of an alternation of\npossession by various demons, and not as here in that of a whole army\nof them dwelling at once in one man, and at once departing from him.\n\nAll the narratives agree in this, that the demons (in order, as Mark\nsays, not to be sent out of the country, or according to Luke, into the\ndeep) entreated of Jesus permission to enter into the herd of swine\nfeeding near; that this was granted them by Jesus; and that forthwith,\nowing to their influence, the whole herd of swine (Mark, we must not\nask on what authority, fixes their number at about two thousand) were\nprecipitated into the sea and drowned. If we adopt here the point of\nview taken in the gospel narratives, which throughout suppose the\nexistence of real demons, it is yet to be asked: how can demons,\nadmitting even that they can take possession of men,\u2014how, we say, can\nthey, being at all events intelligent spirits, have and obtain the wish\nto enter into brutal forms? Every religion and philosophy which rejects\nthe transmigration of souls, must, for the same reason, also deny the\npossibility of this passage of the demons into swine; and Olshausen is\nquite right in classing the swine of Gadara in the New Testament with\nBalaam\u2019s ass in the Old, as a similar scandal and stumbling block.\n[1224] This theologian, however, rather evades than overcomes the\ndifficulty, by the observation that we are here to suppose, not an\nentrance of the individual demons into the individual swine, but merely\nan influence of all the evil spirits on the swine collectively. For the\nexpression, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, to enter into the swine, as it\nstands opposed to the expression, \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, to go out\nof the man, cannot possibly mean otherwise than that the demons were to\nassume the same relation to the swine which they had borne to the\npossessed man; besides, a mere influence could not preserve them from\nbanishment out of the country or into the deep, but only an actual\nhabitation of the bodies of the animals: so that the scandal and\nstumbling block remain. Thus the prayer in question cannot possibly\nhave been offered by real demons, though it might by Jewish maniacs,\nsharing the ideas of their people. According to these ideas it is a\ntorment to evil spirits to be destitute of a corporeal envelopment,\nbecause without a body they cannot gratify their sensual desires;\n[1225] if therefore they were driven out of men they must wish to enter\ninto the bodies of brutes, and what was better suited to an impure\nspirit \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f00\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, than an impure animal \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, like a\nswine? [1226] So far, therefore, it is possible that the Evangelists\nmight correctly represent the fact, only, in accordance with their\nnational ideas, ascribing to the demons what should rather have been\nreferred to the madness of the patient. But when it is further said\nthat the demons actually entered the swine, do not the Evangelists\naffirm an evident impossibility? Paulus thinks that the Evangelists\nhere as everywhere else identify the possessed men with the possessing\ndemons, and hence attribute to the latter the entrance into the swine,\nwhile in fact it was only the former, who, in obedience to their fixed\nidea, rushed upon the herd. [1227] It is true that Matthew\u2019s expression\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, taken alone, might be understood of a mere\nrushing towards the swine; not only however, as Paulus himself must\nadmit, does the word \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in the two other Evangelists\ndistinctly imply a real entrance into the swine; but also Matthew has\nlike them before the word \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd, they entered, the expression\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, the demons coming out (sc. \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd out\nof the men): thus plainly enough distinguishing the demons who entered\nthe swine from the men. [1228] Thus our Evangelists do not in this\ninstance merely relate what actually happened, in the colours which it\ntook from the false lights of their age; they have here a particular,\nwhich cannot possibly have happened in the manner they allege.\n\nA new difficulty arises from the effect which the demons are said to\nhave produced in the swine. Scarcely had they entered them, when they\ncompelled the whole herd to precipitate themselves into the sea. It is\nreasonably asked, what then did the demons gain by entering into the\nanimals, if they immediately destroyed the bodies of which they had\ntaken possession, and thus robbed themselves of the temporary abode for\nwhich they had so earnestly entreated? [1229] The conjecture, that the\ndesign of the demons in destroying the swine, was to incense the minds\nof their owners against Jesus, which is said to have been the actual\nresult, [1230] is too far-fetched; the other conjecture that the\ndemoniacs, rushing with cries on the herd, together with the flight of\ntheir keepers, terrified the swine and chased them into the water,\n[1231]\u2014even if it were not opposed as we have seen to the text,\u2014would\nnot suffice to explain the drowning of a herd of swine amounting to\n2,000, according to Mark; or only a numerous herd, according to the\ngeneral statement of Matthew. The expedient of supposing that in truth\nit was only a part of the herd that was drowned, [1232] has not the\nslightest foundation in the evangelical narrative. The difficulties\nconnected with this point are multiplied by the natural reflection that\nthe drowning of the herd would involve no slight injury to the owners,\nand that of this injury Jesus was the mediate author. The orthodox,\nbent on justifying Jesus, suppose that the permission to the demons to\nenter into the swine was necessary to render the cure of the demoniac\npossible, and, they argue, brutes are assuredly to be killed that man\nmay live; [1233] but they do not perceive that they thus, in a manner\nmost inconsistent with their point of view, circumscribe the power of\nJesus over the demoniacal kingdom. Again, it is supposed, that the\nswine probably belonged to Jews, and that Jesus intended to punish them\nfor their covetous transgression of the law, [1234] that he acted with\ndivine authority, which often sacrifices individual good to higher\nobjects, and by lightning, hail and inundations causes destruction to\nthe property of many men, [1235] in which case, to accuse God of\ninjustice would be absurd. [1236] But to adopt this expedient is to\nconfound, in a way the most inadmissible on the orthodox system,\nChrist\u2019s state of humiliation with his state of exaltation: it is to\ndepart, in a spirit of mysticism, from the wise doctrine of Paul, that\nhe was made under the law, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd (Gal. iv. 4), and that\nhe made himself of no reputation \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 (Phil. ii. 7): it is to\nmake Jesus a being altogether foreign to us, since in relation to the\nmoral estimate of his actions, it lifts him above the standard of\nhumanity. Nothing remains, therefore, but to take the naturalistic\nsupposition of the rushing of the demoniacs among the swine, and to\nrepresent the consequent destruction of the latter as something\nunexpected by Jesus, for which therefore he is not responsible: [1237]\nin the plainest contradiction to the evangelical account, which makes\nJesus, even if not directly cause the issue, foresee it in the most\ndecided manner. [1238] Thus there appears to attach to Jesus the charge\nof an injury done to the property of another, and the opponents of\nChristianity have long ago made this use of the narrative. [1239] It\nmust be admitted that Pythagoras in a similar case acted far more\njustly, for when he liberated some fish from the net, he indemnified\nthe fishermen who had taken them. [1240]\n\nThus the narrative before us is a tissue of difficulties, of which\nthose relating to the swine are not the slightest. It is no wonder\ntherefore that commentators began to doubt the thorough historical\ntruth of this anecdote earlier than that of most others in the public\nlife of Jesus, and particularly to sever the connexion between the\ndestruction of the swine and the expulsion of the demons by Jesus. Thus\nKrug thought that tradition had reversed the order of these two facts.\nThe swine according to him were precipitated into the sea before the\nlanding of Jesus, by the storm which raged during his voyage, and when\nJesus subsequently wished to cure the demoniac, either he himself or\none of his followers persuaded the man that his demons were already\ngone into those swine and had hurled them into the sea; which was then\nbelieved and reported to be the fact. [1241] K. Ch. L. Schmidt makes\nthe swine-herds go to meet Jesus on his landing; during which interim\nmany of the untended swine fall into the sea; and as about this time\nJesus had commanded the demon to depart from the man, the bystanders\nimagine that the two events [1242] stood in the relation of cause and\neffect. The prominent part which is played in these endeavours at\nexplanation, by the accidental coincidence of many circumstances,\nbetrays that maladroit mixture of the mythical system of interpretation\nwith the natural which characterizes the earliest attempts, from the\nmythical point of view. Instead of inventing a natural foundation, for\nwhich we have nowhere any warrant, and which in no degree explains the\nactual narrative in the gospels, adorned as it is with the miraculous;\nwe must rather ask, whether in the probable period of the formation of\nthe evangelical narratives, there are not ideas to be found from which\nthe story of the swine in the history before us might be explained?\n\nWe have already adduced one opinion of that age bearing on this point,\nnamely, that demons are unwilling to remain without bodies, and that\nthey have a predilection for impure places, whence the bodies of swine\nmust be best suited to them: this does not however explain why they\nshould have precipitated the swine into the water. But we are not\ndestitute of information that will throw light on this also. Josephus\ntells us of a Jewish conjuror who cast out demons by forms and means\nderived from Solomon, that in order to convince the bystanders of the\nreality of his expulsions, he set a vessel of water in the\nneighbourhood of the possessed person, so that the departing demon must\nthrow it down and thus give ocular proof to the spectators that he was\nout of the man. [1243] In like manner it is narrated of Apollonius of\nTyana, that he commanded a demon which possessed a young man, to depart\nwith a visible sign, whereupon the demon entreated that he might\noverturn a statue that stood near at hand; which to the great\nastonishment of the spectators actually ensued in the very moment that\nthe demon went out of the youth. [1244] If then the agitation of some\nnear object, without visible contact, was held the surest proof of the\nreality of an expulsion of demons: this proof could not be wanting to\nJesus; nay, while in the case of Eleazar, the object being only a\nlittle (\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd) removed from the exorciser and the patient, the\npossibility of deception was not altogether excluded, Matthew notices\nin relation to Jesus, more emphatically than the two other Evangelists,\nthe fact that the herd of swine was feeding a good way off (\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd),\nthus removing the last remnant of such a possibility. That the object\nto which Jesus applied this proof, was from the first said to be a herd\nof swine, immediately proceeded from the Jewish idea of the relation\nbetween unclean spirits and animals, but it furnished a welcome\nopportunity for satisfying another tendency of the legend. Not only did\nit behove Jesus to cure ordinary demoniacs, such as the one in the\nhistory first considered; he must have succeeded in the most difficult\ncures of this kind. It is the evident object of the present narrative,\nfrom the very commencement, with its startling description of the\nfearful condition of the Gadarene, to represent the cure as one of\nextreme difficulty. But to make it more complicated, the possession\nmust be, not simple, but manifold, as in the case of Mary Magdalene,\nout of whom were cast seven demons (Luke viii. 2), or in the demoniacal\nrelapse in which the expelled demon returns with seven worse than\nhimself (Matt. xii. 45); whence the number of the demons was here made,\nespecially by Mark, to exceed by far the probable number of a herd. As\nin relation to an inanimate object, as a vessel of water or a statue,\nthe influence of the expelled demons could not be more clearly\nmanifested by any means, than by its falling over contrary to the law\nof gravity; so in animals it could not be more surely attested in any\nway, than by their drowning themselves contrary to their instinctive\ndesire of life. Only by this derivation of our narrative from the\nconfluence of various ideas and interests of the age, can we explain\nthe above noticed contradiction, that the demons first petition for the\nbodies of the swine as a habitation, and immediately after of their own\naccord destroy this habitation. The petition grew, as we have said, out\nof the idea that demons shunned incorporeality, the destruction, out of\nthe ordinary test of the reality of an exorcism;\u2014what wonder if the\ncombination of ideas so heterogeneous produced two contradictory\nfeatures in the narrative?\n\nThe third and last circumstantially narrated expulsion of a demon has\nthe peculiar feature, that in the first instance the disciples in vain\nattempt the cure, which Jesus then effects with ease. The three\nsynoptists (Matt. xvii. 14 ff.; Mark ix. 14 ff.; Luke ix. 37 ff.)\nunanimously state that Jesus having descended with his three most\nconfidential disciples from the Mount of the Transfiguration, found his\nother disciples in perplexity, because they were unable to cure a\npossessed boy, whom his father had brought to them.\n\nIn this narrative also there is a gradation from the greatest\nsimplicity in Matthew, to the greatest particularity of description in\nMark; and here again this gradation has led to the conclusion that the\nnarrative of Matthew is the farthest from the fact, and must be made\nsubordinate to that of the two other Evangelists. [1245] In the\nintroduction of the incident in Matthew, Jesus, having descended from\nthe mountain, joins the multitude (\u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2), whereupon the father of the\nboy approaches, and on his knees entreats Jesus to cure his child; in\nLuke, the multitude (\u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) meet Jesus; lastly, in Mark, Jesus sees\naround the disciples a great multitude, among whom were scribes\ndisputing with them; the people, when they see him, run towards him and\nsalute him, he inquires what is the subject of dispute, and on this the\nfather of the boy begins to speak. Here we have a climax in relation to\nthe conduct of the people; in Matthew, Jesus appears to join them by\naccident; in Luke, they come to meet him; and in Mark, they run towards\nhim to salute him. The last Evangelist has the singular remark: And\nstraightway all the people, when they saw him, were greatly amazed.\nWhat could there possibly be so greatly to amaze the people in the\narrival of Jesus with some disciples? This remains, in spite of all the\nother means of explanation that have been devised, so thorough a\nmystery, that I cannot find so absurd as Fritzsche esteems it, the idea\nof Euthymius, that Jesus having just descended from the Mount of\nTransfiguration, some of the heavenly radiance which had there shone\naround him was still visible, as on Moses when he came down from Sinai\n(Exod. xxxiv. 29 f.). That among this throng of people there were\nscribes who arraigned the disciples on the ground of their failure, and\ninvolved them in a dispute, is in and by itself quite natural; but\nconnected as it is with the exaggerations concerning the behaviour of\nthe multitude, this feature also becomes suspicious, especially as the\nother two Evangelists have it not; so that if it can be shown how the\nnarrator might be led to insert it by a mental combination of his own,\nwe shall have sufficient warrant for renouncing it. Shortly before\n(viii. 11), on the occasion of the demand of a sign from Jesus by the\nPharisees, Mark says, \u1f25\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, they began to question\nwith him, apparently on the subject of his ability to work miracles;\nand so here when the disciples show themselves unable to perform a\nmiracle, he represents the scribes (the majority of whom belonged to\nthe Pharisaic sect), as \u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, questioning with the\ndisciples. In the succeeding description of the boy\u2019s state there is\nthe same gradation as to particularity, except that Matthew is the one\nwho alone has the expression \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (is lunatic), which it is\nunfair to make a reproach to him, [1246] since the reference of\nperiodical disorders to the moon was not uncommon in the time of Jesus.\n[1247] Mark alone calls the spirit that possessed the dumb boy (v. 17),\nand deaf (v. 25). The emission of inarticulate sounds by epileptics\nduring their fits, might be regarded as the dumbness of the demon, and\ntheir incapability of noticing any words addressed to them, as his\ndeafness.\n\nWhen the father has informed Jesus of the subject of dispute and of the\ninability of the disciples to relieve the boy, Jesus breaks forth into\nthe exclamation, O faithless and perverse generation, etc. On a\ncomparison of the close of the narrative in Matthew, where Jesus, when\nhis disciples ask him why they could not cast out the demon, answers;\nBecause of your unbelief, and proceeds to extol the power of faith,\neven though no larger than a grain of mustard seed, as sufficient to\nremove mountains (v. 19 ff.): it cannot be doubted that in this\nexpression of dissatisfaction Jesus apostrophizes his disciples, in\nwhose inability to cast out the demon, he finds a proof of their still\ndeficient faith. [1248] This concluding explanation of the want of\npower in the disciples, by their unbelief, Luke omits: and Mark not\nonly imitates him in this, but also interweaves (v. 21\u201324), a by-scene\nbetween Jesus and the father, in which he first gives an amplified\ndescription of the symptoms of the child\u2019s malady, drawn partly from\nMatthew, partly from his own resources, and then represents the father,\non being required to believe, as confessing with tears the weakness of\nhis faith, and his desire that it may be strengthened. Taking this\ntogether with the mention of the disputative scribes, we cannot err in\nsupposing the speech of Jesus, O faithless generation, etc., in Mark\nand also in Luke to refer to the people, as distinguished from the\ndisciples; in Mark, more particularly to the father, whose unbelief is\nintimated to be an impediment to the cure, as in another case (Matt.\nix. 2), the faith of relatives appears to further the desired object.\nAs however both the Evangelists give this aspect to the circumstances,\nbecause they do not here give the explanation of the inefficiency of\nthe disciples by their unbelief, together with the declaration\nconcerning the power of faith to remove mountains: we must inquire\nwhether the connexion in which they place these discourses is more\nsuitable than this in which they are inserted by Matthew. In Luke the\ndeclaration: If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, etc. (neither\nhe nor Mark has, Because of your unbelief), occurs xvii. 5, 6, with\nonly the slight variation, that instead of the mountain a tree is\nnamed; but it is here destitute of any connexion either with the\nforegoing or the following context, and has the appearance of a short\nstray fragment, with an introduction, no doubt fictitious (of the same\nkind as Luke xi. 1, xiii. 23), in the form of an entreaty from the\ndisciples: Lord, increase our faith. Mark gives the sentence on the\nfaith which removes mountains as the moral of the history of the cursed\nfig tree, where Matthew also has it a second time. But to this history\nthe declaration is totally unsuitable, as we shall presently see; and\nif we are unwilling to content ourselves with ignorance of the occasion\non which it was uttered, we must accept its connexion in Matthew as the\noriginal one, for it is perfectly appropriate to a failure of the\ndisciples in an attempted cure. Mark has sought to make the scene more\neffective by other additions, beside this episode with the father; he\ntells us that the people ran together that they might observe what was\npassing, that after the expulsion of the demon the boy was as one dead,\ninsomuch that many said, he is dead; but that Jesus, taking him by the\nhand, as he does elsewhere with the dead (Matt. ix. 25), lifts him up\nand restores him to life.\n\nAfter the completion of the cure, Luke dismisses the narrative with a\nbrief notice of the astonishment of the people; but the two first\nsynoptists pursue the subject by making the disciples, when alone with\nJesus, ask him why they were not able to cast out the demon? In Matthew\nthe immediate reply of Jesus accounts for their incapability by their\nunbelief; but in Mark, his answer is, This kind goeth not out but by\nprayer and fasting, which Matthew also adds after the discourse on\nunbelief and the power of faith. This seems to be an unfortunate\nconnexion of Matthew\u2019s; for if fasting and praying were necessary for\nthe cure, the disciples, in case they had not previously fasted, could\nnot have cast out the demon even if they had possessed the firmest\nfaith. [1249] Whether these two reasons given by Jesus for the\ninability of the disciples can be made consistent by the observation,\nthat fasting and prayer are means of strengthening faith; [1250] or\nwhether we are to suppose with Schleiermacher an association of two\noriginally unrelated passages, we will not here attempt to decide. That\nsuch a spiritual and corporeal discipline on the part of the exorcist\nshould have effect on the possessed, has been held surprising: it has\nbeen thought with Porphyry, [1251] that it would rather be to the\npurpose that the patient should observe this discipline, and hence it\nhas been supposed that the \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, prayer and fasting,\nwere prescribed to the demoniac as a means of making the cure radical.\n[1252] But this is evidently in contradiction to the text. For if\nfasting and praying on the part of the patient were necessary for the\nsuccess of the cure, it must have been gradual and not sudden, as all\ncures are which are attributed to Jesus in the gospels, and as this is\nplainly enough implied to be by the words, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, and the child was cured from that very hour, in\nMatthew, and the word \u1f30\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, he cured, placed between \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\nJesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. delivered him\nagain to his father, in Luke. It is true Paulus turns the above\nexpression of Matthew to his advantage, for he understands it to mean\nthat from that time forward the boy, by the application of the\nprescribed discipline, gradually recovered. But we need only observe\nthe same form of expression where it elsewhere occurs as the final\nsentence in narratives of cures, to be convinced of the impossibility\nof such an interpretation. When, for example, the story of the woman\nwho had an issue of blood closes with the remark (Matt. ix. 22) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, this will hardly be translated, et\nexinde mulier paulatim servabatur: it can only mean: servata est (et\nservatam se pr\u00e6buit) ab illo temporis momento. Another point to which\nPaulus appeals as a proof that Jesus here commenced a cure which was to\nbe consummated by degrees, is the expression of Luke, \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, he delivered him again to his father, which, he argues,\nwould have been rather superfluous, if it were not intended to imply a\nrecommendation to special care. But the more immediate signification of\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9 is not to deliver or give up, but to give back; and therefore\nin the above expression the only sense is: puerum, quem sanandum\nacceperat, sanatum reddidit, that is, the boy who had fallen into the\nhands of a strange power\u2014of the demon\u2014was restored to the parents as\ntheir own. Lastly, how arbitrary is it in Paulus to take the expression\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, goeth out (Matt. v. 21), in the closer signification of a\ntotal departure, and to distinguish this from the preliminary departure\nwhich followed on the bare word of Jesus (v. 18)! Thus in this case, as\nin every other, the gospels present to us, not a cure which was\nprotracted through days and weeks, but a cure which was instantaneously\ncompleted by one miracle: hence the fasting and prayer cannot be\nregarded as a prescription for the patient.\n\nWith this whole history must be compared an analogous narrative in 2\nKings iv. 29 ff. Here the prophet Elisha attempts to bring a dead child\nto life, by sending his staff by the hands of his servant Gehazi, who\nis to lay it on the face of the child; but this measure does not\nsucceed, and Elisha is obliged in his own person to come and call the\nboy to life. The same relation that exists in this Old Testament story\nbetween the prophet and his servant, is seen in the New Testament\nnarrative between the Messiah and his disciples: the latter can do\nnothing without their master, but what was too difficult for them, he\neffects with certainty. Now this feature is a clue to the tendency of\nboth narratives, namely, to exalt their master by exhibiting the\ndistance between him and his most intimate disciples; or, if we compare\nthe evangelical narrative before us with that of the demoniacs of\nGadara, we may say: the latter case was made to appear one of extreme\ndifficulty in itself; the former, by the relation in which the power of\nJesus, which is adequate to the occasion, is placed to the power of the\ndisciples, which, however great in other instances, was here\ninsufficient.\n\nOf the other more briefly narrated expulsions of demons, the cure of a\ndumb demoniac and of one who was blind also, has been already\nsufficiently examined in connexion with the accusation of a league with\nBeelzebub: as also the cure of the woman who was bowed down, in our\ngeneral considerations on the demoniacs. The cure of the possessed\ndaughter of the Canaanitish woman (Matt. xv. 22 ff.; Mark vii. 25 ff.)\nhas no further peculiarity than that it was wrought by the word of\nJesus at a distance: a point of which we shall speak later.\n\nAccording to the evangelical narratives, the attempt of Jesus to expel\nthe demon succeeded in every one of these cases. Paulus remarks that\ncures of this kind, although they contributed more than anything else\nto impress the multitude with veneration for Jesus, were yet the\neasiest in themselves, and even De Wette sanctions a psychological\nexplanation of the cures of demoniacs, though of no others. [1253] With\nthese opinions we cannot but agree; for if we regard the real character\nof the demoniacal state as a species of madness accompanied by a\nconvulsive tendency of the nervous system, we know that psychical and\nnervous disorders are most easily wrought upon by psychical\ninfluence;\u2014an influence to which the surpassing dignity of Jesus as a\nprophet, and eventually even as the Messiah himself, presented all the\nrequisite conditions. There is, however, a marked gradation among these\nstates, according as the psychical derangement has more or less fixed\nitself corporeally, and the disturbance of the nervous system has\nbecome more or less habitual, and shared by the rest of the\norganization. We may therefore lay down the following rule: the more\nstrictly the malady was confined to mental derangement, on which the\nword of Jesus might have an immediate moral influence, or in a\ncomparatively slight disturbance of the nervous system, on which he\nwould be able to act powerfully through the medium of the mind, the\nmore possible was it for Jesus by his word \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 (Matt. viii. 16), and\ninstantly \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 (Luke xiii. 13), to put an end to such states: on\nthe other hand, the more the malady had already confirmed itself, as a\nbodily disease, the more difficult is it to believe that Jesus was able\nto relieve it in a purely psychological manner and at the first moment.\nFrom this rule results a second: namely, that to any extensive\npsychological influence on the part of Jesus the full recognition of\nhis dignity as a prophet was requisite; whence it follows that at times\nand in districts where he had long had that reputation, he could effect\nmore in this way than where he had it not.\n\nIf we apply these two measures to the cures in the gospels, we shall\nfind that the first, viz., that of the demoniac in the synagogue at\nCapernaum, is not, so soon as we cease to consider the Evangelist\u2019s\nnarrative of it circumstantially correct, altogether destitute of\nprobability. It is true that the words attributed to the demon seem to\nimply an intuitive knowledge of Jesus; but this may be probably\naccounted for by the supposition that the widely-spread fame of Jesus\nin that country, and his powerful discourse in the synagogue, had\nimpressed the demoniac with the belief, if not that Jesus was the\nMessiah, as the Evangelists say, at least that he must be a prophet: a\nbelief that would give effect to his words. As regards the state of\nthis demoniac we are only told of his fixed idea (that he was\npossessed), and of his attacks of convulsions; his malady may therefore\nhave been of the less rooted kind, and accessible to psychological\ninfluence. The cure of the Gadarenes is attended with more difficulty\nin both points of view. Firstly, Jesus was comparatively little known\non the eastern shore; and secondly, the state of these demoniacs is\ndescribed as so violent and deep-seated a mania, that a word from Jesus\ncould hardly suffice to put an end to it. Here therefore the natural\nexplanation of Paulus will not suffice, and if we are to regard the\nnarrative as having any foundation in fact, we must suppose that the\ndescription of the demoniac\u2019s state, as well as other particulars, has\nbeen exaggerated by the legend. The same judgment must be passed in\nrelation to the cure of the boy who was lunatic, since an epilepsy\nwhich had existed from infancy (Mark v. 21) and the attacks of which\nwere so violent and regular, must be too deeply rooted in the system\nfor the possibility of so rapid and purely psychological a cure to be\ncredible. That even dumbness and a contraction of many years\u2019 duration,\nwhich we cannot with Paulus explain as a mere insane imagination that\nspeech or an erect carriage was not permitted, [1254]\u2014that these\nafflictions should disappear at a word, no one who is not committed to\ndogmatical opinions can persuade himself. Lastly, least of all is it to\nbe conceived, that even without the imposing influence of his presence,\nthe miracle-worker could effect a cure at a distance, as Jesus is said\nto have done on the daughter of the Canaanitish woman.\n\nThus in the nature of things there is nothing to prevent the admission,\nthat Jesus cured many persons who suffered from supposed demoniacal\ninsanity or nervous disorder, in a psychical manner, by the ascendancy\nof his manner and words (if indeed Venturini [1255] and Kaiser [1256]\nare not right in their conjecture, that patients of this class often\nbelieved themselves to be cured, when in fact the crisis only of their\ndisorder had been broken by the influence of Jesus; and that the\nEvangelists state them to have been cured because they learned nothing\nfurther of them, and thus knew nothing of their probable relapse). But\nwhile granting the possibility of many cures, it is evident that in\nthis field the legend has not been idle, but has confounded the easier\ncases, which alone could be cured psychologically, with the most\ndifficult and complicated, to which such a treatment was totally\ninapplicable. [1257] Is the refusal of a sign on the part of Jesus\nreconcilable with such a manifestation of power as we have above\ndefined,\u2014or must even such cures as can be explained psychologically,\nbut which in his age must have seemed miracles, be denied in order to\nmake that refusal comprehensible? We will not here put this alternative\notherwise than as a question.\n\nIf in conclusion we cast a glance on the gospel of John, we find that\nit does not even mention demoniacs and their cure by Jesus. This\nomission has not seldom been turned to the advantage of the Apostle\nJohn, the alleged author, as indicating a superior degree of\nenlightenment. [1258] If however this apostle did not believe in the\nreality of possession by devils, he must have had, as the author of the\nfourth gospel, according to the ordinary view of his relation to the\nsynoptical writers, the strongest motives for rectifying their\nstatements, and preventing the dissemination of what he held to be a\nfalse opinion, by setting the cures in question in a true light. But\nhow could the Apostle John arrive at the rejection of the opinion that\nthe above diseases had their foundation in demoniacal possession?\nAccording to Josephus it was at that period a popular Jewish opinion,\nfrom which a Jew of Palestine who, like John, did not visit a foreign\nland until late in life, would hardly be in a condition to liberate\nhimself; it was, according to the nature of things and the synoptical\naccounts, the opinion of Jesus himself, John\u2019s adored master, from whom\nthe favourite disciple certainly would not be inclined to swerve even a\nhair\u2019s breadth. But if John shared with his cotemporaries and with\nJesus himself the notion of real demoniacal possession, and if the cure\nof demoniacs formed the principal part, nay, perhaps the true\nfoundation of the alleged miraculous powers of Jesus: how comes it that\nthe Apostle nevertheless makes no mention of them in his gospel? That\nhe passed over them because the other Evangelists had collected enough\nof such histories, is a supposition that ought by this time to be\nrelinquished, since he repeats more than one history of a miracle which\nthey had already given; and if it be said that he repeated these\nbecause they needed correction,\u2014we have seen, in our examination of the\ncures of demoniacs, that in many a reduction of them to their simple\nhistorical elements would be very much in place. There yet remains the\nsupposition that, the histories of demoniacs being incredible or\noffensive to the cultivated Greeks of Asia Minor, among whom John is\nsaid to have written, he left them out of his gospel for the sake of\naccommodating himself to their ideas. But we must ask, could or should\nan apostle, out of mere accommodation to the refined ears of his\nauditors, withhold so essential a feature of the agency of Jesus?\nCertainly this silence, supposing the authenticity of the three first\ngospels, rather indicates an author who had not been an eye-witness of\nthe ministry of Jesus; or, according to our view, at least one who had\nnot at his command the original tradition of Palestine, but only a\ntradition modified by Hellenistic influence, in which the expulsions of\ndemons, being less accordant with the higher culture of the Greeks,\nwere either totally suppressed or kept so far in the background that\nthey might have escaped the notice of the author of the gospel.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 94.\n\nCURES OF LEPERS.\n\nAmong the sufferers whom Jesus healed, the leprous play a prominent\npart, as might have been anticipated from the tendency of the climate\nof Palestine to produce cutaneous disease. When, according to the\nsynoptical writers, Jesus directs the attention of the Baptist\u2019s\nmessengers to the actual proofs which he had given of his Messiahship\n(Matt. ix. 5), he adduces among these, the cleansing of lepers; when,\non the first mission of the disciples, he empowers them to perform all\nkinds of miracles, the cleansing of lepers is numbered among the first\n(Matt. x. 8), and two cases of such cures are narrated to us in detail.\n\nOne of these cases is common to all the synoptical writers, but is\nplaced by them in two different connexions: namely, by Matthew,\nimmediately after the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount (viii. 1\nff.); by the other Evangelists, at some period, not precisely marked,\nat the beginning of the ministry of Jesus in Galilee (Mark i. 40 ff.;\nLuke v. 12 ff.). According to the narratives, a leper comes towards\nJesus, and falling on his knees, entreats that he may be cleansed; this\nJesus effects by a touch, and then directs the leper to present himself\nto the priest in obedience to the law, that he may be pronounced clean\n(Lev. xiv. 2 ff.). The state of the man is in Matthew and Mark\ndescribed simply by the word \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, a leper; but in Luke more\nstrongly, by the words, \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, full of leprosy. Paulus, indeed,\nregards the being thus replete with leprosy as a symptom that the\npatient was curable (the eruption and peeling of the leprosy on the\nentire skin being indicative of the healing crisis); and accordingly,\nthat commentator represents the incident to himself in the following\nmanner. The leper applied to Jesus in his character of Messiah for an\nopinion on his state, and, the result being favourable, for a\ndeclaration that he was clean (\u03b5\u1f30 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9), which\nmight either spare him an application to the priest, or at all events\ngive him a consolatory hope in making that application. Jesus\nexpressing himself ready to make the desired examination (\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9),\nstretched out his hand, in order to feel the patient, without allowing\ntoo near an approach while he was possibly still capable of\ncommunicating contagion; and after a careful examination, he expressed,\nas its result, the conviction that the patient was no longer in a\ncontagious state (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9), whereupon quickly and easily (\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2)\nthe leprosy actually disappeared. [1259]\n\nHere, in the first place, the supposition that the leper was precisely\nat the crisis of healing is foreign to the text, which in the two first\nEvangelists speaks merely of leprosy, while the \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 of the\nthird can mean nothing else than the Old Testament expression \u200f\u05de\u05b0\u05e6\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\n\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05dc\u05b6\u05d2\u200e (Exod. iv. 6, Num. xii. 10; 2 Kings v. 27), which, according to\nthe connexion in every instance, signifies the worst stage of leprosy.\nThat the word \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in the Hebraic and Hellenistic use of the\nGreek language, might also mean merely to pronounce clean is not to be\ndenied, only it must retain the signification throughout the passage.\nBut that after having narrated that Jesus had said, Be thou clean,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, Matthew should have added \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. in\nthe sense that thus the sick man was actually pronounced clean by\nJesus, is, from the absurd tautology such an interpretation would\nintroduce, so inconceivable, that we must here, and consequently\nthroughout the narrative, understand the word \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 of actual\ncleansing. It is sufficient to remind the reader of the expressions\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, the lepers are cleansed (Matt. xi. 5), and \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, cleanse the lepers (Matt. x. 8), where neither can the\nlatter word signify merely to pronounce clean, nor can it have another\nmeaning than in the narrative before us. But the point in which the\nnatural interpretation the most plainly betrays its weakness, is the\ndisjunction of \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9, I will, from \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, be thou clean. Who can\npersuade himself that these words, united as they are in all the three\nnarratives, were separated by a considerable pause\u2014that \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 was spoken\nduring or more properly before the manipulation, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 after,\nwhen all the Evangelists represent the two words as having been uttered\nby Jesus without separation whilst he touched the leper? Surely, if the\nalleged sense had been the original one, at least one of the\nEvangelists, instead of the words \u1f25\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, Jesus touched him, saying, I will, be thou clean, would\nhave substituted the more accurate expression, \u1f41 \u1f38. \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u00b7 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, Jesus answered, I will; and\nhaving touched him, said: be thou clean. But if \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 was spoken\nin one breath with \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9, so that Jesus announces the cleansing simply\nas a result of his will without any intermediate examination, the\nformer word cannot possibly signify a mere declaration of cleanness, to\nwhich a previous examination would be requisite, and it must signify an\nactual making clean. It follows, therefore, that the word \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 in\nthis connexion is not to be understood of an exploratory manipulation,\nbut, as in all other narratives of the same class, of a curative touch.\n\nIn support of his natural explanation of this incident, Paulus appeals\nto the rule, that invariably the ordinary and regular is to be\npresupposed in a narrative where the contrary is not expressly\nindicated. [1260] But this rule shares the ambiguity which is\ncharacteristic of the entire system of natural interpretation, since it\nleaves undecided what is ordinary and regular in our estimation, and\nwhat was so in the ideas of the author whose writings are to be\nexplained. Certainly, if I have a Gibbon before me, I must in his\nnarratives presuppose only natural causes and occurrences when he does\nnot expressly convey the contrary, because to a writer of his\ncultivation, the supernatural is at the utmost only conceivable as a\nrare exception. But the case is altered when I take up an Herodotus, in\nwhose mode of thought the intervention of higher powers is by no means\nunusual and out of rule; and when I am considering a collection of\nanecdotes which are the product of Jewish soil, and the object of which\nis to represent an individual as a prophet of the highest rank\u2014as a man\nin the most intimate connexion with the Deity, to meet with the\nsupernatural is so completely a thing of course, that the rule of the\nrationalists must here be reversed, and we must say: where, in such\nnarratives, importance is attached to results which, regarded as\nnatural, would have no importance whatever,\u2014there, supernatural causes\nmust be expressly excluded, if we are not to presuppose it the opinion\nof the narrator that such causes were in action. Moreover, in the\nhistory before us, the extraordinary character of the incident is\nsufficiently indicated by the statement, that the leprosy left the\npatient immediately on the word of Jesus. Paulus, it is true,\ncontrives, as we have already observed, to interpret this statement as\nimplying a gradual, natural healing, on the ground that \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, the\nword by which the Evangelists determine the time of the cure,\nsignifies, according to the different connexions in which it may occur,\nin one case immediately, in another merely soon, and unobstructedly.\nGranting this, are we to understand the words \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd,\nwhich follow in close connexion in Mark (v. 43), as signifying that\nsoon and without hindrance Jesus sent the cleansed leper away? Or is\nthe word to be taken in a different sense in two consecutive verses?\n\nWe conclude, then, that in the intention of the evangelical writers the\ninstantaneous disappearance of the leprosy in consequence of the word\nand touch of Jesus, is the fact on which their narratives turn. Now to\nrepresent the possibility of this to one\u2019s self is quite another task\nthan to imagine the instantaneous release of a man under the grasp of a\nfixed idea, or a permanently invigorating impression on a nervous\npatient. Leprosy, from the thorough derangement of the animal fluids of\nwhich it is the symptom, is the most obstinate and malignant of\ncutaneous diseases; and that a skin corroded by this malady should by a\nword and touch instantly become pure and healthy, is, from its\ninvolving the immediate effectuation of what would require a long\ncourse of treatment, so inconceivable, [1261] that every one who is\nfree from certain prejudices (as the critic ought always to be) must\ninvoluntarily be reminded by it of the realm of fable. And in the\nfabulous region of Oriental and more particularly of Jewish legend, the\nsudden appearance and disappearance of leprosy presents itself the\nfirst thing. When Jehovah endowed Moses, as a preparation for his\nmission into Egypt, with the power of working all kinds of signs,\namongst other tokens of this gift he commanded him to put his hand into\nhis bosom, and when he drew it out again, it was covered with leprosy;\nagain he was commanded to put it into his bosom, and on drawing it out\na second time it was once more clean (Exod. iv. 6, 7). Subsequently, on\naccount of an attempt at rebellion against Moses, his sister Miriam was\nsuddenly stricken with leprosy, but on the intercession of Moses was\nsoon healed (Num. xii. 10 ff.). Above all, among the miracles of the\nprophet Elisha the cure of a leper plays an important part, and to this\nevent Jesus himself refers (Luke iv. 27.). The Syrian general, Naaman,\nwho suffered from leprosy, applied to the Israelitish prophet for his\naid; the latter sent to him the direction to wash seven times in the\nriver Jordan, and on Naaman\u2019s observance of this prescription the\nleprosy actually disappeared but was subsequently transferred by the\nprophet to his deceitful servant Gehazi (2 Kings v.). I know not what\nwe ought to need beyond these Old Testament narratives to account for\nthe origin of the evangelical anecdotes. What the first Go\u00ebl was\nempowered to do in the fulfilment of Jehovah\u2019s commission, the second\nGo\u00ebl must also be able to perform and the greatest of prophets must not\nfall short of the achievements of any one prophet. If then, the cure of\nleprosy was without doubt included in the Jewish idea of the Messiah;\nthe Christians, who believed the Messiah to have really appeared in the\nperson of Jesus, had a yet more decided inducement to glorify his\nhistory by such traits, taken from the Mosaic and prophetic legend;\nwith the single difference that, in accordance with the mild spirit of\nthe New Covenant (Luke ix. 55 f.) they dropped the punitive side of the\nold miracles.\n\nSomewhat more plausible is the appeal of the rationalists to the\nabsence of an express statement, that a miraculous cure of the leprosy\nis intended in the narrative of the ten lepers, given by Luke alone\n(xvii. 12 ff.). Here neither do the lepers expressly desire to be\ncured, their words being only, Have mercy on us; nor does Jesus utter a\ncommand directly referring to such a result, for he merely enjoins them\nto show themselves to the priests: and the rationalists avail\nthemselves of this indirectness in his reply, as a help to their\nsupposition, that Jesus, after ascertaining the state of the patients,\nencouraged them to subject themselves to the examination of the\npriests, which resulted in their being pronounced clean, and the\nSamaritan returned to thank Jesus for His encouraging advice. [1262]\nBut mere advice does not call forth so ardent a demonstration of\ngratitude as is here described by the words \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, he\nfell down on his face; still less could Jesus desire that because his\nadvice had had a favourable issue, all the ten should have returned,\nand returned to glorify God\u2014for what? that he had enabled Jesus to give\nthem such good advice? No: a more real service is here presupposed; and\nthis the narrative itself implies, both in attributing the return of\nthe Samaritan to his discovery that he was healed (\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f30\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7), and\nin making Jesus indicate the reason why thanks were to be expected from\nall, by the words: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd; Were there not ten\ncleansed? Both these expressions can only by an extremely forced\ninterpretation be made to imply, that because the lepers saw the\ncorrectness of the judgment of Jesus in pronouncing them clean, one of\nthem actually returned to thank him, and the others ought to have\nreturned. But that which is most decisive against the natural\nexplanation is this sentence: And as they went they were cleansed, \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. If the narrator intended, according to\nthe above interpretation, merely to say: the lepers having gone to the\npriest, and showed themselves to him, were pronounced clean: he must at\nleast have said: \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, having made the journey\nthey were cleansed, whereas the deliberate choice of the expression \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (while in the act of going), incontestibly shows that a\nhealing effected during the journey is intended. Thus here also we have\na miraculous cure of leprosy, which is burdened with the same\ndifficulties as the former anecdote; the origin of which is, however,\nas easily explained.\n\nBut in this narrative there is a peculiarity which distinguishes it\nfrom the former. Here there is no simple cure, nay, the cure does not\nproperly form the main object of the narrative: this lies rather in the\ndifferent conduct of the cured, and the question of Jesus, were there\nnot ten cleansed, etc. (v. 17), forms the point of the whole, which\nthus closes altogether morally, and seems to have been narrated for the\nsake of the instruction conveyed. [1263] That the one who appears as a\nmodel of thankfulness happens to be a Samaritan, cannot pass without\nremark, in the narrative of the Evangelist who alone has the parable of\nthe Good Samaritan. As there two Jews, a priest and a Levite, show\nthemselves pitiless, while a Samaritan, on the contrary, proves\nexemplarily compassionate: so here, nine unthankful Jews stand\ncontrasted with one thankful Samaritan. May it not be then (in so far\nas the sudden cure of these lepers cannot be historical) that we have\nhere, as well as there, a parable pronounced by Jesus, in which he\nintended to represent gratitude, as in the other case compassion, in\nthe example of a Samaritan? It would then be with the present narrative\nas some have maintained it to be with the history of the temptation.\nBut in relation to this we have both shown, and given the reason, that\nJesus never made himself immediately figure in a parable, and this he\nmust have done if he had given a narrative of ten lepers once healed by\nhim. If then we are not inclined to relinquish the idea that something\noriginally parabolic is the germ of our present narrative, we must\nrepresent the case to ourselves thus: from the legends of cures\nperformed by Jesus on lepers, on the one hand; and on the other, from\nparables in which Jesus (as in that of the compassionate Samaritan)\npresented individuals of this hated race as models of various virtues,\nthe Christian legend wove this narrative, which is therefore partly an\naccount of a miracle and partly a parable.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 95.\n\nCURES OF THE BLIND.\n\nOne of the first places among the sufferers cured by Jesus is filled\n(also agreeably to the nature of the climate [1264]) by the blind, of\nwhose cure again we read not only in the general descriptions which are\ngiven by the Evangelists (Matt. xv. 30 f.; Luke vii. 21), and by Jesus\nhimself (Matt. xi. 5), of his messianic works, but also in some\ndetailed narratives of particular cases. We have indeed more of these\ncures than of the kind last noticed, doubtless because blindness, as a\nmalady affecting the most delicate and complicated of organs, admitted\na greater diversity of treatment. One of these cures of the blind is\ncommon to all the synoptical writers; the others (with the exception of\nthe blind and dumb demoniac in Matthew, whom we need not here\nreconsider) are respectively peculiar to the first, second, and fourth\nEvangelists.\n\nThe narrative common to all the three synoptical writers is that of a\ncure of blindness wrought by Jesus at Jericho, on his last journey to\nJerusalem (Matt. xx. 29 parall.): but there are important differences\nboth as to the object of the cure, Matthew having two blind men, the\ntwo other Evangelists only one; and also as to its locality, Luke\nmaking it take place on the entrance of Jesus into Jericho, Matthew and\nMark on his departure out of Jericho. Moreover the touching of the\neyes, by which, according to the first evangelist, Jesus effected the\ncure, is not mentioned by the two other narrators. Of these differences\nthe latter may be explained by the observation, that though Mark and\nLuke are silent as to the touching, they do not therefore deny it: the\nfirst, relative to the number cured, presents a heavier difficulty. To\nremove this it has been said by those who give the prior authority to\nMatthew, that one of the two blind men was possibly more remarkable\nthan the other, on which account he alone was retained in the first\ntradition; but Matthew, as an eye-witness, afterwards supplied the\nsecond blind man. On this supposition Luke and Mark do not contradict\nMatthew, for they nowhere deny that another besides their single blind\nman was healed; neither does Matthew contradict them, for where there\nare two, there is also one. [1265] But when the simple narrator speaks\nof one individual in whom something extraordinary has happened, and\neven, like Mark, mentions his name, it is plain that he tacitly\ncontradicts the statement that it happened in two individuals\u2014to\ncontradict it expressly there was no occasion. Let us turn then to the\nother side and, taking the singular number of Mark and Luke as the\noriginal one, conjecture that the informant of Matthew (the latter\nbeing scarcely on this hypothesis an eye-witness) probably mistook the\nblind man\u2019s guide for a second blind man. [1266] Hereby a decided\ncontradiction is admitted, while to account for it an extremely\nimprobable cause is superfluously invented. The third difference\nrelates to the place; Matthew and Mark have \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78, as they\ndeparted from, Luke, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u1f7c, as they came nigh to\nJericho. If there be any whom the words themselves fail to convince\nthat this difference is irreconcilable, let them read the forced\nattempts to render these passages consistent with each other, which\nhave been made by commentators from Grotius down to Paulus.\n\nHence it was a better expedient which the older harmonists [1267]\nadopted, and which has been approved by some modern critics. [1268] In\nconsideration of the last-named difference, they here distinguished two\nevents, and held that Jesus cured a blind man first on his entrance\ninto Jericho (according to Luke), and then again on his departure from\nthat place (according to Matthew and Luke). Of the other divergency,\nrelative to the number, these harmonists believed that they had\ndisencumbered themselves by the supposition that Matthew connected in\none event the two blind men, the one cured on entering and the other on\nleaving Jericho, and gave the latter position to the cure of both. But\nif so much weight is allowed to the statement of Matthew relative to\nthe locality of the cure, as to make it, in conjunction with that of\nMark, a reason for supposing two cures, one at each extremity of the\ntown, I know not why equal credit should not be given to his numerical\nstatement, and Storr appears to me to proceed more consistently when,\nallowing equal weight to both differences, he supposes that Jesus on\nhis entrance into Jericho, cured one blind man (Luke) and subsequently\non his departure two (Matthew). [1269] The claim of Matthew is thus\nfully vindicated, but on the other hand that of Mark is denied. For if\nthe latter be associated with Matthew, as is here the case, for the\nsake of his locality, it is necessary to do violence to his numerical\nstatement, which taken alone would rather require him to be associated\nwith Luke; so that to avoid impeaching either of his statements, which\non this system of interpretation is not admissible, his narrative must\nbe equally detached from that of both the other Evangelists. Thus we\nshould have three distinct cures of the blind at Jericho: 1st, the cure\nof one blind man on the entrance of Jesus, 2nd, that of another on his\ndeparture, and 3rd, the cure of two blind men, also during the\ndeparture; in all, of four blind men. Now to separate the second and\nthird cases is indeed difficult. For it will not be maintained that\nJesus can have gone out by two different gates at the same time, and it\nis nearly as difficult to imagine that having merely set out with the\nintention of leaving Jericho, he returned again into the town, and not\nuntil afterwards took his final departure. But, viewing the case more\ngenerally, it is scarcely an admissible supposition, that three\nincidents so entirely similar thus fell together in a group. The\naccumulation of cures of the blind is enough to surprise us; but the\nbehaviour of the companions of Jesus is incomprehensible; for after\nhaving seen in the first instance, on entering Jericho, that they had\nacted in opposition to the designs of Jesus by rebuking the blind man\nfor his importunity, since Jesus called the man to him, they\nnevertheless repeated this conduct on the second and even on the third\noccasion. Storr, it is true, is not disconcerted by this repetition in\nat least two incidents of this kind, for he maintains that no one knows\nwhether those who had enjoined silence on going out of Jericho were not\naltogether different persons from those who had done the like on\nentering the town: indeed, supposing them to be the same, such a\nrepetition of conduct which Jesus had implicitly disapproved, however\nunbecoming, was not therefore impossible, since even the disciples who\nhad been present at the first miraculous feeding, yet asked, before the\nsecond, whence bread could be had for such a multitude?\u2014but this is\nmerely to argue the reality of one impossibility from that of another,\nas we shall presently see when we enter on the consideration of the two\nmiraculous feedings. Further, not only the conduct of the followers of\nJesus, but also almost every feature of the incident must have been\nrepeated in the most extraordinary manner. In the one case as in the\nother, the blind men cry, Have mercy upon us, (or me,) thou son of\nDavid; then (after silence has been enjoined on them by the spectators)\nJesus commands that they should be brought to him: he next asks what\nthey will that he should do to them; they answer, that we may receive\nour sight; he complies with their wish, and they gratefully follow him.\nThat all this was so exactly repeated thrice, or even twice, is an\nimprobability amounting to an impossibility; and we must suppose,\naccording to the hypothesis adopted by Sieffert in such cases, a\nlegendary assimilation of different facts, or a traditionary variation\nof a single occurrence. If, in order to arrive at a decision, it be\nasked: what could more easily happen, when once the intervention of the\nlegend is presupposed, than that one and the same history should be\ntold first of one, then of several, first of the entrance, then of the\ndeparture? it will not be necessary to discuss the other possibility,\nsince this is so incomparably more probable that there cannot be even a\nmomentary hesitation in embracing it as real. But in thus reducing the\nnumber of the facts, we must not with Sieffert stop short at two, for\nin that case not only do the difficulties with respect to the\nrepetition of the same incident remain, but we fall into a want of\nlogical sequency in admitting one divergency (in the number) as\nunessential, for the sake of removing another (in the locality). If it\nbe further asked, supposing only one incident to be here narrated,\nwhich of the several narratives is the original one? the statements as\nto the locality will not aid us in coming to a decision; for Jesus\nmight just as well meet a blind man on entering as on leaving Jericho.\nThe difference in the number is more likely to furnish us with a basis\nfor a decision, and it will be in favour of Mark and Luke, who have\neach only one blind man; not, it is true, for the reason alleged by\nSchleiermacher, [1270] namely, that Mark, by his mention of the blind\nman\u2019s name, evinces a more accurate acquaintance with the\ncircumstances; for Mark, from his propensity to individualize out of\nhis own imagination, ought least of all to be trusted with respect to\nnames which are given by him alone. Our decision is founded on another\ncircumstance.\n\nIt seems probable that Matthew was led to add a second blind man by his\nrecollection of a previous cure of two blind men narrated by him alone\n(ix. 27 ff.). Here, likewise, when Jesus is in the act of\ndeparture,\u2014from the place, namely, where he had raised the ruler\u2019s\ndaughter,\u2014two blind men follow him (those at Jericho are sitting by the\nway side), and in a similar manner cry for mercy of the Son of David,\nwho here also, as in the other instance, according to Matthew,\nimmediately cures them by touching their eyes. With these similarities\nthere are certainly no slight divergencies; nothing is here said of an\ninjunction to the blind men to be silent, on the part of the companions\nof Jesus; and, while at Jericho Jesus immediately calls the blind men\nto him, in the earlier case, they come in the first instance to him\nwhen he is again in the house; further, while there he asks them, what\nthey will have him to do to them? here he asks, if they believe him\nable to cure them? Lastly, the prohibition to tell what had happened,\nis peculiar to the earlier incident. The two narratives standing in\nthis relation to each other, an assimilation of them might have taken\nplace thus: Matthew transferred the two blind men and the touch of\nJesus from the first anecdote to the second; the form of the appeal\nfrom the blind men, from the second to the first.\n\nThe two histories, as they are given, present but few data for a\nnatural explanation. Nevertheless the rationalistic commentators have\nendeavoured to frame such an explanation. When Jesus in the earlier\noccurrence asked the blind men whether they had confidence in his\npower, he wished, say they, to ascertain whether their trust in him\nwould remain firm during the operation, and whether they would\npunctually observe his further prescriptions; [1271] having then\nentered the house, in order to be free from interruption, he examined,\nfor the first time, their disease, and when he found it curable\n(according to Venturini [1272] it was caused by the fine dust of that\ncountry), he assured the sufferers that the result should be according\nto the measure of their faith. Hereupon Paulus merely says briefly,\nthat Jesus removed the obstruction to their vision; but he also must\nhave imagined to himself something similar to what is described in\ndetail by Venturini, who makes Jesus anoint the eyes of the blind men\nwith a strong water prepared beforehand, and thus cleanse them from the\nirritating dust, so that in a short time their sight returned. But this\nnatural explanation has not the slightest root in the text; for neither\ncan the faith (\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) required from the patient imply anything else\nthan, as in all similar cases, trust in the miraculous power of Jesus,\nnor can the word \u1f25\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, he touched, signify a surgical operation, but\nmerely that touch which appears in so many of the evangelical curative\nmiracles, whether as a sign or a conductor of the healing power of\nJesus; of further prescriptions for the completion of the cure there is\nabsolutely nothing. It is not otherwise with the cure of the blind at\nJericho, where, moreover, the two middle Evangelists do not even\nmention the touching of the eyes.\n\nIf then, according to the meaning of the narrators, the blind\ninstantaneously receive their sight as a consequence of the simple word\nor touch of Jesus, there are the same difficulties to be encountered\nhere as in the former case of the lepers. For a disease of the eyes,\nhowever slight, as it is only engendered gradually by the reiterated\naction of the disturbing cause, is still less likely to disappear on a\nword or a touch; it requires very complicated treatment, partly\nsurgical, partly medical, and this must be pre-eminently the case with\nblindness, supposing it to be of a curable kind. How should we\nrepresent to ourselves the sudden restoration of vision to a blind eye\nby a word or a touch? as purely miraculous and magical? That would be\nto give up thinking on the subject. As magnetic? There is no precedent\nof magnetism having influence over a disease of this nature. Or,\nlastly, as psychical? But blindness is something so independent of the\nmental life, so entirely corporeal, that the idea of its removal at\nall, still less of its sudden removal by means of a mental operation,\nis not to be entertained. We must therefore acknowledge that an\nhistorical conception of these narratives is more than merely difficult\nto us; and we proceed to inquire whether we cannot show it to be\nprobable that legends of this kind should arise unhistorically.\n\nWe have already quoted the passage in which, according to the first and\nthird gospels, Jesus in reply to the messengers of the Baptist who had\nto ask him whether he were the \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (he that should come), appeals\nto his works. Now he here mentions in the very first place the cure of\nthe blind, a significant proof that this particular miracle was\nexpected from the Messiah, his words being taken from Isa. xxxv. 5, a\nprophecy interpreted messianically; and in a rabbinical passage above\ncited, among the wonders which Jehovah is to perform in the messianic\ntimes, this is enumerated, that he oculos c\u00e6corum aperiet, id quod per\nElisam fecit. [1273] Now Elisha did not cure a positive blindness, but\nmerely on one occasion opened the eyes of his servant to a perception\nof the supersensual world, and on another, removed a blindness which\nhad been inflicted on his enemies in consequence of his prayer (2 Kings\nvi. 17\u201320). That these deeds of Elisha were conceived, doubtless with\nreference to the passage of Isaiah, as a real opening of the eyes of\nthe blind, is proved by the above rabbinical passage, and hence cures\nof the blind were expected from the Messiah. [1274] Now if the\nChristian community, proceeding as it did from the bosom of Judaism,\nheld Jesus to be the messianic personage, it must manifest the tendency\nto ascribe to him every messianic predicate, and therefore the one in\nquestion.\n\n\n\nThe narrative of the cure of a blind man at Bethsaida, and that of the\ncure of a man that was deaf and had an impediment in his speech, which\nare both peculiar to Mark (viii. 22 ff., vii. 32 ff.), and which we\nshall therefore consider together, are the especial favourites of all\nrationalistic commentators. If, they exclaim, in the other evangelical\nnarratives of cures, the accessory circumstances by which the facts\nmight be explained were but preserved as they are here, we could prove\nhistorically that Jesus did not heal by his mere word, and profound\ninvestigators might discover the natural means by which his cures were\neffected! [1275] And in fact chiefly on the ground of these narratives,\nin connexion with particular features in other parts of the second\ngospel, Mark has of late been represented, even by theologians who do\nnot greatly favour this method of interpretation, as the patron of the\nnaturalistic system. [1276]\n\nIn the two cures before us, it is at once a good augury for the\nrationalistic commentators that Jesus takes both the patients apart\nfrom the multitude, for no other purpose, as they believe, than that of\nexamining their condition medically, and ascertaining whether it were\nsusceptible of relief. Such an examination is, according to these\ncommentators, intimated by the Evangelist himself, when he describes\nJesus as putting his fingers into the ears of the deaf man, by which\nmeans he discovered that the deafness was curable, arising probably\nfrom the hardening of secretions in the ear, and hereupon, also with\nthe finger, he removed the hindrance to hearing. Not only are the\nwords, he put his fingers into his ears, \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f66\u03c4\u03b1, interpreted as denoting a surgical operation, but the words, he\ntouched his tongue, \u1f25\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, are supposed to imply that Jesus\ncut the ligament of the tongue in the degree necessary to restore the\npliancy which the organ had lost. In like manner, in the case of the\nblind man, the words, when he had put his hands upon him, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, are explained as probably meaning that Jesus by pressing\nthe eyes of the patient removed the crystalline lens which had become\nopaque. A further help to this mode of interpretation is found in the\ncircumstance that both to the tongue of the man who had an impediment\nin his speech, and to the eyes of the blind man, Jesus applied spittle.\nSaliva has in itself, particularly in the opinion of ancient\nphysicians, [1277] a salutary effect on the eyes; as, however, it in no\ncase acts so rapidly as instantaneously to cure blindness and a defect\nin the organs of speech, it is conjectured, with respect to both\ninstances, that Jesus used the saliva to moisten some medicament,\nprobably a caustic powder; that the blind man only heard the spitting\nand saw nothing of the mixture of the medicaments, and that the deaf\nman, in accordance with the spirit of the age, gave little heed to the\nnatural means, or that the legend did not preserve them. In the\nnarrative of the deaf man the cure is simply stated, but that of the\nblind man is yet further distinguished, by its representing the\nrestoration of his sight circumstantially, as gradual. After Jesus had\ntouched the eyes of the patient as above mentioned, he asked him if he\nsaw aught; not at all, observes Paulus, in the manner of a\nmiracle-worker, who is sure of the result, but precisely in the manner\nof a physician, who after performing an operation endeavours to\nascertain if the patient is benefited. The blind man answers that he\nsees, but first indistinctly, so that men seem to him like trees. Here\napparently the rationalistic commentator may triumphantly ask the\northodox one: if divine power for the working of cures stood at the\ncommand of Jesus, why did he not at once cure the blind man perfectly?\nIf the disease presented an obstacle which he was not able to overcome,\nis it not clear from thence that his power was a finite, ordinarily\nhuman power? Jesus once more puts his hands on the eyes of the blind\nman, in order to aid the effect of the first operation, and only then\nis the cure completed. [1278]\n\nThe complacency of the rationalistic commentators in these narratives\nof Mark, is liable to be disturbed by the frigid observation, that,\nhere also, the circumstances which are requisite to render the natural\nexplanation possible are not given by the Evangelists themselves, but\nare interpolated by the said commentators. For in both cures Mark\nfurnishes the saliva only; the efficacious powder is infused by Paulus\nand Venturini: it is they alone who make the introduction of the\nfingers into the ears first a medical examination and then an\noperation; and it is they alone who, contrary to the signification of\nlanguage, explain the words \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2,\nto lay the hands upon the eyes, as implying a surgical operation on\nthose organs. Again, the circumstance that Jesus takes the blind man\naside, is shown by the context (vii. 36, viii. 26) to have reference to\nthe design of Jesus to keep the miraculous result a secret, not to the\ndesire to be undisturbed in the application of natural means: so that\nall the supports of the rationalistic explanation sink beneath it, and\nthe orthodox one may confront it anew. This regards the touch and the\nspittle either as a condescension towards the sufferers, who were\nthereby made more thoroughly sensible to whose power they owed their\ncure; or as a conducting medium for the spiritual power of Christ, a\nmedium with which he might nevertheless have dispensed. [1279] That the\ncure was gradual, is on this system accounted for by the supposition,\nthat Jesus intended by means of the partial cure to animate the faith\nof the blind man, and only when he was thus rendered worthy was he\ncompletely cured; [1280] or it is conjectured that, owing to the malady\nbeing deep-seated, a sudden cure would perhaps have been dangerous.\n[1281]\n\nBut by these attempts to interpret the evangelical narratives,\nespecially in the last particular, the supernaturalistic theologians,\nwho bring them forward, betake themselves to the same ground as the\nrationalists, for they are equally open to the charge of introducing\ninto the narratives what is not in the remotest degree intimated by the\ntext. For where, in the procedure of Jesus towards the blind man, is\nthere a trace that his design in the first instance was to prove and to\nstrengthen the faith of the patient? In that case, instead of the\nexpression, He asked him if he saw aught, which relates only to his\nexternal condition, we must rather have read, as in Matt. ix. 28,\nBelieve ye that I am able to do this? But what shall we say to the\nconjecture that a sudden cure might have been injurious! The curative\nact of a worker of miracles is (according to Olshausen\u2019s own opinion)\nnot to be regarded as the merely negative one of the removal of a\ndisease, but also as the positive one of an impartation of new and\nfresh strength to the organ affected, whence the idea of danger from an\ninstantaneous cure when wrought by miraculous agency, is not to be\nentertained. Thus no motive is to be discovered which could induce\nJesus to put a restraint on the immediate action of his miraculous\npower, and it must therefore have been restricted, independently of his\nvolition, by the force of the deep-seated malady. This, however, is\nentirely opposed to the idea of the gospels, which represent the\nmiraculous power of Jesus as superior to death itself; it cannot\ntherefore have been the meaning of our Evangelists. If we take into\nconsideration the peculiar characteristics of Mark as an author, it\nwill appear that his only aim is to give dramatic effect to the scene.\nEvery sudden result is difficult to bring before the imagination: he\nwho wishes to give to another a vivid idea of a rapid movement, first\ngoes through it slowly, and a quick result is perfectly conceivable\nonly when the narrator has shown the process in detail. Consequently a\nwriter whose object it is to assist as far as may be the imagination of\nhis reader, will wherever it is possible exhibit the propensity to\nrender the immediate mediate, and when recording a sudden result, still\nto bring forward the successive steps that led to it. [1282] So here\nMark, or his informant, supposed that he was contributing greatly to\nthe dramatic effect, when he inserted between the blindness of the man\nand the entire restoration of his sight, the partial cure, or the\nseeing men as trees, and every reader will say, from his own feeling,\nthat this object is fully achieved. But herein, as others also have\nremarked, [1283] Mark is so far from manifesting an inclination to the\nnatural conception of such miracles, that he, on the contrary, not\nseldom labours to aggrandize the miracle, as we have partly seen in the\ncase of the Gadarene, and shall yet have frequent reason to remark. In\na similar manner may also be explained why Mark in these narratives\nwhich are peculiar to him (and elsewhere also, as in vi. 13, where he\nobserves that the disciples anointed the sick with oil), mentions the\napplication of external means and manifestations in miraculous cures.\nThat these means, the saliva particularly, were not in the popular\nopinion of that age naturally efficacious causes of the cure, we may be\nconvinced by the narrative concerning Vespasian quoted above, as also\nby passages of Jewish and Roman authors, according to which saliva was\nbelieved to have a magical potency, especially against diseases of the\neye. [1284] Hence Olshausen perfectly reproduces the conception of that\nage when he explains the touch, saliva, and the like, to be conductors\nof the superior power resident in the worker of miracles. We cannot\nindeed make this opinion ours, unless with Olshausen we proceed upon\nthe supposition of a parallelism between the miraculous power of Jesus\nand the agency of animal magnetism: a supposition which, for the\nexplanation of the miracles of Jesus, especially of the one before us,\nis inadequate and therefore superfluous. Hence we put this means merely\nto the account of the Evangelist. To him also we may then doubtless\nrefer the taking aside of the blind man, the exaggerated description of\nthe astonishment of the people, (\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, vii.\n37,) and the strict prohibition to tell any man of the cure. This\nsecrecy gave the affair a mysterious aspect, which, as we may gather\nfrom other passages, was pleasing to Mark. We have another trait\nbelonging to the mysterious in the narratives of the cure of the deaf\nman, where Mark says, And looking up to heaven he sighed (vii. 34).\nWhat cause was there for sighing at that particular moment? Was it the\nmisery of the human race, [1285] which must have been long known to\nJesus from many melancholy examples? Or shall we evade the difficulty\nby explaining the expression as implying nothing further than silent\nprayer or audible speech? [1286] Whoever knows Mark will rather\nrecognise the exaggerating narrator in the circumstance that he\nascribes to Jesus a deep emotion, on an occasion which could not indeed\nhave excited it, but which, being accompanied by it, had a more\nmysterious appearance. But above all, there appears to me to be an air\nof mystery in this, that Mark gives the authoritative word with which\nJesus opened the ears of the deaf man in its original Syriac form,\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03c6\u03b1\u03b8\u1f70, as on the resuscitation of the daughter of Jairus, this\nEvangelist alone has the words \u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u1f70 \u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b9 (v. 41). It is indeed said\nthat these expressions are anything rather than magical forms; [1287]\nbut that Mark chooses to give these authoritative words in a language\nforeign to his readers, to whom he is obliged at the same time to\nexplain them, nevertheless proves that he must have attributed to this\noriginal form a special significance, which, as it appears from the\ncontext, can only have been a magical one. This inclination to the\nmysterious we may now retrospectively find indicated in the application\nof those outward means which have no relation to the result; for the\nmysterious consists precisely in the presentation of infinite power\nthrough a finite medium, in the combination of the strongest effect\nwith apparently inefficacious means.\n\nIf we have been unable to receive as historical the simple narrative\ngiven by all the synoptical writers of the cure of the blind man at\nJericho, we are still less prepared to award this character to the\nmysterious description, given by Mark alone, of the cure of a blind man\nat Bethsaida, and we must regard it as a product of the legend, with\nmore or less addition from the evangelical narrator. The same judgment\nmust be pronounced on his narrative of the cure of the deaf man who had\nan impediment in his speech \u03ba\u03c9\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2; for, together with the\nnegative reasons already adduced against its historical credibility,\nthere are not wanting positive causes for its mythical origin, since\nthe prophecy relating to the messianic times, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f66\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c9\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u2014\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, the ears of the deaf shall\nbe unstopped, the tongue of the dumb shall sing (Isa. xxxv. 5, 6), was\nin existence, and according to Matt. xi. 5, was interpreted literally.\n\nIf the narratives of Mark which we have just considered, seem at the\nfirst glance to be favourable to the natural explanation, the narrative\nof John, chap. ix., must, one would think, be unfavourable and\ndestructive to it; for here the question is not concerning a blind man,\nwhose malady having originated accidentally, might be easier to remove,\nbut concerning a man born blind. Nevertheless, as the expositors of\nthis class are sharp-sighted, and do not soon lose courage, they are\nable even here to discover much in their favour. In the first place,\nthey find that the condition of the patient is but vaguely described,\nhowever definite the expression, blind from his birth, \u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 may seem to sound. The statement of time which this expression\nincludes, Paulus, it is true, refrains from overthrowing (though his\nforbearance is unwilling and in fact incomplete): hence he has the more\nurgent necessity for attempting to shake the statement as to quality.\n\u03a4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 is not to signify total blindness, and as Jesus tells the man to\ngo to the pool of Siloam, not to get himself led thither, he must have\nstill had some glimmering of eye-sight, by means of which he could\nhimself find the way thither. Still more help do the rationalistic\ncommentators find for themselves in the mode of cure adopted by Jesus.\nHe says beforehand (v. 4) he must work the works of him that sent him\nwhile it is day, \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd, for in the night no man can work; a\nsufficient proof that he had not the idea of curing the blind man by a\nmere word, which he might just as well have uttered in the night\u2014that,\non the contrary, he intended to undertake a medical or surgical\noperation, for which certainly daylight was required. Further, the\nclay, \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2, which Jesus made with his spittle, and with which he\nanointed the eyes of the blind man, is still more favourable to the\nnatural explanation than the expression \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 having spit, in a former\ncase, and hence it is a fertile source of questions and conjectures.\nWhence did John know that Jesus took nothing more than spittle and dust\nto make his eye-salve? Was he himself present, or did he understand it\nmerely from the narrative of the cured blind man? The latter could not:\nwith his then weak glimmering of sight, correctly see what Jesus took:\nperhaps Jesus while he mixed a salve out of other ingredients\naccidentally spat upon the ground, and the patient fell into the error\nof supposing that the spittle made part of the salve. Still more: while\nor before Jesus put something on the eyes, did he not also remove\nsomething by extraction or friction, or otherwise effect a change in\nthe state of these organs? This would be an essential fact which might\neasily be mistaken by the blind man and the spectators for a merely\naccessory circumstance. Lastly, the washing in the pool of Siloam which\nwas prescribed to the patient was perhaps continued many days\u2014was a\nprotracted cure by means of the bath\u2014and the words \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd he came\nseeing, do not necessarily imply that he came thus after his first\nbath, but that at a convenient time after the completion of his cure,\nhe came again seeing. [1288]\n\nBut, to begin at the beginning, the meaning here given to \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 and \u03bd\u1f7a\u03be\nis too shallow even for Venturini, [1289] and especially clashes with\nthe context (v. 5), which throughout demands an interpretation of the\nwords with reference to the speedy departure of Jesus. [1290] As to the\nconjecture that the clay was made of medicinal ingredients of some kind\nor other, it is the more groundless, since it cannot be said here, as\nin the former case, that only so much is stated as the patient could\nlearn by his hearing or by a slight glimmering of light, for, on this\noccasion, Jesus undertook the cure, not in private, but in the presence\nof his disciples. Concerning the further supposition of previous\nsurgical operations, by which the anointing and washing, alone\nmentioned in the text, are reduced to mere accessories, nothing more is\nto be said, than that by this example we may see how completely the\nspirit of natural explanation despises all restraints, not scrupling to\npervert the clearest words of the text in support of its arbitrary\ncombinations. Further, when, from the circumstance that Jesus ordered\nthe blind man to go to the pool of Siloam, it is inferred that he must\nhave had a share of light, we may remark, in opposition to this, that\nJesus merely told the patient whither he should go (\u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd); how he was\nto go, whether alone or with a guide, he left to his own discretion.\nLastly, when the closely connected words he went his way, therefore,\nand washed and came seeing, \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd (v.\n7; comp. v. 11) are stretched out into a process of cure lasting\nseveral weeks, it is just as if the words veni, vidi, vici, were\ntranslated thus: After my arrival I reconnoitred for several days,\nfought battles at suitable intervals, and finally remained conqueror.\n\nThus here also the natural explanation will not serve us, and we have\nstill before us the narrative of a man born blind, miraculously cured\nby Jesus. That the doubts already expressed as to the reality of the\ncures of the blind, apply with increased force to the case of a man\nborn blind, is self-evident. And they are aided in this instance by\ncertain special critical reasons. Not one of three first Evangelists\nmentions this cure. Now, if in the formation of the apostolic\ntradition, and in the selection which it made from among the miracles\nof Jesus, any kind of reason was exercised, it must have taken the\nshape of the two following rules: first, to choose the greater miracles\nbefore those apparently less important; and secondly, those with which\nedifying discourses were connected, before those which were not thus\ndistinguished. In the first respect, it is plain that the cure of a man\nblind from his birth, as the incomparably more difficult miracle, was\nby all means to be chosen rather than that of a man in whom blindness\nhad supervened, and it is not to be conceived why, if Jesus really gave\nsight to a man born blind, nothing of this should have entered into the\nevangelical tradition, and from thence into the synoptical gospels. It\nis true that with this consideration of the magnitude of the miracles,\na regard to the edifying nature of the discourses connected with them\nmight not seldom come into collision, so that a less striking, but from\nthe conversations which it caused, a more instructive miracle, might be\npreferred to one more striking, but presenting less of the latter kind\nof interest. But the cure of the blind man in John is accompanied by\nvery remarkable conversations, first, of Jesus with the disciples,\nthen, of the cured man with the magistrates, and lastly of Jesus with\nthe cured man, such as there is no trace of in the synoptical cures of\nthe blind; conversations in which, if not the entire course of the\ndialogue, at least some aphoristic pearls (as v. 4, 5, 39), were\nadmirably suited to the purpose of three first Evangelists. These\nwriters, therefore, could not have failed to introduce the cure of the\nman born blind into their histories, instead of their less remarkable\nand less edifying cures of the blind, if the former had made a part of\nthe evangelical tradition whence they drew. It might possibly have\nremained unknown to the general Christian tradition, if it had taken\nplace at a time and under circumstances which did not favour its\npromulgation\u2014if it had been effected in a remote corner of the country,\nwithout further witnesses. But Jesus performed this miracle in\nJerusalem, in the circle of his disciples; it made a great sensation in\nthe city, and was highly offensive to the magistracy, hence the affair\nmust have been known if it had really occurred; and as we do not find\nit in the common evangelical tradition, the suspicion arises that it\nperhaps never did occur.\n\nBut it will be said, the writer who attests it is the Apostle John.\nThis, however, is too improbable, not only on account of the incredible\nnature of the contents of the narrative, which could thus hardly have\nproceeded from an eyewitness, but also from another reason. The\nnarrator interprets the name of the pool, Siloam, by the Greek\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (v. 7); a false explanation, for one who is sent is called\n\u200f\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u200e, whereas \u200f\u05e9\u05b4\u05bc\u05c1\u05dc\u05d7\u05b7\u200e according to the most probable interpretation\nsignifies a waterfall. [1291] The Evangelist, however, chose the above\ninterpretation, because he sought for some significant relation between\nthe name of the pool, and the sending thither of the blind man, and\nthus seems to have imagined that the pool had by a special providence\nreceived the name of Sent, because at a future time the Messiah, as a\nmanifestation of his glory, was to send thither a blind man. [1292]\nNow, we grant that an apostle might give a grammatically incorrect\nexplanation, in so far as he is not held to be inspired, and that even\na native of Palestine might mistake the etymology of Hebrew words, as\nthe Old Testament itself shows; nevertheless, such a play upon words\nlooks more like the laboured attempt of a writer remote from the event,\nthan of an eye-witness. The eye-witness would have had enough of\nimportant matters in the miracle which he had beheld, and the\nconversation to which he had listened; only a remote narrator could\nfall into the triviality of trying to extort a significant meaning from\nthe smallest accessory circumstance. Tholuck and L\u00fccke are highly\nrevolted by this allegory, which, as the latter expresses himself,\napproaches to absolute folly, hence they are unwilling to admit that it\nproceeded from John, and regard it as a gloss. As, however, all\ncritical authorities, except one of minor importance, present this\nparticular, such a position is sheer arbitrariness, and the only choice\nleft us is either with Olshausen, to edify ourselves by this\ninterpretation as an apostolic one, [1293] or, with the author of the\nProbabilia, to number it among the indications that the fourth gospel\nhad not an apostolic origin. [1294]\n\nThe reasons which might prevent the author of the fourth gospel, or the\ntradition whence he drew, from resting contented with the cures of the\nblind narrated by the synoptical writers, and thus induce the one or\nthe other to frame the history before us, are already pointed out by\nthe foregoing remarks. The observation has been already made by others,\nthat the fourth Evangelist has fewer miracles than the synoptical\nwriters, but that this deficiency in number is compensated by a\nsuperiority in magnitude. [1295] Thus while the other Evangelists have\nsimple paralytics cured by Jesus, the fourth gospel has one who had\nbeen lame thirty-eight years; while, in the former, Jesus resuscitates\npersons who had just expired, in the latter, he calls back to life one\nwho had lain in the grave four days, in whom therefore it might be\npresumed that decomposition had begun; and so here, instead of a cure\nof simple blindness, we have that of a man born blind,\u2014a heightening of\nthe miracle altogether suited to the apologetic and dogmatic tendency\nof this gospel. In what way the author, or the particular tradition\nwhich he followed, might be led to depict the various details of the\nnarrative, is easily seen. The act of spitting, \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, was common in\nmagical cures of the eyes; clay, \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2, was a ready substitute for an\neye-salve, and elsewhere occurs in magical proceedings; [1296] the\ncommand to wash in the pool of Siloam may have been an imitation of\nElisha\u2019s order, that the leper Naaman should bathe seven times in the\nriver Jordan. The conversations connected with the cure partly proceed\nfrom the tendency of the Gospel of John already remarked by Storr,\nnamely, to attest and to render as authentic as possible both the cure\nof the man, and the fact of his having been born blind, whence the\nrepeated examination of the cured man, and even of his parents; partly\nthey turn upon the symbolical meaning of the expressions, blind and\nseeing, day and night,\u2014a meaning which it is true is not foreign to the\nsynoptical writers, but which specifically belongs to the circle of\nimages in favour with John.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 96.\n\nCURES OF PARALYTICS. DID JESUS REGARD DISEASES AS PUNISHMENTS?\n\nAn important feature in the history of the cure of the man born blind\nhas been passed over, because it can only be properly estimated in\nconnexion with a corresponding one in the synoptical narratives of the\ncure of a paralytic (Matt. ix. 1 ff.; Mark ii. 1 ff.; Luke v. 17 ff.),\nwhich we have in the next place to consider. Here Jesus first declares\nto the sick man: \u1f00\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03af \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, thy sins are forgiven\nthee, and then as a proof that he had authority to forgive sins, he\ncures him. It is impossible not to perceive in this a reference to the\nJewish opinion, that any evil befalling an individual, and especially\ndisease, was a punishment of his sins; an opinion which, presented in\nits main elements in the Old Testament (Lev. xxvi. 14 ff.; Deut.\nxxviii. 15 ff.; 2 Chron. xxi. 15, 18 f.) was expressed in the most\ndefinite manner by the later Jews. [1297] Had we possessed that\nsynoptical narrative only, we must have believed that Jesus shared the\nopinion of his cotemporary fellow-countrymen on this subject, since he\nproves his authority to forgive sins (as the cause of disease) by an\nexample of his power to cure disease (the consequence of sin). But, it\nis said, there are other passages where Jesus directly contradicts this\nJewish opinion; whence it follows, that what he then says to the\nparalytic was a mere accommodation to the ideas of the sick man,\nintended to promote his cure. [1298]\n\nThe principal passage commonly adduced in support of this position, is\nthe introduction to the history of the man born blind, which was last\nconsidered (John ix. 1\u20133). Here the disciples, seeing on the road the\nman whom they knew to have been blind from his birth, put to Jesus the\nquestion, whether his blindness was the consequence of his own sins, or\nof those of his parents? The case was a peculiarly difficult one on the\nJewish theory of retribution. With respect to diseases which attach\nthemselves to a man in his course through life, an observer who has\nonce taken a certain bias, may easily discover or assume some peculiar\ndelinquencies on the part of this man as their cause. With respect to\ninborn diseases, on the contrary, though the old Hebraic opinion (Exod.\nxx. 5; Deut. v. 9; 2 Sam. iii. 29), it is true, presented the\nexplanation that by these the sins of the fathers were visited on their\nposterity: yet as, for human regulations, the Mosaic law itself\nordained that each should suffer for his own sins alone (Deut. xxiv.\n16; 2 Kings xiv. 6); and as also, in relation to the penal justice of\nthe Divine Being, the prophets predicted a similar dispensation (Jer.\nxxxi. 30; Ezek. xviii. 19 f.); rabbinical acumen resorted to the\nexpedient of supposing, that men so afflicted might probably have\nsinned in their mother\u2019s womb, [1299] and this was doubtless the notion\nwhich the disciples had in view in their question, v. 2. Jesus says, in\nanswer, that neither for his own sin nor for that of his parents, did\nthis man come into the world blind; but in order that by the cure which\nhe, as the Messiah, would effect in him, he might be an instrument in\nmanifesting the miraculous power of God. This is generally understood\nas if Jesus repudiated the whole opinion, that disease and other evils\nwere essentially punishments of sin. But the words of Jesus are\nexpressly limited to the case before him; he simply says, that this\nparticular misfortune had its foundation, not in the guilt of the\nindividual, but in higher providential designs. The supposition that\nhis expressions had a more general sense, and included a repudiation of\nthe entire Jewish opinion, could only be warranted by other more\ndecided declarations from him to that effect. As, on the contrary,\naccording to the above observations, a narrative is found in the\nsynoptical gospels which, simply interpreted, implies the concurrence\nof Jesus in the prevalent opinion, the question arises: which is\neasier, to regard the expression of Jesus in the synoptical narratives\nas an accommodation, or that in John as having relation solely to the\ncase immediately before him?\u2014a question which will be decided in favour\nof the latter alternative by every one who, on the one hand, knows the\ndifficulties attending the hypothesis of accommodation as applied to\nthe expressions of Jesus in the gospels, and on the other, is\nclear-sighted enough to perceive, that in the passage in question in\nthe fourth gospel, there is not the slightest intimation that the\ndeclaration of Jesus had a more general meaning.\n\nIt is true that according to correct principles of interpretation, one\nEvangelist ought not to be explained immediately by another, and in the\npresent case it is very possible that while the synoptical writers\nascribe to Jesus the common opinion of his age, the more highly\ncultivated author of the fourth gospel may make him reject it: but that\nhe also confined the rejection of the current opinion on the part of\nJesus to that single case, is proved by the manner in which he\nrepresents Jesus as speaking on another occasion. When, namely, Jesus\nsays to the man who had been lame thirty-eight years (John v.) and had\njust been cured, \u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f01\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (v. 14),\nSin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee; this is equivalent to\nhis saying to the paralytic whom he was about to cure, \u1f00\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f31\n\u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, thy sins are forgiven thee: in the one case disease is\nremoved, in the other threatened, as a punishment of sin. But here\nagain the expositors, to whom it is not agreeable that Jesus should\nhold an opinion which they reject, find a means of evading the direct\nsense of the words. Jesus, say they, perceived that the particular\ndisease of this man was a natural consequence of certain excesses, and\nwarned him from a repetition of these as calculated to bring on a more\ndangerous relapse. [1300] But an insight into the natural connexion\nbetween certain excesses and certain diseases as their consequence, is\nfar more removed from the mode of thinking of the age in which Jesus\nlived, than the notion of a positive connexion between sin in general\nand disease as its punishment; hence, if we are nevertheless to ascribe\nthe former sense to the words of Jesus, it must be very distinctly\nconveyed in the text. But the fact is that in the whole narrative there\nis no intimation of any particular excess on the part of the man; the\nwords \u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f01\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 relate only to sin in general, and to supply a\nconversation of Jesus with the sick man, in which he is supposed to\nhave acquainted the former with the connexion between his sufferings\nand a particular sin, [1301] is the most arbitrary fiction. What\nexposition! for the sake of evading a result which is dogmatically\nunwelcome, to extend the one passage (John ix.) to a generality of\nmeaning not really belonging to it, to elude the other (Matt. ix.) by\nthe hypothesis of accommodation, and forcibly to affix to a third (John\nv.) a modern idea; whereas if the first passage be only permitted to\nsay no more than it actually says, the direct meaning of the other two\nmay remain unviolated!\n\nBut another passage, and that a synoptical one, is adduced in\nvindication of the superiority of Jesus to the popular opinion in\nquestion. This passage is Luke xiii. 1 ff., where Jesus is told of the\nGalileans whom Pilate had caused to be slain while they were in the act\nof sacrificing, and of others who were killed by the falling of a\ntower. From what follows, we must suppose the informants to have\nintimated their opinion that these calamities were to be regarded as a\ndivine visitation for the peculiar wickedness of the parties so\nsignally destroyed. Jesus replied that they must not suppose those men\nto have been especially sinful; they themselves were in no degree\nbetter, and unless they repented would meet with a similar destruction.\nTruly it is not clear how in these expressions of Jesus a repudiation\nof the popular notion can be found. If Jesus wished to give his voice\nin opposition to this, he must either have said: you are equally great\nsinners, though you may not perish bodily in the same manner; or: do\nyou believe that those men perished on account of their sins? No! the\ncontrary may be seen in you, who, notwithstanding your wickedness, are\nnot thus smitten with death. On the contrary, the expressions of Jesus\nas given by Luke can only have the following sense: that those men have\nalready met with such calamities is no evidence of their peculiar\nwickedness, any more than the fact that you have been hitherto spared\nthe like, is an evidence of your greater worth, on the contrary,\nearlier or later, similar judgments falling on you will attest your\nequal guilt:\u2014whereby the supposed law of the connexion between the sin\nand misfortune of every individual is confirmed, not overthrown. This\nvulgar Hebrew opinion concerning sickness and evil, is indeed in\ncontradiction with that esoteric view, partly Essene, partly Ebionite,\nwhich we have found in the introduction to the Sermon on the Mount, the\nparable of the rich man, and elsewhere, and according to which the\nrighteous in this generation are the suffering, the poor and the sick;\nbut both opinions are clearly to be seen in the discourses of Jesus by\nan unprejudiced exegesis, and the contradiction, which we find between\nthem authorizes us neither to put a forced construction on the one\nclass of expressions, nor to deny them to have really come from Jesus,\nsince we cannot calculate how he may have solved for himself the\nopposition between two ideas of the world, presented to him by\ndifferent sides of the Jewish culture of that age.\n\nAs regards the above-mentioned cure, the synoptical writers make Jesus\nin his reply to the messengers of the Baptist, appeal to the fact that\nthe lame walked (Matt. xi. 5), and at another time the people wonder\nwhen, among other miracles, they see the maimed to be whole and the\nlame to walk (Matt. xv. 31). In the place of the lame, \u03c7\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76,\nparalytics, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 are elsewhere brought forward (Matt. iv. 24),\nand especially in the detailed histories of cures relating to this kind\nof sufferers (as Matt. ix. 1 ff. parall., viii. 5, parall.),\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76, and not \u03c7\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76, are named. The sick man at the pool of\nBethesda (John v. 5) belongs probably to the \u03c7\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 spoken of in v. 3;\nthere also \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76, withered, are mentioned, and in Matt. xii. 9 ff.\nparall. we find the cure of a man who had a withered hand. As however\nthe three last named cures will return to us under different heads, all\nthat remains here for our examination is the cure of the paralytic\nMatt. ix. 1 ff. parall.\n\nAs the definitions which the ancient physicians give of paralysis,\nthough they all show it to have been a species of lameness, yet leave\nit undecided whether the lameness was total or partial; [1302] and as,\nbesides, no strict adherence to medical technicalities is to be\nexpected from the Evangelists, we must gather what they understand by\nparalytics from their own descriptions of such patients. In the present\npassage, we read of the paralytic that he was borne on a bed \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b7, and\nthat to enable him to arise and carry his bed was an unprecedented\nwonder \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03bd, whence we must conclude that he was lame, at least in\nthe feet. While here there is no mention of pains, or of an acute\ncharacter of disease, in another narrative (Matt. viii. 6) these are\nevidently presupposed when the centurion says that his servant is sick\nof the palsy, grievously tormented, \u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u2014\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; so that under paralytics in the gospels we have at one\ntime to understand a lameness without pain, at another a painful, gouty\ndisease of the limbs. [1303]\n\nIn the description of the scene in which the paralytic (Matt. ix. 1 ff.\nparall.) is brought to Jesus, there is a remarkable gradation in the\nthree accounts. Matthew says simply, that as Jesus, after an excursion\nto the opposite shore, returned to Capernaum, there was brought to him\na paralytic, stretched on a bed. Luke describes particularly how Jesus,\nsurrounded by a great multitude, chiefly Pharisees and scribes, taught\nand healed in a certain house, and how the bearers, because on account\nof the press they could not reach Jesus, let the sick man down to him\nthrough the roof. If we call to mind the structure of oriental houses,\nwhich had a flat roof, to which an opening led from the upper story;\n[1304] and if we add to this the rabbinical manner of speaking, in\nwhich to the via per portum (\u200f\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05e4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) was opposed the via per\ntectum (\u200f\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05e0\u05d2\u05d9\u05da\u200e) as a no less ordinary way for reaching the \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff3\u03bf\u03bd\nupper story or chamber, [1305] we cannot under the expression \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, to let down through the tiling, understand anything\nelse than that the bearers\u2014who, either by means of stairs leading\nthither directly from the street, or from the roof of a neighbouring\nhouse, gained access to the roof of the house in which Jesus was,\u2014let\ndown the sick man with his bed, apparently by cords, through the\nopening already existing in the roof. Mark, who, while with Matthew he\nplaces the scene at Capernaum, agrees with Luke in the description of\nthe great crowd and the consequent ascent to the roof, goes yet further\nthan Luke, not only in determining the number of the bearers to be\nfour, but also in making them, regardless of the opening already\nexisting, uncover the roof and let down the sick man through an\naperture newly broken.\n\nIf we ask here also in which direction, upwards or downwards, the\nclimax may most probably have been formed, the narrative of Mark, which\nstands at the summit, has so many difficulties that it can scarcely be\nregarded as nearest the truth. For not only have opponents asked, how\ncould the roof be broken open without injury to those beneath? [1306]\nbut Olshausen himself admits that the disturbance of the roof, covered\nwith tiles, partakes of the extravagant. [1307] To avoid this, many\nexpositors suppose that Jesus taught either in the inner court, [1308]\nor in the open air in front of the house, [1309] and that the bearers\nonly broke down a part of the parapet in order to let down the sick man\nmore conveniently. But both the phrase, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, in Luke, and\nthe expressions of Mark, render this conception of the thing\nimpossible, since here neither can \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u1fc3 mean parapet, nor \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\nthe breaking of the parapet, while \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9 can only mean the breaking\nof a hole. Thus the disturbance of the roof subsists, but this is\nfurther rendered improbable on the ground that it was altogether\nsuperfluous, inasmuch as there was a door in every roof. Hence help has\nbeen sought in the supposition that the bearers indeed used the door\npreviously there, but because this was too narrow for the bed of the\npatient, they widened it by the removal of the surrounding tiles.\n[1310] Still, however, there remains the danger to those below, and the\nwords imply an opening actually made, not merely widened.\n\nBut dangerous and superfluous as such a proceeding would be in reality,\nit is easy to explain how Mark, wishing further to elaborate the\nnarrative of Luke, might be led to add such a feature. Luke had said\nthat the sick man was let down, so that he descended in the midst\nbefore Jesus, \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6. How could the people precisely hit\nupon this place, unless Jesus accidentally stood under the door of the\nroof, except by breaking open the roof above the spot where they knew\nhim to be (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u03b7\u03bd \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f26\u03bd)? [1311] This trait Mark the\nmore gladly seized because it was adapted to place in the strongest\nlight the zeal which confidence in Jesus infused into the people, and\nwhich was to be daunted by no labour. This last interest seems to be\nthe key also to Luke\u2019s departure from Matthew. In Matthew, who makes\nthe bearers bring the paralytic to Jesus in the ordinary way, doubtless\nregarding the laborious conveyance of the sick man on his bed as itself\na proof of their faith, it is yet less evident wherein Jesus sees their\nfaith. If the original form of the history was that in which it appears\nin the first gospel, the temptation might easily arise to make the\nbearers devise a more conspicuous means of evincing their faith, which,\nsince the scene was already described as happening in a great crowd,\nmight appear to be most suitably found in the uncommon way in which\nthey contrived to bring their sick man to Jesus.\n\nBut even the account of Matthew we cannot regard as a true narrative of\na fact. It has indeed been attempted to represent the result as a\nnatural one, by explaining the state of the man to be a nervous\nweakness, the worst symptom of which was the idea of the sick man that\nhis disease must continue as a punishment of his sin; [1312] reference\nhas been made to analogous cases of a rapid psychical cure of lameness;\n[1313] and a subsequent use of long-continued curative means has been\nsupposed. [1314] But the first and last expedients are purely\narbitrary; and if in the alleged analogies there may be some truth, yet\nit is always incomparably more probable that histories of cures of the\nlame and paralytic in accordance with messianic expectation, should be\nformed by the legend, than that they should really have happened. In\nthe passage of Isaiah already quoted (xxxv. 6), it was promised in\nrelation to the messianic time: then shall the lame man leap as a hart,\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f01\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c7\u03c9\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2, and in the same connexion, v. 3, the\nprophet addresses to the feeble knees \u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 the\nexhortation, Be strong, \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, which, with the accompanying\nparticulars, must have been understood literally, of a miracle to be\nexpected from the Messiah, since Jesus, as we have already mentioned,\namong other proofs that he was the \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 adduced this: \u03c7\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9, the lame walk.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 97.\n\nINVOLUNTARY CURES.\n\nOccasionally in their general statements concerning the curative power\nof Jesus, the synoptical writers remark, that all kinds of sick people\nonly sought to touch Jesus, or to lay hold on the hem of his garment,\nin order to be healed, and that immediately on this slight contact, a\ncure actually followed (Matt. xiv. 36; Mark iii. 10, vi. 56; Luke vi.\n19). In these cases Jesus operated, not, as we have hitherto always\nseen, with a precise aim towards any particular sufferer, but on entire\nmasses, without taking special notice of each individual; his power of\nhealing appears not here, as elsewhere, to reside in his will, but in\nhis body and its coverings; he does not by his own voluntary act\ndispense its virtues, but is subject to have them drawn from him\nwithout his consent.\n\nOf this species of cure again a detailed example is preserved to us, in\nthe history of the woman who had an issue of blood, which all the\nsynoptical writers give, and interweave in a peculiar manner with the\nhistory of the resuscitation of the daughter of Jairus, making Jesus\ncure the woman on his way to the ruler\u2019s house (Matt. ix. 20 ff.; Mark\nv. 25 ff.; Luke viii. 43 ff.). On comparing the account of the incident\nin the several Evangelists, we might in this instance be tempted to\nregard that of Luke as the original, because it seems to offer an\nexplanation of the uniform connexion of the two histories. As, namely,\nthe duration of the woman\u2019s sufferings is fixed by all the narrators at\ntwelve years, so Luke, whom Mark follows, gives twelve years also as\nthe age of the daughter of Jairus; a numerical similarity which might\nbe a sufficient inducement to associate the two histories in the\nevangelical tradition. But this reason is far too isolated by itself to\nwarrant a decision, which can only proceed from a thorough comparison\nof the three narratives in their various details. Matthew describes the\nwoman simply as \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f31\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03bf\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b7, which signifies that she\nhad for twelve years been subject to an important loss of blood,\nprobably in the form of excessive menstruation. Luke, the reputed\nphysician, shows himself here in no degree favourable to his\nprofessional brethren, for he adds that the woman had spent all her\nliving on physicians without obtaining any help from them. Mark, yet\nmore unfavourable, says that she had suffered many things of many\nphysicians, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse. Those who\nsurround Jesus when the woman approaches him are, according to Matthew,\nhis disciples, according to Mark and Luke, a thronging multitude. After\nall the narrators have described how the woman, as timid as she was\nbelieving, came behind Jesus and touched the hem of his garment, Mark\nand Luke state that she was immediately healed, but that Jesus, being\nconscious of the egress of curative power, asked who touched me? The\ndisciples, astonished, ask in return, how he can distinguish a single\ntouch amidst so general a thronging and pressure of the crowd.\nAccording to Luke, he persists in his assertion; according to Mark, he\nlooks inquiringly around him in order to discover the party who had\ntouched him: then, according to both these Evangelists, the woman\napproaches trembling, falls at His feet and confesses all, whereupon\nJesus gives her the tranquillizing assurance that her faith has made\nher whole. Matthew has not this complex train of circumstances; he\nmerely states that after the touch Jesus looked round, discovered the\nwoman, and announced to her that her faith had wrought her cure.\n\nThis difference is an important one, and we need not greatly wonder\nthat it induced Storr to suppose two separate cures of women afflicted\nin the same manner. [1315] To this expedient he was yet more decidedly\ndetermined by the still wider divergencies in the narrative of the\nresuscitation of the daughter of Jairus, a narrative which is\ninterlaced with the one before us; it is, however, this very\ninterlacement which renders it totally impossible to imagine that\nJesus, twice, on both occasions when he was on his way to restore to\nlife the daughter of a Jewish ruler (\u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd), cured a woman who had had\nan issue of blood twelve years. While, on this consideration, criticism\nhas long ago decided for the singleness of the fact on which the\nnarratives are founded, it has at the same time given the preference to\nthose of Mark and Luke as the most vivid and circumstantial. [1316]\nBut, in the first place, if it be admitted that Mark\u2019s addition \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1, but rather grew worse, is merely a\nfinishing touch from his own imagination to the expression \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f34\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 neither could be healed of any, which he found\nin Luke; there seems to be the same reason for regarding this\nparticular of Luke\u2019s as an inference of his own by which he has\namplified the simple statement \u03b1\u1f31\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03bf\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b7, which Matthew\ngives without any addition. If the woman had been ill twelve years, she\nmust, it was thought, during that period have frequently had recourse\nto physicians: and as, when contrasted with the inefficiency of the\nphysicians, the miraculous power of Jesus, which instantaneously\nwrought a cure, appeared in all the more brilliant a light; so in the\nlegend, or in the imagination of the narrators, there grew up these\nadditions. What if the same observation applied to the other\ndifferences? That the woman according to Matthew also, only touched\nJesus from behind, implied the effort and the hope to remain concealed;\nthat Jesus immediately looked round after her, implied that he was\nconscious of her touch. This hope on the part of the woman became the\nmore accountable, and this consciousness on the part of Jesus the more\nmarvellous, the greater the crowd that surrounded Jesus and pressed\nupon him; hence the companionship of the disciples in Matthew is by the\nother two Evangelists changed into a thronging of the multitude\n(\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5). Again, Matthew mentions that Jesus\nlooked round after the woman touched him; on this circumstance the\nsupposition might be founded that he had perceived her touch in a\npeculiar manner; hence the scene was further worked up, and we are\nshown how Jesus, though pressed on all sides, had yet a special\nconsciousness of that particular touch by the healing power which it\nhad drawn from him; while the simple feature \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd, he turned him about, and when he saw her, in Matthew, is\ntransformed into an inquiry and a searching glance around upon the\ncrowd to discover the woman, who then is represented as coming forward,\ntrembling, to make her confession. Lastly, on a comparison of Matt xiv.\n36, the point of this narrative, even as given in the first gospel,\nappears to lie in the fact that simply to touch the clothes of Jesus\nhad in itself a healing efficacy. Accordingly, in the propagation of\nthis history, there was a continual effort to make the result follow\nimmediately on the touch, and to represent Jesus as remaining, even\nafter the cure, for some time uncertain with respect to the individual\nwho had touched him, a circumstance which is in contradiction with that\nsuperior knowledge elsewhere attributed to Jesus. Thus, under every\naspect, the narrative in the first gospel presents itself as the\nearlier and more simple, that of the second and third as a later and\nmore embellished formation of the legend.\n\nAs regards the common substance of the narratives, it has in recent\ntimes been a difficulty to all theologians, whether orthodox or\nrationalistic, that the curative power of Jesus should have been\nexhibited apart from his volition. Paulus and Olshausen agree in the\nopinion, [1317] that the agency of Jesus is thus reduced too completely\ninto the domain of physical nature; that Jesus would then be like a\nmagnetiser who in operating on a nervous patient is conscious of a\ndiminution of strength, or like a charged electrical battery, which a\nmere touch will discharge. Such an idea of Christ, thinks Olshausen, is\nrepugnant to the Christian consciousness, which determines the fulness\nof power resident in Jesus to have been entirely under the governance\nof his will; and this will to have been guided by a knowledge of the\nmoral condition of the persons to be healed. It is therefore supposed\nthat Jesus fully recognized the woman even without seeing her, and\nconsidering that she might be spiritually won over to him by this\nbodily succour, he consciously communicated to her an influx of his\ncurative power; but in order to put an end to her false shame and\nconstrain her to a confession, he behaved as if he knew not who had\ntouched him. But the Christian consciousness, in cases of this kind,\nmeans nothing else than the advanced religious culture of our age,\nwhich cannot appropriate the antiquated ideas of the Bible. Now this\nconsciousness must be neutral where we are concerned, not with the\ndogmatical appropriation, but purely with the exegetical discovery of\nthe biblical ideas. The interference of this alleged Christian\nconsciousness is the secret of the majority of exegetical errors, and\nin the present instance it has led the above named commentators astray\nfrom the evident sense of the text. For the question of Jesus in both\nthe more detailed narratives \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f01\u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5; who touched me?\nrepeated as it is in Luke, and strengthened as it is in Mark by a\nsearching glance around, has the appearance of being meant thoroughly\nin earnest; and indeed it is the object of these two Evangelists to\nplace the miraculous nature of the curative power of Jesus in a\nparticularly clear light by showing that the mere touching of his\nclothes accompanied by faith, no previous knowledge on his part of the\nperson who touched, nor so much as a word from him, being requisite,\nwas sufficient to obtain a cure. Nay, even originally, in the more\nconcise account of Matthew, the expressions \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f25\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\nhaving come behind him, she touched, and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd he\nturned him about, and when he saw her, clearly imply that Jesus knew\nthe woman only after she had touched him. If then, it is not to be\nproved that Jesus had a knowledge of the woman previous to her cure and\na special will to heal her; nothing remains for those who will not\nadmit an involuntary exhibition of curative power in Jesus, but to\nsuppose in him a constant general will to cure, with which it was only\nnecessary that faith on the part of the diseased person should concur,\nin order to produce an actual cure. But that, notwithstanding the\nabsence of a special direction of the will to the cure of this woman on\nthe part of Jesus, she was restored to health, simply by her faith,\nwithout even touching his clothes, is assuredly not the idea of the\nEvangelists. On the contrary, it is their intention to substitute for\nan individual act of the will on the part of Jesus, the touch on the\npart of the sick person; this it is which, instead of the former,\nbrings into action the latent power of Jesus: so that the materialistic\ncharacter of the representation is not in this way to be avoided.\n\nA step further was necessary to the rationalistic interpretation, which\nnot only with modern supranaturalism regards as incredible the\nunconscious efflux of curative power from Jesus, but also denies in\ngeneral any efflux of such power, and yet wishes to preserve\nunattainted the historical veracity of the Evangelists. According to\nthis system, Jesus was led to ask who touched him, solely because he\nfelt himself held back in his progress; the assertion that\nconsciousness of a departure of power, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1, was the cause\nof his question, is a mere inference of the two narrators, of whom the\none, Mark, actually gives it as his own observation; and it is only\nLuke who incorporates it with the question of Jesus. The cure of the\nwoman was effected by means of her exalted confidence, in consequence\nof which when she touched the hem of Jesus she was seized with a\nviolent shuddering in her whole nervous system, which probably caused a\nsudden contraction of the relaxed vessels; at the first moment she\ncould only believe, not certainly know that she was cured, and only by\ndegrees, probably after the use of means recommended to her by Jesus,\ndid the malady entirely cease. [1318] But who can represent to himself\nthe timid touch of a sick woman whose design was to remain concealed,\nand whose faith rendered her certain of obtaining a cure by the\nslightest touch, as a grasp which arrested the progress of Jesus,\npressed upon as he was, according to Mark and Luke, by the crowd?\nFurther, what a vast conception of the power of confidence is demanded\nby the opinion, that it healed a disease of twelve years\u2019 duration\nwithout the concurrence of any real force on the part of Jesus! Lastly,\nif the Evangelists are supposed to have put into the mouth of Jesus an\ninference of their own (that healing efficacy had gone out of him)\u2014if\nthey are supposed to have described a gradual cure as an instantaneous\none; then, with the renunciation of these particulars all warrant for\nthe historical reality of the entire narrative falls to the ground, and\nat the same time all necessity for troubling ourselves with the natural\ninterpretation.\n\nIn fact, if we only examine the narrative before us somewhat more\nclosely, and compare it with kindred anecdotes, we cannot remain in\ndoubt as to its proper character. As here and in some other passages it\nis narrated of Jesus, that the sick were cured by the bare touch of his\nclothes: so in the Acts we are told that the handkerchiefs \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 and\naprons \u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03b1 of Paul cured all kinds of sick persons to whom they\nwere applied (xix. 11 f.), and that the very shadow of Peter was\nbelieved to have the same efficacy (v. 15); while the apocryphal\ngospels represent a mass of cures to have been wrought by means of the\nswaddling bands of the infant Jesus, and the water in which he was\nwashed. [1319] In reading these last histories, every one knows that he\nis in the realm of fiction and legend; but wherein are the cures\nwrought by the pocket-handkerchiefs of Paul to be distinguished from\nthose wrought by the swaddling bands of Jesus, unless it be that the\nlatter proceeded from a child, the former from a man? It is certain\nthat if the story relative to Paul were not found in a canonical book,\nevery one would deem it fabulous, and yet the credibility of the\nnarratives should not be concluded from the assumed origin of the book\nwhich contains them, but on the contrary, our judgment of the book must\nbe founded on the nature of its particular narratives. But again,\nbetween these cures by the pocket-handkerchiefs and those by the touch\nof the hem of the garment, there is no essential distinction. In both\ncases we have the contact of objects which are in a merely external\nconnexion with the worker of the miracle; with the single difference,\nthat this connexion is with regard to the pocket-handkerchiefs an\ninterrupted one, with regard to the clothes a continuous one; in both\ncases again, results which, even according to the orthodox view, are\nonly derived from the spiritual nature of the men in question, and are\nto be regarded as acts of their will in virtue of its union with the\ndivine, are reduced to physical effects and effluxes. The subject thus\ndescends from the religious and theological sphere to the natural and\nphysical, because a man with a power of healing resident in his body,\nand floating as an atmosphere around him, would belong to the objects\nof natural science, and not of religion. But natural science is not\nable to accredit such a healing power by sure analogies or clear\ndefinitions; hence these cures, being driven from the objective to the\nsubjective region, must receive their explanation from psychology. Now\npsychology, taking into account the power of imagination and of faith,\nwill certainly allow the possibility that without a real curative power\nin the reputed miracle-worker, solely by the strong confidence of the\ndiseased person that he possesses this power, bodily maladies which\nhave a close connexion with the nervous system may be cured: but when\nwe seek for historical vouchers for this possibility, criticism, which\nmust here be called to aid, will soon show that a far greater number of\nsuch cures has been invented by the faith of others, than has been\nperformed by the parties alleged to be concerned. Thus it is in itself\nby no means impossible, that through strong faith in the healing power\nresiding even in the clothes and handkerchiefs of Jesus and the\napostles, many sick persons on touching these articles were conscious\nof real benefit; but it is at least equally probable, that only after\nthe death of these men, when their fame in the church was ever on the\nincrease, anecdotes of this kind were believingly narrated, and it\ndepends on the nature of the accounts, for which of the two\nalternatives we are to decide. In the general statement in the Gospels\nand the Acts, which speak of whole masses having been cured in the\nabove way, this accumulation at any rate is traditional. As to the\ndetailed history which we have been examining, in its representation\nthat the woman had suffered twelve years from a very obstinate disease,\nand one the least susceptible of merely psychical influence, and that\nthe cure was performed by power consciously emitted from Jesus, instead\nof by the imagination of the patient: so large a portion betrays itself\nto be mythical that we can no longer discern any historical elements,\nand must regard the whole as legendary.\n\nIt is not difficult to see what might give rise to this branch of the\nevangelical miraculous legend, in distinction from others. The faith of\nthe popular mind, dependent on the senses, and incapable of\napprehending the divine through the medium of thought alone, strives\nperpetually to draw it down into material existence. Hence, according\nto a later opinion, the saint must continue to work miracles when his\nbones are distributed as relics, and the body of Christ must be present\nin the transubstantiated host; hence also, according to an idea\ndeveloped much earlier, the curative power of the men celebrated in the\nNew Testament must be attached to their body and its coverings. The\nless the church retained of the words of Jesus, the more tenaciously\nshe clung to the efficacy of his mantle, and the further she was\nremoved from the free spiritual energy of the apostle Paul, the more\nconsolatory was the idea of carrying home his curative energy in a\npocket-handkerchief.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 98.\n\nCURES AT A DISTANCE.\n\nThe cures performed at a distance are, properly speaking, the opposite\nof these involuntary cures. The latter are effected by mere corporeal\ncontact without a special act of the will; the former solely by the act\nof the will without corporeal contact, or even local proximity. But\nthere immediately arises this objection: if the curative power of Jesus\nwas so material that it dispensed itself involuntarily at a mere touch,\nit cannot have been so spiritual that the simple will could convey it\nover considerable distances; or conversely, if it was so spiritual as\nto act apart from bodily presence, it cannot have been so material as\nto dispense itself independently of the will. Since we have pronounced\nthe purely physical mode of influence in Jesus to be improbable, free\nspace is left to us for the purely spiritual, and our decision on the\nlatter will therefore depend entirely on the examination of the\nnarratives and the facts themselves.\n\nAs proofs that the curative power of Jesus acted thus at a distance,\nMatthew and Luke narrate to us the cure of the sick servant of a\ncenturion at Capernaum, John that of the son of a nobleman \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2,\nat the same place (Matt. viii. 5 ff.; Luke vii. 1 ff.; John iv. 46\nff.); and again Matthew (xv. 22 ff.), and Mark (vii. 25 ff.), that of\nthe daughter of the Canaanitish woman. Of these examples, as in the\nsummary narration of the last there is nothing peculiar, we have here\nto consider the two first only. The common opinion is, that Matthew and\nLuke do indeed narrate the same fact, but John one distinct from this,\nsince his narrative differs from that of the two others in the\nfollowing particulars: firstly, the place from which Jesus cures, is in\nthe synoptical gospels the place where the sick man resides,\nCapernaum,\u2014in John a different one, namely, Cana; secondly, the time at\nwhich the synoptists lay the incident, namely, when Jesus is in the act\nof returning home after his Sermon on the Mount, is different from that\nassigned to it in the fourth gospel, which is immediately after the\nreturn of Jesus from the first passover and his ministry in Samaria;\nthirdly, the sick person is according to the former the slave,\naccording to the latter the son of the suppliant; but the most\nimportant divergencies are those which relate, fourthly, to the\nsuppliant himself, for in the first and third gospels he is a military\nperson (an \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2), in the fourth a person in office at court\n(\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2), according to the former (Matt. v. 10 ff.), a Gentile,\naccording to the latter without doubt a Jew; above all, the synoptists\nmake Jesus eulogize him as a pattern of the most fervent, humble faith,\nbecause, in the conviction that Jesus could cure at a distance, he\nprevented him from going to his house; whereas in John, on the\ncontrary, he is blamed for his weak faith which required signs and\nwonders, because he thought the presence of Jesus in his house\nnecessary for the purpose of the cure. [1320]\n\nThese divergencies are certainly important enough to be a reason, with\nthose who regard them from a certain point of view, for maintaining the\ndistinction of the fact lying at the foundation of the synoptical\nnarratives from that reported by John: only this accuracy of\ndiscrimination must be carried throughout, and the diversities between\nthe two synoptical narratives themselves must not be overlooked. First,\neven in the designation of the person of the patient they are not\nperfectly in unison; Luke calls him \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, a servant who was\ndear to the centurion; in Matthew, the latter calls him \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6,\nwhich may equally mean either a son or a servant, and as the centurion\nwhen speaking (v. 9) of his servant, uses the word \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, while the\ncured individual is again (v. 13) spoken of as \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, it seems\nmost probable that the former sense was intended. With respect to his\ndisease, the man is described by Matthew as \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 a paralytic grievously tormented; Luke is not only silent\nas to this species of disease, but he is thought by many to presuppose\na different one, since after the indefinite expression \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd,\nbeing ill, he adds, \u1f24\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd, was ready to die, and paralysis is\nnot generally a rapidly fatal malady. [1321] But the most important\ndifference is one which runs through the entire narrative, namely, that\nall which according to Matthew the centurion does in his own person, is\nin Luke done by messengers, for here in the first instance he makes the\nentreaty, not personally, as in Matthew, but through the medium of the\nJewish elders, and when he afterwards wishes to prevent Jesus from\nentering his house, he does not come forward himself, but commissions\nsome friends to act in his stead. To reconcile this difference, it is\nusual to refer to the rule: quod quis per alium facit, etc. [1322] If\nthen it be said, and indeed no other conception of the matter is\npossible to expositors who make such an appeal,\u2014Matthew well knew that\nbetween the centurion and Jesus everything was transacted by means of\ndeputies, but for the sake of brevity, he employed the figure of speech\nabove alluded to, and represented him as himself accosting Jesus: Storr\nis perfectly right in his opposing remark, that scarcely any historian\nwould so perseveringly carry that metonymy through an entire narrative,\nespecially in a case where, on the one hand, the figure of speech is by\nno means so obvious as when, for example, that is ascribed to a general\nwhich is done by his soldiers; and where, on the other hand, precisely\nthis point, whether the person acted for himself or through others, is\nof some consequence to a full estimate of his character. [1323] With\nlaudable consistency, therefore, Storr, as he believed it necessary to\nrefer the narrative of the fourth gospel to a separate fact from that\nof the first and third, on account of the important differences; so, on\naccount of the divergencies which he found between the two last,\npronounces these also to be narratives of two separate events. If any\none wonder that at three different times so entirely similar a cure\nshould have happened at the same place (for according to John also, the\npatient lay and was cured at Capernaum), Storr on his side wonders how\nit can be regarded as in the least improbable that in Capernaum at two\ndifferent periods two centurions should have had each a sick servant,\nand that again at another time a nobleman should have had a sick son at\nthe same place; that the second centurion (Luke) should have heard the\nhistory of the first, have applied in a similar manner to Jesus, and\nsought to surpass his example of humility, as the first centurion\n(Matthew), to whom the earlier history of the nobleman (John) was\nknown, wished to surpass the weak faith of the latter; and lastly, that\nJesus cured all the three patients in the same manner at a distance.\nBut the incident of a distinguished official person applying to Jesus\nto cure a dependent or relative, and of Jesus at a distance operating\non the latter in such a manner, that about the time in which Jesus\npronounced the curative word, the patient at home recovered, is so\nsingular in its kind that a threefold repetition of it may be regarded\nas impossible, and even the supposition that it occurred twice only,\nhas difficulties; hence it is our task to ascertain whether the three\nnarratives may not be traced to a single root.\n\nNow the narrative of the fourth Evangelist which is most generally held\nto be distinct, has not only an affinity with the synoptical narratives\nin the outline already given; but in many remarkable details either one\nor the other of the synoptists agrees more closely with John than with\nhis fellow synoptist. Thus, while in designating the patient as \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2,\nMatthew may be held to accord with the \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 of John, at least as\nprobably as with the \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 of Luke; Matthew and John decidedly agree\nin this, that according to both the functionary at Capernaum applies in\nhis own person to Jesus, and not as in Luke by deputies. On the other\nhand, the account of John agrees with that of Luke in its description\nof the state of the patient; in neither is there any mention of the\nparalysis of which Matthew speaks, but the patient is described as near\ndeath, in Luke by the words \u1f24\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1fb7\u03bd, in John by \u1f24\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, in addition to which it is incidentally implied in the\nlatter, v. 52, that the disease was accompanied by a fever, \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2. In\nthe account of the manner in which Jesus effected the cure of the\npatient, and in which his cure was made known, John stands again on the\nside of Matthew in opposition to Luke. While namely, the latter has not\nan express assurance on the part of Jesus that the servant was healed,\nthe two former make him say to the officer, in very similar terms, the\none, \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, Go thy way, and as thou\nhast believed so shall it be done unto thee, the other, \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b6\u1fc7, Go thy way, thy son liveth; and the conclusion of Matthew also,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f65\u03c1\u1fb3 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3, has at least in its form more\nresemblance to the statement of John, that by subsequent inquiry the\nfather ascertained it to be \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f65\u03c1\u1fb3, at the same hour in which\nJesus had spoken the word that his son had begun to amend, than to the\nstatement of Luke, that the messengers when they returned found the\nsick man restored to health. In another point of this conclusion,\nhowever, the agreement with John is transferred from Matthew again to\nLuke. In both Luke and John, namely, a kind of embassy is spoken of,\nwhich towards the close of the narrative comes out of the house of the\nofficer; in the former it consists of the centurion\u2019s friends, whose\nerrand it is to dissuade Jesus from giving himself unnecessary trouble;\nin the latter, of servants who rejoicingly meet their master and bring\nhim the news of his son\u2019s recovery. Unquestionably where three\nnarratives are so thoroughly entwined with each other as these, we\nought not merely to pronounce two of them identical and allow one to\nstand for a distinct fact, but must rather either distinguish all, or\nblend all into one. The latter course was adopted by Semler, after\nolder examples, [1324] and Tholuck has at least declared it possible.\nBut with such expositors the next object is so to explain the\ndivergencies of the three narratives, that no one of the Evangelists\nmay seem to have said anything false. With respect to the rank of the\napplicant, they make the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 in John a military officer, for whom\nthe \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 of the two others would only be a more specific\ndesignation; as regards the main point, however, namely, the conduct of\nthe applicant, it is thought that the different narrators may have\nrepresented the event in different periods of its progress; that is,\nJohn may have given the earlier circumstance, that Jesus complained of\nthe originally weak faith of the suppliant, the synoptists only the\nlater, that he praised its rapid growth. We have already shown how it\nhas been supposed possible, in a yet easier manner, to adjust the chief\ndifference between the two synoptical accounts relative to the mediate\nor immediate entreaty. But this effort to explain the contradictions\nbetween the three narratives in a favourable manner is altogether vain.\nThere still subsist these difficulties: the synoptists thought of the\napplicant as a centurion, the fourth Evangelist as a courtier; the\nformer as strong, the latter as weak in faith; John and Matthew\nimagined that he applied in his own person to Jesus; Luke, that out of\nmodesty he sent deputies. [1325]\n\nWhich then represents the fact in the right way, which in the wrong? If\nwe take first the two synoptists by themselves, expositors with one\nvoice declare that Luke gives the more correct account. First of all,\nit is thought improbable that the patient should have been, as Matthew\nsays, a paralytic, since in the case of a disease so seldom fatal the\nmodest centurion would scarcely have met Jesus to implore his aid\nimmediately on his entrance into the city: [1326] as if a very painful\ndisease such as is described by Matthew did not render desirable the\nquickest help, and as if there were any want of modesty in asking Jesus\nbefore he reached home to utter a healing word. Rather, the contrary\nrelation between Matthew and Luke seems probable from the observation,\nthat the miracle, and consequently also the disease of the person cured\nmiraculously, is never diminished in tradition but always exaggerated;\nhence the tormented paralytic would more probably be heightened into\none ready to die, \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1fb2\u03bd, than the latter reduced to a mere\nsufferer. But especially the double message in Luke is, according to\nSchleiermacher, a feature very unlikely to have been invented. How if,\non the contrary, it very plainly manifested itself to be an invention?\nWhile in Matthew the centurion, on the offer of Jesus to accompany him,\nseeks to prevent him by the objection: Lord, I am not worthy that thou\nshouldest come under my roof, in Luke he adds by the mouth of his\nmessenger, wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee,\nby which we plainly discover the conclusion on which the second embassy\nwas founded. If the man declared himself unworthy that Jesus should\ncome to him, he cannot, it was thought, have held himself worthy to\ncome to Jesus; an exaggeration of his humility by which the narrative\nof Luke again betrays its secondary character. The first embassy seems\nto have originated in the desire to introduce a previous recommendation\nof the centurion as a motive for the promptitude with which Jesus\noffered to enter the house of a Gentile. The Jewish elders, after\nhaving informed Jesus of the case of disease, add that he was worthy\nfor whom he should do this, for he loveth our nation and has built us a\nsynagogue: a recommendation the tenor of which is not unlike what Luke\n(Acts x. 22) makes the messengers of Cornelius say to Peter to induce\nhim to return with them, namely, that the centurion was a just man, and\none that feareth God, and in good report among all the nation of the\nJews. That the double embassy cannot have been original, appears the\nmost clearly from the fact, that by it the narrative of Luke loses all\ncoherence. In Matthew all hangs well together: the centurion first\ndescribes to Jesus the state of the sufferer, and either leaves it to\nJesus to decide what he shall next do, or before he prefers his request\nJesus anticipates him by the offer to go to his house, which the\ncenturion declines in the manner stated. Compare with this his strange\nconduct in Luke: he first sends to Jesus by the Jewish elders the\nrequest that he will come and heal his servant, but when Jesus is\nactually coming, repents that he has occasioned him to do so, and asks\nonly for a miraculous word from Jesus. The supposition that the first\nrequest proceeded solely from the elders and not from the centurion\n[1327] runs counter to the express words of the Evangelist, who by the\nexpressions: \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u2014\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u2014\u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, he sent\u2014the\nelders\u2014beseeching him, represents the prayer as coming from the\ncenturion himself; and that the latter by the word \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd meant only\nthat Jesus should come into the neighbourhood of his house, but when he\nsaw that Jesus intended actually to enter his house, declined this as\ntoo great a favour,\u2014is too absurd a demeanour to attribute to a man who\notherwise appears sensible, and of whom for this reason so capricious a\nchange of mind as is implied in the text of Luke, was still less to be\nexpected. The whole difficulty would have been avoided, if Luke had put\ninto the mouth of the first messengers, as Matthew in that of the\ncenturion, only the entreaty, direct or indirect, for a cure in\ngeneral; and then after Jesus had offered to go to the house where the\npatient lay, had attributed to the same messengers the modest rejection\nof this offer. But on the one hand, he thought it requisite to furnish\na motive for the resolution of Jesus to go into the Gentile\u2019s house;\nand on the other, tradition presented him with a deprecation of this\npersonal trouble on the part of Jesus: he was unable to attribute the\nprayer and the deprecation to the same persons, and he was therefore\nobliged to contrive a second embassy. Hereby, however, the\ncontradiction was only apparently avoided, since both embassies are\nsent by the centurion. Perhaps also the centurion who was unwilling\nthat Jesus should take the trouble to enter his house, reminded Luke of\nthe messenger who warned Jairus not to trouble the master to enter his\nhouse, likewise after an entreaty that he would come into the house;\nand as the messenger says to Jairus, according to him and Mark, \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, trouble not the master (Luke viii. 49), so here\nhe puts into the mouth of the second envoys, the words, \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, Lord, trouble not thyself, although such an order has a reason\nonly in the case of Jairus, in whose house the state of things had been\nchanged since the first summons by the death of his daughter, and none\nat all in that of the centurion whose servant still remained in the\nsame state.\n\nModern expositors are deterred from the identification of all the three\nnarratives, by the fear that it may present John in the light of a\nnarrator who has not apprehended the scene with sufficient accuracy,\nand has even mistaken its main drift. [1328] Were they nevertheless to\nventure on a union, they would as far as possible vindicate to the\nfourth gospel the most original account of the facts; a position of\nwhich we shall forthwith test the security, by an examination of the\nintrinsic character of the narratives. That the suppliant is according\nto the fourth Evangelist a \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, while according to the two others\nhe is an \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, is an indifferent particular from which we can\ndraw no conclusion on either side; and it may appear to be the same\nwith the divergency as to the relation of the diseased person to the\none who entreats his cure. If, however, it be asked with reference to\nthe last point, from which of the three designations the other two\ncould most easily have arisen? it can scarcely be supposed that the\n\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 of John became in a descending line, first the doubtful term \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2,\nand then \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2; and even the reverse ascending order is here less\nprobable than the intermediate alternative, that out of the ambiguous\n\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 (= \u200f\u05db\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8\u200e) there branched off in one direction the sense of\nservant, as in Luke; in the other, of son, as in John. We have already\nremarked, that the description of the patient\u2019s state in John, as well\nas in Luke, is an enhancement on that in Matthew, and consequently of\nlater origin. As regards the difference in the locality, from the point\nof view now generally taken in the comparative criticism of the\ngospels, the decision would doubtless be, that in the tradition from\nwhich the synoptical writers drew, the place from which Jesus performed\nthe miracles was confounded with that in which the sick person lay, the\nless noted Cana being absorbed in the celebrated Capernaum; whereas\nJohn, being an eye-witness, retained the more correct details. But the\nrelation between the Evangelists appears to stand thus only when John\nis assumed to have been an eye-witness; if the critic seeks, as he is\nbound to do, to base his decision solely on the intrinsic character of\nthe narratives, he will arrive at a totally different result. Here is a\nnarrative of a cure performed at a distance, in which the miracle\nappears the greater, the wider the distance between the curer and the\ncured. Would oral tradition, in propagating this narrative, have the\ntendency to diminish that distance, and consequently the miracle, so\nthat in the account of John, who makes Jesus perform the cure at a\nplace from which the nobleman does not reach his son until the\nfollowing day, we should have the original narrative, in that of the\nsynoptists on the contrary, who represent Jesus as being in the same\ntown with the sick servant, the one modified by tradition? Only the\nconverse of this supposition can be held accordant with the nature of\nthe legend, and here again the narrative of John manifests itself to be\na traditional one. Again, the preciseness with which the hour of the\npatient\u2019s recovery is ascertained in the fourth gospel has a highly\nfictitious appearance. The simple expression of Matthew, usually found\nat the conclusion of histories of cures: he was healed in the self-same\nhour, is dilated into an inquiry on the part of the father as to the\nhour in which the son began to amend, an answer from the servants that\nyesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him, and lastly the\nresult, that in the very hour in which Jesus had said, Thy son liveth,\nthe recovery took place. This is a solicitous accuracy, a tediousness\nof calculation, that seems to bespeak the anxiety of the narrator to\nestablish the miracle, rather than to show the real course of the\nevent. In representing the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 as conversing personally with\nJesus, the fourth gospel has preserved the original simplicity of the\nnarrative better than the third; though as has been remarked, the\nservants who come to meet their master in the former seem to be\nrepresentatives of Luke\u2019s second embassy. But in the main point of\ndifference, relative to the character of the applicant, it might be\nthought that, even according to our own standard, the preference must\nbe given to John before the two other narrators. For if that narrative\nis the more legendary, which exhibits an effort at aggrandizement or\nembellishment, it might be said that the applicant whose faith is in\nJohn rather weak, is in Luke embellished into a model of faith. It is\nnot, however, on embellishment in general that legend or the inventive\nnarrator is bent, but on embellishment in subservience to their grand\nobject, which in the gospels is the glorification of Jesus; and viewed\nin this light, the embellishment will in two respects be found on the\nside of John. First, as this Evangelist continually aims to exhibit the\npre-eminence of Jesus, by presenting a contrast to it in the weakness\nof all who are brought into communication with him, so here this\npurpose might be served by representing the suppliant as weak rather\nthan strong in faith. The reply, however, which he puts into the mouth\nof Jesus, Unless ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe, has\nproved too severe, for which reason it reduces most of our commentators\nto perplexity. Secondly, it might seem unsuitable that Jesus should\nallow himself to be diverted from his original intention of entering\nthe house in which the patient was, and thus appear to be guided by\nexternal circumstances; it might be regarded as more consistent with\nhis character that he should originally resolve to effect the cure at a\ndistance instead of being persuaded to this by another. If then, as\ntradition said, the suppliant did nevertheless make a kind of\nremonstrance, this must have had an opposite drift to the one in the\nsynoptical gospels, namely, to induce Jesus to a journey to the house\nwhere the patient lay.\n\nIn relation to the next question, the possibility and the actual course\nof the incident before us, the natural interpretation seems to find the\nmost pliant material in the narrative of John. Here, it is remarked,\nJesus nowhere says that he will effect the patient\u2019s cure, he merely\nassures the father that his son is out of danger (\u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b6\u1fc7), and\nthe father, when he finds that the favourable turn of his son\u2019s malady\ncoincides with the time at which he was conversing with Jesus, in no\nway draws the inference that Jesus had wrought the cure at a distance.\nHence, this history is only a proof that Jesus by means of his profound\nacquaintance with semeiology, was able, on receiving a description of\nthe patient\u2019s state, correctly to predict the course of his disease;\nthat such a description is not here given is no proof that Jesus had\nnot obtained it; while further this proof of knowledge is called a\n\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (v. 54) because it was a sign of a kind of skill in Jesus which\nJohn had not before intimated, namely, the ability to predict the cure\nof one dangerously ill. [1329] But, apart from the misinterpretation of\nthe word \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, and the interpolation of a conversation not intimated\nin the text; this view of the matter would place the character and even\nthe understanding of Jesus in the most equivocal light. For if we\nshould pronounce a physician imprudent, who in the case of a patient\nbelieved to be dying of fever, should even from his own observation of\nthe symptoms, guarantee a cure, and thus risk his reputation: how much\nmore rashly would Jesus have acted, had he, on the mere description of\na man who was not a physician, given assurance that a disease was\nattended with no danger? We cannot ascribe such conduct to him, because\nit would be in direct contradiction with his general conduct, and the\nimpression which he left on his cotemporaries. If then Jesus merely\npredicted the cure without effecting it, he must have been assured of\nit in a more certain manner than by natural reasoning,\u2014he must have\nknown it in a supernatural manner. This is the turn given to the\nnarrative by one of the most recent commentators on the gospel of John.\nHe puts the question, whether we have here a miracle of knowledge or of\npower; and as there is no mention of an immediate effect from the words\nof Jesus, while elsewhere in the fourth gospel the superior knowledge\nof Jesus is especially held up to our view, he is of opinion that\nJesus, by means of his higher nature, merely knew that at that moment\nthe dangerous crisis of the disease was past. [1330] But if our gospel\nfrequently exhibits the superior knowledge of Jesus, this proves\nnothing to the purpose, for it just as frequently directs our attention\nto his superior power. Further, where the supernatural knowledge of\nJesus is concerned, this is plainly stated (as i. 49, ii. 25, vi. 64),\nand hence if a supernatural cognizance of the already effected cure of\nthe boy had been intended, John would have made Jesus speak on this\noccasion as he did before to Nathanael, and tell the father that he\nalready saw his son on his bed in an ameliorated state. On the\ncontrary, not only is there no intimation of the exercise of superior\nknowledge, but we are plainly enough given to understand that there was\nan exercise of miraculous power. When the sudden cure of one at the\npoint of death is spoken of, the immediate question is, What brought\nabout this unexpected change? and when a narrative which elsewhere\nmakes miracles follow on the word of its hero, puts into his mouth an\nassurance that the patient lives, it is only the mistaken effort to\ndiminish the marvellous, which can prevent the admission, that in this\nassurance the author means to give the cause of the cure.\n\nIn the case of the synoptical narratives, the supposition of a mere\nprediction will not suffice, since here the father (Matt. v. 8)\nentreats the exercise of healing power, and Jesus (v. 13), accedes to\nthis entreaty. Hence every way would seem to be closed to the natural\ninterpretation (for the distance of Jesus from the patient made all\nphysical or psychical influence impossible), if a single feature in the\nnarrative had not presented unexpected help. This feature is the\ncomparison which the centurion institutes between himself and Jesus. As\nhe need only speak a word in order to see this or that command\nperformed by his soldiers and servants, so, he concludes, it would cost\nJesus no more than a word to restore his servant to health. Out of this\ncomparison it has been found possible to extract an intimation that as\non the side of the centurion, so on that of Jesus, human proxies were\nthought of. According to this, the centurion intended to represent to\nJesus, that he need only speak a word to one of his disciples, and the\nlatter would go with him and cure his servant, which is supposed to\nhave forthwith happened. [1331] But as this would be the first instance\nin which Jesus had caused a cure to be wrought by his disciples, and\nthe only one in which he commissions them immediately to perform a\nparticular cure, how could this peculiar circumstance be silently\npresupposed in the otherwise detailed narrative of Luke? Why, since\nthis narrator is not sparing in spinning out the rest of the\nmessenger\u2019s speech, does he stint the few words which would have\nexplained all\u2014the simple addition after \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f72 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3, speak the word, of\n\u1f11\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, to one of thy disciples, or something similar? But,\nabove all, at the close of the narrative, where the result is told,\nthis mode of interpretation falls into the greatest perplexity, not\nmerely through the silence of the narrator, but through his positive\nstatement. Luke, namely, concludes with the information that when the\nfriends of the centurion returned into the house, they found the\nservant already recovered. Now, if Jesus had caused the cure by sending\nwith the messengers one or more of his disciples, the patient could\nonly begin gradually to be better after the disciples had come into the\nhouse with the messengers; he could not have been already well on their\narrival. Paulus indeed supposes that the messengers lingered for some\ntime listening to the discourse of Jesus, and that thus the disciples\narrived before them; but how the former could so unnecessarily linger,\nand how the Evangelist could have been silent on this point as well as\non the commission of the disciples, he omits to explain. Whether\ninstead of the disciples, we hold that which corresponds on the side of\nJesus to the soldiers of the centurion to be demons of disease, [1332]\nministering angels, [1333] or merely the word and the curative power of\nJesus; [1334] in any case there remains to us a miracle wrought at a\ndistance.\n\nThis kind of agency on the part of Jesus is, according to the admission\neven of such commentators as have not generally any repugnance to the\nmiraculous, attended with special difficulty, because from the want of\nthe personal presence of Jesus, and its beneficial influence on the\npatient, we are deprived of every possibility of rendering the cure\nconceivable by means of an analogy observable in nature. [1335]\nAccording to Olshausen, indeed, this distant influence has its\nanalogies; namely, in animal magnetism. [1336] I will not directly\ncontest this, but only point out the limits within which, so far as my\nknowledge extends, this phenomenon confines itself in the domain of\nanimal magnetism. According to our experience hitherto, the cases in\nwhich one person can exert an influence over another at a distance are\nonly two: first, the magnetizer or an individual in magnetic relation\nto him can act thus on the somnambule, but this distant action must\nalways be preceded by immediate contact,\u2014a preliminary which is not\nsupposed in the relation of Jesus to the patient in our narrative;\nsecondly, such an influence is found to exist in persons who are\nthemselves somnambules, or otherwise under a disordered state of the\nnerves: neither of which descriptions can apply to Jesus. If thus such\na cure of distant persons as is ascribed to Jesus in our narratives,\nfar outsteps the extreme limits of natural causation, as exhibited in\nmagnetism and the kindred phenomena; then must Jesus have been, so far\nas the above narratives can lay claim to historical credit, a\nsupernatural being. But before we admit him to have been so really, it\nis worth our while as critical inquirers, ta examine whether the\nnarrative under consideration could not have arisen without any\nhistorical foundation; especially as by the very fact of the various\nforms which it has taken in the different gospels it shows itself to\ncontain legendary ingredients. And here it is evident that the\nmiraculous cures of Jesus by merely touching the patient, such as we\nhave examples of in that of the leper, Matt. viii. 3, and in that of\nthe blind men, Matt. ix. 29, might by a natural climax rise, first into\nthe cure of persons when in his presence, by a mere word, as in the\ncase of the demoniacs, of the lepers, Luke xvii. 14, and other\nsufferers; and then into the cure even of the absent by a word; of\nwhich there is a strongly marked precedent in the Old Testament. In 2\nKings v. 9 ff. we read that when the Syrian general Naaman came before\nthe dwelling of the prophet Elisha that he might be cured of his\nleprosy, the prophet came not out to meet him, but sent to him by a\nservant the direction to wash himself seven times in the river Jordan.\nAt this the Syrian was so indignant that he was about to return home\nwithout regarding the direction of the prophet. He had expected, he\nsaid, that the prophet would come to him, and calling on his God,\nstrike his hand over the leprous place; that without any personal\nprocedure of this kind, the prophet merely directed him to go to the\nriver Jordan and wash, discouraged and irritated him, since if water\nwere the thing required, he might have had it better at home than here\nin Israel. By this Old Testament history we see what was ordinarily\nexpected from a prophet, namely, that he should be able to cure when\npresent by bodily contact; that he could do so without contact, and at\na distance, was not presupposed. Elisha effected the cure of the\nleprous general in the latter manner (for the washing was not the cause\nof cure here, any more than in John ix., but the miraculous power of\nthe prophet, who saw fit to annex its influence to this external act),\nand hereby proved himself a highly distinguished prophet: ought then\nthe Messiah in this particular to fall short of the prophet? Thus our\nNew Testament narrative is manifested to be a necessary reflection of\nthat Old Testament story. As, there, the sick person will not believe\nin the possibility of his cure unless the prophet comes out of his\nhouse; so here according to one edition of the story the applicant\nlikewise doubts the possibility of a cure, unless Jesus will come in to\nhis house; according to the other editions, he is convinced of the\npower of Jesus to heal even without this; and all agree that Jesus,\nlike the prophet, succeeded in the performance of this especially\ndifficult miracle.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 99.\n\nCURES ON THE SABBATH.\n\nJesus, according to the gospels, gave great scandal to the Jews by not\nseldom performing his curative miracles on the sabbath. One example of\nthis is common to the three synoptical writers, two are peculiar to\nLuke, and two to John.\n\nIn the narrative common to the three synoptical writers, two cases of\nsupposed desecration of the sabbath are united; the plucking of the\nears of corn by the disciples (Matt. xii. 1 parall.), and the cure of\nthe man with the withered hand by Jesus (v. 9 ff. parall.). After the\nconversation which was occasioned by the plucking of the corn, and\nwhich took place in the fields, the two first Evangelists continue as\nif Jesus went from this scene immediately into the synagogue of the\nsame place, to which no special designation is given, and there, on the\noccasion of the cure of the man with the withered hand, again held a\ndispute on the observance of the sabbath. It is evident that these two\nhistories were originally united only on account of the similarity in\ntheir tendency; hence it is to the credit of Luke, that he has\nexpressly separated them chronologically by the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3,\non another Sabbath. [1337] The further inquiry, which narrative is here\nthe more original? we may dismiss with the observation, that if the\nquestion which Matthew puts into the mouth of the Pharisees, Is it\nlawful to heal on the sabbath days? is held up as a specimen of\ninvented dialogue; [1338] we may with equal justice characterize in the\nsame way the question lent to Jesus by the two intermediate\nEvangelists; while their much praised [1339] description of Jesus\ncalling to the man to stand forth in the midst, and then casting\nreproving glances around, may be accused of having the air of dramatic\nfiction.\n\nThe narratives all agree in representing the affliction under which the\npatient laboured, as a \u03c7\u03b5\u1f76\u03c1 \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u1f70, or \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7. Indefinite as this\nexpression is, it is treated too freely when it is understood, as by\nPaulus, to imply only that the hand was injured by heat, [1340] or even\nby a sprain, according to Venturini\u2019s supposition. [1341] For when, in\norder to determine the signification in which this term is used in the\nNew Testament we refer, as it is proper to do, to the Old Testament, we\nfind (1 Kings xiii. 4) a hand which, on being stretched out, \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7\n(\u200f\u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d1\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1\u200e), described as incapable of being drawn back again, so that we\nmust understand a lameness and rigidity of the hand; and on a\ncomparison of Mark ix. 18, where the expression \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 to be\nwithered or wasted away is applied to an epileptic, a drying up and\nshrinking of that member. [1342] Now from the narrative before us a\nvery plausible argument may be drawn in favour of the supposition, that\nJesus employed natural means in the treatment of this and other\ndiseases. Only such cures, it is said, were prohibited on the sabbath\nas were attended with any kind of labour; thus, if the Pharisees, as it\nis here said, expected Jesus to transgress the sabbatical laws by\neffecting a cure, they must have known that he was not accustomed to\ncure by his mere word, but by medicaments and surgical operations.\n[1343] As, however, a cure merely by means of a conjuration otherwise\nlawful, was forbidden on the sabbath, a fact which Paulus himself\nelsewhere adduces; [1344] as moreover there was a controversy between\nthe schools of Hillel and Schammai, whether it were permitted even to\nadminister consolation to the sick on the sabbath; [1345] and as again,\naccording to an observation of Paulus, the more ancient rabbins were\nstricter on the point of sabbatical observance than those whose\nwritings on this subject have come down to us; [1346] so the cures of\nJesus, even supposing that he used no natural means, might by captious\nPharisees be brought under the category of violations of the sabbath.\nThe principal objection to the rationalistic explanation, namely, the\nsilence of the Evangelists as to natural means, Paulus believes to be\nobviated in the present case by conceiving the scene thus: at that\ntime, and in the synagogue, there was indeed no application of such\nmeans; Jesus merely caused the hand to be shown to him, that he might\nsee how far the remedies hitherto prescribed by him (which remedies\nhowever are still a bare assumption) had been serviceable, and he then\nfound that it was completely cured; for the expression \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7,\nused by all the narrators, implies a cure completed previously, not one\nsuddenly effected in the passing moment. It is true that the context\nseems to require this interpretation, since the outstretching of the\nhand prior to the cure would appear to be as little possible, as in 1\nKings xiii. 4, the act of drawing it back: nevertheless the Evangelists\ngive us only the word of Jesus as the source of the cure; not natural\nmeans, which are the gratuitous addition of expositors. [1347]\n\nDecisive evidence, alike for the necessity of viewing this as a\nmiraculous cure, and for the possibility of explaining the origin of\nthe anecdote, is to be obtained by a closer examination of the Old\nTestament narrative already mentioned, 1 Kings xiii. 1 ff.. A prophet\nout of Judah threatened Jeroboam, while offering incense on his\nidolatrous altar, with the destruction of the altar and the overthrow\nof his false worship; the king with outstretched hand commanded that\nthis prophet of evil should be seized, when suddenly his hand dried up\nso that he could not draw it again towards him, and the altar was rent.\nOn the entreaty of the king, however, the prophet besought Jehovah for\nthe restoration of the hand, and its full use was again granted. [1348]\nPaulus also refers to this narrative in the same connexion, but only\nfor the purpose of applying to it his natural method of explanation; he\nobserves that Jeroboam\u2019s anger may have produced a transient convulsive\nrigidity of the muscles and so forth, in the hand just stretched out\nwith such impetuosity. But who does not see that we have here a legend\ndesigned to glorify the monotheistic order of prophets, and to hold up\nto infamy the Israelitish idolatry in the person of its founder\nJeroboam? The man of God denounces on the idolatrous altar quick and\nmiraculous destruction; the idolatrous king impiously stretches forth\nhis hand against the man of God; the hand is paralyzed, the idolatrous\naltar falls asunder into the dust, and only on the intercession of the\nprophet is the king restored. Who can argue about the miraculous and\nthe natural in what is so evidently a mythus? And who can fail to\nperceive in our evangelical narrative an imitation of this Old\nTestament legend, except that agreeably to the spirit of Christianity\nthe withering of the hand appears, not as a retributive miracle, but as\na natural disease, and only its cure is ascribed to Jesus; whence also\nthe outstretching of the hand is not, as in the case of Jeroboam, the\ncriminal cause of the infliction, continued as a punishment, and the\ndrawing of it back again a sign of cure; but, on the contrary, the hand\nwhich had previously been drawn inwards, owing to disease, can after\nthe completion of the cure be again extended. That, in other instances,\nabout that period, the power of working cures of this kind was in the\nEast ascribed to the favourites of the gods, may be seen from a\nnarrative already adduced, in which, together with the cure of\nblindness, the restoration of a diseased hand is attributed to\nVespasian. [1349]\n\nBut this curative miracle does not appear independently and as an\nobject by itself: the history of it hinges on the fact that the cure\nwas wrought on the Sabbath, and the point of the whole lies in the\nwords by which Jesus vindicates his activity in healing on the Sabbath\nagainst the Pharisees. In Luke and Mark this defence consists in the\nquestion, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil,\nto save life or to destroy it? in Matthew, in a part of this question,\ntogether with the aphorism on saving the sheep which might fall into\nthe pit on the sabbath. Luke, who has not this saying on the present\noccasion, places it (varied by the substitution of \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, an ass\nor an ox for \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd sheep, and of \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c1, well or pit for \u03b2\u03cc\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\nditch) in connexion with the cure of an \u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 a man who had the\ndropsy (xiv. 5); a narrative which has in general a striking similarity\nto the one under consideration. Jesus takes food in the house of one of\nthe chief Pharisees, where, as in the other instance in the synagogue,\nhe is watched (here, \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, there, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd). A\ndropsical person is present; as, there, a man with a withered hand. In\nthe synagogue, according to Matthew, the Pharisees ask Jesus, \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days?\nAccording to Mark and Luke, Jesus asks them whether it be lawful to\nsave life, etc.: so, here, he asks them, \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath? whereupon in both\nhistories the interrogated parties are silent (in that of the withered\nhand, Mark: \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd; in that of the dropsical patient, Luke: \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21\u03c3\u03cd\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd). Lastly, in both histories we have the saying about the\nanimal fallen into a pit, in the one as an epilogue to the cure, in the\nother (that of Matthew) as a prologue. A natural explanation, which has\nnot been left untried even with this cure of the dropsy, [1350] seems\nmore than usually a vain labour, where, as in this case, we have before\nus no particular narrative, resting on its own historical basis, but a\nmere variation on the theme of the sabbath cures, and the text on the\nendangered domestic animal, which might come to one (Matthew) in\nconnexion with the cure of a withered hand, to another (Luke) with the\ncure of a dropsical patient, and to a third in a different connexion\nstill; for there is yet a third Story of a miraculous cure with which a\nsimilar saying is associated. Luke, namely, narrates (xiii. 10 ff.) the\ncure of a woman bowed down by demoniacal influence, as having been\nperformed by Jesus on the sabbath; when to the indignant remonstrance\nof the ruler of the synagogue, Jesus replies by asking, whether every\none does not loose his ox or ass from the stall on the sabbath, and\nlead him away to watering? a question which is undeniably a variation\nof the one given above. So entirely identical does this history appear\nwith the one last named, that Schleiermacher comes to this conclusion:\nsince in the second there is no reference to the first, and since\nconsequently the repetition is not excused by confession, the two\npassages Luke xiii. 10, and xiv. 5, cannot have been written one after\nthe other by the same author. [1351]\n\nThus we have here, not three different incidents, but only three\ndifferent frames in which legend has preserved the memorable and\nthoroughly popular aphorism on the domestic animal, to be rescued or\ntended on the sabbath. Yet, unless we would deny to Jesus so original\nand appropriate an argument, there must lie at the foundation a cure of\nsome kind actually performed by him on the sabbath; not, however, a\nmiraculous one. We have seen that Luke unites the saying with the cure\nof a demoniacal patient: now it might have been uttered by Jesus on the\noccasion of one of those cures of demoniacs of which, under certain\nlimitations, we have admitted the natural possibility. Or, when Jesus\nin cases of illness among his followers applied the usual medicaments\nwithout regard to the sabbath, he may have found this appeal to the\npractical sense of men needful for his vindication. Or lastly, if there\nbe some truth in the opinion of rationalistic commentators that Jesus,\naccording to the oriental and more particularly the Essene custom,\noccupied himself with the cure of the body as well as of the soul, he\nmay, when complying with a summons to the former work on the sabbath,\nhave had occasion for such an apology. But in adopting this last\nsupposition, we must not, with these commentators, seek in the\nparticular supernatural cures which the gospels narrate, the natural\nreality; on the contrary, we must admit that this is totally lost to\nus, and that the supernatural has usurped its place. [1352] Further, it\ncannot have been cures in general with which that saying of Jesus was\nconnected; but any service performed by him or his disciples which\nmight be regarded as a rescuing or preservation of life, and which was\naccompanied by external labour, might in his position with respect to\nthe Pharisaic party, furnish an occasion for such a defence.\n\nOf the two cures on the sabbath narrated in the fourth gospel, one has\nalready been considered with the cures of the blind; the other (v. 1\nff.) might have been numbered among the cures of paralytics, but as the\npatient is not so designated, it was admissible to reserve it for our\npresent head. In the porches of the pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem,\nJesus found a man who, as it subsequently appears, had been lame for\nthirty-eight years; this sufferer he enables by a word to stand up and\ncarry home his bed, but, as it was the sabbath, he thus draws down on\nhimself the hostility of the Jewish hierarchy. Woolston [1353] and many\nlater writers have thought to get clear of this history in a singular\nmanner, by the supposition that Jesus here did not cure a real sufferer\nbut merely unmasked a hypocrite. [1354] The sole reason which can with\nany plausibility be urged in favour of this notion, is that the cured\nman points out Jesus to his enemies as the one who had commanded him to\ncarry his bed on the sabbath (v. 15; comp. 11 ff.), a circumstance\nwhich is only to be explained on the ground that Jesus had enjoined\nwhat was unwelcome. But that notification to the Pharisees might\nequally be given, either with a friendly intention, as in the case of\nthe man born blind (John ix. 11, 25), or at least with the innocent one\nof devolving the defence of the alleged violation of the sabbath on a\nstronger than himself. [1355] The Evangelist at least gives it as his\nopinion that the man was really afflicted, and suffered from a\nwearisome disease, when he describes him as having had an infirmity\nthirty-eight years, \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c \u1f14\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 (v. 5):\nfor the forced interpretation once put on this passage by Paulus,\nreferring the thirty-eight years to the man\u2019s age, and not to the\nduration of his disease, he has not even himself ventured to reproduce.\n[1356] On this view of the incident it is also impossible to explain\nwhat Jesus says to the cured man on a subsequent meeting (v. 14):\nBehold thou art made whole; sin no more lest a worse thing come unto\nthee. Even Paulus is compelled by these words to admit that the man had\na real infirmity, though only a trifling one:\u2014in other words he is\ncompelled to admit the inadequacy of the idea on which his explanation\nof the incident is based, so that here again we retain a miracle, and\nthat not of the smallest.\n\nIn relation to the historical credibility of the narrative, it may\ncertainly be held remarkable that so important a sanative institution\nas Bethesda is described to be by John, is not mentioned either by\nJosephus or the rabbins, especially if the popular belief connected a\nmiraculous cure with this pool: [1357] but this affords nothing\ndecisive. It is true that in the description of the pool there lies a\nfabulous popular notion, which appears also to have been received by\nthe writer (for even if v. 4 be spurious, something similar is\ncontained in the words \u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, v. 3, and \u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u1fc7, v. 7).\nBut this proves nothing against the truth of the narrative, since even\nan eye-witness and a disciple of Jesus may have shared a vulgar error.\nTo make credible, however, such a fact as that a man who had been lame\neight-and-thirty years, so that he was unable to walk, and completely\nbed-ridden, should have been perfectly cured by a word, the supposition\nof psychological influence will not suffice, for the man had no\nknowledge whatever of Jesus, v. 13; nor will any physical analogy, such\nas magnetism and the like, serve the purpose: but if such a result\nreally happened, we must exalt that by which it happened above all the\nlimits of the human and the natural. On the other hand, it ought never\nto have been thought a difficulty [1358] that from among the multitude\nof the infirm waiting in the porches of the pool, Jesus selected one\nonly as the object of his curative power, since the cure of him whose\nsufferings had been of the longest duration was not only particularly\nadapted, but also sufficient, to glorify the miraculous power of the\nMessiah. Nevertheless, it is this very trait which suggests a suspicion\nthat the narrative has a mythical character. On a great theatre of\ndisease, crowded with all kinds of sufferers, Jesus, the exalted and\nmiraculously gifted physician, appears and selects the one who is\nafflicted with the most obstinate malady, that by his restoration he\nmay present the most brilliant proof of his miraculous power. We have\nalready remarked that the fourth gospel, instead of extending the\ncurative agency of Jesus over large masses and to a great variety of\ndiseases, as the synoptical gospels do, concentrates it on a few cases\nwhich proportionately gain in intensity: thus here, in the narrative of\nthe cure of a man who had been lame thirty-eight years, it has far\nsurpassed all the synoptical accounts of cures performed on persons\nwith diseased limbs, among whom the longest sufferer is described in\nLuke xiii. 11, only as a woman who had had a spirit of infirmity\neighteen years. Without doubt the fourth Evangelist had received some\nintimation (though, as we have gathered from other parts of his\nhistory, it was far from precise) of cures of this nature performed by\nJesus, especially of that wrought on the paralytic, Matt. ix. 2 ff.\nparall., for the address to the patient, and the result of the cure are\nin this narrative in John almost verbally the same as in that case,\nespecially according to Mark\u2019s account. [1359] There is even a vestige\nin this history of John, of the circumstance that in the synoptical\nnarrative the cure appears in the light of a forgiveness of sins: for\nas Jesus in the latter consoles the patient, before the cure, with the\nassurance, thy sins are forgiven thee, so in the former, he warns him,\nafter the cure, in the words, sin no more, etc. For the rest, this\nhighly embellished history of a miraculous cure was represented as\nhappening on the sabbath, probably because the command to take up the\nbed which it contained appeared the most suitable occasion for the\nreproach of violating the sabbath.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 100.\n\nRESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD.\n\nThe Evangelists tell us of three instances in which Jesus recalled the\ndead to life. One of these is common to the three synoptists, one\nbelongs solely to Luke, and one to John.\n\nThe instance which is common to the three first Evangelists is the\nresuscitation of a girl, and is in all the three gospels united with\nthe narrative of the woman who had an issue of blood (Matt. ix. 18 f.;\n23\u201326; Mark v. 22 ff.; Luke viii. 41 ff.). In the more precise\ndesignation of the girl and her father, the synoptical writers vary.\nMatthew introduces the father generally as \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 a certain ruler,\nwithout any name; the two others as a ruler of the synagogue named\nJairus: the latter moreover describe the girl as being twelve years\nold, and Luke states that she was the only child of her father;\nparticulars of which Matthew is ignorant. A more important difference\nis, that according to Matthew the ruler in the first instance speaks of\nhis daughter to Jesus as being dead, and intreats him to restore her to\nlife; whereas according to the two other Evangelists, he left her while\nyet living, though on the point of death, that he might fetch Jesus to\navert her actual decease, and first when Jesus was on the way with him,\npeople came out of his house with the information that his daughter had\nin the meantime expired, so that to trouble Jesus further was in vain.\nThe circumstances of the resuscitation also are differently described,\nfor Matthew knows not that Jesus, as the other Evangelists state, took\nwith him only his three most confidential disciples as witnesses. Some\ntheologians, Storr for example, have thought these divergencies so\nimportant, that they have supposed two different cases in which, among\nother similar circumstances, the daughter, in one case of a civil ruler\n(Matthew), in the other, of a ruler of the synagogue named Jairus (Mark\nand Luke), was raised from the dead by Jesus. [1360] But that, as Storr\nsupposes, and as it is inevitable to suppose on his view, Jesus not\nonly twice resuscitated a girl, but also on both these occasions,\nhealed a woman with an issue immediately before, is a coincidence which\ndoes not at all gain in probability by the vague observation of Storr,\nthat it is quite possible for very similar things to happen at\ndifferent times. If then it must be admitted that the Evangelists\nnarrate only one event, the weak attempt to give perfect agreement to\ntheir narratives should be forborne. For neither can the expression of\nMatthew \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 mean, as Kuin\u00f6l maintains, [1361] est morti\nproxima, nor can that of Mark, \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, or of Luke \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5,\nimply that death had already taken place: not to mention that according\nto both, the fact of the death is subsequently announced to the father\nas something new. [1362]\n\nOur more modern critics have wisely admitted a divergency between the\naccounts in doing which they have unanimously given the palm of\nsuperior accuracy to the intermediate Evangelists. Some are lenient\ntowards Matthew, and only attribute to his mode of narration a brevity\nwhich might belong even to the representation of an eye-witness; [1363]\nwhile others regard this want of particularity as an indication that\nthe first gospel had not an apostolic origin. [1364] Now that Mark and\nLuke give the name of the applicant, on which Matthew is silent, and\nalso that they determine his rank more precisely than the latter, will\njust as well bear an unfavourable construction for them, as the usual\nfavourable one; since the designation of persons by name, as we have\nbefore remarked, is not seldom an addition of the later legend. For\nexample, the woman with the issue first receives the name of Veronica\nin the tradition of John Malala; [1365] the Canaanitish woman that of\nJusta in the Clementine Homilies: [1366] and the two thieves crucified\nwith Jesus, the names of Gestas and Demas in the Gospel of Nicodemus.\n[1367] Luke\u2019s \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 (one only daughter) only serves to make the\nscene more touching, and the \u1f10\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 twelve years of age, he, and\nafter him Mark, might have borrowed from the history of the woman with\nthe issue. The divergency that, according to Matthew, the maiden is\nspoken of in the first instance as dead, according to the two others as\nonly dying, must have been considered very superficially by those who\nhave thought it possible to turn it in accordance with our own rule to\nthe disadvantage of Matthew, on the ground that his representation\nserves to aggrandize the miracle. For in both the other gospels the\ndeath of the girl is subsequently announced, and its being supposed in\nMatthew to have occurred a few moments earlier is no aggrandizement of\nthe miracle. Nay, it is the reverse; for the miraculous power of Jesus\nappears greater in the former, not indeed objectively, but\nsubjectively, because it is heightened by contrast and surprise. There,\nwhere Jesus is in the first instance intreated to restore the dead to\nlife, he does no more than what was desired of him; here, on the\ncontrary, where supplicated only for the cure of a sick person, he\nactually brings that person to life again, he does more than the\ninterested parties seek or understand. There, where the power of\nawaking the dead is presupposed by the father to belong to Jesus, the\nextraordinary nature of such a power is less marked than here, where\nthe father at first only presupposes the power of healing the sick, and\nwhen death has supervened, is diverted from any further hope. In the\ndescription of the arrival and the conduct of Jesus in the house where\nthe corpse lay, Matthew\u2019s brevity is at least clearer than the diffuse\naccounts of the two other Evangelists. Matthew tells us that Jesus,\nhaving reached the house, put forth the minstrels already assembled for\nthe funeral, together with the rest of the crowd, on the ground that\nthere would be no funeral there; this is perfectly intelligible. But\nMark and Luke tell us besides that he excluded his disciples also, with\nthe exception of three, from the scene about to take place, and for\nthis it is difficult to discover a reason. That a greater number of\nspectators would have been physically or psychologically an impediment\nto the resuscitation, can only be said on the supposition that the\nevent was a natural one. Admitting the miracle, the reason for the\nexclusion can only be sought in the want of fitness in the excluded\nparties, whom, however, the sight of such a miracle would surely have\nbeen the very means to benefit. But we must not omit to observe that\nthe two later synoptists, in opposition to the concluding statement of\nMatthew that the fame of this event went abroad in the whole land,\nrepresent Jesus as enjoining the strictest silence on the witnesses: so\nthat on the whole it rather appears that Mark and Luke regarded the\nincident as a mystery, to which only the nearest relatives and the most\nfavoured disciples were admitted. Lastly, the difference on which\nSchulz insists as favourable to the second and third Evangelists,\nnamely, that while Matthew makes Jesus simply take the maiden by the\nhand, they have preserved to us the words which he at the same time\nuttered, the former even in the original language;\u2014can either have no\nweight at all, or it must fall into the opposite scale. For that Jesus,\nif he said anything when recalling a girl to life, made use of some\nsuch words as \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, maiden, I say unto thee, arise, the most\nremote narrator might imagine, and to regard the \u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u1f70 \u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b9 of Mark\nas an indication that this Evangelist drew from a peculiarly original\nsource, is to forget the more simple supposition that he translated\nthese words from the Greek of his informant for the sake of presenting\nthe life giving word in its original foreign garb, and thus enhancing\nits mysteriousness, as we have before observed with reference to the\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03c6\u03b1\u03b8\u1f70 in the cure of the deaf man. After what we have seen we shall\nwillingly abstain from finding out whether the individual who\noriginally furnished the narrative in Luke were one of the three\nconfidential disciples, and whether the one who originally related it,\nalso put it into writing: a task to which only the acumen of\nSchleiermacher is equal. [1368]\n\nIn relation to the facts of the case, the natural interpretation speaks\nwith more than its usual confidence, under the persuasion that it has\non its side the assurance of Jesus himself, that the maiden was not\nreally dead, but merely in a sleep-like swoon; and not only\nrationalists, like Paulus, and semi-rationalists, like Schleiermacher,\nbut also decided supranaturalists, like Olshausen, believe, on the\nstrength of that declaration of Jesus, that this was no resuscitation\nof the dead. [1369] The last-named commentator attaches especial\nimportance to the antithesis in the speech of Jesus, and because the\nwords \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5, is not dead, are followed by \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9, but\nsleepeth, is of opinion that the former expression cannot be\ninterpreted to mean merely, she is not dead, since I have resolved to\nrestore her to life; strange criticism,\u2014for it is precisely this\naddition which shows that she was only not dead, in so far as it was in\nthe power of Jesus to recall her to life. Reference is also made to the\ndeclaration of Jesus concerning Lazarus, John xi. 14, \u039b\u03ac\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5,\nLazarus is dead, which is directly the reverse of the passage in\nquestion, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, the damsel is not dead. But Jesus\nhad before said of Lazarus, \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, this\nsickness is not unto death (v. 4), and \u039b\u03ac\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\nour friend Lazarus sleepeth (v. 11). Thus in the case of Lazarus also,\nwho was really dead, we have just as direct a denial of death, and\naffirmation of mere sleep, as in the narrative before us. Hence\nFritzsche is undoubtedly right when he paraphrases the words of Jesus\nin our passage as follows: puellam ne pro mortua habetote, sed dormire\nexistimatote quippe in vitam mox redituram. Moreover, Matthew\nsubsequently (xi. 5) makes Jesus say, \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, the dead are\nraised up; and as he mentions no other instance of resuscitation by\nJesus, he must apparently have had this in his mind. [1370]\n\nBut apart from the false interpretation of the words of Jesus, this\nview of the subject has many difficulties. That in many diseases\nconditions may present themselves which have a deceptive resemblance to\ndeath, or that in the indifferent state of medical science among the\nJews of that age especially, a swoon might easily be mistaken for death\nis not to be denied. But how was Jesus to know that there was such a\nmerely apparent death in this particular case? However minutely the\nfather detailed to him the course of the disease, nay, even if Jesus\nwere acquainted beforehand with the particular circumstances of the\ngirl\u2019s illness (as the natural explanation supposes): we must still\nask, how could he build so much on this information as, without having\nseen the girl, and in contradiction to the assurance of the\neye-witnesses, decidedly to declare that she was not dead, according to\nthe rationalistic interpretation of his words? This would have been\nrashness and folly to boot, unless Jesus had obtained certain knowledge\nof the true state of the case in a supernatural way: [1371] to admit\nwhich, however, is to abandon the naturalistic point of view. To return\nto the explanation of Paulus; between the expressions, \u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, he took her by the hand, and \u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, the maid\narose, expressions which are closely enough connected in Matthew, and\nare still more inseparably linked by the words \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 in\nthe other two gospels, he inserts a course of medical treatment, and\nVenturini can even specify the different restoratives which were\napplied. [1372] Against such arbitrary suppositions, Olshausen justly\nmaintains that in the opinion of the evangelical narrator the\nlife-giving word of Jesus (and we might add, the touch of his hand,\nfurnished with divine power) was the means of restoring the girl to\nlife.\n\nIn the case of resuscitation narrated by Luke alone (vii. 11 ff.) the\nnatural explanation has not such a handle as was presented by the\ndeclaration of Jesus in the narrative just considered. Nevertheless,\nthe rationalistic commentators take courage, and rest their hopes\nmainly on the circumstance that Jesus speaks to the young man lying in\nthe coffin (v. 14). Now, say they, no one would speak to a dead person,\nbut only to such an one as is ascertained or guessed to be capable of\nhearing. [1373] But this rule would prove that all the dead whom Christ\nwill raise at the last day are only apparently dead, as otherwise they\ncould not hear his voice, which it is expressly said they will do (John\nv. 28; comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16); it would therefore prove too much.\nCertainly one who is spoken to must be supposed to hear, and in a\ncertain sense to be living; but in the present instance this holds only\nin so far as the voice of him who quickens the dead can penetrate even\nto the ears from which life has departed. We must indeed admit the\npossibility that with the bad custom which prevailed among the Jews of\nburying their dead a few hours after their decease, a merely apparent\ncorpse might easily be carried to the grave; [1374] but all by which it\nis attempted to show that this possibility was here a reality, is a\ntissue of fictions. In order to explain how Jesus, even without any\nintention to perform a miracle, came to join the funeral procession,\nand how the conjecture could occur to him that the individual about to\nbe buried was not really dead, it is first imagined that the two\nprocessions, that of the funeral and that of the companions of Jesus,\nmet precisely under the gate of the city, and as they impeded each\nother, halted for a while:\u2014directly in opposition to the text, which\nmakes the bearers first stand still when Jesus touches the bier.\nAffected by the peculiar circumstances of the case, which he had\nlearned during the pause in his progress, Jesus, it is said, approached\nthe mother, and not with any reference to a resurrection which he\nintended to effect, but merely as a consolatory address, said to her,\nWeep not. [1375] But what an empty, presuming comforter would he be,\nwho, when a mother was about to consign her only son to the grave,\nshould forbid her even the relief of tears, without offering to her\neither real help by recalling the departed one, or ideal, by suggesting\ngrounds for consolation! Now the latter Jesus does not attempt: hence\nunless we would allow him to appear altogether heartless, he must be\nsupposed to have resolved on the former, and for this he in fact makes\nevery preparation, designedly touching the bier, and causing the\nbearers to stand still. Here, before the reanimating word of Jesus, the\nnatural explanation inserts the circumstance that Jesus observed some\nsign of life in the youth, and on this, either immediately or after a\nprevious application of medicaments, [1376] spoke the words, which\nhelped completely to awake him. But setting aside the fact that those\nintervening measures are only interpolated into the text, and that the\nstrong words: \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5, \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, Young man, I say unto thee\narise! resemble rather the authoritative command of a miracle worker\nthan the attempt of a physician to restore animation; how, if Jesus\nwere conscious that the youth was alive when he met him, and was not\nfirst recalled to life by himself, could he with a good conscience\nreceive the praise which, according to the narrative, the multitude\nlavished on him as a great prophet on account of this deed? According\nto Paulus, he was himself uncertain how he ought to regard the result;\nbut if he were not convinced that he ought to ascribe the result to\nhimself, it was his duty to disclaim all praise on account of it; and\nif he omitted to do this, his conduct places him in an equivocal light,\nin which he by no means appears in the other evangelical histories, so\nfar as they are fairly interpreted. Thus here also we must acknowledge\nthat the Evangelist intends to narrate to us a miraculous resuscitation\nof the dead, and that according to him, Jesus also regarded his deed as\na miracle. [1377]\n\nIn the third history of a resurrection, which is peculiar to John\n(chap. xi.), the resuscitated individual is neither just dead nor being\ncarried to his grave, but has been already buried several days. Here\none would have thought there was little hope of effecting a natural\nexplanation; but the arduousness of the task has only stimulated the\ningenuity and industry of the rationalists in developing their\nconception of this narrative. We shall also see that together with the\nrigorously consequent mode of interpretation of the\nrationalists,\u2014which, maintaining the historical integrity of the\nevangelical narrative throughout, assumes the responsibility of\nexplaining every part naturally, there has appeared another system,\nwhich distinguishes certain features of the narrative as additions\nafter the event, and is thus an advance towards the mythical\nexplanation.\n\nThe rationalistic expositors set out here from the same premises as in\nthe former narrative, namely, that it is in itself possible for a man\nwho has lain in a tomb four days to come to life again, and that this\npossibility is strengthened in the present instance by the known custom\nof the Jews; propositions which we shall not abstractedly controvert.\nFrom this they proceed to a supposition which we perhaps ought not to\nlet pass so easily, [1378] namely, that from the messenger whom the\nsisters had sent with the news of their brother\u2019s illness, Jesus had\nobtained accurate information of the circumstances of the disease; and\nthe answer which he gave to the messenger, This sickness is not unto\ndeath (v. 4), is said to express, merely as an inference which he had\ndrawn from the report of the messenger, his conviction that the disease\nwas not fatal. Such a view of his friend\u2019s condition would certainly\naccord the best with his conduct in remaining two days in Per\u00e6a after\nthe reception of the message (v. 6); since, according to that\nsupposition, he could not regard his presence in Bethany as a matter of\nurgent necessity. But how comes it that after the lapse of these two\ndays, he not only resolves to journey thither (v. 8), but also has\nquite a different opinion of the state of Lazarus, nay, certain\nknowledge of his death, which he first obscurely (v. 10) and then\nplainly (v. 14) announces to his disciples? Here the thread of the\nnatural explanation is lost, and the break is only rendered more\nconspicuous by the fiction of a second messenger, [1379] after the\nlapse of two days, bringing word to Jesus that Lazarus had expired in\nthe interim. For the author of the gospel at least cannot have known of\na second messenger, otherwise he must have mentioned him, since the\nomission to do so gives another aspect to the whole narrative, obliging\nus to infer that Jesus had obtained information of the death of Lazarus\nin a supernatural manner. Jesus, when he had resolved to go to Bethany,\nsaid to the disciples, Lazarus sleepeth, but I go that I may awake him\nout of sleep (\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u2014\u1f10\u03be\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c9\u2014v. 11); this the naturalists explain\nby the supposition that Jesus must in some way have gathered from the\nstatements of the messengers who announced the death of Lazarus, that\nthe latter was only in a state of lethargy. But we can as little here\nas in the former case impute to Jesus the foolish presumption of\ngiving, before he had even seen the alleged corpse, the positive\nassurance that he yet lived. [1380] From this point of view, it is also\na difficulty that Jesus says to his disciples (v. 15) I am glad for\nyour sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5). Paulus explains these words to imply that Jesus feared\nlest the death, had it happened in his presence, might have shaken\ntheir faith in him; but, as Gabler [1381] has remarked, \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 cannot\nmean merely the negative: not to lose faith, which would rather have\nbeen expressed by a phrase such as: \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u1fc3 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, that\nyour faith fail not (see Luke xxii. 32); and moreover we nowhere find\nthat the idea which the disciples formed of Jesus as the Messiah was\nincompatible with the death of a man, or, more correctly, of a friend,\nin his presence.\n\nFrom the arrival of Jesus in Bethany the evangelical narrative is\nsomewhat more favourable to the natural explanation. It is true that\nMartha\u2019s address to Jesus (v. 21 f.), Lord, if thou hadst been here, my\nbrother had not died, but I know that even now, whatsoever thou wilt\nask of God, he will give it thee, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd, \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2, appears evidently to express the hope that\nJesus may be able even to recall the dead one to life. However, on the\nassurance of Jesus which follows, Thy brother shall rise again,\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, she answers despondingly, Yes, at the last\nday. This is certainly a help to the natural explanation, for it seems\nretrospectively to give to the above declaration of Martha (v. 22) the\ngeneral sense, that even now, although he has not preserved the life of\nher brother, she believes Jesus to be him to whom God grants all that\nhe desires, that is, the favourite of the Deity, the Messiah. But the\nexpression which Martha there uses is not \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 but \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1, and the\nturn of phrase: I know that this will happen if thou only willest it to\nbe so, is a common but indirect form of petition, and is here the more\nunmistakable, because the object of the entreaty is clearly indicated\nby the foregoing antithesis. Martha evidently means, Thou hast not\nindeed prevented the death of our brother, but even now it is not too\nlate, for at thy prayer God will restore him to thee and us. Martha\u2019s\nchange of mind, from the hope which is but indirectly expressed in her\nfirst reply (v. 24) to its extinction in the second, cannot be held\nvery surprising in a woman who here and elsewhere manifests a very\nhasty disposition, and it is in the present case sufficiently explained\nby the form of the foregoing assurance of Jesus (v. 23). Martha had\nexpected that Jesus would reply to her indirect prayer by a decided\npromise of its fulfilment, and when he answers quite generally and with\nan expression which it was usual to apply to the resurrection at the\nlast day (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), she gives a half-impatient half-desponding\nreply. [1382] But that general declaration of Jesus, as well as the yet\nmore indefinite one (v. 25 f.), I am the resurrection and the life, is\nthought favourable to the rationalistic view: Jesus, it is said, was\nyet far from the expectation of an extraordinary result, hence he\nconsoles Martha merely with the general hope that he, the Messiah,\nwould procure for those who believed in him a future resurrection and a\nlife of blessedness. As however Jesus had before (v. 11) spoken\nconfidently to his disciples of awaking Lazarus, he must then have\naltered his opinion in the interim\u2014a change for which no cause is\napparent. Further, when (v. 40) Jesus is about to awake Lazarus, he\nsays to Martha, Said I not unto thee that if thou wouldst believe thou\nshouldst see the glory of God? evidently alluding to v. 23, in which\ntherefore he must have meant to predict the resurrection which he was\ngoing to effect. That he does not declare this distinctly, and that he\nagain veils the scarcely uttered promise in relation to the brother (v.\n25) in general promises for the believing, is the effect of design, the\nobject of which is to try the faith of Martha, and extend her sphere of\nthought. [1383]\n\nWhen Mary at length comes out of the house with her companions, her\nweeping moves Jesus himself to tears. To this circumstance the natural\ninterpretation appeals with unusual confidence, asking whether if he\nwere already certain of his friend\u2019s resurrection, he would not have\napproached his grave with the most fervent joy, since he was conscious\nof being able to call him again living from the grave in the next\nmoment? In this view the words \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf (v. 33) and \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n(v. 38) are understood of a forcible repression of the sorrow caused by\nthe death of his friend, which subsequently found vent in tears\n(\u1f10\u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd). But both by its etymology, according to which it signifies\nfremere in aliquem or in se, and by the analogy of its use in the New\nTestament, where it appears only in the sense of increpare aliquem\n(Matt. ix. 30; Mark i. 43, xiv. 5), \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is determined to imply\nan emotion of anger, not of sorrow; where it is united, not with the\ndative of another person, but with \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 and \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7, it must be\nunderstood of a silent, suppressed displeasure. This sense would be\nvery appropriate in v. 38, where it occurs the second time; for in the\nforegoing observation of the Jews, Could not this man, who opened the\neyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?\nthere lies an intimation that they were scandalized, the prior conduct\nof Jesus perplexing them as to his present demeanour, and vice vers\u00e2.\nBut where the word \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is first used v. 33, the general weeping\nseems to have been likely to excite in Jesus a melancholy, rather than\nan angry emotion: yet even here a strong disapproval of the want of\nfaith (\u1f40\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1) which was manifested was not impossible. That Jesus\nthen himself broke out into tears, only proves that his indignation\nagainst the faithless generation around him dissolved into melancholy,\nnot that melancholy was his emotion from the beginning. Lastly, that\nthe Jews (v. 36) in relation to the tears which Jesus shed, said among\nthemselves, Behold, how he loved him! appears to be rather against than\nfor those who regard the emotion of Jesus as sorrow for the death of\nhis friend, and sympathy with the sisters; for, as the character of the\nnarrative of John in general would rather lead us to expect an\nopposition between the real import of the demeanour of Jesus, and the\ninterpretation put upon it by the spectators, so in particular the Jews\nin this gospel are always those who either misunderstand or pervert the\nwords and actions of Jesus. It is true that the mild character of Jesus\nis urged, as inconsistent with the harshness which displeasure on his\npart at the very natural weeping of Mary and the rest would imply;\n[1384] but such a mode of thinking is by no means foreign to the Christ\nof John\u2019s gospel. He who gave to the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, when preferring the\ninoffensive request that he would come to his house and heal his son,\nthe rebuke, Except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe; he\nwho, when some of his disciples murmured at the hard doctrines of the\nsixth chapter, assailed them with the cutting question, Doth this\noffend you? and Will ye also go away? (vi. 61, 67); he who repulsed his\nown mother, when at the wedding at Cana she complained to him of the\nwant of wine, with the harsh reply, What have I to do with thee, Woman?\n(ii. 4)\u2014who thus was always the most displeased when men, not\ncomprehending his higher mode of thought or action, showed themselves\ndesponding or importunate,\u2014would here find peculiar reason for this\nkind of displeasure. If this be the true interpretation of the passage,\nand if it be not sorrow for the death of Lazarus which Jesus here\nexhibits, there is an end to the assistance which the natural\nexplanation of the entire event is thought to derive from this\nparticular feature; meanwhile, even on the other interpretation, a\nmomentary emotion produced by sympathy with the mourners is quite\nreconcilable with the foreknowledge of the resurrection. [1385] And how\ncould the words of the Jews v. 37, serve, as rationalistic commentators\nthink, to excite in Jesus the hope that God would now perhaps perform\nsomething extraordinary for him? The Jews did not express the hope that\nhe could awake the dead, but only the conjecture that he might perhaps\nhave been able to preserve his friend\u2019s life; Martha therefore had\npreviously said more when she declared her belief that even now the\nFather would grant him what he asked; so that if such hopes were\nexcited in Jesus from without, they must have been excited earlier, and\nespecially before the weeping of Jesus, to which it is customary to\nappeal as the proof that they did not yet exist.\n\nEven supranaturalists admit that the expression of Martha when Jesus\ncommanded that the stone should be taken away from the grave, \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5,\n\u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u1f44\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 (v. 39), is no proof at all that decomposition had really\ncommenced, nor consequently that a natural resuscitation was\nimpossible, since it may have been a mere inference from the length of\ntime since the burial. [1386] But more weight must be attached to the\nwords with which Jesus, repelling the objections of Martha, persists in\nhaving the tomb opened (v. 40): Said I not unto thee that if thou\nwouldst believe thou shouldst see the glory of God? How could he say\nthis unless he was decidedly conscious of his power to resuscitate\nLazarus? According to Paulus, this declaration only implied generally\nthat those who have faith will, in some way or other, experience a\nglorious manifestation of the divinity. But what glorious manifestation\nof the divinity was to be seen here, on the opening of the grave of one\nwho had been buried four days, unless it were his restoration to life?\nand what could be the sense of the words of Jesus, as opposed to the\nobservation of Martha, that her brother was already within the grasp of\ndecay, but that he was empowered to arrest decay? But in order to learn\nwith certainty the meaning of the words \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 in our\npresent passage we need only refer to v. 4, where Jesus had said that\nthe sickness of Lazarus was not unto death, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, but for the\nglory of God, \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. Here the first member of the\nantithesis, not unto death, clearly shows that the \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\nsignifies the glorification of God by the life of Lazarus, that is,\nsince he was now dead, by his resurrection: a hope which Jesus could\nnot venture to excite in the most critical moment, without having a\nsuperior assurance that it would be fulfilled. [1387] After the opening\nof the grave, and before he says to the dead man, Come forth! he thanks\nthe Father for having heard his prayer. This is adduced, in the\nrationalistic point of view, as the most satisfactory proof that he did\nnot first recall Lazarus to life by those words, but on looking into\nthe grave found him already alive again. Truly, such an argument was\nnot to be expected from theologians who have some insight into the\ncharacter of John\u2019s gospel. These ought to have remembered how common\nit is in this gospel, as for example in the expression glorify thy son,\nto represent that which is yet to be effected or which is only just\nbegun, as already performed; and in the present instance it is\nespecially suited to mark the certainty of obtaining fulfilment, that\nit is spoken of as having already happened. And what invention does it\nfurther require to explain, both how Jesus could perceive in Lazarus\nthe evidences of returning life, and how the latter could have come to\nlife again! Between the removal of the stone, says Paulus, and the\nthanksgiving of Jesus, lies the critical interval when the surprising\nresult was accomplished; then must Jesus, yet some steps removed from\nthe grave, have discerned that Lazarus was living. By what means? and\nhow so quickly and unhesitatingly? and why did he and no one else\ndiscern it? He may have discerned it by the movements of Lazarus, it is\nconjectured. But how easily might he deceive himself with respect to a\ndead body lying in a dark cavern; how precipitate was he, if without\nhaving examined more nearly, he so quickly and decidedly declared his\nconviction that Lazarus lived! Or, if the movements of the supposed\ncorpse were strong and not to be mistaken, how could they escape the\nnotice of the surrounding spectators? Lastly, how could Jesus in his\nprayer represent the incident about to take place as a sign of his\ndivine mission, if he was conscious that he had not effected, but only\ndiscovered, the resuscitation of Lazarus? As arguments for the natural\npossibility of a return of life in a man who had been interred four\ndays, the rationalistic explanation adduces our ignorance of the\nparticular circumstances of the supposed death, the rapidity of\ninterment among the Jews, afterwards the coolness of the cave, the\nstrong fragrance of the spices, and lastly, the reanimating draught of\nwarm air, which on the rolling away of the stone streamed into the\ncave. But all these circumstances do not produce more than the lowest\ndegree of possibility, which coincides with the highest degree of\nimprobability: and with this the certainty with which Jesus predicts\nthe result must remain irreconcilable. [1388]\n\nThese decided predictions are indeed the main hindrance to the natural\ninterpretation of this chapter; hence it has been sought to neutralize\nthem, still from the rationalistic position, by the supposition that\nthey did not proceed from Jesus, but may have been added ex eventu by\nthe narrator. Paulus himself found the words \u1f10\u03be\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd (v. 11)\nquite too decided, and therefore ventured the conjecture that the\nnarrator, writing with the result in his mind, had omitted a qualifying\nperhaps, which Jesus had inserted. [1389] This expedient has been more\nextensively adopted by Gabler. Not only does he partake the opinion of\nPaulus as to the above expression, but already in v. 4, he is inclined\nto lay the words \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 for the glory of God, to the\naccount of the Evangelist: again v. 15, he conjectures that in the\nwords \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f24\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6, I am glad for\nyour sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe, there is\na slight exaggeration resulting from John\u2019s knowledge of the issue;\nlastly, even in relation to the words of Martha v. 22, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. he admits the idea of an addition from the pen of the\nwriter. [1390] By the adoption of this expedient, the natural\ninterpretation avows its inability by itself to cope with the\ndifficulties in John\u2019s narrative. For if, in order to render its\napplication possible, it is necessary to expunge the most significant\npassages, it is plain that the narrative in its actual state does not\nadmit of a natural explanation. It is true that the passages, the\nincompatibility of which with the rationalistic mode of explanation is\nconfessed by their excision, are very sparingly chosen; but from the\nabove observations it is clear, that if all the features in this\nnarrative which are really opposed to the natural view of the entire\nevent were ascribed to the Evangelist, it would in the end be little\nshort of the whole that must be regarded as his invention. Thus, what\nwe have done with the two first narratives of resuscitations, is with\nthe last and most remarkable history of this kind, effected by the\nvarious successive attempts at explanation themselves, namely, to\nreduce the subject to the alternative: that we either receive the event\nas supernatural, according to the representation of the evangelical\nnarrative; or, if we find it incredible as such, deny that the\nnarrative has an historical character.\n\nIn order, in this dilemma, to arrive at a decision, with respect to all\nthe three narratives, we must refer to the peculiar character of the\nkind of miracles which we have now before us. We have hitherto been\nascending a ladder of miracles; first, cures of mental disorders, then,\nof all kinds of bodily maladies, in which, however, the organization of\nthe sufferer was not so injured as to cause the cessation of\nconsciousness and life; and now, the revivification of bodies, from\nwhich the life has actually departed. This progression in the\nmarvellous is, at the same time, a gradation in inconceivability. We\nhave indeed been able to represent to ourselves how a mental\nderangement, in which none of the bodily organs were attacked beyond\nthe nervous system, which is immediately connected with mental action,\nmight have been removed, even in a purely psychical manner, by the mere\nword, look, and influence of Jesus: but the more deeply the malady\nappeared to have penetrated into the entire corporeal system, the more\ninconceivable to us was a cure of this kind. Where in insane persons\nthe brain was disturbed to the extent of raging madness, or where in\nnervous patients the disorder was so confirmed as to manifest itself in\nperiodical epilepsy; there we could scarcely imagine how permanent\nbenefit could be conferred by that mental influence; and this was yet\nmore difficult where the disease had no immediate connection with the\nmind, as in leprosy, blindness, lameness, etc. And yet, up to this\npoint, there was always something present, to which the miraculous\npower of Jesus could apply itself; there was still a consciousness in\nthe objects, on which to make an impression\u2014a nervous life to be\nstimulated. Not so with the dead. The corpse from which life and\nconsciousness have flown has lost the last fulcrum for the power of the\nmiracle worker; it perceives him no longer\u2014receives no impression from\nhim; for the very capability of receiving impressions must be conferred\non him anew. But to confer this, that is, to give life in the proper\nsense, is a creative act, and to think of this as being exercised by a\nman, we must confess to be beyond our power.\n\nBut even within the limits of our three histories of resurrections,\nthere is an evident climax. Woolston has remarked with justice, that it\nseems as if each of these narratives were intended to supply what was\nwanting in the preceding. [1391] The daughter of Jairus is restored to\nlife on the same bed on which she had just expired; the youth of Nain,\nwhen already in his coffin, and on his way to interment; lastly,\nLazarus, after four days\u2019 abode in the tomb. In the first history, a\nword was the only intimation that the maiden had fallen under the\npowers of the grave; in the second, the fact is imprinted on the\nimagination also, by the picture of the young man being already carried\nout of the city towards his grave; but in the third, Lazarus, who had\nbeen some time inclosed in the grave, is depicted in the strongest\nmanner as an inhabitant of the nether world: so that, if the reality of\nthe death could be doubted in the first instance, this would become\nmore difficult in the second, and in the third, as good as impossible.\n[1392] With this gradation, there is a corresponding increase in the\ndifficulty of rendering the three events conceivable; if, indeed, when\nthe fact itself is inconceivable, there can exist degrees of\ninconceivableness between its various modifications. If, however, the\nresurrection of a dead person in general were possible, it must rather\nbe possible in the case of one just departed, and yet having some\nremains of vital warmth, than in that of a corpse, cold and being\ncarried to the grave; and again, in this, rather than in the case of\none who had already lain four days in the grave, and in which decay is\nsupposed to have commenced, nay, with respect to which, this\nsupposition, if not confirmed, is at least not denied.\n\nBut, setting aside the miraculous part of the histories in question,\neach succeeding one is both intrinsically more improbable, and\nexternally less attested, than the foregoing. As regards the internal\nimprobability, one element of this, which indeed lies in all, and\ntherefore also in the first, is especially conspicuous in the second.\nAs a motive by which Jesus was induced to raise the young man at Nain,\nthe narrative mentions compassion for the mother (v. 13). Together with\nthis we are to include, according to Olshausen, a reference to the\nyoung man himself. For, he observes, man as a conscious being can never\nbe treated as a mere instrument, which would be the case here, if the\njoy of the mother were regarded as the sole object of Jesus in raising\nthe youth. [1393] This remark of Olshausen demands our thanks, not that\nit removes the difficulty of this and every other resuscitation of the\ndead, but that it exhibits that difficulty in the clearest light. For\nthe conclusion, that what in itself, or according to enlightened ideas,\nis not allowable or fitting, cannot be ascribed to Jesus by the\nEvangelists, is totally inadmissible. We should rather (presupposing\nthe purity of the character of Jesus) conclude that when the\nevangelical narratives ascribe to him what is not allowable, they are\nincorrect. Now that Jesus, in his resuscitations of the dead, made it a\nconsideration whether the persons to be restored to life might, from\nthe spiritual condition in which they died, derive advantage from the\nrestoration or the contrary, we find no indication; that, as Olshausen\nsupposes, the corporeal awakening was attended with a spiritual\nawakening, or that such a result was expected, is nowhere said. These\nresuscitated individuals, not excepting even Lazarus, recede altogether\nfrom our observation after their return to life, and hence Woolston was\nled to ask why Jesus rescued from the grave precisely these\ninsignificant persons, and not rather John the Baptist, or some other\ngenerally useful man. Is it said, he knew it to be the will of\nProvidence that these men, once dead, should remain so? But then, it\nshould seem, he must have thought the same of all who had once died,\nand to Woolston\u2019s objection there remains no answer but this: as it was\npositively known concerning celebrated men, that the breach which their\ndeaths occasioned was never filled up by their restoration to life,\nlegend could not annex the resurrections which she was pleased to\nnarrate to such names, but must choose unknown subjects, in relation to\nwhich she was not under the same control.\n\nThe above difficulty is common to all the three narratives, and is only\nrendered more prominent in the second by an accidental expression: but\nthe third narrative is full of difficulties entirely peculiar to\nitself, since the conduct of Jesus throughout, and, to a considerable\nextent, that of the other parties, is not easily to be conceived. When\nJesus receives the information of the death of Lazarus, and the request\nof the sisters implied therein, that he would come to Bethany, he\nremains still two days in the same place, and does not set out toward\nJudea till after he is certain of the death. Why so? That it was not\nbecause he thought the illness attended with no danger, has been\nalready shown; on the contrary, he foresaw the death of Lazarus. That\nindifference was not the cause of the delay, is expressly remarked by\nthe Evangelist (v. 5). What then? L\u00fccke conjectures that Jesus was then\noccupied with a particularly fruitful ministry in Per\u00e6a, which he was\nnot willing to interrupt for the sake of Lazarus, holding it his duty\nto postpone his less important call as a worker of miracles and a\nsuccouring friend, to his higher call as a teacher. [1394] But he might\nhere have very well done the one, and not have left the other undone;\nhe might either have left some disciples to carry forward his work in\nthat country, or remaining there himself, have still cured Lazarus,\nwhether through the medium of a disciple, or by the power of his will\nat a distance. Moreover, our narrator is entirely silent as to such a\ncause for the delay of Jesus. This view of it, therefore, can be\nlistened to only on the supposition that no other motive for the delay\nis intimated by the Evangelist, and even then as nothing more than a\nconjecture. Now another motive is clearly indicated, as Olshausen has\nremarked, in the declaration of Jesus, v. 15, that he is glad he was\nnot present at the death of Lazarus, because, for the object of\nstrengthening the faith of the disciples, the resurrection of his\nfriend would be more effectual than his cure. Thus Jesus had designedly\nallowed Lazarus to die, that by his miraculous restoration to life, he\nmight procure so much the more faith in himself. Tholuck and Olshausen\non the whole put the same construction on this declaration of Jesus;\nbut they confine themselves too completely to the moral point of view,\nwhen they speak of Jesus as designing, in his character of teacher, to\nperfect the spiritual condition of the family at Bethany and of his\ndisciples; [1395] since, according to expressions, such as \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7\n\u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4. \u03b8. (v. 4), his design was rather the messianic one of\nspreading and confirming faith in himself as the Son of God, though\nprincipally, it is true, within that narrow circle. Here L\u00fccke\nexclaims: by no means! never did the Saviour of the needy, the noblest\nfriend of man, act thus arbitrarily and capriciously; [1396] and De\nWette also observes, that Jesus in no other instance designedly brings\nabout or increases his miracles. [1397] The former, as we have seen,\nconcludes that something external, preoccupation elsewhere, detained\nJesus; a supposition which is contrary to the text, and which even De\nWette finds inadequate, though he points out no other expedient. If\nthen these critics are correct in maintaining that the real Jesus\ncannot have acted thus; while, on the other hand, they are incorrect in\ndenying that the author of the fourth gospel makes his Jesus act thus:\nnothing remains but with the author of the Probabilia, [1398] from this\nincongruity of the Christ in John\u2019s gospel with the Christ alone\nconceivable as the real one, to conclude that the narrative of the\nfourth Evangelist is unhistorical.\n\n\n\nThe alleged conduct of the disciples also, v. 12 f., is such as to\nexcite surprise. If Jesus had represented to them, or at least to the\nthree principal among them, the death of the daughter of Jairus as a\nmere sleep, how could they, when he said of Lazarus, he sleeps, I will\nawake him, \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03be\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd think that he referred to a\nnatural sleep? One would not awake a patient out of a healthy sleep;\nhence it must have immediately occurred to the disciples that here\nsleep (\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) was spoken of in the same sense as in the case of the\nmaiden. That, instead of this, the disciples understand the deep\nexpressions of Jesus quite superficially, is entirely in the fourth\nEvangelist\u2019s favourite manner, which we have learned to recognise by\nmany examples. If tradition had in any way made known to him, that to\nspeak of death as a sleep was part of the customary phraseology of\nJesus, there would immediately spring up in his imagination, so fertile\nin this kind of antithesis, a misunderstanding corresponding to that\nfigure of speech. [1399]\n\nThe observation of the Jews, v. 37, is scarcely conceivable,\npresupposing the truth of the synoptical resuscitations of the dead.\nThe Jews appeal to the cure of the man born blind (John ix.), and draw\nthe inference, that he who had restored sight to this individual, must\nsurely have been able to avert the death of Lazarus. How came they to\nrefer to this heterogeneous and inadequate example, if there lay before\nthem, in the two resuscitations of the dead, miracles more analogous,\nand adapted to give hope even in this case of actual death? It is\ncertain that the Galilean resuscitations were prior to this of Lazarus,\nsince Jesus after this period went no more into Galilee; neither could\nthose events remain unknown in the capital, [1400] especially as we are\nare expressly told that the fame of them went abroad into all that\nland, throughout all Jud\u00e6a, and throughout all the country round about.\nTo the real Jews therefore these cases must have been well known; and\nas the fourth Evangelist makes his Jews refer to something less to the\npoint, it is probable that he knew nothing of the above events: for\nthat the reference belongs to him, and not to the Jews themselves, is\nevident from the fact, that he makes them refer to the very cure which\nhe had last narrated.\n\nA formidable difficulty lies also in the prayer which is put into the\nmouth of Jesus, v. 41 f. After thanking the Father for hearing his\nprayer, he adds, that for himself he knew well that the Father heard\nhim always, and that he uttered this special thanksgiving only for the\nsake of the people around him, in order to obtain their belief in his\ndivine mission. Thus he first gives his address a relation to God, and\nafterwards reduces this relation to a feigned one, intended to exist\nonly in the conceptions of the people. Nor is the sense of the words\nsuch as L\u00fccke represents it, namely, that Jesus for his own part would\nhave prayed in silence, but for the benefit of the people uttered his\nprayer aloud (for in the certainty of fulfilment there lies no motive\nfor silent prayer); they imply that for himself he had no need to thank\nthe Father for a single result, as if surprised, since he was sure\nbeforehand of having his wish granted, so that the wish and the thanks\nwere coincident; that is, to speak generally, his relation to the\nFather did not consist in single acts of prayer, fulfilment, and\nthanks, but in a continual and permanent interchange of these\nreciprocal functions, in which no single act of gratitude in and by\nitself could be distinguished in this manner. If it may be admitted\nthat in relation to the necessities of the people, and out of sympathy\nwith them, such an isolated act could have taken place on the part of\nJesus; yet, if there be any truth in this explanation, Jesus must have\nbeen entirely borne away by sympathy, must have made the position of\nthe people his own, and thus in that moment have prayed from his own\nimpulse, and on his own behalf. [1401] But, here, scarcely has he begun\nto pray when the reflection arises that he does this from no need of\nhis own; he prays therefore from no lively feeling, but out of cold\naccommodation, and this must be felt difficult to conceive, nay, even\nrevolting. He who in this manner prays solely for the edification of\nothers, ought in no case to tell them that he prays from their point of\nview, not from his own; since an audible prayer cannot make any\nimpression on the hearers, unless they suppose the speaker\u2019s whole soul\nto be engaged. How then could Jesus make his prayer ineffective by this\naddition? If he felt impelled to lay before God a confession of the\ntrue state of the case, he might have done this in silence; that he\nuttered the confession aloud, and that we in consequence read it, could\nonly happen on a calculation of advantage to later Christendom, to the\nreaders of the gospel. While the thanksgiving was, for obvious reasons,\nneedful to awake the faith of the spectators, the more developed faith\nwhich the fourth gospel presupposes, might regard it as a difficulty;\nbecause it might possibly appear to proceed from a too subordinate, and\nmore particularly, a too little constant relation between the Father\nand the Son. Consequently the prayer which was necessary for the\nhearers, must be annulled for readers of a later period, or its value\nrestricted to that of a mere accommodation. But this consideration\ncannot have been present in the mind of Jesus: it could belong only to\na Christian who lived later. This has been already felt by one critic,\nwho has hence proposed to throw v. 42 out of the text, as an\nunauthenticated addition by a latter hand. [1402] But as this judgment\nis destitute of any external reason, if the above passage could not\nhave been uttered by Jesus, we must conclude that the Evangelist only\nlent the words to Jesus in order to explain the preceding, v. 41; and\nto this opinion L\u00fccke has shown himself not altogether disinclined.\n[1403] Assuredly we have here words, which are only lent to Jesus by\nthe Evangelist: but if it be so with these words, what is our security\nthat it is so only with these? In a gospel in which we have already\ndetected many discourses to be merely lent to the alleged speakers\u2014in a\nnarrative which presents historical improbabilities at all points,\u2014the\ndifficulty contained in a single verse is not a sign that that verse\ndoes not belong to the rest, but that the whole taken together does not\nbelong to the class of historical compositions. [1404]\n\nAs regards the gradation in the external testimony to the three\nnarratives, it has already been justly observed by Woolston, that only\nthe resurrection of the daughter of Jairus, in which the miraculous is\nthe least marked, appears in three Evangelists; the two others are each\nrelated by one Evangelist only: [1405] and as it is far less easy to\nunderstand the omission in the other gospels in relation to the\nresurrection of Lazarus, than in relation to the raising of the youth\nat Nain, there is here again a complete climax.\n\nThat the last-named event is mentioned by the author of Luke\u2019s gospel\nalone;\u2014especially that Matthew and Mark have it not instead of the\nresuscitation of the daughter of Jairus, or together with that\nnarrative,\u2014is a difficulty in more than one respect. [1406] Even viewed\ngenerally as a resuscitation of a dead person, one would have thought,\nas there were few of such miracles according to our gospels, and as\nthey are highly calculated to carry conviction, it could not have been\ntoo much trouble to the Evangelists to recount it as a second instance;\nespecially as Matthew has thought it worth while, for example, to\nnarrate three cures of blindness, which nevertheless were of far less\nimportance, and of which, therefore, he might have spared two,\ninserting instead of them either one or the other of the remaining\nresuscitations of the dead. But admitting that the two first\nEvangelists had some reason, no longer to be discovered, for not giving\nmore than one history of a resurrection, they ought, one must think, to\nhave chosen that of the youth at Nain far rather than that of the\ndaughter of Jairus, because the former, as we have above observed, was\na more indubitable and striking resurrection. As nevertheless they give\nonly the latter, Matthew at least can have known nothing of the others;\nMark, it is true, probably had it before him in Luke, but he had, as\nearly as iii. 7, or 20, leaped from Luke vi. 12 (17) to Matt. xii. 15;\nand only at iv. 35 (21 ff.) returns to Luke viii. 22 (16 ff.); [1407]\nthus passing over the resurrection of the youth (Luke vii. 11 ff.). But\nnow arises the second question: how can the resurrection of the youth,\nif it really happened, have remained unknown to the author of the first\ngospel? Even apart from the supposition that this gospel had an\napostolic origin, this question is fraught with no less difficulty than\nthe former. Besides the people, there were present many of his\ndisciples, \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76; the place, Nain, according to the account\nwhich Josephus gives of its position relative to Mount Tabor, cannot\nhave been far from the ordinary Galilean theatre of the ministry of\nJesus; [1408] lastly, the fame of the event, as was natural, was widely\ndisseminated (v. 17). Schleiermacher is of opinion that the authors of\nthe first sketches from the life of Jesus, not being within the\napostolic circle, did not generally venture to apply to the much\noccupied apostles, but rather sought the friends of Jesus of the second\norder, and in doing so they naturally turned to those places where they\nmight hope for the richest harvests,\u2014to Capernaum and Jerusalem; events\nwhich, like the resuscitation in question, occurred in other places,\ncould not so easily become common property. But first, this conception\nof the case is too subjective, making the promulgation of the most\nimportant deeds of Jesus, dependent on the researches of amateurs and\ncollectors of anecdotes, who went about gleaning, like Papias, at a\nlater period; secondly, (and these two objections are essentially\nconnected,) there lies at its foundation the erroneous idea that such\nhistories were fixed, like inert bodies once fallen to the ground, in\nthe places to which they belonged, guarded there as lifeless treasures,\nand only exhibited to those who took the trouble to resort to the spot:\ninstead of which, they were rather like the light-winged inhabitants of\nthe air, flying far away from the place which gave them birth, roaming\neverywhere, and not seldom losing all association with their original\nlocality. We see the same thing happen daily; innumerable histories,\nboth true and false, are represented as having occurred at the most\nwidely different places. Such a narrative, once formed, is itself the\nsubstance, the alleged locality, the accident: by no means can the\nlocality be the substance, to which the narrative is united as the\naccident, as it would follow from Schleiermacher\u2019s supposition. Since\nthen it cannot well be conceived that an incident of this kind, if it\nreally happened, could remain foreign to the general tradition, and\nhence unknown to the author of the first gospel: the fact of this\nauthor\u2019s ignorance of the incident gives rise to a suspicion that it\ndid not really happen.\n\nBut this ground of doubt falls with incomparably greater weight, on the\nnarrative of the resurrection of Lazarus in the fourth gospel. If the\nauthors or collectors of the three first gospels knew of this, they\ncould not, for more than one reason, avoid introducing it into their\nwritings. For, first, of all the resuscitations effected by Jesus, nay,\nof all his miracles, this resurrection of Lazarus, if not the most\nwonderful, is yet the one in which the marvellous presents itself the\nmost obviously and strikingly, and which therefore, if its historical\nreality can be established, is a pre-eminently strong proof of the\nextraordinary endowments of Jesus as a divine messenger; [1409] whence\nthe Evangelists, although they had related one or two other instances\nof the kind, could not think it superfluous to add this also. But,\nsecondly, the resurrection of Lazarus had, according to the\nrepresentation of John, a direct influence in the development of the\nfate of Jesus; for we learn from xi. 47 ff., that the increased resort\nto Jesus, and the credit which this event procured him, led to that\nconsultation of the Sanhedrim in which the sanguinary counsel of\nCaiaphas was given and approved. Thus the event had a double\nimportance\u2014pragmatical as well as dogmatical; consequently, the\nsynoptical writers could not have failed to narrate it, had it been\nwithin their knowledge. Nevertheless, theologians have found out all\nsorts of reasons why those Evangelists, even had the fact been known to\nthem, should refrain from its narration. Some have been of opinion that\nat the time of the composition of the three first gospels, the history\nwas still in every mouth, so that to make a written record of it was\nsuperfluous; [1410] others, on the contrary, have conjectured that it\nwas thought desirable to guard against its further publication, lest\ndanger should accrue to Lazarus and his family, the former of whom,\naccording to John xii. 10, was persecuted by the Jewish hierarchy on\naccount of the miracle which had been preformed in him; a caution for\nwhich there was no necessity at the later period at which John wrote\nhis gospel. [1411] It is plain that these two reasons nullify each\nother, and neither of them is in itself worthy of a serious refutation;\nyet as similar modes of evading a difficulty are still more frequently\nresorted to than might be supposed, we ought not to think some\nanimadversion on them altogether thrown away. The proposition, that the\nresurrection of Lazarus was not recorded by the synoptists because it\nwas generally known in their circle, proves too much; since on this\nrule, precisely the most important events in the life of Jesus, his\nbaptism, death, and resurrection, must have remained unwritten.\nMoreover, writings, which like our gospels, originate in a religious\ncommunity, do not serve merely to make known the unknown; it is their\noffice also to preserve what is already known. In opposition to the\nother explanation, it has been remarked by others, that the publication\nof this history among those who were not natives of Palestine, as was\nthe case with those for whom Mark and Luke wrote, could have done no\ninjury to Lazarus; and even the author of the first gospel, admitting\nthat he wrote in and for Palestine, could hardly have withheld a fact\nin which the glory of Christ was so peculiarly manifested, merely out\nof consideration to Lazarus, who, supposing the more improbable case\nthat he was yet living at the time of the composition of the first\ngospel, ought not, Christian as he doubtless was, to refuse to suffer\nfor the name of Christ; and the same observation would apply to his\nfamily. The most dangerous time for Lazarus according to John xii. 10,\nwas that immediately after his resurrection, and a narrative which\nappeared so long after, could scarcely have heightened or renewed this\ndanger; besides, in the neighbourhood of Bethany and Jerusalem whence\ndanger was threatened to Lazarus, the event must have been so\nwell-known and remembered that nothing was to be risked by its\npublication. [1412]\n\nIt appears then that the resurrection of Lazarus, since it is not\nnarrated by the synoptists, cannot have been known to them; and the\nquestion arises, how was this ignorance possible? Hase gives the\nmysterious answer, that the reason of this omission lies hid in the\ncommon relations under which the synoptists in general were silent\nconcerning all the earlier incidents in Jud\u00e6a; but this leaves it\nuncertain, at least so far as the expressions go, whether we ought to\ndecide to the disadvantage of the fourth gospel or of its predecessors.\nThe latest criticism of the gospel of Matthew has cleared up the\nambiguity in Hase\u2019s answer after its usual manner, determining the\nnature of those common relations which he vaguely adduces, thus: Every\none of the synoptists, by his ignorance of a history which an apostle\nmust have known, betrays himself to be no apostle. [1413] But this\nrenunciation of the apostolic origin of the first gospel, does not by\nany means enable us to explain the ignorance of its author and his\ncompeers of the resurrection of Lazarus. For besides the remarkable\ncharacter of the event, its occurrence in the very heart of Jud\u00e6a, the\ngreat attention excited by it, and its having been witnessed by the\napostles,\u2014all these considerations render it incomprehensible that it\nshould not have entered into the general tradition, and from thence\ninto the synoptical gospels. It is argued that these gospels are\nfounded on Galilean legends, i.e. oral narratives and written notices\nby the Galilean friends and companions of Jesus; that these were not\npresent at the resurrection of Lazarus, and therefore did not include\nit in their memoirs; and that the authors of the first gospels,\nstrictly confining themselves to the Galilean sources of information,\nlikewise passed over the event. [1414] But there was not such a wall of\npartition between Galilee and Jud\u00e6a, that the fame of an event like the\nresurrection of Lazarus could help sounding over from the one to the\nother. Even if it did not happen during a feast time, when (John iv.\n45) many Galileans might be eye-witnesses, yet the disciples, who were\nfor the greater part Galileans, were present (v. 16), and must, so soon\nas they returned into Galilee after the resurrection of Jesus, have\nspread abroad the history throughout this province, or rather, before\nthis, the Galileans who kept the last passover attended by Jesus, must\nhave learned the event, the report of which was so rife in the city.\nHence even L\u00fccke finds this explanation of Gabler\u2019s unsatisfactory; and\non his own side attempts to solve the enigma by the observation, that\nthe original evangelical tradition, which the synoptists followed, did\nnot represent the history of the Passion mainly in a pragmatical light,\nand therefore gave no heed to this event as the secret motive of the\nmurderous resolve against Jesus, and that only John, who was initiated\ninto the secret history of the Sanhedrim, was in a condition to supply\nthis explanatory fact. [1415] This view of the case would certainly\nappear to neutralize one reason why the synoptists must have noticed\nthe event in question, namely, that drawn from its pragmatical\nimportance; but when it is added, that as a miracle regarded in itself,\napart from its more particular circumstances, it might easily be lost\namong the rest of those narratives from which we have in the three\nfirst gospels a partly accidental selection,\u2014we must reply, that the\nsynoptical selection of miracles appears to be an accidental one only\nwhen that is at once assumed which ought first to be proved: namely,\nthat the miracles in the fourth gospel are historical: and unless the\nselection be casual to a degree inconsistent with the slightest\nintelligence in the compilers, such a miracle cannot have been\noverlooked. [1416]\n\nIt has doubtless been these and similar considerations, which have led\nthe latest writers on the controversy concerning the first gospel, to\ncomplain of the one-sidedness with which the above question is always\nanswered to the disadvantage of the synoptists, especially Matthew, as\nif it were forgotten that an answer dangerous to the fourth gospel lies\njust as near at hand. [1417] For our own part, we are not so greatly\nalarmed by the fulminations of L\u00fccke, as to be deterred from the\nexpression of our opinion on the subject. This theologian, even in his\nlatest editions, reproaches those who, from the silence of the\nsynoptical writers, conclude that this narrative is a fiction and the\ngospel of John not authentic, with an unparalleled lack of discernment,\nand a total want of insight into the mutual relations of our gospels\n(that is, into those relations viewed according to the professional\nconviction of theologians, which is unshaken even by the often\nwell-directed attacks of the author of the Probabilia). We,\nnevertheless, distinctly declare that we regard the history of the\nresurrection of Lazarus, not only as in the highest degree improbable\nin itself, but also destitute of external evidence; and this whole\nchapter, in connexion with those previously examined, as an indication\nof the unauthenticity of the fourth gospel.\n\nIf it is thus proved that all the three evangelical histories of\nresuscitations are rendered more or less doubtful by negative reasons:\nall that is now wanting to us is positive proof, that the tradition of\nJesus having raised the dead might easily be formed without historical\nfoundation. According to rabbinical, [1418] as well as New Testament\npassages (e.g. John v. 28 f., vi. 40, 44; 1 Cor. xv.; 1 Thess. iv. 16),\nthe resuscitation of the dead was expected of the Messiah at his\ncoming. Now the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, the appearance of the Messiah Jesus on earth,\nwas in the view of the early church broken by his death into two parts;\nthe first comprised his preparatory appearance, which began with his\nhuman birth, and ended with the resurrection and ascension; the second\nwas to commence with his future advent on the clouds of heaven, in\norder to open the \u03b1\u1f30\u1f7c\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, the age to come. As the first appearance\nof Jesus had wanted the glory and majesty expected in the Messiah, the\ngreat demonstrations of messianic power, and in particular the general\nresurrection of the dead, were assigned to his second, and as yet\nfuture appearance on earth. Nevertheless, as an immediate pledge of\nwhat was to be anticipated, even in the first advent some\nfore-splendours of the second must have been visible in single\ninstances; Jesus must, even in his first advent, by awaking some of the\ndead, have guaranteed his authority one day to awake all the dead; he\nmust, when questioned as to his messiahship, have been able to adduce\namong other criteria the fact that the dead were raised up by him\n(Matt. xi. 5), and he must have imparted the same power to his\ndisciples (Matt. xi. 8, comp. Acts ix. 40, xx. 10); but especially as a\nclose prefiguration of the hour in which all that are in their graves\nshall hear his voice, and shall come forth (John v. 28 f.), he must\nhave cried with a loud voice, Come forth! to one who had lain in the\ngrave four days (John xi. 17, 43). For the origination of detailed\nnarratives of single resuscitations, there lay, besides, the most\nappropriate types in the Old Testament. The prophets Elijah and Elisha\n(1 Kings xvii. 17 ff.; 2 Kings iv. 18 ff.) had awaked the dead, and to\nthese instances Jewish writings appealed as a type of the messianic\ntime. [1419] The object of the resuscitation was with both these\nprophets a child, but a boy, while in the narrative common to the\nsynoptists we have a girl; the two prophets revived him while he lay on\nthe bed, as Jesus does the daughter of Jairus; both entered alone into\nthe chamber of death, as Jesus excludes all save a few confidential\nfriends; only, as it is fitting, the Messiah needs not the laborious\nmanipulations by which the prophets attained their object. Elijah in\nparticular raised the son of a widow, as Jesus did at Nain; he met the\nwidow of Zarephath at the gate (but before the death of her son) as\nJesus met the widow of Nain, under the gate of the city (after the\ndeath of her son); lastly, it is in both instances told in the same\nwords how the miracle-worker restored the son to the mother. [1420]\nEven one already laid in his grave, like Lazarus, was restored to life\nby the prophet Elisha; with this difference, however, that the prophet\nhimself had been long dead, and the contact of his bones reanimated a\ncorpse which was accidentally thrown upon them (2 Kings xiii. 21).\nThere is yet another point of similarity between the resuscitations of\nthe dead in the Old Testament and that of Lazarus; it is that Jesus,\nwhile in his former resuscitation he utters the authoritative word\nwithout any preliminary, in that of Lazarus offers a prayer to God, as\nElisha, and more particularly Elijah, are said to have done. While\nPaulus extends to these narratives in the Old Testament, the natural\nexplanation which he has applied to those in the New, theologians of\nmore enlarged views have long ago remarked, that the resurrections in\nthe New Testament are nothing more than mythi, which had their origin\nin the tendency of the early Christian church, to make her Messiah\nagree with the type of the prophets, and with the messianic ideal.\n[1421]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 101.\n\nANECDOTES HAVING RELATION TO THE SEA.\n\nAs in general, at least according to the representations of the three\nfirst Evangelists the country around the Galilean sea was the chief\ntheatre of the ministry of Jesus; so a considerable number of his\nmiracles have an immediate reference to the sea. One of this class, the\nmiraculous draught of fishes granted to Peter, has already presented\nitself for our consideration; besides this, there are the miraculous\nstilling of the storm which had arisen on the sea while Jesus slept, in\nthe three synoptists; Matthew, Mark, and John; the summary of most of\nthose, the walking of Jesus on the sea, likewise during a storm, in\nincidents which the appendix to the fourth gospel places after the\nresurrection; and lastly, the anecdote of the coin that was to be\nangled for by Peter, in Matthew.\n\nThe first-named narrative (Matt. viii. 23 ff. parall.) is intended,\naccording to the Evangelist\u2019s own words, to represent Jesus to us as\nhim whom the winds and the sea obey, \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Thus, to follow out the gradation in the miraculous which\nhas been hitherto observed, it is here presupposed, not merely that\nJesus could act on the human mind and living body in a psychological\nand magnetic manner; or with a revivifying power on the human organism\nwhen it was forsaken by vitality; nay, not merely as in the history of\nthe draught of fishes earlier examined, that he could act immediately\nwith determinative power, on irrational yet animated existences, but\nthat he could act thus even on inanimate nature. The possibility of\nfinding a point of union between the alleged supernatural agency of\nJesus, and the natural order of phenomena, here absolutely ceases:\nhere, at the latest, there is an end to miracles in the wider and now\nmore favoured sense; and we come to those which must be taken in the\nnarrowest sense, or to the miracle proper. The purely supranaturalistic\nview is therefore the first to suggest itself. Olshausen has justly\nfelt, that such a power over external nature is not essentially\nconnected with the destination of Jesus for the human race and for the\nsalvation of man; whence he was led to place the natural phenomenon\nwhich is here controlled by Jesus in a relation to sin, and therefore\nto the office of Jesus. Storms, he says, are the spasms and convulsions\nof nature, and as such the consequences of sin, the fearful effects of\nwhich are seen even on the physical side of existence. [1422] But it is\nonly that limited observation of nature which in noting the particular\nforgets the general, that can regard storms, tempests, and similar\nphenomena (which in connexion with the whole have their necessary place\nand beneficial influence) as evils and departure from original law: and\na theory of the world in which it is seriously upheld, that before the\nfall there were no storms and tempests, as, on the other hand, no\nbeasts of prey and poisonous plants, partakes\u2014one does not know whether\nto say, of the fanatical, or of the childish. But to what purpose, if\nthe above explanation will not hold, could Jesus be gifted with such a\npower over nature? As a means of awakening faith in him, it was\ninadequate and superfluous: because Jesus found individual adherents\nwithout any demonstration of a power of this kind, and general\nacceptance even this did not procure him. As little can it be regarded\nas a type of the original dominion of man over external nature, a\ndominion which he is destined to reattain; for the value of this\ndominion consists precisely in this, that it is a mediate one, achieved\nby the progressive reflection and the united efforts of ages, not an\nimmediate and magical dominion, which costs no more than a word. Hence\nin relation to that part of nature of which we are here speaking the\ncompass and the steam-vessel are an incomparably truer realization of\nman\u2019s dominion over the ocean, than the allaying of the waves by a mere\nword. But the subject has another aspect, since the dominion of man\nover nature is not merely external and practical, but also immanent or\ntheoretical, that is, man even when externally he is subjected to the\nmight of the elements, yet is not internally conquered by them; but, in\nthe conviction that the powers of physical nature can only destroy in\nhim that which belongs to his physical existence, is elevated in the\nself-certainty of the spirit above the possible destruction of the\nbody. This spiritual power, it is said, was exhibited by Jesus, for he\nslept tranquilly in the midst of the storm, and when awaked by his\ntrembling disciples, inspired them with courage by his words. But for\ncourage to be shown, real danger must be apprehended: now for Jesus,\nsupposing him to be conscious of an immediate power over nature, danger\ncould in no degree exist: therefore he could not here give any proof of\nthis theoretical power.\n\nIn both respects the natural explanation would find only the\nconceivable and the desirable attributed to Jesus in the evangelical\nnarrative; namely, on the one hand, an intelligent observation of the\nstate of the weather, and on the other, exalted courage in the presence\nof real peril. When we read that Jesus commanded the winds \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fb7\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, we are to understand simply that he made some remark on\nthe storm, or some exclamations at its violence: and his calming of the\nsea we are to regard only as a prognostication, founded on the\nobservation of certain signs, that the storm would soon subside. His\naddress to the disciples is said to have proceeded, like the celebrated\nsaying of C\u00e6sar, from the confidence that a man who was to leave an\nimpress on the world\u2019s history, could not so lightly be cut short in\nhis career by an accident. That those who were in the ship regarded the\nsubsidence of the storm as the effect of the words of Jesus, proves\nnothing, for Jesus nowhere confirms their inference. [1423] But neither\ndoes he disapprove it, although he must have observed the impression\nwhich, in consequence of that inference, the result had made on the\npeople; [1424] he must therefore, as Venturini actually supposes, have\ndesignedly refrained from shaking their high opinion of his miraculous\npower, in order to attach them to him the more firmly. But, setting\nthis altogether aside, was it likely that the natural presages of the\nstorm should have been better understood by Jesus, who had never been\noccupied on the sea, than by Peter, James, and John, who had been at\nhome on it from their youth upwards? [1425]\n\nIt remains then that, taking the incident as it is narrated by the\nEvangelists, we must regard it as a miracle; but to raise this from an\nexegetical result to a real fact, is, according to the above remarks\nextremely difficult: whence there arises a suspicion against the\nhistorical character of the narrative. Viewed more nearly however, and\ntaking Matthew\u2019s account as the basis, there is nothing to object to\nthe narrative until the middle of v. 26. It might really have happened\nthat Jesus in one of his frequent passages across the Galilean sea, was\nsleeping when a storm arose; that the disciples awaked him with alarm,\nwhile he, calm and self-possessed, said to them, Why are ye fearful, O\nye of little faith? What follows\u2014the commanding of the waves, which\nMark, with his well-known fondness for such authoritative words,\nreproduces as if he were giving the exact words of Jesus in a Greek\ntranslation (\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c0\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03c3\u03bf!)\u2014might have been added in the propagation\nof the anecdote from one to another. There was an inducement to\nattribute to Jesus such a command over the winds and the sea, not only\nin the opinion entertained of his person, but also in certain features\nof the Old Testament history. Here, in poetical descriptions of the\npassage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, Jehovah is designated as\nhe who rebuked the Red Sea, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u1fb7 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc7 (Psa. cvi. 9;\nLXX. comp. Nahum i. 4), so that it retreated. Now, as the instrument in\nthis partition of the Red Sea was Moses, it was natural to ascribe to\nhis great successor, the Messiah, a similar function; accordingly we\nactually find from rabbinical passages, that a drying up of the sea was\nexpected to be wrought by God in the messianic times, doubtless through\nthe agency of the Messiah, as formerly through that of Moses. [1426]\nThat instead of drying up the sea Jesus is said only to produce a calm,\nmay be explained, on the supposition that the storm and the composure\nexhibited by Jesus on the occasion were historical, as a consequence of\nthe mythical having combined itself with this historical element; for,\nas according to this, Jesus and his disciples were on board a ship, a\ndrying up of the sea would have been out of place.\n\nStill it is altogether without any sure precedent, that a mythical\naddition should be engrafted on the stem of a real incident, so as to\nleave the latter totally unmodified. And there is one feature, even in\nthe part hitherto assumed to be historical, which, more narrowly\nexamined, might just as probably have been invented by the legend as\nhave really happened. That Jesus, before the storm breaks out, is\nsleeping, and even when it arises, does not immediately awake, is not\nhis voluntary deed, but chance; [1427] it is this very chance, however,\nwhich alone gives the scene its full significance, for Jesus sleeping\nin the storm is by the contrast which he presents, a not less\nemblematical image than Ulysses sleeping when, after so many storms, he\nwas about to land on his island home. Now that Jesus really slept at\nthe time that a storm broke out, may indeed have happened by chance in\none case out of ten; but in the nine cases also, when this did not\nhappen, and Jesus only showed himself calm and courageous during the\nstorm, I am inclined to think that the legend would so far have\nunderstood her interest, that, as she had represented the contrast of\nthe tranquillity of Jesus with the raging of the elements to the\nintellect, by means of the words of Jesus, so she would depict it for\nthe imagination, by means of the image of Jesus sleeping in the ship\n(or as Mark has it, [1428] on a pillow in the hinder part of the ship).\nIf then that which may possibly have happened in a single case, must\ncertainly have been invented by the legend in nine cases; the expositor\nmust in reason prepare himself for the undeniable possibility, that we\nhave before us one of the nine cases, instead of that single case.\n[1429] If then it be granted that nothing further remains as an\nhistorical foundation for our narrative, than that Jesus exhorted his\ndisciples to show the firm courage of faith in opposition to the raging\nwaves of the sea, it is certainly possible that he may once have done\nthis in a storm at sea; but just as he said: if ye have faith as a\ngrain of mustard seed, ye may say to this mountain, Be thou removed,\nand cast into the sea (Matt. xxi. 21), or to this tree, Be thou plucked\nup by the root, and be thou planted in the sea (Luke xvii. 6), and both\nshall be done (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, Luke): so he might, not merely on\nthe sea, but in any situation, make use of the figure, that to him who\nhas faith, winds and waves shall be obedient at a word (\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, Luke). If we now\ntake into account what even Olshausen remarks, and Schneckenburger has\nshown, [1430] that the contest of the kingdom of God with the world was\nin the early times of Christianity commonly compared to a voyage\nthrough a stormy ocean; we see at once, how easily legend might come to\nframe such a narrative as the above, on the suggestions afforded by the\nparallel between the Messiah and Moses, the expressions of Jesus, and\nthe conception of him as the pilot who steers the little vessel of the\nkingdom of God through the tumultuous waves of the world. Setting this\naside, however, and viewing the matter only generally, in relation to\nthe idea of a miracle-worker, we find a similar power over storms and\ntempests, ascribed, for example, to Pythagoras. [1431]\n\nWe have a more complicated anecdote connected with the sea, wanting in\nLuke, but contained in John vi. 16 ff., as well as in Matt. xiv. 22\nff., and Mark vi. 45 ff., where a storm overtakes the disciples when\nsailing by night, and Jesus appears to their rescue, walking towards\nthem on the sea. Here, again, the storm subsides in a marvellous manner\non the entrance of Jesus into the ship; but the peculiar difficulty of\nthe narrative lies in this, that the body of Jesus appears so entirely\nexempt from a law which governs all other human bodies without\nexception, namely, the law of gravitation, that he not only does not\nsink under the water, but does not even dip into it; on the contrary,\nhe walks erect on the waves as on firm land. If we are to represent\nthis to ourselves, we must in some way or other, conceive the body of\nJesus as an ethereal phantom, according to the opinion of the Docet\u00e6; a\nconception which the Fathers of the Church condemned as irreligious,\nand which we must reject as extravagant. Olshausen indeed says, that in\na superior corporeality, impregnated with the powers of a higher world,\nsuch an appearance need not create surprise: [1432] but these are words\nto which we can attach no definite idea. If the spiritual activity of\nJesus which refined and perfected his corporeal nature, instead of\nbeing conceived as that which more and more completely emancipated his\nbody from the psychical laws of passion and sensuality, is understood\nas if by its means the body was exempted from the physical law of\ngravity:\u2014this is a materialism of which, as in a former case, it is\ndifficult to decide whether it be more fantastical or childish. If\nJesus did not sink in the water, he must have been a spectre, and the\ndisciples in our narrative would not have been wrong in taking him for\none. We must also recollect that on his baptism in the river Jordan,\nJesus did not exhibit this property, but was submerged like an ordinary\nman. Now had he at that time also the power of sustaining himself on\nthe surface of the water, and only refrained from using it? and did he\nthus increase or reduce his specific gravity by an act of his will? or\nare we to suppose, as Olshausen would perhaps say, that at the time of\nhis baptism he had not attained so far in the process of subtilizing\nhis body, as to be freely borne up by the water, and that he only\nreached this point at a later period? These are questions which\nOlshausen justly calls absurd: nevertheless they serve to open a\nglimpse into the abyss of absurdities in which we are involved by the\nsupranaturalistic interpretation, and particularly by that which this\ntheologian gives of the narrative before us.\n\nTo avoid these, the natural explanation has tried many expedients. The\nboldest is that of Paulus, who maintains that the text does not state\nthat Jesus walked on the water; and that the miracle in this passage is\nnothing but a philological mistake, since \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\nis analogous to the expression \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, Exod.\nxiv. 2, and signifies to walk, as the other to encamp, over the sea,\nthat is, on the elevated sea-shore. [1433] According to the meaning of\nthe words taken separately, this explanation is possible: its real\napplicability in this particular instance, however, must be determined\nby the context. Now this represents the disciples as having rowed\ntwenty-five or thirty furlongs (John), or as being in the midst of the\nsea (Matthew and Mark), and then it is said that Jesus came towards the\nship, and so near that he could speak to them, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2. How could he do this if he remained on the shore? To obviate\nthis objection, Paulus conjectures that the disciples in that stormy\nnight probably only skirted the shore; but the words \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, in the midst of the sea, though not, we grant, to be\nconstrued with mathematical strictness, yet, even taken according to\nthe popular mode of speaking, are too decidedly opposed to such a\nsupposition for it to be worth our further consideration. But this mode\nof interpretation encounters a fatal blow in the passage where Matthew\nsays of Peter, that having come down out of the ship he walked on the\nwater, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 (v. 29); for as\nit is said shortly after that Peter began to sink (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9),\nwalking merely on the shore cannot have been intended here; and if not\nhere, neither can it have been intended in the former instance relating\nto Jesus, the expressions being substantially the same. [1434]\n\nBut if Peter, in his attempt to walk upon the waters, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, began to sink, may we not still suppose that both he and Jesus\nmerely swam in the sea, or waded through its shallows? Both these\nsuppositions have actually been advanced. [1435] But the act of wading\nmust have been expressed by \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, and had that\nof swimming been intended, one or other of the parallel passages would\ncertainly have substituted the precise expression for the ambiguous\none: besides, it must be alike impossible either to swim from\ntwenty-five to thirty furlongs in a storm, or to wade to about the\nmiddle of the sea, which certainly was beyond the shallows; a swimmer\ncould not easily be taken for a spectre; and, lastly, the prayer of\nPeter for special permission to imitate Jesus, and his failure in it\nfrom want of faith, point to something supernatural. [1436]\n\nThe reasoning on which the natural mode of interpretation rests here,\nas elsewhere, has been enunciated by Paulus in connexion with this\npassage in a form which reveals its fundamental error in a particularly\nhappy manner. The question, he says, in such cases is always this:\nwhich is more probable, that the evangelical writer should use an\nexpression not perfectly exact, or that there should be a departure\nfrom the course of nature? It is evident that the dilemma is falsely\nstated, and should rather be put thus: Is it more probable that the\nauthor should express himself inaccurately (rather, in direct\ncontradiction to the supposed sense), or that he should mean to narrate\na departure from the course of nature? For only what he means to\nnarrate is the immediate point of inquiry; what really happened is,\neven according to the distinction of the judgment of a writer from the\nfact that he states, on which Paulus everlastingly insists, an\naltogether different question. Because according to our views a\ndeparture from the course of nature cannot have taken place, it by no\nmeans follows, that a writer belonging to the primitive age of\nChristianity could not have credited and narrated such a case; [1437]\nand therefore to abolish the miraculous, we must not explain it away\nfrom the narrative, but rather inquire whether the narrative itself,\neither in whole or in part, must not be excluded from the domain of\nhistory. In relation to this inquiry, first of all, each of our three\naccounts has peculiar features which in an historical light are\nsuspicious.\n\nThe most striking of these features is found in Mark v. 48, where he\nsays of Jesus that he came walking on the sea towards the disciples,\nand would have passed by them, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f24\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, but that he\nwas constrained by their anxious cries to take notice of them. With\njustice Fritzsche interprets Mark\u2019s meaning to be, that it was the\nintention of Jesus, supported by divine power, to walk across the whole\nsea as on firm land. But with equal justice Paulus asks, Could anything\nhave been more useless and extravagant than to perform so singular a\nmiracle without any eye to witness it? We must not however on this\naccount, with the latter theologian, interpret the words of Mark as\nimplying a natural event, namely, that Jesus, being on the land, was\ngoing to pass by the disciples who were sailing in a ship not far from\nthe shore, for the miraculous interpretation of the passage is\nperfectly accordant with the spirit of our Evangelist. Not contented\nwith the representation of his informant, that Jesus, on this one\noccasion, adopted this extraordinary mode of progress with special\nreference to his disciples, he aims by the above addition to convey the\nidea of walking on the water being so natural and customary with Jesus,\nthat without any regard to the disciples, whenever a sheet of water lay\nin his road, he walked across it as unconcernedly as if it had been dry\nland. But such a mode of procedure, if habitual with Jesus, would\npresuppose most decidedly a subtilization of his body such as Olshausen\nsupposes; it would therefore presuppose what is inconceivable. Hence\nthis particular of Mark\u2019s presents itself as one of the most striking\namong those by which the second Evangelist now and then approaches to\nthe exaggerations of the apocryphal gospels. [1438]\n\nIn Matthew, the miracle is in a different manner, not so much\nheightened as complicated; for there, not only Jesus, but Peter also\nmakes an experiment in walking on the sea, not indeed altogether\nsuccessful. This trait is rendered suspicious by its intrinsic\ncharacter, as well as by the silence of the two other narrators.\nImmediately on the word of Jesus, and in virtue of the faith which he\nhas in the beginning, Peter actually succeeds in walking on the water\nfor some time, and only when he is assailed by fear and doubt does he\nbegin to sink. What are we to think of this? Admitting that Jesus, by\nmeans of his etherealized body, could walk on the water, how could he\ncommand Peter, who was not gifted with such a body, to do the same? or\nif by a mere word he could give the body of Peter a dispensation from\nthe law of gravitation, can he have been a man? and if a God, would he\nthus lightly cause a suspension of natural laws at the caprice of a\nman? or, lastly, are we to suppose that faith has the power\ninstantaneously to lessen the specific gravity of the body of a\nbeliever? Faith is certainly said to have such a power in the\nfigurative discourse of Jesus just referred to, according to which the\nbeliever is able to remove mountains and trees into the sea,\u2014and why\nnot also himself to walk on the sea? The moral that as soon as faith\nfalters, power ceases, could not be so aptly presented by either of the\ntwo former figures as by the latter, in the following form: as long as\na man has faith he is able to walk unharmed on the unstable sea, but no\nsooner does he give way to doubt than he sinks, unless Christ extend to\nhim a helping hand. The fundamental thought, then, of Matthew\u2019s\nepisodical narrative is, that Peter was too confident in the firmness\nof his faith, that by its sudden failure he incurred great danger, but\nwas rescued by Jesus; a thought which is actually expressed in Luke\nxxii. 31 f., where Jesus says to Simon: Satan hath desired to have you\nthat he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee that thy\nfaith fail not. These words of Jesus have reference to Peter\u2019s coming\ndenial; this was the occasion when his faith, on the strength of which\nhe had just before offered to go with Jesus to prison and to death,\nwould have wavered, had not the Lord by his intercession, procured him\nnew strength. If we add to this the above-mentioned habit of the early\nChristians to represent the persecuting world under the image of a\nturbulent sea, we cannot fail, with one of the latest critics, to\nperceive in the description of Peter courageously volunteering to walk\non the sea, soon, however, sinking from faintheartedness, but borne up\nby Jesus, an allegorical and mythical representation of that trial of\nfaith which this disciple who imagined himself so strong, met so\nweakly, and which higher assistance alone enabled him to surmount.\n[1439]\n\nBut the account of the fourth gospel also is not wanting in peculiar\nfeatures, which betray an unhistorical character. It has ever been a\ncross to harmonists, that while according to Matthew and Mark, the ship\nwas only in the middle of the sea when Jesus reached it: according to\nJohn, it immediately after arrived at the opposite shore; that while,\naccording to the former, Jesus actually entered into the ship, and the\nstorm thereupon subsided: according to John, on the contrary, the\ndisciples did indeed wish to take him into the ship, but their actually\ndoing so was rendered superfluous by their immediate arrival at the\nplace of disembarkation. It is true that here also abundant methods of\nreconciliation have been found. First, the word \u1f14\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, they wished,\nadded to \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, to receive, is said to be a mere redundancy of\nexpression; then, to signify simply the joyfulness of the reception, as\nif it had been said, \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd; then, to describe the first\nimpression which the recognition of Jesus made on the disciples, his\nreception into the ship, which really followed, not being mentioned.\n[1440] But the sole reason for such an interpretation lies in the\nunauthorized comparison with the synoptical accounts: in the narrative\nof John, taken separately, there is no ground for it, nay, it is\nexcluded. For the succeeding sentence: \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fc6\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, immediately the ship was at the land whither they\nwent, though it is united, not by \u03b4\u1f72 but by \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76, can nevertheless only\nbe taken antithetically, in the sense that the reception of Jesus into\nthe ship, notwithstanding the readiness of the disciples, did not\nreally take place, because they were already at the shore. In\nconsideration of this difference, Chrysostom held that there were two\noccasions on which Jesus walked on the sea. He says that on the second\noccasion, which John narrates, Jesus did not enter into the ship, in\norder that the miracle might be greater \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u1fb6\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n[1441] This view we may transfer to the Evangelist, and say: if Mark\nhas aggrandized the miracle, by implying that Jesus intended to walk\npast the disciples across the entire sea; so John goes yet farther, for\nhe makes him actually accomplish this design, and without being taken\ninto the ship, arrive at the opposite shore. [1442] Not only, however,\ndoes the fourth Evangelist seek to aggrandize the miracle before us,\nbut also to establish and authenticate it more securely. According to\nthe synoptists, the sole witnesses were the disciples, who saw Jesus\ncome towards them, walking on the sea: John adds to these few immediate\nwitnesses, a multitude of mediate ones, namely, the people who were\nassembled when Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes.\nThese, when on the following morning they no longer find Jesus on the\nsame spot, make the calculation, that Jesus cannot have crossed the sea\nby ship, for he did not get into the same boat with the disciples, and\nno other boat was there (v. 22); while, that he did not go by land, is\ninvolved in the circumstance that the people when they have forthwith\ncrossed the sea, find him on the opposite shore (v. 25), whither he\ncould hardly have arrived by land in the short interval. Thus in the\nnarrative of the fourth gospel, as all natural means of passage are cut\noff from Jesus, there remains for him only a supernatural one, and this\nconsequence is in fact inferred by the multitude in the astonished\nquestion which they put to Jesus, when they find him on the opposite\nshore: Rabbi, when camest thou hither? As this chain of evidence for\nthe miraculous passage of Jesus depends on the rapid transportation of\nthe multitude, the Evangelist hastens to procure other boats \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 for their service (v. 23). Now the multitude who take ship (v.\n22, 26 ff.) are described as the same whom Jesus had miraculously fed,\nand these amounted (according to v. 10) to about 5000. If only a fifth,\nnay, a tenth of these passed over, there needed for this, as the author\nof the Probabilia has justly observed, a whole fleet of ships,\nespecially if they were fishing boats; but even if we suppose them\nvessels of freight, these would not all have been bound for Capernaum,\nor have changed their destination for the sake of accommodating the\ncrowd. This passage of the multitude, therefore, appears only to have\nbeen invented, [1443] on the one hand, to confirm by their evidence the\nwalking of Jesus on the sea; on the other, as we shall presently see,\nto gain an opportunity for making Jesus, who according to the tradition\nhad gone over to the opposite shore immediately after the\nmultiplication of the loaves, speak yet further with the multitude on\nthe subject of this miracle.\n\nAfter pruning away these offshoots of the miraculous which are peculiar\nto the respective narratives, the main stem is still left, namely, the\nmiracle of Jesus walking on the sea for a considerable distance, with\nall its attendant improbabilities as above exposed. But the solution of\nthese accessory particulars, as it led us to discover the causes of\ntheir unhistorical origin, has facilitated the discovery of such causes\nfor the main narrative, and has thereby rendered possible the solution\nof this also. We have seen, by an example already adduced, that it was\nusual with the Hebrews and early Christians, to represent the power of\nGod over nature, a power which the human spirit when united to him was\nsupposed to share, under the image of supremacy over the raging waves\nof the sea. In the narrative of the Exodus this supremacy is manifested\nby the sea being driven out of its place at a sign, so that a dry path\nis opened to the people of God in its bed; in the New Testament\nnarrative previously considered, the sea is not removed out of its\nplace, but only so far laid to rest that Jesus and his disciples can\ncross it in safety in their ship: in the anecdote before us, the sea\nstill remains in its place as in the second, but there is this point of\nsimilarity to the first, that the passage is made on foot, not by ship,\nyet as a necessary consequence of the other particular, on the surface\nof the sea, not in its bed. Still more immediate inducements to develop\nin such a manner the conception of the power of the miracle-worker over\nthe waves, may be found both in the Old Testament, and in the opinions\nprevalent in the time of Jesus. Among the miracles of Elisha, it is not\nonly told that he divided the Jordan by a stroke of his mantle, so that\nhe could go through it dry shod (2 Kings ii. 14), but also that he\ncaused a piece of iron which had fallen into the water to swim (2 Kings\nvi. 6); an ascendancy over the law of gravitation which it would be\nimagined the miracle-worker might be able to evince in relation to his\nown body also, and thus to exhibit himself, as it is said of Jehovah,\nJob ix. 8, LXX., \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03b4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, walking upon\nthe sea as upon a pavement. In the time of Jesus much was told of\nmiracle-workers who could walk on the water. Apart from conceptions\nexclusively Grecian, [1444] the Greco-oriental legend feigned that the\nhyperborean Abaris possessed an arrow, by means of which he could bear\nhimself up in the air, and thus traverse rivers, seas, and abysses,\n[1445] and popular superstition attributed to many wonder-workers the\npower of walking on water. [1446] Hence the possibility that with all\nthese elements and inducements existing, a similar legend should be\nformed concerning Jesus, appears incomparably stronger, than that a\nreal event of this kind should have occurred:\u2014and with this conclusion\nwe may dismiss the subject.\n\nThe manifestation \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of Jesus at the sea of Tiberias \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 narrated John xxi. has so striking a\nresemblance to the sea anecdotes hitherto considered, that although the\nfourth gospel places it in the period after the resurrection, we are\ninduced, as in an earlier instance we brought part of it under notice\nin connexion with the narrative of Peter\u2019s draught of fishes, so here\nto institute a comparison between its other features, and the narrative\nof Jesus walking on the sea. In both cases, Jesus is perceived by the\ndisciples in the twilight of early morning; only in the latter instance\nhe does not, as in the former, walk on the sea, but stands on the\nshore, and the disciples are in consternation, not because of a storm,\nbut because of the fruitlessness of their fishing. In both instances\nthey are afraid of him; in the one, they take him for a spectre, in the\nother, not one of them ventures to ask him who he is, knowing that it\nis the Lord. But especially the scene with Peter, peculiar to the first\ngospel, has its corresponding one in the present passage. As, there,\nwhen Jesus walking on the sea makes himself known to his disciples,\nPeter entreats permission to go to him on the water: so here, as soon\nas Jesus is recognized standing on the shore, Peter throws himself into\nthe water that he may reach him the shortest way by swimming. Thus,\nthat which in the earlier narrative was the miraculous act of walking\non the sea, becomes in the one before us, in relation to Jesus, the\nsimple act of standing on the shore, in relation to Peter, the natural\nact of swimming; so that the latter history sounds almost like a\nrationalistic paraphrase of the former: and there have not been wanting\nthose who have maintained that at least the anecdote about Peter in the\nfirst gospel, is a traditional transformation of the incident in John\nxxi. 7 into a miracle. [1447] Modern criticism is restrained from\nextending this conjecture to the anecdote of Jesus walking on the sea,\nby the fact that the supposed apostolic fourth gospel itself has this\nfeature in the earlier narrative (vi. 16 ff.). But from our point of\nview it appears quite possible, that the history in question either\ncame to the author of this gospel in the one form, and to the author of\nthe appendix in the other; or that it came to the one author of both in\na double form, and was inserted by him in separate parts of his\nnarrative. Meanwhile, if the two histories are to be compared, we ought\nnot at once to assume that the one, John xxi., is the original, the\nother, Matt. xiv. parall., the secondary; we must first ask which of\nthe two bears intrinsic marks of one or the other character. Now\ncertainly if we adhere to the rule that the more miraculous narrative\nis the later, that in John xxi. appears, in relation to the manner in\nwhich Jesus approaches the disciples, and in which Peter reaches Jesus,\nto be the original. But this rule is connected in the closest manner\nwith another; namely, that the more simple narrative is the earlier,\nthe more complex one the later, as the conglomerate is a later\nformation than the homogeneous stone; and according to this rule, the\nconclusion is reversed, and the narrative in John xxi. is the more\ntraditional, for in it the particulars mentioned above are interwoven\nwith the miraculous draught of fishes, while in the earlier narrative\nthey form in themselves an independent whole. It is indeed true, that a\ngreater whole may be broken up into smaller parts; but such fragments\nhave not at all the appearance of the separate narratives of the\ndraught of fishes and the walking on the sea, since these, on the\ncontrary, leave the impression of being each a finished whole. From\nthis interweaving with the miracle of the draught of fishes,\u2014to which\nwe must add the circumstance that the entire circle of events turns\nupon the risen Jesus, who is already in himself a miracle,\u2014it is\napparent how, contrary to the general rule, the oft-named particulars\ncould lose their miraculous character, since by their combination with\nother miracles they were reduced to mere accessories, to a sort of\nnatural scaffolding. If then the narrative in John xxi. is entirely\nsecondary, its historical value has already been estimated with that of\nthe narratives which furnished its materials.\n\nIf, before we proceed further, we take a retrospect of the series of\nsea-anecdotes hitherto examined, we find, it is true, that the two\nextreme anecdotes are altogether dissimilar, the one relating mainly to\nfishing, the other to a storm; nevertheless, on a proper arrangement,\neach of them appears to be connected with the preceding by a common\nfeature. The narrative of the call of the fishers of men (Matt. iv. 18\nff. par.) opens the series; that of Peter\u2019s draught of fishes (Luke v.\n1 ff.) has in common with this the saying about the fishers of men, but\nthe fact of the draught of fishes is peculiar to it; this fact\nreappears in John xxi., where the circumstances of Jesus standing on\nthe shore in the morning twilight, and the swimming of Peter towards\nhim, are added; these two circumstances are in Matt. xiv. 22 ff.\nparall. metamorphosed into the act of walking on the sea on the part of\nJesus and of Peter, and at the same time a storm, and its cessation on\nthe entrance of Jesus into the ship, are introduced; lastly, in Matt.\nviii. 23 ff. parall., we have an anecdote single in its kind, namely,\nthat of the stilling of the storm by Jesus.\n\nWe come to a history for which a place is less readily found in the\nforegoing series, in Matt. xvii. 24 ff. It is true that here again\nthere is a direction of Jesus to Peter to go and fish, to which,\nalthough it is not expressly stated, we must suppose that the issue\ncorresponded: but first, it is only one fish which is to be caught, and\nwith an angle; and secondly, the main point is, that in its mouth is to\nbe found a piece of gold to serve for the payment of the temple tribute\nfor Jesus and Peter, from the latter of whom this tax had been\ndemanded. This narrative as it is here presented has peculiar\ndifficulties, which Paulus well exhibits, and which Olshausen does not\ndeny. Fritzsche justly remarks, that there are two miraculous\nparticulars presupposed: first, that the fish had a coin in its mouth;\nsecondly, that Jesus had a foreknowledge of this. On the one hand, we\nmust regard the former of these particulars as extravagant, and\nconsequently the latter also; and on the other, the whole miracle\nappears to have been unnecessary. Certainly, that metals and other\nvaluables have been found in the bodies of fish is elsewhere narrated,\n[1448] and is not incredible; but that a fish should have a piece of\nmoney in its mouth, and keep it there while it snapped at the bait\u2014this\neven Dr. Schnappinger [1449] found inconceivable. Moreover, the motive\nof Jesus for performing such a miracle could not be want of money, for\neven if at that time there was no store in the common fund, still Jesus\nwas in Capernaum, where he had many friends, and where consequently he\ncould have obtained the needful money in a natural way. To exclude this\npossibility, we must with Olshausen confound borrowing with begging,\nand regard it as inconsistent with the decorum divinum which must have\nbeen observed by Jesus. Nor after so many proofs of his miraculous\npower, could Jesus think this additional miracle necessary to\nstrengthen Peter\u2019s belief in his messiahship.\n\nHence we need not wonder that rationalistic commentators have attempted\nto free themselves at any cost from a miracle which even Olshausen\npronounces to be the most difficult in the evangelical history, and we\nhave only to see how they proceed in this undertaking. The pith of the\nnatural explanation of the fact lies in the interpretation of the word\n\u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, thou shalt find, in the command of Jesus, not of an immediate\ndiscovery of a stater in the fish, but of a mediate acquisition of this\nsum by selling what was caught. [1450] It must be admitted that the\nabove word may bear this signification also; but if we are to give it\nthis sense instead of the usual one, we must in the particular instance\nhave a clear intimation to this effect in the context. Thus, if it were\nsaid in the present passage: Take the first fine fish, carry it to the\nmarket, \u03ba\u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1, and there thou shall find a stater,\nthis explanation would be in place; as however instead of this, the\nword \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 is preceded by \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, when thou hast\nopened his mouth,\u2014as, therefore, no place of sale, but a place inside\nthe fish, is mentioned, as that on the opening of which the coin is to\nbe obtained,\u2014we can only understand an immediate discovery of the piece\nof money in this part of the fish. [1451] Besides, to what purpose\nwould the opening of the fish\u2019s mouth be mentioned, unless the\ndesideratum were to be found there? Paulus sees in this only the\ninjunction to release the fish from the hook without delay, in order to\nkeep it alive, and thus to render it more saleable. The order to open\nthe mouth of the fish might indeed, if it stood alone, be supposed to\nhave the extraction of the hook as its object and consequence; but as\nit is followed by \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1, thou shalt find a stater, it is\nplain that this is the immediate end of opening the mouth. The\nperception that, so long as the opening of the fish\u2019s mouth is spoken\nof in this passage, it will be inferred that the coin was to be found\nthere, has induced the rationalistic commentators to try whether they\ncould not refer the word \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1, mouth, to another subject than the\nfish, and no other remained than the fisher, Peter. But as \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\nappeared to be connected with the fish by the word \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, which\nimmediately followed it, Dr. Paulus, moderating or exaggerating the\nsuggestion of a friend, who proposed to read \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 instead\nof\u2014\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\u2014allowed \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 to remain, but took it adverbially,\nand translated the passage thus: thou hast then only to open thy mouth\nto offer the fish for sale, and thou wilt on the spot (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) receive a\nstater as its price. But, it would still be asked, how could a single\nfish fetch so high a price in Capernaum, where fish were so abundant?\nHence Paulus understands the words, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f06\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd,\ntake up the fish that first cometh up, collectively thus: continue time\nafter time to take the fish that first comes to thee, until thou hast\ncaught as many as will be worth a stater.\n\nIf the series of strained interpretations which are necessary to a\nnatural explanation of this narrative throw us back on that which\nallows it to contain a miracle; and if this miracle appear to us,\naccording to our former decision, both extravagant and useless, nothing\nremains but to presume that here also there is a legendary element.\nThis view has been combined with the admission, that a real but natural\nfact was probably at the foundation of the legend: namely, that Jesus\nonce ordered Peter to fish until he had caught enough to procure the\namount of the temple tribute; whence the legend arose that the fish had\nthe tribute money in its mouth. [1452] But, in our opinion, a more\nlikely source of this anecdote is to be found in the much-used theme of\na catching of fish by Peter, on the one side, and on the other, the\nwell-known stories of precious things having been found in the bodies\nof fish. Peter, as we learn from Matt. iv., Luke v., John xxi., was the\nfisher in the evangelical legend ta whom Jesus in various forms, first\nsymbolically, and then literally, granted the rich draught of fishes.\nThe value of the capture appears here in the shape of a piece of money,\nwhich, as similar things are elsewhere said to have been found in the\nbelly of fishes, is by an exaggeration of the marvel said to be found\nin the mouth of the fish. That it is the stater, required for the\ntemple tribute, might be occasioned by a real declaration of Jesus\nconcerning his relation to that tax; or conversely, the stater which\nwas accidentally named in the legend of the fish angled for by Peter,\nmight bring to recollection the temple tribute, which amounted to that\nsum for two persons, and the declaration of Jesus relative to this\nsubject.\n\nWith this tale conclude the sea anecdotes.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 102.\n\nTHE MIRACULOUS MULTIPLICATION OF THE LOAVES AND FISHES.\n\nAs, in the histories last considered, Jesus determined and mitigated\nthe motions of irrational and even of inanimate existences; so, in the\nnarratives which we are about to examine, he exhibits the power of\nmultiplying not only natural objects, but also productions of nature\nwhich had been wrought upon by art.\n\nThat Jesus miraculously multiplied prepared articles of food, feeding a\ngreat multitude of men with a few loaves and fishes, is narrated to us\nwith singular unanimity by all the Evangelists (Matt. xiv. 13 ff.; Mark\nvi. 30 ff.; Luke ix. 10 ff.; John vi. 1 ff.). And if we believe the two\nfirst, Jesus did not do this merely once; for in Matt. xv. 32 ff.; Mark\nviii. 1 ff. we read of a second multiplication of loaves and fishes,\nthe circumstances of which are substantially the same as those of the\nformer. It happens somewhat later; the place is rather differently\ndescribed, and the length of time during which the multitude stayed\nwith Jesus is differently stated; moreover, and this is a point of\ngreater importance, the proportion between the stock of food and the\nnumber of men is different, for, on the first occasion, five thousand\nmen are satisfied with five loaves and two fishes, and, on the second,\nfour thousand with seven loaves and a few fishes; on the first twelve\nbaskets are filled with the fragments, on the second only seven.\nNotwithstanding this, not only is the substance of the two histories\nexactly the same\u2014the satisfying of a multitude of people with\ndisproportionately small means of nourishment; but also the description\nof the scene in the one, entirely corresponds in its principal features\nto that in the other. In both instances, the locality is a solitary\nregion in the vicinity of the Galilean sea; Jesus is led to perform the\nmiracle because the people have lingered too long with him; he\nmanifests a wish to feed the people from his own stores, which the\ndisciples regard as impossible; the stock of food at his disposal\nconsists of loaves and fishes; Jesus makes the people sit down, and,\nafter giving thanks, distributes the provisions to them through the\nmedium of the disciples; they are completely satisfied, and yet a\ndisproportionately great quantity of fragments is afterwards collected\nin baskets; lastly, in the one case as in the other, Jesus after thus\nfeeding the multitude, crosses the sea.\n\nThis repetition of the same event creates many difficulties. The chief\nof these is suggested by the question: Is it conceivable that the\ndisciples, after they had themselves witnessed how Jesus was able to\nfeed a great multitude with a small quantity of provision, should\nnevertheless on a second occasion of the same kind, have totally\nforgotten the first, and have asked, Whence should we have so much\nbread in the wilderness as to feed so great a multitude? To render such\nan obliviousness on the part of the disciples probable, we are reminded\nthat they had, in just as incomprehensible a manner, forgotten the\ndeclarations of Jesus concerning his approaching sufferings and death,\nwhen these events occurred; [1453] but it is equally a pending\nquestion, whether after such plain predictions from Jesus, his death\ncould in fact have been so unexpected to the disciples. It has been\nsupposed that a longer interval had elapsed between the two miracles,\nand that during this there had occurred a number of similar cases, in\nwhich Jesus did not think fit to afford miraculous assistance: [1454]\nbut, on the one hand, these are pure fictions; on the other, it would\nremain just as inconceivable as ever, that the striking similarity of\nthe circumstances preceding the second feeding of the multitude to\nthose preceding the first, should not have reminded even one of the\ndisciples of that former event Paulus therefore is right in\nmaintaining, that had Jesus once already fed the multitude by a\nmiracle, the disciples, on the second occasion, when he expressed his\ndetermination not to send the people away fasting, would confidently\nhave called upon him for a repetition of the former miracle.\n\nIn any case then, if Jesus on two separate occasions fed a multitude\nwith disproportionately small provision, we must suppose, as some\ncritics have done, that many features in the narrative of the one\nincident were transferred to the other, and thus the two, originally\nunlike, became in the course of oral tradition more and more similar;\nthe incredulous question of the disciples especially having been\nuttered only on the first occasion, and not on the second. [1455] It\nmay seem to speak in favour of such an assimilation, that the fourth\nEvangelist, though in his numerical statement he is in accordance with\nthe first narrative of Matthew and Mark, yet has, in common with the\nsecond, the circumstances that the scene opens with an address of Jesus\nand not of the disciples, and that the people come to Jesus on a\nmountain. But if the fundamental features be allowed to remain,\u2014the\nwilderness, the feeding of the people, the collection of the\nfragments,\u2014it is still, even without that question of the disciples,\nsufficiently improbable that the scene should have been repeated in so\nentirely similar a manner. If, on the contrary, these general features\nbe renounced in relation to one of the histories, it is no longer\napparent, how the veracity of the evangelical narratives as to the\nmanner in which the second multiplication of loaves and fishes took\nplace can be questioned on all points, and yet their statement as to\nthe fact of its occurrence be maintained as trustworthy, especially as\nthis statement is confined to Matthew and his imitator Mark.\n\nHence later critics have, with more [1456] or less [1457] decision,\nexpressed the opinion, that here one and the same fact has been\ndoubled, through a mistake of the first Evangelist, who was followed by\nthe second. They suppose that several narratives of the miraculous\nfeeding of the multitude were current which presented divergencies from\neach other, especially in relation to numbers, and that the author of\nthe first gospel, to whom every additional history of a miracle was a\nwelcome prize, and who was therefore little qualified for the critical\nreduction of two different narratives of this kind into one, introduced\nboth into his collection. This fully explains how on the second\noccasion the disciples could again express themselves so incredulously:\nnamely, because in the tradition whence the author of the first gospel\nobtained the second history of a miraculous multiplication of loaves\nand fishes, it was the first and only one, and the Evangelist did not\nobliterate this feature because, apparently, he incorporated the two\nnarratives into his writing just as he read or heard them. Among other\nproofs that this was the case, may be mentioned the constancy with\nwhich he and Mark, who copied him, not only in the account of the\nevents, but also in the subsequent allusion to them (Matt. xvi. 9 f.;\nMark viii. 19 f.), call the baskets in the first feeding, \u03ba\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, in\nthe second \u03c3\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2. [1458] It is indeed correctly maintained, that the\nApostle Matthew could not possibly take one event for two, and relate a\nnew history which never happened: [1459] but this proposition does not\ninvolve the reality of the second miraculous feeding of the multitude,\nunless the apostolic origin of the first gospel be at once presupposed,\nwhereas this yet remains to be proved. Paulus further objects, that the\nduplication of the history in question could be of no advantage\nwhatever to the design of the Evangelist; and Olshausen, developing\nthis idea more fully, observes that the legend would not have left the\nsecond narrative as simple and bare as the first. But this argument,\nthat a narrative cannot be fictitious, because if it were so it would\nhave been more elaborately adorned, may very properly be at once\ndismissed, since its limits being altogether undefined, it might be\nrepeated under all circumstances, and in the end would prove fable\nitself not sufficiently fabulous. But, in this case particularly, it is\ntotally baseless, because it presupposes the narrative of the first\nfeeding of the multitude to be historically accurate; now, if we have\nalready in this a legendary production, the other edition of it,\nnamely, the second history of a miraculous feeding, needs not to be\ndistinguished by special traditionary features. But not only is the\nsecond narrative not embellished as regards the miraculous, when\ncompared with the first; it even diminishes the miracle, for, while\nincreasing the quantity of provision, it reduces the number of those\nwhom it satisfied: and this retrogression in the marvellous is thought\nthe surest proof that the second feeding of the multitude really\noccurred; for, it is said, he who chose to invent an additional miracle\nof this kind, would have made it surpass the first, and instead of five\nthousand men would have given, not four, but ten thousand. [1460] This\nargument, also, rests on the unfounded assumption that the first\nnarrative is of course the historical one; though Olshausen himself has\nthe idea that the second might with probability be regarded as the\nhistorical basis, and the first as the legendary copy, and then the\nfictitious would have the required relation to the true\u2014that of\nexaggeration. But when in opposition to this, he observes, how\nimprobable it is that an unscrupulous narrator would place the\nauthentic fact, being the less imposing, last, and eclipse it\nbeforehand by the false one,\u2014that such a writer would rather seek to\noutdo the truth, and therefore place his fiction last, as the more\nbrilliant,\u2014he again shows that he does not comprehend the mythical view\nof the biblical narratives, in the degree necessary for forming a\njudgment on the subject. For there is no question here of an\nunscrupulous narrator, who would designedly surpass the true history of\nthe miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes, and least of\nall is Matthew pronounced to be such a narrator: on the contrary, it is\nheld that with perfect honesty, one account gave five thousand, another\nfour, and that, with equal honesty, the first Evangelist copied from\nboth; and for the very reason that he went to work innocently and\nundesignedly, it was of no importance to him which of the two histories\nstood first and which last, the more important or the less striking\none; but he allowed himself to be determined on this point by\naccidental circumstances, such as that he found the one connected with\nincidents which appeared to him the earlier, the other with such as he\nsupposed to be the later. A similar instance of duplication occurs in\nthe Pentateuch in relation to the histories of the feeding of the\nIsraelites with quails, and of the production of water out of the rock,\nthe former of which is narrated both in Exod. xvi. and Num. xi., the\nlatter in Exod. xvii. and again in Num. xx., in each instance with an\nalteration in time, place, and other circumstances. [1461] Meanwhile,\nall this yields us only the negative result that the double narratives\nof the first gospels cannot have been founded on two separate events.\nTo determine which of the two is historical, or whether either of them\ndeserves that epithet, must be the object of a special inquiry.\n\nTo evade the pre-eminently magical appearance which this miracle\npresents, Olshausen gives it a relation to the moral state of the\nparticipants, and supposes that the miraculous feeding of the multitude\nwas effected through the intermediation of their spiritual hunger. But\nthis is ambiguous language, which, on the first attempt to determine\nits meaning, vanishes into nothing. For in cures, for example, the\nintermediation here appealed to consists in the opening of the\npatient\u2019s mind to the influence of Jesus by faith, so that when faith\nis wanting, the requisite fulcrum for the miraculous power of Jesus is\nalso wanting: here therefore the intermediation is real. Now if the\nsame kind of intermediation took place in the case before us, so that\non those among the multitude who were unbelieving the satisfying power\nof Jesus had no influence, then must the satisfaction of hunger here\n(as, in the above cases, the cure) be regarded as something effected by\nJesus directly in the body of the hungry persons, without any\nantecedent augmentation of the external means of nourishment. But such\na conception of the matter, as Paul us justly remarks, and as even\nOlshausen intimates, is precluded by the statement of the Evangelists,\nthat real food was distributed among the multitude; that each enjoyed\nas much as he wanted; and that at the end the residue was greater than\nthe original store. It is thus plainly implied that there was an\nexternal and objective increase of the provisions, as a preliminary to\nthe feeding of the multitude. Now, this cannot be conceived as effected\nby means of the faith of the people in a real manner, in the sense that\nthat faith co-operated in producing the multiplication of the loaves.\nThe intermediation which Olshausen here supposes, can therefore have\nbeen only a teleological one, that is, we are to understand by it, that\nJesus undertook to multiply the loaves and fishes for the sake of\nproducing a certain moral condition in the multitude. But an\nintermediation of this kind affords me not the slightest help in\nforming a conception of the event; for the question is not why, but how\nit happened. Thus all which Olshausen believes himself to have done\ntowards rendering this miracle more intelligible, rests on the\nambiguity of the expression, intermediation; and the inconceivableness\nof an immediate influence of the will of Jesus on irrational nature,\nremains chargeable upon this history as upon those last examined.\n\nBut there is another difficulty which is peculiar to the narrative\nbefore us. We have here not merely, as hitherto, a modification or a\ndirection of natural objects, but a multiplication of them, and that to\nan enormous extent. Nothing, it is true, is more familiar to our\nobservation than the growth and multiplication of natural objects, as\npresented to us in the parable of the sower, and the grain of mustard\nseed, for example. But, first, these phenomena do not take place\nwithout the co-operation of other natural agents, as earth, water, air,\nso that here, also, according to the well-known principle of physics,\nthere is not properly speaking an augmentation of the substance, but\nonly a change in the accidents; secondly, these processes of growth and\nmultiplication are carried forward so as to pass through their various\nstages in corresponding intervals of time. Here, on the contrary, in\nthe multiplication of the loaves and fishes by Jesus, neither the one\nrule nor the other is observed: the bread in the hand of Jesus is no\nlonger, like the stalk on which the corn grew, in communication with\nthe maternal earth, nor is the multiplication gradual, but sudden.\n\nBut herein, it is said, consists the miracle, which in relation to the\nlast point especially, may be called the acceleration of a natural\nprocess. That which comes to pass in the space of three quarters of a\nyear, from seed-time to harvest, was here effected in the minutes which\nwere required for the distribution of the food; for natural\ndevelopments are capable of acceleration, and to how great an extent we\ncannot determine. [1462] It would, indeed, have been an acceleration of\na natural process, if in the hand of Jesus a grain of corn had borne\nfruit a hundred-fold, and brought it to maturity, and if he had shaken\nthe multiplied grain out of his hands as they were filled again and\nagain, that the people might grind, knead, and bake it, or eat it raw\nfrom the husk in the wilderness where they were;\u2014or if he had taken a\nliving fish, suddenly called forth the eggs from its body, and\nconverted them into full-grown fish, which then the disciples or the\npeople might have boiled or roasted, this, we should say, would have\nbeen an acceleration of a natural process. But it is not corn that he\ntakes into his hand, but bread; and the fish also, as they are\ndistributed in pieces, must have been prepared in some way, perhaps, as\nin Luke xxiv. 42, comp. John xxi. 9, broiled or salted. Here then, on\nboth sides, the production of nature is no longer simple and living,\nbut dead and modified by art: so that to introduce a natural process of\nthe above kind, Jesus must, in the first place, by his miraculous power\nhave metamorphosed the bread into corn again, the roasted fish into raw\nand living ones; then instantaneously have effected the described\nmultiplication; and lastly, have restored the whole from the natural to\nthe artificial state. Thus the miracle would be composed, 1st, of a\nrevivification, which would exceed in miraculousness all other\ninstances in the gospels; secondly, of an extremely accelerated natural\nprocess; and thirdly, of an artificial process, effected invisibly, and\nlikewise extremely accelerated, since all the tedious proceedings of\nthe miller and baker on the one hand, and of the cook on the other,\nmust have been accomplished in a moment by the word of Jesus. How then\ncan Olshausen deceive himself and the believing reader, by the\nagreeably sounding expression, accelerated natural process, when this\nnevertheless can designate only a third part of the fact of which we\nare speaking? [1463]\n\nBut how are we to represent such a miracle to ourselves, and in what\nstage of the event must it be placed? In relation to the latter point,\nthree opinions are possible, corresponding to the number of the groups\nthat act in our narrative; for the multiplication may have taken place\neither in the hands of Jesus, or in those of the disciples who\ndispensed the food, or in those of the people who received it. The last\nidea appears, on the one hand, puerile even to extravagance, if we are\nto imagine Jesus and the apostles distributing, with great carefulness,\nthat there might be enough for all, little crumbs which in the hands of\nthe recipients swelled into considerable pieces: on the other hand, it\nwould have been scarcely a possible task, to get a particle, however\nsmall, for every individual in a multitude of five thousand men, out of\nfive loaves, which, according to Hebrew custom, and particularly as\nthey were carried by a boy, cannot have been very large; and still less\nout of two fishes. Of the two other opinions I think, with Olshausen,\nthe one most suitable is that which supposes that the food was\naugmented under the creative hands of Jesus, and that he time after\ntime dispensed new quantities to the disciples. We may then endeavour\nto represent the matter to ourselves in two ways: first we may suppose\nthat as fast as one loaf or fish was gone, a new one came out of the\nhands of Jesus, or secondly, that the single loaves and fishes grew, so\nthat as one piece was broken off, its loss was repaired, until on a\ncalculation the turn came for the next loaf or fish. The first\nconception appears to be opposed to the text, which as it speaks of\nfragments \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, of the five loaves (John vi. 13), can\nhardly be held to presuppose an increase of this number; thus there\nremains only the second, by the poetical description of which Lavater\nhas done but a poor service to the orthodox view. [1464] For this\nmiracle belongs to the class which can only appear in any degree\ncredible so long as they can be retained in the obscurity of an\nindefinite conception: [1465] no sooner does the light shine on them,\nso that they can be examined in all their parts, than they dissolve\nlike the unsubstantial creations of the mist. Loaves, which in the\nhands of the distributors expand like wetted sponges,\u2014broiled fish, in\nwhich the severed parts are replaced instantaneously, as in the living\ncrab gradually,\u2014plainly belong to quite another domain than that of\nreality.\n\nWhat gratitude then do we not owe to the rationalistic interpretation,\nif it be true that it can free us, in the easiest manner, from the\nburden of so unheard-of a miracle? If we are to believe Dr. Paulus,\n[1466] the Evangelists had no idea that they were narrating anything\nmiraculous, and the miracle was first conveyed into their accounts by\nexpositors. What they narrate is, according to him, only thus much:\nthat Jesus caused his small store of provisions to be distributed, and\nthat in consequence of this the entire multitude obtained enough to\neat. Here, in any case, we want a middle term, which would distinctly\ninform us, how it was possible that, although Jesus had so little food\nto offer, the whole multitude obtained enough to eat. A very natural\nmiddle term however is to be gathered, according to Paulus, out of the\nhistorical combination of the circumstances. As, on a comparison with\nJohn vi. 4, the multitude appear to have consisted for the greater part\nof a caravan on its way to the feast, they cannot have been quite\ndestitute of provisions, and probably a few indigent persons only had\nexhausted their stores. In order then to induce the better provided to\nshare their food with those who were in want, Jesus arranged that they\nshould have a meal, and himself set the example of imparting what he\nand his disciples could spare from their own little store; this example\nwas imitated, and thus the distribution of bread by Jesus having led to\na general distribution, the whole multitude were satisfied. It is true\nthat this natural middle term must be first mentally interpolated into\nthe text; as, however, the supernatural middle term which is generally\nreceived is just as little stated expressly, and both alike depend upon\ninference, the reader can hardly do otherwise than decide for the\nnatural one. Such is the reasoning of Dr. Paulus: but the alleged\nidentity in the relation of the two middle terms to the text does not\nin fact exist. For while the natural explanation requires us to suppose\na new distributing subject (the better provided among the multitude),\nand a new distributed object (their provisions), together with the act\nof distributing these provisions: the supranatural explanation contents\nitself with the subject actually present in the text (Jesus and his\ndisciples), with the single object there given (their little store),\nand the described distribution of this; and only requires us to supply\nfrom our imagination the means by which this store could be made\nsufficient to satisfy the hunger of the multitude, namely its\nmiraculous augmentation under the hands of Jesus (or of his disciples).\nHow can it be yet maintained that neither of the two middle terms is\nany more suggested by the text than the other? That the miraculous\nmultiplication of the loaves and fishes is not expressly mentioned, is\nexplained by the consideration that the event itself is one of which no\nclear conception can be formed, and therefore it is best conveyed by\nthe result alone. But how will the natural theologian account for\nnothing being said of the distribution, called forth by the example of\nJesus, on the part of those among the multitude who had provisions? It\nis altogether arbitrary to insert that distribution between the\nsentences, He gave them to the disciples, and the disciples to the\nmultitude (Matt. xiv. 19), and, they did all eat and were filled (v.\n20); while the words, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03cd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9, and the two\nfishes divided he among them all (Mark vi. 41), plainly indicate that\nonly the two fishes\u2014and consequently only the five loaves\u2014were the\nobject of distribution for all. [1467] But the natural explanation\nfalls into especial embarrassment when it comes to the baskets which,\nafter all were satisfied, Jesus caused to be filled with the fragments\nthat remained. The fourth Evangelist says: \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f03\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, therefore they gathered them together, and\nfilled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves,\nwhich remained over and above unto them that had eaten (vi. 13). This\nseems clearly enough to imply that out of those identical five loaves,\nafter five thousand men had been satisfied by them, there still\nremained fragments enough to fill twelve baskets,\u2014more, that is, than\nthe amount of the original store. Here, therefore, the natural\nexpositor is put to the most extravagant contrivances in order to evade\nthe miracle. It is true, when the synoptists simply say that the\nremnants of the meal were collected, and twelve baskets filled with\nthem, it might be thought from the point of view of the natural\nexplanation, that Jesus, out of regard to the gift of God, caused the\nfragments which the crowd had left from their own provisions to be\ncollected by his disciples. But as, on the one hand, the fact that the\npeople allowed the remains of the repast to lie, and did not\nappropriate them, seems to indicate that they treated the nourishment\npresented to them as the property of another; so, on the other hand,\nJesus, when, without any preliminary, he directs his disciples to\ngather them up, appears to regard them as his own property. Hence\nPaulus understands the words \u1f26\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., of the synoptists, not of a\ncollection first made after the meal, of that which remained when the\npeople had been satisfied, but of the overplus of the little store\nbelonging to Jesus and the disciples, which the latter, after reserving\nwhat was necessary for Jesus and themselves, carried round as an\nintroduction and inducement to the general repast. But how, when the\nwords \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, they did all eat and were filled,\nare immediately followed by \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, and they took up, can the latter\nmember of the verse refer to the time prior to the meal? Must it not\nthen have necessarily been said at least \u1f26\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1, for they took up?\nFurther, how, after it had just been said that the people did eat and\nwere filled, can \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, that which remained, especially\nsucceeded as it is in Luke by \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, to them, mean anything else than\nwhat the people had left? Lastly, how is it possible that out of five\nloaves and two fishes, after Jesus and his disciples had reserved\nenough for themselves, or even without this, there could in a natural\nmanner be twelve baskets filled for distribution among the people? But\nstill more strangely does the natural explanation deal with the\nnarrative of John. Jesus here adds, as a reason for gathering up the\nfragments, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, that nothing be lost; hence it appears\nimpossible to divest the succeeding statement that they filled twelve\nbaskets with the remains of the five loaves, of its relation to the\ntime after the meal; and in this case, it would be impossible to get\nclear of a miraculous multiplication of the loaves. Paulus therefore,\nalthough the words \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.,\ntherefore they gathered them together and filled twelve baskets, etc.,\nform a strictly coherent whole, chooses rather to detach \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd,\nand, by a still more forced construction than that which he employed\nwith the synoptical text, makes the narrative pass all at once, without\nthe slightest notice, into the pluperfect, and thus leap back to the\ntime before the meal.\n\nHere, then, the natural explanation once more fails to fulfil its task:\nthe text retains its miracle, and if we have reason to think this\nincredible, we must inquire whether the narrative of the text deserves\ncredence. The agreement of all the four Evangelists is generally\nadduced in proof of its distinguished credibility: but this agreement\nis by no means so perfect. There are minor differences, first between\nMatthew and Luke; then between these two and Mark, who in this instance\nagain embellishes; and lastly, between the synoptists collectively and\nJohn, in the following points: according to the synoptists, the scene\nof the event is a desert place, according to John, a mountain;\naccording to the former, the scene opens with an address from the\ndisciples, according to John, with a question from Jesus (two\nparticulars in which, as we have already remarked, the narrative of\nJohn approaches that of the second feeding in Matthew and Mark);\nlastly, the words which the three first Evangelists put into the mouth\nof the disciples indefinitely, the fourth in his individualizing manner\nascribes to Philip and Andrew, and the same Evangelist also designates\nthe bearer of the loaves and fishes as a boy (\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd). These\ndivergencies however may be passed over as less essential, that we may\ngive our attention only to one, which has a deeper hold. While, namely,\naccording to the synoptical accounts, Jesus had been long teaching the\npeople and healing their sick, and was only led to feed them by the\napproach of evening, and the remark of the disciples that the people\nneeded refreshment: in John, the first thought of Jesus, when he lifts\nup his eyes and sees the people gathering round him, is that which he\nexpresses in his question to Philip: Whence shall we buy bread that\nthese may eat? or rather, as he asked this merely to prove Philip, well\nknowing himself what he would do, he at once forms the resolution of\nfeeding the multitude in a miraculous manner. But how could the design\nof feeding the people arise in Jesus immediately on their approach?\nThey did not come to him for this, but for the sake of his teaching and\nhis curative power. He must therefore have conceived this design\nentirely of his own accord, with a view to establish his miraculous\npower by so signal a demonstration. But did he ever thus work a miracle\nwithout any necessity, and even without any inducement,\u2014quite\narbitrarily, and merely for the sake of working a miracle? I am unable\nto describe strongly enough how impossible it is that eating should\nhere have been the first thought of Jesus, how impossible that he could\nthus obtrude his miraculous repast on the people. Thus in relation to\nthis point, the synoptical narrative, in which there is a reason for\nthe miracle, must have the preference to that of John, who, hastening\ntowards the miracle, overlooks the requisite motive for it, and makes\nJesus create instead of awaiting the occasion for its performance. An\neye-witness could not narrate thus; [1468] and if, therefore, the\naccount of that gospel to which the greatest authority is now awarded,\nmust be rejected as unhistorical; so, with respect to the other\nnarratives, the difficulties of the fact itself are sufficient to cast\na doubt on their historical credibility, especially if in addition to\nthese negative grounds we can discover positive reasons which render it\nprobable that our narrative had an unhistorical origin.\n\nSuch reasons are actually found both within the evangelical history\nitself, and beyond it in the Old Testament history, and the Jewish\npopular belief. In relation to the former source, it is worthy of\nremark, that in the synoptical gospels as well as in John, there are\nmore or less immediately appended to the feeding of the multitude by\nJesus with literal bread, figurative discourses of Jesus on bread and\nleaven: namely, in the latter, the declarations concerning the bread of\nheaven, and the bread of life which Jesus gives (John vi. 27 ff.); in\nthe former, those concerning the false leaven of the Pharisees and\nSadducees, that is, their false doctrine and hypocrisy. [1469] (Matt.\nxvi. 5 ff.; Mark viii. 14 ff.; comp. Luke xii. 1); and on both sides,\nthe figurative discourse of Jesus is erroneously understood of literal\nbread. It would not then be a very strained conjecture, that as in the\npassages quoted we find the disciples and the people generally,\nunderstanding literally what Jesus meant figuratively; so the same\nmistake was made in the earliest Christian tradition. If, in figurative\ndiscourses, Jesus had sometimes represented himself as him who was able\nto give the true bread of life to the wandering and hungering people,\nperhaps also placing in opposition to this, the leaven of the\nPharisees: the legend, agreeably to its realistic tendency, may have\nconverted this into the fact of a miraculous feeding of the hungry\nmultitude in the wilderness by Jesus. The fourth Evangelist makes the\ndiscourse on the bread of heaven arise out of the miracle of the\nloaves: but the relation might very well have been the reverse, and the\nhistory owe its origin to the discourse, especially as the question\nwhich introduces John\u2019s narrative, Whence shall we buy bread that these\nmay eat? may be more easily conceived as being uttered by Jesus on the\nfirst sight of the people, if he alluded to feeding them with the word\nof God (comp. John iv. 32 ff.), to appeasing their spiritual hunger\n(Matt. v. 6), in order to exercise (\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd) the higher understanding\nof his disciples, than if he really thought of the satisfaction of\ntheir bodily hunger, and only wished to try whether his disciples would\nin this case confide in his miraculous power. The synoptical narrative\nis less suggestive of such a view; for the figurative discourse on the\nleaven could not by itself originate the history of the miracle. Thus\nthe gospel of John stands alone with reference to the above mode of\nderivation, and it is more agreeable to the character of this gospel to\nconjecture that it has applied the narrative of a miracle presented by\ntradition to the production of figurative discourses in the Alexandrian\ntaste, than to suppose that it has preserved to us the original\ndiscourses out of which the legend spun that miraculous narrative.\n\nIf then we can discover, beyond the limits of the New Testament, very\npowerful causes for the origination of our narrative, we must renounce\nthe attempt to construct it out of materials presented by the gospels\nthemselves. And here the fourth Evangelist, by putting into the mouth\nof the people a reference to the manna, that bread of heaven which\nMoses gave to the fathers in the wilderness (v. 31), reminds us of one\nof the most celebrated passages in the early history of the Israelites\n(Exod. xvi.), which was perfectly adapted to engender the expectation\nthat its antitype would occur in the Messianic times; and we in fact\nlearn from rabbinical writings, that among those functions of the first\nGo\u00ebl which were to be revived in the second, a chief place was given to\nthe impartation of bread from heaven. [1470] If the Mosaic manna\npresents itself as that which was most likely to be held a type of the\nbread miraculously augmented by Jesus; the fish which Jesus also\nmultiplied miraculously, may remind us that Moses gave the people, not\nonly a substitute for bread in the manna, but also animal food in the\nquails (Exod. xvi. 8, xii. 13; Num. xi. 4 ff.). On comparing these\nMosaic narratives with our evangelical ones, there appears a striking\nresemblance even in details. The locality in both cases is the\nwilderness; the inducement to the miracle here as there, is fear lest\nthe people should suffer from want in the wilderness, or perish from\nhunger; in the Old Testament history, this fear is expressed by the\npeople in loud murmurs, in that of the New Testament, it results from\nthe shortsightedness of the disciples, and the benevolence of Jesus.\nThe direction of the latter to his disciples that they should give the\npeople food, a direction which implies that he had already formed the\ndesign of feeding them miraculously, may be paralleled with the command\nwhich Jehovah gave to Moses to feed the people with manna (Exod. xvi.\n4), and with quails (Exod. xvi. 12; Num. xi. 18\u201320). But there is\nanother point of similarity which speaks yet more directly to our\npresent purpose. As, in the evangelical narrative, the disciples think\nit an impossibility that provision for so great a mass of people should\nbe procured in the wilderness, so, in the Old Testament history, Moses\nreplies doubtingly to the promise of Jehovah to satisfy the people with\nflesh (Num. xi. 21 f.). To Moses, as to the disciples, the multitude\nappears too great for the possibility of providing sufficient food for\nthem; as the latter ask, whence they should have so much bread in the\nwilderness, so Moses asks ironically whether they should slay the\nflocks and the herds (which they had not). And as the disciples object,\nthat not even the most impoverishing expenditure on their part would\nthoroughly meet the demand, so Moses, clothing the idea in another\nform, had declared, that to satisfy the people as Jehovah promised, an\nimpossibility must happen (the fish of the sea be gathered together for\nthem); objections which Jehovah there, as here Jesus, does not regard,\nbut issues the command that the people should prepare for the reception\nof the miraculous food.\n\nBut though these two cases of a miraculous supply of nourishment are\nthus analogous, there is this essential distinction, that in the Old\nTestament, in relation both to the manna and the quails, it is a\nmiraculous procuring of food not previously existing which is spoken\nof, while in the New Testament it is a miraculous augmentation of\nprovision already present, but inadequate; so that the chasm between\nthe Mosaic narrative and the evangelical one is too great for the\nlatter to have been derived immediately from the former. If we search\nfor an intermediate step, a very natural one between Moses and the\nMessiah is afforded by the prophets. We read of Elijah, that through\nhim and for his sake, the little store of meal and oil which he found\nin the possession of the widow of Zarephath was miraculously\nreplenished, or rather was made to suffice throughout the duration of\nthe famine (1 Kings xvii. 8\u201316). This species of miracle is developed\nstill further, and with a greater resemblance to the evangelical\nnarrative, in the history of Elisha (2 Kings iv. 42 ff.). As Jesus fed\nfive thousand men in the wilderness with five loaves and two fishes, so\nthis prophet, during a famine, fed a hundred men with twenty loaves,\n(which like those distributed by Jesus in John, are called barley\nloaves,) together with some ground corn (\u200f\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05de\u05b6\u05dc\u200e, LXX. \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c2); a\ndisproportion between the quantity of provisions and the number of men,\nwhich his servant, like the disciples in the other instance, indicates\nin the question: What! should I set this before a hundred men? Elisha,\nlike Jesus, is not diverted from his purpose, but commands the servant\nto give what he has to the people; and as in the New Testament\nnarrative great stress is laid on the collection of the remaining\nfragments, so in the Old Testament it is specially noticed at the close\nof this story, that notwithstanding so many had eaten of the store,\nthere was still an overplus. [1471] The only important difference here\nis, that on the side of the evangelical narrative, the number of the\nloaves is smaller, and that of the people greater; but who does not\nknow that in general the legend does not easily imitate, without at the\nsame time surpassing, and who does not see that in this particular\ninstance it was entirely suited to the position of the Messiah, that\nhis miraculous power, compared with that of Elisha, should be placed,\nas it regards the need of natural means, in the relation of five to\ntwenty, but as it regards the supernatural performance, in that of five\nthousand to one hundred? Paulus indeed, in order to preclude the\ninference, that as the two narratives in the Old Testament are to be\nunderstood mythically, so also is the strikingly similar evangelical\nnarrative, extends to the former the attempt at a natural explanation\nwhich he has pursued with the latter, making the widow\u2019s cruse of oil\nto be replenished by the aid of the scholars of the prophets, and the\ntwenty loaves suffice for one hundred men by means of a praiseworthy\nmoderation; [1472] a mode of explanation which is more practicable here\nthan with the New Testament narrative, in proportion as, by reason of\nthe greater remoteness of these anecdotes, they present fewer critical\n(and, by reason of their merely mediate relation to Christianity, fewer\ndogmatical) motives for maintaining their historical veracity.\n\nNothing more is wanting to complete the mythical derivation of this\nhistory of the miraculous feeding of the multitude, except the proof,\nthat the later Jews also believed of particularly holy men, that by\ntheir means a small amount of provision was made sufficient, and of\nthis proof the disinterested industry of Dr. Paulus as a collector, has\nput us in possession. He adduces a rabbinical statement that in the\ntime of a specially holy man, the small quantity of shew-bread more\nthan sufficed for the supply of the priests. [1473] To be consequent,\nthis commentator should try to explain this story also naturally,\u2014by\nthe moderation of the priests, for instance: but it is not in the\ncanon, hence he can unhesitatingly regard it as a fable, and he only so\nfar admits its striking similarity to the evangelical narrative as to\nobserve, that in consequence of the Jewish belief in such augmentations\nof food, attested by that rabbinical statement, the New Testament\nnarrative may in early times have been understood by judaizing\nChristians in the same (miraculous) sense. But our examination has\nshown that the evangelical narrative was designedly composed so as to\nconvey this sense, and if this sense was an element of the popular\nJewish legend, then is the evangelical narrative without doubt a\nproduct of that legend. [1474]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 103.\n\nJESUS TURNS WATER INTO WINE.\n\nNext to the history of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, may\nbe ranged the narrative in the fourth gospel (ii. 1 ff.), of Jesus at a\nwedding in Cana of Galilee turning water into wine. According to\nOlshausen, both miracles fall under the same category, since in both a\nsubstratum is present, the substance of which is modified. [1475] But\nhe overlooks the logical distinction, that in the miracle of the loaves\nand fishes, the modification is one of quantity merely, an augmentation\nof what was already existing, without any change of its quality (bread\nbecomes more bread, but remains bread); whereas at the wedding in Cana\nthe substratum is modified in quality\u2014out of a certain substance there\nis made not merely more of the same kind, but something else (out of\nwater, wine); in other words, a real transubstantiation takes place. It\nis true there are changes in quality which are natural results, and the\ninstantaneous effectuation of which by Jesus would be even more easy to\nconceive, than an equally rapid augmentation of quantity; for example,\nif he had suddenly changed must into wine, or wine into vinegar, this\nwould only have been to conduct in an accelerated manner the same\nvegetable substratum, the vinous juice, through various conditions\nnatural to it. The miracle would be already heightened if Jesus had\nimparted to the juice of another fruit, the apple for instance, the\nquality of that of the grape, although even in this his agency would\nhave been within the limits of the same kingdom of nature. But here,\nwhere water is turned into wine, there is a transition from one kingdom\nof nature to another, from the elementary to the vegetable; a miracle\nwhich as far exceeds that of the multiplication of the loaves, as if\nJesus had hearkened to the counsel of the tempter, and turned stones\ninto bread. [1476]\n\nTo this miracle, as to the former, Olshausen, after Augustine, [1477]\napplies his definition of an accelerated natural process, by which we\nare to understand that we have here simply the occurrence, in an\naccelerated manner, of that which is presented yearly in the vine in a\nslow process of development. This mode of viewing the matter would have\nsome foundation, if the substratum on which Jesus operated had been the\nsame out of which wine is wont to be naturally produced; if he had\ntaken a vine in his hand, and suddenly caused it to bloom, and to bear\nripe grapes, this might have been called an accelerated natural\nprocess. Even then indeed we should still have no wine, and if Jesus\nwere to produce this also from the vine which he took into his hand, he\nmust add an operation which would be an invisible substitute for the\nwinepress, that is, an accelerated artificial process; so that on this\nsupposition the category of the accelerated natural process would\nalready be insufficient. In fact, however, we have no vine as a\nsubstratum for this production of wine, but water, and in this case we\ncould only speak with propriety of an accelerated natural process, if\nby any means, however gradual, wine were ever produced out of water.\nHere it is urged, that certainly out of water, out of the moisture\nproduced in the earth by rain and the like, the vine draws its sap,\nwhich in due order it applies to the production of the grape, and of\nthe wine therein contained; so that thus yearly, by means of a natural\nprocess, wine does actually come out of water. [1478] But apart from\nthe fact that water is only one of the elementary materials which are\nrequired for the fructification of the vine, and that to this end,\nsoil, air, and light, must concur; it could not be said either of one,\nor of all these elementary materials together, that they produce the\ngrape or the wine, nor, consequently, that Jesus, when he produced wine\nout of water, did the same thing, only more quickly, which is repeated\nevery year as a gradual process: on the contrary, here again there is a\nconfusion of essentially distinct logical categories. For we may place\nthe relation of the product to the producing agent, which is here\ntreated of, under the category of power and manifestation, or of cause\nand effect: never can it be said that water is the power or the cause,\nwhich produces grapes and wine, for the power which gives existence to\nthem is strictly the vegetable individuality of the vine-plant, to\nwhich water, with the rest of the elementary agencies, is related only\nas the solicitation to the power, as the stimulus to the cause. That\nis, without the co-operation of water, air, etc, grapes certainly\ncannot be produced, any more than without the vine plant; but the\ndistinction is, that in the vine the grape, in itself or in its germ,\nis already present, and water, air, etc., only assist in its\ndevelopment; whereas in these elementary substances, the grape is\npresent neither actu nor potenti\u00e2; they can in no way produce the fruit\nout of themselves, but only out of something else\u2014the vine. To turn\nwater into wine is not then to make a cause act more rapidly than it\nwould act in a natural way, but it is to make the effect appear without\na cause, out of a mere accessory circumstance; or, to refer more\nparticularly to organic nature, it is to call forth the organic product\nwithout the producing organism, out of the simple inorganic materials,\nor rather out of one of these materials only. This is about the same\nthing as to make bread out of earth without the intervention of the\ncorn plant, flesh out of bread without a previous assimilation of it by\nan animal body, or in the same immediate manner, blood out of wine. If\nthe supranaturalist is not here contented with appealing to the\nincomprehensibleness of an omnipotent word of Jesus, but also\nendeavours, with Olshausen, to bring the process which must have been\ncontained in the miracle in question nearer to his conception, by\nregarding it in the light of a natural process; he must not, in order\nto render the matter more probable, suppress a part of the necessary\nstages in that process, but exhibit them all. They would then present\nthe following series: 1st, to the water, as one only of the elementary\nagents, Jesus must have added the power of the other elements above\nnamed; 2ndly (and this is the chief point), he must have procured, in\nan equally invisible manner, the organic individuality of the vine;\n3rdly, he must have accelerated, to the degree of instantaneousness,\nthe natural process resulting from the reciprocal action of these\nobjects upon one another, the blooming and fructification of the vine,\ntogether with the ripening of the grape; 4thly, he must have caused the\nartificial process of pressing, and so forth, to occur invisibly and\nsuddenly; and lastly, he must again have accelerated the further\nnatural process of fermentation, so as to render it momentary. Thus,\nhere again, the designation of the miracle as an accelerated natural\nprocess, would apply to two stages only out of five, the other three\nbeing such as cannot possibly be brought under this point of view,\nthough the two first, especially the second, are of greater importance\neven than belonged to the stages which were neglected in the\napplication of this view to the history of the miraculous feeding: so\nthat the definition of an accelerated natural process is as inadequate\nhere as there. [1479] As, however, this is the only, or the extreme\ncategory, under which we can bring such operations nearer to our\nconception and comprehension; it follows that if this category be shown\nto be inapplicable, the event itself is inconceivable.\n\nNot only, however, has the miracle before us been impeached in relation\nto possibility, but also in relation to utility and fitness. It has\nbeen urged both in ancient [1480] and modern [1481] times, that it was\nunworthy of Jesus that he should not only remain in the society of\ndrunkards, but even further their intemperance by an exercise of his\nmiraculous power. But this objection should be discarded as an\nexaggeration, since, as expositors justly observe, from the words after\nmen have well drunk, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 (v. 10), which the ruler of the\nfeast \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 uses with reference to the usual course of things\nat such feasts, nothing can with certainty be deduced with respect to\nthe occasion in question. We must however still regard as valid an\nobjection, which is not only pointed out by Paulus and the author of\nthe Probabilia, [1482] but admitted even by L\u00fccke and Olshausen to be\nat the first glance a pressing difficulty: namely, that by this miracle\nJesus did not, as was usual with him, relieve any want, any real need,\nbut only furnished an additional incitement to pleasure; showed himself\nnot so much helpful as courteous; rather, so to speak, performed a\nmiracle of luxury, than of true beneficence. If it be here said that it\nwas a sufficient object for the miracle to confirm the faith of the\ndisciples, [1483] which according to v. 11 was its actual effect; it\nmust be remembered that, as a general rule, not only had the miracles\nof Jesus, considered with regard to their form, i.e. as extraordinary\nresults, something desirable as their consequence, for instance, the\nfaith of the spectators; but also, considered with regard to their\nmatter, i.e. as consisting of cures, multiplications of loaves, and the\nlike, were directed to some really beneficent end. In the present\nmiracle this characteristic is wanting, and hence Paulus is not wrong\nwhen he points out the contradiction which would lie in the conduct of\nJesus, if towards the tempter he rejected every challenge to such\nmiracles as, without being materially beneficent, or called for by any\npressing necessity, could only formally produce faith and astonishment,\nand yet in this instance performed a miracle of that very nature.\n[1484]\n\nThe supranaturalist was therefore driven to maintain that it was not\nfaith in general which Jesus here intended to produce, but a conviction\nentirely special, and only to be wrought by this particular miracle.\nProceeding on this supposition, nothing was more natural than to be\nreminded by the opposition of water and wine on which the miracle\nturns, of the opposition between him who baptized with water (Matt.\niii. 11), who at the same time came neither eating nor drinking (Luke\ni. 15; Matt. xi. 18), and him who, as he baptized with the Holy Ghost\nand with fire, so he did not deny himself the ardent, animating fruit\nof the vine, and was hence reproached with being a wine-bibber\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (Matt. xi. 19); especially as the fourth gospel, in which the\nnarrative of the wedding at Cana is contained, manifests in a peculiar\ndegree the tendency to lead over the contemplation from the Baptist to\nJesus. On these grounds Herder, [1485] and after him some others,\n[1486] have held the opinion, that Jesus by the above miraculous act\nintended to symbolize to his disciples, several of whom had been\ndisciples of the Baptist, the relation of his spirit and office to\nthose of John, and by this proof of his superior power, to put an end\nto the offence which they might take at his more liberal mode of life.\nBut here the reflection obtrudes itself, that Jesus does not avail\nhimself of this symbolical miracle, to enlighten his disciples by\nexplanatory discourses concerning his relation to the Baptist; an\nomission which even the friends of this interpretation pronounce to be\nsurprising. [1487] How needful such an exposition was, if the miracle\nwere not to fail of its special object, is evident from the fact, that\nthe narrator himself, according to v. 11, understood it not at all in\nthis light, as a symbolization of a particular maxim of Jesus, but\nquite generally, as a manifestation \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of his glory. [1488] Thus\nif that special lesson were the object of Jesus in performing the\nmiracle before us, then the author of the fourth gospel, that is,\naccording to the supposition of the above theologians, his most\napprehensive pupil, misunderstood him, and Jesus delayed in an\ninjudicious manner to prevent this misunderstanding; or if both these\nconclusions are rejected, there still subsists the difficulty, that\nJesus, contrary to the prevailing tendency of his conduct, sought to\nattain the general object of proving his miraculous power, by an act\nfor which apparently he might have substituted a more useful one.\n\nAgain, the disproportionate quantity of wine with which Jesus supplies\nthe guests, must excite astonishment. Six vessels, each containing from\ntwo to three \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2, supposing the Attic \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, corresponding to\nthe Hebrew bath, to be equivalent to 1\u00bd Roman amphor\u00e6, or twenty-one\nWirtemberg measures, [1489] would yield 252\u2013378 measures. [1490] What a\nquantity for a company who had already drunk freely! What enormous\nvessels! exclaims Dr. Paulus, and leaves no effort untried to reduce\nthe statement of measures in the text. With a total disregard of the\nrules of the language, he gives to the preposition \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 a collective\nmeaning, instead of its proper distributive one, so as to make the six\nwater pots (\u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9) contain, not each, but altogether, from two to\nthree \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2; and even Olshausen consoles himself, after Semler, with\nthe fact, that it is nowhere remarked that the water in all the vessels\nwas turned into wine. But these are subterfuges; they to whom the\nsupply of so extravagant and dangerous a quantity of wine on the part\nof Jesus is incredible, must conclude that the narrative is\nunhistorical.\n\nPeculiar difficulty is occasioned by the relation in which this\nnarrative places Jesus to his mother, and his mother to him. According\nto the express statement of the Evangelist, the turning of water into\nwine was the beginning of the miracles of Jesus, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd; and\nyet his mother reckons so confidently on his performing a miracle here,\nthat she believes it only necessary to point out to him the deficiency\nof wine, in order to induce him to afford supernatural aid; and even\nwhen she receives a discouraging answer, she is so far from losing\nhope, that she enjoins the servants to be obedient to the directions of\nher son (v. 3, 5). How is this expectation of a miracle on the part of\nthe mother of Jesus to be explained? Are we to refer the declaration of\nJohn, that the metamorphosis of the water was the first miracle of\nJesus, merely to the period of his public life, and to presuppose as\nreal events, for his previous years, the apocryphal miracles of the\nGospels of the Infancy? Or, believing that Chrysostom was right in\nregarding this as too uncritical, [1491] are we rather to conjecture\nthat Mary, in consequence of her conviction that Jesus was the Messiah,\na conviction wrought in her by the signs that attended his birth,\nexpected miracles from him, and as perhaps on some earlier occasions,\nso now on this, when the perplexity was great, desired from him a proof\nof his power? [1492] Were only that early conviction of the relatives\nof Jesus that he was the Messiah somewhat more probable, and especially\nthe extraordinary events of the childhood, by which it is supposed to\nhave been produced, better accredited! Moreover, even presupposing the\nbelief of Mary in the miraculous power of her son, it is still not at\nall clear how, notwithstanding his discouraging answer, she could yet\nconfidently expect that he would just on this occasion perform his\nfirst miracle, and feel assured that she positively knew that he would\nact precisely so as to require the assistance of the servants. [1493]\nThis decided knowledge on the part of Mary, even respecting the manner\nof the miracle about to be wrought, appears to indicate an antecedent\ndisclosure of Jesus to her, and hence Olshausen supposes that Jesus had\ngiven his mother an intimation concerning the miracle on which he had\nresolved. But when could this disclosure have been made? Already as\nthey were going to the feast? Then Jesus must have foreseen that there\nwould be a want of wine, in which case Mary could not have apprised him\nof it as of an unexpected embarrassment. Or did Jesus make the\ndisclosure after her appeal, and consequently in connexion with the\nwords: What have I to do with thee, woman, etc.? But with this answer,\nit is impossible to conceive so opposite a declaration to have been\nunited; it would therefore be necessary, on Olshausen\u2019s view, to\nimagine that Jesus uttered the negative words aloud, the affirmative in\nan undertone, merely for Mary: a supposition which would give the scene\nthe appearance of a comedy. Thus it is on no supposition to be\nunderstood how Mary could expect a miracle at all, still less precisely\nsuch an one. The first difficulty might indeed be plausibly evaded, by\nmaintaining that Mary did not here apply to Jesus in expectation of a\nmiracle, but simply that she might obtain her son\u2019s advice in the case,\nas she was wont to do in all difficult circumstances: [1494] his reply\nhowever shows that he regarded the words of his mother as a summons to\nperform a miracle, and moreover the direction which Mary gave to the\nservants remains on this supposition totally unexplained.\n\nThe answer of Jesus to the intimation of his mother (v. 4) has been\njust as often blamed with exaggeration [1495] as justified on\ninsufficient grounds. However truly it may be urged that the Hebrew\nphrase, \u200f\u05de\u05b7\u05d4\u05be\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d5\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05da\u05b0\u200e, to which the Greek \u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 corresponds,\nappears elsewhere as an expression of gentle blame, e.g. 2 Sam. xvi.\n10; [1496] or that with the entrance of Jesus on his special office his\nrelation to his mother as regarded his actions was dissolved: [1497] it\nnevertheless remains undeniable, that it was fitting for Jesus to be\nmodestly apprised of opportunities for the exercise of his miraculous\npower, and if one who pointed out to him a case of disease and added an\nentreaty for help, did not deserve reprehension, as little and even\nless did Mary, when she brought to his knowledge a want which had\narisen, with a merely implied entreaty for assistance. The case would\nhave been different had Jesus considered the occasion not adapted, or\neven unworthy to have a miracle connected with it; he might then have\nrepelled with severity the implied summons, as an incitement to a false\nuse of miraculous power (instanced in the history of the temptation);\nas, on the contrary, he immediately after showed by his actions that he\nheld the occasion worthy of a miracle, it is absolutely\nincomprehensible how he could blame his mother for her information,\nwhich perhaps only came to him a few moments too soon. [1498]\n\nHere again it has been attempted to escape from the numerous\ndifficulties of the supranatural view, by a natural interpretation of\nthe history. The commentators who advance this explanation set out from\nthe fact, that it was the custom among the Jews to make presents of oil\nor wine at marriage feasts. Now Jesus, it is said, having brought with\nhim five new disciples as uninvited guests, might foresee a deficiency\nof wine, and wished out of pleasantry to present his gift in an\nunexpected and mysterious manner. The \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 (glory) which he manifested\nby this proceeding, is said to be merely his humanity, which in the\nproper place did not disdain to pass a jest; the \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, (faith) which\nhe thereby excited in his disciples, was a joyful adherence to a man\nwho exhibited none of the oppressive severity which had been\nanticipated in the Messiah. Mary was aware of her son\u2019s project, and\nwarned him when it appeared to her time to put it in execution; but he\nreminded her playfully not to spoil his jest by over-haste. His causing\nwater to be drawn, seems to have belonged to the playful deception\nwhich he intended; that all at once wine was found in the vessels\ninstead of water, and that this was regarded as a miraculous\nmetamorphosis, might easily happen at a late hour of the night, when\nthere had already been considerable drinking; lastly, that Jesus did\nnot enlighten the wedding party as to the true state of the case, was\nthe natural consequence of his wish not himself to dissipate the\ndelusion which he had playfully caused. [1499] For the rest, how the\nplan was effected, by what arrangements on the part of Jesus the wine\nwas conveyed in the place of the water, this, Paulus thinks, is not now\nto be ascertained; it is enough for us to know that all happened\nnaturally. As however, according to the opinion of this expositor, the\nEvangelist was aware, in a general manner, that the whole occurrence\nwas natural, why has he given us no intimation to that effect? Did he\nwish to prepare for the reader the same surprise that Jesus had\nprepared for the spectators? still he must afterwards have solved the\nenigma, if he did not intend the delusion to be permanent. Above all,\nhe ought not to have used the misleading expression, that Jesus by this\nact manifested forth his glory (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, v. 11), which, in the\nphraseology of this gospel, can only mean his superior dignity; he\nought not to have called the incident a sign (\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd), by which\nsomething supernatural is implied; lastly, he ought not, by the\nexpression, the water that was made wine (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, v.\n9), and still less by the subsequent designation of Cana as the place\nwhere he made the water wine (\u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd), to have\noccasioned the impression, that he approved the miraculous conception\nof the event. [1500] The author of the Natural History sought to elude\nthese difficulties by the admission, that the narrator himself, John,\nregarded the event as a miracle, and meant to describe it as such. Not\nto mention, however, the unworthy manner in which he explains this\nerror on the part of the Evangelist, [1501] it is not easy to conceive\nof Jesus that he should have kept his disciples in the same delusion as\nthe rest of the guests, and not have given to them at least an\nexplanation concerning the real course of the event. It would therefore\nbe necessary to suppose that the narrator of this event was not one of\nthe disciples of Jesus: a supposition which goes beyond the sphere of\nthis system of interpretation. But even admitting that the narrator\nhimself, whoever he may have been, was included in the same deception\nwith those who regarded the affair as a miracle, in which case his mode\nof representation and the expressions which he uses would be accounted\nfor; still the procedure of Jesus, and his mode of acting, are all the\nmore inconceivable, if no real miracle were on foot. Why did he with\nrefined assiduity arrange the presentation of the wine, so that it\nmight appear to be a miraculous gift? Why, in particular, did he cause\nthe vessels in which he intended forthwith to present the wine, to be\nfilled beforehand with water, the necessary removal of which could only\nbe a hindrance to the secret execution of his plan? unless indeed it be\nsupposed, with Woolston, that he merely imparted to the water the taste\nof wine, by pouring into it some liquor. Thus there is a double\ndifficulty; on the one hand, that of imagining how the wine could be\nintroduced into the vessels already filled with water; on the other,\nthat of freeing Jesus from the suspicion of having wished to create the\nappearance of a miraculous transmutation of the water. It may have been\nthe perception of these difficulties which induced the author of the\nNatural History entirely to sever the connexion between the water which\nwas poured in, and the wine which subsequently appeared, by the\nsupposition that Jesus had caused the water to be fetched, because\nthere was a deficiency of this also, and Jesus wished to recommend the\nbeneficial practice of washing before and after meals, but that he\nafterwards caused the wine to be brought out of an adjoining room where\nhe had placed it:\u2014a conception of the matter which requires us either\nto suppose the intoxication of all the guests, and especially of the\nnarrator, as so considerable, that they mistook the wine brought out of\nthe adjoining room, for wine drawn out of the water vessels; or else\nthat the deceptive arrangements of Jesus were contrived with very great\nart, which is inconsistent with the straightforwardness of character\nelsewhere ascribed to him.\n\nIn this dilemma between the supranatural and the natural\ninterpretations, of which, in this case again, the one is as\ninsufficient as the other, we should be reduced, with one of the most\nrecent commentators on the fourth gospel, to wait \u201cuntil it pleased\nGod, by further developments of judicious Christian reflection, to\nevolve a solution of the enigma to the general satisfaction;\u201d [1502]\ndid we not discern an outlet in the fact, that the history in question\nis found in John\u2019s gospel alone. Single in its kind as this miracle is,\nif it were also the first performed by Jesus, it must, even if all the\ntwelve were not then with Jesus, have yet been known to them all; and\neven if among the rest of the Evangelists there were no apostle, still\nit must have passed into the general Christian tradition, and from\nthence into the synoptical memoirs: consequently, as John alone has it,\nthe supposition that it arose in a region of tradition unknown to the\nsynoptists, seems easier than the alternative, that it so early\ndisappeared out of that from which they drew; the only question is,\nwhether we are in a condition to show how such a legend could arise\nwithout historical grounds. Kaiser points for this purpose to the\nextravagant spirit of the oriental legend, which has ever been so\nfertile in metamorphoses: but this source is so wide and indefinite,\nthat Kaiser finds it necessary also to suppose a real jest on the part\nof Jesus, [1503] and thus remains uneasily suspended between the\nmythical and the natural explanations, a position which cannot be\nescaped from, until there can be produced points of mythical connexion\nand origin more definite and exact. Now in the present case we need\nhalt neither at the character of eastern legend in general, nor at\nmetamorphoses in general, since transmutations of this particular\nelement of water are to be found within the narrower circle of the\nancient Hebrew history. Besides some narratives of Moses procuring for\nthe Israelites water out of the flinty rock in the wilderness (Exod.\nxvii. 1 ff.; Num. xx. 1 ff.)\u2014a bestowal of water which, after being\nrepeated in a modified manner in the history of Samson (Judges xv. 18\nf.), was made a feature in the messianic expectations; [1504]\u2014the first\ntransmutation of water ascribed to Moses, is the turning of all the\nwater in Egypt into blood, which is enumerated among the so-called\nplagues (Exod. vii. 17 ff.). Together with this mutatio in deterius,\nthere is in the history of Moses a mutatio in melius, also effected in\nwater, for he made bitter water sweet, under the direction of Jehovah\n(Exod. xiv. 23 ff. [1505]); as at a later era, Elisha also is said to\nhave made unhealthy water good and innoxious (2 Kings ii. 19 ff.\n[1506]). As, according to the rabbinical passage quoted, the bestowal\nof water, so also, according to this narrative in John, the\ntransmutation of water appears to have been transferred from Moses and\nthe prophets to the Messiah, with such modifications, however, as lay\nin the nature of the case. If namely, on the one hand, a change of\nwater for the worse, like that Mosaic transmutation into blood\u2014if a\nmiracle of this retributive kind might not seem well suited to the mild\nspirit of the Messiah as recognised in Jesus: so on the other hand,\nsuch a change for the better as, like the removal of bitterness or\nnoxiousness, did not go beyond the species of water, and did not, like\nthe change into blood, alter the substance of the water itself, might\nappear insufficient for the Messiah; if then the two conditions be\nunited, a change of water for the better, which should at the same time\nbe a specific alteration of its substance, must almost of necessity be\na change into wine. Now this is narrated by John, in a manner not\nindeed in accordance with reality, but which must be held all the more\nin accordance with the spirit of his gospel. For the harshness of Jesus\ntowards his mother is, historically considered, incredible; but it is\nentirely in the spirit of the fourth gospel, to place in relief the\nexaltation of Jesus as the divine Logos by such demeanour towards\nsuppliants (as in John iv. 48), and even towards his mother. [1507]\nEqually in the spirit of this gospel is it also, to exhibit the firm\nfaith which Mary maintains notwithstanding the negative answer of\nJesus, by making her give the direction to the servants above\nconsidered, as if she had a preconception even of the manner in which\nJesus would perform his miracle, a preconception which is historically\nimpossible. [1508]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 104.\n\nJESUS CURSES A BARREN FIG-TREE.\n\nThe anecdote of the fig-tree which Jesus caused to wither by his word,\nbecause when he was hungry he found no fruit on it, is peculiar to the\ntwo first gospels (Matt. xxi. 18 ff.; Mark xi. 12 ff.), but is narrated\nby them with divergencies which must affect our view of the fact. One\nof these divergencies of Mark from Matthew, appears so favourable to\nthe natural explanation, that, chiefly in consideration of it, a\ntendency towards the natural view of the miracles of Jesus has been of\nlate ascribed to this Evangelist; and for the sake of this one\nfavourable divergency, he has been defended in relation to the other\nrather inconvenient one, which is found in the narrative before us.\n\nIf we were restricted to the manner in which the first Evangelist\nstates the consequence of the curse of Jesus: and immediately the\nfig-tree withered away \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u1fc6, it would be\ndifficult here to carry out a natural explanation; for even the forced\ninterpretation of Paulus, which makes the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 (immediately)\nonly exclude further human accession to the fact, and not a longer\nspace of time, rests only on an unwarranted transference of Mark\u2019s\nparticulars into the narrative of Matthew. In Mark, Jesus curses the\nfig-tree on the morning after His entrance into Jerusalem, and not till\nthe following morning the disciples remark, in passing, that the tree\nis withered. Through this interim, which Mark leaves open between the\ndeclaration of Jesus and the withering of the tree, the natural\nexplanation of the whole narrative insinuates itself, taking its stand\non the possibility, that in this interval the tree might have withered\nfrom natural causes. Accordingly, Jesus is supposed to have remarked in\nthe tree, besides the lack of fruit, a condition from which he\nprognosticated that it would soon wither away, and to have uttered this\nprediction in the words: No one will ever again gather fruit from thee.\nThe heat of the day having realized the prediction of Jesus with\nunexpected rapidity, and the disciples remarking this the next morning,\nthey then first connected this result with the words of Jesus on the\nprevious morning, and began to regard them as a curse: an\ninterpretation which, indeed, Jesus does not confirm, but impresses on\nthe disciples, that if they have only some self-reliance, they will be\nable, not only to predict such physiologically evident results, but\nalso to know and effect things far more difficult. [1509] But even\nadmitting Mark\u2019s statement to be the correct one, the natural\nexplanation still remains impossible. For the words of Jesus in Mark\n(v. 14): \u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, No man eat\nfruit of thee hereafter for ever, if they had been meant to imply a\nmere conjecture as to what would probably happen, must necessarily have\nhad a potential signification given to them by the addition of \u1f02\u03bd; and\nin the expression of Matthew: \u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Let no\nfruit grow on thee henceforward for ever, the command is not to be\nmistaken, although Paulus would only find in this also the expression\nof a possibility. Moreover the circumstance that Jesus addresses the\ntree itself, as also the solemn \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1, for ever, which he adds,\nspeaks against the idea of a mere prediction, and in favour of a curse;\nPaulus perceives this fully, and hence with unwarrantable violence he\ninterprets the words \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 he saith to it, as if they introduced a\nsaying merely in reference to the tree, while he depreciates the\nexpression \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1, by the translation: in time to come. But even\nif we grant that the Evangelists, owing to their erroneous conception\nof the incident, may have somewhat altered the words of Jesus, and that\nhe in reality only prognosticated the withering of the tree; still,\nwhen the prediction was fulfilled, Jesus did nevertheless ascribe the\nresult to his own supernatural influence. For in speaking of what he\nhas done in relation to the fig-tree, he uses the verb \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (v. 21\nMatt.); which cannot except by a forced interpretation, be referred to\na mere prediction. But more than this, he compares what he has done in\nrelation to the fig-tree, with the removal of mountains; and hence, as\nthis, according to every possible interpretation, is an act of\ncausation, so the other must be regarded as an influence on the tree.\nIn any case, when Peter spoke of the fig-tree as having been cursed by\nJesus (v. 21 Mark), either the latter must have contradicted the\nconstruction thus put on his words, or his silence must have implied\nhis acquiescence. If then Jesus in the issue ascribes the withering of\nthe tree to his influence, he either by his address to it designed to\nproduce an effect, or he ambitiously misused the accidental result for\nthe sake of deluding his disciples; a dilemma, in which the words of\nJesus, as they are given by the Evangelists, decidedly direct us to the\nformer alternative.\n\nThus we are inexorably thrown back from the naturalistic attempt at an\nexplanation, to the conception of the supranaturalists, pre-eminently\ndifficult as this is in the history before us. We pass over what might\nbe said against the physical possibility of such an influence as is\nthere presupposed; not, indeed, because, with Hase, we could comprehend\nit through the medium of natural magic, [1510] but because another\ndifficulty beforehand excludes the inquiry, and does not allow us to\ncome to the consideration of the physical possibility. This decisive\ndifficulty relates to the moral possibility of such an act on the part\nof Jesus. The miracle he here performs is of a punitive character.\nAnother example of the kind is not found in the canonical accounts of\nthe life of Jesus; the apocryphal gospels alone, as has been above\nremarked, are full of such miracles. In one of the synoptical gospels\nthere is, on the contrary, a passage often quoted already (Luke ix. 55\nf.), in which it is declared, as the profound conviction of Jesus, that\nthe employment of miraculous power in order to execute punishment or to\ntake vengeance, is contrary to the spirit of his vocation; and the same\nsentiment is attributed to Jesus by the Evangelist, when he applies to\nhim the words of Isaiah: He shall not break a bruised reed, etc. (Matt.\nxii. 20). Agreeably to this principle, and to his prevalent mode of\naction, Jesus must rather have given new life to a withered tree, than\nhave made a green one wither; and in order to comprehend his conduct on\nthis occasion, we must be able to show reasons which he might possibly\nhave had, for departing in this instance from the above principle,\nwhich has no mark of unauthenticity. The occasion on which he\nenunciated that principle was when, on the refusal of a Samaritan\nvillage to exercise hospitality towards Jesus and his disciples, the\nsons of Zebedee asked him whether they should not rain down fire on the\nvillage, after the example of Elijah. Jesus replied by reminding them\nof the nature of the spirit to which they belonged, a spirit with which\nso destructive an act was incompatible. In our present case Jesus had\nnot to deal with men who had treated him with injustice, but with a\ntree which he happened not to find in the desired state. Now, there is\nhere no special reason for departing from the above rule; on the\ncontrary, the chief reason which in the first case might possibly have\nmoved Jesus to determine on a judicial miracle, is not present in the\nsecond. The moral end of punishment, namely, to bring the punished\nperson to a conviction and acknowledgment of his error, can have no\nexistence in relation to a tree; and even punishment in the light of\nretribution is out of the question when we are treating of natural\nobjects destitute of volition. [1511] For one to be irritated against\nan inanimate object, which does not happen to be found just in the\ndesired state, is with reason pronounced to be a proof of an\nuncultivated mind; to carry such indignation to the destruction of the\nobject is regarded as barbarous, and unworthy of a reasonable being;\nand hence Woolston is not wrong in maintaining, that in any other\nperson than Jesus, such an act would be severely blamed. [1512] It is\ntrue that when a natural object is intrinsically and habitually\ndefective, it may very well happen, that it may be removed out of the\nway, in order to put a better in its place; a measure, however, for\nwhich, in every case, only the owner has the adequate motive and\nauthority (comp. Luke xiii. 7). But that this tree, because just at\nthat time it presented no fruit, would not have borne any in succeeding\nyears, was by no means self-evident:\u2014nay, the contrary is implied in\nthe narrative, since the form in which the curse of Jesus is expressed,\nthat fruit shall never more grow on the tree, presupposes, that without\nthis curse the tree might yet have been fruitful.\n\nThus the evil condition of the tree was not habitual but temporary;\nstill further, if we follow Mark, it was not even objective, or\nexisting intrinsically in the tree, but purely subjective, that is, a\nresult of the accidental relation of the tree to the momentary wish and\nwant of Jesus. For according to an addition which forms the second\nfeature peculiar to Mark in this narrative, it was not then the time of\nfigs (v. 13); it was not therefore a defect, but, on the contrary,\nquite in due order, that this tree, as well as others, had no figs on\nit, and Jesus (in whom it is already enough to excite surprise that he\nexpected to find figs on the tree so out of season) might at least have\nreflected, when he found none, on the groundlessness of his\nexpectation, and have forborne so wholly unjust an act as the cursing\nof the tree. Even some of the fathers stumbled at this addition of\nMark\u2019s and felt that it rendered the conduct of Jesus enigmatical;\n[1513] and to descend to later times, Woolston\u2019s ridicule is not\nunfounded, when he says that if a Kentish countryman were to seek for\nfruit in his garden in spring, and were to cut down the trees which had\nnone, he would be a common laughing-stock. Expositors have attempted to\nfree themselves from the difficulty which this addition introduces, by\na motley series of conjectures and interpretations. On the one hand,\nthe wish that the perplexing words did not stand in the text, has been\nturned into the hypothesis that they may probably be a subsequent\ngloss. [1514] On the other hand, as, if an addition of this kind must\nstand there, the contrary statement, namely, that it was then the time\nof figs, were rather to be desired, in order to render intelligible the\nexpectation of Jesus, and his displeasure when he found it deceived; it\nhas been attempted in various ways to remove the negative out of the\nproposition. One expedient is altogether violent, \u03bf\u1f57 being read instead\nof \u03bf\u1f50, a point inserted after \u1f26\u03bd, and a second \u1f26\u03bd supplied after \u03c3\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd,\nso that the translation runs thus: ubi enim tum versabatur (Jesus),\ntempus ficuum erat; [1515] another expedient, the transformation of the\nsentence into an interrogatory one, nonne enim, etc., is absurd. [1516]\nA third expedient is to understand the words \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd as implying\nthe time of the fig-gathering, and thus to take Mark\u2019s addition as a\nstatement that the figs were not yet gathered, i.e. were still on the\ntrees, [1517] in support of which interpretation, appeal is made to the\nphrase \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd (Matt. xxi. 34). But this expression strictly\nrefers only to the antecedent of the harvest, the existence of the\nfruits in the fields or on the trees; when it stands in an affirmative\nproposition, it can only be understood as referring to the consequent,\nnamely, the possible gathering of the fruit, in so far as it also\nincludes the antecedent, the existence of the fruits in the field:\nhence \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd can only mean thus much: the (ripe) fruits\nstand in the fields, and are therefore ready to be gathered. In like\nmanner, when the above expression stands in a negative proposition, the\nantecedent, the existence of the fruits in the field, on the trees,\netc., is primarily denied, that of the consequent only secondarily and\nby implication; thus \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd, means: the figs are not on\nthe trees, and therefore not ready to be gathered; by no means the\nreverse: they are not yet gathered, and therefore are still on the\ntrees. But this unexampled figure of speech, by which, while according\nto the words the antecedent is denied, according to the sense only the\nconsequent is denied, and the antecedent affirmed, is not all which the\nabove explanation entails upon us; it also requires the admission of\nanother figure which is sometimes called synchisis, sometimes\nhyperbaton. For, as a statement that the figs were then still on the\ntrees, the addition in question does not show the reason why Jesus\nfound none on that tree, but why he expected the contrary; it ought\ntherefore, say the advocates of this explanation, to stand, not after\nhe found nothing but leaves, but after he came, if haply he might find\nany thing thereon; a transposition, however, which only proves that\nthis whole explanation runs counter to the text. Convinced, on the one\nhand, that the addition of Mark denies the prevalence of circumstances\nfavourable to the existence of figs on that tree, but, on the other\nhand, still labouring to justify the expectation of Jesus, other\nexpositors have sought to give to that negation, instead of the general\nsense, that it was not the right season of the year for figs, a fact of\nwhich Jesus must unavoidably have been aware, the particular sense,\nthat special circumstances only not necessarily known to Jesus,\nhindered the fruitfulness of the tree. It would have been a hindrance\naltogether special, if the soil in which the tree was rooted had been\nan unfruitful one; hence, according to some, the words \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\nactually signify a soil favourable to figs. [1518] Others with more\nregard to the verbal meaning of \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, adhere it is true to the\ninterpretation of it as favourable time, but instead of understanding\nthe statement of Mark universally, as referring to a regular, annual\nseason, in which figs were not to be obtained, they maintain it to mean\nthat that particular year was from some incidental causes unfavourable\nto figs. [1519] But the immediate signification of \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 is the right,\nin opposition to the wrong season, not a favourable season as opposed\nto an unfavourable one. Now, when any one, even in an unproductive\nyear, seeks for fruits at the time in which they are wont to be ripe,\nit cannot be said that it is the wrong season for fruit; on the\ncontrary, the idea of a bad year might be at once conveyed by the\nstatement, that when the time for fruit came, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd, there was none to be found. In any case, if the whole course of\nthe year were unfavourable to figs, a fruit so abundant in Palestine,\nJesus must almost as necessarily have known this as that it was the\nwrong season; so that the enigma remains, how Jesus could be so\nindignant that the tree was in a condition which, owing to\ncircumstances known to him, was inevitable.\n\nBut let us only remember who it is to whom we owe that addition. It is\nMark, who, in his efforts after the explanatory and the picturesque, so\nfrequently draws on his own imagination; and in doing this, as it has\nbeen long ago perceived, and as we also have had sufficient\nopportunities of observing on our way, he does not always go to work in\nthe most considerate manner. Thus, here, he is arrested by the first\nstriking particular that presents itself, namely, that the tree was\nwithout fruit, and hastens to furnish the explanation, that it was not\nthe time for figs, not observing that while he accounts physically for\nthe barrenness of the tree, he makes the conduct of Jesus morally\ninexplicable. Again, the above-mentioned divergency from Matthew in\nrelation to the time within which the tree withered, far from evincing\nmore authentic information, [1520] or a tendency to the natural\nexplanation of the marvellous on the part of Mark, is only another\nproduct of the same dramatising effort as that which gave birth to the\nabove addition. The idea of a tree suddenly withering at a word, is\ndifficult for the imagination perfectly to fashion; whereas it cannot\nbe called a bad dramatic contrivance, to lay the process of withering\nbehind the scenes, and to make the result be first noticed by the\nsubsequent passers by. For the rest, in the assertion that it was then\n(a few days before Easter) no time for figs, Mark is so far right, as\nit regards the conditions of climate in Palestine, that at so early a\ntime of the year the new figs of the season were not yet ripe, for the\nearly fig or boccore is not ripe until the middle or towards the end of\nJune; while the proper fig, the kermus, ripens only in the month of\nAugust. On the other hand, there might about Easter still be met with\nhere and there, hanging on the tree, the third fruit of the fig-tree,\nthe late kermus, which had remained from the previous autumn, and\nthrough the winter: [1521] as we read in Josephus that a part of\nPalestine (the shores of the Galilean sea), more fruitful, certainly,\nthan the country around Jerusalem, where the history in question\noccurred, produces figs uninterruptedly during ten months of the year,\n\u03c3\u1fe6\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6. [1522]\n\nBut even when we have thus set aside this perplexing addition of\nMark\u2019s, that the tree was not really defective, but only appeared so to\nJesus in consequence of an erroneous expectation: there still subsists,\neven according to Matthew, the incongruity that Jesus appears to have\ndestroyed a natural object on account of a deficiency which might\npossibly be merely temporary. He cannot have been prompted to this by\neconomical considerations, since he was not the owner of the tree;\nstill less can he have been actuated by moral views, in relation to an\ninanimate object of nature; hence the expedient has been adopted of\nsubstituting the disciples as the proper object on which Jesus here\nintended to act, and of regarding the tree, and what Jesus does to it,\nas a mere means to his ultimate design. This is the symbolical\ninterpretation, by which first the fathers of the church, and of late\nthe majority of orthodox theologians among the moderns, have thought to\nfree Jesus from the charge of an unsuitable action. According to them,\nanger towards the tree which presented nothing to appease his hunger,\nwas not the feeling of Jesus, in performing this action; his object not\nsimply the extermination of the unfruitful plant: on the contrary, he\njudiciously availed himself of the occasion of finding a barren tree,\nin order to impress a truth on his disciples more vividly and indelibly\nthan by words. This truth may either be conceived under a special form,\nnamely, that the Jewish nation which persisted in rendering no pleasing\nfruit to God and to the Messiah, would be destroyed; or under the\ngeneral form, that every one who was as destitute of good works as this\ntree was of fruit, had to look forward to a similar condemnation.\n[1523] Other commentators however with reason maintain, that if Jesus\nhad had such an end in view in the action, he must in some way have\nexplained himself on the subject; for if an elucidation was necessary\nwhen he delivered a parable, it was the more indispensable when he\nperformed a symbolical action, in proportion as this, without such an\nindication of an object lying beyond itself, was more likely to be\nmistaken for an object in itself; [1524] it is true that, here as well\nas elsewhere, it might be supposed, that Jesus probably enlarged on\nwhat he had done, for the instruction of his disciples, but that the\nnarrators, content with the miracle, have omitted the illustrative\ndiscourse. If however Jesus gave an interpretation of his act in the\nalleged symbolical sense, the Evangelists have not merely been silent\nconcerning this discourse, but have inserted a false one in its place;\nfor they represent Jesus, after his procedure with respect to the tree,\nnot as being silent, but as giving, in answer to an expression of\nastonishment on the part of his disciples, an explanation which is not\nthe above symbolical one, but a different, nay, an opposite one. For\nwhen Jesus says to them that they need not wonder at the withering of\nthe fig-tree, since with only a little faith they will be able to\neffect yet greater things, he lays the chief stress on his agency in\nthe matter, not on the condition and the fate of the tree as a symbol:\ntherefore, if his design turned upon the latter, he would have spoken\nto his disciples so as to contravene that design; or rather, if he so\nspoke, that cannot have been his design. For the same reason, falls\nalso Sieffert\u2019s totally unsupported hypothesis, that Jesus, not indeed\nafter, but before that act, when on the way to the fig-tree, had held a\nconversation with his disciples on the actual condition and future lot\nof the Jewish nation, and that to this conversation the symbolical\ncursing of the tree was a mere key-stone, which explained itself: for\nall comprehension of the act in question which that introduction might\nhave facilitated, must, especially in that age when there was so strong\na bias towards the miraculous, have been again obliterated by the\nsubsequent declaration of Jesus, which regarded only the miraculous\nside of the fact. Hence Ullmann has judged rightly in preferring to the\nsymbolical interpretation, although he considers it admissible, another\nwhich had previously been advanced: [1525] namely, that Jesus by this\nmiracle intended to give his followers a new proof of his perfect\npower, in order to strengthen their confidence in him under the\napproaching perils. Or rather, as a special reference to coming trial\nis nowhere exhibited, and as the words of Jesus contain nothing which\nhe had not already said at an earlier period (Matt. xvii. 20; Luke\nxvii. 6), Fritzsche is more correct in expressing the view of the\nEvangelists quite generally, thus: Jesus used his displeasure at the\nunfruitfulness of the tree, as an occasion for performing a miracle,\nthe object of which was merely the general one of all his miracles,\nnamely to attest his Messiahship. [1526] Hence Euthymius speaks\nentirely in the spirit of the narrators, as described by Fritzsche,\n[1527] when he forbids all investigation into the special end of the\naction, and exhorts the reader only to look at it in general as a\nmiracle. [1528] But it by no means follows from hence that we too\nshould refrain from all reflection on the subject, and believingly\nreceive the miracle without further question; on the contrary, we\ncannot avoid observing, that the particular miracle which we have now\nbefore us, does not admit of being explained as a real act of Jesus,\neither upon the general ground of performing miracles, or from any\npeculiar object or motive whatever. Far from this, it is in every\nrespect opposed both to his theory and his prevailing practice, and on\nthis account, even apart from the question of its physical possibility,\nmust be pronounced more decidedly, than any other, to be such a miracle\nas Jesus cannot really have performed.\n\nIt is incumbent on us, however, to adduce positive proof of the\nexistence of such causes as, even without historical foundation, might\ngive rise to a narrative of this kind. Now in our usual source, the Old\nTestament, we do, indeed, find many figurative discourses and\nnarratives about trees, and fig-trees in particular; but none which has\nso specific an affinity to our narrative, that we could say the latter\nis an imitation of it. But we need not search long in the New\nTestament, before we find, first in the mouth of the Baptist (Matt.\niii. 10), then in that of Jesus (vii. 19), the apothegm of the tree,\nwhich, because it bears no good fruit, is cut down and cast into the\nfire; and further on (Luke xiii. 6 ff.) this theme is dilated into the\nfictitious history of a man who for three years in vain seeks for fruit\non a fig-tree in his vineyard, and on this account determines to cut it\ndown, but that the gardener intercedes for another year\u2019s respite. It\nwas already an idea of some fathers of the church, that the cursing of\nthe fig-tree was only the parable of the barren fig-tree carried out\ninto action. [1529] It is true that they held this opinion in the sense\nof the explanation before cited, namely, that Jesus himself, as he had\npreviously exhibited the actual condition and the approaching\ncatastrophe of the Jewish people in a figurative discourse, intended on\nthe occasion in question to represent them by a symbolical action;\nwhich, as we have seen, is inconceivable. Nevertheless, we cannot help\nconjecturing, that we have before us one and the same theme under three\ndifferent modifications: first, in the most concentrated form, as an\napothegm; then expanded into a parable; and lastly realized as a\nhistory. But we do not suppose that what Jesus twice described in\nwords, he at length represented by an action; in our opinion, it was\ntradition which converted what it met with as an apothegm and a parable\ninto a real incident. That in the real history the end of the tree is\nsomewhat different from that threatened in the apothegm and parable,\nnamely, withering instead of being cut down, need not amount to a\ndifficulty. For had the parable once become a real history, with Jesus\nfor its subject, and consequently its whole didactic and symbolical\nsignificance passed into the external act, then must this, if it were\nto have any weight and interest, take the form of a miracle, and the\nnatural destruction of the tree by means of the axe must be transformed\ninto an immediate withering on the word of Jesus. It is true that there\nseems to be the very same objection to this conception of the narrative\nwhich allows its inmost kernel to be symbolical, as to the one above\nconsidered; namely, that it is contravened by the words of Jesus which\nare appended to the narrative. But on our view of the gospel histories\nwe are warranted to say, that with the transformation of the parable\ninto a history, its original sense also was lost, and as the miracle\nbegan to be regarded as constituting the pith of the matter, that\ndiscourse on miraculous power and faith, was erroneously annexed to it.\nEven the particular circumstance that led to the selection of the\nsaying about the removal of the mountain for association with the\nnarrative of the fig-tree, may be shown with probability. The power of\nfaith, which is here represented by an effectual command to a mountain:\nBe thou removed and be thou cast into the sea, is elsewhere (Luke xvii.\n6) symbolized by an equally effectual command to a species of fig-tree\n(\u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2): Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the\nsea. Hence the cursing of the fig-tree, so soon as its withering was\nconceived to be an effect of the miraculous power of Jesus, brought to\nmind the tree or the mountain which was to be transported by the\nmiraculous power of faith, and this saying became appended to that\nfact. Thus, in this instance, praise is due to the third gospel for\nhaving preserved to us the parable of the barren \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u1fc6, and the apothegm\nof the \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 to be transplanted by faith, distinct and pure, each\nin its original form and significance; while the two other synoptists\nhave transformed the parable into a history, and have misapplied the\napothegm (in a somewhat altered form) to a false explanation of that\npretended history. [1530]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE TRANSFIGURATION OF JESUS, AND HIS LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM.\n\n\u00a7 105.\n\nTHE TRANSFIGURATION OF JESUS CONSIDERED AS A MIRACULOUS EXTERNAL EVENT.\n\nThe history of the transfiguration of Jesus on the mountain could not\nbe ranged with the narratives of miracles which we have hitherto\nexamined; not only because it relates to a miracle which took place in\nJesus instead of a miracle performed by him; but also because it has\nthe character of an epoch in the life of Jesus, which on the score of\nresemblance could only be associated with the baptism and resurrection.\nHence Herder has correctly designated these three events as the three\nluminous points in the life of Jesus, which attest his heavenly\nmission. [1531]\n\nAccording to the impression produced by the first glance at the\nsynoptical narrative (Matt. xvii. 1 ff.; Mark ix. 2 ff.; Luke ix. 28\nff.)\u2014for the history is not found in the fourth gospel\u2014we have here a\nreal, external, and miraculous event. Jesus, six or eight days after\nthe first announcement of his passion, ascends a mountain with his\nthree most confidential disciples, who are there witnesses how all at\nonce his countenance, and even his clothes, are illuminated with\nsupernatural splendour; how two venerable forms from the realm of\nspirits, Moses and Elias, appear talking with him; and lastly, how a\nheavenly voice, out of the bright cloud, declares Jesus to be the Son\nof God, to whom they are to give ear.\n\nThese few points in the history give rise to a multitude of questions,\nby the collection of which Gabler has done a meritorious service.\n[1532] In relation to each of the three phases of the event\u2014the light,\nthe apparition of the dead, and the voice\u2014both its possibility, and the\nadequacy of its object, may be the subject of question. First, whence\ncame the extraordinary light with which Jesus was invested? Let it be\nremembered that a metamorphosis of Jesus is spoken of (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\n\u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd): now this would appear to imply, not a mere\nillumination from without, but an irradiation from within, a transient\neffulgence, so to speak, of the beams of the divine glory through the\nveil of humanity. Thus Olshausen regards this event as an important\ncrisis in the process of purification and glorification, through which\nhe supposes the corporeality of Jesus to have passed, during his whole\nlife up to the time of his ascension. [1533] But without here dilating\nfurther on our previous arguments, that either Jesus was no real man,\nor the purification which he underwent during his life, must have\nconsisted in something else than the illumination and subtilization of\nhis body; it is in no case to be conceived how his clothes, as well as\nhis body, could participate in such a process of transfiguration. If,\non this account, it be rather preferred to suppose an illumination from\nwithout, this would not be a metamorphosis, which however is the term\nused by the Evangelists: so that no consistent conception can be formed\nof this scene, unless indeed we choose, with Olshausen, to include both\nmodes, and think of Jesus as both radiating, and irradiated. But even\nsupposing this illumination possible, there still remains the question,\nwhat purpose could it serve? The answer which most immediately suggests\nitself is: to glorify Jesus; but compared with the spiritual glory\nwhich Jesus created for himself by word and deed, this physical\nglorification, consisting in the investing of his body with a brilliant\nlight, must appear very insignificant, nay, almost childish. If it be\nsaid that, nevertheless, such a mode of glorifying Jesus was necessary\nfor the maintenance of weak faith: we reply that in that case, it must\nhave been effected in the presence of the multitude, or at least before\nthe entire circle of the disciples, not surely before just the select\nthree who were spiritually the strongest; still less would these few\neye-witnesses have been prohibited from communicating the event\nprecisely during the most critical period, namely, until after the\nresurrection.\u2014These two questions apply with enhanced force to the\nsecond feature in our history, the apparition of the two dead men. Can\ndeparted souls become visible to the living? and if, as it appears, the\ntwo men of God presented themselves in their former bodies, only\ntransfigured, whence had they these\u2014according to biblical ideas\u2014before\nthe universal resurrection? Certainly in relation to Elijah, who went\nup to heaven without laying aside his body, this difficulty is not so\ngreat; Moses, however, died, and his corpse was buried. But further, to\nwhat end are we to suppose that these two illustrious dead appeared?\nThe evangelical narrative, by representing the forms as talking with\nJesus, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6 \u1f38., seems to place the object of their\nappearance in Jesus; and if Luke be correct, it had reference more\nimmediately to the approaching sufferings and death of Jesus. But they\ncould not have made the first announcement of these events to him, for,\naccording to the unanimous testimony of the synoptists, he had himself\npredicted them a week before (Matt. xvi. 21 parall.). Hence it is\nconjectured, that Moses and Elias only informed Jesus more minutely\nconcerning the particular circumstances and conditions of his death:\n[1534] but, on the one hand, it is not accordant with the position\nwhich the gospels assign to Jesus in relation to the ancient prophets,\nthat he should have needed instruction from them; and on the other\nhand, Jesus had already foretold his passion so circumstantially, that\nthe more special revelations from the world of spirits could only have\nreferred to the particulars of his being delivered to the Gentiles, and\nthe spitting in his face, of which he does not speak till a subsequent\noccasion (Matt. xx. 19; Mark x. 34). If, however, it be suggested, that\nthe communication to be made to Jesus consisted not so much in\ninformation, as in the conferring of strength for his approaching\nsufferings: we submit that at this period there is not yet any trace of\na state of mind in Jesus, which might seem to demand assistance of this\nkind; while for his later sufferings this early strengthening did not\nsuffice, as is evident from the fact, that in Gethsemane a new\nimpartation is necessary. Thus we are driven, though already in\nopposition to the text, to try whether we cannot give the appearance a\nrelation to the disciples; but first, the object of strengthening faith\nis too general to be the motive of so special a dispensation; secondly,\nJesus, in the parable of the rich man, must on this supposition have\nfalsely expounded the principle of the divine government in this\nrespect, for he there says that he who will not hear the writings of\nMoses and the prophets,\u2014and how much more he who will not hear the\npresent Christ?\u2014would not be brought to believe, though one should\nreturn to him from the dead: whence it must be inferred that such an\napparition, at least to that end, is not permitted by God. The more\nspecial object, of convincing the disciples that the doctrine and fate\nof Jesus were in accordance with Moses and the prophets, had been\nalready partly attained; and it was not completely attained until after\nthe death and resurrection of Jesus, and the outpouring of the Spirit:\nthe transfiguration not having formed any epoch in their enlightenment\non this subject.\u2014Lastly, the voice out of the bright cloud (without\ndoubt the Shechinah) is, like that at the baptism, a divine voice: but\nwhat an anthropomorphic conception of the Divine Being must that be,\nwhich admits the possibility of real, audible speech on his part! Or if\nit be said, that a communication of God to the spiritual ear, is alone\nspoken of here, [1535] the scene of the transfiguration is reduced to a\nvision, and we are suddenly transported to a totally different point of\nview.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 106.\n\nTHE NATURAL EXPLANATION OF THE NARRATIVE IN VARIOUS FORMS.\n\nIt has been sought to escape from the difficulties of the opinion which\nregards the transfiguration of Jesus as not only a miraculous, but also\nan external event, by confining the entire incident to the internal\nexperience of the parties concerned. In adopting this position, the\nmiraculous is not at once relinquished; it is only transferred to the\ninternal workings of the human mind, as being thus more simple and\nconceivable. Accordingly it is supposed, that by divine influence the\nspiritual nature of the three apostles, and probably also of Jesus\nhimself, was exalted to a state of ecstasy, in which they either\nactually entered into intercourse with the higher world, or were able\nto shadow forth its forms to themselves in the most vivid manner; that\nis, the event is regarded as a vision. [1536] But the chief support of\nthis interpretation, namely, that Matthew himself, by the expression\n\u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1, vision (v. 9), describes the event as merely subjective and\nvisionary, gives way so soon as it is remembered, that neither is there\nanything in the signification of the word \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1 which determines it to\nrefer to what is merely mental, nor is it exclusively so applied even\nin the phraseology of the New Testament, for we also find it, as in\nActs vii. 31, used to denote something perceived externally. [1537] As\nregards the fact itself, it is improbable, and at least without\nscriptural precedent, that several persons, as, here, three or four,\nshould have had the same very complex vision; [1538] to which it may be\nadded, that on this view of the subject also, the whole difficult\nquestion recurs concerning the utility of such a miraculous\ndispensation.\n\nTo avoid the above difficulty, others, still confining the event to the\ninternal experience of the parties, regard it as the product of a\nnatural activity of soul, and thus explain the whole as a dream. [1539]\nDuring or after a prayer offered by Jesus, or by themselves, in which\nmention was made of Moses and Elias, and their advent as messianic\nforerunners desired, the three disciples, according to this\ninterpretation, slept, and (the two names mentioned by Jesus yet\nsounding in their ears) dreamed that Moses and Elias were present, and\nthat Jesus conversed with them: an illusion which continued during the\nfirst confused moments after their awaking. As the former explanation\nrests on the \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1 of Matthew, so it is alleged in support of this,\nthat Luke describes the disciples as heavy with sleep, \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f55\u03c0\u03bd\u1ff3, and only towards the end of the scene as fully awake,\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (v. 32). The hold which the third Evangelist here\npresents to the natural explanation, has been made a reason for\nassigning to his narrative an important superiority over that of the\ntwo other Evangelists; recent critics pronouncing that by this and\nother particulars, which bring the event nearer to natural possibility,\nthe account in Luke evinces itself to be the original, while that of\nMatthew, by its omission of those particulars, is proved to be the\ntraditionary one, since with the eagerness for the miraculous which\ncharacterized that age, no one would fabricate particulars calculated\nto diminish the miracle, as is the case with the sleepiness of the\ndisciples. [1540] This mode of conclusion we also should be obliged to\nadopt, if in reality the above features could only be understood in the\nspirit of the natural interpretation. But we have only to recollect how\nin another scene, wherein the sufferings, which according to Luke were\nannounced at the transfiguration, began to be accomplished, and\nwherein, according to the same Evangelist, Jesus likewise held\ncommunication with a heavenly apparition, namely, in Gethsemane, the\ndisciples, in all the synoptical gospels, again appear asleep,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (Matt. xxvi. 40 parall.). If it be admitted, that the\nmerely external, formal resemblance of the two scenes, might cause a\nnarrator to convey the trait of the slumber into the history of the\ntransfiguration, there is a yet stronger probability that the internal\nimport of the trait might appear to him appropriate to this occasion\nalso, for the sleeping of the disciples at the very moment when their\nmaster was going through his most critical experience, exhibits their\ninfinite distance from him, their inability to attain his exalted\nlevel; the prophet, the recipient of a revelation, is among ordinary\nmen like a watcher among the sleeping: hence it followed, of course,\nthat as in the deepest suffering, so here also in the highest\nglorification of Jesus, the disciples should be represented as heavy\nwith sleep. Thus this particular, so far from furnishing aid to the\nnatural explanation, is rather intended by a contrast to heighten the\nmiracle which took place in Jesus. We are, therefore, no longer\nwarranted in regarding the narrative in Luke as the original one, and\nin building an explanation of the event on his statement; on the\ncontrary, we consider that addition, in connexion with the one already\nmentioned (v. 31), a sign that his account is a traditionary and\nembellished one, [1541] and must rather adhere to that of the two other\nEvangelists.\n\nNot only, however, does the interpretation which sees in the\ntransfiguration only a natural dream of the apostles, fail as to its\nmain support, but it has besides a multitude of internal difficulties.\nIt presupposes only the three disciples to have been dreaming, leaving\nJesus awake, and thus not included in the illusion. But the whole tenor\nof the evangelical narrative implies that Jesus as well as the\ndisciples saw the appearance; and what is still more decisive, had the\nwhole been a mere dream of the disciples, he could not afterwards have\nsaid to them: Tell the vision to no man, since by these words he must\nhave confirmed in them the belief that they had witnessed something\nspecial and miraculous. Supposing however that Jesus had no share in\nthe dream, it still remains altogether unexampled, that three persons\nshould in a natural manner have had the same dream at the same time.\nThis the friends of the above interpretation have perceived, and hence\nhave supposed that the ardent Peter, who indeed is the only speaker,\nalone had the dream, but that the narrators, by a synecdoche attributed\nto all the disciples what in fact happened only to one. But from the\ncircumstance that Peter here, as well as elsewhere, is the spokesman,\nit does not follow that he alone had the vision, and the contrary can\nby no figure of speech be removed from the clear words of the\nEvangelists. But the explanation in question still more plainly betrays\nits inadequacy. Not only does it require, as already noticed, that the\naudible utterance of the name of Moses and Elias on the part of Jesus,\nshould be blended with the dream of the disciples; but it also calls in\nthe aid of a storm, which by its flashes of lightning is supposed to\nhave given rise in them to the idea of supernatural splendour, by its\npeals of thunder, to that of conversation and heavenly voices, and to\nhave held them in this delusion even for some time after they awaked.\nBut, according to Luke, it was on the waking of the disciples\n(\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.) that they saw the two men standing\nby Jesus: this does not look like a mere illusion protracted from a\ndream into waking moments; hence Kuin\u00f6l introduces the further\nsupposition, that, while the disciples slept, there came to Jesus two\nunknown men, whom they, in awaking, connected with their dream, and\nmistook for Moses and Elias. By giving this turn to the circumstances,\nall those occurrences which on the interpretation based on the\nsupposition of a dream, should be regarded as mere mental conceptions,\nare again made external realities: for the idea of supernatural\nbrilliancy is supposed to have been produced by a flash of lightning,\nthe idea of voices, by thunder, and lastly, the idea of two persons in\ncompany with Jesus, by the actual presence of two unknown individuals.\nAll this the disciples could properly perceive only when they were\nawake; and hence the supposition of a dream falls to the ground as\nsuperfluous.\n\nTherefore, since this interpretation, by still retaining a thread of\nconnexion between the alleged character of the event and a mental\ncondition, has the peculiar difficulty of making three partake in the\nsame dream, it is better entirely to break this thread, and restore all\nto the external world: so that we now have a natural external\noccurrence before us, as in the first instance we had a supernatural\none. Something objective presented itself to the disciples; thus it is\nexplained how it could be perceived by several at once: they deceived\nthemselves when awake as to what they saw; this was natural, because\nthey were all born within the same circle of ideas, were in the same\nframe of mind, and in the same situation. According to this opinion,\nthe essential fact in the scene on the mountain, is a secret interview\nwhich Jesus had preconcerted, and with a view to which he took with him\nthe three most confidential of his disciples. Who the two men were with\nwhom Jesus held this interview, Paulus does not venture to determine;\nKuin\u00f6l conjectures that they were secret adherents of the same kind as\nNicodemus; according to Venturini, they were Essenes, secret allies of\nJesus. Before these were arrived, Jesus prayed, and the disciples, not\nbeing invited to join, slept; for the sleep noticed by Luke, though it\nwere dreamless, is gladly retained in this interpretation, since a\ndelusion appears more probable in the case of persons just awaking. On\nhearing strange voices talking with Jesus, they awake, see Jesus, who\nprobably stood on a higher point of the mountain than they, enveloped\nin unwonted brilliancy, proceeding from the first rays of morning,\nwhich, perhaps reflected from a sheet of snow, fell on Jesus, but were\nmistaken by them in the surprise of the moment for a supernatural\nillumination; they perceive the two men, whom, for some unknown\nreasons, the drowsy Peter, and after him the rest, take for Moses and\nElias; their astonishment increases when they see the two unknown\nindividuals disappear in a bright morning cloud, which descends as they\nare in the act of departing, and hear one of them pronounce out of the\ncloud the words: \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., which they under these\ncircumstances unavoidably regard as a voice from heaven. [1542] This\nexplanation, which even Schleiermacher is inclined to favour, [1543] is\nsupposed, like the former, to find a special support in Luke, because\nin this Evangelist the assertion that the two men are Moses and Elias,\nis much less confidently expressed than in Matthew and Mark, and more\nas a mere notion of the drowsy Peter. For while the two first\nEvangelists directly say: \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039c\u03c9\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (there\nappeared unto them Moses and Elias), Luke more warily, as it seems,\nspeaks of \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf, \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u039c\u03c9\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (two men, who were\nMoses and Elias), the first designation being held to contain the\nobjective fact, the second its subjective interpretation. But this\ninterpretation is obviously approved by the narrator, from his choice\nof the word \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, instead of \u1f14\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; that he first speaks\nof two men, and afterwards gives them their names, cannot have been to\nleave another interpretation open to the reader, but only to imitate\nthe mysteriousness of the extraordinary scene, by the indefiniteness of\nhis first expression. While this explanation has thus as little support\nin the evangelical narratives as those previously considered, it has at\nthe same time no fewer difficulties in itself. The disciples must have\nbeen so far acquainted with the appearance of the morning beams on the\nmountains of their native land, as to be able to distinguish them from\na heavenly glory; how they came to have the idea that the two unknown\nindividuals were Moses and Elias, is not easy to explain on any of the\nformer views, but least of all on this;\u2014why Jesus, when Peter, by his\nproposal about the building of the three tabernacles, gave him to\nunderstand the delusion of the disciples, did not remove it, is\nincomprehensible, and this difficulty has induced Paulus to resort to\nthe supposition, that Jesus did not hear the address of Peter;\u2014the\nwhole conjecture about secret allies of Jesus has justly lost all\nrepute; and lastly, the one of those allies who spoke the words to the\ndisciples out of the cloud, must have permitted himself to use an\nunworthy mystification.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 107.\n\nTHE HISTORY OF THE TRANSFIGURATION CONSIDERED AS A MYTHUS.\n\nThus here, as in every former instance, after having run through the\ncircle of natural explanations, we are led back to the supernatural; in\nwhich, however, we are precluded from resting by difficulties equally\ndecisive. Since then the text forbids a natural interpretation, while\nit is impossible to maintain as historical the supernatural\ninterpretation which it sanctions, we must apply ourselves to a\ncritical examination of its statements. These are indeed said to be\nespecially trustworthy in the narrative before us, the fact being\nnarrated by three Evangelists, who strikingly agree even in the precise\ndetermination of the time, and being moreover attested by the Apostle\nPeter (2 Pet. i. 17). [1544] The agreement as to the time (the eight\ndays \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c of Luke meaning, according to the usual reckoning, the\nsame as the six days \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f13\u03be of the other Evangelists) is certainly\nstriking; and besides this, all the three narrators concur in placing\nimmediately after the transfiguration the cure of the demoniacal boy,\nwhich the disciples had failed to effect. But both these points of\nagreement may be accounted for, by the origin of the synoptical gospels\nfrom a fixed fund of evangelical tradition, in relation to which, we\nneed not be more surprised that it has grouped together many anecdotes\nin a particular manner without any objective reason, than that it has\noften preserved expressions in which it might have varied, through all\nthe three editions. [1545] The attestation of the history by the three\nsynoptists is, however, very much weakened, at least on the ordinary\nview of the relation which the four gospels bear to each other, by the\nsilence of John; since it does not appear why this Evangelist should\nnot have included in his history an event which was so important, and\nwhich moreover accorded so well with his system, nay, exactly realized\nthe declaration in his prologue (v. 14): We beheld his glory, the glory\nas of the only begotten of the Father. The worn-out reason, that he\nmight suppose the event to be sufficiently known through his\npredecessors, is, over and above its general invalidity, particularly\nunavailable here, because no one of the synoptists was in this instance\nan eye-witness, and consequently there must be many things in their\nnarratives which one who, like John, had participated in the scene,\nmight rectify and explain. Hence another reason has been sought for\nthis and similar omissions in the fourth gospel; and such an one has\nbeen supposed to be found in the anti-gnostic, or, more strictly, the\nanti-docetic tendency which has been ascribed to the gospel, in common\nwith the epistles, bearing the name of John. It is, accordingly,\nmaintained that in the history of the transfiguration, the splendour\nwhich illuminated Jesus, the transformation of his appearance into\nsomething more than earthly, might give countenance to the opinion that\nhis human form was nothing but an unsubstantial veil, through which at\ntimes his true, superhuman nature shone forth; that his converse with\nthe spirits of ancient prophets might lead to the conjecture, that he\nwas himself perhaps only a like spirit of some Old Testament saint\nrevisiting the earth; and that, rather than give nourishment to such\nerroneous notions, which began early to be formed among gnosticising\nChristians, John chose to suppress this and similar histories. [1546]\nBut besides that it does not correspond with the apostolic plainness of\nspeech (\u03c0\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1) to suppress important facts in the evangelical\nhistory, on account of their possible abuse by individuals. John, if he\nwere guided by the above consideration must at least have proceeded\nwith some consistency, and have excluded from the circle of his\naccounts all narratives which, in an equal degree with the one in\nquestion, were susceptible of a docetic misinterpretation. Now, here,\nevery one must at once be reminded of the history of the walking of\nJesus on the sea, which is at least equally calculated with the history\nof the transfiguration, to produce the idea that the body of Jesus was\na mere phantom, but which John nevertheless records. It is true that\nthe relative importance of events might introduce a distinction; so\nthat of two narratives with an equally strong docetic aspect, John\nmight include the one on account of its superior weight, while he\nomitted the less important. But no one will contend that the walking of\nJesus on the sea surpasses, or even equals, in importance the history\nof the transfiguration. John, if he were intent on avoiding what wore a\ndocetic appearance, must on every consideration have suppressed the\nfirst history before all others. As he has not done so, the above\nprinciple cannot have influenced him, and consequently can never be\nadvanced as a reason for the designed omission of a history in the\nfourth gospel; rather it may be concluded, and particularly in relation\nto the event in question, that the author knew nothing, or at least\nnothing precise, of that history. [1547] It is true that this\nconclusion can form an objection to the historical character of the\nnarrative of the transfiguration, to those only who suppose the fourth\ngospel to be the work of an apostle; so that from this silence we\ncannot argue against the truth of the narrative. On the other hand, the\nagreement of the synoptists proves nothing in its favour, since we have\nalready been obliged to pronounce unhistorical more than one narrative\nin which three, nay, all four gospels agree. Lastly, as regards the\nalleged testimony of Peter, from the more than doubtful genuineness of\nthe second Epistle of Peter, the passage which certainly refers to our\nhistory of the transfiguration is renounced as a proof of its\nhistorical truth even by orthodox theologians. [1548]\n\nOn the other hand besides the difficulties previously enumerated, lying\nin the miraculous contents of the narrative, we have still a further\nground for doubt in relation to the historical validity of the\ntransfiguration: namely, the conversation which, according to the two\nfirst Evangelists, the disciples held with Jesus immediately after. In\ndescending from the mountain, the disciples ask Jesus: \u03c4\u03af \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f18\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd; Why then say the\nscribes that Elias must first come? (Matt. v. 10). This sounds just as\nif something had happened, from which they necessarily inferred that\nElias would not appear; and not in the least as if they were coming\ndirectly from a scene in which he had actually appeared; for in the\nlatter case they would not have asked a question, as if unsatisfied,\nbut must rather have indicated their satisfaction by the remark,\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Truly then do the scribes\nsay, etc. [1549] Hence, expositors interpret the question of the\ndisciples to refer, not to the absence of an appearance of Elias in\ngeneral, but to the absence of a certain concomitant in the scene which\nthey had just witnessed. The doctrine of the scribes, namely, had\ntaught them to anticipate that Elias on his second appearance would\nexert a reforming influence on the life of the nation; whereas in the\nappearance which they had just beheld he had presently vanished again\nwithout further activity. [1550] This explanation would be admissible\nif the words \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (will restore all things) stood in the\nquestion of the disciples; instead of this, however, it stands in both\nnarratives (Matt. v. 11; Mark v. 12) only in the answer of Jesus: so\nthat the disciples, according to this supposition, must, in the most\ncontradictory manner, have been silent as to what they really missed,\nthe restoration of all things, and only have mentioned that which after\nthe foregoing appearance they could not have missed, namely, the coming\nof Elias. As, however, the question of the disciples presupposes no\nprevious appearance of Elias, but, on the contrary, expresses the\nfeeling that such an appearance was wanting, so the answer which Jesus\ngives them has the same purport. For when he replies: the scribes are\nright in saying that Elias must come before the Messiah; but this is no\nargument against my Messiahship, since an Elias has already preceded me\nin the person of the Baptist,\u2014when he thus seeks to guard his disciples\nagainst the doubt which might arise from the expectation of the\nscribes, by pointing out to them the figurative Elias who had preceded\nhim,\u2014it is impossible that an appearance of the actual Elias can have\npreviously taken place; otherwise Jesus must in the first place have\nreferred to this appearance, and only in the second place to the\nBaptist. [1551] Thus the immediate connexion of this conversation with\nthat appearance cannot be historical, but is rather owing solely to\nthis point of similarity;\u2014that in both mention is made of Elias. [1552]\nBut not even at an interval, and after the lapse of intermediate\nevents, can such a conversation have been preceded by an appearance of\nElias; for however long afterwards, both Jesus and the three\neye-witnesses among his disciples must have remembered it, and could\nnever have spoken as if such an appearance had not taken place. Still\nfurther, an appearance of the real Elias cannot have happened even\nafter such a conversation, in accordance with the orthodox idea of\nJesus. For he, too, explicitly declares his opinion that the literal\nElias was not to be expected, and that the Baptist was the promised\nElias; if therefore, nevertheless, an appearance of the real Elias did\nsubsequently take place, Jesus must have been mistaken; a consequence\nwhich precisely those who are most concerned for the historical reality\nof the transfiguration, are the least in a position to admit. If then\nthe appearance and the conversation directly exclude each other, the\nquestion is, which of the two passages can better be renounced? Now the\npurport of the conversation is so confirmed by Matt. xi. 14, comp. Luke\ni. 17, while the transfiguration is rendered so improbable by all kinds\nof difficulties, that there cannot be much doubt as to the decision.\nAccording to this, it appears here as in some former cases, that two\nnarratives proceeding from quite different presuppositions, and having\narisen also in different times, have been awkwardly enough combined:\nthe passage containing the conversation proceeding from the probably\nearlier opinion, that the prophecy concerning Elias had its fulfilment\nin John; whereas the narrative of the transfiguration doubtless\noriginated at a later period, when it was not held sufficient that in\nthe messianic time of Jesus, Elias should only have appeared\nfiguratively, in the person of the Baptist,\u2014when it was thought fitting\nthat he should also have shown himself personally and literally, if in\nno more than a transient appearance before a few witnesses (a public\nand more influential one being well known not to have taken place).\n[1553]\n\nIn order next to understand how such a narrative could arise in a\nlegendary manner, the first feature to be considered, on the\nexamination of which that of all the rest will most easily follow, is\nthe sun-like splendour of the countenance of Jesus, and the bright\nlustre of his clothes. To the oriental, and more particularly to the\nHebrew imagination, the beautiful, the majestic, is the luminous; the\npoet of the Song of Songs compares his beloved to the hues of morning,\nto the moon, to the sun (vi. 9); the holy man supported by the blessing\nof God, is compared to the sun going forth in his might (Judg. v. 31);\nand above all the future lot of the righteous is likened to the\nsplendour of the sun and the stars (Dan. xii. 3; Matt. xiii. 43).\n[1554] Hence, not only does God appear clothed in light, and angels\nwith resplendent countenances and shining garments (Ps. l. 2, 3; Dan.\nvii. 9 f., x. 5, 6; Luke xxiv. 4; Rev. i. 13 ff.), but also the pious\nof Hebrew antiquity, as Adam before the fall, and among subsequent\ninstances, more particularly Moses and Joshua, are represented as being\ndistinguished by such a splendour; [1555] and the later Jewish\ntradition ascribes celestial splendour even to eminent rabbins in\nexalted moments. [1556] But the most celebrated example of this kind is\nthe luminous countenance of Moses, which is mentioned, Exod. xxxiv. 29\nff., and as in other points, so in this, a conclusion was drawn from\nhim in relation to the Messiah, a minori ad majus. Such a mode of\narguing is indicated by the Apostle Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 7 ff., though he\nopposes to Moses, the minister of the letter, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\nnot Jesus, but, in accordance with the occasion of his epistle, the\napostles and Christian teachers, ministers of the spirit, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, and the glory, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1, of the latter, which surpassed the\nglory of Moses, is an object of hope, \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03c2, to be attained only in the\nfuture life. But especially in the Messiah himself, it was expected\nthat there would be a splendour which would correspond to that of\nMoses, nay, outshine it; and a Jewish writing which takes no notice of\nour history of the transfiguration, argues quite in the spirit of the\nJews of the first Christian period, when it urges that Jesus cannot\nhave been the Messiah, because his countenance had not the splendour of\nthe countenance of Moses, to say nothing of a higher splendour. [1557]\nSuch objections, doubtless heard by the early Christians from the Jews,\nand partly suggested by their own minds, could not but generate in the\nearly church a tendency to introduce into the life of Jesus an\nimitation of that trait in the life of Moses, nay, in one respect to\nsurpass it, and instead of a shining countenance that might be covered\nwith a veil, to ascribe to him a radiance, though but transitory, which\nwas diffused even over his garments.\n\nThat the illumination of the countenance of Moses served as a type for\nthe transfiguration of Jesus, is besides proved by a series of\nparticular features. Moses obtained his splendour on Mount Sinai: of\nthe transfiguration of Jesus also the scene is a mountain; Moses, on an\nearlier ascent of the mountain, which might easily be confounded with\nthe later one, after which his countenance became luminous, had taken\nwith him, besides the seventy elders, three confidential friends,\nAaron, Nadab, and Abihu, to participate in the vision of Jehovah (Exod.\nxxiv. 1, 9\u201311); so Jesus takes with him his three most confidential\ndisciples, that, so far as their powers were adequate, they might be\nwitnesses of the sublime spectacle, and their immediate object was,\naccording to Luke v. 28, to pray, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9: just as Jehovah calls\nMoses with the three companions and the elders, to come on the\nmountain, that they might worship at a distance. As afterwards, when\nMoses ascended Sinai with Joshua, the glory of the Lord, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5,\ncovered the mountain as a cloud, \u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 (v. 15 f. LXX.); as Jehovah\ncalled to Moses out of the cloud, until at length the latter entered\ninto the cloud (v. 16\u201318): so we have in our narrative a bright cloud,\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, which overshadows Jesus and the heavenly forms, a voice\nout of the cloud, \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2, and in Luke an entering,\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, of the three into the cloud. The first part of the address\npronounced by the voice out of the cloud, consists of the messianic\ndeclaration, composed out of Ps. ii. 7, and Isa. xlii. 1, which had\nalready sounded from heaven at the baptism of Jesus; the second part is\ntaken from the words with which Moses, in the passage of Deuteronomy\nquoted earlier (xviii. 15), according to the usual interpretation,\nannounces to the people the future Messiah, and admonishes them to\nobedience towards him. [1558]\n\nBy the transfiguration on the mount Jesus was brought into contact with\nhis type Moses, and as it had entered into the anticipation of the Jews\nthat the messianic time, according to Isa. lii. 6 ff., would have not\nmerely one, but several forerunners, [1559] and that among others the\nancient lawgiver especially would appear in the time of the Messiah:\n[1560] so no moment was more appropriate for his appearance than that\nin which the Messiah was being glorified on a mountain, as he had\nhimself once been. With him was then naturally associated the prophet,\nwho, on the strength of Mal. iii. 23, was the most decidedly expected\nto be a messianic forerunner, and, indeed, according to the rabbins, to\nappear contemporaneously with Moses. If these two men appeared to the\nMessiah, it followed as a matter of course that they conversed with\nhim; and if it were asked what was the tenor of their conversation,\nnothing would suggest itself so soon as the approaching sufferings and\ndeath of Jesus, which had been announced in the foregoing passage, and\nwhich besides, as constituting emphatically the messianic mystery of\nthe New Testament, were best adapted for the subject of such a\nconversation with beings of another world: whence one cannot but wonder\nhow Olshausen can maintain that the mythus would never have fallen upon\nthis theme of conversation. According to this, we have here a mythus,\n[1561] the tendency of which is twofold: first, to exhibit in the life\nof Jesus an enhanced repetition of the glorification of Moses; and\nsecondly, to bring Jesus as the Messiah into contact with his two\nforerunners,\u2014by this appearance of the lawgiver and the prophet, of the\nfounder and the reformer of the theocracy, to represent Jesus as the\nperfecter of the kingdom of God, and the fulfilment of the law and the\nprophets; and besides this, to show a confirmation of his messianic\ndignity by a heavenly voice. [1562]\n\nBefore we part with our subject, this example may serve to show us with\npeculiar clearness, how the natural system of interpretation, while it\nseeks to preserve the historical certainty of the narratives, loses\ntheir ideal truth\u2014sacrifices the essence to the form: whereas the\nmythical interpretation, by renouncing the historical body of such\nnarratives, rescues and preserves the idea which resides in them, and\nwhich alone constitutes their vitality and spirit. Thus if, as the\nnatural explanation would have it, the splendour around Jesus was an\naccidental, optical phenomenon, and the two appearances either images\nof a dream or unknown men, where is the significance of the incident?\nwhere the motive for preserving in the memory of the church an anecdote\nso void of ideas, and so barren of inference, resting on a common\ndelusion and superstition? On the contrary, while according to the\nmythical interpretation, I do not, it is true, see in the evangelical\nnarrative any real event,\u2014I yet retain a sense, a purpose in the\nnarrative, know to what sentiments and thoughts of the first Christian\ncommunity it owes its origin, and why the authors of the gospels\nincluded so important a passage in their memoirs. [1563]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 108.\n\nDIVERGING ACCOUNTS CONCERNING THE LAST JOURNEY OF JESUS TO JERUSALEM.\n\nShortly after the transfiguration on the mountain, the Evangelists make\nJesus enter on the fatal journey which conducted him to his death. With\nrespect to the place from whence he set out on this journey, and the\nroute which he took, the evangelical accounts differ. The synoptists\nagree as to the point of departure, for they all represent Jesus as\nsetting out from Galilee (Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1; Luke ix. 51; in this\nlast passage, Galilee is not indeed expressly named, but we necessarily\ninfer it to be the supposed locality from what precedes, in which only\nGalilee and districts in Galilee are spoken of, as well as from the\njourney through Samaria, mentioned in the succeeding passage): [1564]\nbut concerning the route which Jesus chose from thence to Jud\u00e6a, they\nappear to be at variance. It is true that the statements of two of them\non this point are so obscure, that they might appear to lend some aid\nto the harmonizing exegesis. Mark says in the clearest and most\ndefinite manner that Jesus took his course through Per\u00e6a; but his\nstatement, He came into the coasts of Jud\u00e6a on the further side of\nJordan, \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, is\nscarcely anything more than the mode in which he judged it right to\nexplain the hardly intelligible expression of Matthew, whom he follows\nin this chapter. What it precisely is which the latter intends by the\nwords, He departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Jud\u00e6a\nbeyond Jordan, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, is in fact not at all evident. For if the\nexplanation: he came into that part of Jud\u00e6a which lies on the opposite\nside of the Jordan, [1565] clashes alike with geography and grammar, so\nthe interpretation to which the comparison of Mark inclines the\nmajority of commentators, namely, that Jesus came into Jud\u00e6a through\nthe country on the farther side of the Jordan, [1566] is, even as\nmodified by Fritzsche, not free from grammatical difficulty. In any\ncase, however, thus much remains: that Matthew, as well as Mark, makes\nJesus take the most circuitous course through Per\u00e6a, while Luke, on the\nother hand, appears to lead him the more direct way through Samaria. It\nis true that his expression, xvii. 11, where he says that Jesus, on his\njourney to Jerusalem, passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee,\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ae\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 is scarcely clearer than the\none just cited from Matthew. According to the customary meaning of\nwords, he seems to state that Jesus first crossed Samaria, and then\nGalilee, in order to arrive at Jerusalem. But this is an inversion of\nthe true order; for if he set out from a place in Galilee, he must\nfirst traverse the rest of Galilee, and not until then could he enter\nSamaria. Hence the words \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. have been\ninterpreted to mean a progress along the boundary between Galilee and\nSamaria, [1567] and Luke has been reconciled with the two first\nEvangelists by the supposition, that Jesus journeyed along the\nGalilean-Samarian frontier, until he reached the Jordan, that he then\ncrossed this river, and so proceeded through Per\u00e6a towards Jud\u00e6a and\nJerusalem. But this latter supposition does not agree with Luke ix. 51\nff.; for we learn from this passage that Jesus, after his departure\nfrom Galilee, went directly to a Samaritan village, and here made an\nunfavourable impression, because his face was as though he would go to\nJerusalem, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc. Now\nthis seems clearly to indicate that Jesus took his way directly from\nGalilee, through Samaria, to Jud\u00e6a. We shall therefore be on the side\nof probability, if we judge this statement to be an artificial\narrangement of words, to which the writer was led by his desire to\nintroduce the narrative of the ten lepers, one of whom was a Samaritan;\n[1568] and consequently admit that there is here a divergency between\nthe synoptical gospels. [1569] Towards the end of the journey of Jesus,\nthey are once more in unison, for according to their unanimous\nstatement, Jesus arrived at Jerusalem from Jericho (Matt. xx. 29,\nparall.); a place which, we may observe, lay more in the direct road\nfor a Galilean coming through Per\u00e6a, than for one coming through\nSamaria.\n\nThus there is indeed a difference between the synoptists with regard to\nthe way taken by Jesus; but still they agree as to the first point of\ndeparture, and the last stage of the road; the account of John,\nhowever, diverges from them in both respects. According to him, it is\nnot Galilee from whence Jesus sets out to attend the last passover, for\nso early as before the feast of tabernacles of the previous year, he\nhad left that province, apparently for the last time (vii. 1, 10); that\nbetween this feast and that of the dedication (x. 22) he had returned\nthither, is at least not stated; after the latter feast, however, he\nbetook himself to Per\u00e6a, and remained there (x. 40) until the illness\nand death of Lazarus recalled him into Jud\u00e6a, and into the immediate\nvicinity of Jerusalem, namely, to Bethany (xi. 8 ff.). On account of\nthe machinations of his enemies, he quickly withdrew from thence again,\nbut, because he intended to be present at the coming Passover, he\nretired no further than to the little city of Ephraim, near to the\nwilderness (xi. 54); and from this place, no mention being made of a\nresidence in Jericho (which, besides, did not lie in the way from\nEphraim, according to the situation usually assigned to the latter\ncity), he proceeded to Jerusalem to the feast.\n\nSo total a divergency necessarily gave unwonted occupation to the\nharmonists. According to them, the departure from Galilee mentioned by\nthe synoptists, is not the departure to the last Passover, but to the\nfeast of dedication; [1570] though Luke, when he says, when the time\ncame that he should be received up, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (ix. 51), incontrovertibly marks it as the departure to\nthat feast on which the sufferings and death of Jesus awaited him, and\nthough all the synoptists make the journey then begun end in that\ntriumphal entry into Jerusalem which, according to the fourth gospel\nalso, took place immediately before the last passover. [1571] If,\naccording to this, the departure from Galilee narrated by the\nsynoptists is regarded as that to the feast of dedication, and the\nentrance into Jerusalem which they mention as that to the subsequent\npassover; they must have entirely passed over all which, on this\nsupposition, lay between these two points, namely, the arrival and\nresidence of Jesus in Jerusalem during the feast of dedication, his\njourney from thence into Per\u00e6a, from Per\u00e6a to Bethany, and from Bethany\nto Ephraim. If from this it should appear to follow that the synoptists\nwere ignorant of all these particulars: our harmonists urge, on the\ncontrary, that Luke makes Jesus soon after his journey out of Galilee,\nencounter scribes, who try to put him to the proof (x. 25 ff.); then\nshows him in Bethany in the vicinity of Jerusalem (x. 38 ff.);\nhereupon, removes him to the frontiers of Samaria and Galilee (xvii.\n11); and not until then, makes him proceed to the passover in Jerusalem\n(xix. 29 ff.): all which plainly enough indicates, that between that\ndeparture out of Galilee, and the final entrance into Jerusalem, Jesus\nmade another journey to Jud\u00e6a and Jerusalem, and from thence back\nagain. [1572] But, in the first place, the presence of the scribes\nproves absolutely nothing; and in the second, Luke makes no mention of\nBethany, but only of a visit to Mary and Martha, whom the fourth\nEvangelist places in that village: from which, however, it does not\nfollow that the third also supposed them to dwell there, and\nconsequently imagined Jesus when at their home, to be in the vicinity\nof Jerusalem. Again, from the fact that so very long after his\ndeparture (ix. 51\u2013xvii. 11), Jesus first appears on the frontier\nbetween Galilee and Samaria, it only follows that we have before us no\norderly progressive narrative. But, according to this harmonizing view,\neven Matthew was aware of those intermediate events, and has indicated\nthem for the more attentive reader: the one member of his sentence, he\ndeparted from Galilee, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, intimates the journey\nof Jesus to the feast of dedication, and thus forms a separate whole;\nthe other, and came into the coasts of Jud\u00e6a beyond Jordan, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, refers to the departure of\nJesus from Jerusalem into Per\u00e6a (John x. 40), and opens a new period.\nIn adopting this expedient, however, it is honourably confessed that\nwithout the data gathered from John, no one would have thought of such\na dismemberment of the passage in Matthew. [1573] In opposition to such\nartifices, no way is open to those who presuppose the accuracy of\nJohn\u2019s narrative, but that adopted by the most recent criticism;\nnamely, to renounce the supposition that Matthew, who treats of the\njourney very briefly, was an eye-witness; and to suppose of Luke, whose\naccount of it is very full, that either he or one of the collectors of\nwhose labours he availed himself, mingled together two separate\nnarratives, of which one referred to the earlier journey of Jesus to\nthe feast of dedication, the other to his last journey to the passover,\nwithout suspecting that between the departure of Jesus out of Galilee,\nand his entrance into Jerusalem, there fell yet an earlier residence in\nJerusalem, together with other journeys and adventures. [1574]\n\nWe may now observe how in the course of the narrative concerning the\nlast journey or journeys to Jerusalem, the relation between the\nsynoptical gospels and that of John is in a singular manner reversed.\nAs in the first instance, we discovered a great blank on the side of\nthe former, in their omission of a mass of intermediate events which\nJohn notices; so now, towards the end of the account of the journey,\nthere appears on the side of the latter, a similar, though smaller\nblank, for he gives no intimation of Jesus having come through Jericho\non his way to Jerusalem. It may indeed be said, that John might\noverlook this passage through Jericho, although, according to the\nsynoptists, it was distinguished by a cure of the blind, and the visit\nto Zacch\u00e6us; but, it is to be asked, is there in his narrative room for\na passage through Jericho? This city does not lie on the way from\nEphraim to Jerusalem, but considerably to the eastward; hence help is\nsought in the supposition that Jesus made all kinds of minor\nexcursions, in one of which he came to Jericho, and from hence went\nforward to Jerusalem. [1575]\n\nIn any case a remarkable want of unity prevails in the evangelical\naccounts of the last journey of Jesus; for according to the common,\nsynoptical tradition, he journeyed out of Galilee by Jericho (and, as\nMatthew and Mark say, through Per\u00e6a, as Luke says, through Samaria);\nwhile according to the fourth gospel, he must have come hither from\nEphraim: statements which it is impossible to reconcile.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 109.\n\nDIVERGENCIES OF THE GOSPELS, IN RELATION TO THE POINT FROM WHICH JESUS\nMADE HIS ENTRANCE INTO JERUSALEM.\n\nEven concerning the close of the journey of Jesus\u2014concerning the last\nstation before he reached Jerusalem, the Evangelists are not entirely\nin unison. While from the synoptical gospels it appears, that Jesus\nentered Jerusalem on the same day on which he left Jericho, and\nconsequently without halting long at any intervening place (Matt. xx.\n34, xxi. 1 ff. parall.): the fourth gospel makes him go from Ephraim\nonly so far as Bethany, spend the night there, and enter Jerusalem only\non the following day (xii. 1, 12 ff.). In order to reconcile the two\naccounts it is said: we need not wonder that the synoptists, in their\nsummary narrative, do not expressly touch upon the spending of the\nnight in Bethany, and we are not to infer from this that they intended\nto deny it; there exists, therefore, no contradiction between them and\nJohn, but what they present in a compact form, he exhibits in detail.\n[1576] But while Matthew does not even name Bethany, the two other\nsynoptists mention this place in a way which decidedly precludes the\nsupposition that Jesus spent the night there. They narrate that when\nJesus came near to Bethphage and Bethany, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f24\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u1fc6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, he caused an ass to be fetched from the next village, and\nforthwith rode on this into the city. Between events so connected it is\nimpossible to imagine a night interposed; on the contrary, the\nnarrative fully conveys the impression that immediately on the message\nof Jesus, the ass was surrendered by its owner, and that immediately\nafter the arrival of the ass, Jesus prepared to enter the city.\nMoreover, if Jesus intended to remain in Bethany for the night, it is\nimpossible to discover his motive in sending for the ass. For if we are\nto suppose the village to which he sent to be Bethany, and if the\nanimal on which he purposed to ride would not be required until the\nfollowing morning, there was no need for him to send forward the\ndisciples, and he might conveniently have waited until he arrived with\nthem in Bethany; the other alternative, that before he had reached\nBethany, and ascertained whether the animal he required might not be\nfound there, he should have sent beyond this nearest village to\nBethphage, in order there to procure an ass for the following morning,\nis altogether destitute of probability; and yet Matthew, at least, says\ndecidedly that the ass was procured in Bethphage. To this it may be\nadded, that according to the representation of Mark, when Jesus arrived\nin Jerusalem, the evening \u1f40\u03c8\u03af\u03b1, had already commenced (xi. 11), and\nconsequently it was only possible for him to take a cursory survey of\nthe city and the temple, after which he again returned to Bethany. It\nis not, certainly, to be proved that the fourth gospel lays the\nentrance in the morning; but it must be asked, why did not Jesus, when\nhe only came from so near a place as Bethany, set out earlier from\nthence, that he might have time to do something worth speaking of in\nJerusalem? The late arrival of Jesus in the city, as stated by Mark, is\nevidently to be explained only by the longer distance from Jericho\nthither; if he came from Bethany merely, he would scarcely set out so\nlate, as that after he had only looked round him in the city, he must\nagain return to Bethany, in order on the following day to set out\nearlier, which nothing had hindered him from doing on this day. It is\ntrue that, in deferring the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem until late in\nthe evening, Mark is not supported by the two other synoptists, for\nthese represent Jesus as undertaking the purification of the temple on\nthe day of his arrival, and Matthew even makes him perform cures, and\ngive answers to the high priests and scribes (Matt. xxi. 12 ff.): but\neven without this statement as to the hour of entrance, the arrival of\nJesus near to the above villages, the sending of the disciples, the\nbringing of the ass, and the riding into the city, are too closely\nconsecutive, to allow of our inserting in the narrative of the\nsynoptists a night\u2019s residence in Bethany.\n\nIf then it remains, that the three first Evangelists make Jesus proceed\ndirectly from Jericho, without any stay in Bethany, while the fourth\nmakes him come to Jerusalem from Bethany only, they must, if they are\nmutually correct, speak of two separate entrances; and this has been\nrecently maintained by several critics. [1577] According to them, Jesus\nfirst (as the synoptists relate) proceeded directly to Jerusalem with\nthe caravan going to the feast, and on this occasion there happened,\nwhen he made himself conspicuous by mounting the animal, an\nunpremeditated demonstration of homage on the part of his\nfellow-travellers, which converted the entrance into a triumphal\nprogress. Having retired to Bethany in the evening, on the following\nmorning (as John relates) a great multitude went out to meet him, in\norder to convey him into the city, and as he met with them on the way\nfrom Bethany, there was a repetition on an enlarged scale of the scene\non the foregoing day,\u2014this time preconcerted by his adherents. This\ndistinction of an earlier entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem before his\napproach was known in the city, and a later, after it was learned that\nhe was in Bethany, is favoured by the difference, that according to the\nsynoptical narrative, the people who render homage to him are only\ngoing before \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, and following \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (Matt. v. 9),\nwhile according to that of John, they are meeting him \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (v.\n13, 18). If however it be asked: why then among all our narrators, does\neach give only one entrance, and not one of them show any trace of a\nsecond? The answer in relation to John is, that this Evangelist is\nsilent as to the first entrance, probably because he was not present on\nthe occasion, having possibly been sent to Bethany to announce the\narrival of Jesus. [1578] As, however, according to our principles, if\nit be assumed of the author of the fourth gospel, that he is the\napostle named in the superscription, the same assumption must also be\nmade respecting the author of the first: we ask in vain, whither are we\nthen to suppose that Matthew was sent on the second entrance, that he\nknew nothing to relate concerning it? since with the repeated departure\nfrom Bethany to Jerusalem, there is no conceivable cause for such an\nerrand. In relation to John indeed it is a pure invention; not to\ninsist, that even if the two Evangelists were not personally present,\nthey must yet have learned enough of an event so much talked of in the\ncircle of the disciples, to be able to furnish an account of it. Above\nall, as the narrative of the synoptists does not indicate that a second\nentrance had taken place after the one described by them: so that of\nJohn is of such a kind, that before the entrance which it describes, it\nis impossible to conceive another. For according to this narrative, the\nday before the entrance which it details (consequently, according to\nthe given supposition, on the day of the synoptical entrance), many\nJews went from Jerusalem to Bethany, because they had heard of the\narrival of Jesus, and now wished to see him and Lazarus whom he had\nrestored to life (v. 9, comp. 12). But how could they learn on the day\nof the synoptical entrance, that Jesus was at Bethany? On that day\nJesus did indeed pass either by or through Bethany, but he proceeded\ndirectly to Jerusalem, whence, according to all the narratives, he\ncould have returned to Bethany only at so late an hour in the evening,\nthat Jews who now first went from Jerusalem, could no longer hope to be\nable to see him. [1579] But why should they take the trouble to seek\nJesus in Bethany, when they had on that very day seen him in Jerusalem\nitself? Surely in this case it must have been said\u2014not merely, that\nthey came not for Jesus\u2019 sake ONLY, but that they might see Lazarus\nalso, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039b\u03ac\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9,\u2014but\nrather that they had indeed seen Jesus himself in Jerusalem, but as\nthey wished to see Lazarus also, they came therefore to Bethany:\nwhereas the Evangelist represents these people as coming from Jerusalem\npartly to see Jesus; he cannot therefore have supposed that Jesus might\nhave been seen in Jerusalem on that very day. Further, when it is said\nin John, that on the following day it was heard in Jerusalem that Jesus\nwas coming (v. 12), this does not at all seem to imply that Jesus had\nalready been there the day before, but rather that the news had come\nfrom Bethany, of his intention to enter on this day. So also the\nreception which is immediately prepared for him, alone has its proper\nsignificance when it is regarded as the glorification of his first\nentrance into the metropolis; it could only have been appropriate on\nhis second entrance, if Jesus had the day before entered unobserved and\nunhonoured, and it had been wished to repair this omission on the\nfollowing day\u2014not if the first entrance had already been so brilliant.\nMoreover, on the second entrance every feature of the first must have\nbeen repeated, which, whether we refer it to a preconceived arrangement\non the part of Jesus, or to an accidental coincidence of circumstances,\nstill remains improbable. With respect to Jesus, it is not easy to\nunderstand how he could arrange the repetition of a spectacle which, in\nthe first instance significant, if acted a second time would be flat\nand unmeaning; [1580] on the other hand, circumstances must have\ncoincided in an unprecedented manner, if on both occasions there\nhappened the same demonstrations of homage on the part of the people,\nwith the same expressions of envy on the part of his opponents; if, on\nboth occasions, too, there stood at the command of Jesus an ass, by\nriding which he brought to mind the prophecy of Zechariah. We might\ntherefore call to our aid Sieffert\u2019s hypothesis of assimilation, and\nsuppose that the two entrances, originally more different, became thus\nsimilar by traditional intermixture: were not the supposition that two\ndistinct events lie at the foundation of the evangelical narratives,\nrendered improbable by another circumstance.\n\nOn the first glance, indeed, the supposition of two entrances seems to\nfind support in the fact, that John makes his entrance take place the\nday after the meal in Bethany, at which Jesus was anointed under\nmemorable circumstances; whereas the two first synoptists (for Luke\nknows nothing of a meal at Bethany in this period of the life of Jesus)\nmake their entrance precede this meal: and thus, quite in accordance\nwith the above supposition, the synoptical entrance would appear the\nearlier, that of John the later. This would be very well, if John had\nnot placed his entrance so early, and the synoptists their meal at\nBethany so late, that the former cannot possibly have been subsequent\nto the latter. According to John, Jesus comes six days before the\npassover to Bethany, and on the following day enters Jerusalem (xiii.\n1, 12); on the other hand, the meal at Bethany, mentioned by the\nsynoptists (Matt. xxvi. 6 ff. parall.), can have been at the most but\ntwo days before the passover (v. 2); so that if we are to suppose the\nsynoptical entrance prior to the meal and the entrance in John, there\nmust then have been after all this, according to the synoptists, a\nsecond meal in Bethany. But between the two meals thus presupposed, as\nbetween the two entrances, there would have been the most striking\nresemblance even to the minutest points; and against the interweaving\nof two such double incidents, there is so strong a presumption, that it\nwill scarcely be said there were two entrances and two meals, which\nwere originally far more dissimilar, but, from the transference of\nfeatures out of the one incident into the other by tradition, they have\nbecome as similar to each other as we now see them: on the contrary,\nhere if anywhere, it is easier, when once the authenticity of the\naccounts is given up, to imagine that tradition has varied one\nincident, than that it has assimilated two. [1581]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 110.\n\nMORE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ENTRANCE. ITS OBJECT AND\nHISTORICAL REALITY.\n\nWhile the fourth gospel first makes the multitude that streamed forth\nto meet Jesus render him their homage, and then briefly states that\nJesus mounted a young ass which he had obtained; the synoptists\ncommence their description of the entrance with a minute account of the\nmanner in which Jesus came by the ass. When, namely, he had arrived in\nthe neighbourhood of Jerusalem, towards Bethphage and Bethany, at the\nMount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples into the village lying\nbefore them, telling them that when they came there they would\nfind\u2014Matthew says, an ass tied, and a colt with her; the two others, a\ncolt whereon never man sat\u2014which they were to loose and bring to him,\nsilencing any objections of the owner by the observation, the Lord hath\nneed of him (or them). This having been done, the disciples spread\ntheir clothes, and placed Jesus\u2014on both the animals, according to\nMatthew; according to the two other synoptists, on the single animal.\n\nThe most striking part of this account is obviously the statement of\nMatthew, that Jesus not only required two asses, though he alone\nintended to ride, but that he also actually sat on them both. It is\ntrue that, as is natural, there are not wanting attempts to explain the\nformer particular, and to do away with the latter. Jesus, it is said,\ncaused the mother animal to be brought with the colt, on which alone he\nintended to ride, in order that the young and still sucking animal\nmight by this means be made to go more easily; [1582] or else the\nmother, accustomed to her young one, followed of her own accord: [1583]\nbut a young animal, yet unweaned, would scarcely be given up by its\nowner to be ridden. A sufficient motive on the part of Jesus in sending\nfor the two animals, could only be that he intended to ride both, which\nMatthew appears plainly enough to say; for his words imply, not only\nthat the clothes were spread, but also that Jesus was placed on the two\nanimals (\u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd). But how are we to represent this to ourselves?\nAs an alternate mounting of the one and the other, Fritzsche thinks:\n[1584] but this, for so short a distance would have been a superfluous\ninconvenience. Hence commentators have sought to rid themselves of the\nsingular statement. Some, after very weak authorities, and in\nopposition to all critical principles, read in the words relative to\nthe spreading of the clothes, \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd), upon it (the\ncolt), instead of \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, upon them; and then in the mentioning\nthat Jesus placed himself thereon, refer the \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd to the clothes\nwhich were spread on one of the animals. [1585] Others, thinking to\nescape the difficulty without an alteration of the reading,\ncharacterize Matthew\u2019s statement as an enallage numeri, [1586] by\nwhich, according to Winer\u2019s explanation, it is meant that the\nEvangelist, using an inaccurate mode of expression, certainly speaks of\nboth the animals, but only in the sense in which we say of him who\nsprings from one of two horses harnessed together, that he springs from\nthe horses. [1587] Admitting this expedient to be sufficient, it again\nbecomes incomprehensible why Jesus, who according to this only meant to\nuse one animal, should have sent for two. The whole statement becomes\nthe more suspicious, when we consider that it is given by the first\nEvangelist alone; for in order to reconcile the others with him it will\nnot suffice to say, as we ordinarily read, that they name only the foal\nas being that on which Jesus rode, and that while omitting the ass as\nan accessory fact, they do not exclude it.\n\nBut how was Matthew led into this singular statement? Its true source\nhas been pointed out, though in a curious manner, by those who\nconjecture, that Jesus in his instructions to the two disciples, and\nMatthew in his original writing, following the passage of Zechariah\n(ix. 9), made use of several expressions for the one idea of the ass,\nwhich expressions were by the Greek translator of the first gospel\nmisconstrued to mean more than one animal. [1588] Undoubtedly it was\nthe accumulated designations of the ass in the above passage: \u200f\u05d4\u05b2\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\n\u05d5\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u05d0\u05b2\u05ea\u05b9\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b6\u03cd\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd, LXX. which occasioned the\nduplication of it in the first gospel; for the and which in the Hebrew\nwas intended in an explanatory sense, was erroneously understood to\ndenote an addition, and hence instead of: an ass, that is, an ass\u2019s\nfoal, was substituted: an ass together with an ass\u2019s foal. [1589] But\nthis mistake cannot have originated with the Greek translator, who, if\nhe had found throughout Matthew\u2019s narrative but one ass, would scarcely\nhave doubled it purely on the strength of the prophetic passage, and as\noften as his original spoke of one ass, have added a second, or\nintroduced the plural number instead of the singular; it must rather\nhave been made by one whose only written source was the prophetic\npassage, out of which, with the aid of oral tradition, he spun his\nentire narrative, i.e. the author of the first gospel; who hereby, as\nrecent criticism correctly maintains, irrecoverably forfeits the\nreputation of an eye-witness? [1590]\n\nIf the first gospel stands alone in this mistake, so, on the other\nhand, the two intermediate Evangelists have a feature peculiar to\nthemselves, which it is to the advantage of the first to have avoided.\nWe shall merely point out in passing the prolixity with which Mark and\nLuke (though they, as well as Matthew, make Jesus describe to the two\ndisciples, how they would find the ass, and wherewith they were to\nsatisfy the owner), yet do not spare themselves or the reader the\ntrouble of almost verbally repeating every particular as having\noccurred (Mark v. 4 ff.; Luke v. 32 ff.); whereas Matthew, with more\njudgment, contents himself with the observation, and the disciples went\nand did as Jesus commanded them. This, as affecting merely the form of\nthe narrative, we shall not dwell on further. But it concerns the\nsubstance, that, according to Mark and Luke, Jesus desired an animal\nwhereon yet never man sat, \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f43 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5: a\nparticular of which Matthew knows nothing. One does not understand how\nJesus could designedly increase the difficulty of his progress, by the\nchoice of a hitherto unridden animal, which, unless he kept it in order\nby divine omnipotence (for the most consummate human skill would not\nsuffice for this on the first riding), must inevitably have occasioned\nmuch disturbance to the triumphal procession, especially as we are not\nto suppose that it was preceded by its mother, this circumstance having\nentered into the representation of the first Evangelist only. To such\nan inconvenience Jesus would assuredly not have exposed himself without\na cogent reason: such a reason however appears to lie sufficiently near\nin the opinion of antiquity, according to which, to use Wetstein\u2019s\nexpression, animalia, usibus humanis nondum mancipata, sacra\nhabebantur; so that thus Jesus, for his consecrated person, and the\nhigh occasion of his messianic entrance, may have chosen to use only a\nsacred animal. But regarded more closely, this reason will appear\nfrivolous, and absurd also; for the spectators had no means of knowing\nthat the ass had never been ridden before, except by the unruliness\nwith which he may have disturbed the peaceful progress of the triumphal\ntrain. [1591] If we are thus unable to comprehend how Jesus could seek\nan honour for himself in mounting an animal which had never yet been\nridden; we shall, on the contrary, find it easy to comprehend how the\nprimitive Christian community might early believe it due to his honour\nthat he should ride only on such an animal, as subsequently that he\nshould lie only in an unused grave. The authors of the intermediate\ngospels did not hesitate to receive this trait into their memoirs,\nbecause they indeed, in writing, would not experience the same\ninconvenience from the undisciplined animal, which it must have caused\nto Jesus in riding.\n\nThe two difficulties already considered belong respectively to the\nfirst Evangelist, and the two intermediate ones: another is common to\nthem all, namely, that which lies in the circumstance that Jesus so\nconfidently sends two disciples for an ass which they would find in the\nnext village, in such and such a situation, and that the issue\ncorresponds so closely to his prediction. It might here appear the most\nnatural, to suppose that he had previously bespoken the ass, and that\nconsequently it stood ready for him at the hour and place appointed;\n[1592] but how could he have thus bespoken an ass in Bethphage, seeing\nthat he was just come from Jericho? Hence even Paulus in this instance\nfinds something else more probable: namely, that about the time of the\nfeasts, in the villages lying on the high road to Jerusalem, many\nbeasts of burden stood ready to be hired by travellers; but in\nopposition to this it is to be observed, that Jesus does not at all\nseem to speak of the first animal that may happen to present itself,\nbut of a particular animal. Hence we cannot but be surprised that\nOlshausen describes it as only the probable idea of the narrator, that\nto the Messiah making his entrance into Jerusalem, the providence of\nGod presented everything just as he needed it; as also that the same\nexpositor, in order to explain the ready compliance of the owners of\nthe animal, finds it necessary to suppose that they were friends of\nJesus; since this trait rather serves to exhibit the as it were magical\npower which resided in the name of the Lord, at the mention of which\nthe owner of the ass unresistingly placed it at his disposal, as\nsubsequently the inhabitant of the room gave it up at a word from the\nMaster (Matt. xxvi. 18 parall.). To this divine providence in favour of\nthe Messiah, and the irresistible power of his name, is united the\nsuperior knowledge by means of which Jesus here clearly discerns a\ndistant fact which might be available for the supply of his wants.\n\nNow admitting this to be the meaning and design of the Evangelists,\nsuch a prediction of an accidental circumstance might certainly be\nconceived as the effect of a magnetic clairvoyance. [1593] But, on the\none hand, we know full well the tendency of the primitive Christian\nlegend to create such proofs of the superior nature of her Messiah\n(witness the calling of the two pairs of brethren; but the instance\nmost analogous has been just alluded to, and is hereafter to be more\nclosely examined, namely, the manner in which Jesus causes the room to\nbe bespoken for his last supper with the twelve); on the other hand,\nthe dogmatic reasons drawn from prophecy, for displaying the far-seeing\nof Jesus here as precisely the knowledge of an ass being tied at a\ncertain place, are clearly obvious; so that we cannot abstain from the\nconjecture, that we have here nothing more than a product of the\ntendency which characterized the Christian legend, and of the effort to\nbase Christian belief on ancient prophecy. In considering, namely, the\npassage quoted in the first and fourth gospels from Zechariah, where it\nis merely said that the meek and lowly king will come riding on an ass,\nin general; it is usual to overlook another prophetic passage, which\ncontains more precisely the tied ass of the Messiah. This passage is\nGen. xlix. 11, where the dying Jacob says to Judah concerning the\nShiloh, \u200f\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d7\u200e, Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass\u2019s colt unto\nthe choice vine, \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u1ff6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f15\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. Justin Martyr understands this passage also, as\nwell as the one from Zechariah, as a prediction relative to the\nentrance of Jesus, and hence directly asserts that the foal which Jesus\ncaused to be fetched was bound to a vine. [1594] In like manner the\nJews not only held the general interpretation that the Shiloh was the\nMessiah, as may be shown already in the Targum, [1595] but also\ncombined the passage relative to the binding of the ass with that on\nthe riding of it into Jerusalem. [1596] That the above prophecy of\nJacob is not cited by any one of our Evangelists, only proves, at the\nutmost, that it was not verbally present to their minds when they were\nwriting the narrative before us: it can by no means prove that the\npassage was not an element in the conceptions of the circle in which\nthe anecdote was first formed. The transmission of the narrative\nthrough the hands of many who were not aware of its original relation\nto the passage in Genesis, may certainly be argued from the fact that\nit no longer perfectly corresponds to the prophecy. For a perfect\nagreement to exist, Jesus, after he had, according to Zechariah, ridden\ninto the city on the ass, must on dismounting, have bound it to a vine,\ninstead of causing it to be unbound in the next village (according to\nMark, from a door by the way-side) as he actually does. By this means,\nhowever, there was obtained, together with the fulfilment of those two\nprophecies, a proof of the supernatural knowledge of Jesus, and the\nmagical power of his name; and in relation to the former point, it\nmight be remembered in particular, that Samuel also had once proved his\ngifts as a seer by the prediction, that as Saul was returning homeward,\ntwo men would meet him with the information that the asses of Kis his\nfather were found (1 Sam. x. 2). The narrative in the fourth gospel,\nhaving no connection with the Mosaic passage, says nothing of the ass\nbeing tied, or of its being fetched by the disciples, and merely states\nwith reference to the passage of Zechariah alone: Jesus, having found a\nyoung ass, sat thereon (v. 14). [1597]\n\nThe next feature that presents itself for our consideration, is the\nhomage which is rendered to Jesus by the populace. According to all the\nnarrators except Luke, this consisted in cutting down the branches of\ntrees, which, according to the synoptists, were strewed in the way,\naccording to John (who with more particularity mentions palm branches),\nwere carried by the multitude that met Jesus; further, according to all\nexcept John, in the spreading of clothes in the way. To this were added\njoyous acclamations, of which all have, with unimportant modifications,\nthe words \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, Blessed be he that\ncometh in the name of the Lord; all except Luke the \u1f61\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u1f70, Hosanna;\nand all, the greeting as King, or Son of David. The first, from Ps.\ncxviii. 26, \u200f\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05da\u05b0 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05b9\u05d4\u200e, was, it is true, a customary form of\nsalutation to persons visiting the feasts, and even the second, \u200f\u05d7\u05d5\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4\n\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u200e, taken from the preceding verse of the same psalm, was a usual cry\nat the feast of tabernacles and the passover; [1598] but the addition\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c5\u1f31\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b1\u03c5\u1f76\u03b4, to the Son of David, and \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u1f74\u03bb, the King\nof Israel, shows that the people here applied these general forms to\nJesus especially as the Messiah, bid him welcome in a pre-eminent\nsense, and wished success to his undertaking. In relation to the\nparties who present the homage, Luke\u2019s account is the most\ncircumscribed, for he so connects the spreading of the clothes in the\nway (v. 36) with the immediately preceding context, that he appears to\nascribe it, as well as the laying of the clothes on the ass, solely to\nthe disciples, and he expressly attributes the acclamations to the\nwhole multitude of the disciples only (\u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd);\nwhereas Matthew and Mark make the homage proceed from the accompanying\nmass of people. This difference, however, can be easily reconciled; for\nwhen Luke speaks of the multitude of the disciples, \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd,\nthis means the wider circle of the adherents of Jesus, and, on the\nother hand, the very great multitude \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 in Matthew, only\nmeans all those who were favourable to him among the multitude. But\nwhile the synoptists remain within the limits of the company who were\nproceeding to the feast, and who were thus the fellow-travellers of\nJesus, John, as above noticed, makes the whole solemnity proceed from\nthose who go out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus (v. 13), while he\nrepresents the multitude who are approaching with Jesus as testifying\nto the former the resurrection of Lazarus, on account of which,\naccording to John, the solemn escort of Jesus into Jerusalem was\nprepared (v. 17 f.). This cause we cannot admit as authentic, inasmuch\nas we have found critical reasons for doubting the resurrection of\nLazarus: but with the alleged cause, the fact itself of the escort is\nshaken; especially if we reflect, that the dignity of Jesus might\nappear to demand that the inhabitants of the city of David should have\ngone forth to bring him in with all solemnity, and that it fully\nharmonizes with the prevailing characteristics of the representation of\nthe fourth gospel, to describe, before the arrival of Jesus at the\nfeast, how intently the expectations of the people were fixed upon him\n(vii. 11 ff., xi. 56).\n\nThe last trait in the picture before us, is the displeasure of the\nenemies of Jesus at the strong attachment to him, exhibited by the\npeople on this occasion. According to John (v. 19), the Pharisees said\nto each other: we see from this that the (lenient) proceedings which we\nhave hitherto adopted are of no avail; all the world is following him\n(we must interpose, with forcible measures). According to Luke (v. 39\nf.), some Pharisees addressed Jesus as if they expected him to impose\nsilence on his disciples; on which he answers, that if these were\nsilent, the stones would cry out. While in Luke and John this happens\nduring the progress, in Matthew it is only after Jesus has arrived with\nthe procession in the temple, and when the children, even here,\ncontinue to cry, Hosanna to the Son of David, that the high priests and\nscribes direct the attention of Jesus to the impropriety, as it appears\nto them, whereupon he repulses them with a sentence out of Ps. viii. 3.\n(Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise)\n(v. 15 f.); a sentence which in the original obviously relates to\nJehovah, but which Jesus thus applies to himself. The lamentation of\nJesus over Jerusalem, connected by Luke with the entrance, will come\nunder our consideration further on.\n\nJohn, and more particularly Matthew by his phrase \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., All this was done that it might be\nfulfilled, etc. (v. 4), unequivocally express the idea that the design,\nfirst of God, inasmuch as he ordained this scene, and next of the\nMessiah, as the participant in the Divine counsels, was, by giving this\ncharacter to the entrance, to fulfil an ancient prophecy. If Jesus saw\nin the passage of Zechariah (ix. 9), [1599] a prophecy concerning\nhimself as the Messiah, this cannot have been a knowledge resulting\nfrom the higher principle within him; for, even if this prophetic\npassage ought not to be referred to an historical prince, as Uzziah,\n[1600] or John Hyrcanus, [1601] but to a messianic individual, [1602]\nstill the latter, though a pacific, must yet be understood as a\ntemporal prince, and moreover as in peaceful possession of\nJerusalem\u2014thus as one altogether different from Jesus. But it appears\nquite possible for Jesus to have come to such an interpretation in a\nnatural way, since at least the rabbins with decided unanimity\ninterpret the passage of Zechariah of the Messiah. [1603] Above all, we\nknow that the contradiction which appeared to exist between the\ninsignificant advent here predicted of the Messiah, and the brilliant\none which Daniel had foretold, was at a later period commonly\nreconciled by the doctrine, that according as the Jewish people showed\nthemselves worthy or the contrary, their Messiah would appear in a\nmajestic or a lowly form. [1604] Now even if this distinction did not\nexist in the time of Jesus, but only in general a reference of the\npassage Zech. ix. 9 to the Messiah: still Jesus might imagine that now,\non his first appearance, the prophecy of Zechariah must be fulfilled in\nhim, but hereafter, on his second appearance, the prophecy of Daniel.\nBut there is a third possibility; namely, that either an accidental\nriding into Jerusalem on an ass by Jesus was subsequently interpreted\nby the Christians in this manner, or that, lest any messianic attribute\nshould be wanting to him, the whole narrative of the entrance was\nfreely composed after the two prophecies and the dogmatic\npresupposition of a superhuman knowledge on the part of Jesus.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHIRD PART.\n\nHISTORY OF THE PASSION, DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nRELATION OF JESUS TO THE IDEA OF A SUFFERING AND DYING MESSIAH; HIS\nDISCOURSES ON HIS DEATH, RESURRECTION, AND SECOND ADVENT.\n\n\u00a7 111.\n\nDID JESUS IN PRECISE TERMS PREDICT HIS PASSION AND DEATH?\n\nAccording to the gospels, Jesus more than once, and while the result\nwas yet distant, [1605] predicted to his disciples that sufferings and\na violent death awaited him. Moreover, if we trust the synoptical\naccounts, he did not predict his fate merely in general terms, but\nspecified beforehand the place of his passion, namely, Jerusalem; the\ntime, namely, the approaching passover; the persons from whom he would\nhave to suffer, namely, the chief priests, scribes and Gentiles; the\nessential form of his passion, namely, crucifixion, in consequence of a\njudicial sentence; and even its accessory circumstances, namely,\nscourging, reviling, and spitting (Matt. xvi. 21, xvii. 12, 22 f., xx.\n17 ff., xxvi. 12 with the parall., Luke xiii. 33). Between the\nsynoptists and the author of the fourth gospel, there exists a\nthreefold difference in relation to this subject. Firstly and chiefly,\nin the latter the predictions of Jesus do not appear so clear and\nintelligible, but are for the most part presented in obscure figurative\ndiscourses, concerning which the narrator himself confesses that the\ndisciples understood them not until after the issue (ii. 22). In\naddition to a decided declaration that he will voluntarily lay down his\nlife (x. 15 ff.), Jesus in this gospel is particularly fond of alluding\nto his approaching death under the expressions \u1f51\u03c8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, \u1f51\u03c8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, to lift\nup, to be lifted up, in the application of which he seems to vacillate\nbetween his exaltation on the cross, and his exaltation to glory (iii.\n14, viii. 28, xii. 32); he compares his approaching exaltation with\nthat of the brazen serpent in the wilderness (iii. 14), as, in Matthew,\nhe compares his fate with that of Jonah (xii. 40); on another occasion,\nhe speaks of going away whither no man can follow him (vii. 33 ff.,\nviii. 21 f.), as, in the synoptists, of a taking away of a bridegroom,\nwhich will plunge his friends into mourning (Matt. ix. 15 parall.), and\nof a cup, which he must drink, and which his disciples will find it\nhard to partake of with him (Matt. xx. 22 parall.). The two other\ndifferences are less marked, but are still observable. One of them is,\nthat while in John the allusions to the violent death of Jesus run in\nan equal degree through the whole gospel; in the synoptists, the\nrepeated and definite announcements of his death are found only towards\nthe end, partly immediately before, partly during, the last journey; in\nearlier chapters there occurs, with the exception of the obscure\ndiscourse on the sign of Jonah (which we shall soon see to be no\nprediction of death), only the intimation of a removal (doubtless\nviolent) of the bridegroom. The last difference is, that while\naccording to the three first Evangelists, Jesus imparts those\npredictions (again with the single exception of the above intimation,\nMatt. ix. 15) only to the confidential circle of his disciples; in\nJohn, he utters them in the presence of the people, and even of his\nenemies.\n\nIn the critical investigation of these evangelical accounts, we shall\nproceed from the special to the general, in the following manner. First\nwe shall ask: Is it credible that Jesus had a foreknowledge of so many\nparticular features of the fate which awaited him? and next: Is even a\ngeneral foreknowledge and prediction of his sufferings, on the part of\nJesus, probable? in which inquiry, the difference between the\nrepresentation of John and that of the synoptists, will necessarily\ncome under our consideration.\n\nThere are two modes of explaining how Jesus could so precisely foreknow\nthe particular circumstances of his passion and death; the one resting\non a supernatural, the other on a natural basis. The former appears\nadequate to solve the problem by the simple position, that before the\nprophetic spirit, which dwelt in Jesus in the richest plenitude, his\ndestiny must have lain unfolded from the beginning. As, however, Jesus\nhimself, in his announcements of his sufferings, expressly appealed to\nthe Old Testament, the prophecies of which concerning him must be\nfulfilled in all points (Luke xviii. 31, comp. xxii. 37, xxiv. 25 ff.;\nMatt. xxvi. 54): so the orthodox view ought not to despise this help,\nbut must give to its explanation the modification, that Jesus\ncontinually occupied with the prophecies of the Old Testament, may have\ndrawn those particularities out of them, by the aid of the spirit that\ndwelt within him. [1606] According to this, while the knowledge of the\ntime of his passion remains consigned to his prophetic presentiment,\nunless he be supposed to have calculated this out of Daniel, or some\nsimilar source; Jesus must have come to regard Jerusalem as the scene\nof his suffering and death, by contemplating the fate of earlier\nprophets as a type of his own, the Spirit telling him, that where so\nmany prophets had suffered death, there, \u00e0 fortiori, must the Messiah\nalso suffer (Luke xiii. 33); that his death would be the sequel of a\nformal sentence, he must have gathered from Isa. liii. 8, where a\njudgment \u200f\u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d8\u200e is spoken of as impending over the servant of God, and\nfrom v. 12, where it is said that he was numbered with the\ntransgressors, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 (comp. Luke xxii. 37); that his\nsentence would proceed from the rulers of his own people, he might\nperhaps have concluded from Ps. cxviii. 22, where the builders,\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 who reject the corner-stone, are, according to apostolic\ninterpretation (Acts iv. 11), the Jewish rulers; that he would be\ndelivered to the Gentiles, he might infer from the fact, that in\nseveral plaintive psalms, which are susceptible of a messianic\ninterpretation, the persecuting parties are represented as \u200f\u05e8\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e,\ni.e. heathens; that the precise manner of his death would be\ncrucifixion, he might have deduced, partly from the type of the brazen\nserpent which was suspended on a pole, Num. xxi. 8 f. (comp. John iii.\n14), partly from the piercing of the hands and feet, Ps. xxii. 17,\nLXX.; lastly, that he would be the object of scorn and personal\nmaltreatment, he might have concluded from passages such as v. 7 ff. in\nthe Psalm above quoted, Isa. l. 6, etc. Now if the spirit which dwelt\nin Jesus, and which, according to the orthodox opinion, revealed to him\nthe reference of these prophecies and types to his ultimate destiny,\nwas a spirit of truth: this reference to Jesus must admit of being\nproved to be the true and original sense of those Old Testament\npassages. But, to confine ourselves to the principal passages only, a\nprofound grammatical and historical exposition has convincingly shown,\nfor all who are in a condition to liberate themselves from dogmatic\npresuppositions, that in none of these is there any allusion to the\nsufferings of Christ. Instead of this, Isa. l. 6, speaks of the ill\nusage which the prophets had to experience; [1607] Isa. liii. of the\ncalamities of the prophetic order, or more probably of the Israelitish\npeople; [1608] Ps. cxviii. of the unexpected deliverance and exaltation\nof that people, or of one of their princes; [1609] while Ps. xxii. is\nthe complaint of an oppressed exile. [1610] As to the 17th verse of\nthis Psalm, which has been interpreted as having reference to the\ncrucifixion of Christ, even presupposing the most improbable\ninterpretation of \u200f\u05db\u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u200e by perfoderunt, this must in no case be\nunderstood literally, but only figuratively, and the image would be\nderived, not from a crucifixion, but from a chase, or a combat with\nwild beasts; [1611] hence the application of this passage to Christ is\nnow only maintained by those with whom it would be lost labour to\ncontend. According to the orthodox view, however, Jesus, in a\nsupernatural manner, by means of his higher nature, discovered in these\npassages a pre-intimation of the particular features of his passion;\nbut, in that case, since such is not the true sense of these passages,\nthe spirit that dwelt in Jesus cannot have been the spirit of truth,\nbut a lying spirit. Thus the orthodox expositor, so far as he does not\nexclude himself from the light dispensed by an unprejudiced\ninterpretation of the Old Testament, is driven, for the sake of his own\ninterest, to adopt the natural opinion; namely, that Jesus was led to\nsuch an interpretation of Old Testament passages, not by divine\ninspiration, but by a combination of his own.\n\nAccording to this opinion, [1612] there was no difficulty in foreseeing\nthat it would be the ruling sacerdotal party to which Jesus must\nsuccumb, since, on the one hand, it was pre-eminently embittered\nagainst Jesus, on the other, it was in possession of the necessary\npower; and equally obvious was it that they would make Jerusalem the\ntheatre of his judgment and execution, since this was the centre of\ntheir strength; that after being sentenced by the rulers of his people,\nhe would be delivered to the Romans for execution, followed from the\nlimitation of the Jewish judicial power at that period; that\ncrucifixion was the death to which he would be sentenced, might be\nconjectured from the fact that with the Romans this species of death\nwas a customary infliction, especially on rebels; lastly, that\nscourging and reviling would not be wanting, might likewise be inferred\nfrom Roman custom, and the barbarity of judicial proceedings in that\nage.\u2014But viewing the subject more nearly, how could Jesus so certainly\nknow that Herod, who had directed a threatening attention to his\nmovements (Luke xiii. 31), would not forestall the sacerdotal party,\nand add to the murder of the Baptist, that of his more important\nfollower? And even if he felt himself warranted in believing that real\ndanger threatened him from the side of the hierarchy only (Luke xiii.\n33); what was his guarantee that one of their tumultuary attempts to\nmurder him would not at last succeed (comp. John viii. 39, x. 31), and\nthat he would not, as Stephen did at a later period, without any\nfurther formalities, and without a previous delivery to the Romans,\nfind his death in quite another manner than by the Roman punishment of\ncrucifixion? Lastly, how could he so confidently assert that the very\nnext plot of his enemies, after so many failures, would be successful,\nand that the very next journey to the passover would be his last?\u2014But\nthe natural explanation also can call to its aid the Old Testament\npassages, and say: Jesus, whether by the application of a mode of\ninterpretation then current among his countrymen, or under the guidance\nof his own individual views, gathered from the passages already quoted,\na precise idea of the circumstances attendant on the violent end which\nawaited him as the Messiah. [1613] But if in the first place it would\nbe difficult to prove, that already in the lifetime of Jesus all these\nvarious passages were referred to the Messiah; and if it be equally\ndifficult to conceive that Jesus could independently, prior to the\nissue, discover such a reference; so it would be a case\nundistinguishable from a miracle, if the result had actually\ncorresponded to so false an interpretation; moreover, the Old Testament\noracles and types will not suffice to explain all the particular\nfeatures in the predictions of Jesus, especially the precise\ndetermination of time.\n\nIf then Jesus cannot have had so precise a foreknowledge of the\ncircumstances of his passion and death, either in a supernatural or a\nnatural way: he cannot have had such a foreknowledge at all: and the\nminute predictions which the Evangelists put into his mouth must be\nregarded as a vaticinium post eventum. [1614] Commentators who have\narrived at this conclusion, have not failed to extol the account of\nJohn, in opposition to that of the synoptists, on the ground that\nprecisely those traits in the predictions of Jesus which, from their\nspecial character, he cannot have uttered, are only found in the\nsynoptists, while John attributes to Jesus no more than indefinite\nintimations, and distinguishes these from his own interpretation, made\nafter the issue; a plain proof that in his gospel alone we have the\ndiscourses of Jesus unfalsified, and in their original form. [1615]\nBut, regarded more nearly, the case does not stand so that the fourth\nEvangelist can only be taxed with putting an erroneous interpretation\non the otherwise unfalsified declarations of Jesus: for in one passage,\nat least, he has put into his mouth an expression which, obscurely, it\nis true, but still unmistakably, determines the manner of his death as\ncrucifixion; and consequently, he has here altered the words of Jesus\nto correspond with the result. We refer to the expression \u1f51\u03c8\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, to\nbe lifted up: in those passages of the fourth gospel where Jesus speaks\nin a passive sense of the Son of Man being lifted up, this expression\nmight possibly mean his exaltation to glory, although in iii. 14, from\nthe comparison with the serpent in the wilderness, which was well known\nto have been elevated on a pole, even this becomes a difficulty; but\nwhen, as in viii. 28, he represents the exaltation of the Son of Man as\nthe act of his enemies (\u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03ce\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4. \u1f00.), it is obvious\nthat these could not lift him up immediately to glory, but only to the\ncross; consequently, if the result above stated be admitted as valid,\nJohn must himself have framed this expression, or at least have\ndistorted the Aram\u00e6an words of Jesus, and hence he essentially falls\nunder the same category with the synoptical writers. That the fourth\nEvangelist, though the passion and death of Jesus were to him past\nevents, and therefore clearly present to his mind, nevertheless makes\nJesus predict them in obscure expressions,\u2014this has its foundation in\nthe entire manner of this writer, whose fondness for the enigmatical\nand mysterious here happily met the requirement, to give an\nunintelligible form to prophecies which were not understood.\n\nThere were sufficient inducements for the Christian legend thus to put\ninto the mouth of Jesus, after the event, a prediction of the\nparticular features of his passion, especially of the ignominious\ncrucifixion. The more the Christ crucified became to the Jews a\nstumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness (1 Cor. i. 23), the more\nneed was there to remove this offence by every possible means; and as,\namong subsequent events, the resurrection especially served as a\nretrospective cancelling of that shameful death; so it must have been\nearnestly desired to take the sting from that offensive catastrophe\nbeforehand also, and this could not be done more effectually than by\nsuch a minute prediction. For as the most unimportant fact, when\nprophetically announced, gains importance, by thus being made a link in\nthe chain of a higher knowledge: so the most ignominious fate, when it\nis predicted as part of a divine plan of salvation, ceases to be\nignominious; above all, when the very person over whom such a fate\nimpends, also possesses the prophetic spirit, which enables him to\nforesee and foretell it, and thus not only suffers, but participates in\nthe divine prescience of his sufferings, he manifests himself as the\nideal power over those suffering. But the fourth Evangelist has gone\nstill farther on this track; he believes it due to the honour of Jesus\nto represent him as also the real power over his sufferings, as not\nhaving his life taken away by the violence of others, but as resigning\nit voluntarily (x. 17 f.): a representation which indeed already finds\nsome countenance in Matt. xxvi. 53, where Jesus asserts the possibility\nof praying to the Father for legions of angels, in order to avert his\nsufferings.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 112.\n\nTHE PREDICTIONS OF JESUS CONCERNING HIS DEATH IN GENERAL; THEIR\nRELATION TO THE JEWISH IDEA OF THE MESSIAH: DECLARATIONS OF JESUS\nCONCERNING THE OBJECT AND EFFECTS OF HIS DEATH.\n\nIf in this manner we subtract from the declarations of Jesus concerning\nhis approaching fate, attributed to him in the gospels, all which\nregards the particular circumstances of this catastrophe; there still\nremains on the part of Jesus the general announcement, that suffering\nand death awaited him, and also that this part of his career was a\nfulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies relative to the Messiah. As,\nhowever, the principal passages cited from the Old Testament, which\ntreat of suffering and death, are only by mistake referred to the\nMessiah, while others, as Dan. ix. 26; Zech. xii. 10, have not this\nsignification: [1616] the orthodox, above all, must again beware of\nattributing so false an interpretation of these prophecies, to the\nsupernatural principle in Jesus. That instead of this, Jesus might\npossibly, by a purely natural combination, have educed the general\nresult, that since he had made the hierarchy of his nation his\nimplacable enemies, he had, in so far as he was resolved not to swerve\nfrom the path of his destination, the worst to fear from their revenge\nand authority (John x. 11 ff.); that from the fate of former prophets\n(Matt. v. 12, xxi. 33 ff.; Luke xiii. 33 f.), and isolated passages\nbearing such an interpretation, he might prognosticate a similar end to\nhis own career, and accordingly predict to his followers that earlier\nor later a violent death awaited him\u2014this it would be a needless\noverstraining of the supranaturalistic view any longer to deny, and the\nrational mode of considering the subject should be admitted. [1617]\n\nIt may appear surprising if, after this admission, we still put the\nquestion, whether, according to the New Testament representation, it be\nprobable that Jesus actually uttered such a prediction? since,\ncertainly, a general announcement of his violent death is the least\nwhich the evangelical accounts appear to contain, but our meaning in\nthe question is this: is the sequel, especially the conduct of the\ndisciples, so described in the gospels, as to be reconcilable with a\nprior disclosure of Jesus relative to the sufferings which awaited him?\nNow the express statements of the Evangelists do not merely tend to\nshow that the disciples did not understand the discourses of Jesus on\nhis coming death, in the sense that they did not know how to adjust\nthese facts in their own minds, or to make them tally with their\npreconceived ideas concerning the Messiah,\u2014a difficulty which drew from\nPeter the first time that Jesus announced his death, the exclamation:\nBe it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee;\u2014for we find the\nwords of Mark (ix. 32), But they understood not that saying, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f20\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, thus amplified in Luke: and it was hid from them, that\nthey perceived it not, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u1f20\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc (ix. 45); and the latter Evangelist on another occasion\nsays: and they understood none of these things, and this saying was hid\nfrom them, neither knew they the things that were spoken, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 (xviii. 34): expressions which appear to\nimply that the disciples absolutely did not understand what the words\nof Jesus meant. In accordance with this, the condemnation and execution\nof Jesus fall upon them as a blow for which they are entirely\nunprepared, and consequently annihilate all the hopes which they had\nfixed on him as the Messiah (Luke xxiv. 20 f., The chief priests and\nour rulers have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which\nshould have redeemed Israel). But had Jesus spoken of his death to the\ndisciples with such perfect openness (\u03c0\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, Mark viii. 32), they\nmust necessarily have understood his clear words and detailed\ndiscourses, and had he besides shown them that his death was\nforeshadowed in the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, and was\nconsequently a part of the Messiah\u2019s destination (Luke xviii. 31, xxii.\n37), they could not, when his death actually ensued, have so entirely\nlost all belief in his messiahship. It is true that the Wolfenb\u00fcttel\nFragmentist is wrong in his attempt to show in the conduct of Jesus, as\ndescribed by the Evangelists, indications that his death was unexpected\neven to himself; but, looking merely at the conduct of the disciples,\nit is difficult to avoid the conclusion which that writer draws,\nnamely, that to judge by that conduct, Jesus cannot have made any\nantecedent disclosure to his disciples concerning his death; on the\ncontrary, they appear to the very last moment to have held the common\nopinion on this matter, and only to have adopted the characteristics of\nsuffering and death into their conception of the Messiah, after the\ndeath of Jesus had unexpectedly come upon them. [1618] At all events we\nhave before us the following dilemma: either the statements of the\nEvangelists as to the inability of the disciples to understand the\npredictions of Jesus, and their surprise at his death, are\nunhistorically exaggerated; or the decided declarations of Jesus\nconcerning the death which awaited him, were composed ex eventu, nay,\nit becomes doubtful whether he even in general predicted his death as a\npart of his messianic destiny. On both sides, the legend might be led\ninto unhistorical representations. For the fabrication of a prediction\nof his death in general, there were the same reasons which we have\nabove shown to be an adequate motive for attributing to him a\nprognostication of the particular features of his passion: to the\nfiction of so total a want of comprehension in the disciples, an\ninducement might be found, on the one hand, in the desire to exhibit\nthe profoundness of the mystery of a suffering Messiah revealed by\nJesus, through the inability of the disciples to understand it; on the\nother, in the fact that in the evangelical tradition the disciples were\nlikened to unconverted Jews and heathens, to whom anything was more\nintelligible than the death of the Messiah.\n\nIn order to decide between these alternatives, we must first examine\nwhether, prior to the death of Jesus, and independently of that event,\nthe messianic ideas of the age included the characteristics of\nsuffering and death. If already in the lifetime of Jesus it was the\nJewish opinion that the Messiah must die a violent death, then it is\nhighly probable that Jesus imbibed this idea as a part of his\nconvictions, and communicated it to his disciples; who, in that case,\ncould so much the less have remained uninstructed on this point, and\noverwhelmed by the actual result, in the degree alleged by the\nEvangelists. If, on the contrary, that idea was not diffused among his\ncountrymen before the death of Jesus, it still remains possible that\nJesus might arrive at that idea by his private reflection; but it is a\nprior possibility that the disciples were the first to adopt the\ncharacteristics of suffering and death into their conception of the\nMessiah, after they had been taught by the issue.\n\nThe question whether the idea of a suffering and dying Messiah was\nalready diffused among the Jews in the time of Jesus, is one of the\nmost difficult points of discussion among theologians, and one\nconcerning which they are the least agreed. And the difficulty of the\nquestion does not lie in the interests of party, so that it might be\nhoped that with the rise of impartial investigation, the subject would\ncease to be perplexed; for, as St\u00e4udlin has aptly shown, [1619] both\nthe orthodox and the rationalistic interest may alternately tend in\neach direction, and we in fact find theologians of both parties on both\nsides. [1620] The difficulty lies in the deficiency of information, and\nin the uncertainty of that which we do possess. If the Old Testament\ncontained the doctrine of a suffering and dying Messiah, it might\ncertainly thence be inferred with more than mere probability, that this\ndoctrine existed among the Jews in the time of Jesus: as, however,\naccording to the most recent researches, the Old Testament, while it\ndoes indeed contain the doctrine of an expiation of the sins of the\npeople to take place at the messianic era (Ezek. xxxvi. 25, xxxvii. 23;\nZech. xiii. 1; Dan. ix. 24), has no trace of this expiation being\neffected by the suffering and death of the Messiah [1621]: there is no\ndecision of the question before us to be expected from this quarter.\nThe apocryphal books of the Old Testament lie nearer to the time of\nJesus; but as these are altogether silent concerning the Messiah in\ngeneral, [1622] there can be no discussion as to their containing that\nspecial feature. Again, if we turn to Philo and Josephus, the two\nauthors who wrote soonest after the period in question, we find the\nlatter silent as to the messianic hopes of his nation; [1623] and\nthough the former does indeed speak of messianic times, and a\nmessiah-like hero, he says nothing of sufferings on his part. [1624]\nThus there remain, as sources of information on this point, only the\nNew Testament and the later Jewish writings.\n\nIn the New Testament, almost everything is calculated to give the\nimpression, that a suffering and dying Messiah was unthought-of among\nthe Jews who were contemporary with Jesus. To the majority of the Jews,\nwe are told, the doctrine of a crucified Messiah was a \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd, and\nthe disciples were at a loss to understand Jesus in his repeated and\nexplicit announcements of his death. This does not look as if the\ndoctrine of a suffering Messiah had been current among the Jews of that\nperiod; on the contrary, these circumstances accord fully with the\ndeclaration which the fourth Evangelist puts into the mouth of the\nJewish multitude, \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (xii. 34), namely, that they had heard in the\nlaw (\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) that Christ abideth for ever, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1. [1625] Indeed, for a general acceptation of the idea of a\nsuffering Messiah among the Jews of that period, even those theologians\nwho take the affirmative side in this argument do not contend; but,\nadmitting that the hope of a worldly Messiah whose reign was to endure\nfor ever, was the prevalent one, they only maintain (and herein the\nWolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist agrees with them) [1626], that a less numerous\nparty,\u2014according to St\u00e4udlin, the Essenes; according to Hengstenberg,\nthe better and more enlightened part of the people in general\u2014held the\nbelief that the Messiah would appear in a humble guise, and only enter\ninto glory through suffering and death. In support of this they appeal\nespecially to two passages; one out of the third, and one out of the\nfourth gospel. When Jesus is presented as an infant in the temple at\nJerusalem, the aged Simeon, among other prophecies, particularly\nconcerning the opposition which her son would have to encounter, says\nto Mary: Yea, a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also (Luke\nii. 35); words which seem to describe her maternal sorrow at the death\nof her son, and consequently to represent the opinion, that a violent\ndeath awaited the Messiah, as one already current before Christ. Still\nmore plainly is the idea of a suffering Messiah contained in the words\nwhich the fourth gospel makes the Baptist utter on seeing Jesus: Behold\nthe Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (i. 29)! This,\nviewed in its relation to Isa. liii., would in the mouth of the Baptist\nlikewise tend to prove, that the idea of expiatory suffering on the\npart of the Messiah was in existence before the time of Jesus. But both\nthese passages have been above shown to be unhistorical, and from the\nfact that the primitive Christian legend was led, a considerable time\nafter the issue, to attribute to persons whom it held divinely\ninspired, a foreknowledge of the divine decree with respect to the\ndeath of Jesus, it can by no means be concluded, that this insight\nreally existed prior to the death of Jesus. In conclusion, it is urged,\nthat at least the Evangelists and apostles refer to the idea of a\nsuffering and dying Messiah in the Old Testament; whence it is thought\nwarrantable to conclude, that this interpretation of the Old Testament\npassages connected with our present subject, was not unprecedented\namong the Jews. Certainly Peter (Acts iii. 18 f.; 1 Pet. i. 11 f.) and\nPaul (Acts xxvi. 22 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 3) appeal to Moses and the prophets\nas annunciators of the death of Jesus, and Philip, in his interview\nwith the Ethiopian eunuch, interprets a passage in Isa. liii. of the\nsufferings of the Messiah: but as those teachers of the church spoke\nand wrote all this after the event, we have no assurance that they did\nnot assign to certain Old Testament passages a relation to the\nsufferings of the Messiah, solely in consequence of that event, and not\nby adopting a mode of interpretation previously current among their\nJewish cotemporaries. [1627]\n\n\n\nIf, according to this, the opinion that the idea in question already\nexisted among the countrymen of Jesus during his lifetime, has no solid\nfoundation in the New Testament; we must proceed to inquire whether\nthat idea may not be found in the later Jewish writings. Among the\nearliest writings of this class now extant, are the Chaldee paraphrases\nof Onkelos and Jonathan; and the Targum of the latter, who, according\nto rabbinical tradition, was a pupil of Hillel the elder, [1628] is\ncommonly cited as presenting the idea of a suffering Messiah, because\nit refers the passage, Isa. lii. 13-liii. 12, to the Messiah. But with\nrespect to the interpretation of this passage in the Targum of\nJonathan, it is the singular fact, that while the prophecies which it\ncontains are in general interpreted messianically, yet so often as\nsuffering and death are spoken of, either these ideas are avoided with\nmarked design, and for the most part by some extremely forced\nexpedient, or are transferred to a different subject, namely, the\npeople of Israel: a significant proof that to the author, suffering and\nviolent death appeared irreconcilable with the idea of the Messiah.\n[1629] But this, we are told, is the commencement of that aberration\nfrom the true sense of the sacred text, into which the later Jews were\nseduced by their carnal disposition, and their hostility to\nChristianity: the more ancient interpreters, it is said, discovered in\nthis passage of Isaiah a suffering and dying Messiah. It is true that\nAbenezra, Abarbanel and others, testify that many ancient teachers\nreferred Isa. liii. to the Messiah: [1630] but some of their statements\nleave it by no means clear that those more ancient interpretations are\nnot as partial as that of Jonathan; and in relation to all of them it\nremains uncertain, whether the interpreters of whom they speak reach as\nfar back as the age of Jonathan, which is highly improbable with\nrespect to those parts of the book Sohar, wherein the passage in\nquestion is referred to a suffering Messiah. [1631] The writing which,\ntogether with that of Jonathan, may be regarded as the nearest to the\ntime of Jesus, namely, the apocryphal fourth book of Esdras, drawn up,\naccording to the most probable computation, shortly after the\ndestruction of Jerusalem under Titus, [1632] does indeed mention the\ndeath of the Messiah: not however as a painful one, but only as a death\nwhich, after the long duration of the messianic kingdom, was to precede\nthe general resurrection. [1633] The idea of great calamities, the\nbirth-throes, as it were, of the Messiah (\u200f\u05d7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05d7\u200e, comp. \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\n\u1f60\u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, Matt. xxiv. 8), which would usher in the messianic times, was\nundoubtedly disseminated before Christ; [1634] and equally early there\nappears to have been placed in the front of these ills, which were to\npress upon the people of Israel in particular, the Antichrist,\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, whom the Christ, \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 would have to oppose (2 Thess.\nii. 3 ff.): [1635] but since he was to annihilate this adversary in a\nsupernatural manner, with the spirit of his mouth, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, this involved no suffering for the Messiah.\nNevertheless, there are to be found passages in which a suffering of\nthe Messiah is spoken of, and in which this suffering is even\nrepresented as vicarious, on behalf of the people: [1636] but first,\nthis is only a suffering, and no death of the Messiah; secondly, it\nbefals him either before his descent into earthly life, in his\npre-existence, [1637] or during the concealment in which he keeps\nhimself from his birth until his appearance as Messiah: [1638] lastly,\nthe antiquity of these ideas is doubtful, and according to certain\nindications, they could only be dated after the destruction of the\nJewish state by Titus. [1639] Meanwhile, Jewish writings are by no\nmeans destitute of passages, in which it is directly asserted that a\nMessiah would perish in a violent manner: but these passages relate,\nnot to the proper Messiah, the offspring of David, but to another, from\namong the posterity of Joseph and Ephraim, who was appointed to hold a\nsubordinate position in relation to the former. This Messiah ben Joseph\nwas to precede the Messiah ben David, to unite the ten tribes of the\nformer kingdom of Israel with the two tribes of the kingdom of Judah,\nbut after this to perish by the sword in the battle with Gog and Magog:\na catastrophe to which Zech. xii. 10 was referred. [1640] But of this\nsecond, dying Messiah, any certain traces are wanting before the\nBabylonian Gemara, which was compiled in the fifth and sixth centuries\nafter Christ, and the book Sohar, the age of which is extremely\ndoubtful. [1641]\n\nAlthough, according to this, it cannot be proved, and is even not\nprobable, that the idea of a suffering Messiah already existed among\nthe Jews in the time of Jesus: it is still possible that, even without\nsuch a precedent, Jesus himself, by an observation of circumstances,\nand a comparison of them with Old Testament narratives and prophecies,\nmight come to entertain the belief that suffering and death were a part\nof the office and destination of the Messiah; and if so, it would be\nmore natural that he should embrace this conviction gradually in the\ncourse of his public ministry, and that he should chiefly have confined\nhis communications on the subject to his intimate friends, than that he\nshould have had this conviction from the beginning, and have expressed\nit before indifferent persons, nay enemies. The latter is the\nrepresentation of John; the former, of the synoptists.\n\nIn relation also to the declarations of Jesus concerning the object and\neffects of his death, we can, as above in relation to the announcement\nof the death itself, distinguish a more natural, from a more\nsupranatural point of view. When Jesus in the fourth gospel likens\nhimself to the true shepherd, who lays down his life for the sheep (x.\n11, 15): this may have the perfectly natural sense, that he is\ndetermined not to swerve from his office of shepherd and teacher, even\nthough, in the prosecution of it, death should threaten him (the moral\nnecessity of his death); [1642] the foreboding expression in the same\ngospel (xii. 24), that except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and\ndie, it abideth alone, but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit,\nadmits of an equally rational explanation, as a figurative\nrepresentation of the victorious power which martyrdom gives to an idea\nand conviction (the moral efficacy of his death); [1643] lastly, that\nwhich is so often repeated in the Gospel of John,\u2014namely, that it is\ngood for the disciples that Jesus should go away, for without his\ndeparture the comforter, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 will not come to them, who will\nglorify him in them,\u2014may be supposed to express the perfectly natural\nconsideration of Jesus, that without the removal of his sensible\npresence, the hitherto so material ideas of his disciples would not be\nspiritualized (the psychological efficacy of his death). [1644] The\nwords of Jesus at the institution of the sacramental supper, belong\nmore to the supranaturalistic mode of view. For if that which the\nintermediate Evangelists make him say on this occasion\u2014that the cup\npresented is the blood of the new testament, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 (Mark xiv. 24), and the new testament in his blood, \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (Luke xxii. 20),\u2014might appear to signify no\nmore than that, as by the bloody sacrifice at Sinai was sealed the\ncovenant of this ancient people with God, so by his (the Messiah\u2019s)\nblood would be sealed in a higher sense the community of the new\ncovenant, gathering round him: in the account of Matthew, on the\ncontrary, when he makes Jesus add, that his blood will be shed for many\nfor the remission of sins, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, the idea of the\ncovenant sacrifice is blended with that of expiatory sacrifice: and\nalso in the two other Evangelists by the addition: which is shed for\nmany, or for you, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, the transition\nis made from the covenant sacrifice to the expiatory sacrifice.\nFurther, when in the first gospel (xx. 28) Jesus says, he must give his\nlife a ransom for many, \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd, this\nis doubtless to be referred to Isa. liii., where, according to a notion\ncurrent among the Hebrews (Isa. xliii. 3; Prov. xxi. 18), the death of\nthe servant of God is supposed to have a propitiatory relation to the\nrest of mankind.\n\nThus Jesus might by psychological reflection come to the conviction\nthat such a catastrophe would be favourable to the spiritual\ndevelopment of his disciples, and that it was indispensable for the\nspiritualizing of their messianic ideas, nay, in accordance with\nnational conceptions, and by a consideration of Old Testament passages,\neven to the idea that his messianic death would have an expiatory\nefficacy. Still, what the synoptists make Jesus say of his death, as a\nsin offering, might especially appear to belong rather to the system\nwhich was developed after the death of Jesus; and what the fourth\nEvangelist puts into his mouth concerning the Paraclete, to have been\nconceived ex eventu: so that, again, in these expressions of Jesus\nconcerning the object of his death, there must be a separation of the\ngeneral from the special.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 113.\n\nPRECISE DECLARATIONS OF JESUS CONCERNING HIS FUTURE RESURRECTION.\n\nAccording to the evangelical accounts, Jesus predicted his resurrection\nin words not less clear than those in which he announced his death, and\nalso fixed the time of its occurrence with singular precision. As often\nas he said to his disciples, the Son of Man will be crucified, he\nadded: And the third day he shall rise again, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, or \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (Matt. xvi. 21, xvii. 23, xx. 19 parall.\ncomp. xvii. 9, xxvi. 32 parall.).\n\nBut of this announcement also it is said, that the disciples understood\nit not; so little, that they even debated among themselves what the\nrising from the dead should mean, \u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (Mark\nix. 10); and in consistency with this want of comprehension, they,\nafter the death of Jesus, exhibit no trace of a recollection that his\nresurrection had been foretold to them, no spark of hope that this\nprediction would be fulfilled. When the friends of Jesus had taken down\nhis body from the cross, and laid it in the grave, they undertook (John\nxix. 40)\u2014or the women reserved to themselves (Mark xvi. 1; Luke xxiii.\n56)\u2014the task of embalming him, which is only performed in the case of\nthose who are regarded as the prey of corruption; when, on the morning\nwhich, according to the mode of reckoning in the New Testament, opened\nthe day which had been predetermined as that of the resurrection, the\nwomen went to the grave, they were so far from thinking of a predicted\nresurrection, that they were anxious about the probable difficulty of\nrolling away the stone from the grave (Mark xvi. 3); when Mary\nMagdalene, and afterwards Peter, found the grave empty, their first\nthought, had the resurrection been predicted, must have been, that it\nhad now actually taken place: instead of this, the former conjectures\nthat the body may have been stolen (John xx. 2), while Peter merely\nwonders, without coming to any definite conjecture (Luke xxiv. 12);\nwhen the women told the disciples of the angelic apparition which they\nhad witnessed, and discharged the commission given them by the angel,\nthe disciples partly regarded their words as idle tales, \u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (Luke\nxxiv. 11), and were partly moved to fear and astonishment (\u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, Luke xxiv. 22 ff.); when Mary Magdalene, and subsequently the\ndisciples going to Emmaus, assured the eleven, that they had themselves\nseen the risen one, they met with no credence (Mark xvi. 11, 13), and\nThomas still later did not believe even the assurance of his\nfellow-apostles (John xx. 25); lastly, when Jesus himself appeared to\nthe disciples in Galilee, all of them did not even then cast off doubt\n(\u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, Mark xxviii. 17). All this we must, with the\nWolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist, [1645] find incomprehensible, if Jesus had so\nclearly and decidedly predicted his resurrection.\n\nIt is true, that as the conduct of the disciples, after the death of\nJesus, speaks against such a prediction on the part of Jesus, so the\nconduct of his enemies appears to speak for it. For when, according to\nMatt. xxvii. 62 ff., the chief priests and Pharisees entreat Pilate to\nset a watch at the grave of Jesus, they allege as a reason for their\nrequest, that Jesus while yet alive had said: After three days I will\nrise again, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9. But this narrative of the\nfirst gospel, which we can only estimate at a future point in our\ninvestigation, at present decides nothing, but only falls to one side\nof the dilemma, so that we must now say: if the disciples really so\nacted after the death of Jesus, then neither can he have decidedly\nforetold his resurrection, nor can the Jews in consideration of such a\nprediction have placed a watch at his grave; or, if the two latter\nstatements be true, the disciples cannot have so acted.\n\nIt has been attempted to blunt the edge of this dilemma, by attributing\nto the above predictions, not the literal sense, that the deceased\nJesus would return out of the grave, but only the figurative sense that\nhis doctrine and cause, after having been apparently crushed, would\nagain expand and flourish. [1646] As the Old Testament prophets, it was\nsaid, represent the restoration of the Israelitish people to renewed\nprosperity, under the image of a resurrection from the dead (Isa. xxvi.\n19; Ezek. xxxvii.); as they mark the short interval within which, under\ncertain conditions, this turn of things was to be expected, by the\nexpression: in two or three days will Jehovah revive the smitten one,\nand raise the dead (Hos. vi. 2), [1647] a statement of time which Jesus\nalso uses indefinitely for a short interval (Luke xiii. 32): so by the\ndeclaration that he will rise on the third day after his death, \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, he intends to say no more than that even though\nhe may succumb to the power of his enemies and be put to death, still\nthe work which he has begun will not come to an end, but will in a\nshort time go forward with a fresh impetus. These merely figurative\nmodes of speaking adopted by Jesus, the apostles, after Jesus had\nactually risen in the body, understood literally, and regarded them as\nprophecies of his personal resurrection. Now that in the prophetic\npassages adduced, the expressions \u200f\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd \u05d7\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u200e and \u200f\u05d4\u05b5\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05e5\u200e have only the\nalleged figurative sense, is true; but these are passages the whole\ntenor of which is figurative, and in which, in particular, the\ndepression and death which precede the revivification are themselves to\nbe understood only in a figurative sense. Here, on the contrary, all\nthe foregoing expressions: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (to be delivered, condemned, crucified, killed,\netc.) are to be understood literally; hence all at once, with the words\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 and \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, to enter on a figurative meaning, would be an\nunprecedented abruptness of transition; not to mention that passages\nsuch as Matt. xxvi. 32, where Jesus says: After I am risen again I will\ngo before you into Galilee, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03be\u03c9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, can have no meaning at all unless \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 be understood\nliterally. In this closely consecutive series of expressions, which\nmust be taken in a purely literal sense, there is then no warrant, and\neven no inducement, to understand the statement of time which is\nconnected with them, otherwise than also literally, and in its strictly\netymological meaning. Thus if Jesus really used these words, and in the\nsame connexion in which they are given by the Evangelists, he cannot\nhave meant to announce by them merely the speedy victory of his cause;\nhis meaning must have been, that he himself would return to life in\nthree days after his violent death. [1648]\n\nAs however Jesus, judging from the conduct of his disciples after his\ndeath, cannot have announced his resurrection in plain words: other\ncommentators have resigned themselves to the admission, that the\nEvangelists, after the issue, gave to the discourses of Jesus a\ndefiniteness which, as uttered by him, they did not possess; that they\nhave not merely understood literally, what Jesus intended figuratively,\nof the revival of his cause after his death, but in accordance with\ntheir erroneous interpretation, have so modified his words that, as we\nnow read them, we must certainly understand them in a literal sense;\n[1649] yet that not all the discourses of Jesus are altered in this\nmanner; here and there his original expressions still remain.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 114.\n\nFIGURATIVE DISCOURSES, IN WHICH JESUS IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANNOUNCED HIS\nRESURRECTION.\n\nAccording to the fourth gospel, Jesus, at the very commencement of his\nministry, in figurative language, referred his enemies, the Jews, to\nhis future resurrection (ii. 19 ff.). On his first messianic visit to\nJerusalem, and when, after the abuse of the market in the temple had\nprovoked him to that exhibition of holy zeal of which we have formerly\nspoken, the Jews require a sign from him, by which he should\nlegitimatize his claim to be considered a messenger of God, who had\nauthority to adopt such violent measures, Jesus gives them this answer,\nDestroy this temple, and after three days I will raise it up, \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. The Jews took these\nwords in the sense, which, since they were spoken in the temple, was\nthe most natural, and urged, in reply to Jesus, that as it had taken\nforty years to build this temple, he would scarcely be able, if it were\ndestroyed, to rebuild it in three days; but the Evangelist informs us,\nthat this was not the meaning of Jesus, and that he here spoke (though\nindeed the disciples were not aware of this until after his\nresurrection), of the temple of his body, \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6: i.e.\nunder the destruction and rebuilding of the temple, he alluded to his\ndeath and resurrection. Even if we admit, what however the most\nmoderate expositors deny, [1650] that Jesus could properly (as he is\nalso represented to have done in Matthew xii. 39 ff.) when the Jews\nasked him for a visible and immediate sign, refer them to his\nresurrection as the greatest, and for his enemies the most overwhelming\nmiracle in his history: still he must have done this in terms which it\nwas possible for them to understand (as in the above passage of\nMatthew, where he expresses himself quite plainly). But the expressions\nof Jesus, as here given, could not possibly be understood in this\nsense. For when one who is in the temple, speaks of the destruction of\nthis temple, every one will refer his words to the building itself.\nHence Jesus, when he uttered the words, this temple, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\nmust have pointed to his body with his finger; as, indeed, is generally\npresupposed by the friends of this interpretation. [1651] But, in the\nfirst place, the Evangelist says nothing of such a gesture,\nnotwithstanding that it lay in his interest to notice this, as a\nsupport of his interpretation. In the second place, Gabler has with\njustice remarked, how ill-judged and ineffective it would have been, by\nthe addition of a mere gesture to give a totally new meaning to a\nspeech, which verbally, and therefore logically, referred to the\ntemple. If, however, Jesus used this expedient, the motion of his\nfinger could not have been unobserved; the Jews must rather have\ndemanded from him how he could be so arrogant as to call his body the\ntemple, \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2; or even if not so, still, presupposing that action, the\ndisciples could not have remained in the dark concerning the meaning of\nhis words, until after the resurrection. [1652]\n\nBy these difficulties modern exegetists have felt constrained to\nrenounce John\u2019s explanation of the words of Jesus, as erroneous and\nmade ex eventu, and to attempt to penetrate, independently of the\nEvangelist\u2019s explanation, into the sense of the enigmatical saying\nwhich he attributes to Jesus. [1653] The construction put upon it by\nthe Jews, who refer the words of Jesus to a real destruction and\nrebuilding of the national sanctuary, cannot be approved without\nimputing to Jesus an extravagant example of vain-glorious boasting, at\nvariance with the character which he elsewhere exhibits. If on this\naccount search be made for some figurative meaning which may possibly\nbe assigned to the declaration, there presents itself first a passage\nin the same gospel (iv. 21 ff.) where Jesus announces to the woman of\nSamaria, that the time is immediately coming, in which the Father will\nno longer be worshipped exclusively in Jerusalem (\u1f10\u03bd \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2), but\nwill, as a Spirit, receive spiritual worship. Now in the present\npassage also, the destruction of the temple might, it is said, have\nsignified the abolition of the temple-service at Jerusalem, supposed to\nbe the only valid mode of worship. This interpretation is confirmed by\na narrative in the Acts (vi. 14). Stephen, who, as it appears, had\nadopted the above expressions of Jesus, was taxed by his accusers with\ndeclaring, that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall\nchange the customs which Moses delivered, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7, \u1f03 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u039c\u03c9\u03cb\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2: in\nwhich words a change of the Mosaic religious institutions, without\ndoubt a spiritualization of them, is described as a sequel to the\ndestruction of the temple. To this may be added a passage in the\nsynoptical gospels. Nearly the same words which in John are uttered by\nJesus himself, appear in the two first gospels (Matt. xxvi. 60 f.; Mark\nxiv. 57 f.) as the accusation of false witnesses against him; and here\nMark, in addition, designates the temple which is to be destroyed, as\none made with hands, \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, and the new one which is to be\nbuilt, as another, made without hands, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, whereby he\nappears to indicate the same contrast between a ceremonial and a\nspiritual religious system. By the aid of these passages, it is\nthought, the declaration in John may be explained thus: the sign of my\nauthority to purify the temple, is my ability in a short time to\nintroduce in the place of the Jewish ceremonial worship, a spiritual\nservice of God; i.e. I am authorized to reform the old system, in so\nfar as I am qualified to found a new one. It is certainly a trivial\nobjection to this explanation, that in John the object is not changed,\nas in Mark, where the temple which is to be built is spoken of as\nanother (\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2), but instead of this, is indicated by the word \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2,\nas the same with the one destroyed; [1654] since, indeed, the Christian\nsystem of religion in relation to the Jewish, may, just as the risen\nbody of Jesus in relation to the dead one, be conceived as at once\nidentical and different, inasmuch as in both cases the substance is the\nsame, while the transitory accidents only are supposed to be removed.\nBut it is a more formidable objection which attaches itself to the\ndetermination of time, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. That this expression is also\nused indefinitely and proverbially, in the sense of a short interval of\ntime in general, is not adequately proved by the two passages which are\nusually appealed to with this view; for in them the third day, by being\nplaced in connexion with the second and first (Hos. vi. 2: \u200f\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05b9\u05de\u05b8\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05bc\u05c1\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u200e; Luke xiii. 32: \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f54\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3) is announced\nas a merely relative and proximate statement, whereas in our passage it\nstands alone, and thus presents itself as an absolute and precise\ndetermination of time. [1655]\n\nThus alike invited and repelled by both explanations, [1656]\ntheologians take refuge in a double sense, which holds the middle place\neither between the interpretation of John and the symbolical one last\nstated, [1657] or between the interpretation of John and that of the\nJews; [1658] so that Jesus either spoke at once of his body which was\nto be killed and again restored to life, and of the modification of the\nJewish religion which was to be effected, chiefly by means of that\ndeath and resurrection; or, in order to repel the Jews, he challenged\nthem to destroy their real temple, and on this condition, never to be\nfulfilled, promised to build another, still, however, combining with\nthis ostensible sense for the multitude, an esoteric sense, which was\nonly understood by the disciples after the resurrection, and according\nto which \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2 denoted his body. But such a challenge addressed to the\nJews, together with the engagement appended to it, would have been an\nunbecoming manifestation of petulance, and the latent intimation to the\ndisciples, a useless play on words; besides that, in general, a double\nmeaning either of the one or the other kind is unheard of in the\ndiscourse of a judicious man. [1659] As, in this manner, the\npossibility of explaining the passage in John might be entirely\ndespaired of, the author of the Probabilia appeals to the fact that the\nsynoptists call the witnesses, who allege before the judgment seat that\nJesus had uttered that declaration, \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, false witnesses;\nwhence he concludes, that Jesus never said what John here attributes to\nhim, and thus gains an exemption from the explanation of the passage,\nsince he regards it as a figment of the fourth Evangelist, whose object\nwas both to explain the calumniations of the accusers, and also to\nnullify them by a mystical interpretation of his words. [1660] But, on\nthe one hand, it does not follow, from the fact that the synoptists\ncall the witnesses false, that, in the opinion of the Evangelists,\nJesus had never said anything whatever of that whereof they accused\nhim; for he might only have said it somewhat differently (\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, not\n\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9), or have intended it in a different sense (figuratively instead\nof literally): on the other hand, if he said nothing at all of this\nkind, it is difficult to explain how the false witnesses should come to\nchoose that declaration, and especially the remarkable phrase, \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nIf, according to this, on every interpretation of the expression,\nexcept the inadmissible one relative to the body of Jesus, the words \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 form a difficulty: a resource might be found in the\nnarrative of the Acts, as being free from that determination of time.\nFor here Stephen is only accused of saying, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f38. \u1f41 \u039d\u03b1\u03b6. \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f03 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\n\u039c\u03c9\u03cb\u03c3\u1fc7\u03c2. What is false in this allegation (for the witnesses against\nStephen also are described as \u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2), might be the second\nproposition, which speaks in literal terms of a changing of the\ninstitutes of Moses, and instead of this, Stephen, and before him\nJesus, may very probably have said in the figurative signification\nabove developed, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 (\u2014\u03c3\u03c9) \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, or \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n(\u1f00\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd) \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 (\u2014\u03c3\u03c9).\n\nMeanwhile, this expedient is not at all needful, so far as any\ninsurmountable difficulty in the words \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, is concerned.\nAs the number 3 is used proverbially, not only in connexion with 2 or 4\n(Prov. xxx. 15, 18, 21, 29; Wis. xxiii. 21, xxvi. 25), but also by\nitself (Wis. xxv. 1, 3); so the expression, in three days, if it were\nonce, in combination with the second and first day, become common as an\nindefinite statement of time, might probably at length be applied in\nthe same sense when standing alone. Whether the expression should\nsignify a long or a short period would then depend on the connexion:\nhere, in opposition to the construction of a great and elaborate\nbuilding, to the real, natural erection of which, as the Jews directly\nremark, a long series of years was required, the expression can only be\nunderstood as denoting the shortest time. [1661] A prediction, or even\na mere intimation of the resurrection, is therefore not contained in\nthese words.\n\nAs, here, Jesus is said to have intimated his resurrection beforehand,\nby the image of the destroying and rebuilding of the temple, so, on\nanother occasion, he is supposed to have quoted the type of the prophet\nJonah with the same intention (Matt. xii. 39 ff., comp. xvi. 4; Luke\nxi. 29 ff.). When the scribes and Pharisees desired to see a sign from\nhim, Jesus is said to have repulsed their demand by the reply, that to\nso evil a generation \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70 no sign shall be given, but the sign of the\nprophet Jonah, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03bd\u1fb6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, which, in the first\npassage of Matthew, Jesus himself explains thus: as Jonah was three\ndays and three nights in the belly of the whale, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, so also the Son of man will pass three days and three nights in\nthe heart of the earth, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2. In the second passage, in\nwhich Matthew attributes this declaration to Jesus, he does not repeat\nthe above interpretation; while Luke, in the parallel passage, explains\nit simply thus: For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so shall also\nthe Son of man be to this generation. Now against the possibility of\nJesus having himself given the interpretation of the sign of Jonah\nwhich Matthew puts into his mouth, v. 40, a variety of objections may\nbe urged. It is indeed scarcely a tenable argument, that Jesus cannot\nhave spoken of three days and three nights, which he would pass in the\nheart of the earth, because he only lay in the grave one day and two\nnights: [1662] since the phraseology of the New Testament decidedly has\nthe peculiarity of designating the abode of Jesus in the grave as of\nthree days\u2019 duration, because it touched upon the evening of the day\nbefore the Sabbath, and the morning of the day after it; and if this\none day, together with two nights, were once taken for three whole\ndays, it would only be a round way of expressing this completeness, to\nadd to the days the nights also, which, besides, would naturally follow\nin the comparison with the three days and three nights of Jonah. [1663]\nBut if Jesus gave the explanation of the sign of Jonah which Matthew\nattributes to him, this would have been so clear a prediction of his\nresurrection, that for the same reasons which, according to the above\nobservations, are opposed to the literal predictions of that event, we\nmust conclude that Jesus cannot have given this explanation. At all\nevents it must have led the disciples who, according to v. 49, were\npresent, to question Jesus, and in that case it is not to be understood\nwhy he did not make the subject perfectly clear, and thus announce his\nresurrection in plain words. But if he cannot have done this, because\nthen the disciples could not have acted after his death as they are\nsaid to have done in the evangelical accounts: neither can he, by that\ncomparison of the fate which awaited him with that of Jonah, have\ncalled forth from his disciples a question, which, if proposed to him,\nhe must have answered; but which, judging from the sequel, he cannot\nhave answered.\n\nOn these grounds, modern critics have pronounced the explanation of the\n\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03bd\u1fb6 in Matthew to be an interpretation made post eventum by\nthe Evangelist, and by him falsely attributed to Jesus. [1664]\nAccording to them, Jesus indeed directed the attention of the Pharisees\nto the sign of Jonah, but only in the sense in which Luke makes him\nexplain it: namely, that as Jonah himself, by his mere appearance and\npreaching of repentance, without miracles, had sufficed as a sign from\nGod to the Ninevites; so his own cotemporaries, instead of craving for\nmiracles, should be satisfied with his person and preaching. This\ninterpretation is the only one which accords with the tenor of the\ndiscourse of Jesus\u2014even in Matthew, and more particularly with the\nparallel between the relation of the Ninevites to Jonah, and that of\nthe queen of the south to Solomon. As it was the wisdom of Solomon,\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u03a3\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, by which the latter felt herself attracted from the\nends of the earth: so, in Jonah, even according to the expression of\nMatthew, it was solely his preaching, \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, which brought the\nNinevites to repentance. It might be supposed that the future tense in\nLuke: \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4. \u1f00. \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 (\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd), So shall\nalso the Son of Man be to this generation (a sign), cannot be referred\nto Jesus and his preaching as manifested at that moment, but only to\nsomething future, as his resurrection: but this in reality points\neither to the future judgment \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, in which it will be made\nmanifest, that as Jonah was reckoned a sign to the Ninevites, so was\nthe Son of Man to the Jews then living; or to the fact that when Jesus\nspoke these words, his appearance had not yet attained its\nconsummation, and many of its stages lay yet in futurity. Nevertheless,\nit must have been at an early period, as we see from the first gospel,\nthat the fate of Jonah was placed in a typical relation to the death\nand resurrection of Jesus, since the primitive church anxiously\nsearched through the Old Testament for types and prophecies of the\noffensive catastrophe which befel their Messiah.\n\nThere are still some expressions of Jesus in the fourth gospel, which\nhave been understood as latent prophecies of the resurrection. The\ndiscourse on the corn of wheat, xii. 24, it is true, too obviously\nrelates to the work of Jesus as likely to be furthered by his death, to\nbe here taken into further consideration. But in the farewell\ndiscourses in John there are some declarations, which many are still\ninclined to refer to the resurrection. When Jesus says: I will not\nleave you comfortless, I will come unto you; yet a little time, and the\nworld sees me no more, but ye see me; a little while, and ye shall not\nsee me, and again a little while and ye shall see me, etc. (xiv. 18\nff., xvi. 16 ff.); many believe that these expressions\u2014with the\nrelation between \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, a little while, and again a\nlittle while; the opposition between \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2)\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3, manifest to you (the disciples) and not to the\nworld; the words \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 and \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, I shall see you again, and ye\nshall see, which appear to indicate a strictly personal interview\u2014can\nbe referred to nothing else than the resurrection, which was precisely\nsuch a reappearance after a short removal, and moreover a personal\nreappearance granted to the friends of Jesus alone. [1665] But this\npromised reappearance is at the same time described by Jesus in a\nmanner which will not suit the days of the resurrection. If the words\nbecause I live, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b6\u1ff6 (xiv. 19), denote his resurrection, we are\nat a loss to know what can be meant by the succeeding clause, ye shall\nlive also, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b6\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. Again, Jesus says that on that\nreappearance his disciples will know his relation to the Father, and\nwill no more need to ask anything of him (xiv. 20, xvi. 23): yet even\non the very last day of their intercourse with him after the\nresurrection, they ask a question of him (Acts i. 6), and one which\nfrom the point of view of the fourth gospel is altogether senseless.\nLastly, when he promises that to him who loves him, he and the Father\nwill come, and make their abode with him, it is perfectly clear that\nJesus here speaks not of a corporeal return, but of his spiritual\nreturn, through the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. [1666] Nevertheless, even this\nexplanation has its difficulties, since, on the other hand, the\nexpressions ye shall see me, \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5, and I shall see you, \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, will not entirely suit that purely spiritual return: hence we\nmust defer the solution of this apparent contradiction until we can\ngive a more complete elucidation of the discourses in which these\nexpressions occur. In the meantime we merely observe, that the farewell\ndiscourses in John, being admitted, even by the friends of the fourth\ngospel, to contain an intermixture of the Evangelist\u2019s own thoughts,\nare the last source from which to obtain a proof on this subject.\n\nAfter all, there might seem to be a resource in the supposition, that\nthough Jesus did not indeed speak of his future resurrection, it was\nnot the less foreknown by him. Now if he had a foreknowledge of his\nresurrection, either he obtained it in a supernatural manner, by means\nof the prophetic spirit, the higher principle that dwelt within him\u2014by\nmeans of his divine nature, if that be preferred: or he knew it in a\nnatural manner, by the exercise of his human reason. But a supernatural\nforeknowledge of that event, as well as of his death, is inconceivable,\nowing to the relation in which Jesus places it to the Old Testament.\nNot merely in passages such as Luke xviii. 31 (which, as prophecies,\ncan no longer have an historical value for us after the result of our\nlast inquiry), does Jesus represent his resurrection, together with his\npassion and death, as a fulfilment of all things that are written by\nthe prophets concerning the Son of man, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c5\u1f31\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5; but even after the issue, he admonishes\nhis disciples that they ought to believe all that the prophets have\nspoken, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, namely, that Christ ought\nto have suffered these things and to enter into his glory, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (Luke xxiv. 25\nf.). According to the sequel of the narrative, Jesus forthwith\nexpounded to these disciples (going to Emmaus) all the passages of\nscripture relating to himself, beginning at Moses and all the prophets,\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039c\u03c9\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, to which farther on\n(v. 44) the psalms are added; but no single passage is given us as\nhaving been interpreted by Jesus of his resurrection, except that it\nwould follow from Matt. xii. 39 f., that he regarded the fate of the\nprophet Jonah as a type of his own; and regarding the subsequent\napostolic interpretation as an echo of that of Jesus, it might be\nconcluded, that he, as afterwards the apostles, found such prophecies\nchiefly in Ps. xvi. 8 ff. (Acts ii. 25 ff., xiii. 35); Isa. liii. (Acts\nviii. 32 ff.); Isa. lv. 3 (Acts xiii. 34), and possibly also in Hos.\nvi. 2. But the fate of Jonah has not even an external similarity to\nthat of Jesus; and the book which narrates his history carries its\nobject so completely in itself, that whoever may ascribe to it or to\none of its particulars, a typical relation to events in futurity,\nassuredly mistakes its true sense and the design of its author. Isa.\nlv. 3 is so obviously irrelevant that one can scarcely conceive how the\npassage could be brought into special connexion with the resurrection\nof Jesus. Isa. liii. refers decidedly to a collective subject\nperpetually restored to life in new members. Hosea vi. has a figurative\nreference, not to be mistaken, to the people and state of Israel.\nLastly, the principal passage, Ps. xvi. can only be interpreted of a\npious man, who by the help of Jehovah hopes to escape from the danger\nof death, not in the sense that he, like Jesus, would rise again from\nthe grave, but that he would not be laid there\u2014that is, obviously, not\nfor the present, and with the understanding, that when his time should\ncome, he must pay the tribute of nature: [1667] which, again, will not\napply to Jesus. Thus if a supernatural principle in Jesus\u2014a prophetic\nspirit\u2014caused him to discover a pre-intimation of his resurrection in\nthese Old Testament histories and passages; then, as no one of them\nreally contained such a pre-intimation, the spirit in him cannot have\nbeen the spirit of truth, but must have been a lying spirit, the\nsupernatural principle in him, not a divine, but a demoniacal\nprinciple. If, in order to avoid this consequence, supranaturalists who\nare accessible to a rational interpretation of the Old Testament,\nresort to their only remaining expedient, of regarding the\nforeknowledge of Jesus concerning his resurrection as purely natural\nand human: we must reply, that the resurrection, conceived as a\nmiracle, was a secret of the divine counsels, to penetrate into which,\nprior to the issue, was an impossibility to a human intelligence; while\nviewed as a natural result, it was a chance the last to be calculated\nupon, apart from the supposition of an apparent death planned by Jesus\nand his colleagues.\n\nThus the foreknowledge, as well as the prediction of the resurrection,\nwas attributed to Jesus only after the issue; and in fact, it was an\neasy matter, with the groundless arbitrariness of Jewish exegesis, for\nthe disciples and the authors of the New Testament to discover in the\nOld, types and prophecies of the resurrection. Not that they did this\nwith crafty design, according to the accusation of the Wolfenb\u00fcttel\nFragmentist, and others of his class: but as he who has looked at the\nsun, long sees its image wherever he may turn his gaze; so they,\nblinded by their enthusiasm for the new Messiah, saw him on every page\nof the only book they read, the Old Testament, and in the conviction\nthat Jesus was the Messiah, founded in the genuine feeling that he had\nsatisfied their deepest need\u2014a conviction and a feeling which we also\nstill honour\u2014they laid hold on supports which have long been broken,\nand which can no longer be made tenable by the most zealous efforts of\nan exegesis which is behind the age.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 115.\n\nTHE DISCOURSES OF JESUS ON HIS SECOND ADVENT. CRITICISM OF THE\nDIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS.\n\nNot only did Jesus, according to the evangelical accounts, predict that\nhe should return to life three days after his death; but also that at a\nlater period, in the midst of the calamities which would issue in the\ndestruction of the temple in Jerusalem, he should come in the clouds of\nheaven, to close the present period of the world, and by a general\njudgment, open the future age (Matt. xxiv. and xxv.; Mark. xiii.; Luke\nxvii. 22\u201337, xxi. 5\u201336).\n\nAs Jesus for the last time went out of the temple (Luke has not this\ncircumstance), and his disciples (Luke says indefinitely, some)\nadmiringly drew his attention to the magnificent building, he assured\nthem that all which they then looked on, would be destroyed from its\nfoundations (Matt. xxiv. 1, 2, parall.). On the question of the\ndisciples, when this would happen, and what would be the sign of the\nMessiah\u2019s coming, which in their idea was associated with such a crisis\n(v. 3), Jesus warns them not to be deceived by persons falsely giving\nthemselves out to be the Messiah, and by the notion that the expected\ncatastrophe must follow immediately on the first prognostics; for wars\nand rumours of war, risings of nation against nation and kingdom\nagainst kingdom, famine, pestilence, and earthquakes in divers places,\nwould be only the beginning of the sorrows which were to precede the\nadvent of the Messiah (v. 4\u20138). They themselves, his adherents, must\nfirst suffer hatred, persecution, and the sword; perfidy, treachery,\ndeception by false prophets, lukewarmness and general corruption of\nmorals, would prevail among men; but at the same time the news of the\nMessiah\u2019s kingdom must be promulgated through the whole world. Only\nafter all this, could the end of the present period of the world\narrive, until when, he who would partake of the blessedness of the\nfuture must endure with constancy (v. 9\u201314). A nearer presage of this\ncatastrophe would be the fulfilment of the oracle of Daniel (ix. 27),\nthe standing of the abomination of desolation in the holy place\n(according to Luke xxi. 20, the encompassing of Jerusalem with armies).\nWhen this should take place, it would be high time for the most\nprecipitate flight (according to Luke, because the devastation of\nJerusalem would be at hand, an event which he more nearly\nparticularizes in the address of Jesus to the city, xix. 43 f.: thine\nenemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and\nkeep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground,\nand thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one\nstone upon another). At this juncture, all who should have hindrances\nto rapid departure would be deserving of compassion, and it would be in\nthe highest degree desirable that the recommended flight should not\nfall in an unfavourable season; for then would commence unexampled\ntribulation (according to Luke, v. 24, consisting chiefly in many of\nthe people of Israel perishing by the sword, in others being carried\naway captive, and in Jerusalem being trodden down of the Gentiles for a\npredetermined period): a tribulation which only the merciful abridgment\nof its duration by God, for the sake of the elect, could render\nsupportable (v. 15\u201322). At this time would arise false prophets and\nMessiahs, seeking to delude by miracles and signs, and promising to\nshow the Messiah in this or that place: whereas a Messiah who was\nconcealed anywhere, and must be sought out, could not be the true one;\nfor his advent would be like the lightning, a sudden and universal\nrevelation, of which the central point would be Jerusalem, the object\nof punishment on account of its sin (v. 23\u201328). Immediately after this\ntime of tribulation, the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of\nthe stars, and the shaking of all the powers of heaven would usher in\nthe appearance of the Messiah, who, to the dismay of the dwellers on\nthe earth, would come with great glory in the clouds of heaven, and\nimmediately send forth his angels to gather together his elect from all\nthe corners of the earth (v. 29\u201331). By the fore-named signs the\napproach of the described catastrophe would be as certainly discernible\nas the approach of summer by the budding of the fig-tree; the existing\ngeneration would, by all that was true, live to witness it, though its\nmore precise period was known to God only (v. 32\u201336). But, after the\nusual manner of mankind (what follows, Mark and Luke partly have not at\nall, partly not in this connexion), they would allow the advent of the\nMessiah, as formerly the deluge, to overtake them in thoughtless\nsecurity (v. 37\u201339): and yet it would be an extremely critical period,\nin which those who stood in the closest relation to each other, would\nbe delivered over to entirely opposite destinies (v. 40, 41). Hence\nwatchfulness would be requisite, as in all cases where the period of a\ndecisive issue is uncertain: an admonition which is then illustrated by\nthe image of the master of the house and the thief (v. 43, 44); of the\nservant to whom his lord, when about to travel, entrusted the rule of\nhis house (v. 45\u201351); of the wise and foolish virgins (xxv. 1\u201313): and\nlastly, of the talents (v. 14\u201330). Hereupon follows a description of\nthe solemn judgment, which the Messiah would hold over all nations, and\nin which, according as the duties of humanity were observed or\nneglected, he would award blessedness or misery (v. 31\u201346). [1668]\n\nThus in these discourses Jesus announces that shortly (\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, xxiv.\n29), after that calamity, which (especially according to the\nrepresentation in Luke\u2019s gospel) we must identify with the destruction\nof Jerusalem and its temple, and within the term of the cotemporary\ngeneration (\u1f21 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7, v. 34), he would visibly make his second\nadvent in the clouds, and terminate the existing dispensation. Now as\nit will soon be eighteen centuries since the destruction of Jerusalem,\nand an equally long period since the generation cotemporary with Jesus\ndisappeared from the earth, while his visible return and the end of the\nworld which he associated with it, have not taken place: the\nannouncement of Jesus appears so far to have been erroneous. Already in\nthe first age of Christianity, when the return of Christ was delayed\nlonger than had been anticipated, there arose, according to 2 Peter\niii. 3 f., scoffers, asking: where is the promise of his coming? for\nsince the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from\nthe beginning of the creation. In modern times, the inference which may\napparently be drawn from the above consideration, to the disadvantage\nof Jesus and the apostles, has been by no one more pointedly expressed\nthan by the Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist. No promise throughout the whole\nscriptures, he thinks, is on the one hand more definitely expressed,\nand on the other, has turned out more flagrantly false, than this,\nwhich yet forms one of the main pillars of Christianity. And he does\nnot see in this a mere error, but a premeditated deception on the part\nof the apostles (to whom, and not to Jesus himself, he attributes that\npromise, and the discourses in which it is contained); a deception\ninduced by the necessity of alluring the people on whose contributions\nthey wished to subsist, by the promise of a speedy reward: and\ndiscernible by the boldness of their attempts to evade the doubts\nspringing from the protracted delay of the return of Christ: Paul, for\nexample, in the second epistle to the Thessalonians, sheltering himself\nin obscure phrases; and Peter, in his second epistle, resorting to the\npreposterous expedient of appealing to the divine mode of reckoning\ntime, in which a thousand years are equal to one day. [1669]\n\nSuch inferences from the discourse before us would inflict a fatal\nwound on Christianity; hence it is natural that exegetists should\nendeavour by all means to obviate them. And as the whole difficulty\nconsists in Jesus having apparently placed an event now long past, in\nimmediate chronological connexion with one still future, three\nexpedients are possible: either to deny that Jesus in part spoke of\nsomething now past, and to allege that he spoke solely of what is still\nfuture; or to deny that a part of his discourse relates to something\nstill future, and thus to refer the entire prediction to what is\nalready lying in the past; or lastly, to admit that the discourse of\nJesus does indeed partly refer to something which is still future to\nus, but either to deny that he places the two series of events in\nimmediate chronological succession, or to maintain that he has also\nnoticed what is intermediate.\n\nSome of the Fathers of the Church, as Iren\u00e6us and Hilary\u2014yet living in\nthe primitive expectation of the return of Christ, and at the same time\nnot so practised in regular exegesis, as to be incapable of overlooking\ncertain difficulties attendant on a desirable interpretation\u2014referred\nthe entire prediction, from its commencement in Matt. xxiv. to its end\nin Matt. xxv., to the still future return of Christ to judgment. [1670]\nBut as this interpretation admits that Jesus in the commencement of his\ndiscourse uses the destruction of Jerusalem as a type of the final\ncatastrophe, it virtually nullifies itself. For what does that\nadmission signify, but that the discourse of Jesus, in the first\ninstance, produces the impression that he spoke of the destruction of\nJerusalem, i.e. of something now past, and that only more extended\nreflection and combination can give it a relation to something still\nlying in futurity?\n\nTo modern rationalism, based as it was on naturalistic principles, the\nhope of the second advent of Christ was in every form annihilated.\nHence, not scrupling at any exegetical violence for the sake of\nremoving from scripture what was discordant with its preconceived\nsystem, it threw itself on the opposite side, and hazarded the attempt\nto refer the discourses in question, in their entire tenor, solely to\nthe destruction of Jerusalem, and the events which immediately preceded\nand followed it. [1671] According to this interpretation, the end\nspoken of is only the cessation of the Judeo-Gentile economy of the\nworld; what is said of the advent of Christ in the clouds, is only a\nfigurative description of the promulgation and triumph of his doctrine;\nthe assembling of the nations to judgment, and the sending of some into\nblessedness, and others into condemnation, is an image of the happy\nconsequences which would result from embracing the doctrine and cause\nof Jesus, and the evil consequences attendant on indifference or\nhostility to them. But in this explanation there is a want of\nsimilarity between the symbols and the ideas represented, which is not\nonly unprecedented in itself, but particularly inconceivable in this\ncase; since Jesus is here addressing minds of Jewish culture, and must\ntherefore be aware that what he said of the Messiah\u2019s advent in the\nclouds, of the judgment, and the end of the existing period of the\nworld, would be understood in the most literal sense.\n\nIt thus appears that the discourse of Jesus will not as a whole, admit\nof being referred either to the destruction of the Jewish state, or to\nthe events at the end of the world; it would therefore be necessarily\nreferred to something distinct from both, if this twofold impossibility\nadhered alike to all its parts. But the case is not so; for while, on\nthe one hand, what is said Matt. xxiv. 2, 3, 15 ff. of the devastation\nof the temple, cannot be referred to the end of the world: on the other\nhand, what is predicted xxv. 31 ff. of the judgment to be held by the\nSon of Man, will not suit the destruction of Jerusalem. As, according\nto this, in the earlier part of the discourse of Jesus, the destruction\nof Jerusalem is the predominant subject, but in the subsequent part,\nthe end of all things: it is possible to make a division, so as to\nrefer the former to the more proximate event, the latter to the more\nremote one. This is the middle path which has been taken by the\nmajority of modern exegetists, and here the only question is: where is\nthe partition to be made? As it must present a space of time within\nwhich the whole period from the destruction of Jerusalem to the last\nday may be supposed to fall, and which therefore would include many\ncenturies, it must, one would think, be plainly indicated, so as to be\neasily and unanimously found. It is no good augury for the plan, that\nthis unanimity does not exist,\u2014that, on the contrary, the required\ndivision is made in widely different parts of the discourse of Jesus.\n\nThus much on the one hand appeared to be decided: that at least the\nclose of the 25th chapter, from v. 31, with its description of the\nsolemn tribunal which the Messiah, surrounded by his angels, would hold\nover all nations, cannot be referred to the time of the destruction of\nJerusalem. Hence many theologians believed that they could fix the\nboundary here, retaining the relation to the end of the Jewish state\nuntil xxv. 30, and at this point making the transition to the end of\nthe world. [1672] On the very first glance at this explanation, it must\nappear strange that the great chasm which it supposes to exist between\nv. 30 and 31, is marked simply by a \u03b4\u1f72. Moreover, not only are the\ndarkening of the sun and moon, earthquakes, and falling of the stars,\nunderstood as a mere image of the subversion of the Jewish state and\nworship; but when xxiv. 31, it is said of the Messiah, that he will\ncome in the clouds, this is supposed to mean, invisibly; with\npower\u2014only observable by the effects he produces; with great glory\u2014with\nsuch as consists in the conclusions which may be drawn from those\neffects; while the angels who gather together the nations by the sound\nof the trumpet, are supposed to represent the apostles preaching the\ngospel. [1673] Quite erroneously, appeal is made, in support of this\nmerely figurative meaning, to the prophetic pictures of the divine day\nof judgment, Isa. xiii. 9 ff., xxiv. 18 ff.; Jer. iv. 23 f.; Ezek.\nxxxii. 7 ff.; Joel iii. 3 ff.; Amos viii. 9; farther, to descriptions\n[1674] such as Judges v. 20; Acts ii., xvii. ff. In those prophetic\npassages, real eclipses of the sun and moon, earthquakes, and the like,\nare intended, and are described as prodigies which will accompany the\npredicted catastrophe; the song of Deborah, again, celebrates a real\nparticipation of heaven in the battle against Sisera, a participation\nwhich in the narrative, iv. 15, is ascribed to God himself, in the\nsong, to his heavenly hosts; lastly, Peter expects, that the outpouring\nof the spirit will be succeeded by the appearances in the heavens,\npromised among the signs of the great day of the Lord.\n\nThe attempt to effect a division near the end of the discourse, at xxv.\n30, failing, from its rendering much that goes before incapable of\nexplanation; the next expedient is to retreat as far towards the\ncommencement as possible, by considering how far it is inevitable to\nrecognise a relation to the immediate future. The first resting place\nis after xxiv. 28; for what is said, up to this point, of war and other\ncalamities, of the abomination in the temple, of the necessity for\nspeedy flight, in order to escape unprecedented misery, cannot be\ndivested of a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem without the\ngreatest violence: while what follows concerning the appearance of the\nSon of Man in the clouds, etc., just as imperatively demands an\napplication to the last day. [1675] But in the first place, it appears\nincomprehensible how the enormous interval, which on this explanation\nalso is supposed to fall between the one portion of the discourse and\nthe other, can be introduced between two verses, of all others, which\nMatthew connects by an adverb expressive of the shortest possible time\n(\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2). It has been sought to remove this inconvenience by the\nassertion that \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 does not here signify the quick succession of the\none incident on the other, but only the unexpected occurrence of an\nevent, and that consequently, what is here said amounts merely to this:\nsuddenly, at some period (how distant is undetermined) after the\ncalamities attendant on the destruction of Jerusalem, the Messiah will\nvisibly appear. Such an interpretation of \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 is, as Olshausen\ncorrectly perceives, merely a desperate resource: but even were it\notherwise, it would afford no real aid, since not only does Mark in his\nparallel passage, v. 24, by the words, in those days, after that\ntribulation, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, place\nthe events which he proceeds to mention in uninterrupted chronological\nsuccession with those which he had before detailed; but also, shortly\nafter this point in each of the narratives (Matt. v. 34 parall.), we\nfind the assurance that all this will be witnessed by the existing\ngeneration. As thus the opinion, that from v. 29, everything relates to\nthe return of Christ to judge the world, was threatened with\nannihilation by v. 34; the word \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70, as the Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist\n[1676] complains, was put to the torture, that it might cease to bear\nwitness against this mode of division. At one time it is made to\nsignify the Jewish nation; [1677] at another the adherents of Jesus;\n[1678] and of both the one and the other Jesus is supposed to say that\nit will (how many generations hence being left uncertain) be still in\nexistence on the arrival of that catastrophe. So to explain the verse\nin question, that it may not contain a determination of time, is even\nmaintained to be necessary on a consideration of the context, v. 35:\nfor as in this Jesus declares it impossible to determine the period of\nthat catastrophe, he cannot immediately before have given such a\ndetermination, in the assurance that his cotemporaries would yet live\nto see all of which he had been speaking. But this alleged necessity so\nto interpret the word \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70, has long been dissipated by the\ndistinction between an inexact indication of the space of time, beyond\nwhich the event will not be deferred (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70), and the precise\ndetermination of the epoch (\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1) at which it will occur; the\nformer Jesus gives, the latter he declares himself unable to give.\n[1679] But the very possibility of interpreting \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70 in the above\nmanner vanishes, when it is considered, that in connexion with a verb\nof time, and without anything to imply a special application, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70\ncannot have any other than its original sense: i.e. generation, age;\nthat in a passage aiming to determine the signs of the Messiah\u2019s\nadvent, it would be very unsuitable to introduce a declaration which,\ninstead of giving any information concerning the arrival of that\ncatastrophe, should rather treat of the duration of the Jewish nation,\nor of the Christian community, of which nothing had previously been\nsaid; that, moreover, already at v. 33, in the words \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f34\u03b4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Ye, when ye shall SEE all these things,\nknow, etc., it is presupposed that the parties addressed would witness\nthe approach of the event in question; and lastly, that in another\npassage (Matt. xvi. 28 parall.) the certainty of living to see the\ncoming of the Son of man is asserted not simply of this generation,\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7, but of some standing here, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, whereby\nit is shown in the most decisive manner, that in the present passage\nalso, Jesus intended by the above expression the race of his\ncotemporaries, who were not to have become extinct before that\ncatastrophe should occur. [1680] Unable to deny this, and yet anxious\nto separate as widely as possible the end of the world here announced,\nand the age of Jesus, others would find in the declaration before us\nnothing more than this: the events hitherto described will begin to be\nfulfilled in the present age, though their complete fulfilment may yet\nbe deferred many centuries. [1681] But when already at v. 8 the subject\nis said to be the beginning of the tribulation, while from v. 14 we\nhave a description of the end of the present period of the world, which\nthat tribulation would introduce, and it is here (v. 34) said, the\nexisting generation shall not pass away, \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\nuntil all these things be fulfilled: we must inevitably understand by\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, all these things, not merely the beginning, but also the\nlast-mentioned events at the end of the world.\n\nThus there is still at v. 34 something which must be referred to an\nevent very near to the time of Jesus: hence the discourse of Jesus\ncannot from so early a point as v. 29, refer to the end of the world,\nan epoch so far distant; and the division must be made somewhat farther\non, after v. 35 or 42. [1682] But on this plan, expressions are thrown\ninto the first part of the discourse, which resist the assigned\napplication to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem;\u2014the glorious\nadvent of Christ in the clouds, and the assembling of all nations by\nangels (v. 30 f.) must be regarded as the same extravagant figures,\nwhich formerly forbade our acceptance of another mode of division.\n\nThus the declaration v. 34 which, together with the preceding\nsymbolical discourse on the fig tree (v. 32 f.), and the appended\nasseveration (v. 35), must refer to a very near event, has, both before\nand after it, expressions which can only relate to the more distant\ncatastrophe: hence it has appeared to some as a sort of oasis in the\ndiscourse, having a sense isolated from the immediate context. Schott,\nfor instance, supposes that, up to v. 26, Jesus had been speaking of\nthe destruction of Jerusalem; that at v. 27 he does indeed make a\ntransition to the events at the end of the present period of the world;\nbut that at v. 32, he reverts to the original subject, the destruction\nof Jerusalem; and only at v. 36 proceeds again to speak of the end of\nthe world. [1683] But this is to hew the text in pieces, out of\ndesperation. Jesus cannot possibly have spoken with so little order and\ncoherence; still less can he have so linked his sentences together as\nto give no intimation of such abrupt transitions.\n\nNor is this imputed to him by the most recent critics. According to\nthem, it is the Evangelist who has joined together, not in the best\norder, distinct and heterogeneous declarations of Jesus. Matthew,\nindeed, admits Schulz, imagined that these discourses were spoken\nwithout intermission, and only arbitrariness and violence can in this\nrespect sever them from each other; but hardly did Jesus himself\ndeliver them in this consecutive manner, and with this imprint of\nunity. [1684] The various phases of his coming, thinks Sieffert, his\nfigurative appearance at the destruction of Jerusalem, and his literal\nappearance at the last day, though they may not have been expressly\ndiscriminated, were certainly not positively connected by Jesus; but\nsubjects which he spoke of in succession were, from their obscurity,\nconfused together by the Evangelist. [1685] And as in this instance\nthere recurs the difference between Matthew and Luke, that what Matthew\nrepresents as being spoken on a single occasion, Luke distributes into\nseparate discourses; to which it is also to be added, that much of what\nMatthew gives, Luke either has not, or has it in a different form:\ntherefore Schleiermacher [1686] believed himself warranted to rectify\nthe composition of Matthew by that of Luke, and to maintain that while\nin Luke the two separate discourses, xvii. 22 ff. and xxi. 5 ff., have\neach their appropriate connexion and their indubitable application, in\nMatthew (chap. xxiv. and xxv.), by the blending of those two\ndiscourses, and the introduction of portions of other discourses, the\nconnexion is destroyed, and the application obscured. According to\nthis, the discourse, Luke xxi., taken alone, contains nothing which\noutsteps the reference to the capture of Jerusalem and the accompanying\nevents. Yet here also (v. 27) we find the declaration, Then shall they\nsee the Son of Man coming in a cloud, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7; and when Schleiermacher explains this as\na mere image representing the revelation of the religious significance\nof the political and natural events before described, he falls into a\nviolence of interpretation which overturns his entire opinion as to the\nmutual relation of these accounts. If, then, in the connexion of the\nend of all things with the destruction of Jerusalem, Matthew by no\nmeans stands alone, but is countenanced by Luke\u2014to say nothing of Mark,\nwhose account in this instance is an extract from Matthew: we may, it\nis true, conclude, that as in other discourses of Jesus, so perhaps in\nthis also, many things which were uttered at different times are\nassociated; but there is nothing to warrant the supposition, that\nprecisely what relates to the two events, which in our idea are so\nremote from each other, is the foreign matter, especially since we see,\nfrom the unanimous representation of the remaining New Testament\nwritings, that the primitive church expected, as a speedy issue, the\nreturn of Christ, together with the end of the present period of the\nworld (1 Cor. x. 11, xv. 51; Phil. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ff.; James v.\n8; 1 Pet. iv. 7; 1 John ii. 18; Rev. i. 1, 3, iii. 11, xxii. 7, 10, 12,\n20).\n\nThus it is impossible to evade the acknowledgment, that in this\ndiscourse, if we do not mutilate it to suit our own views, Jesus at\nfirst speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem, and farther on and until\nthe close, of his return at the end of all things, and that he places\nthe two events in immediate connexion. There remains, therefore, but\none expedient for vindicating the correctness of his announcement,\nnamely, on the one hand, to assign the coming of which he speaks to the\nfuture, but, on the other hand, to bring it at the same time into the\npresent\u2014instead of a merely future, to make it a perpetual coming. The\nwhole history of the world, it is said, since the first appearance of\nChrist, is an invisible return on his part, a spiritual judgment which\nhe holds over mankind. Of this, the destruction of Jerusalem (in our\npassage until v. 28) is only the first act; in immediate succession\n(\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, v. 29 ff.) comes the revolution effected among mankind by the\npublication of the gospel; a revolution which is to be carried on in a\nseries of acts and epochs, until the end of all things, when the\njudgment gradually effected in the history of the world, will be made\nknown by an all-comprehending, final revelation. [1687] But the famous\nutterance of the poet, [1688] spoken from the inmost depth of modern\nconviction, is ill-adapted to become the key of a discourse, which more\nthan any other has its root in the point of view proper to the ancient\nworld. To regard the judgment of the world, the coming of Christ, as\nsomething successive, is a mode of conception in the most direct\nopposition to that of the New Testament. The very expressions by which\nit designates that catastrophe, as that day or the last day, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 or\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, show that it is to be thought of as momentary; the\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, end of the age (v. 3), concerning the signs of\nwhich the apostles inquire, and which Jesus elsewhere (Matt. xiii. 39)\nrepresents under the image of the harvest, can only be the final close\nof the course of the world, not something which is gradually effected\nduring this course; when Jesus compares his coming to lightning (xxiv.\n27), and to the entrance of the thief in the night (v. 43), he\nrepresents it as one sudden event, and not as a series of events.\n[1689] If we consider in addition to this the extravagant figures,\nwhich it is not less necessary to suppose on this interpretation, than\non the above-mentioned reference of the 24th chapter to the destruction\nof Jerusalem, [1690] it will appear necessary to abstain from this\nexpedient, as from all the previous ones.\n\nThus the last attempt to discover in the discourse before us the\nimmense interval which, looking from our position in the present day,\nis fixed between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of all\nthings, having failed; we are taught practically that that interval\nlies only in our own conception, which we are not justified in\nintroducing into the text. And when we consider that we owe our idea of\nthat interval only to the experience of many centuries, which have\nelapsed since the destruction of Jerusalem: it cannot be difficult to\nus to imagine how the author of this discourse, who had not had this\nexperience, might entertain the belief that shortly after the fall of\nthe Jewish sanctuary, the world itself, of which, in the Jewish idea,\nthat sanctuary was the centre, would also come to an end, and the\nMessiah appear in judgment.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 116.\n\nORIGIN OF THE DISCOURSES ON THE SECOND ADVENT.\n\nThe result just obtained involves a consequence, to avoid which has\nbeen the object of all the futile attempts at explanation hitherto\nexamined: if, namely, Jesus conceived and declared that the fall of the\nJewish sanctuary would be shortly followed by his visible return and\nthe end of the world, while it is now nearly 1800 years since the one\ncatastrophe, and yet the other has not arrived; it follows that in this\nparticular he was mistaken. Hence expositors, who so far yield to\nexegetical evidence, as to agree with us in the above conclusion\nconcerning the meaning of the discourse before us, seek from dogmatical\nconsiderations to evade this legitimate consequence.\n\nHengstenberg, as is well known, has advanced, in relation to the\nhistory of the Hebrew prophets, the following theory, which has met\nwith approval from other expositors. To the spiritual vision of these\nmen, he says, future things presented themselves not so much through\nthe medium of time as of space\u2014as it were, in great pictures; and thus,\nas is the case in paintings or perspective views, the most distant\nobject often appeared to them to stand immediately behind the nearest,\nforeground and background being intermingled with each other: and this\ntheory of a perspective vision we are to apply to Jesus, especially in\nregard to the discourse in question. [1691] But we may here cite the\nappropriate remark of Paulus, [1692] that as one, who in a perspective\nexternally presented, does not know how to distinguish distances,\nlabours under an optical delusion, i.e. errs: so likewise in an\ninternal perspective of ideas, if such there be, the disregard of\ndistances must be pronounced an error; consequently this theory does\nnot show that the above men did not err, but rather explains how they\neasily might err.\n\nEven Olshausen considers this theory, which he elsewhere adopts,\ninsufficient in the present case to remove all appearance of error on\nthe part of Jesus; and he therefore seeks to derive special grounds of\njustification, from the particular nature of the event predicted.\n[1693] In the first place he regards it as indispensable to the full\nmoral influence of the doctrine of Christ\u2019s return, that this\ncatastrophe should be regarded as possible, nay probable, at any\nmoment. This consideration may indeed justify such enunciations as\nMatt. xxiv. 37 ff., where Jesus admonishes to watchfulness, because no\none can know how soon the decisive moment may arrive; but by no means\nsuch as xxiv. 34, where he declares that within the term of the\nexisting generation, all will be fulfilled. For one whose mind is in a\nhealthy state, conceives the possible as possible, the probable as\nprobable; and if he wishes to abide by the truth, he so exhibits them\nto others: he, on the contrary, by whom the merely possible or probable\nis conceived as the real, is under a mistake; and he who, without so\nconceiving it himself, yet for a moral or religious object, so\nrepresents it to others, permits himself to use a pious fraud.\nOlshausen further avails himself of a position already noticed, namely,\nthat the opinion that the advent of Christ is at hand, is a true one,\ninasmuch as the entire history of the world is a coming of Christ;\nthough not so as to exclude his final coming at the end of all things.\nBut if it is proved that Jesus represented his literal, final coming as\nnear at hand, while, in fact, only his figurative perpetual coming\noccurred in the period indicated: he has confused these two modes of\nhis coming. The last argument which Olshausen adduces\u2014that because the\nacceleration or delay of the return of Christ depends on the conduct of\nmen, consequently on their free-will, his prophecy is only to be\nunderstood conditionally\u2014stands or falls with the first; for to\nrepresent something conditional as unconditional is to create a false\nimpression.\n\nSieffert, likewise, regards the grounds on which Olshausen seeks to\nfree the assertions of Jesus concerning his return from the imputation\nof error, as inadequate; nevertheless he holds it an impossibility to\nthe Christian consciousness, to ascribe an erroneous expectation to\nJesus. [1694] In no case would this furnish a warrant, arbitrarily to\nsever from each other those elements in the discourse of Jesus which\nrefer to the nearer event, from those which in our view refer to the\nmore remote one: rather, if we had reasons for holding such an error on\nthe part of Jesus inconceivable, we must deny in general that the\ndiscourses on the second advent, in which those two sets of materials\nare so inextricably interwoven, originated with him. But, looking from\nthe orthodox point of view, the question is not: what will it satisfy\nthe Christian consciousness of the present day to believe or not to\nbelieve concerning Christ? but, what stands written concerning Christ?\nand to this the above consciousness must accommodate itself as it best\nmay. Considering the subject rationally, however, a feeling resting on\npresuppositions, such as the so-called Christian consciousness, has no\nvoice in matters of science; and as often as it seeks to intermeddle\nwith them, is to be reduced to order by the simple reprimand: mulier\ntaceat in ecclesi\u00e2! [1695]\n\nBut have we no other grounds for questioning that Jesus really uttered\nthe predictions contained in Matt xxiv. and xxv. parall.? In pursuing\nthis inquiry, we may first take our stand on the assertion of\nsupranaturalistic theologians, that what Jesus here predicts, he could\nnot know in the natural way of reasonable calculation, but only in a\nsupernatural manner. [1696] Even the main fact, that the temple would\nbe destroyed and Jerusalem laid waste, could not, according to this\nopinion, be so certainly foreknown. Who could conjecture, it is asked,\nthat the Jews would carry their frantic obstinacy so far as to render\nsuch an issue inevitable? Who could calculate, that precisely such\nemperors, would send such procurators, as would provoke insurrection by\ntheir baseness and pusillanimity? Still more remarkable is it, that\nmany particular incidents which Jesus foretold actually occurred. The\nwars, pestilence, earthquakes, famines, which he prophesied, may be\nshown in the history of the succeeding times; the persecution of his\nfollowers really took place; the prediction that there would be false\nprophets, and even such as would, by promises of miracles, allure the\npeople into the wilderness (Matt. xxiv. 11, 24 ff. parall.), may be\ncompared with a strikingly similar passage from Josephus, describing\nthe last times of the Jewish state; [1697] the encompassing of\nJerusalem with armies, mentioned by Luke, with the trench, \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03be, which\nhe elsewhere (xix. 43 f.) speaks of as being cast about the city, may\nbe recognized in the circumstance recorded by Josephus, that Titus\ncaused Jerusalem to be enclosed by a wall; [1698] lastly it may also\nexcite astonishment that the declarations, there shall not be left one\nstone upon another, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u1ff3, in relation to the\ntemple, and they shall lay thee even with the ground, \u1f10\u03b4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03af \u03c3\u03b5,\n(Luke xix. 44), in relation to the city, were fulfilled to the letter.\n[1699]\n\nWhen on the orthodox point of view, from the impossibility of\nforeseeing such particulars in a natural manner, it is concluded that\nJesus had a supernatural insight into the future; this conclusion is\nhere attended not only with the same difficulty as above, in connection\nwith the announcement of his death and resurrection, but with another\nalso. In the first place, according to Matthew (xxiv. 15), and Mark\n(xiii. 14), Jesus represented the first stage of the catastrophe as a\nfulfilment of the prophecy of Daniel concerning an abomination of\ndesolation, and consequently referred Dan. ix. 27 (comp. xi. 31, xii.\n11) to an event at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. For what\nPaulus maintains,\u2014namely, that Jesus here only borrows an expression\nfrom Daniel, without regarding that declaration of the prophet as a\nprophecy concerning something which in his time (the time of Jesus) was\nstill future\u2014is here rendered especially inconceivable by the addition:\nlet him that readeth understand. Now it may be regarded as an\nestablished point in the modern criticism and explanation of the Old\nTestament, that the above passages in Daniel have reference to the\ndesecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes; [1700] consequently,\nthe interpretation of them which the Evangelists here lend to Jesus is\na false one. But to proceed to the difficulty which is peculiar to the\nprophecy in Matt. xxiv., xxv.: only one side of it, that relating to\nJerusalem, has been fulfilled; the other, that relating to the return\nof Jesus and the end of the world, remains unfulfilled. Such a\nhalf-true prophecy as this cannot have been drawn by Jesus from his\nhigher nature, and he must have been left in this matter to his human\nfaculties. But that he should be able, by means of these, to foresee a\nresult, dependent on so many fortuities as was the destruction of\nJerusalem, with its particular circumstances, appears inconceivable;\nand hence the conjecture arises, that these discourses, in the\ndefiniteness which they now possess, were not uttered prior to the\nissue, consequently not by Jesus, but that they may have been put into\nhis mouth as prophecies after the issue. Thus Kaiser, for example, is\nof opinion that Jesus threatened a terrible fate to the temple and the\nnation by means of the Romans, conditionally, in case the nation did\nnot accept salvation from the Messiah, and described this fate in\nprophetic types; but that the unconditional form and the more precise\ndelineations were given to his discourse post eventum. Credner also\ninfers, from the circumstances, that incidents accompanying the\ndestruction of Jerusalem are put into the mouth of Jesus as prophecies,\nthat the three first gospels cannot have been composed before this\nevent. [1701] It must certainly be supposed that the prophecy, as we\nhave it in the two first gospels, was formed immediately after or even\nduring the issue, since here the appearance of the Messiah is predicted\nas an event that would immediately succeed the fall of Jerusalem, which\nin later years could no longer be the expectation. As this immediate\nchronological connexion of the two catastrophes is not so expressly\nmade by Luke, it has been supposed that this Evangelist gives the\nprophecy as it was modified by experience, that the Messiah\u2019s advent\nand the end of the world had in nowise followed close on the\ndestruction of Jerusalem. [1702]\n\nIn opposition to these two opinions, that the prophecy in question had\na supernatural source, and that it was only made after the issue; it is\nsought, in a third quarter, to show that what is here predicted, Jesus\nmight really have known in a natural way. [1703] While, on the one\nhand, it is held in the highest degree astonishing that the result\nshould have so closely corresponded with the most minute features of\nthe prophecy of Jesus; on the other hand, there are expositors by whom\nthis correspondence is called in question. The encompassing of\nJerusalem with armies, say they, is precisely what Titus, according to\nJosephus, pronounces impossible to be effected; [1704] it is predicted\nthat a trench \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03be would be cast about the city, while Josephus\ninforms us, that after the first attempt at forming an embankment \u03c7\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1\nhad been rendered useless, by an act of incendiarism on the part of the\nbesieged, [1705] Titus desisted from his scheme; of false Messiahs,\narising in the interval between the death of Jesus and the destruction\nof Jerusalem, history says nothing; the commotions among nations, and\nthe natural phenomena, in that period, are far from being so important\nas they are here represented; but above all, in these prophecies,\nespecially as they are given in Matthew and Mark, it is not the\ndestruction of Jerusalem which is predicted, but solely that of the\ntemple: plain divergencies of the prophecy from the result, which would\nnot exist, if either a supernatural glance into the future, or a\nvaticinium post eventum were concerned.\n\nAccording to these theologians, we are on the wrong track in seeking\nthe counterpart of these prophecies forwards, in the result; since it\nwas backwards, on types presented in the past, that the authors looked.\nA mass of such types was furnished by the Jewish conception of the\ncircumstances which would precede the advent of the Messiah. False\nprophets and Messiahs, war, famine and pestilence, earthquakes and\ncommotions in the heavens, prevalent corruption of manners, persecution\nof the faithful servants of Jehovah, were held to be the immediate\nharbingers of the messianic kingdom. Moreover, in the prophets there\nare descriptions of the tribulation which would presage and accompany\nthe day of the coming of Jehovah (Isa. xiii. 9 ff.; Joel i. 15, ii. 1\nff., 10 ff., iii. 3 ff., iv. 15 f.; Zeph. i. 14 ff.; Hagg. ii. 7; Zech.\nxiv. 1 ff.; Mal. iii. 1 ff.), or which would precede the messianic\nkingdom of the saints (Dan. vii.\u2013xii.), as also expressions in later\nJewish writings, [1706] so analogous with our evangelical prediction,\nas to put it beyond question, that the description which it gives of\nthe time of the Messiah\u2019s advent is drawn from a circle of ideas which\nhad long been current among the Jews.\n\nAnother question is, whether the principal feature in the picture\nbefore us, the destruction of the temple and the devastation of\nJerusalem, as introductory to the coming of the Messiah, may also be\nshown to have made part of the popular conception in the time of Jesus.\nIn Jewish writings we find the notion, that the birth of the Messiah\nwould coincide with the destruction of the sanctuary: [1707] but this\nidea was obviously first formed after the fall of the temple, in order\nthat a fountain of consolation might spring out of the lowest depth of\nmisery. Josephus finds in Daniel, together with what relates to\nAntiochus, a prophecy of the annihilation of the Jewish state by the\nRomans: [1708] but as this is not the primary object in any of the\nvisions in Daniel, Josephus might first make this interpretation after\nthe issue, in which case it would prove nothing as to the time of\nJesus. Nevertheless, it is conceivable, that already in the time of\nJesus, the Jews might attribute to the prophecies of Daniel a reference\nto events yet future, although these prophecies in fact related to a\nfar earlier period; and they might do so on the same grounds as those\non which the Christians of the present age still look forward to the\nfull realization of Matt. xxiv. and xxv. As immediately after the fall\nof the kingdom made of iron mixed with clay, and of the horn that\nspeaks blasphemies and makes war against the saints, the coming of the\nSon of man in the clouds, and the commencement of the everlasting\nkingdom of the saints, is prophesied, while this result had not by any\nmeans succeeded the defeat of Antiochus: there was an inducement still\nto look to the future, not only for the heavenly kingdom, but also,\nsince they were made immediately to precede it, for the calamities\ncaused by the kingdom of iron and clay; among which calamities, by\nanalogy with what was predicted of the horn, the desecration of the\ntemple was conspicuous. But while the prophecy in Daniel includes only\nthe desecration of the temple and the interruption of the worship,\ntogether with (the partial [1709]) destruction of the city: in the\ndiscourse before us complete destruction is predicted to the temple\u2014and\nlikewise to the city, not merely in Luke, where the expressions are\nvery marked, but undoubtedly in the two other Evangelists also, as\nappears to be indicated by the exhortation to hasty flight from the\ncity;\u2014which prediction of total destruction, as it is not contained in\nthe type, can apparently have been gathered only from the result. But\nin the first place, the description in Daniel with the expressions\n\u200f\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05b5\u05dd\u200e and \u200f\u05d4\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e (ix. 26 f., xii. 11), which the LXX. translates by\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, desolation, and \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9, I destroy, may easily be also\nunderstood of a total destruction; and secondly, if once, in connexion\nwith the sins of the nation, the temple and city had been destroyed and\nthe people carried away captive, every enthusiastic Israelite, to whom\nthe religious and moral condition of his fellow-countrymen appeared\ncorrupt and irremediable, might thenceforth expect and predict a\nrepetition of that former judgment. According to this, even those\nparticulars in which, as we have seen in the foregoing section, Luke\nsurpasses his fellow-narrators in definiteness, are not of a kind to\noblige us to suppose, either a supernatural foreknowledge, or a\nvaticinium post eventum: on the contrary, all may be explained by a\nclose consideration of what is narrated concerning the first\ndestruction of Jerusalem in 2 Kings xxv.; 2 Chron. xxxvi.; and Jer.\nxxxix. 52.\n\nThere is only one point which Jesus, as the author of this discourse,\ncould not have gathered from any types, but must have drawn entirely\nfrom himself: namely, the declaration that the catastrophe which he\ndescribed would arrive within the present generation. This prediction\nwe must hesitate to derive from a supernatural knowledge, for the\nreason, already noticed, that it is only half fulfilled: while the\nother side of the fact, the striking fulfilment of at least the one\nhalf of the prophecy, might incline us to distrust the supposition of a\nmerely natural calculation, and to regard this determination of time as\na feature introduced into the discourse of Jesus after the issue.\nMeanwhile, it is clear from the passages cited at the conclusion of the\nlast section, that the apostles themselves expected the return of\nChrist to take place within their lifetime; and it is not improbable\nthat Jesus also believed that this event, together with the ruin of the\ncity and temple, which according to Daniel was to precede it, was very\nnear at hand. The more general part of the expectation, namely, the\nappearing at some future time in the clouds of heaven, to awake the\ndead, to sit in judgment, and to found an everlasting kingdom, would\nnecessarily, from a consideration of Daniel, where such a coming is\nascribed to the Son of man, be contemplated by Jesus as a part of his\nown destiny, so soon as he held himself to be the Messiah; while, with\nregard to the time, it was natural that he should not conceive a very\nlong interval as destined to elapse between his first messianic coming\nin humiliation, and his second, in glory.\n\nOne objection to the genuineness of the synoptical discourses on the\nsecond advent, is yet in reserve; it has, however, less weight in our\npoint of view than in that of the prevalent criticism of the gospels.\nThis objection is derived from the absence of any detailed description\nof the second advent of Jesus in the Gospel of John. [1710] It is true\nthat the fundamental elements of the doctrine of Christ\u2019s return are\nplainly discoverable in the fourth gospel also. [1711] Jesus therein\nascribes to himself the offices of the future judgment, and the awaking\nof the dead (John v. 21\u201330); which last is not indeed numbered among\nthe concomitants of the advent of Christ in the synoptical gospels, but\nnot seldom appears in that connexion elsewhere in the New Testament\n(e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. iv. 16). When Jesus, in the fourth\ngospel, sometimes denies that he is come into the world for judgment\n(iii. 17, viii. 15, xii. 47), this refers only to his first presence on\nearth, and is limited by opposite declarations, in which he asserts\nthat he is come into the world for judgment (ix. 39, comp. viii. 16),\nto the sense that the object of his mission is not to condemn but to\nsave, and that his judgment is not individual or partial; that it\nconsists, not in an authoritative sentence proceeding subjectively from\nhimself, but in an objective act proceeding from the intrinsic tendency\nof things, a doctrine which is significantly expressed in the\ndeclaration, that him who hears his word without believing he judges\nnot, but the word, which he has spoken, shall judge him in the last day\n(\u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f42\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1, \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3, xii. 48).\nFurther, when the Jesus of John\u2019s gospel says of the believer: \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, he is not judged, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, he shall not come\ninto judgment (iii. 18, v. 24), this is to be understood of a judgment\nwith a condemnatory issue; when on the contrary, it is said of the\nunbeliever: \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, he is judged already (iii. 18), this only\nmeans that the assigning of the merited lot to each is not reserved\nuntil the future judgment at the end of all things, since each one in\nhis inward disposition bears within himself the fate which is his due.\nThis does not exclude a future solemn act of judgment, wherein that\nwhich has at present only a latent existence will be made matter of\nawful revelation; for in the very passage last quoted we find the\nconsignment to condemnation, and elsewhere the awarding of future\nblessedness (v. 28 f., vi. 39 f., 54), associated with the last day and\nthe resurrection. In like manner, Jesus says in Luke also, in the same\nconnexion in which he describes his return as a still future, external\ncatastrophe, xvii. 20 f.: The kingdom of God cometh not with\nobservation; neither shall they say, lo here! or, lo there! for behold\nthe kingdom of God is within you. A certain interpretation of the words\nuttered by the Jesus of John\u2019s gospel, supposes him even to intimate\nthat his return was not far distant. The expressions already mentioned\nin the farewell discourses, in which Jesus promises his disciples not\nto leave them comfortless, but, after having gone to the Father,\nshortly (xvi. 16) to come again to them (xiv. 3, 18), are not seldom\nunderstood of the return of Christ at the last day; [1712] but when we\nhear Jesus say of this same return, that he will therein reveal himself\nonly to his disciples, and not to the world (xiv. 19, comp. 22), it is\nimpossible to think of it as the return to judgment, in which Jesus\nconceived that he should reveal himself to good and bad without\ndistinction. There is a particularly enigmatical allusion to the coming\nof Christ in the appendix to the fourth gospel, chap. xxi.. On the\nquestion of Peter as to what will become of the apostle John, Jesus\nhere replies, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to\nthee? (v. 22) whence, as it is added, the Christians inferred that John\nwould not die, since they supposed the coming (\u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) here spoken\nof, to be the final return of Christ, in which those who witnessed it\nwere to be changed, without tasting death (1 Cor. xv. 51 f.). But, adds\nthe author correctively, Jesus did not say, the disciple would not die,\nbut only, if he willed that he should tarry till he came, what was that\nto Peter? Hereby the Evangelist may have intended to rectify the\ninference in two ways. Either it appeared to him erroneous to identify\nthe remaining until Jesus came, with not dying, i.e. to take the coming\nof which Jesus here spoke for the last, which would put an end to\ndeath; and in that case he must have understood by it an invisible\ncoming of Christ, possibly in the destruction of Jerusalem: [1713] or,\nhe held it erroneous that what Jesus had only said hypothetically\u2014even\nif he willed the given case, that was no concern of Peter\u2019s\u2014should be\nunderstood categorically, as if such had really been the will of Jesus;\nin which case the \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 would retain its customary sense. [1714]\n\nIf, according to this, all the main features of the doctrine of the\nsecond advent are put into the mouth of Jesus in the fourth gospel\nalso, still we nowhere find anything of the detailed, graphic\ndescription of the external event, which we read in the synoptical\ngospels. This relation between the two representations, creates no\nslight difficulty on the ordinary view of the origin of the gospels,\nand especially that of the fourth. If Jesus really spoke of his return\nso fully and solemnly as the synoptists represent him to have done, and\ntreated of the right knowledge and observation of the signs as\nsomething of the highest importance; it is inconceivable that the\nauthor of the fourth gospel could pass over all this, if he were an\nimmediate disciple of Jesus. The usual mode of accounting for such an\nomission, by the supposition that he believed this part of the teaching\nof Jesus to be sufficiently known from the synoptical gospels, or from\noral tradition, is the more inadequate here in proportion as all which\nbears a prophetic character, especially when relating to events at once\nso much longed for and dreaded, is exposed to misinterpretation; as we\nmay see from the rectification just noticed, which the author of John\nxxi. found it necessary to apply to the opinion of his contemporaries\nconcerning the promise given by Jesus to John. Thus, in the present\ncase, an explanatory word would have been highly seasonable and useful,\nespecially as the representation of the first gospel, which made the\nend of all things follow immediately on the destruction of Jerusalem,\nmust be the more an occasion of doubt and offence the nearer the latter\nevent came, and in a still greater degree when it was past. And who was\nmore capable of affording such enlightenment than the favourite\ndisciple, particularly if, according to Mark xiii. 3, he was the only\nEvangelist who had been present at the discourse of Jesus on this\nsubject? Hence, here again, a special reason for his silence is sought\nin the alleged destination of his gospel for non-judaical, idealizing\nGnostics, whose point of view those descriptions would not have suited,\nand were therefore omitted. [1715] But precisely in relation to such\nreaders, it would have been a culpable compliance, a confirmation in\ntheir idealizing tendency, had John, out of deference to them,\nsuppressed the real side of the return of Christ. The apostle must\nrather have withstood the propensity of these people to evaporate the\nexternal, historical part of Christianity, by giving due prominence to\nit; as, in his epistle, in opposition to their Docetism, he lays stress\non the corporeality of Jesus: so, in opposition ta their idealism, he\nmust have been especially assiduous to exhibit in the return of Christ\nthe external facts by which it would be signalized. Instead of this, he\nhimself speaks nearly like a Gnostic, and constantly aims, in relation\nto the return of Christ, to resolve the external and the future into\nthe internal and the present. Hence there is not so much exaggeration,\nas Olshausen supposes, in the opinion of Fleck, that the representation\nof the doctrine of Jesus concerning his return in the synoptical\ngospels, and that given in the fourth, exclude each other; [1716] for\nif the author of the fourth gospel be an apostle, the discourses on the\nsecond advent which the three first Evangelists attribute to Jesus,\ncannot have been so delivered by him, and vice vers\u00e2. We, however, as\nwe have said, cannot avail ourselves of this argument, having long\nrenounced the pre-supposition that the fourth gospel had an apostolic\norigin. But, on our point of view, we can fully explain the relation\nwhich the representation of the fourth gospel bears to that of the\nsynoptists. In Palestine, where the tradition recorded by the three\nfirst gospels was formed, the doctrine of a solemn advent of the\nMessiah which was there prevalent, and which Jesus embraced, was\nreceived in its whole breadth into the Christian belief: whereas in the\nHellenistic-theosophic circle in which the fourth gospel arose, this\nidea was divested of its material envelopment, and the return of Christ\nbecame the ambiguous medium between a real and an ideal, a present and\na future event, which it appears in the fourth gospel.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nMACHINATIONS OF THE ENEMIES OF JESUS; TREACHERY OF JUDAS; LAST SUPPER\nWITH HIS DISCIPLES.\n\n\u00a7 117.\n\nDEVELOPMENT OF THE RELATION OF JESUS TO HIS ENEMIES.\n\nIn the three first gospels the principal enemies of Jesus are the\nPharisees and scribes, [1717] who saw in him the most ruinous opponent\nof their institutions; together with the chief priests and elders, who,\nas the heads of the external temple-worship and the hierarchy founded\nupon it, could have no friendly feeling towards one who on every\nopportunity represented as the main point, the internal service of God\nwith the devotion of the mind. Elsewhere we find among the enemies of\nJesus the Sadducees (Matt. xvi. 1, xxii. 23 ff. parall. comp. Matt.\nxvi. 6 ff. parall.), to whose materialism much in his opinions must\nhave been repugnant; and the Herodian party (Mark iii. 6; Matt. xxii.\n16 parall.) who, having been unfavourable to the Baptist, were\nnaturally so to his successor. The fourth gospel, though it sometimes\nmentions the chief priests and Pharisees, the most frequently\ndesignates the enemies of Jesus by the general expression: \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f39\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9,\nthe Jews; an expression which proceeds from a later, Christian point of\nview.\n\nThe four Evangelists unanimously relate, that the more defined\nmachinations of the Pharisaic-hierarchical party against Jesus, took\ntheir rise from an offence committed by the latter against the\nprevalent rules concerning the observation of the sabbath. When Jesus\nhad cured the man with the withered hand, it is said in Matthew: the\nPharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might\ndestroy him (xii. 14, comp. Mark iii. 6; Luke vi. 11); and in like\nmanner John observes, on the occasion of the Sabbath cure at the pool\nof Bethesda: therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and after\nmentioning a declaration of Jesus, proceeds thus: therefore the Jews\nsought the more to kill him (v. 16, 18).\n\nBut immediately after this commencing point, the synoptical account of\nthe relation in question diverges from that of John. In the synoptists,\nthe next offence is given by the neglect of washing before meals on the\npart of Jesus and his disciples, with the sharp invectives which, when\ncalled to account on the subject, he launched forth against the spirit\nof petty observance, and the hypocrisy and spirit of persecution with\nwhich it was united in the Pharisees and lawyers; after all which it is\nsaid, that the latter conceived a deep animosity against him, and tried\nto sift him and entrap him by dangerous questions, in order to obtain\ngrounds of accusation against him (Luke xi. 37\u201354, comp. Matt. xv. 1\nff.; Mark vii. 1 ff.). On his last journey to Jerusalem, the Pharisees\ngave Jesus a warning against Herod (Luke xiii. 31), which apparently\nhad no other object than to induce him to leave the country. The next\nimportant cause of offence to the hierarchical party, was the striking\nhomage paid to Jesus by the people on his entrance into Jerusalem, and\nthe purification of the temple which he immediately undertook: but they\nwere still withheld from any violent measures towards him by the\nstrength of his interest with the people (Matt. xxi. 15 f.; Mark ix.\n18; Luke xix. 39, 47 f.), which was the sole reason why they did not\npossess themselves of his person, after the severe manner in which he\nhad characterized them, in the parable of the husbandmen of the\nvineyard (Matt. xxi. 45 f. parall.). After these events, it scarcely\nneeded the anti-Pharisaic discourse Matt. xxiii. to make the chief\npriests, the scribes and elders, i.e. the Sanhedrim, assemble in the\npalace of the high priest, shortly before the passover, for a\nconsultation, that they might take Jesus by subtlety and kill him\n(Matt. xxvi. 3 ff. parall.).\n\nIn the fourth gospel, also, the great number of the adherents of Jesus\namong the people is sometimes, it is true, described as the reason why\nhis enemies desired to seize him (vii. 32, 44, comp. iv. 1 ff.), and\nhis solemn entrance into Jerusalem embitters them here also (xii. 19);\nsometimes their murderous designs are mentioned without any motive\nbeing stated (vii. 1, 19, 25, viii. 40): but the main cause of offence\nin this gospel, lies in the declarations of Jesus concerning his\nexalted dignity. Even on the occasion of the cure of the lame man on\nthe Sabbath, what chiefly irritated the Jews was that Jesus justified\nit by appealing to the uninterrupted agency of God as his Father, which\nin their opinion was a blasphemous making of himself equal with God,\n\u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 (v. 18); when he spoke of his divine mission,\nthey sought to lay hold on him (vii. 30, comp. viii. 20); on his\nasserting that he was before Abraham, they took up stones to cast at\nhim (viii. 59); they did the same when he declared that he and the\nFather were one (x. 31), and when he asserted that the Father was in\nhim and he in the Father, they again attempted to seize him (x. 39).\nBut that which, according to the fourth gospel, turns the scale, and\ncauses the hostile party to take a formal resolution against Jesus, is\nthe resuscitation of Lazarus. When this act was reported to the\nPharisees, they and the chief priests convened a council of the\nSanhedrim, in which the subject of deliberation was, that if Jesus\ncontinued to perform so many signs, \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, all would at length adhere\nto him, and then the Roman power would be exerted to the destruction of\nthe Jewish nation; whereupon the high priest Caiaphas pronounced the\nmomentous decision, that it was better for one man to die for the\npeople than for the whole nation to perish. His death was now\ndetermined upon, and it was enjoined on every one to point out his\nabode, that he might be arrested (xi. 46 ff.).\n\nWith regard to this difference modern criticism observes, that we\nshould not at all comprehend the tragical turn of the fate of Jesus\nfrom the synoptical accounts, and that John alone opens to us a glance\ninto the manner in which, step by step, the breach between the\nhierarchical party and Jesus was widened; in short, that in this point\nalso the representation of the fourth gospel shows itself a pragmatical\none, which that of the other gospels is not. [1718] But what it is in\nwhich the Gospel of John exhibits superiority in gradation and\nprogress, it is difficult to see, since the very first definite\nstatement concerning the incipient enmity (v. 18) contains the extreme\nof the offence (\u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7, making himself equal with\nGod) and the extreme of the enmity (\u1f10\u03b6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, they\nsought to kill him); so that all which is narrated further concerning\nthe hostility of the Jews is mere repetition, and the only fact which\npresents itself as a step towards more decided measures is the\nresolution of the Sanhedrim, chap. xi.. This species of gradation,\nhowever, is not wanting in the synoptical account also: here we have\nthe transition from the indefinite laying wait for Jesus, and the\ncommuning what might be done to him (Luke xi. 54, vi. 11), or as it is\nmore precisely given in Matthew (xii. 14), and in Mark (iii. 6), the\ntaking counsel how they might destroy him, to the definite resolve as\nto the manner (\u03b4\u03cc\u03bb\u1ff3) and the time (\u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc7 Matt. xxvi. 4 f.\nparall).\u2014But it is especially made a reproach to three first\nEvangelists, that in passing over the resurrection of Lazarus, they\nhave omitted that incident which gave the final impulse to the fate of\nJesus. [1719] If we, on the contrary, in virtue of the above result of\nour criticism of this miraculous narrative, must rather praise the\nsynoptists, that they do not represent as the turning point in the fate\nof Jesus, an incident which never really happened: so the fourth\nEvangelist, by the manner in which he relates the murderous resolve to\nwhich it was the immediate inducement, by no means manifests himself as\none whose authority can be held by us a sufficient warrant for the\ntruth of his narrative. The circumstance that he ascribes to the high\npriest the gift of prophecy (without doubt in accordance with a\nsuperstitious idea of his age [1720]), and regards his speech as a\nprediction of the death of Jesus, would certainly not by itself prove\nthat he could not have been an apostle and eye-witness. [1721] But it\nhas with justice been held a difficulty, that our Evangelist designates\nCaiaphas as the high priest of that year, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 (xi. 49), and thus appears to suppose that this dignity, like\nmany Roman magistracies, was an annual one; whereas it was originally\nheld for life, and even in that period of Roman ascendancy, was not a\nregular annual office, but was transferred as often as it pleased the\narbitrariness of the Romans. To conclude on the authority of the fourth\ngospel, in opposition to the general custom, and notwithstanding the\nsilence of Josephus, that Annas and Caiaphas, by a private agreement,\nheld the office for a year by turns, [1722] is an expedient to which\nthose may resort whom it pleases; to take \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 indefinitely for\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, [1723] is, from the twofold repetition of the same expression,\nv. 51 and xviii. 13, inadmissible; that at that period the high\npriesthood was frequently transferred from one to another, and some\nhigh priests were not allowed to remain in their office longer than a\nyear, [1724] did not justify our author in designating Caiaphas as the\nhigh priest of a particular year, when in fact he filled that post for\na series of years, and certainly throughout the duration of the public\nagency of Jesus; lastly, that John intended to say that Caiaphas was\nhigh priest in the year in which Jesus died, without thereby excluding\nearlier and later years, in which he also held the office, [1725] is an\nequally untenable position. For if the time in which an incident occurs\nis described as a certain year, this mode of expression must imply,\nthat either the incident the date of which is to be determined, or the\nfact by which that date is to be determined, is connected with the term\nof a year. Thus either the author of the fourth gospel must have been\nof the opinion, that from the death of Jesus, to which this decision of\nCaiaphas was the initiative step, a plenitude of spiritual gifts,\nincluding the gift of prophecy to the high priest of that period, was\ndispensed throughout that particular year, [1726] and no longer; or, if\nthis be a far-fetched explanation, he must have imagined that Caiaphas\nwas high priest for the term of that year only. L\u00fccke concludes that\nas, according to Josephus, the high priest of that period held his\noffice for ten years successively, therefore John cannot have meant, by\nthe expression \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, that the office of high\npriest was an annual one; whereas the author of the Probabilia, on the\nground that the evidence of this meaning in the words of the gospel, is\nfar more certain than that John is its author, reverses this\nproposition, and concludes, that as the fourth gospel here presents an\nidea concerning the duration of the office of high priest which could\nnot be entertained in Palestine, therefore its author cannot have been\na native of Palestine. [1727]\n\nOf the further statements also, as to the points in which Jesus gave\noffence to the hierarchy of his nation, those which the synoptists have\nalone, or in common with John, are credible; those which are peculiar\nto the latter, not so. Among those which are common to both sides, the\nsolemn entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, and the strong attachment of\nthe people to him, were equally natural causes of offence with his\ndiscourses and actions in opposition to the sabbatical institutions, in\nwhatever the latter may have consisted: on the contrary, the manner in\nwhich, according to the fourth gospel, the Jews take offence at the\ndeclarations of Jesus concerning himself as the Son of God, is,\naccording to our earlier analysis, [1728] as inconceivable, as it is\nconsistent with the common order of things that the polemical tone\ntowards the Pharisees which the first Evangelists all lend to Jesus,\nshould irritate the party attacked. Thus no new or more profound\ninsight into the causes and motives of the reaction against Jesus, is\nto be obtained from the fourth gospel: but the information which the\nsynoptists have preserved to us fully suffices to make that fact\nintelligible.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 118.\n\nJESUS AND HIS BETRAYER.\n\nAlthough it had been resolved in the council of the chief priests and\nelders, that the feast time should be allowed to pass over before any\nmeasures were taken against Jesus, because any act of violence against\nhim in these days might easily excite an insurrection, on the part of\nhis numerous adherents among the visitants to the feast (Matt. xxvi. 5;\nMark xiv. 2): yet this consideration was superseded by the facility\nwith which one of his disciples offered to deliver him into their\nhands. Judas, surnamed \u1f38\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, doubtless on account of his origin\nfrom the Jewish city of Kerioth [1729] (Josh. xv. 25), went, according\nto the synoptists, a few days before the passover, to the heads of the\npriesthood, and volunteered to deliver Jesus quietly into their hands,\nfor which service they promised him money, according to Matthew, thirty\npieces of silver (\u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, Matt xxvi. 14 ff. parall.). Of such an\nantecedent transaction between Judas and the enemies of Jesus, the\nfourth gospel not only says nothing, but appears moreover to represent\nthe matter as if Judas had not formed the determination of betraying\nJesus to the priesthood, until the last supper, and had then promptly\nput it into execution. The same entering (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) of Satan into\nJudas, which Luke (xxii. 3) places before his first interview with the\nchief priests, and before any preparation had been made for Jesus and\nhis disciples to eat the passover together, is represented by the\nauthor of the fourth gospel as occurring at this meal, before Judas\nleft the company (xiii. 27): a proof, as it appears, that in the\nopinion of this Evangelist, Judas now made his first traitorous visit.\nHe does indeed observe, before the meal (xiii. 2), that the devil had\nput it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus, and this \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd is commonly regarded as the parallel of\nLuke\u2019s \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b7\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2 (Satan entered into him), being understood to\nimply the formation of the treacherous resolve, in consequence of which\nJudas went to the chief priests: but if he had previously been in\ntreaty with them, the betrayal was already completed, and it is then\nnot easy to perceive what can be meant by the words \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f41 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2 on the occasion of the last meal, since the summoning of\nthose who were to seize Jesus was no new diabolical resolution, but\nonly the execution of that which had already been embraced. The\nexpression in John v. 27 only obtains an entirely consistent sense in\ndistinction from v. 2, when the \u03b2\u03b1\u2019\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd in the latter,\nis understood of the rising of the thought, the \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd in the\nformer, of the ripening of this thought into resolution, the\nsupposition that Judas had pledged himself to the chief priests before\nthe meal being thus excluded. [1730] In this manner, however, the\nstatement of the synoptists that Judas, some time before the\nperpetration of his treacherous act, made a bargain with the enemies of\nJesus, stands in contradiction with that of John, that he only put\nhimself in league with them immediately before the deed; and here L\u00fccke\ndecides in favour of John, maintaining it to be after his departure\nfrom the last supper (xiii. 30), that Judas made that application to\nthe chief priests which the synoptists (Matt. xxvi. 14 f. parall.)\nplace before the meal. [1731] But this decision of L\u00fccke\u2019s is founded\nsolely on deference to the presupposed authority of John; for even if,\nas he remarks, Judas could very well obtain an interview with the\npriests when night had commenced: still, regarding the matter apart\nfrom any presuppositions, the probability is beyond comparison stronger\non the side of the synoptists, who allow some time for the affair, than\non that of John, according to whom it is altogether sudden, and Judas,\ntruly as if he were possessed, rushes out when it is already night to\ntreat with the priests, and immediately hurry to the deed.\n\nConcerning the motives which induced Judas to league himself with the\nenemies of Jesus, we learn from the three first gospels no more than\nthat he received money from the chief priests. This would indicate that\nhe was actuated by covetousness, especially according to the narrative\nin Matthew, where Judas, before he promises to betray Jesus, puts the\nquestion, What will ye give me? Clearer light is thrown on this subject\nby the statement of the fourth gospel (xii. 4 ff.), that on the\noccasion of the meal in Bethany, Judas was indignant at the anointing,\nas an unnecessary expenditure,\u2014that he carried the purse, and acted the\nthief in that office; whence it might be supposed that the avarice of\nJudas, no longer satisfied by his peculations on the funds of the\nsociety, hoped to reap a more considerable harvest by betraying Jesus\nto the rich and powerful sacerdotal party. We must hold ourselves under\nobligation to the author of the fourth gospel, that by the preservation\nof these particulars, which are wanting in the other Evangelists, he\nhas made the act of Judas somewhat more comprehensible,\u2014so soon as his\nstatements are shown to have an historical foundation. We have shown\nabove, however, how improbable it is that, had that censure really\nproceeded from Judas, the legend should have lost this trait; [1732]\nhow probable, on the other hand, a legendary origin of it, it is easy\nto discern. The meal at Bethany stood in the evangelical tradition near\nto the end of the life of Jesus, an end brought about by the treachery\nof Judas;\u2014how easily might the thought arise in some one, that the\nnarrow-minded censure of a noble prodigality could only come from the\ncovetous Judas? That the censure at the same time turned upon the\npropriety of selling the ointment for the benefit of the poor, could in\nthe mouth of Judas be only a pretext, behind which he concealed his\nselfishness: but advantage to himself from the sale of the ointment\ncould not be expected by him, unless he allowed himself to purloin some\nof the money saved; and this again he could not do unless he were the\npurse-bearer. If it thus appear possible for the statement that Judas\nwas a thief and had the bag, to have had an unhistorical origin: we\nhave next to inquire whether there are any reasons for supposing that\nsuch was actually the case.\n\nHere we must take into consideration another point on which the\nsynoptists and John differ, namely, the foreknowledge of Jesus that\nJudas would betray him. In the synoptical gospels, Jesus first\nmanifests this knowledge at the last supper, consequently at a time in\nwhich the deed of Judas had virtually been perpetrated; and apparently\nbut a short time before, Jesus had so little presentiment that one of\nthe twelve would be lost to him, that he promised them all, without\nexception, the honour of sitting on twelve thrones of judgment in the\npalingenesia (Matt. xix. 28). According to John, on the contrary, Jesus\ndeclares shortly before the time of the last passover but one,\nconsequently a year before the result, that one of the twelve is a\ndevil, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, meaning, according to the observation of the\nEvangelist, Judas, as his future betrayer (vi. 70); for, as it had been\nobserved shortly before (v. 64), Jesus knew from the beginning,\u2014who\nshould betray him. According to this, Jesus knew from the commencement\nof his acquaintance with Judas, that this disciple would prove a\ntraitor; and not merely did he foresee this external issue, but also,\nsince he knew what was in man (John ii. 25), he must have penetrated\nthe motives of Judas, namely, covetousness and love of money. And, if\nso, would he have made him purse-bearer, i.e. placed him in a position\nin which his propensity to seek gain by any means, even though\ndishonest, must have had the most abundant nourishment? Would he have\nmade him a thief by giving him opportunity, and thus, as if designedly,\nhave brought up in him a betrayer for himself? Considered simply in an\neconomical point of view, who entrusts a purse to one of whom he knows\nthat he robs it? Then, in relation to the idea of Jesus as a moral\nteacher, who places the weak in a situation which so constantly appeals\nto his weak point, as to render it certain that he will sooner or later\ngive way to the temptation? No truly: Jesus assuredly did not so play\nwith the souls immediately entrusted to him, did not exhibit to them so\ncompletely the opposite of what he taught them to pray for, lead us not\ninto temptation (Matt. vi. 13), as to have made Judas, of whom he\nforeknew that he would become his betrayer out of covetousness, the\npurse-bearer of his society; or, if he gave him this office, he cannot\nhave had such a foreknowledge.\n\nIn order to arrive at a decision in this alternative, we must consider\nthat foreknowledge separately, and inquire whether, apart from the\ntreasurership of Judas, it be probable or not? We shall not enter on\nthe question of the psychological possibility, because there is always\nfreedom of appeal to the divine nature of Jesus; but with regard to the\nmoral possibility it is to be asked, whether presupposing that\nforeknowledge, it be justifiable in Jesus to have chosen Judas among\nthe twelve, and to have retained him within this circle? As it was only\nby this vocation that his treachery as such could be rendered possible;\nso Jesus appears, if he foresaw this treachery, to have designedly\ndrawn him into the sin. It is urged that intercourse with Jesus\nafforded Judas the possibility of escaping that abyss: [1733] but Jesus\nis supposed to have foreseen that this possibility would not be\nrealized. It is further said that even in other circles the evil\nimplanted in Judas would not the less have developed itself in a\ndifferent form: a proposition which has a strong tinge of fatalism.\nAgain, when it is said to be of no avail to a man that the evil, the\ngerm of which lies within him, should not be developed, this appears to\nlead to consequences which are repudiated by the apostle Paul, Rom.\niii. 8, vi. 1 f. And regarding the subject in relation to feeling\nmerely,\u2014how could Jesus endure to have a man, of whom he knew that he\nwould be his betrayer, and that all instruction would be fruitless to\nhim, as his constant attendant throughout the whole period of his\npublic life? Must not the presence of such a person have every hour\ninterfered with his confidential intercourse with the rest of the\ntwelve? Assuredly they must have been weighty motives, for the sake of\nwhich Jesus imposed on himself anything so repugnant and difficult.\nSuch motives or objects must either have had relation to Judas, and\nthus have consisted in the design to make him better\u2014which however was\nprecluded by the decided foreknowledge of his crime; or they must have\nhad relation to Jesus himself and his work, i.e. Jesus had the\nconviction that if the work of redemption by means of his death were to\nbe effected, there must be one to betray him. [1734] But for the\npurpose of redemption, according to the Christian theory, the death of\nJesus was the only indispensable means: whether this should be brought\nabout by a betrayal, or in any other way, was of no moment, and that\nthe enemies of Jesus must, earlier or later, have succeeded in getting\nhim into their power without the aid of Judas, is undeniable. That the\nbetrayer was indispensable in order to bring about the death of Jesus\nexactly at the passover, which was a type of himself [1735]\u2014with such\ntrivialities it will scarcely be attempted to put us off in these days.\n\nIf then we are unable to discover any adequate motive which could\ninduce Jesus advertently to receive and retain in his society his\nbetrayer in the person of Judas: it appears decided that he cannot\nbeforehand have known him to be such. Schleiermacher, in order that he\nmay not infringe on the authority of John by denying this\nforeknowledge, prefers doubting that Jesus chose the twelve purely by\nhis own act, and supposes that this circle was rather formed by the\nvoluntary adherence of the disciples: since it would be more easy to\njustify the conduct of Jesus, if he merely refrained from rejecting\nJudas when he spontaneously offered himself than if he drew him to\nhimself by free choice. [1736] But hereby the authority of John is\nstill endangered, for it is he who makes Jesus say to the twelve: Ye\nhave not chosen me, but I have chosen you (xv. 16, comp. vi. 76);\nmoreover, even dismissing the idea of a decided act of election, still\nfor any one to remain constantly with Jesus there needed his permission\nand sanction, and even these he could not, acting humanly, give to a\nman of whom he knew that, by means of this relation to himself, he\nwould be enabled to mature the blackest crime. It is said, however,\nthat Jesus put himself entirely into the Divine point of view, and\nadmitted Judas into his society, for the sake of the possibility of\nreformation which he yet foreknew would never be realised; but this\nwould be a Divine inhumanity,\u2014not the conduct of the God-man. If,\naccording to this, it is extremely difficult to maintain as historical\nthe statement of the fourth gospel, that Jesus from the beginning knew\nJudas to be his betrayer: so it is equally easy to discern what even\nwithout historical foundation might lead to such a representation.\n\nIt would be natural to suppose, that the fact of Jesus being betrayed\nby one of his own disciples, would be injurious to him in the eyes of\nhis enemies, even if we did not know that Celsus, in the character of a\nJew, reproached Jesus that he was betrayed by one of those whom he\ncalled his disciples, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u1f66 \u1f60\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7, as a proof\nthat he was less able to attach his followers to himself than every\nrobber-chief. [1737] Now as the injurious consequences to be drawn from\nthe ignominious death of Jesus, appeared to be most completely obviated\nby the assertion that he had long foreknown his death: so, the\narguments against Jesus derived from the treachery of Judas, might seem\nto be most effectually repelled by the statement, that he had\npenetrated into the character of the traitor from the first, and could\nhave escaped what his treason prepared for him; since this would\ninvolve the inference that he had exposed himself to the effects of his\nfaithlessness by his own free will, and out of higher considerations.\n[1738] This method included a second advantage, which attaches to the\nenunciator of every prediction alleged to be fulfilled, and which the\nfourth Evangelist naively makes his Jesus express, when, after the\nexposure of the betrayer, he puts into his mouth the words: Now I tell\nyou before it come, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I\nam he (xiii. 19)\u2014In fact, the best motto for every vaticinium post\neventum. These two objects were the more completely attained, the\nearlier the period in the life of Jesus to which this foreknowledge was\nreferred; whence it is to be explained why the author of the fourth\ngospel, not satisfied with the ordinary representation, that Jesus\npredicted his betrayal by Judas at the last supper, placed his\nknowledge on this subject in the commencement of the connexion between\nhim and Judas. [1739]\n\nThis early knowledge on the part of Jesus concerning the treachery of\nJudas being dismissed as unhistorical, there would be room for the\nstatement that Judas carried the purse of the society; since this\nparticular only appeared incompatible with the above foreknowledge,\nwhile, if Jesus was in general mistaken in Judas, he might, under this\nerror, have entrusted the funds to him. But by the proof that the\nrepresentation of John, in relation to the knowledge of Jesus\nconcerning his betrayer, is a fictitious one, its credibility in this\nmatter is so shaken, that no confidence can be placed in the other\nstatement. If the author of the fourth gospel has embellished the\nrelation between Jesus and Judas on the side connected with Jesus, he\ncan scarcely have left the side of Judas unadorned; if he has\nintroduced the fact, that Jesus was betrayed, by making Jesus foresee\nthis part of his destiny, his other statement, that Judas had\nbeforehand exhibited his avarice by a dishonest use of the common\npurse, may easily be only an introduction to the fact, that Jesus was\nbetrayed by Judas.\n\nBut even though we renounce the information given by John concerning\nthe character and motives of Judas: we still retain, in the\nforementioned statement of the synoptists, the most decided intimation\nthat the chief motive of his deed was covetousness.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 119.\n\nDIFFERENT OPINIONS CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF JUDAS, AND THE MOTIVES\nOF HIS TREACHERY.\n\nFrom the earliest to the latest times there have been persons, who have\nheld opinions at issue with this view of the New Testament writers\nconcerning the motives of Judas, and with their entirely reprobatory\njudgment upon them (comp. Acts i. 16 ff.); and this divergency has\narisen partly out of an exaggerated supranaturalism, and partly out of\na rationalistic bias.\n\nAn over-strained supranaturalism, proceeding from the point of view\npresented in the New Testament itself, namely, that the death of Jesus,\ndecreed in the Divine plan of the world for the salvation of mankind,\nmight even regard Judas, by whose treachery the death of Jesus was\nbrought about, as a blameless instrument in the hand of Providence, a\nco-operator in the redemption of mankind. He might be placed in this\nlight by the supposition that he had knowledge of that Divine decree,\nand that its fulfilment was the object at which he aimed in betraying\nJesus. We actually find this mode of viewing the subject on the part of\nthe gnostic sect of the Cainites, who, according to the ancient writers\non heresies, held that Judas had liberated himself from the narrow\nJewish opinions of the other disciples and attained to the gnosis, and\naccordingly betrayed Jesus because he knew that by his death the\nkingdom of the inferior spirits who ruled the world would be\noverthrown. [1740] Others in the early church admitted that Judas\nbetrayed Jesus out of covetousness; maintaining, however, that he did\nnot anticipate the death of Jesus as a consequence of his betrayal, but\nsupposed that he would, as he had often previously done, escape from\nhis enemies by an exertion of his supernatural power: [1741] an opinion\nwhich forms the transition to the modern methods of justifying the\ntraitor.\n\nAs the above mentioned supranaturalistic exaltation of Judas by the\nCainites immediately proceeded from their antagonistic position with\nrespect to Judaism, in virtue of which they had made it a principle to\nhonour all who were blamed by the Jewish authors of the Old Testament,\nand the judaizing authors of the New, and vice vers\u00e2: so Rationalism\nespecially in its first indignation at the long subjection of the\nreason to the fetters of authority, felt a certain delight both in\ndivesting of their nimbus those biblical personages who according to\nits views had been too zealously deified by orthodoxy, and also in\ndefending and elevating those who were condemned or depreciated by the\nlatter. Hence, in the Old Testament, the exaltation of Esau over Jacob,\nof Saul over Samuel; in the New, of Martha over Mary, the eulogiums on\nthe doubting Thomas, and now the apology even for the traitor Judas.\nAccording to some, he became a criminal out of injured honour: the\nmanner in which Jesus reproved him at the meal at Bethany, and, in\ngeneral, the inferior degree of regard which he experienced in\ncomparison with other disciples, converted his love for his teacher\ninto hatred and revenge. [1742] Others have preferred the conjecture\npreserved by Theophylact, that Judas may have hoped to see Jesus this\ntime also escape from his enemies. Some have taken up this idea in the\nsupranaturalistic sense, supposing it to be the expectation of Judas\nthat Jesus would set himself at liberty by an exertion of his\nmiraculous power; [1743] others consistently with their point of view\nhave supposed that Judas may probably have expected that if Jesus were\ntaken prisoner the people would raise an insurrection in his favour and\nset him at liberty. [1744] These opinions represent Judas as one who,\nin common with the other disciples, conceived the messianic kingdom as\nan earthly and political one, and hence was discontented that Jesus so\nlong abstained from availing himself of the popular favour, in order to\nassume the character of the messianic ruler. Instigated either by\nattempts at bribery on the part of the Sanhedrim, or by the rumour of\ntheir plan to seize Jesus in secret after the feast, Judas sought to\nforestall this project, which must have been fatal to Jesus, and to\nbring about his arrest before the expiration of the feast time, in\nwhich he might certainly hope to see Jesus liberated by an\ninsurrection, by which means he would be compelled at last to throw\nhimself into the arms of the people, and thus take the decisive step\ntowards the establishment of his dominion. When he heard Jesus speak of\nthe necessity of his being captured, and of his rising again in three\ndays, he understood these expressions as an intimation of the\nconcurrence of Jesus in his plan; under this mistake, he partly failed\nto hear, and partly misinterpreted, his additional admonitory\ndiscourse; and especially understood the words: What thou doest, do\nquickly, as an actual encouragement to the execution of his design. He\ntook the thirty pieces of silver from the priests either to conceal his\nreal intentions under the appearance of covetousness, and thus to lull\nevery suspicion on their part; or, because, while he expected an\nexaltation to one of the first places in the kingdom of his master, he\nwas not unwilling to combine with it even that small advantage. But\nJudas had miscalculated in two points: first, in not considering that\nafter the feasting of the paschal night, the people would not be early\non the alert for an insurrection; secondly, in overlooking the\nprobability, that the Sanhedrim would hasten to deliver Jesus into the\nhands of the Romans, from whom a popular insurrection would hardly\nsuffice to deliver him. Thus Judas is supposed to be either an honest\nman misunderstood, [1745] or a deluded one, who however was of no\ncommon character, but exhibited even in his despair the wreck of\napostolic greatness; [1746] or, he is supposed, by evil means, indeed,\nto have sought the attainment of an object, which was nevertheless\ngood. [1747] Neander imagines the two opposite opinions concerning\nJesus, the supernatural and the natural, to have presented themselves\nto the mind of Judas in the form of a dilemma, so that he reasoned\nthus: if Jesus is the Messiah, a delivery into the hands of his enemies\nwill, owing to his supernatural power, in no way injure him, but will,\non the contrary, serve to accelerate his glorification: if, on the\nother hand, he is not the Messiah, he deserves destruction. According\nto this, the betrayal was merely a test, by which the doubting disciple\nmeant to try the messiahship of his master. [1748]\n\nAmong these views, that which derives the treachery of Judas from\nwounded ambition, is the only one which can adduce a positive\nindication in its favour: namely, the repulse which the traitor drew on\nhimself from Jesus at the meal in Bethany. But against such an appeal\nto this reproof we have already, on another occasion, applied the\nremark of the most recent criticism, that its mildness, especially as\ncompared with the far more severe rebuke administered to Peter, Matt.\nxvi. 23, must forbid our attributing to it such an effect as the\nrancour which it is supposed to have engendered in Judas; [1749] while\nthat in other instances he was less considered than his\nfellow-disciples, we have nowhere any trace.\n\nAll the other conjectures as to what was properly the motive of the\ndeed of Judas, can only be supported by negative grounds, i.e. grounds\nwhich make it improbable in general that his project had a bad aim, and\nin particular, that his motive was covetousness; a positive proof, that\nhe intended to further the work of Jesus, and especially that he was\nactuated by violent political views of the Messiah\u2019s kingdom, is not to\nbe discovered.\u2014That Judas had in general no evil designs against Jesus\nis argued chiefly from the fact, that after the delivery of Jesus to\nthe Romans, and the inevitableness of his death had come to his\nknowledge, he fell into despair; this being regarded as a proof that he\nhad expected an opposite result. But not only does the unfortunate\nresult of crime, as Paulus thinks, but also its fortunate result, that\nis, its success, \u201cexhibit that which had before been veiled under a\nthousand extenuating pretexts, in all the blackness of its real form.\u201d\nCrime once become real, once passed into act, throws off the mask which\nit might wear while it remained merely ideal, and existed in thought\nalone; hence, as little as the repentance of many a murderer, when he\nsees his victim lie before him, proves that he did not really intend to\ncommit the murder; so little can the anguish of Judas, when he saw\nJesus beyond rescue, prove that he had not beforehand contemplated the\ndeath of Jesus as the issue of his deed.\n\nBut, it is further said, covetousness cannot have been the motive of\nJudas; for if gain had been his object, he could not be blind to the\nfact that the continued charge of the purse in the society of Jesus,\nwould yield him more than the miserable thirty pieces of silver (from\n20 to 25 thalers, [1750] of our money), a sum which among the Jews\nformed the compensation for a wounded slave, being four months\u2019 wages.\nBut these thirty pieces of silver are in vain sought for in any other\nnarrator than Matthew. John is entirely silent as to any reward offered\nto Judas by the priests; Mark and Luke speak indefinitely of money\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, which they had promised him; and Peter in the Acts (i. 18)\nmerely mentions a reward, \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2, which Judas obtained. Matthew,\nhowever, who alone has that definite sum, leaves us at the same time in\nno doubt as to the historical value of his statement. After relating\nthe end of Judas (xxvii. 9 f.), he cites a passage from Zechariah (xi.\n12 f.; he ascribes it by mistake to Jeremiah), wherein likewise thirty\npieces of silver appear as a price at which some one is valued. It is\ntrue that in the prophetic passage the thirty pieces of silver are not\ngiven as purchase money, but as hire; he to whom they are paid is the\nprophet, the representative of Jehovah, and the smallness of the sum is\nan emblem of the slight value which the Jews set upon the divine\nbenefits so plentifully bestowed on them. [1751] But how easily might\nthis passage, where there was mention of a shamefully low price\n(ironically a goodly price \u200f\u05d0\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u200e), at which the Israelites had\nrated the speaker in the prophecy, remind a Christian reader of his\nMessiah, who, in any case, had been sold for a paltry price compared\nwith his value, and hence be led to determine by this passage, the\nprice which was paid to Judas for betraying Jesus. [1752] Thus the\nthirty pieces of silver, \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, present no support to those\nwho would prove that it could not be the reward which made Judas a\ntraitor; for they leave us as ignorant as ever how great or how small\nwas the reward which Judas received. Neither can we, with Neander,\nconclude that the sum was trifling from Matt xxvii. 6 ff.; Acts i. 18,\nwhere it is said that a field, \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 or \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, was purchased with the\nreward assigned to the treachery of Judas; since, even apart from the\nhistorical value of that statement, hereafter to be examined, the two\nexpressions adduced may denote a larger or a smaller piece of land, and\nthe additional observations of Matthew, that it was destined to bury\nstrangers in, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 will not allow us to think of a\nvery small extent. How the same theologian can discover in the\nstatement of the two intermediate Evangelists, that the Jewish rulers\nhad promised Judas money, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, an intimation that the sum was\nsmall, it is impossible to conceive.\u2014Far more weighty is the\nobservation above made with a different aim, that Jesus would scarcely\nhave appointed and retained as purse-bearer one whom he knew to be\ncovetous even to dishonesty; whence Neander directly infers that the\nfourth Evangelist, when he derived the remark of Judas at the meal in\nBethany from his covetousness, put a false construction upon it, in\nconsequence of the idea which ultimately prevailed respecting Judas,\nand especially added the accusation, that Judas robbed the common fund,\nout of his own imagination. [1753] But in opposition to this it is to\nbe asked, whether in Neander\u2019s point of view it be admissible to impute\nto the apostle John, who is here understood to be the author of the\nfourth gospel, so groundless a calumny\u2014for such it would be according\nto Neander\u2019s supposition; and, in our point of view, it would at least\nbe more natural to conclude, that Jesus indeed knew Judas to be fond of\nmoney, but did not until the last believe him to be dishonest, and\nhence did not consider him unfit for the post in question. Neander\nobserves in conclusion: if Judas could be induced by money to betray\nJesus, he must have long lost all true faith in him. This indeed\nfollows of necessity, and must be supposed in every view of the\nsubject; but this extinction of faith could of itself only lead him to\ngo back, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9 (John vi. 66); in order to prompt him to\nmeditate treachery there must be a further, special incitement, which,\nintrinsically, might just as well be covetousness, as the views which\nare attributed to him by Neander and others.\n\nThat covetousness, considered as such an immediate motive, suffices to\nexplain the deed of Judas, I will not maintain; I only contend that any\nother motives are neither stated nor anywhere intimated in the gospels,\nand that consequently every hypothesis as to their existence is built\non the air. [1754]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 120.\n\nPREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER.\n\nOn the first day of unleavened bread, in the evening of which the\npaschal lamb was to be slain, consequently, the day before the feast\nproperly speaking, which however commenced on that evening, i.e. the\n14th of Nisan, Jesus, according to the two first Evangelists, in\ncompliance with a question addressed to Him by the disciples,\nsent\u2014Matthew leaves it undecided which and how many, Mark says, two\ndisciples, whom Luke designates as Peter and John\u2014to Jerusalem (perhaps\nfrom Bethany), to bespeak a place in which he might partake of the\npassover with them, and to make the further arrangements (Matt. xxvi.\n17 ff. parall.). The three narrators do not altogether agree as to the\ndirections which Jesus gave to these disciples. According to all, he\nsends them to a man of whom they had only to desire, in the name of\ntheir master \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, a place in which to celebrate the passover, in\norder at once to have their want supplied: but first, this locality is\nmore particularly described by the two intermediate Evangelists than by\nMatthew, namely as a large upper room, which was already furnished and\nprepared for the reception of guests; and secondly, the manner in which\nthey were to find the owner, is described by the former otherwise than\nby the latter. Matthew makes Jesus merely say to the disciples, that\nthey were to go to such a man, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1: the others, that, being\ncome into the city, they would meet a man bearing a pitcher of water,\nwhom they were to follow into the house which he should enter, and\nthere make their application to the owner.\n\nIn this narrative there have been found a multitude of difficulties,\nwhich Gabler has assembled in a special treatise. [1755] At the very\nthreshold of the narrative it occasions surprise, that Jesus should not\nhave thought of any preparation for the passover until the last day,\nnay, that he should even then have needed to be reminded of it by the\ndisciples, as the two first Evangelists tell us: for owing to the great\ninflux of people at the time of the passover (2,700,000, according to\nJosephus), [1756] the accommodations in the city were soon disposed of,\nand the majority of the strangers were obliged to encamp in tents\nbefore the city. It is the more remarkable, then, that, notwithstanding\nall this the messengers of Jesus find the desired chamber disengaged,\nand not only so, but actually kept in reserve by the owner and prepared\nfor a repast, as if he had had a presentiment that it would be bespoken\nby Jesus. And so confidently is this reckoned on by Jesus that he\ndirects his disciples to ask the owner of the house,\u2014not whether he can\nobtain from him a room in which to eat the passover, but merely\u2014where\nthe guest-chamber appropriated to this purpose may be? or, if we take\nMatthew\u2019s account, he directs them to say to him that he will eat the\npassover at his house; to which it must be added that, according to\nMark and Luke, Jesus even knows what kind of chamber will be assigned\nhim, and in what part of the house it is situated. But the way in\nwhich, according to these two Evangelists, the two disciples were to\nfind their way to the right house, is especially remarkable. The words\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1 in Matthew (v. 18), sound as if\nJesus had named the person to whom the disciples were to go, but that\nthe narrator either would not or could not repeat it: whereas in the\ntwo other Evangelists, Jesus indicates the house into which they were\nto enter, by means of a person whom they would meet carrying a vessel\nof water. Now how could Jesus in Bethany, or wherever else he might be,\nforeknow this accidental circumstance, unless, indeed, it had been\npre-concerted that at this particular time a servant from the house\nshould appear with a vessel of water, and thus await the messengers of\nJesus? To the rationalistic expositors everything in our narrative\nappeared to point to a preconcerted arrangement; and this being\npresupposed, they believed that all its difficulties would at once be\nsolved. The disciples, dispatched so late, could only find a room\ndisengaged if it had been previously bespoken by Jesus; he could only\ndirect them to address the owner of the house so categorically, if he\nhad already previously made an arrangement with him; this would explain\nthe precise knowledge of Jesus as to the locality, and, lastly, (the\npoint from which this explanation sets out), his certainty that the\ndisciples would meet a man carrying water from that particular house.\nThis circumlocutory manner of indicating the house, which might have\nbeen avoided by the simple mention of the owner\u2019s name, is supposed to\nhave been adopted by Jesus, that the place where he intended to keep\nthe passover might not be known before the time to the betrayer, who\nwould otherwise perhaps have surprised him there, and thus have\ndisturbed the repast. [1757]\n\nBut such is not at all the impression produced by the evangelical\nnarrative. Of a preconcerted arrangement, of a previous bespeaking of\nthe apartment, it says nothing; on the contrary, the words, they found\nas he had said unto them, in Mark and Luke, seem intended to convey the\nidea that Jesus was able to predict everything as they afterwards\nactually found it; a solicitous foresight is nowhere indicated, but\nrather a miraculous foreknowledge. Here, in fact, as above in the\nprocuring of the animal for the entrance into Jerusalem, we have a\ntwofold miracle: first, the fact that everything stands ready to supply\nthe wants of Jesus, and that no one is able to withstand the power of\nhis name; secondly, the ability of Jesus to take cognizance of distant\ncircumstances, and to predict the merest fortuities. [1758] It must\ncreate surprise that, forcibly as this supranaturalistic conception of\nthe narrative before us urges itself upon the reader, Olshausen himself\nseeks to elude it, by arguments which would nullify most of the\nhistories of miracles, and which we are accustomed to hear only from\nrationalists. To the impartial expositor, he says, [1759] the narrative\ndoes not present the slightest warrant for a miraculous interpretation\n(we almost fancy ourselves transported into the commentary of Paulus);\nif the narrators intended to recount a miracle, they must have\nexpressly observed that no previous arrangement had been made\n(precisely the rationalistic demand\u2014if a cure were meant to be\nrecognised as a miracle, the application of natural means must have\nbeen expressly denied); moreover the object of such a miracle is not to\nbe discerned, a strengthening of the faith of the disciples was not\nthen necessary, nor was it to be effected by this unimportant miracle,\nafter the more exalted ones which had preceded it:\u2014grounds on which the\nthoroughly similar narrative of the procuring of the ass for the\nentrance, which Olshausen upholds as a miracle, would be equally\nexcluded from the sphere of the supernatural.\n\nThe present narrative, indeed, is so strikingly allied to the earlier\none just mentioned, that in relation to their historical reality, the\nsame judgment must be passed on both. In the one as in the other, Jesus\nhas a want, the speedy supply of which is so cared for by God, that\nJesus foreknows to the minutest particular the manner in which it is to\nbe supplied; in the one he needs a guest chamber, as in the other an\nanimal on which to ride; in the one as in the other, he sends out two\ndisciples, to bespeak the thing required; in the one he gives them as a\nsign by which to find the right house\u2014a man carrying water whom they\nare to meet, as in the other they have a sign in the circumstance of\nthe ass being tied where two roads meet; in the one as in the other, he\ndirects his disciples simply to mention him to the owner, in the one\ncase as the master, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, in the other, as the lord, \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, in\norder to ensure unhesitating compliance with his demand; in both\ninstances the result closely corresponds to his prediction. In the\nnarrative more immediately under our consideration, as in the earlier\none, there is wanting an adequate object, for the sake of which so\nmanifold a miracle should have been ordained; while the motive which\nmight occasion the development of the miraculous narrative in the\nprimitive Christian legend is obvious. An Old Testament narrative, to\nwhich we have already had occasion to refer in connexion with the\nearlier miracle, is still more strikingly recalled by the one before\nus. After disclosing to Saul that he was destined to be King of Israel,\nSamuel, as a sign of the truth of this more remote announcement,\nforetells whom Saul will meet on his return homewards: namely, first\ntwo men with the information that his father\u2019s asses are found; then\nthree others, who will be carrying animals for sacrifice, bread and\nwine, and will offer him some of the bread, etc. (1 Sam. x. 1 ff.):\nwhence we see by what kind of predictions the Hebrew legend made its\nprophets attest their inspiration.\n\nAs regards the relation of the gospels to each other, the narrative of\nMatthew is commonly placed far below that of the two other synoptists,\nand regarded as the later and more traditional. [1760] The circumstance\nof the man carrying water, especially, is held to have belonged to the\noriginal fact, but to have been lost in tradition before the narrative\nreached Matthew, who inserted in its place the enigmatical \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1, go to such a man. But we have seen, on the contrary, that\nthe \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1 presents no difficulty; while the circumstance of the\nwater-bearer is in the highest degree enigmatical. [1761] Still less is\nthe omission of Matthew to designate the two commissioned disciples as\nPeter and John, an indication that the narrative of the third gospel is\nthe more original one. For when Schleiermacher says that this trait\nmight easily be lost in the course of transmission through several\nhands, but that it could scarcely have been added by a later hand,\u2014the\nlatter half of his proposition, at least, is without foundation. There\nis little probability that Jesus should have assigned so purely\neconomical an office to the two most eminent disciples; whereas it is\neasy to conceive that in the first instance it was simply narrated, as\nby Matthew, that Jesus sent the disciples or some disciples, that\nhereupon the number was fixed at two, perhaps from the narrative of the\nprocuring of the ass, and that at length, as the appointment had\nrelation to a task which was ultimately of high importance,\u2014the\npreparing of the last meal of Jesus,\u2014these places were filled by the\ntwo chief apostles, so that in this instance even Mark appears to have\nkept nearer to the original fact, since he has not adopted into his\nnarrative the names of the two disciples, which are presented by Luke.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 121.\n\nDIVERGENT STATEMENTS RESPECTING THE TIME OF THE LAST SUPPER.\n\nNot only does the fourth Evangelist omit all mention of the above\narrangements for the paschal meal; he also widely diverges from the\nsynoptists in relation to the meal itself. Independently of the\ndifference which runs throughout the description of the scene, and\nwhich can only be hereafter considered, he appears, in regard to the\ntime of the meal, to represent it as occurring before the passover, as\ndecidedly as it is represented by the synoptists to be the paschal meal\nitself.\n\nWhen we read in the latter, that the day on which the disciples were\ndirected by Jesus to prepare for the meal, was already the first day of\nunleavened bread, \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b6\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, when the passover must be killed,\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f97 \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 (Matt. xxvi. 17 parall.): we cannot suppose\nthe meal in question to have been any other than the paschal; further,\nwhen the disciples ask Jesus, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee\nto eat the passover? \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1; when\nit is hereupon said of the disciples, that they made ready the\npassover, \u1f21\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 (Matt. v. 19 parall.), and of Jesus, that\nwhen evening was come, he sat down with the twelve, \u1f40\u03c8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 (v. 20): the meal to which they here sat down\nappears to be marked out even to the superfluity as the paschal, even\nif Luke (xxii. 15) did not make Jesus open the repast with the words:\nWith desire I have desired to eat this passover with you, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u1fb3\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.\u2014When, on the other hand, the\nfourth gospel commences its narrative of the last meal with the\nstatement of time: before the feast of the passover, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1, (xiii. 1); the supper, \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, which is mentioned\nimmediately after (v. 2), appears also to happen before the passover;\nespecially as throughout John\u2019s description of this evening, which,\nespecially in relation to the discourses accompanying the meal, is very\nample, there is not any notice or even allusion, to indicate that Jesus\nwas on this occasion celebrating the passover. Further, when Jesus\nafter the meal addresses the traitor with the summons, what thou doest,\ndo quickly, this is misunderstood by the rest of the disciples to mean,\nBuy those things that we have need of against the feast, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\n(v. 29). Now the requirements for the feast related chiefly to the\npaschal meal, and consequently the meal just concluded cannot have been\nthe paschal. Again, it is said, xviii. 28, that on the following\nmorning, the Jews would not enter the Gentile pr\u00e6torium, lest they\nshould be defiled; but that they might eat the passover, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1, \u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1: whence it would seem that the\npaschal meal was yet in prospect. To this it may be added that this\nsame succeeding day, on which Jesus was crucified, is called the\npreparation of the passover, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1, i.e. the day on the\nevening of which the paschal lamb was to be eaten; moreover, when it is\nsaid of the second day after the meal in question, being that which\nJesus passed in the grave: that sabbath day was an high day, \u1f26\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 \u1f21 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (xix. 31); this peculiar solemnity\nappears to have proceeded from the circumstance, that on that sabbath\nfell the first day of the passover, so that the paschal lamb was not\neaten on the evening on which Jesus was arrested, but on the evening of\nhis burial.\n\nThese divergencies are so important, that many expositors, in order to\nprevent the Evangelists from falling into contradiction with each\nother, have here also tried the old expedient of supposing that they do\nnot speak of the same thing\u2014that John intends to describe an altogether\ndifferent repast from that of the synoptists. According to this view,\nthe \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd of John was an ordinary evening meal, doubtless in Bethany;\non this occasion Jesus washed the disciples\u2019 feet, spoke of the\nbetrayer, and after Judas had left the company, added other discourses\nof a consoling and admonitory tendency, until at length, on the morning\nof the 14th of Nisan, he summoned the disciples to depart from Bethany\nand proceed to Jerusalem, in the words: Arise, let us go hence (xiv.\n31). Here the synoptical account may be interposed, since it represents\nthe two disciples as being sent forward to Jerusalem to prepare for the\npaschal meal, and then records its celebration, concerning which John\nis silent, and only takes up the thread of the narrative at the\ndiscourses delivered after the paschal meal (xv. 1 ff.). [1762] But\nthis attempt to avoid contradiction by referring the respective\nnarratives to totally different events, is counteracted by the\nundeniable identity of many features in the two meals. Independently of\nisolated particulars which are found alike in both accounts, it is\nplain that John, as well as the synoptists, intends to describe the\nlast meal of which Jesus partook with his disciples. This is implied in\nthe introduction to John\u2019s narrative; for the proof which is there said\nto be given of Jesus having loved his own unto the end, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, may\nbe the most suitably referred to his last moments of companionship with\nthem. In like manner, the discourses after the meal point to the\nprospect of immediate separation; and the meal and discourses are, in\nJohn also, immediately followed by the departure to Gethsemane and the\narrest of Jesus. It is true that, according to the above opinion, these\nlast-named incidents are connected only with those discourses which\nwere delivered on the occasion of the later meal, omitted by John (xv.\n17): but that between xiv. 31 and xv. 1 the author of the fourth gospel\nintentionally omitted the whole incident of the paschal meal, is a\nposition which, although it might appear to explain with some\nplausibility the singular \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, \u1f04\u03b3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, Arise, let us go\nhence, no one will now seriously maintain. But even admitting such an\nellipsis, there still remains the fact that Jesus (xiii. 38) foretells\nto Peter his denial with this determination of time: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1\n\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3, the cock shall not crow, which he could only make use of at the\nlast meal, and not, as is here presupposed, at an earlier one. [1763]\n\nThus this expedient must be relinquished, and it must be admitted that\nall the Evangelists intend to speak of the same meal, namely, the last\nof which Jesus partook with his disciples. And in making this\nadmission, the fairness which we owe to every author, and which was\nbelieved to be due in a peculiar degree to the authors of the Bible,\nappeared to demand an enquiry whether, although they represent one and\nthe same event with great divergencies in several respects, yet\nnevertheless both sides may not be correct. To obtain an affirmative\nresult of this inquiry it must be shown, as regards the time, either\nthat the three first Evangelists, as well as the fourth, do not intend\nto describe a paschal meal, or that the latter, as well as the former,\ndoes so intend.\n\nIn an ancient Fragment [1764] it is sought to solve the problem in the\nfirst method, by denying that Matthew places the last meal of Jesus at\nthe proper time for the paschal meal, the evening of the 14th of Nisan,\nand his passion on the first day of the feast of the passover, the 15th\nof Nisan; but one does not see how the express indications respecting\nthe passover in the synoptists can be neutralized.\n\nHence it has been a far more general attempt in recent times, to draw\nJohn to the side of the other Evangelists. [1765] His expression before\nthe feast of the passover, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 (xiii. 1), was\nthought to be divested of its difficulty by the observation that it is\nnot immediately connected with the supper \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, but only with the\nstatement that Jesus knew that his hour was come, and that he loved his\nown unto the end; it is only in the succeeding verse that there is any\nmention of the meal, to which therefore that determination of time does\nnot refer. But to what then can it refer? to the knowledge that his\nhour was come? this is only an incidental remark; or to the love which\nendured to the end? but to this so special a determination of time can\nonly refer, if an external proof of love be intended, and such an one\nis presented in his conduct at the meal, which consequently remains the\npoint to which that determination of the day must apply. It is\ntherefore conjectured further that the words \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 were used\nout of accommodation to the Greeks for whom John wrote: since that\npeople did not, like the Jews, begin their day with the evening, the\nmeal taken at the beginning of the first day of the passover, would\nappear to them to be taken on the evening before the passover. But what\njudicious writer, if he supposes a misconstruction possible on the part\nof the reader, chooses language which can only serve to encourage that\nmisconstruction? A still more formidable difficulty is presented by\nxviii. 28, where the Jews, on the morning after the imprisonment of\nJesus, will not enter the judgment hall lest they should be defiled,\nbut that they may eat the passover, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1.\nNevertheless it was supposed that passages such as Deut. xvi. 1, 2,\nwhere all the sacrifices to be killed during the time of the passover\nare denoted by the expression \u200f\u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05e1\u05b7\u05d7\u200e, authorise the interpretation of \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 in this place of the remaining sacrifices to be offered during\nthe paschal week, and especially of the Chagiga, which was to be\nconsumed towards the end of the first feast day. But as Mosheim has\ncorrectly remarked, from the fact that the paschal lamb, together with\nthe rest of the sacrifices to be offered during the feast of the\npassover was designated \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1, it by no means follows that these can be\nso designated with the exclusion of the paschal lamb. [1766] On the\nother hand, the friends of the above view have sought to show the\nnecessity of their mode of interpretation, by observing that for the\neating of the passover which was celebrated late in the evening,\nconsequently at the commencement of the succeeding day, the entering of\na Gentile house in the morning, being a defilement which lasted only\nthrough the current day, would have been no disqualification; but that\nit would have been such for the partaking of the Chagiga, which was\neaten in the afternoon, consequently on the same day on which the\ndefilement was contracted; so that only this, and not the passover, can\nhave been intended. But first, we do not know whether entrance into a\nGentile house was a defilement for the day merely; secondly, if such\nwere the case, the Jews, by a defilement contracted in the morning,\nwould still have disqualified themselves from participating in the\npreparatory proceedings, which fell on the afternoon of the 14th of\nNisan; as, for example, the slaying of the lamb in the outer court of\nthe temple. Lastly, in order to interpret the passage xix. 14 in\nconsistency with their own view, the harmonists understand the\npreparation of the passover, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1, to mean the day of\npreparation for the sabbath in the Easter week; a violence of\ninterpretation which at least finds no countenance in xix. 31, where\nthe \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1f74 is said to be the preparation for the sabbath, since from\nthis passage it only appears, that the Evangelist conceived the first\nday of the passover as occurring that year on the sabbath. [1767]\n\nThese difficulties, which resist the reference of the narrative in John\nto a real paschal meal, appeared to be obviated by a presupposition\nderived from Lev. xxiii. 5; Num. ix. 3; and a passage in Josephus;\n[1768] namely, that the paschal lamb was eaten, not on the evening from\nthe 14th to the 15th, but on that from the 13th to the 14th of Nisan,\nso that between the paschal meal and the first feast day, the 15th of\nNisan, there fell a working day, the 14th. On this supposition, it\nwould be correct that the day following the last paschal meal taken by\nJesus, should be called, as in John xix. 14, the preparation of the\npassover, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1, because it was actually a day of\npreparation for the feast day; it would also be correct that the\nfollowing sabbath should be called \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 (xix. 31), since it would\ncoincide with the first day of the feast. [1769] But the greatest\ndifficulty, which lies in John xviii. 28, remains unsolved; for on this\nplan the words, that they might eat the passover, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1,\nmust, since the paschal meal would be already past, be understood of\nthe unleavened bread, which was eaten also during the succeeding feast\ndays: an interpretation which is contrary to all the usages of\nlanguage. If to this it be added, that the supposition of a working day\nfalling between the passover and the first feast day, has no foundation\nin the Pentateuch and Josephus, that it is decidedly opposed to later\ncustom, and is in itself extremely improbable; this expedient cannot\nbut be relinquished. [1770]\n\nPerceiving the impossibility of effecting the reconciliation of the\nsynoptists with John by this simple method, other expositors have\nresorted to a more artificial expedient. The appearance of the\nEvangelists having placed the last meal of Jesus on different days, is\nalleged to have its truth in the fact, that either the Jews or Jesus\ncelebrated the passover on another than the usual day. The Jews, say\nsome, in order to avoid the inconvenience arising from the\ncircumstance, that in that year the first day of the passover fell on a\nFriday, so that two consecutive days must have been solemnized as a\nsabbath, deferred the paschal meal until the Friday evening, whence on\nthe day of the crucifixion they had still to beware of defilement;\nJesus, however, adhering strictly to the law, celebrated it at the\nprescribed time, on the Thursday evening: so that the synoptists are\nright when they describe the last meal of Jesus as an actual\ncelebration of the passover; and John also is right when he represents\nthe Jews as, the day after, still looking forward to the eating of the\npaschal lamb. [1771] In this case, Mark would be wrong in his\nstatement, that on the day when they killed the passover, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\n\u1f14\u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd (v. 12), Jesus also caused it to be prepared; but the main point\nis, that though in certain cases the passover was celebrated in a later\nmonth, it was still on the 15th day; there is nowhere any trace of a\ntransference to a later day of the same month.\u2014It has therefore been a\nmore favourite supposition that Jesus anticipated the usual time of\neating the passover. From purely personal motives, some have thought,\nforeseeing that at the proper time of the paschal supper he should be\nalready lying in the grave, or at least not sure of life until that\nperiod, he, like those Jews who were prevented from journeying to the\nfeast, and like all the Jews of the present day, without a sacrificed\nlamb, and with mere substitutes for it, celebrated a commemorative\npassover, \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd. [1772] But in the first place, Jesus\nwould not then, as Luke says, have kept the passover on the day on\nwhich the passover must be killed, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f97 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1; and\nsecondly, in the merely commemorative celebration of the passover,\nthough the prescribed locality (Jerusalem) is dispensed with, the\nregular time (the evening from the 14th to the 15th Nisan) is\ninviolably observed: whereas in the case of Jesus the reverse would\nhold, and he would have celebrated the passover at the usual place, but\nat an unusual time, which is without example. To shield the alleged\ntransposition of the passover by Jesus from the charge of being\nunprecedented and arbitrary, it has been maintained that an entire\nparty of his cotemporaries joined in celebrating the passover earlier\nthan the great body of the nation. It is known that the Jewish sect of\nthe Caraites or Scripturalists differed from the Rabbinites or\nTraditionalists especially in the determination of the new moon,\nmaintaining that the practice of the latter in fixing the new moon\naccording to astronomical calculation was an innovation, whereas they,\ntrue to the ancient, legal practice, determined it according to an\nempirical observation of the phase of the new luminary. Now in the time\nof Jesus, we are told, the Sadducees, from whom the Caraites are said\nto have sprung, determined the time of the new moon, and with it that\nof the festival of the passover, which was dependent upon it,\ndifferently from the Pharisees; and Jesus, as the opponent of tradition\nand the friend of scripture, favoured their practice in this matter.\n[1773] But not to insist that the connexion of the Caraites with the\nancient Sadducees is a mere conjecture; it was a well-founded objection\nput forth by the Caraites, that the determination of the new moon by\ncalculation did not arise until after the destruction of the temple by\nthe Romans; so that at the time of Jesus such a difference cannot have\nexisted; nor is there besides any indication to be discovered that at\nthat time the passover was celebrated on different days by different\nparties. [1774] Supposing, however, that the above difference as to the\ndetermining of the new moon already prevailed in the time of Jesus, the\nsettling of it according to the phase, which Jesus is supposed to have\nfollowed, would rather have resulted in a later than an earlier\ncelebration of the passover; whence some have actually conjectured that\nmore probably Jesus followed the astronomical calculation. [1775]\n\nBesides what may thus be separately urged against every attempt at an\namicable adjustment of the differences between the Evangelists, as to\nthe time of the last supper; there is one circumstance which is\ndecisive against all, and which only the most recent criticism has\nadequately exposed. With respect, namely, to this contradiction, the\ncase is not so that among passages for the most part harmonious, there\nappear only one or two statements of an apparently inconsistent sense,\nof which it might be said that the author had here used an inaccurate\nexpression, to be explained from the remaining passages: but, that all\nthe chronological statements of the synoptists tend to show that Jesus\nmust have celebrated the passover, all those of John, on the contrary,\nthat he cannot have celebrated it. [1776] Thus there stand opposed to\neach other two differing series of evangelical passages, which are\nmanifestly based on two different views of the fact on the part of the\nnarrators: hence, as Sieffert remarks, to persist in disputing the\nexistence of a divergency between the Evangelists, can no longer be\nregarded as scientific exposition, but only as unscientific\narbitrariness and obstinacy.\n\nModern criticism is therefore constrained to admit, that on one side or\nthe other there is an error; and, setting aside the current prejudices\nin favour of the fourth gospel, it was really an important reason which\nappeared to necessitate the imputation of this error to the synoptists.\nThe ancient Fragment attributed to Apollinaris, mentioned above,\nobjects to the opinion that Jesus suffered on the great day of\nunleavened bread, \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u1fc3 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b6\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, that this would\nhave been contrary to the law \u1f00\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3; and in recent times\nalso it has been observed, that the day following the last meal of\nJesus is treated on all sides so entirely as a working day, that it\ncannot be supposed the first day of the passover, nor, consequently,\nthe meal of the previous evening, the paschal meal. Jesus does not\nsolemnize the day, for he goes out of the city, an act which was\nforbidden on the night of the passover; nor do his friends, for they\nbegin the preparations for his burial, and only leave them unfinished\non account of the arrival of the next day, the sabbath; still less do\nthe members of the Sanhedrim keep it sacred, for they not only send\ntheir servants out of the city to arrest Jesus, but also personally\nundertake judicial proceedings, a trial, sentence, and accusation\nbefore the Procurator; in general, there appears, throughout, only the\nfear of desecrating the following day, which commenced on the evening\nof the crucifixion, and nowhere any solicitude about the current one:\nclear signs that the synoptical representation of the meal as a paschal\none, is a later error, since in the remaining narrative of the\nsynoptists themselves, there is evidence, not easy to be mistaken, of\nthe real fact, that Jesus was crucified before the passover. [1777]\nThese observations are certainly of weight. It is true that the first,\nrelative to the conduct of Jesus, might perhaps be invalidated by the\ncontradiction existing between the Jewish decisions as to the law\ncited; [1778] while the last and strongest may be opposed by the fact,\nthat trying and giving sentence on the sabbaths and feast days was not\nonly permitted among the Jews, but there was even a larger place for\nthe administration of justice on such days, on account of the greater\nconcourse of people; so, also, according to the New Testament itself,\nthe Jews sent out officers to seize Jesus on the great day \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\nof the Feast of Tabernacles (John vii. 44 f.), and at the Feast of\nDedication they were about to stone him (John x. 31), while Herod\ncaused Peter to be imprisoned during the days of unleavened bread;\nthough indeed he intended to defer the public sentencing and execution\nuntil after the passover (Acts xii. 2 f.). In proof that the\ncrucifixion of Jesus might take place on the feast of the passover, it\nis urged that the execution was performed by Roman soldiers; and that\nmoreover, even according to Jewish custom, it was usual to reserve the\nexecution of important criminals for a feast time, in order to make an\nimpression on a greater multitude. [1779] But only thus much is to be\nproved: that during the feast time, and thus during the passover, on\nthe five intermediate and less solemn days, criminals were tried and\nexecuted,\u2014not that this was admissible also on the first and last days\nof the passover, which ranked as sabbaths; [1780] and thus we read in\nthe Talmud that Jesus was crucified on the \u200f\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d4\u200e, i.e. the evening\nbefore the passover. [1781] It would be another thing if, as Dr. Baur\nstrives to prove, the execution of criminals, as a sanguinary expiation\nfor the people, belonged to the essential significance of the passover,\nas a feast of expiation, and hence the custom, noticed by the\nEvangelists, of liberating a prisoner at the feast had been only the\nreverse side to the execution of another, presenting the same relation\nas that between the two goats and the two sparrows in the Jewish\nofferings of atonement and purification. [1782]\n\nIt is certainly very possible that the primitive Christian tradition\nmight be led even unhistorically to associate the last supper of Jesus\nwith the paschal lamb, and the day of his death with the feast of the\npassover. As the Christian supper represented in its form, the\npassover, and in its import, the death of Jesus: it was natural enough\nto unite these two points\u2014to place the execution of Jesus on the first\nday of the passover, and to regard his last meal, at which he was held\nto have founded the Christian supper, as the paschal meal. It is true\nthat presupposing the author of the first gospel to have been an\napostle and a participator in the last meal of Jesus, it is difficult\nto explain how he could fall into such a mistake. At least it is not\nenough to say, with Theile, that the more the last meal partaken with\ntheir master transcended all paschal meals in interest to the\ndisciples, the less would they concern themselves as to the time of it,\nwhether it occurred on the evening of the passover, or a day earlier.\n[1783] For the first Evangelist does not leave this undetermined, but\nspeaks expressly of a paschal meal, and to this degree a real\nparticipator, however long he might write after that evening, could not\npossibly deceive himself. Thus on the above view, the supposition that\nthe first Evangelist was an eye-witness must be renounced, and he must\nbe held, in common with the two intermediate ones, to have drawn his\nmaterials from tradition. [1784] The difficulty arising from the fact,\nthat all the synoptists, and consequently all those writers who have\npreserved to us the common evangelical tradition, agree in such an\nerror, [1785] may perhaps be removed by the observation, that just as\ngenerally as in the Jud\u00e6o-Christian communities, in which the\nevangelical tradition was originally formed, the Jewish passover was\nstill celebrated, so generally must the effort present itself to give\nthat feast a Christian import, by referring it to the death and the\nlast meal of Jesus.\n\nBut it is equally easy, presupposing the correctness of the synoptical\ndetermination of time, to conceive how John might be led erroneously to\nplace the death of Jesus on the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, and his\nlast meal on the previous evening. If, namely, this Evangelist found in\nthe circumstance that the legs of the crucified Christ were not broken,\na fulfilment of the words Not a bone of him shall be broken, \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 (Exod. xii. 46): this supposed relation between the\ndeath of Jesus and the paschal lamb might suggest to him the idea, that\nat the same time in which the paschal lambs were killed, on the\nafternoon of the 14th of Nisan, Jesus suffered on the cross and gave up\nthe ghost; [1786] in which case the meal taken the evening before was\nnot the paschal meal. [1787]\n\nThus we can conceive a possible cause of error on both sides, and since\nthe internal difficulty of the synoptical determination of time,\nnamely, the manifold violations of the first day of the passover, is in\nsome degree removed by the observations above cited, and is\ncounterpoised by the agreement of three Evangelists: our only course is\nto acknowledge an irreconcilable contradiction between the respective\naccounts, without venturing a decision as to which is the correct one.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 122.\n\nDIVERGENCIES IN RELATION TO THE OCCURRENCES AT THE LAST MEAL OF JESUS.\n\nNot only in relation to the time of the last meal of Jesus, but also in\nrelation to what passed on that occasion, there is a divergency between\nthe Evangelists. The chief difference lies between the synoptists and\nthe fourth gospel: but, on a stricter comparison, it is found that only\nMatthew and Mark closely agree, and that Luke diverges from them\nconsiderably, though on the whole he is more accordant with his\npredecessors than with his successor.\n\nBesides the meal itself, the following features are common to all the\naccounts: that, during the meal, the coming betrayal by Judas is spoken\nof; and that, during or after the meal, Jesus predicts to Peter his\ndenial. As minor differences we may notice, that in John, the mode of\nindicating the traitor is another and more precise than that described\nby the other Evangelists, and has a result of which the latter are\nignorant; and that, further, in the fourth gospel the meal is followed\nby prolonged farewell discourses, which are not found in the\nsynoptists: but the principal difference is, that while according to\nthe synoptists Jesus instituted the Lord\u2019s supper at this final meal,\nin John he instead of this washes the disciples\u2019 feet.\n\nThe three synoptists have in common the instituting of the Lord\u2019s\nsupper, together with the announcement of the betrayal, and the denial;\nbut there exists a divergency between the two first and the third as to\nthe order of these occurrences, for in the former the announcement of\nthe betrayal stands first, in the latter, the instituting of the\nSupper; while the announcement of Peter\u2019s denial, in Luke, apparently\ntakes place in the room in which the repast had been held, in the two\nother Evangelists, on the way to the Mount of Olives. Again, Luke\nintroduces some passages which the two first Evangelists either do not\ngive at all, or not in this connexion: the contention for pre-eminence\nand the promise of the twelve thrones, have in their narratives a\ntotally different position; while what passes in Luke on the subject of\nthe swords is in them entirely wanting.\n\nIn his divergency from the two first Evangelists, Luke makes some\napproximation to the fourth. As John, in the washing of the disciples\u2019\nfeet, presents a symbolical act having reference to ambitious\ncontention for pre-eminence, accompanied by discourses on humility: so\nLuke actually mentions a contention for pre-eminence, and appends to it\ndiscourses not entirely without affinity with those in John; further,\nit is in common with John that Luke makes the observations concerning\nthe betrayer occur at the opening of the repast, and after a symbolical\nact; and lastly, that he represents the announcement of Peter\u2019s denial\nas having been delivered in the room where the repast had been held.\n\nThe greatest difficulty here naturally arises from the divergency, that\nthe institution of the Lord\u2019s supper, unanimously recorded by the\nsynoptists, is wanting in John, who in its stead relates a totally\ndifferent act of Jesus, namely, the washing of the disciples\u2019 feet.\nCertainly, by those who, in similar cases, throughout the whole\nprevious course of the evangelical narrative, have found a sufficient\nresource in the supposition, that it was the object of John to supply\nthe omissions of the earlier gospels, the present difficulty is\nsurmounted as well, or as ill, as any other. John, it is said, saw that\nthe institution of the Supper was already narrated in the three first\nEvangelists in a way which fully agreed with his own recollection;\nhence he held a repetition of it superfluous. [1788] But if, among the\nhistories already recorded in the three first gospels, the fourth\nEvangelist really intended to reproduce only those in the\nrepresentation of which he found something to rectify or supply: why\ndoes he give another edition of the history of the miraculous feeding,\nin which he makes no emendation of any consequence, and at the same\ntime omit the institution of the Lord\u2019s supper? For here the\ndivergencies between the synoptists in the arrangement of the scene,\nand the turn given to the words of Jesus, and more especially the\ncircumstance that they, according to his representation, erroneously,\nmake that institution occur on the evening of the passover, must have\nappeared to him a reason for furnishing an authentic account. In\nconsideration of this difficulty, the position that the author of the\nfourth gospel was acquainted with the synoptical writings, and designed\nto complete and rectify them, is now, indeed, abandoned; but it is\nstill maintained that he was acquainted with the common oral tradition,\nand supposed it known to his readers also, and on this ground, it is\nalleged he passed over the institution of the Supper as a history\ngenerally known. [1789] But that it should be the object of an\nevangelical writing to narrate only the less known, omitting the known,\nis an idea which cannot be consistently entertained. Written records\nimply a mistrust of oral tradition; they are intended not merely as a\nsupplement to this, but also as a means of fixing and preserving it,\nand hence the capital facts, being the most spoken of, and therefore\nthe most exposed to misrepresentation, are precisely those which\nwritten records can the least properly omit. Such a fact is the\nfounding of the Lord\u2019s supper, and we find, from a comparison of the\ndifferent New Testament accounts, that the expressions with which Jesus\ninstituted it must have early received additions or mutilations;\nconsequently, it is the last particular which John should have omitted.\nBut, it is further said, the narrating of the institution of the Lord\u2019s\nsupper was of no importance to the object of the fourth gospel. [1790]\nHow so? With regard to its general object, the convincing of its\nreaders that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (xx. 31), was it of no\nimportance to communicate a scene in which he appears as the founder of\na new covenant, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7? and in relation to the special object of\nthe passage in question, namely, the exhibiting of the love of Jesus as\na love which endured unto the end (xiii. 1), would it have contributed\nnothing to mention how he offered his body and blood as meat and drink\nto his followers, and thus realized his words in John vi.? But, it is\nsaid, John here as elsewhere, only concerns himself with the more\nprofound discourses of Jesus, for which reason he passes over the\ninstitution of the Supper, and begins his narrative with the discourse\nconnected with the washing of the disciples\u2019 feet. [1791] Nothing,\nhowever, but the most obdurate prejudice in favour of the fourth\ngospel, can make this discourse on humility appear more profound than\nwhat Jesus says of the partaking of his body and blood, when\ninstituting the Lord\u2019s supper.\n\nBut the main point is that harmonists should show us in what part of\nJohn\u2019s narrative, if we are to believe that he presupposed Jesus to\nhave instituted the Supper at this last meal, he can have made the\nalleged omission\u2014that they should indicate the break at which that\nincident may be suitably introduced. On looking into the different\ncommentaries, there appears to be more than one place excellently\nadapted to such an insertion. According to Olshausen, the end of the\n13th chapter, after the announcement of Peter\u2019s denial, presents the\ninterval in which the institution of the Supper must be supposed to\noccur; herewith the repast closed, and the succeeding discourses from\nxiv. 1 were uttered by Jesus after the general rising from table, and\nwhile standing in the chamber. [1792] But, here, it appears as if\nOlshausen, for the sake of obtaining a resting place between xiii. 38\nand xiv. 1, had resigned himself to the delusion of supposing that the\nwords Arise, let us go hence, at which he makes Jesus rise from table\nand deliver the rest of his discourse standing, are found at the end of\nthe 13th chapter, whereas they do not occur until the end of the 14th.\nJesus had been speaking of going whither his disciples could not follow\nhim, and had just rebuked the rashness of Peter, in volunteering to lay\ndown life for his sake, by the prediction of his denial: here, at xiv.\n1 ff., he calms the minds of the disciples, whom this prediction had\ndisturbed, exhorting them to faith, and directing their attention to\nthe blessed effects of his departure.\u2014Repelled by the firm coherence of\nthis part of the discourse, other commentators, e.g. Paulus, retreat to\nxiii. 30, and are of opinion that the institution of the Supper may be\nthe most fitly introduced after the withdrawal of Judas, for the\npurpose of putting his treachery into execution, since this\ncircumstance might naturally excite in Jesus those thoughts concerning\nhis death which lie at the basis of the institution. [1793] But even\nrejecting the opinion of L\u00fccke and others, that \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5, when he\nwent out, should be united to \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, Jesus said, it is\nunquestionable that the words of Jesus v. 31, Now is the Son of man\nglorified, etc., and what he says farther on (v. 33) of his speedy\ndeparture, have an immediate reference to the retiring of Judas. For\nthe verb \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in the fourth gospel always signifies the\nglorification of Jesus, to which he is to be led by suffering; and with\nthe departure of the apostate disciple to those who brought suffering\nand death on Jesus, his glorification and his speedy death were\ndecided.\u2014The verses 31\u201333 being thus inseparably connected with v. 30;\nthe next step is to carry the institution of the Supper somewhat lower,\nand place it where this connexion may appear to cease: accordingly,\nL\u00fccke makes it fall between v. 33 and 34, supposing that after Jesus\n(v. 31\u201333) had composed the minds of the disciples, disturbed and\nshocked by the departure of the traitor, and had prepared them for the\nsacred meal, he, at v. 34 f., annexes to the distribution of the bread\nand wine the new commandment of love. But, as it has been elsewhere\nremarked, [1794] since at v. 36 Peter asks Jesus, in allusion to v. 33,\nwhither he will go, it is impossible that the Supper can have been\ninstituted after the declaration of Jesus v. 33; for otherwise Peter\nwould have interpreted the expression I go, \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9, by the body given\n\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and the blood shed \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, or in any case\nwould rather have felt prompted to ask the meaning of these latter\nexpressions.\u2014Acknowledging this, Neander retreats a verse, and inserts\nthe Supper between v. 32 and 33; [1795] but he thus violently severs\nthe obvious connexion between the words \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd shall\nstraightway glorify him in the former verse, and the words \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 yet a little while I am with you in the latter.\u2014It is,\ntherefore, necessary to retreat still farther than Neander, or even\nPaulus: but as from v. 30 up to v. 18, the discourse turns\nuninterruptedly on the traitor, and this discourse again is inseparably\nlinked to the washing of the disciples\u2019 feet and the explanation of\nthat act, there is no place at which the institution of the Supper can\nbe inserted until the beginning of the chapter. Here, however,\naccording to one of the most recent critics, it may be inserted in a\nway which perfectly exonerates the author of the gospel from the\nreproach of misleading his reader by an account which is apparently\ncontinuous, while it nevertheless passes over the Supper. For, says\nthis critic, from the very commencement John does not profess to\nnarrate anything of the meal itself, or what was concomitant with it,\nbut only what occurred after the meal; inasmuch as the most natural\ninterpretation of \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 is: after the meal was ended, while\nthe words \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, he riseth from supper, plainly show\nthat the washing of the disciples\u2019 feet was not commenced until after\nthe meal. [1796] But after the washing of the feet is concluded, it is\nsaid of Jesus, that he sat down again (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd v. 12),\nconsequently the meal was not yet ended when he commenced that act, and\nby the words he riseth from supper, it is meant that he rose to wash\nthe disciples\u2019 feet from the yet unfinished meal, or at least after the\nplaces had been taken preparatory to the meal. Again, \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\ndoes not mean: after a meal was ended, any more than the words \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38.\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 (Matt. xxvi. 6) mean: after Jesus had been in\nBethany: as the latter expression is intended by Matthew to denote the\ntime during the residence of Jesus in Bethany, so the former is\nintended by John to denote the course of the meal itself. [1797] Hence\nhe thereby professes to inform us of every remarkable occurrence\nconnected with that meal, and in omitting to mention the institution of\nthe Lord\u2019s supper, which was one of its features, he incurs the\nreproach of having given a deficient narrative, nay of having left out\nprecisely what is most important.\u2014Instead of this highest extremity of\nJohn\u2019s account, Kern has recently taken the lowest, and has placed the\ninstitution of the Supper after the words, Arise, let us go hence, xiv.\n31; [1798] whereby he assigns to it the improbable and indeed unworthy\nposition, of an act only occurring to Jesus when he is preparing to\ndepart.\n\nThus, viewing the subject generally, there is no conceivable motive why\nJohn, if he spoke of this last evening at all, should have omitted the\ninstitution of the Lord\u2019s supper; while, on descending to a particular\nconsideration, there is in the course of his narrative no point where\nit could be inserted: hence nothing remains but to conclude that he\ndoes not mention it because it was unknown to him. But as a means of\nresisting this conclusion, theologians, even such as acknowledge\nthemselves unable to explain the omission of the institution, rely on\nthe observation, that a rite so universally prevalent in the primitive\nchurch as was the Lord\u2019s supper, cannot possibly have been unknown to\nthe fourth Evangelist, whoever he may have been. [1799] Certainly, he\nknew of the Lord\u2019s supper as a Christian rite, for this may be inferred\nfrom his 6th chapter, and unavoidably he must have known of it; it may,\nhowever, have been unknown to him under what circumstances Jesus\nformally instituted this observance. The referring of so revered an\nusage to the authority of Jesus himself was an object of interest to\nthis Evangelist; but from unacquaintance with the synoptical scene, and\nalso from a partiality for the mysterious, which led him to put into\nthe mouth of Jesus expressions unintelligible at the moment, and only\nto be explained by the issue, he effected this purpose, not by making\nJesus actually institute the rite, but by attributing to him obscure\nexpressions about the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his\nblood, which, being rendered intelligible only by the rite of the\nLord\u2019s supper introduced into the church after his death, might be\nregarded as an indirect institution of that rite.\n\nAs John omits the institution of the Lord\u2019s supper, so the synoptists\nomit the washing of the disciples\u2019 feet: but it cannot be maintained\nwith equal decision that they were therefore ignorant of this incident;\npartly on account of its inferior importance and the more fragmentary\ncharacter of this part of the synoptical narrative; and partly because,\nas has been above remarked, the contention for pre-eminence in Luke v.\n24 ff. has appeared to many expositors to be connected with the washing\nof the disciples\u2019 feet, as the inducement to that action on the part of\nJesus. [1800] But as regards this contention for pre-eminence, we have\nshown above, that being unsuited to the tenor of the scene before us,\nit may owe its position only to a fortuitous association of ideas in\nthe narrator: [1801] while the washing of the disciples\u2019 feet, in John,\nmight appear to be a legendary development of a synoptical discourse on\nhumility. In Matthew (xx. 26 ff.) Jesus admonishes his disciples that\nhe among them who would be great must be the minister \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 of the\nothers, just as he himself came not to be ministered unto but to\nminister \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9; and in Luke (xxii. 27) he\nexpresses the same thought in the question: Whether is greater, he that\nsitteth at meat or he that that serveth? \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd; \u1f41 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u1f22 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd; and adds, but I am among you as he that serveth, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u03ad\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd. Now it is certainly probable that\nJesus might see fit to impress this lesson on the disciples through the\nmedium of their senses, by an actual serving \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd among them,\nwhile they played the part of those sitting at meat (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9); but\nit is equally probable, since the synoptists are silent respecting such\na measure, that either the legend, before it reached the fourth\nEvangelist, or this writer himself, spun the fact out of the dictum.\n[1802] Nor is it necessary to suppose that the above declaration came\nto him as having been uttered at the last meal of Jesus, in accordance\nwith the representation of Luke; for it naturally resulted from the\nexpressions \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (to recline at meat), and \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (to serve),\nthat this symbolizing of the relation which they denote should be\nattached to a meal, and this meal might on easily conceivable grounds\nappear to be the most appropriately represented as the last.\n\nAccording to Luke\u2019s representation, Jesus on this occasion addresses\nthe disciples as those who had continued with him in his temptations,\nand as a reward for this fidelity promises them that they shall sit\nwith him at table in his kingdom, and seated on thrones, judge the\ntwelve tribes of Israel (v. 28\u201330). This appears incongruous with a\nscene in which he had immediately before announced his betrayal by one\nof the twelve, and in which he immediately after predicted his denial\nby another; at a time, moreover, in which the temptations \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76\nproperly so called, were yet future. After what we have already\nobserved in relation to the entire character of the scene in Luke, we\ncan hardly seek the reason for the insertion of this fragment of a\ndiscourse, in anything else than a fortuitous association of ideas, in\nwhich the contention about rank among the disciples might suggest the\nrank promised to them by Jesus, and the discourse on sitting at table\nand serving, the promise that the disciples should sit at table with\nJesus in his messianic kingdom. [1803]\n\nIn the succeeding conversation Jesus says to his disciples\nfiguratively, that now it will be necessary to buy themselves swords,\nso hostilely will they be met on all sides, but is understood by them\nliterally, and is shown two swords already in the possession of the\nsociety. Concerning this passage I am inclined to agree with\nSchleiermacher, who is of opinion that Luke introduced it here as a\nprelude to Peter\u2019s use of the sword in the ensuing narrative. [1804]\n\nThe other divergencies in relation to the last meal will come under\nreview in the course of the following investigations.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 123.\n\nANNOUNCEMENT OF THE BETRAYAL AND THE DENIAL.\n\nIn the statement that Jesus from the beginning knew who would be his\nbetrayer, the fourth gospel stands alone; but all four of the\nEvangelists concur in testifying that at his last meal he predicted his\nbetrayal by one of his disciples.\n\nBut in the first place there is this difference: while according to\nMatthew and Mark the discourse respecting the betrayer opens the scene,\nand in particular precedes the institution of the Lord\u2019s supper (Matt.\nxxvi. 21 ff.; Mark xiv. 18 ff.); Luke represents Jesus as not speaking\nof the betrayer until after the commencement of the meal, and the\ninstitution of the commemorative rite (xxii. 21 ff.); and in John what\nrelates to the betrayer goes forward during and after the washing of\nthe disciples\u2019 feet (xiii. 10\u201330). The intrinsically trivial question,\nwhich Evangelist is here right, is extremely important to theologians,\nbecause its decision involves the answer to another question, namely,\nwhether the betrayer also partook of the ritual Supper. It neither\nappeared consistent with the idea of that supper as a feast of the most\nintimate love and union, that a virtual alien like Judas should\nparticipate in it, nor did it seem to accord with the love and\ncompassion of the Lord, that he should have permitted an unworthy\ndisciple by this participation to aggravate his guilt. [1805] So\nundesirable a view of the facts was believed to be avoided by following\nthe arrangement of Matthew and Mark, and making the designation of the\nbetrayer precede the institution of the Supper: for as it was known\nfrom John, that as soon as Judas saw himself detected and exposed, he\nwithdrew from the company, it would thence appear that Jesus did not\ninstitute the Supper until after the retirement of the traitor. [1806]\nBut this expedient is founded on nothing but an inadmissible\nincorporation of the narrative of John with that of the synoptists. For\nthe withdrawal of Judas is mentioned only by the fourth Evangelist; and\nhe alone needs the supposition of such a circumstance, because,\naccording to him, Judas now first entered into his transactions with\nthe enemies of Jesus, and thus, in order to come to terms with them,\nand obtain the requisite force, needed a somewhat longer time. In the\nsynoptists there is no trace of the betrayer having left the company;\non the contrary, everything in their narrative appears to imply that\nJudas, first on the general departure from the room in which the repast\nhad been taken, instead of going directly to the garden, went to the\nchief priests, of whom he at once, the agreement having been made\nbeforehand, received the necessary force for the arrest of Jesus. Thus\nwhether Luke or Matthew be right in the arrangement of the scene, all\nthe synoptists intimate that Judas did not leave the company before the\ngeneral departure, and consequently that he partook of the ritual\nSupper.\n\nBut also as to the manner in which Jesus pointed out his betrayer,\nthere exists no slight divergency between the Evangelists. In Luke\nJesus only makes the brief remark that the hand of his betrayer is with\nhim on the table, whereupon the disciples ask among themselves, who it\ncan be that is capable of such a deed? In Matthew and Mark he says,\nfirst, that one of those, who are present will betray him; and when the\ndisciples individually ask him, Lord, is it I? he replies: he that\ndippeth his hand with me in the dish; until at last, after a woe has\nbeen denounced on the traitor, according to Matthew, Judas also puts\nthat question, and receives an affirmative answer. In John, Jesus\nalludes to the betrayer during and after the washing of the disciples\u2019\nfeet, in the observations, that not all the disciples present are\nclean, and that on the contrary the scripture must be fulfilled: he\nthat eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me. Then he\nsays plainly, that one of them will betray him; the disciples look\ninquiringly at each other, wondering of whom he speaks, when Peter\nprompts John, who is lying next to Jesus, to ask who is the traitor?\nJesus replies, he to whom he shall give a sop, which he immediately\ndoes to Judas, with an admonition to hasten the execution of his\nproject; whereupon Judas leaves the company.\n\nHere again the harmonists are at once ready to incorporate the\ndifferent scenes with each other, and render them mutually consistent.\nAccording to them, Jesus, on the question of each disciple whether he\nwere the traitor, first declared aloud that one of his companions at\ntable would betray him (Matthew); hereupon John asked in a whisper\nwhich of them he meant, and Jesus also in a whisper made the answer, he\nto whom he should give the sop (John); then Judas, likewise in a\nwhisper, asked whether it were he, and Jesus in the same manner replied\nin the affirmative (Matthew); lastly, after an admonition from Jesus to\nbe speedy, the betrayer left the company (John). [1807] But that the\nquestion and answer interchanged between Jesus and Judas were spoken in\na whisper, Matthew, who alone communicates them, gives no intimation,\nnor is this easily conceivable without presupposing the improbable\ncircumstance, that Judas reclined on the one side of Jesus, as John did\non the other: if, however, the colloquy were uttered aloud, the\ndisciples could not, as John narrates, have so strangely misunderstood\nthe words, what thou doest, do quickly,\u2014and the supposition of a\nstammering question on the side of Judas, and a low-toned answer from\nJesus, cannot be seriously held a satisfactory explanation. [1808] Nor\nis it probable that Jesus, after having already made the declaration:\nhe who dippeth with me in the dish will betray me, would for the more\nprecise indication of the traitor have also given him a sop; it is\nrather to be supposed that these are but two different modes of\nreporting the same particular. But when once this is admitted, as it is\nby Paulus and Olshausen, so much is already renounced either in\nrelation to the one narrative or the other, that it is inconsistent to\nresort to forced suppositions, in order to overcome the difficulty\ninvolved in the explicit answer which Matthew makes Jesus give to the\ntraitor; and it should rather be allowed that we have before us two\ndivergent accounts, of which the one was not so framed that its\ndeficiencies might be supplied by the other.\n\nHaving, with Sieffert and Fritzsche, attained this degree of insight,\nthe only remaining question is: to which of the two narratives must we\ngive the preference as the original? Sieffert has answered this\nquestion very decidedly in favour of John; not merely, as he maintains,\nbecause he shares in the prejudice which attributes to that Evangelist\nthe character of an eye-witness; but also because his narrative is in\nthis part, by its intrinsic evidence of truthfulness, and the vividness\nof its scenes, advantageously distinguished from that of Matthew, which\npresents no indications of an autoptical origin. For example, while\nJohn is able to describe with the utmost minuteness the manner in which\nJesus indicated his betrayer: the narrative of the first gospel is such\nas to induce the conjecture that its author had only received the\ngeneral information, that Jesus had personally indicated his betrayer.\n[1809] It certainly cannot be denied, that the direct answer which\nJesus gives to Judas in Matthew (v. 25) has entirely the appearance of\nhaving been framed, without much fertility of imagination, to accord\nwith the above general information; and in so far it must be regarded\nas inferior to the more indirect, and therefore more probable mode of\nindicating the traitor, in John. But in relation to another feature,\nthe result of the comparison is different. In the two first Evangelists\nJesus says: he who has dipped or who dippeth with me, \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 or\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6: in John, he to whom I shall give a sop when I\nhave dipped it, \u1fa7 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b2\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c8\u03c9\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9; a difference in which\nthe greater preciseness of the indication, and consequently the\ninferior probability, is on the side of the fourth gospel. In Luke,\nJesus designates the traitor merely as one of those who are sitting at\nmeat with him; and as regards the expression \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. in\nMatthew and Mark, the interpretation given of it by Kuin\u00f6l and\nHenneberg, [1810] who suppose it to mean one of the party at table,\nleaving it uncertain which, is not so mistaken as Olshausen represents\nit to be. For, first, to the question of the several disciples, is it\nI? Jesus might see fit to return an evasive answer; and secondly, the\nabove answer, as Kuin\u00f6l has correctly remarked, stands in the relation\nof an appropriate climax to the previous declaration: one of you shall\nbetray me (v. 21), since it presents that aggravating circumstance of\nthe betrayal, fellowship at table. Even if the authors of the two first\ngospels understood the expression in question to imply, that Judas in\nparticular dipped his hand in the dish with Jesus, and hence supposed\nthis second declaration to have indicated him personally: still the\nparallel passage in Luke, and the words \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1, one of the\ntwelve, which in Mark precede \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, show that originally the\nsecond expression was merely an amplification of the former, though\nfrom the wish to have a thoroughly unequivocal designation of the\nbetrayer on the part of Jesus, it was early interpreted in the other\nmore special sense. When, however, a legendary exaggeration of the\npreciseness of the indication is once admitted, the manner in which the\nfourth gospel describes that indication must be included in the series\nof progressive representations, and according to Sieffert, it must have\nbeen the original from which all the rest proceeded. But if we\nbeforehand renounce the affirmative reply to Judas, \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, thou hast\nsaid, in Matthew, the mode of designation in John is the most definite\nof all; for the intimation: one of my companions at table, is\ncomparatively indefinite, and even the expression: he who dippeth with\nme in the dish, is a less direct sign of the traitor, than if Jesus had\nhimself dipped the morsel and presented it to him. Now is it in the\nspirit of the ancient legend, if Jesus really gave the more precise\ndesignation, to lose its hold of this, and substitute one less precise,\nso as to diminish the miracle of the foreknowledge exhibited by Jesus?\nAssuredly not; but rather the very reverse holds true. Hence we\nconclude that Matthew, together with the unhistorically precise, has\nyet at the same time preserved the historically less precise; whereas\nJohn has entirely lost the latter and has retained only the former.\n\nAlter thus renouncing what is narrated of a personal designation of the\ntraitor by Jesus, as composed post eventum, there yet remains to us the\ngeneral precognition and prediction on the part of Jesus, that one of\nhis disciples and companions at table would betray him. But even this\nis attended with difficulties. That Jesus received any external\nnotification of treason brooding against him in the circle of his\nconfidential friends, there is no indication in the gospels: he appears\nto have gathered this feature of his destiny also out of the scriptures\nalone. He repeatedly declares that by his approaching betrayal the\nscripture will be fulfilled (John xiii. 18, xvii. 12; comp. Matt. xxvi.\n24 parall.), and in the fourth gospel (xiii. 18), he cites as this\nscripture, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74, the words: He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted\nup his heel against me, \u1f41 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, from Ps. xli. 10. This passage in the Psalms refers\neither to the well-known perfidious friends of David, Ahithophel and\nMephibosheth, or, if the Psalm be not the composition of David, to some\nunknown individuals who stood in a similar relation to the poet. [1811]\nThere is so little trace of a messianic significance, that even Tholuck\nand Olshausen acknowledge the above to be the original sense. But\naccording to the latter, in the fate of David was imaged that of the\nMessiah; according to the former, David himself, under a divine impulse\noften used expressions concerning himself, which contained special\nallusions to the fate of Jesus. When, however, Tholuck adds: David\nhimself, under the influence of inspiration, did not always comprehend\nthis more profound sense of his expressions; what is this but a\nconfession that by the interpretation of such passages as relating to\nChrist there is given to them another sense than that in which their\nauthor originally intended them? Now that Jesus deduced from this\npassage of the 41st Psalm, that it would be his lot to be betrayed by a\nfriend, in the way of natural reflection, is the more inconceivable,\nbecause there is no indication to be discovered that this Psalm was\ninterpreted messianically among the Jews: while that such an\ninterpretation was a result of the divine knowledge in Jesus is\nimpossible, because it is a false interpretation. It is rather to be\nsupposed, that the passage in question was applied to the treachery of\nJudas only after the issue. It is necessary to figure to ourselves the\nconsternation which the death of the Messiah must have produced in the\nminds of his first adherents, and the solicitous industry with which\nthey endeavoured to comprehend this catastrophe; and to remember that\nto a mind of Jewish culture, to comprehend a fact or doctrine was not\nto reconcile it with consciousness and reason, but to bring it into\nharmony with scripture. In seeking such a result, the primitive\nChristians found predicted in the oracles of the Old Testament, not\nonly the death of the Messiah, but also his falling by means of the\nperfidy of one of his friends, and even the subsequent fate and end of\nthis traitor (Matt. xxvii. 9 f.; Acts i. 20); and as the most striking\nOld Testament authority for the betrayal, there presented itself the\nabove passage from Ps. xli., where the author complains of maltreatment\nfrom one of his most intimate friends. These vouchers from the Old\nTestament might be introduced by the writers of the evangelical history\neither as reflections from themselves or others by way of appendix to\ntheir narrative of the result, as is done by the authors of the first\ngospel and the Acts, where they relate the end of Judas: or, what would\nbe more impressive, they might put them into the mouth of Jesus himself\nbefore the issue, as is done by the author of the fourth gospel in the\npresent instance. The Psalmist had meant by \u200f\u05d0\u05b9\u05db\u05b5\u05dc \u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u05b0\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u200e one who\ngenerally was accustomed to eat bread with him: but this expression\nmight easily come to be regarded as the designation of one in the act\nof eating bread with the subject of the prophecy: and hence it seemed\nappropriate to choose as the scene for the delivery of the prediction,\na meal of Jesus with his disciples, and for the sake of proximity to\nthe end of Jesus to make this meal the last. For the rest, the precise\nwords of the psalm were not adhered to, for instead of \u1f41 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, he who eateth bread with me, was substituted either the\nsynonymous phrase \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03b6\u1fc3\u03c2, with me on the table, as\nin Luke; or, in accordance with the representation of the synoptists\nthat this last was a paschal meal, an allusion to the particular sauce\nused on that occasion: \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, he who\ndippeth with me in the dish, as in Mark and Matthew. This, at first\nentirely synonymous with the expression \u1f41 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., as a\ndesignation of some one of his companions at table, was soon, from the\ndesire for a personal designation, misconstrued to mean that Judas\naccidentally dipped his hand into the dish at the same moment with\nJesus, and at length the morsel dipped into the dish by Judas at the\nsame time with Jesus, was by the fourth Evangelist converted into the\nsop presented by Jesus to his betrayer.\n\nThere are other parts also of this scene in John, which, instead of\nhaving a natural character, as Sieffert maintains, must rather be\npronounced artificial. The manner in which Peter has to use the\nintervention of the disciple leaning on Jesus\u2019 bosom, in order to\nobtain from the latter a more definite intimation concerning the\nbetrayer, besides being foreign to the synoptists, belongs to that\nunhistorical colouring which, as we have above shown, the fourth gospel\ngives to the relation of the two apostles. Moreover, to disguise an\nindication of Judas in the evil character of the traitor, beneath an\naction of friendliness, as that of giving him the sop, must retain\nsomething untruthful and revolting, whatever may be imagined of objects\nwhich Jesus might have in view, such as the touching of the traitor\nwith compunction even at that hour. Lastly, the address, What thou\ndoest, do quickly, after all that can be done to soften it, [1812] is\nstill harsh,\u2014a kind of braving of the impending catastrophe; and rather\nthan resort to any refinements in order to justify these words as\nspoken by Jesus, I prefer agreeing with the author of the Probabilia,\nwho sees in them the effort of the fourth Evangelist to improve on the\nordinary representation, according to which Jesus foreknew the betrayal\nand refrained from preventing it, by making him even challenge the\ntraitor to expedite his undertaking. [1813]\n\nBesides the betrayal, Jesus is said to have predicted the denial by\nPeter, and to have fixed the precise time of its occurrence, declaring\nthat before the cock should crow (Mark says twice) on the following\nmorning, Peter would deny him thrice (Matt. xxvi. 33 ff. parall.):\nwhich prediction, according to the gospels, was exactly accomplished.\nIt is here observed on the side of Rationalism, that the extension of\nthe prophetic gift to the cognizance of such merely accessory\ncircumstances as the crowing of cocks, must excite astonishment; as\nalso that Jesus, instead of warning, predicts the result as inevitable:\n[1814] a feature which calls to mind the Fate of the Greek tragedy, in\nwhich a man, in spite of his endeavour to avoid what the oracle has\npredicted of him, nevertheless fulfils its inexorable decree. Paulus\nwill not admit either \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, or \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, or\n\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2, to have been spoken in their strict verbal signification, but\ngives to the entire speech of Jesus only this indecisive and\nproblematical sense: so easily to be shaken is the imagined firmness of\nthis disciple, that between the present moment and the early morning,\nevents may arise which would cause him more than once to stumble and be\nunfaithful to his master. But this is not the right mode of removing\nthe difficulty of the evangelical narrative. The words attributed to\nJesus so closely agree with the subsequent event, that the idea of a\nmerely fortuitous coincidence is not to be here entertained. Occurring\nas they do in a tissue of prophecies post eventum, we must rather\nsuppose that after Peter had really denied Jesus more than once during\nthat night, the announcement of such a result was put into the mouth of\nJesus, with the common marking of time by the crowing of the cock,\n[1815] and the reduction of the instances of denial to three. That this\ndetermination of time and number was permanent in the evangelical\ntradition (except that Mark, doubtless arbitrarily, for the sake of\nbalancing the thrice denying by another number, speaks of the twice\ncrowing of the cock), appears to be explained without any great\ndifficulty by the familiarity of the expressions early chosen, and the\nease with which they could be retained in the memory.\n\nJust as little claim to be regarded as a real prophecy has the\nannouncement of Jesus to the rest of his disciples that they will all\nof them be offended because of him in the coming night, that they will\nforsake him and disperse (Matt. xxvi. 31 parall., comp. John xvi. 32);\nespecially as the Evangelists themselves, in the words: For it is\nwritten, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be\nscattered abroad, point out to us the Old Testament passage (Zech.\nxiii. 7), which, first sought out by the adherents of Jesus for the\nsatisfaction of their own difficulties as to the death of their master,\nand the melancholy consequences which immediately ensued, was soon put\ninto the mouth of Jesus as a prophecy of these consequences.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 124.\n\nTHE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD\u2019S SUPPER.\n\nIt was at the last meal, according to the synoptists, with whom the\nApostle Paul also agrees (1 Cor. xi. 23 ff.), that Jesus gave to the\nunleavened bread and the wine which, agreeably to the custom of the\npaschal feast, [1816] he, as head of the family, had to distribute\namong his disciples, a relation to his speedily approaching death.\nDuring the repast, we are told, he took bread, and after giving thanks,\nbroke it and gave it to his disciples with the declaration: This is my\nbody, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, to which Paul and Luke add: which is\ngiven or broken for you, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd or \u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; in like\nmanner, according to Paul and Luke after supper, he presented to them a\ncup of wine with the words: This is my blood of the new testament,\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2, or, according to Paul\nand Luke: the new testament in my blood, which is shed for many, or for\nyou, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd or \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd,\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, to which Matthew adds: for the remission of sins, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, and Paul, what he and Luke previously give in\nreference to the bread: Do this, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 (Paul, with the wine, as\noft as ye drink it, \u1f41\u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5), in remembrance of me, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nThe controversy between the different confessions as to the meaning of\nthese words,\u2014whether they signify a transmutation of bread and wine\ninto the body and blood of Christ, or a presence of the body and blood\nof Christ with and beneath those elements, or lastly, the symbolizing\nof the body and blood of Christ by bread and wine,\u2014may be pronounced\nobsolete, and ought not to be any longer pursued, at least\nexegetically, because it is founded on a misplaced distinction. It is\nonly when transmitted to a modern age, and to the occidental mind, in\nwhich the forms of thought are more abstract, that what the ancient\noriental understood by the words, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, divides itself into the\nabove variety of possible significations; and if we would obtain a\ncorrect conception of the idea which originally suggested the\nexpression, we must cease to discriminate thus. To explain the words in\nquestion as implying a transmutation of the substance, is to go too\nfar, and to be too definite; to understand them of an existence cum et\nsub specie, etc., is too much of a refinement; while to translate them:\nthis signifies, is too limited and meagre an interpretation. To the\nwriters of our gospels, the bread in the commemorative supper was the\nbody of Christ: but had they been asked, whether the bread were\ntransmuted, they would have denied it; had they been spoken to of a\npartaking of the body with and under the form of bread, they would not\nhave understood it; had it been inferred that consequently the bread\nmerely signified the body, they would not have been satisfied.\n\nThus to dispute farther on this point is a fruitless labour: it is a\nmore interesting question, whether Jesus merely intended this\npeculiarly significant distribution of bread and wine as a parting\ndemonstration of attachment to his disciples, or whether he designed\nthat it should be celebrated by his disciples in memory of him after\nhis departure. If we had only the account of the two first\nEvangelists,\u2014this is admitted even by orthodox theologians,\n[1817]\u2014there would be no solid ground for the latter supposition; but\nthe words, Do this in remembrance of me, which are added by Paul and\nLuke, appear decisive of the fact that Jesus purposed the founding of a\ncommemorative meal, which, according to Paul, the Christians were to\ncelebrate, until he should come, \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3. Concerning this very\naddition, however, it has been of late conjectured that it may not have\nbeen originally uttered by Jesus, but that in the celebration of the\nLord\u2019s supper in the primitive church, the presiding member of the\ncommunity, in distributing the elements, may have exhorted the rest to\ncontinue the repetition of this meal in remembrance of Christ, and that\nfrom this primitive Christian ritual the above words were added to the\naddress of Jesus. [1818] This conjecture should not be opposed by an\nexaggerated estimate of the authority of the Apostle Paul, such as that\nof Olshausen, who infers from the words, I have received of the Lord,\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, that he here delivers an immediate revelation\nfrom Christ, nay, that Christ himself speaks through him: since, as\neven S\u00fcskind has admitted, and as Schulz has recently shown in the most\nconvincing manner, [1819] the phrase \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 cannot\nsignify an immediate reception, but only a mediate transmission from\nthe individual specified. If, however, Paul had not that addition from\nJesus himself, still S\u00fcskind thinks himself able to prove that it must\nhave been communicated, or at least confirmed, by an apostle, and is of\nopinion, in the manner of his school, that by a series of abstract\ndistinctions, he can define certain boundary lines which must in this\ncase prevent the intrusion of an unhistorical tradition. But the severe\nattention to evidence which characterizes our own day, ought not to be\nexpected from an infant religious society, between the distant portions\nof which there was not yet any organized connexion, or for the most\npart any other than oral communication. On the other hand, however, we\nmust not be induced to regard the words \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. as a later\naddition to the address of Jesus, on false grounds, such as, that it\nwould have been repugnant to the humility of Jesus to found a rite in\nremembrance of himself; [1820] nor must we rate too highly the silence\nof the two first Evangelists, in opposition to the testimony of Paul.\n\nPerhaps this point may be decided by means of another more general\nquestion, namely, what led Jesus to make this peculiarly significant\ndistribution of bread and wine among his disciples? Orthodox\ntheologians seek to remove as far as possible from the person of Jesus,\nas divine, all progress, and especially a gradual or sudden origination\nof plans and resolutions not previously present in his mind: hence,\naccording to them, there lay in Jesus from the beginning, together with\nthe foreknowledge of his destiny, and his entire plan, the design to\ninstitute this supper, as a commemorative rite to be observed by his\nchurch; and this opinion may at least appeal for support, to the\nallusions implying that he already contemplated the institution a year\nbeforehand, attributed to Jesus in the sixth chapter of the fourth\ngospel.\n\nThis is certainly an insecure support, for, as a previous enquiry has\nshown, those allusions, totally unintelligible before the institution\nof the Supper, cannot have proceeded from Jesus, but only from the\nEvangelist. [1821] Further, as, viewing the subject generally, it\nappeared to annul the reality of the human nature in Jesus, to suppose\nthat all lay foreseen and prepared in him from the first, or at least\nfrom the commencement of his mature age; Rationalism has maintained, on\nthe contrary, that the idea of the symbolical act and words in question\ndid not arise in Jesus until the last evening. According to this view,\nat the sight of the broken bread and the outpoured wine, Jesus had a\nforeboding of his near and violent death; he saw in the former an image\nof his body which was to be put to death, and in the latter of his\nblood which was to be shed; and this momentary impression was\ncommunicated by him to his disciples. [1822] But such a tragical\nimpression could only be felt by Jesus if he contemplated his death as\na near event. That he did so with a greater distinctness at the last\nmeal, is thought to be proved by the assurance which, according to all\nthe synoptists, he gave to his disciples, that he would no more drink\nof the fruit of the vine until he drank it new in the kingdom of his\nFather; whence, as there is no ground for supposing a vow of abstinence\non his part, he must have foreseen that his end would arrive within the\nnext few days. If, however, we observe how in Luke this assurance in\nrelation to the wine is preceded by the declaration of Jesus, that he\nwill no more eat the passover until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of\nGod, it appears probable that originally the fruit of the vine also was\nunderstood not as wine in general, but as specially the beverage of the\npassover; of which a trace may perhaps be discovered in the expression\nof Matthew and Mark\u2014this fruit of the vine, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5. Meals in the messianic kingdom were, in accordance with the\nideas of the age, often spoken of by Jesus, and he may have expected\nthat in that kingdom the Passover would be observed with peculiar\nsolemnity. When therefore he declares that he will no more partake of\nthis meal in the present age, \u03b1\u1f30\u1f7c\u03bd, but only in the future; first, this\ndoes not apply to eating and drinking in general, and hence does not\nmean that his sojourn in this pre-messianic world was to have an end\nwithin the next few days, but only within the space of a year; nor,\nsecondly, does it necessarily involve the idea that this change was to\nbe introduced by his death, for he might even yet expect that the\nkingdom of the Messiah would commence during his life.\n\nMeanwhile, to deny every presentiment of his end on the part of Jesus\nin these last days of his life, is on the one hand, not warranted by\nour previous examination; and on the other, would compel us to doubt\nthe institution of the ritual Supper by Jesus, which we can hardly do\nin opposition to the testimony of Paul. It is moreover easily\nconceivable, that the continually increasing involvement of his\nrelation to the Jewish hierarchy, might at length bring to Jesus the\nconviction that his death was inevitable, and that in a moment of\nemotion he might even fix the next passover as the term which he should\nnot survive. Thus each of the supposed cases appears possible: either\nthat, owing to a thought suggested by the impressiveness of the moment,\nat the last passover which he celebrated with his disciples, he made\nbread and wine the symbols of his body which was to be slain and his\nblood which was to be shed; or that for some time previously he had\nembraced the design of bequeathing such a commemorative meal to his\nadherents, in which case he may very probably have uttered the words\npreserved by Paul and Luke. But before this intimation of the death of\nJesus had been duly appropriated by the disciples, and received into\ntheir conviction, they were overtaken by the actual catastrophe, for\nwhich, therefore, they might be regarded as wholly unprepared.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nRETIREMENT TO THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, ARREST, TRIAL, CONDEMNATION AND\nCRUCIFIXION OF JESUS.\n\n\u00a7 125.\n\nAGONY OF JESUS IN THE GARDEN.\n\nAccording to the synoptical narratives, Jesus, immediately after the\nconclusion of the meal and the singing of the Hallel, it being his\nhabit during this feast time to spend the night out of Jerusalem (Matt.\nxxi. 17; Luke xxii. 39), went to the Mount of Olives, into a garden\n\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd (in John, \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2) called Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 30, 36 parall.).\nJohn, who gives the additional particular that the garden lay over the\nbrook Kedron, does not represent him as departing thither until after a\nlong series of valedictory discourses (xiv.\u2013xvii.), of which we shall\nhereafter have to speak again. While John makes the arrest of Jesus\nfollow immediately on the arrival of Jesus in the garden, the\nsynoptists insert between the two that scene which is usually\ndesignated the agony of Jesus.\n\nTheir accounts of this scene are not in unison. According to Matthew\nand Mark, Jesus takes with him his three most confidential disciples,\nPeter and the sons of Zebedee, leaving the rest behind, is seized with\ntearfulness and trembling, tells the three disciples that he is\nsorrowful even unto death, and admonishing them to remain wakeful in\nthe mean time, removes to a distance from them also, that he may offer\na prayer for himself, in which, with his face bent to the earth, he\nentreats that the cup of suffering may pass from him, but still resigns\nall to the will of his Father. When he returns to the disciples, he\nfinds them sleeping, again admonishes them to watchfulness, then\nremoves from them a second time, and repeats the former prayer, after\nwhich he once more finds his disciples asleep. For the third time he\nretires to repeat the prayer, and returning, for the third time finds\nthe disciples sleeping, but now awakes them, in order to meet the\ncoming betrayer. Of the number three, which thus doubly figures in the\nnarrative of the two first Evangelists, Luke says nothing; according to\nhim, Jesus retires from all the disciples, after admonishing them to\nwatch, for the distance of about a stone\u2019s cast, and prays kneeling,\nonce only, but nearly in the same words as in the other gospels, then\nreturns to the disciples and awakes them, because Judas is approaching\nwith the multitude. But, on the other hand, Luke in his single scene of\nprayer, has two circumstances which are foreign to the other narrators,\nnamely, that while Jesus was yet praying, and immediately before the\nmost violent mental struggle, an angel appeared to strengthen him, and\nthat during the agony \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 which ensued, the sweat of Jesus was as it\nwere great drops of blood falling to the ground.\n\nFrom the earliest times this scene in Gethsemane has been a\nstumbling-block, because Jesus therein appears to betray a weakness and\nfear of death which might be considered unworthy of him. Celsus and\nJulian, doubtless having in their minds the great examples of a dying\nSocrates and other heathen sages, expressed contempt for the fear of\ndeath exhibited by Jesus; [1823] Vanini boldly extolled his own\ndemeanour in the face of execution as superior to that of Jesus; [1824]\nand in the Evangelium Nicodemi, Satan concludes from this scene that\nChrist is a mere man. [1825] The supposition resorted to in this\napocryphal book, that the trouble of Jesus was only assumed in order to\nencourage the devil to enter into a contest with him, [1826] is but a\nconfession of inability to reconcile a real truth of that kind with the\nideal of Jesus. Hence appeal has been made to the distinction between\nthe two natures in Christ; the sorrowfulness and the prayer for the\nremoval of the cup having been ascribed to the human nature, the\nresignation to the will of the Father, to the divine. [1827] As\nhowever, in the first place, this appeared to introduce an inadmissible\ndivision in the nature of Jesus; and in the second place, even a fear\nexperienced by his human nature in the prospect of approaching bodily\nsufferings appeared unworthy of him: his consternation was represented\nas being of a spiritual and sympathetic character\u2014as arising from the\nwickedness of Judas, the danger which threatened his disciples, and the\nfate which was impending over his nation. [1828] The effort to free the\nsorrow of Jesus from all reference to physical suffering, or to his own\nperson, attained its highest pitch in the ecclesiastical tenet, that\nJesus by substitution was burthened with the guilt of all mankind, and\nvicariously endured the wrath of God against that guilt. [1829] Some\nhave even supposed that the devil himself wrestled with Jesus. [1830]\n\nBut such a cause for the trouble of Jesus is not found in the text; on\nthe contrary, here as elsewhere (Matt. xx. 22 f. parall.), the cup\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd for the removal of which Jesus prays, must be understood of\nhis own bodily sufferings and death. Moreover, the above ecclesiastical\nopinion is founded on an unscriptural conception of the vicarious\noffice of Jesus. It is true that even in the conception of the\nsynoptists, the suffering of Jesus is a vicarious one for the sins of\nmany; but the substitution consists, according to them, not in Jesus\nhaving immediately borne these sins and the punishment due to mankind\non account of them, but in a personal suffering being laid upon him on\naccount of those sins, and in order to remove their punishment. Thus,\nas on the cross, it was not directly the sins of the world, and the\nanger of God in relation to them, which afflicted him, but the wounds\nwhich he received, and his whole lamentable situation, wherein he was\nindeed placed for the sins of mankind: so, according to the idea of the\nEvangelists, in Gethsemane also, it was not immediately the feeling of\nthe misery of humanity which occasioned his dismay, but the\npresentiment of his own suffering, which, however, was encountered in\nthe stead of mankind.\n\nFrom the untenable ecclesiastical view of the agony of Jesus, a descent\nhas in more modern times been made to coarse materialism, by reducing\nwhat it was thought hopeless to justify ethically, as a mental\ncondition, to a purely physical one, and supposing that Jesus was\nattacked by some malady in Gethsemane; [1831] an opinion which Paulus,\nwith a severity which he should only have more industriously applied to\nhis own explanations, pronounces to be altogether unseemly and opposed\nto the text, though he does not regard as improbable Heumann\u2019s\nhypothesis, that in addition to his inward sorrow, Jesus had contracted\na cold in the clayey ground traversed by the Kedron. [1832] On the\nother hand, the scene has been depicted in the colours of modern\nsentimentalism, and the feelings of friendship, the pain of separation,\nthe thoughts of parting, have been assigned as the causes which so\nlacerated the mind of Jesus: [1833] or a confused blending of all the\ndifferent kinds of sorrow, selfish and sympathetic, sensual and\nspiritual, has been presupposed. [1834] Paulus explains \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (if it be possible, let this cup pass from\nme) as the expression of a purely moral anxiety on the part of Jesus,\nas to whether it were the will of God that he should give himself up to\nthe attack immediately at hand, or whether it were not more accordant\nwith the Divine pleasure, that he should yet escape from this danger:\nthus converting into a mere inquiry of God, what is obviously the most\nurgent prayer.\n\nWhile Olshausen falls back on the ecclesiastical theory, and\nauthoritatively declares that the supposition of external corporeal\nsuffering having called forth the anguish of Jesus, ought to be\nbanished as one which would annihilate the essential characteristics of\nhis mission; others have more correctly acknowledged that in that\nanguish the passionate wish to be delivered from the terrible\nsufferings in prospect, the horror of sensitive nature in the face of\nannihilation, are certainly apparent. [1835] With justice also it is\nremarked, in opposition to the reproach which has been cast on Jesus,\nthat the speedy conquest over rebellious nature removes every\nappearance of sinfulness; [1836] that, moreover, the shrinking of\nphysical nature at the prospect of annihilation belongs to the\nessential conditions of life; [1837] nay, that the purer the human\nnature in an individual, the more susceptible is it in relation to\nsuffering and annihilation; [1838] that the conquest over suffering\nintensely appreciated is greater than a stoical or even a Socratic\ninsensibility. [1839]\n\nWith more reason, criticism has attacked the peculiar representation of\nthe third gospel. The strengthening angel has created no little\ndifficulty to the ancient church on dogmatical grounds,\u2014to modern\nexposition on critical grounds. An ancient scholium on the\nconsideration, that he who was adored and glorified with fear and\ntrembling by all the celestial powers, did not need the strengthening\nof the angel, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03ad\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f41 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\ninterprets the \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd ascribed to the angel as a declaring strong,\ni.e. as the offering of a doxology; [1840] while others, rather than\nadmit that Jesus could need to be strengthened by an angel, transform\nthe \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd into an evil angel, who attempted to use force\nagainst Jesus. [1841] The orthodox also, by founding a distinction\nbetween the state of humiliation and privation in Christ and that of\nhis glorification, or in some similar way, have long blunted the edge\nof the dogmatical difficulty: but in place of this a critical objection\nhas been only so much the more decidedly developed. In consideration of\nthe suspicion which, according to our earlier observations, attaches to\nevery alleged angelic appearance, it has been sought to reduce the\nangel in this narrative first into a man, [1842] and then into an image\nof the composure which Jesus regained. [1843] But the right point in\nthe angelic appearance for criticism to grapple with, is indicated by\nthe circumstance that Luke is the only Evangelist from whom we learn\nit. [1844] If, according to the ordinary presupposition, the first and\nfourth gospels are of apostolic origin; why this silence as to the\nangel on the part of Matthew, who is believed to have been in the\ngarden, why especially on the part of John, who was among the three in\nthe nearer neighbourhood of Jesus? If it be said: because sleepy as\nthey were, and at some distance, and moreover under cover of the night,\nthey did not observe him: it must be asked, whence are we to suppose\nthat Luke received this information? [1845] That, assuming the\ndisciples not to have themselves observed the appearance, Jesus should\nhave narrated it to them on that evening, there is, from the intense\nexcitement of those hours and the circumstance that the return of Jesus\nto his disciples was immediately followed by the arrival of Judas,\nlittle probability; and as little, that he communicated it to them in\nthe days after the resurrection, and that nevertheless this information\nappeared worthy of record to none but the third Evangelist, who yet\nreceived it only at second hand. As in this manner there is every\npresumption against the historical character of the angelic appearance;\nwhy should not this also, like all appearances of the same kind which\nhave come under our notice, especially in the history of the infancy of\nJesus, be interpreted by us mythically? Gabler has been before us in\nadvancing the idea, that in the primitive Christian community the rapid\ntransition from the most violent mental conflict to the most tranquil\nresignation, which was observable in Jesus on that night, was\nexplained, agreeably to the Jewish mode of thought, by the intervention\nof a strengthening angel, and that this explanation may have mingled\nitself with the narrative: Schleiermacher, too, finds it the most\nprobable that this moment, described by Jesus himself as one of hard\ntrial, was early glorified in hymns by angelic appearances, and that\nthis embellishment, originally intended in a merely poetical sense, was\nreceived by the narrator of the third gospel as historical. [1846]\n\nThe other feature peculiar to Luke, namely, the bloody sweat, was early\nfelt to be no less fraught with difficulty than the strengthening by\nthe angel. At least it appears to have been this more than anything\nelse, which occasioned the exclusion of the entire addition in Luke, v.\n43 and 44, from many ancient copies of the gospels. For as the\northodox, who according to Epiphanius [1847] rejected the passage,\nappear to have shrunk the most from the lowest degree of fear which is\nexpressed by the bloody sweat: so to the docetic opinions of some who\ndid not receive this passage, [1848] this was the only particular which\ncould give offence. Thus in an earlier age, doubts were raised\nrespecting the fitness of the bloody sweat of Jesus on dogmatical\nconsiderations: while in more modern times this has been done on\nphysiological grounds. It is true that authorities are adduced for\ninstances of bloody sweat from Aristotle [1849] down to the more recent\ninvestigators of nature; [1850] but such a phenomenon is only mentioned\nas extremely rare, and as a symptom of decided disease. Hence Paulus\npoints to the \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 (as it were), as indicating that it is not directly\na bloody sweat which is here spoken of, but only a sweat which might be\ncompared to blood: this comparison, however, he refers only to the\nthick appearance of the drops, and Olshausen also agrees with him thus\nfar, that a red colour of the perspiration is not necessarily included\nin the comparison. But in the course of a narrative which is meant as a\nprelude to the sanguinary death of Jesus, it is the most natural to\ntake the comparison of the sweat to drops of blood, in its full sense.\nFurther, here, yet more forcibly than in relation to the angelic\nappearance, the question suggests itself: how did Luke obtain this\ninformation? or to pass by all questions which must take the same form\nin this instance as in the previous one, how could the disciples, at a\ndistance and in the night, discern the falling of drops of blood?\nAccording to Paulus indeed it ought not to be said that the sweat fell,\nfor as the word \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, falling, refers not to \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u1f7c\u03c2, sweat, but\nto the \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, drops of blood, which are introduced merely for\nthe purpose of comparison, it is only meant that a sweat as thick and\nheavy as falling drops of blood stood on the brow of Jesus. But whether\nit be said: the sweat fell like drops of blood to the earth, or: it was\nlike drops of blood falling to the earth, it comes pretty much to the\nsame thing; at least the comparison of a sweat standing on the brow to\nblood falling on the earth would not be very apt, especially if\ntogether with the falling, we are to abstract also the colour of the\nblood, so that of the words, as it were drops of blood falling on the\nground, \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd, only \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9, as it were drops, would properly have any decided meaning.\nSince then we can neither comprehend the circumstance, nor conceive\nwhat historical authority for it the narrator could have had, let us,\nwith Schleiermacher, rather take this feature also as a poetical one\nconstrued historically by the Evangelist, or better still, as a\nmythical one, the origin of which may be easily explained from the\ntendency to perfect the conflict in the garden as a prelude to the\nsufferings of Jesus on the cross, by showing that not merely the\npsychical aspect of that suffering was fore-shadowed in the mental\ntrouble, but also its physical aspect, in the bloody sweat.\n\nAs a counterpoise to this peculiarity of Luke, his two predecessors\nhave, as we have said, the twofold occurrence of the number three,\u2014the\nthree disciples taken apart, and the three retirements and prayers of\nJesus. It has indeed been contended that so restless a movement hither\nand thither, so rapid an alternation of retirement and return, is\nentirely suited to the state of mind in which Jesus then was, [1851]\nand also, that in the repetition of the prayer there is correctly shown\nan appropriate gradation; a more and more complete resignation to the\nwill of the Father. [1852] But that the two narrators count the\nretirements of Jesus, marking them by the expressions \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 and\n\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, at once shows that the number three was a point of\nimportance to them; and when Matthew, though he certainly gives in the\nsecond prayer an expression somewhat different from that of the first,\nin the third makes Jesus only repeat the same words, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd,\nand when Mark does this even the second time,\u2014this is a significant\nproof that they were embarrassed how to fill up the favourite number\nthree with appropriate matter. According to Olshausen, Matthew, with\nhis three acts of this conflict, must be right in opposition to Luke,\nbecause these three attacks made on Jesus through the medium of fear,\ncorrespond to the three attacks through the medium of desire, in the\nhistory of the temptation. This parallel is well founded; it only leads\nto an opposite result to that deduced by Olshausen. For which is more\nprobable; that in both cases the threefold repetition of the attack had\nan objective ground, in a latent law of the kingdom of spirits, and\nhence is to be regarded as really historical; or that it had merely a\nsubjective ground in the manner of the legend, so that the occurrence\nof this number here, as certainly as above in the history of the\ntemptation, points to something mythical? [1853]\n\nIf then we subtract the angel, the bloody sweat, and the precisely\nthreefold repetition of the retirement and prayer of Jesus, as mythical\nadditions, there remains so far, as an historical kernel, the fact,\nthat Jesus on that evening in the garden experienced a violent access\nof fear, and prayed that his sufferings might be averted, with the\nreservation nevertheless of an entire submission to the will of God:\nand at this point of the inquiry, it is not a little surprising, on the\nordinary view of the relation between our gospels, that even this\nfundamental fact of the history in question, is wanting in the Gospel\nof John.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 126.\n\nRELATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL TO THE EVENTS IN GETHSEMANE. THE FAREWELL\nDISCOURSES IN JOHN, AND THE SCENE FOLLOWING THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE\nGREEKS.\n\nThe relation of John to the synoptical narratives just considered has,\nwhen regarded more closely, two aspects: first, he has not what the\nsynoptists present; and secondly, instead of this he has something\nwhich it is difficult to reconcile with their statements.\n\nAs regards the first and negative side, it has to be explained how, on\nthe ordinary supposition concerning the author of the fourth gospel and\nthe correctness of the synoptical account, it happens that John, who\naccording to the two first gospels was one of the three whom Jesus took\nwith him, to be the more immediate witnesses of his conflict, passes in\nsilence over the whole event? It will not suffice to appeal to his\nsleepiness during the scene; for, if this was a hindrance to its\nnarration, all the Evangelists must have been silent on the subject,\nand not John alone. Hence the usual expedient is tried here also, and\nhe is said to have omitted the scene because he found it already\npresented with sufficient care in the writings of the synoptists.\n[1854] But between the two first synoptists and the third there is here\nso important a divergency, as to demand most urgently that John, if he\ntook their accounts into consideration, should speak a mediating word\nin this difference. If however, John had not the works of his\npredecessors lying before him, he might still, it is said, suppose that\nhistory to be sufficiently familiar to his readers as a part of\nevangelical tradition. [1855] But as this tradition was the source of\nthe divergent representations of the synoptists, it must itself have\nearly begun to exhibit variations, and to narrate the fact first in one\nway, then in another: consequently on this view also there was a call\non the author of the fourth gospel to rectify these wavering accounts.\nHence of late an entirely new supposition has been adopted, namely,\nthat John omits the events in Gethsemane lest, by the mention of the\nstrengthening angel, he should give any furtherance to the Ebionitish\nopinion that the higher nature in Christ was an angel, which united\nitself with him at baptism; and now as it might be inferred, again\ndeparted from him before the hour of suffering. [1856] But\u2014not to urge\nthat we have already found any hypothesis of this nature inadequate to\nexplain the omissions in the Gospel of John\u2014if this Evangelist wished\nto avoid any indication of a close relation between Jesus and angels,\nhe must also have excluded other passages from his gospel: above all,\nas L\u00fccke remarks, [1857] the declaration concerning the ascending and\ndescending of angels upon him, i. 52; and also the idea, given indeed\nonly as the conjecture of some bystanders, that an angel spake to him,\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, xii. 29. If, however, he on any ground\nwhatever, found special matter of hesitation in the appearance of the\nangel in the garden: this would only be a reason for omitting the\nintervention of the angel, with Matthew and Mark, and not for excluding\nthe whole scene, which was easily separable from this single\nparticular.\n\nIf the mere absence of the incident from the narrative of John is not\nto be explained, the difficulty increases when we consider what this\nEvangelist communicates to us instead of the scene in the garden,\nconcerning the mental condition of Jesus during the last hours previous\nto his arrest. In the same place which the synoptists assign to the\nagony in the garden, John, it is true, has nothing, for he makes the\ncapture of Jesus follow at once on his arrival in the garden: but\nimmediately before, at and after the last meal, he has discourses\ninspired by a state of mind, which could hardly have as a sequel scenes\nlike those which according to the synoptical narratives occurred in the\ngarden. In the farewell discourses in John, namely, xiv.\u2013xvii., Jesus\nspeaks precisely in the tone of one who has already inwardly triumphed\nover approaching suffering; from a point of view in which death is\nquenched in the beams of the glory which is to come after; with a\ndivine peace which is cheerful in the certainty of its immovability:\nhow is it possible that immediately after, this peace should give place\nto the most violent mental emotion, this tranquillity, to a trouble\neven unto death, and that from victory achieved he should sink again\ninto doubtful contest, in which he needed strengthening by an angel? In\nthose farewell discourses, he appears throughout as one who from the\nplenitude of his inward serenity and confidence, comforts his trembling\nfriends: and yet he now seeks spiritual aid from the drowsy disciples,\nfor he requests them to watch with him; there, he is so certain of the\nsalutary effects of his approaching death, as to assure his followers,\nthat it is well for them that he should go away, else the Comforter\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 would not come to them: here, he again doubts whether his\ndeath be really the will of the Father; there, he exhibits a\nconsciousness which under the necessity of death, inasmuch as it\ncomprehends that necessity, recovers freedom, so that his will to die\nis one with the divine will that he should die: here, these two wills\nare so at variance, that the subjective, submissively indeed, but\npainfully, bows to the absolute. And these two opposite states of mind\nare not even separated by any intervening incident of an appalling\ncharacter, but only by the short space of time which elapsed during the\nwalk from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives, across the Kedron: just as\nif, in that brook, as in another Lethe, Jesus had lost all remembrance\nof the foregoing discourses.\n\nIt is true that we are here referred to the alternation of mental\nstates, which naturally becomes more rapid in proportion as the\ndecisive moment approaches; [1858] to the fact that not seldom in the\nlife of believers there occurs a sudden withdrawal of the higher\nsustenance of the soul, an abandonment of them by God, which alone\nrenders the victory nevertheless achieved truly great and admirable.\n[1859] But this latter opinion at once betrays its unintelligent origin\nfrom a purely imaginative species of thought (to which the soul can\nappear like a lake, ebbing or flowing according as the floodgates of\nthe conducting canals are opened or closed), by the contradictions in\nwhich it is on all sides involved. The triumph of Christ over the fear\nof death is said only to appear in its true magnitude, when we\nconsider, that while a Socrates could only conquer because he remained\nin the full possession of his mental energies, Christ was able to\ntriumph over all the powers of darkness, even when forsaken by God and\nthe fulness of his spirit, by his merely human soul \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74:\u2014but is not\nthis the rankest Pelagianism, the most flagrant contradiction of the\ndoctrine of the church, as of sound philosophy, which alike maintain\nthat without God, man can do no good thing, that only by his armour can\nman repel the shafts of the wicked one? To escape from thus\ncontradicting the results of sober reflection, the imaginative thinker\nis driven to contradict himself, by supposing that in the strengthening\nangel (which, incidentally, contrary to the verbal significance of the\ntext, is reduced to a merely internal vision of Jesus) there was\nimparted to Jesus, when wrestling in the extremity of his abandonment,\nan influx of spiritual strength; so that he thus would not, as it was\nat first vaunted, have conquered without, but only with Divine aid; if,\nin accordance with Luke, the angel be supposed to have appeared prior\nto the last, most violent part of the conflict, in order to strengthen\nJesus for this ultimate trial. But rather than fall into so evident a\nself-contradiction, Olshausen prefers covertly to contradict the text,\nand hence transposes the order of the incidents, assuming, without\nfurther preliminary, that the strengthening came after the third\nprayer, consequently after the victory had been already gained, whence\nhe is driven to the extreme arbitrariness of interpreting the phrase:\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, and being in an agony\nhe prayed, as the pluperfect\u2014he had prayed.\n\nBut setting aside this figurative representation of the cause which\nproduced the sudden change of mood in Jesus; such a change is in itself\nburthened with many difficulties. Correctly speaking, what here took\nplace in Jesus was not a mere change, but a relapse of the most\nstartling kind. In the so-called sacerdotal prayer, John xvii.\nespecially, Jesus had completely closed his account with the Father;\nall fear in relation to what awaited him lay so far behind the point\nwhich he had here attained, that he spent not a single word on his own\nsuffering, and only spoke of the afflictions which threatened his\nfriends; the chief subject of his communion with the Father was the\nglory into which he was about to enter, and the blessedness which he\nhoped to have obtained for his followers: so that his departure to the\nscene of his arrest has entirely the character of an accessory fact,\nmerely consummating by external realization what was already inwardly\nand essentially effected. Now if Jesus after this closing of his\naccount with God, once more opened it; if after having held himself\nalready victor, he once more sank into anxious conflict: must he not\nhave laid himself open to the remonstrance: why didst thou not, instead\nof indulging in vain anticipations of glory, rather occupy thyself\nbetimes with earnest thoughts of the coming trial, that by such a\npreparation, thou mightest spare thyself perilous surprise on its\napproach? why didst thou utter the words of triumph before thou hadst\nfought, so as to be obliged with shame to cry for help at the on-coming\nof the battle? In fact after the assurance of already achieved victory\nexpressed in the farewell discourses, and especially in the final\nprayer, the lapse into such a state of mind as that described by the\nsynoptists, would have been a very humiliating declension, which Jesus\ncould not have foreseen, otherwise he would not have expressed himself\nwith so much confidence; and which, therefore, would prove that he was\ndeceived in himself, that he held himself to be stronger than he\nactually found himself, and that he had given utterance to this too\nhigh self-valuation, not without a degree of presumption. Those who\nregard this as inconsistent with the equally judicious and modest\ncharacter which Jesus manifests on other occasions, will find\nthemselves urged to the dilemma, that either the farewell discourses in\nJohn, at least the final prayer, or else the events in Gethsemane,\ncannot be historical.\n\nIt is to be regretted that in coming to a decision in this case,\ntheologians have set out rather from dogmatical prejudices than from\ncritical grounds. Usteri\u2019s assertion, at least, that the representation\ngiven in John of the state of mind of Jesus in his last hours is the\nonly correct one, while that of the synoptists is unhistorical, [1860]\nis only to be accounted for by that author\u2019s then zealous adherence to\nthe paragraphs of Schleiermacher\u2019s Dogmatik, wherein the idea of the\nimpeccability of Jesus is carried to an extent which excludes even the\nslightest degree of conflict; for that, apart from such\npresuppositions, the representation given in John of the last hours of\nJesus, is the more natural and appropriate, it might be difficult to\nprove. On the contrary, Bretschneider might rather appear to be right,\nwhen he claims the superiority in naturalness and intrinsic evidence of\ntruth for the synoptists: [1861] were it not that our confidence in the\ndecisions of this writer is undermined, by his dislike for the\ndogmatical and metaphysical purport of the discourses assigned to this\nperiod in John\u2014a dislike which appears to indicate that his entire\npolemic against John originated in the discordance between his own\ncritical philosophy of reflection, and the speculative doctrine of the\nfourth gospel.\n\nJohn, indeed, as even the author of the Probabilia remarks, has not\nwholly passed over the anxiety of Jesus in relation to his approaching\ndeath; he has only assigned to it an earlier epoch, John xii. 27 ff.\nThe scene with which John connects it takes place immediately after the\nentrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, when certain Greeks, doubtless\nproselytes of the gate, who had come among the multitude to the feast,\nwished to have an interview with him. With all the diversity of the\ncircumstances and of the event itself, there is yet a striking\nagreement between what here occurs and what the synoptists place in the\nlast evening of the life of Jesus, and in the seclusion of the garden.\nAs Jesus here declares to his disciples, my soul is troubled even unto\ndeath, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (Matt. xxvi. 38): so\nthere he says: Now is my soul troubled, \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (John\nxii. 27); as he here prays, that if it be possible, this hour may pass\nfrom him, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1 (Mark xiv. 35):\nso there he entreats: Father, save me from this hour, \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\n\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (John xii. 27); as here he calms himself by the\nrestriction: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03af\n\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u03cd (Mark xiv. 36): so there, by the reflection: but\nfor this cause came I to this hour, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd (John xii. 27); lastly, as here an angel appears strengthening\nJesus, \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd (Luke xxii. 43): so there something happens\nwhich occasions the bystanders to observe that an angel spake to him,\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd (John xii. 29). This similarity has induced many\nof the more modern theologians to pronounce the incident in John xii.\n27 ff., and that in Gethsemane identical; and after this admission the\nonly question was, on which side the reproach of inaccurate narration,\nand more especially of erroneous position, ought to fall.\n\nAgreeably to the tendency of the latest criticism of the gospels, the\nburthen of error in this matter has been more immediately cast on the\nsynoptists. The true occasion of the mental conflict of Jesus is said\nto be found only in John, namely, in the approach of those Greeks who\nintimated to him through Philip and Andrew their wish for an interview\nwith him. These persons doubtless wished to make the proposal that he\nshould leave Palestine and carry forward his work among the foreign\nJews; such a proposal held out to him the enticement of escape from the\nthreatening danger, and this for some moments placed him in a state of\ndoubt and inward conflict, which however ended by his refusing to admit\nthe Greeks to his presence. [1862] Here we have the effects of a vision\nrendered so acute by a double prejudice, both critical and dogmatical,\nas to read statements between the lines of the text; for of such an\nintended proposal on the part of the Greeks, there is no trace in John;\nand yet, even allowing that the Evangelist knew nothing of the plan of\nthe Greeks from these individuals themselves, there must have been some\nintimation in the discourse of Jesus that his emotion had reference to\nsuch a proposal. Judging from the context, the request of the Greeks\nhad no other motive than that the solemn entrance of Jesus, and the\npopular rumour concerning him, had rendered them curious to see and\nknow the celebrated man; and this desire of theirs was not connected\nwith the emotion which Jesus experienced on the occasion, otherwise\nthan that it led Jesus to think of the speedy propagation of his\nkingdom in the Gentile world, and of its indispensable condition,\nnamely, his death. Here, however, the idea of his death is only\nmediately and remotely presented to the soul of Jesus; hence it is the\nmore difficult to conceive how it could affect him so strongly, as that\nhe should feel himself urged to beseech the Father for delivery from\nthis hour; and if he were ever profoundly moved by the presentiment of\ndeath, the synoptists appear to place this fear in a more suitable\nposition, in immediate proximity to the commencement of his sufferings.\nThe representation of John is also deficient in certain circumstances,\npresented by the synoptists, which appear to vindicate the trouble of\nJesus. In the solitude of the garden and the gloom of night, such an\nebullition of feeling is more conceivable; and its unrepressed\nutterance to his most intimate and worthy friends is natural and\njustifiable. But according to John that agitation seized Jesus in the\nbroad daylight, in a concourse of people; a situation in which it is\nordinarily more easy to maintain composure, or in which at least it is\nusual, from the possibility of misconstruction, to suppress the more\nprofound emotions.\n\nHence it is more easy to agree with Theile\u2019s opinion, that the author\nof the fourth gospel has inserted the incident, correctly placed by the\nsynoptists, in a false position. [1863] Jesus having said, as an\nintroduction to the answer which he returned to the request of the\nGreeks, that they might see the man who had been so glorified by his\nentrance into the city: Yes, the hour of my glorification is come, but\nof glorification by death (xii. 23 f.): this led the narrator astray,\nand induced him, instead of giving the real answer of Jesus to the\nGreeks together with the result, to make Jesus dilate on the intrinsic\nnecessity of his death, and then almost unconsciously to interweave the\ndescription of the internal conflict which Jesus had to experience in\nvirtue of his voluntary sacrifice, whence he subsequently, in its\nproper place, omits this conflict. There is nothing strange in Theile\u2019s\nopinion, except that he supposes it possible for the Apostle John to\nhave made such a transposition. That the scene in Gethsemane, from his\nhaving been asleep while it was passing, was not deeply imprinted on\nhis mind, and that it was besides thrust into the background of his\nmemory by the crucifixion which shortly followed, might have been\nconsidered explanatory of an entire omission, or a merely summary\naccount of the scene on his part, but by no means of an incorrect\nposition. If notwithstanding his sleepiness at the time, he had taken\nany notice of the event, he must at least have retained thus much\u2014that\nthat peculiar state of mind in Jesus befel him close upon the\ncommencement of his sufferings, in the night and in privacy: how could\nhe ever so far belie his memory as to make the scene take place at a\nmuch earlier period, in the open day, and among many people? Rather\nthan thus endanger the authenticity of the Gospel of John, others,\nalleging the possibility that such a state of mind might occur more\nthan once in the latter part of the life of Jesus, deny the identity of\nthe two scenes. [1864]\n\nCertainly, between the synoptical representation of the mental conflict\nof Jesus and that given in John, besides the external difference of\nposition, there exist important internal divergencies; the narrative in\nJohn containing features which have no analogy with anything in the\nsynoptical account of the events in Gethsemane. It is true that the\npetition of Jesus in John for deliverance from this hour, is perfectly\nin unison with his prayer in the synoptists: but, on the other hand,\nthere is no parallel to the additional prayer in John: Father, glorify\nthy name, \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 (xii. 28): further, though in\nboth accounts an angel is spoken of, yet there is no trace in the\nsynoptists of the heavenly voice which in the fourth gospel occasions\nthe belief that an angel is concerned. Such heavenly voices are not\nfound in the three first gospels elsewhere than at the baptism and\nagain at the transfiguration; of which latter scene the prayer of Jesus\nin John: Father, glorify thy name, may remind us. In the synoptical\ndescription of the transfiguration, it is true the expressions \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1,\nglory and \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, to glorify, are not found: but the Second Epistle\nto Peter represents Jesus as receiving in the transfiguration honour\nand glory, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd, and the heavenly voice as coming from the\nexcellent glory, \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 (i. 17 f.). Thus in addition to the\ntwo narratives already considered, there presents itself a third as a\nparallel; since the scene in John xii. 27 ff. is on the one side, by\nthe trouble of spirit and the angel, allied to the occurrences in\nGethsemane, while on the other side, by the prayer for glorification\nand the confirmatory voice from heaven, it has some affinity with the\nhistory of the transfiguration. And here two cases are possible: either\nthat the narrative of John is the simple root, the separation of which\ninto its constituent elements has given rise in a traditional manner to\nthe two synoptical anecdotes of the transfiguration and the agony in\nthe garden; or that these last are the original formations, from the\nfusing and intermingling of which in the legend the narrative of John\nis the mixed product: between which cases only the intrinsic character\nof the narratives can decide. That the synoptical narratives of the\ntransfiguration and the agony in the garden are clear pictures, with\nstrongly marked features, can by itself prove nothing; since, as we\nhave sufficiently shown, a narrative of legendary origin may just as\nwell possess these characteristics as one of a purely historical\nnature. Thus if the narrative in John were merely less clear and\ndefinite, this need not prevent it from being regarded as the original,\nsimple sketch, from which the embellishing hand of tradition had\nelaborated those more highly coloured pictures. But the fact is that\nthe narrative in John is wanting not only in definiteness, but in\nagreement with the attendant circumstances and with itself. We have no\nintimation what was the answer of Jesus to the Greeks, or what became\nof those persons themselves; no appropriate motive is given for the\nsudden anguish of Jesus and his prayer for glorification. Such a\nmixture of heterogeneous parts is always the sign of a secondary\nproduct, of an alluvial conglomeration; and hence we seem warranted to\nconclude, that in the narrative of John the two synoptical anecdotes of\nthe transfiguration and the agony in the garden are blended together.\nIf, as is apparently the case, the legend when it reached the fourth\nEvangelist presented these two incidents in faded colours, [1865] and\nin indistinct outline: it would be easy for him, since his idea of\nglorification (\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) had the double aspect of suffering and\nexaltation, to confuse the two; what he gathered from the narrative of\nthe agony in the garden, of a prayer of Jesus to the Father, he might\nconnect with the heavenly voice in the history of the transfiguration,\nmaking this an answer to the prayer; to the voice, the more particular\nimport of which, as given by the synoptists, was unknown to him, he\ngave, in accordance, with his general notion of this incident as a\nglory \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 conferred on Jesus, the import: I have both glorified and\nwill glorify again, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03c3\u03c9, and to make it\ncorrespond with this divine response, he had to unite with the prayer\nof Jesus for deliverance that for glorification also; the strengthening\nangel, of which the fourth Evangelist had perhaps also heard something,\nwas included in the opinion of the people as to the source of the\nheavenly voice; in regard to the time, John placed his narrative about\nmidway between the transfiguration and the agony in the garden, and\nfrom ignorance of the original circumstances the choice in this respect\nwas infelicitous.\n\nIf we here revert to the question from which we set out, whether we are\nrather to retain the farewell discourses in John as thoroughly\nhistorical, and renounce the synoptical representation of the scene in\nGethsemane, or vice vers\u00e2: we shall be more inclined, considering the\nresult of the inquiry just instituted, to embrace the latter\nalternative. The difficulty, that it is scarcely conceivable how John\ncould accurately remember these long discourses of Jesus, Paulus has\nthought to solve, by the conjecture, that the apostle, probably on the\nnext Sabbath, while Jesus lay in the grave, recalled to his mind the\nconversations of the previous evening, and perhaps also wrote them\ndown. [1866] But in that period of depression, which John also shared,\nhe would be scarcely in a condition to reproduce these discourses\nwithout obscuring their peculiar hue of unclouded serenity; on the\ncontrary, as the author of the Wolfenb\u00fcttel fragments observes, had the\nnarrative of the words and deeds of Jesus been committed to writing by\nthe Evangelists in the couple of days after the death of Jesus, when\nthey had no longer any hope, all promises would have been excluded from\ntheir gospels. [1867] Hence even L\u00fccke, in consideration of the mode of\nexpression in the farewell discourses, and particularly in the final\nprayer, being so peculiarly that of John, has relinquished the position\nthat Jesus spoke in the very words which John puts into his mouth, i.e.\nthe authenticity of these discourses in the strictest sense; but only\nto maintain the more firmly their authenticity in the wider sense, i.e.\nthe genuineness of the substantial thoughts. [1868] Even this, however,\nhas been attacked by the author of the Probabilia, for he asks, with\nespecial reference to chap. xvii., whether it be conceivable that Jesus\nin the anticipation of violent death, had nothing of more immediate\nconcern than to commune with God on the subject of his person, the\nworks he had already achieved, and the glory to be expected? and\nwhether it be not rather highly probable that the prayer flowed only\nfrom the mind of the writer, and was intended by him as a confirmation\nof his doctrine of Jesus as the incarnate word \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, and of the\ndignity of the apostles? [1869] This representation is so far true that\nthe final prayer in question resembles not an immediate outpouring of\nsoul, but a product of reflection\u2014is rather a discourse on Jesus than a\ndiscourse from him. It presents everywhere the mode of thought of one\nwho stands far in advance of the circumstances of which he writes, and\nhence already sees the form of Jesus in the glorifying haze of\ndistance; an illusion which he heightens by putting his own thoughts,\nwhich had sprung from an advanced development of the Christian\ncommunity, into the mouth of its Founder prior to its actual existence.\nBut in the preceding farewell discourses also there are many thoughts\nwhich appear to have taken their shape from an experience of the event.\nTheir entire tone may be the most naturally explained by the\nsupposition, that they are the work of one to whom the death of Jesus\nwas already a past event, the terrors of which had melted away in its\nblessed consequences, and in the devotional contemplation of the\nchurch. In particular, apart from what is said of the return of Christ,\nthat era in the Christian cause which is generally called the\noutpouring of the Holy Spirit, is predicted in the declarations\nconcerning the Paraclete, and the judgment which he would hold over the\nworld (xiv. 16 ff. 25, xv. 26, xvi. 7 ff. 13 ff.), with a distinctness\nwhich seems to indicate light borrowed from the issue.\n\nIn relation, however, to the fact that the farewell discourses involve\nthe decided foreknowledge of the immediately approaching result, the\nsufferings and death of Jesus (xiii. 18 ff., 33, 38, xiv. 30 f. xvi. 5\nff. 16, 32 f.), the narrative of John stands on the same ground with\nthe synoptical one, since this also rests on the presupposition of the\nmost exact prescience of the hour and moment when the sufferings will\ncommence. It was not only at the last meal and on the departure to the\nMount of Olives, that this foreknowledge was shown, according to the\nthree first gospels, for in them as well as in John, Jesus predicts\nthat the denial of Peter will take place before the cock crow; not only\ndoes the agony in the garden rest on the foreknowledge of the impending\nsufferings, but at the end of this conflict Jesus is able to say that\nnow, at this very minute, the betrayer is in the act of approaching\n(Matt. xxvi. 45 f.). Paulus, it is true, maintains that Jesus saw from\na distance the troop of guards coming out of the city, which, as they\nhad torches, was certainly possible from a garden on the Mount of\nOlives: but without being previously informed of the plans of his\nenemies, Jesus could not know that he was the object of pursuit; and at\nany rate the Evangelists narrate the words of Jesus as a proof of his\nsupernatural knowledge. But if according to our previous inquiry, the\nforeknowledge of the catastrophe in general could not proceed from the\nhigher principle in Jesus, neither could that of the precise moment\nwhen it would commence; while that he in a natural way, by means of\nsecret friends in the Sanhedrim, or otherwise, was apprised of the\nfatal blow which the Jewish rulers with the help of one of his\ndisciples were about to aim at him in the coming night, we have no\ntrace in our Evangelical accounts, and we are therefore not authorized\nto presuppose anything of the kind. On the contrary, as the above\ndeclaration of Jesus is given by the narrators as a proof of his higher\nknowledge, either we must receive it as such, or, if we cannot do this,\nwe must embrace the negative inference, that they are here incorrect in\nnarrating such a proof; and the positive conclusion on which this\nborders is, not that that knowledge was in fact only a natural one,\nbut, that the evangelical narrators must have had an interest in\nmaintaining a supernatural knowledge of his approaching sufferings on\nthe part of Jesus; an interest the nature of which has been already\nunfolded.\n\nThe motive also for heightening the prescience into a real\npresentiment, and thus for creating the scene in Gethsemane, is easy of\ndiscovery. On the one hand, there cannot be a more obvious proof that a\nforeknowledge of an event or condition has existed, than its having\nrisen to the vividness of a presentiment; on the other hand, the\nsuffering must appear the more awful, if the mere presentiment extorted\nfrom him who was destined to that suffering, anguish even to bloody\nsweat, and prayer for deliverance. Further, the sufferings of Jesus\nwere exhibited in a higher sense, as voluntary, if before they came\nupon him externally, he had resigned himself to them internally; and\nlastly, it must have gratified primitive Christian devotion, to\nwithdraw the real crisis of these sufferings from the profane eyes to\nwhich he was exposed on the cross, and to enshrine it as a mystery only\nwitnessed by a narrow circle of the initiated. As materials for the\nformation of this scene, besides the description of the sorrow and the\nprayer which were essential to it, there presented itself first the\nimage of a cup \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, used by Jesus himself as a designation of his\nsufferings (Matt. xx. 22 f.); and secondly, Old Testament passages, in\nPsalms of lamentation, xlii. 6, 12, xliii. 5, where in the LXX. the\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 (soul exceeding sorrowful) occurs, and in addition to\nthis the expression \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (unto death) the more naturally\nsuggested itself, since Jesus was here really about to encounter death.\nThis representation must have been of early origin, because in the\nEpistle to the Hebrews (v. 7) there is an indubitable allusion to this\nscene.\u2014Thus Gabler said too little when he pronounced the angelic\nappearance, a mythical garb of the fact that Jesus in the deepest\nsorrow of that night suddenly felt an accession of mental strength;\nsince rather, the entire scene in Gethsemane, because it rests on\npresuppositions destitute of proof, must be renounced.\n\nHerewith the dilemma above stated falls to the ground, since we must\npronounce unhistorical not only one of the two, but both\nrepresentations of the last hours of Jesus before his arrest. The only\ndegree of distinction between the historical value of the synoptical\naccount and that of John is, that the former is a mythical product of\nthe first era of traditional formation, the latter of the second,\u2014or\nmore correctly, the one is a product of the second order, the other of\nthe third. The representation common to the synoptists and to John,\nthat Jesus foreknew his sufferings even to the day and hour of their\narrival, is the first modification which the pious legend gave to the\nreal history of Jesus; the statement of the synoptists, that he even\nhad an antecedent experience of his sufferings, is the second step of\nthe mythical; while, that although he foreknew them, and also in one\ninstance had a foretaste of them (John xii. 27 ff.), he had yet long\nbeforehand completely triumphed over them, and when they stood\nimmediately before him, looked them in the face with unperturbed\nserenity\u2014this representation of the fourth gospel is the third and\nhighest grade of devotional, but unhistorical embellishment.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 127.\n\nARREST OF JESUS.\n\nIn strict accordance with the declaration of Jesus that even now the\nbetrayer is at hand, Judas while he is yet speaking approaches with an\narmed force (Matt. xxvi. 47 parall., comp. John xvii. 3). This band,\nwhich according to the synoptists came from the chief priests and\nelders, was according to Luke led by the captains of the temple\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, and hence was probably a detachment of the\nsoldiers of the temple, to whom, judging from the word \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, and from\nstaves \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 being mentioned among the weapons, was apparently joined a\ntumultuous crowd: according to the representation of John, who,\ntogether with the servants or officers of the chief priests and\nPharisees, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, speaks of a band\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1, and a captain \u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, without mentioning any tumultuary\nforce, it appears as if the Jewish magistrates had procured as a\nsupport a detachment of Roman soldiery. [1870]\n\nAccording to the three first Evangelists, Judas steps forth and kisses\nJesus, in order by this preconcerted sign to indicate him to the\napproaching band as the individual whom they were to seize: according\nto the fourth gospel, on the contrary, Jesus advances apparently out of\nthe garden (\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd) to meet them, and presents himself as the person\nwhom they seek. In order to reconcile this divergency, some have\nconceived the occurrences thus: Jesus, to prevent his disciples from\nbeing taken, first went towards the multitude, and made himself known;\nhereupon Judas stepped forth, and indicated him by the kiss. [1871] But\nhad Jesus already made himself known, Judas might have spared the kiss;\nfor that the people did not believe the assertion of Jesus that he was\nthe man whom they sought, and still waited for its confirmation by the\nkiss of the bribed disciple, is a supposition incompatible with the\nstatement of the fourth gospel that the words I am he, made so strong\nan impression on them that they went backward and fell to the ground.\nHence others have inverted the order of the scene, imagining that Judas\nfirst stepped forward and distinguished Jesus by the kiss, and that\nthen, before the crowd could press into the garden, Jesus himself\nadvanced and made himself known. [1872] But if Judas had already\nindicated him by the kiss, and he had so well understood the object of\nthe kiss as is implied in his answer to it, Luke v. 48: there was no\nneed for him still to make himself known, seeing that he was already\nmade known; to do so for the protection of the disciples was equally\nsuperfluous, since he must have inferred from the traitor\u2019s kiss, that\nit was intended to single him out and carry him away from his\nfollowers; if he did so merely to show his courage, this was almost\ntheatrical: while, in general, the idea that Jesus, between the kiss of\nJudas, and the entrance of the crowd, which was certainly immediate,\nadvanced towards the latter with questions and answers, throws into his\ndemeanour a degree of hurry and precipitancy so ill suited to his\ncircumstances, that the Evangelists can scarcely have meant such an\ninference to be drawn. It should therefore be acknowledged that neither\nof the two representations is designed as a supplement to the other,\n[1873] since each has a different conception of the manner in which\nJesus was made known, and in which Judas was active in the affair. That\nJudas was guide to them that took Jesus, \u1f41\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd (Acts i. 16), all the Evangelists agree. But while according to\nthe synoptical account the task of Judas includes not only the pointing\nout of the place, but also the distinguishing of the person by the\nkiss, John makes the agency of Judas end with the indication of the\nplace, and represents him after the arrival on the spot as standing\ninactive among the crowd (\u03b5\u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\u2014\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, v. 5). Why\nJohn does not assign to Judas the task of personally indicating Jesus,\nit is easy to see: because, namely, he would have Jesus appear, not as\none delivered up, but as delivering himself up, so that his sufferings\nmay be manifested in a higher degree as undertaken voluntarily. We have\nonly to remember how the earliest opponents of Christianity imputed the\nretirement of Jesus out of the city into the distant garden, as an\nignominious flight from his enemies, [1874] in order to find it\nconceivable that there arose among the Christians at an early period\nthe inclination to transcend the common evangelical tradition in\nrepresenting his demeanour on his arrest in the light of a voluntary\nself-resignation.\n\nIn the synoptists the kiss of Judas is followed by the cutting question\nof Jesus to the traitor; in John, after Jesus has uttered the \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9,\nI am he, it is stated that under the influence of these commanding\nwords, the multitude who had come out to seize him went backward and\nfell to the ground, so that Jesus had to repeat his declaration and as\nit were encourage the people to seize him. Of late it has been denied\nthat there was any miracle here: the impression of the personality of\nJesus, it is said, acted psychologically on those among the crowd who\nhad already often seen and heard Jesus; and in support of this opinion\nreference is made to the examples of this kind in the life of Marius,\nColigny, and others. [1875] But neither in the synoptical account,\naccording to which there needed the indication of Jesus by the kiss,\nnor in that of John, according to which there needed the declaration of\nJesus, I am he, does Jesus appear to be known to the crowd, at least in\nsuch a manner as to exercise any profound influence over them; while\nthe above examples only show that sometimes the powerful impression of\na man\u2019s personality has paralyzed the murderous hands of an individual\nor of a few, but not that a whole detachment of civil officers and\nsoldiers has been made, not merely to draw back, but to fall to the\nground. It answers no purpose for L\u00fccke to make first a few fall down\nand then the whole crowd, except that of rendering it impossible to\nimagine the scene with gravity. Hence we turn to the old theologians,\nwho here unanimously acknowledge a miracle. The Christ who by word of\nhis mouth cast down the hostile multitude, is no other than he who\naccording to 2 Thess. ii. 8, shall consume the Antichrist with the\nspirit of his mouth, i.e. not the historical Christ, but the Christ of\nthe Jewish and primitive Christian imagination. The author of the\nfourth gospel especially, who had so often remarked how the enemies of\nJesus and their creatures were unable to lay hands on him, because his\nhour was not yet come (vii. 30, 32, 44 ff., viii. 20), had an\ninducement, now, when the hour was come, to represent the ultimately\nsuccessful attempt as also failing at the first in a thoroughly\nastounding manner; especially as this fully accorded with the interest\nby which he is governed throughout the description of this whole\nscene\u2014the demonstrating that the capture of Jesus was purely an act of\nhis own free will. When Jesus lays the soldiers prostrate by the power\nof his word, he gives them a proof of what he could do, if to liberate\nhimself were his object; and when he allows himself to be seized\nimmediately after, this appears as the most purely voluntary\nself-sacrifice. Thus in the fourth gospel Jesus gives a practical proof\nof that power, which in the first he only expresses by words, when he\nsays to one of his disciples: Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to\nmy Father, and he shall presently give me twelve legions of angels (v.\n53)?\n\nAfter this, the author of the fourth gospel very inappropriately holds\nup the solicitude which Jesus manifested that his disciples should not\nbe taken captive with him, as a fulfilment of the declaration of Jesus\n(xvii. 12), that he had lost none of those intrusted to him by the\nFather; a declaration which was previously more suitably referred to\nthe spiritual preservation of his disciples. As the next feature in the\nscene, all the Evangelists agree, that when the soldiers began to lay\nhands on Jesus, one of his disciples drew his sword, and cut off the\near of the high priest\u2019s servant, an act which met with a reproof from\nJesus. Still Luke and John have each a peculiar trait. Not to mention\nthat both particularize the ear as the right ear, while their two\npredecessors had left this point undetermined; the latter not only\ngives the name of the wounded servant, but states that the disciple who\nwounded him was Peter. Why the synoptists do not name Peter, it has\nbeen sought to explain in different ways. The supposition that they\nwished to avoid compromising the apostle, who at the time of the\ncomposition of their gospels was yet living, [1876] belongs to the\njustly exploded fictions of an exegesis framed on the false principle\nof supplying conjecturally all those links in the chain of natural\ncausation which are wanting in the gospels. That these Evangelists\nelsewhere for the most part omit names, [1877] is too sweeping an\naccusation as regards Matthew, though he does indeed leave unnamed\nindifferent persons, such as Jairus, or Bartim\u00e6us; but that the real\nMatthew, or even the common evangelical tradition, thus early and\ngenerally should have lost the name from an anecdote of Peter, so\nthoroughly accordant with the part played by this apostle, can scarcely\nbe considered very probable. To me, the reverse would be much more\nconceivable, namely, that the anecdote was originally current without\nthe mention of any name (and why should not a less distinguished\nadherent of Jesus\u2014for from the synoptists it is not necessarily to be\ninferred that it was one of the twelve\u2014whose name was therefore the\nmore readily forgotten, have had courage and rashness enough to draw\nhis sword at that crisis?), but a later narrator thought such a mode of\nconduct particularly suited to the impetuous character of Peter, and\nhence ascribed it to him by a combination of his own. On this\nsupposition, we need not appeal, in support of the possibility that\nJohn could know the servant\u2019s name, to his acquaintance with the\nhousehold of the high priest, [1878] any more than to a peculiar\nacquaintance of Mark with some inhabitants of Jericho, in explanation\nof his obtaining the name of the blind man.\n\nThe distinctive trait in Luke\u2019s account of this particular is, that\nJesus heals the servant\u2019s ear, apparently by a miracle. Olshausen here\nmakes the complacent remark, that this circumstance best explains how\nPeter could escape uninjured\u2014astonishment at the cure absorbed the\ngeneral attention: while according to Paulus, Jesus by touching the\nwounded ear (\u1f01\u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) only meant to examine it, and then told what\nmust be done for the purpose of healing (\u1f30\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd); had he cured it\nby a miracle there must have been some notice of the astonishment of\nthe spectators. Such pains-taking interpretations are here especially\nneedless, since the fact that Luke stands alone in giving the trait in\nquestion, together with the whole tenor of the scene, tells us plainly\nenough what opinion we are to form on the subject. Should Jesus, who\nhad removed by his miraculous power so much suffering of which he was\ninnocent, leave uncured suffering which one of his disciples out of\nattachment to him, and thus indirectly he himself, had caused? This\nmust soon have been found inconceivable, and hence to the stroke of the\nsword of Peter was united a miraculous cure on the part of Jesus\u2014the\nlast in the evangelical history.\n\nHere, immediately before he is led away, the synoptists place the\nremonstrance which Jesus addressed to those who had come to take him\nprisoner: that though, by his daily public appearance in the temple he\nhad given the best opportunity for them to lay hands upon him, yet\u2014a\nbad augury for the purity of their cause\u2014they came to a distance to\nseek him with as many preparations, as against a thief? In the fourth\ngospel, he is made to say something similar to Annas, to whose\ninquiries concerning his disciples and his doctrine, he replies by\nreferring him to the publicity of his entire agency, to his teaching in\nthe temple and synagogue (xviii. 20 f.). Luke, as if he had gathered\nfrom both, that Jesus had said something of this kind to the high\npriest, and also at the time of his arrest, represents the chief\npriests and elders themselves as being present in the garden, and Jesus\nas here speaking to them in the above manner, which is certainly a mere\nblunder. [1879]\n\nAccording to the two first Evangelists, all the disciples now fled.\nHere Mark has the special particular, that a young man with a linen\ncloth cast about his naked body, when he was in danger of being seized,\nleft the linen cloth and fled naked. Apart from the industrious\nconjectures of ancient and even modern expositors, as to who this young\nman was; this information of Mark\u2019s has been regarded as a proof of the\nvery early origin of this gospel, on the ground that so unimportant an\nanecdote, and one moreover to which no name is attached, could have no\ninterest except for those who stood in close proximity to the persons\nand events. [1880] But this inference is erroneous; for the above trait\ngives even to us, at this remote distance of time, a vivid idea of the\npanic and rapid flight of the adherents of Jesus, and must therefore\nhave been welcome to Mark, from whatever source he may have received\nit, or how late soever he may have written.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 128.\n\nEXAMINATION OF JESUS BEFORE THE HIGH PRIEST.\n\nFrom the place of arrest the synoptists state Jesus to have been led to\nthe high priest, whose name, Caiaphas, is, however, only mentioned by\nMatthew; while John represents him as being led in the first instance\nto Annas, the father-in-law of the existing high priest; and only\nsubsequently to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 57 ff. parall.; John xviii. 12\nff.). The important rank of Annas renders this representation of John\nas conceivable as the silence of the synoptists is explicable, on the\nground that the ex-high priest had no power of deciding in this cause.\nBut it is more surprising that, as must be believed from the first\nglance, the fourth Evangelist merely gives some details of the\ntransaction with Annas, and appears entirely to pass by the decisive\ntrial before the actual high priest, except that he states Jesus to\nhave been led away to Caiaphas. There was no more ready expedient for\nthe harmonists than the supposition, which is found e.g. in Euthymius,\nthat John, in consistency with the supplementary character of his\ngospel, preserved the examination before Annas as being omitted by the\nsynoptists, while he passed by that before Caiaphas, because it was\ndescribed with sufficient particularity by his predecessors. [1881]\nThis opinion, that John and the synoptists speak of two entirely\ndistinct trials, has a confirmation in the fact that the tenor of the\nrespective trials is totally different. In that which the synoptists\ndescribe, according to Matthew and Mark, the false witnesses first\nappear against Jesus; the high priest then asks him if he really\npretends to be the Messiah, and on receiving an affirmative answer,\ndeclares him guilty of blasphemy, and worthy of death, whereupon\nfollows maltreatment of his person. In the trial depicted by John,\nJesus is merely questioned concerning his disciples and his doctrine,\nhe appeals to the publicity of his conduct, and after having been\nmaltreated for this reply by an attendant (\u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), is sent away\nwithout the passing of any sentence. That the fourth Evangelist should\nthus give no particulars concerning the trial before Caiaphas is the\nmore surprising, since in the one before Annas, if it be this which he\nnarrates, according to his own representation nothing was decided, and\nconsequently the grounds for the condemnation of Jesus by the Jewish\nauthorities, and the sentence itself, are altogether wanting in his\ngospel. To explain this by the supplementary object of John is to\nimpute to him too irrational a mode of procedure; for if he omitted\nfacts because the other Evangelists had already given them, without\nintimating that he did so purely for that reason, he could only reckon\non introducing confusion, and entailing on himself the suspicion of\nhaving given a false narrative. He can hardly have had the opinion that\nthe trial before Annas was the principal one, and that therefore it was\nallowable to omit the other, since he reports no judgment as having\nbeen passed in the former; but if he knew the trial before Caiaphas to\nhave been the principal one, and yet gave no more particular\ninformation concerning it, this also was a highly singular course for\nhim to take.\n\nThus the very simplest view of the case seems at once to point to the\nattempt to discover in the account of the fourth gospel indications\nthat it also is to be understood of the trial before Caiaphas. What\naffords the strongest presumption of the identity of the two trials is\nthe identity of an incident concomitant with both, John as well as the\nsynoptists making Peter deny Jesus during the trial detailed. It is\nfurther remarkable that after Annas has been spoken of, at v. 13, as\nthe father-in-law of Caiaphas, there follows at v. 14, a more precise\ndesignation of Caiaphas as the author of the fatal counsel, recorded in\nJohn xi. 50, although apparently the Evangelist proceeds to narrate a\ntrial held, not before Caiaphas, but before Annas. Moreover in the\ndescription of the trial itself, there is mention throughout of the\npalace and of questions from the high priest, a title which John\nnowhere else applies to Annas, but only to Caiaphas. But that in\naccordance with the above supposition, the Evangelist from v. 15,\nshould be describing something which passed before Caiaphas, appears\nimpossible from v. 24, for it is there first said that Annas sent Jesus\nto Caiaphas, so that he must until then have been before Annas. With\nready thought this difficulty was first met by removing the 24th verse\nto the place where it was wanted, namely, after v. 13, and laying the\nblame of its present too late position on the negligence of\ntranscribers. [1882] As, however, this transposition, being destitute\nof any critical authority, must appear an arbitrary and violent\nexpedient for getting rid of the difficulty, it was next tried whether\nthe statement in v. 24, without being actually moved from its place,\nmight not receive such an interpretation as to come in point of sense\nafter v. 13; i.e., the word \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd was taken as a pluperfect, and\nit was supposed that John intended here to supply retrospectively what\nhe had forgotten to observe at v. 13, namely, that Annas immediately\nsent Jesus to Caiaphas, so that the trial just described was conducted\nby the latter. [1883] As the general possibility of such an enallage\ntemporum is admissible, the only question is whether it be accordant\nwith the style of the present writer, and whether it be intimated in\nthe context. In the latter respect it is certainly true that if nothing\nimportant had occurred in the presence of Annas, the Evangelist, in\nannexing to his notice of the relationship of Annas to Caiaphas the\nmore precise designation of the latter, might be drawn on to speak\nwithout further preface of the trial before Caiaphas, and might\nafterwards, by way of appendix, at some resting place, as here at the\nclose of the transactions of the high priest with Jesus, intimate the\ntransition which he had made. An accurate Greek writer certainly in\nthis case, if he did not use the pluperfect, would at least have made\nevident the explanatory reference to what had preceded, by the addition\nof a \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 to the aorist. Our Evangelist, however, in whom the\ncharacteristic of the Hellenistic writers to connect their propositions\nbut loosely, in accordance with the genius of the Hebrew language, is\nvery strongly marked, might perhaps have introduced that supplementary\nobservation even without a particle, or, according to the ordinary\nreading, by \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd, which is not merely indicative that a subject is\ncontinued, but also that it is resumed. [1884] If these considerations\nbe held to establish that he also intended to narrate the trial before\nCaiaphas: it is clear from the aspect of his account taken by itself,\nas well as from the previous comparison with the synoptical one, that\nhis narrative cannot be complete.\n\nWe turn, therefore, to the account of the synoptists, and among them\nalso, namely, between the two first and the third, we find numerous\ndivergencies. According to the former, when Jesus was brought into the\npalace of the high priest, the scribes and elders were already\nassembled, and while it was still night proceeded to hold a trial, in\nwhich first witnesses appeared, and then the high priest addressed to\nhim the decisive question, on the answer to which the assembly declared\nhim worthy of death (in John also the trial goes forward in the night,\nbut there is no intimation of the presence of the great council).\nAccording to the representation of the third gospel, on the other hand,\nJesus throughout the night is merely kept under guard in the high\npriest\u2019s palace, and maltreated by the underlings; and when at the\nbreak of day the Sanhedrim assembles, no witnesses appear, but the high\npriest precipitates the sentence by the decisive question. Now, that in\nthe depth of the night, while Judas was gone out with the guard, the\nmembers of the council should have assembled themselves for the\nreception of Jesus, might be regarded as improbable, and in so far, the\npreference might be given to the representation of the third gospel,\nwhich makes them assemble at daybreak only: [1885] were it not that\nLuke himself neutralizes this advantage by making the high priests and\nelders present at the arrest; a zeal which might well have driven them\nstraightway to assemble for the sake of accelerating the conclusion.\nBut in the account of Matthew and Mark also there is this singularity,\nthat after they have narrated to us the whole trial together with the\nsentence, they yet (xxvii. 1 and xv. 1) say: when the morning was come,\nthey took counsel, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u0390\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd, thus making\nit appear, if not that the members of the Sanhedrim reassembled in the\nmorning, which could hardly be, seeing that they had been together the\nwhole night; yet that they now first came to a definite resolution\nagainst Jesus, though, according to these same Evangelists, this had\nalready been done in the nocturnal council. [1886] It may be said that\nto the sentence of death already passed in the night, was added in the\nmorning the resolution to deliver Jesus to Pilate: but according to the\nthen existing state of the law, this followed as a matter of course,\nand needed no special resolution. That Luke and John omit the\nproduction of the false witnesses, is to be regarded as a deficiency in\ntheir narrative. For from the coincidence of John ii. 19 and Acts vi.\n14 with Matthew and Mark, it is highly probable that the declaration\nabout the destruction and rebuilding of the temple was really uttered\nby Jesus; while that that declaration should be used as an article of\naccusation against him on his trial was an almost necessary result. The\nabsence of this weighty point in Luke, Schleiermacher explains by the\ncircumstance, that the author of this passage in the third gospel had\nindeed followed the escort which conducted Jesus from the garden, but\nhad with most others been excluded from the palace of the high priest,\nand consequently narrated what occurred there merely from hearsay. But,\nnot to anticipate future points, the single trait of the cure of the\nservant\u2019s ear suffices to preclude our attributing to the author of\nthis portion of Luke\u2019s gospel so close a proximity to the fact. It\nrather appears that the above declaration came to the third Evangelist\nunder the form of an article of accusation against Stephen, instead of\nJesus; while the fourth has it only as a declaration from Jesus, and\nnot as an article of accusation against him. This subject having\nhowever necessarily come under our observation at an earlier point of\nour inquiry, it is needless to pursue it further here. [1887]\n\nWhen Jesus made no answer to the allegations of the witnesses, he was\nasked, according to the two first Evangelists, by the high priest,\u2014in\nthe third gospel, without the above cause, by the Sanhedrim,\u2014whether he\nactually maintained that he was the Messiah (the Son of God)? To this\nquestion, according to the two former, he at once replies in the\naffirmative, in the words \u03c3\u03cd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, thou hast said, and \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9, I am,\nand adds that hereafter or immediately (\u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9) they would see the\nSon of man sitting on the right hand of the divine power, and coming in\nthe clouds of heaven; according to Luke, on the other hand, he first\ndeclares that his answer will be of no avail, and then adds that\nhereafter the Son of man shall sit on the right hand of the power of\nGod; whereupon all eagerly ask: Art thou then the Son of God? and he\nreplies in the affirmative. Thus Jesus here expresses the expectation\nthat by his death he will at once enter into the glory of sitting as\nMessiah at the right hand of God, according to Ps. cx. i, which he had\nalready, Matt. xxii. 44, interpreted of the Messiah. For even if he at\nfirst perhaps thought of attaining his messianic glorification without\nthe intervention of death, because this intervention was not presented\nto him by the ideas of the age; if it was only at a later period, and\nas a result of circumstances, that the foreboding of such a necessity\nbegan to arise and gradually to acquire distinctness in his mind; now,\na prisoner, forsaken by his adherents, in the presence of the\nrancorously hostile Sanhedrim, it must, if he would retain the\nconviction of his messiahship, become a certainty to him, that he could\nenter into his messianic glorification by death alone. When, according\nto the two first Evangelists, Jesus adds to the sitting on the right\nhand of power, the coming in the clouds of heaven, he predicts, as on\nan earlier occasion, his speedy advent, and in this instance he\ndecidedly predicts it as a return. Olshausen maintains that the \u1f00\u03c0\u2019\n\u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9 of Matthew ought to be referred only to \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., because\nit would not suit \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., since it is not to be conceived\nthat Jesus could then have represented himself as about to come in the\nclouds: a purely dogmatical difficulty, which does not exist in our\npoint of view, but which cannot in any point of view warrant such an\noffence against grammatical interpretation as this of Olshausen. On the\nabove declaration of Jesus, according to Matthew and Mark the high\npriest rends his clothes, declaring Jesus convicted of blasphemy, and\nthe council pronounces him guilty of death; and in Luke also, all those\nassembled observe that now there is no need of any further witness,\nsince the criminal declaration has been uttered by Jesus in their own\nhearing.\n\nTo the sentence is then added in the two first Evangelists the\nmaltreatment of Jesus, which John, who here mentions no sentence,\nrepresents as following the appeal of Jesus to the publicity of his\nwork, while Luke places it before the trial; more probably because it\nwas not any longer precisely known when this maltreatment occurred,\nthan because it was repeated at various times and under various\ncircumstances. In John the maltreatment is said to proceed from an\nattendant, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in Luke, from the men that held Jesus, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38.; in Mark, on the contrary, those who began to spit in\nthe face of Jesus (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7) must have been some\nof those (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) who had just before condemned him, since he\ndistinguishes the \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, servants, from them; and in Matthew also,\nwho, without introducing a new nominative proceeds merely with \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\n\u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, then began they, it is plainly the members of the Sanhedrim\nthemselves who descend to such unworthy conduct: which Schleiermacher\njustly considers improbable, and in so far prefers the representation\nof Luke to that of Matthew. [1888] In John the maltreatment consists in\na blow on the cheek with the palm of the hand, \u1fe5\u03ac\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, which an\nattendant gives Jesus on account of a supposed insolent answer to the\nhigh priest; in Matthew and Mark, in spitting on the face (\u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6), and blows on the head and cheek, to which it is\nadded, in Luke also, that he was blindfolded, then struck on the face,\nand scoffingly asked to attest his messianic second sight by telling\nwho was the giver of the blow. [1889] According to Olshausen, the\nspirit of prophecy did not scorn to predict these rudenesses in detail,\nand at the same time to describe the state of mind which the Holy One\nof God opposed to the unholy multitude. He correctly adduces in\nrelation to this scene Isa. l. 6 f.; (LXX.): I gave my back to the\nsmiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my\nface from shame and spitting, etc., \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2,\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (comp. Mic. iv. 14); and for the manner in\nwhich Jesus bore all this, the well-known passage Isa. liii. 7, where\nthe servant of God is represented as enduring maltreatment in silence.\nBut the interpretation of these passages in Isaiah as prophecies\nconcerning the Messiah is equally opposed to the context in both\ninstances: [1890] consequently the agreement of the result with these\npassages must either have been the effect of human design, or purely\naccidental. Now it is certain that the servants and soldiers in their\nmaltreatment had not the intention of causing prophecies to be\nfulfilled in Jesus; and it will hardly be chosen to suppose that Jesus\naffected silence with this view; while to deduce from mere chance a\ncoincidence which certainly, as Olshausen says, extends to minuti\u00e6, is\nalways unsatisfactory. Probable as it is from the rude manners of that\nage, that Jesus was maltreated when a prisoner, and moreover that\namongst other things he received just such insults as are described by\nthe Evangelists: it is yet scarcely to be denied, that their\ndescriptions are modelled on prophecies which, when once Jesus appeared\nas a sufferer and maltreated person, were applied to him; and however\nconsistent it may be with the character of Jesus that he should have\nborne this maltreatment patiently, and repelled improper questions by a\ndignified silence: the Evangelists would scarcely have noticed this so\noften and so solicitously, [1891] if it had not been their intention\nthus to exhibit the fulfilment of Old Testament oracles.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 129.\n\nTHE DENIAL OF PETER.\n\nThe two first Evangelists state, that at the moment in which Jesus was\nled away from the garden, all the disciples forsook him and fled; but\nin their accounts, as well as in those of Luke and John, Peter is said\nto have followed him at a distance, and to have obtained admission with\nthe escort into the court of the high priest\u2019s palace: while, according\nto the synoptists, it is Peter alone who gives this proof of courage\nand attachment to Jesus, which however soon enough issues in the\ndeepest humiliation for him; the fourth Evangelist gives him John for a\ncompanion, and moreover represents the latter as the one who, by means\nof his acquaintance with the high priest, procures admittance for Peter\ninto his palace; a divergency which, with the whole peculiar relation\nin which this gospel places Peter with respect to John, has been\nalready considered. [1892]\n\nAccording to all the Evangelists, it was in this court, \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u1f74, that\nPeter, intimidated by the inauspicious turn in the fortunes of Jesus,\nand the high priest\u2019s domestics by whom he was surrounded, sought to\nallay the repeatedly expressed suspicion that he was one of the\nfollowers of the arrested Galilean, by reiterated asseverations that he\nknew him not. But, as we have already intimated, in relation to the\nowner of this habitation, there exists an apparent divergency between\nthe fourth gospel and the synoptists. In John, to judge from the first\nglance at his narrative, the first denial (xviii. 17) happens during\nthe trial before Annas, since it stands after the statement that Jesus\nwas led to Annas (v. 13), and before the verse in which he is said to\nhave been sent to Caiaphas (v. 24), and only the two further acts of\ndenial (v. 25\u201327), in so far as they follow the last-named statement,\nand as immediately after them the delivery to Pilate is narrated (v.\n28), appear in John also to have occurred during the trial before\nCaiaphas and in his palace. But to this supposition of a different\nlocality for the first denial and the two subsequent ones, there is a\nhindrance in the account of the fourth gospel itself. After the mention\nof the first denial, which happened at the door of the palace (of Annas\napparently), it is said that the night being cold the servants and\nofficers had made a fire of coals, and Peter stood with them and warmed\nhimself, \u1f26\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (v. 18).\nNow, when farther on, the narrative of the second and third denial is\nopened with nearly the same words: And Simon Peter stood and warmed\nhimself, \u1f26\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a3\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (v. 25): this\ncannot be understood otherwise than as an allusion to the previously\nnoticed circumstances of the fire of coals, and of Peter\u2019s standing by\nit to warm himself, and hence it must be inferred that the Evangelist\nintended to represent the second and third denial as having occurred by\nthe same fire, consequently, on the above supposition, likewise in the\nhouse of Annas. It is true that the synoptists speak of a fire in the\ncourt of the palace of Caiaphas also (Mark v. 54; Luke v. 55), at which\nPeter warmed himself (here, however, sitting, as in John standing): but\nit does not thence follow that John also imagined a similar fire to\nhave been in the court of the actual high priest, and according to the\nsupposition on which we have hitherto proceeded, he only mentions such\na fire in the house of Annas. They who regard as too artificial an\nexpedient the conjecture of Euthymius, that the dwellings of Annas and\nCaiaphas perhaps had a common court, and that consequently Peter could\nremain standing by the same fire after Jesus had been led away from the\nformer to the latter, prefer the supposition that the second and third\ndenial occurred, according to John, not after, but during the leading\naway of Jesus from Annas to Caiaphas. [1893] Thus on the presupposition\nthat John narrates a trial before Annas, the difference between the\ngospels in relation to the locality of the denial remains a total one;\nand in this irreconcilable divergency, some have decided in favour of\nJohn, on the ground that the scattered disciples had only fragmentary\ninformation concerning this scene,\u2014that Peter himself being a stranger\nin Jerusalem did not know in which palace he had, to his misfortune,\nentered; but that he, and after him the first Evangelists, supposed the\ndenials to have taken place in the court of Caiaphas; whereas John,\nfrom his more intimate acquaintance with the city and the high priest\u2019s\npalace, was able to rectify this mistake. [1894] But even admitting the\nincredible supposition that Peter erroneously believed himself to have\ndenied Jesus in the palace of Caiaphas, still John, who in these days\nwas in the society of Peter, would certainly at once have corrected his\nassertion, so that such an erroneous opinion could not have become\nfixed in his mind. Hence it might be preferred to reverse the attempt,\nand to vindicate the synoptists at the expense of John: were it not\nthat the observations contained in the foregoing section (according to\nwhich John, after having merely mentioned that Jesus was led away to\nAnnas, may speak from v. 15 of what occurred in the palace of\nCaiaphas), present a possible solution of this contradiction also.\n\nIn relation to the separate acts of denial, all the Evangelists agree\nin stating that there were three of them, in accordance with the\nprediction of Jesus; but in the description of the several instances\nthey are at variance. First, as it regards place and persons; according\nto John the first denial is uttered on the very entrance of Peter, to a\ndamsel that kept the door, \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 (v. 17); in the synoptists,\nin the inner court, where Peter sat at the fire, to a damsel, \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\n(Matt. v. 69 f. parall.). The second takes place, in John (v. 25), and\nalso in Luke, who at least notices no change of position (v. 58), at\nthe fire: in Matthew (v. 71) and Mark (v. 68 ff.), after Peter was gone\nout into the porch. \u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u1f7c\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; further, in John it is made to\nseveral persons; in Luke, to one; in Matthew to another damsel than the\none to whom he made the first denial; in Mark, to the same. The third\ndenial happened, according to Matthew and Mark, who mention no change\nof place after the second, likewise in the porch; according to Luke and\nJohn, since they likewise mention no change of place, undoubtedly still\nin the inner court, at the fire; further, according to Matthew and\nMark, to many bystanders, according to Luke to one: according to John,\nto one who happens to be a relative of the servant who had been wounded\nin the garden. As regards the conversation which passed on this\noccasion, the suspicious queries are at one time addressed to Peter\nhimself, at another to the bystanders, in order to point him out to\ntheir observation, and in the two first instances they are given by the\ndifferent Evangelists with tolerable agreement, as merely expressing\nthe opinion that he appeared to be one of the adherents of the man\nrecently taken prisoner. But in the third instance, where the parties\nrender a motive for their suspicion, they according to the synoptists\nmention his Galilean dialect as a proof of its truth; while in John the\nrelative of Malchus appeals to his recollection of having seen Peter in\nthe garden. Now the former mode of accounting for the suspicion is as\nnatural as the second, together with the designation of the individual\nwho adduced it as a relative of Malchus, appears artificial, and\nfabricated for the sake of firmly interweaving into the narrative the\nconnexion of the sword-stroke given in the garden with the name of\nPeter. [1895] In the answers of Peter there is the divergency, that\naccording to Matthew he already the second time fortifies his denial by\nan oath, while according to Mark this is not the case until the third\ndenial, and in the two other Evangelists this circumstance is not\nmentioned at all; moreover, Matthew, to preserve a gradation, adds on\nthe third denial that Peter began to curse \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd as well as\nto swear \u1f40\u03bc\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, a representation which when compared with the other\ngospels may appear exaggerated.\n\nSo to adjust these very differently narrated denials in such a manner\nthat no Evangelist may be taxed with having given an incorrect or even\na merely inexact account, was no light labour for the harmonists. Not\nonly did the older, supranaturalistic expositors, such as Bengel,\nundertake this task, but even recently, Paulus has given himself much\ntrouble to bring the various acts of denial recounted by the\nEvangelists into appropriate order, and thus to show that they have a\nnatural sequence. According to him, Peter denies the Lord,\n\n\n 1. Before the portress (1st denial in John);\n\n 2. Before several standing at the fire (2nd in John);\n\n 3. Before a damsel at the fire (1st in the synoptists);\n\n 4. Before one who has no particular designation (2nd in Luke);\n\n 5. On going out into the porch, before a damsel (2nd in Matthew and\n Mark. Out of this denial Paulus should in consistency have made\n two, since the damsel, who points out Peter to the bystanders,\n is according to Mark the same as the one in No. 3, but according\n to Matthew another);\n\n 6. Before the relative of Malchus (3rd in John);\n\n 7. Before one who professes to detect him by his Galilean dialect\n (3rd in Luke), and who forthwith\n\n 8. is seconded by several others, to whom Peter yet more strongly\n affirms that he knows not Jesus (3rd in Matthew and Mark).\n\n\nMeanwhile by such a discrimination of the accounts out of respect to\nthe veracity of the Evangelists, there was incurred the danger of\nimpeaching the yet more important veracity of Jesus; for he had spoken\nof a threefold denial: whereas, on the plan of discrimination,\naccording to the more or less consequent manner in which it is carried\nout, Peter would have denied Jesus from 6 to 9 times. The old exegesis\nfound help in the canon: abnegatio ad plures plurium interrogationes\nfacta uno paroxysmo, pro un\u00e2 numeratur. [1896] But even granting such a\nmode of reckoning admissible, still, as each of the four narrators for\nthe most part notices a greater or less interval between the separate\ndenials which he recounts; in each instance, denials related by\ndifferent Evangelists, e.g. one narrated by Matthew, one by Mark, and\nso forth, must have occurred in immediate succession: a supposition\naltogether arbitrary. Hence of late it has been a more favourite\nexpedient to urge that the thrice \u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 in the mouth of Jesus was only a\nround number intended to express a repeated denial, as also that Peter,\nonce entangled in the confusion to a supposed necessity for falsehood,\nwould be more likely to repeat his asseverations to 6 or 7 than merely\nto three inquirers. [1897] But even if, according to Luke (v. 59 f.),\nthe interval from the first denial to the last be estimated as more\nthan an hour, still such a questioning from all kinds of people on all\nsides, as well as the ultimate impunity of Peter amid so general a\nsuspicion, is extremely improbable; and when expositors describe the\nstate of mind of Peter during this scene as a complete stupefaction,\n[1898] they rather present the condition which befals the reader who\nhas to arrange his ideas in such a crowd of continually repeated\nquestions and answers having an identical meaning\u2014like the incessant\nand lawless beating of a watch out of order. Olshausen has justly\ndiscarded the attempt to remove such differences as a fruitless labour:\nnevertheless he, on the one hand, immediately proceeds to a forced\nreconciliation of the divergencies at some points of the narrative; and\non the other, he maintains that there were precisely three denials,\nwhereas Paulus again has evinced a more correct discernment in pointing\nout the premeditated effort of the Evangelists to show that the denial\nwas threefold. What on that evening happened repeatedly (not, however,\neight or nine times), was represented as having happened precisely\nthree times, in order to furnish the closest fulfilment to the\nprediction of Jesus, which was understood in its strictest literality.\n\nThe termination, and as it were the catastrophe, of the whole history\nof the denial is, in all the narratives, according to the prediction of\nJesus, introduced by the crowing of the cock. In Mark, it crows after\nthe first denial (v. 68), and then a second time after the third; in\nthe other Evangelists only once, after the last act of denial. While\nJohn concludes his account with this particular, Matthew and Mark\nproceed to tell us that on hearing the cock crow, Peter remembered the\nwords of Jesus and wept; but Luke has an additional feature peculiar to\nhimself, namely, that on the crowing of the cock Jesus turned and\nlooked at Peter, whereupon the latter, remembering the prediction of\nJesus, broke out into bitter weeping. Now according to the two first\nEvangelists, Peter was not in the same locality with Jesus: for he is\nsaid to have been without \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 (Matt v. 69) or beneath \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 (Mark v. 66)\nin the court \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u1fc2, and it is thus implied that Jesus was in an\ninner or upper apartment of the palace: it must be asked, therefore,\nhow could Jesus hear the denial of Peter, and thereupon turn to look at\nhim? In relation to the latter part of the difficulty, the usual answer\nis that Jesus was at that moment being led from the palace of Annas to\nthat of Caiaphas, and looked significantly at the weak disciple in\npassing. [1899] But of such a removal of Jesus Luke knows nothing; and\nhis expression, the Lord turned and looked on Peter, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c8\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff3, would not so well imply that Jesus looked at\nPeter in passing, as that he turned round to do so when standing;\nbesides, the above supposition will not explain how Jesus became aware\nthat his disciple had denied him, since in the tumult of this evening\nhe could not well, as Paulus thinks, have heard when in a room of the\npalace the loud tones of Peter in the court. It is true that the\nexpress distinction of the places in which Jesus and Peter were is not\nfound in Luke, and according to him Jesus also might have had to remain\nsome time in the court: but first, the representation of the other\nEvangelists is here more probable: secondly, Luke\u2019s own narrative of\nthe denial does not previously create the impression that Jesus was in\nthe immediate vicinity. But hypotheses for the explanation of that look\nof Jesus might have been spared, had a critical glance been directed to\nthe origin of the incident. The unaccountable manner in which Jesus,\nwho in the whole previous occurrence is kept behind the scene, here all\non a sudden casts a glance upon it, ought itself, together with the\nsilence of the other Evangelists, to have been taken as an indication\nof the real character of this feature in Luke\u2019s narrative. When also it\nis added, that as Jesus looked on Peter the latter remembered the words\nwhich Jesus had earlier spoken to him concerning his coming denial; it\nmight have been observed that the glance of Jesus is nothing else than\nthe sensible image of Peter\u2019s remorseful recollection. The narrative of\nJohn, which is in this case the simplest, exhibits the fulfilment of\nthe prediction of Jesus objectively, by the crowing of the cock; the\ntwo first Evangelists add to this the subjective impression, which this\ncoincidence made on Peter; while Luke renders this again objective, and\nmakes sorrowful remembrance of the words of the master, with the force\nof a penetrating glance, pierce the inmost soul of the disciple. [1900]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 130.\n\nTHE DEATH OF THE BETRAYER.\n\nOn hearing that Jesus was condemned to death, Judas, according to the\nfirst gospel (xxvii. 3 ff.), was smitten with remorse, and hastened to\nthe chief priests and elders to return to them the thirty pieces of\nsilver, with the declaration that he had betrayed an innocent person.\nWhen however the latter scornfully retorted that on him alone rested\nall responsibility for that deed, Judas, after casting down the money\nin the temple, impelled by despair, went away and hanged himself.\nHereupon the Sanhedrists, holding it unlawful to put the money returned\nby Judas into the treasury, since it was the price of blood, bought\nwith it a potter\u2019s field as a burying place for strangers. To this\nparticular the Evangelist appends two remarks: first, that from this\nmode of purchase, the piece of ground was called the field of blood up\nto his time: and secondly, that by this course of things an ancient\nprophecy was fulfilled.\u2014The rest of the Evangelists are silent\nconcerning the end of Judas; but on the other hand we find in the Acts\nof the Apostles (i. 16 ff.) some information on this subject which in\nseveral points diverges from that of Matthew. Peter, when about to\npropose the completion of the apostolic number by the choice of a new\ncolleague, thinks proper, by way of preliminary to remind his hearers\nof the manner in which the vacancy in the apostolic circle had arisen,\ni.e. of the treachery and the end of Judas; and in relation to the\nlatter he says, that the betrayer purchased himself a field with the\nreward of his crime, but fell headlong, and burst asunder in the midst,\nso that all his bowels gushed out, which being known in all Jerusalem,\nthe piece of ground was called \u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u1f70, i.e. the field of blood. In\naddition to this, the narrator makes Peter observe that these\noccurrences were a fulfilment of two passages in the Psalms.\n\nBetween these two accounts there exists a double divergency: the one\npertaining to the manner of the death of Judas, the other to the\nstatement when and by whom the piece of ground was bought. As regards\nthe former, Matthew declares that Judas laid violent hands on himself\nout of remorse and despair: whereas in the Acts nothing is said of\nremorse on the part of the traitor, and his death has not the\nappearance of suicide, but of an accident, or more accurately, of a\ncalamity decreed by heaven as a punishment; further, in Matthew he\ninflicts death on himself by the cord: according to the representation\nof Peter, it is a fall which puts an end to his life by causing a\nhorrible rupture of the body.\n\nHow active the harmonists of all times have been in reconciling these\ndivergencies, may be seen in Su\u00efcer [1901] and Kuin\u00f6l: here we need\nonly briefly adduce the principal expedients for this purpose. As the\ndivergency lay chiefly in the words \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, he hanged himself, in\nMatthew, and \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, falling headlong, in Luke, the most\nobvious resource was to see whether one of these expressions could not\nbe drawn to the side of the other. This has been tried with \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf in\nvarious ways; this word being interpreted at one time as signifying\nonly the torments of a guilty conscience, [1902] at another, a disease\nconsequent on these, [1903] at another, any death chosen out of\nmelancholy and despair; [1904] and to this it has been thought that the\nstatement \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. in the Acts added the more precise\ninformation, that the kind of death to which Judas was driven by an\nevil conscience and despair was precipitation from a steep eminence.\nOthers on the contrary have sought to accommodate the meaning of \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 to \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, understanding it merely to express as a\ncircumstance what \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf expresses as an act: and accordingly\nmaintaining that if the latter should be rendered se suspendit, the\nformer should be translated by suspensus. [1905] From repugnance to the\nobvious violence of this attempt, others, sparing the natural meaning\nof the expressions on both sides, have reconciled the divergent\naccounts by the supposition that Matthew narrates an earlier, the\nauthor of the Acts a later, stage of the events which marked the end of\nJudas. Some of the ancient commentators indeed separated these two\nstages so widely as to see in Matthew\u2019s statement (\u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf) only an\nunsuccessful attempt at self-destruction, which from the bough whereon\nhe suspended himself having broken, or from some other cause, Judas\noutlived, until the judgment of heaven overtook him in the \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, falling headlong. [1906] But since Matthew evidently intends\nin his expression \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf to narrate the last moments of the traitor:\nthe two epochs, the account of which is supposed to be respectively\ngiven by Matthew and the Acts, have in later times been placed in\ncloser proximity, and it has been held that Judas attempted to hang\nhimself to a tree on an eminence, but as the rope gave way or the\nbranch broke, he was precipitated into the valley over steep cliffs and\nsharp bushes, which lacerated his body. [1907] The author of a treatise\non the fate of Judas in Schmidt\u2019s Bibliothek [1908] has already\nremarked as a surprising circumstance, how faithfully according to this\nopinion, the two narrators have shared the information between them:\nfor it is not the case that one gives the less precise statement, the\nother the more precise; but that one of them narrates precisely the\nfirst part of the incident without touching on the second, the other,\nthe second without intruding on the first; and Hase justly maintains\nthat each narrator knew only the state of the fact which he has\npresented, since otherwise he could not have omitted the other half.\n[1909]\n\nAfter thus witnessing the total failure of the attempts at\nreconciliation in relation to the first difference; we have now to\ninquire whether the other, relative to the acquisition of the piece of\nground, can be more easily adjusted. It consists in this: according to\nMatthew, it is the members of the Sanhedrim who, after the suicide of\nJudas, purchase a field with the money which he had left behind (from a\npotter moreover\u2014a particular which is wanting in the Acts); whereas,\naccording to the Acts, Judas himself purchases the piece of ground, and\non this very spot is overtaken by sudden death; and from this\ndifference there results another, namely, that according to the latter\naccount, it was the blood of the betrayer shed on the piece of ground,\naccording to the former, the blood of Jesus cleaving to the purchase\nmoney, which caused the ground to be named the field of blood, \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 or\n\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f33\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Now here Matthew\u2019s manner of expressing himself is so\nprecise, that it cannot well be twisted so as to favour the other\nnarrative; but the word \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf (he purchased or acquired) in the Acts\npresents inviting facilities for its adaptation to Matthew. By the\nreward of treachery, Judas acquired a field\u2014such, it is said, is the\nmeaning in the Acts\u2014not immediately, but mediately; since by returning\nthe money he gave occasion for the purchase of a piece of ground; not\nfor himself, but for the Sanhedrim or the public good. [1910] But\nhowever numerous the passages adduced in which \u03ba\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 has the\nsignification: to acquire for another, still in such instances it is\nnecessary that the other party for whom one acquires should be\nspecified or intimated, and when this is not the case, as in the\npassage in the Acts, it retains the original meaning: to acquire for\none\u2019s self. [1911] This Paulus felt, and hence gave the facts the\nfollowing turn: the terrible fall of Judas into a lime pit was the\ncause of this piece of ground being purchased by the Sanhedrim, and\nthus Peter might very well say of Judas ironically, that in death by\nthe fall of his corpse he had appropriated to himself a fine property.\n[1912] But in the first place this interpretation is in itself\nstrained; and in the second, the passage cited by Peter from the\nPsalms: let his habitation be desolate, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f21 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, shows that he thought of the piece of ground as the real\nproperty of Judas, and as being judicially doomed to desolation as the\nscene of his death.\n\nAccording to this, neither the one difference nor the other admits of a\nfavourable reconciliation; indeed the existence of a real divergency\nwas admitted even by Salmasius, and Hase thinks that he can explain\nthis discrepancy, without endangering the apostolic origin of the two\nstatements, from the violent excitement of those days, in consequence\nof which only the general fact that Judas committed suicide was\npositively known, and concerning the more particular circumstances of\nthe event, various reports were believed. But in the Acts nothing is\nsaid of suicide, and that two apostles, Matthew and Peter (if the first\ngospel be supposed to proceed from the former, the discourse in the\nActs from the latter), should have remained so entirely in the dark\nconcerning the death of their late colleague, a death which took place\nin their immediate vicinity, that one of them represented him as dying\nby accident, the other voluntarily, is difficult to believe. That\ntherefore only one of the two accounts can be maintained as apostolic,\nhas been correctly perceived by the author of the above-mentioned\ntreatise in Schmidt\u2019s Bibliothek. And in choosing between the two he\nhas proceeded on the principle that the narrative the least tending to\nglorification is the more authentic; whence he gives the preference to\nthe account in the Acts before that in the first gospel, because the\nformer has not the glorifying circumstances of the remorse of Judas,\nand his confession of the innocence of Jesus. But, it is ever the case\nwith two contradictory narratives, not only that if one stands it\nexcludes the other, but also that if one falls it shakes the other:\nhence, if the representation of the facts which is attested by the\nauthority of the Apostle Matthew be renounced, there is no longer any\nwarrant for the other, which professedly rests on the testimony of the\nApostle Peter.\n\nIf then we are to treat the two narratives on the same footing, namely\nas legends, with respect to which it is first to be discovered how far\ntheir historical nucleus extends, and how far they consist of\ntraditional deposits; we must, in order to be clear on the subject,\nconsider the data which form the roots of the two narratives. Here we\nfind one which is common to both, with two others of which each has one\npeculiarly to itself. The datum common to both narratives is, that\nthere was in Jerusalem a piece of ground which was called the field of\nblood, \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 or \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, or in the original tongue, according to\nthe statement of the Acts, \u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u1f70. As this information is\nconcurrently given by two narratives in other respects totally\ndivergent, and as, besides, the author of the first gospel appeals to\nthe actual practice of his day in proof that the field was called by\nthis name: we cannot well doubt the existence of a piece of ground so\nnamed. That it really had a relation to the betrayer of Jesus is less\ncertain, since our two narratives give different accounts of this\nrelation: the one stating that Judas himself bought the property, the\nother that it was not purchased until after his death, with the thirty\npieces of silver. We can therefore draw no further conclusion than that\nthe primitive Christian legend must have early attributed to that field\nof blood a relation to the betrayer. But the reason wherefore this\nrelation took various forms is to be sought in the other datum from\nwhich our narratives proceed, namely, in the Old Testament passages,\nwhich the authors cite (from different sources, however), as being\nfulfilled by the fate of Judas.\n\nIn the passage of the Acts, Ps. lxix. 25, and Ps. cix. 8, are quoted in\nthis manner. The latter is a psalm which the first Christians from\namong the Jews could not avoid referring to the relation of Judas to\nJesus. For not only does the author, alleged to be David, but doubtless\na much later individual, [1913] dilate from the opening of the psalm on\nsuch as speak falsely and insidiously against him, and return him\nhatred for his love, but from v. 6, where the curses commence, he\ndirects himself against a particular person, so that the Jewish\nexpositors thought of Doeg, David\u2019s calumniator with Saul, and the\nChristians just as naturally of Judas. From this psalm is gathered the\nverse which, treating of the transfer of one office to another,\nappeared perfectly to suit the case of Judas. The other psalm, it is\ntrue, speaks more vaguely of such as hate and persecute the author\nwithout cause, yet this also is ascribed to David, and is so similar to\nthe other in purport and style, that it might be regarded as its\nparallel, and if curses might be applied to the betrayer out of the\nformer, they might be so out of the latter. [1914] Now if Judas had\nactually bought with the wages of his treachery a piece of land, which\nfrom being the scene of his horrible end, subsequently remained waste:\nit was a matter of course to refer to him precisely those passages in\nthis psalm which denounce on the enemies the desolation of their\nhabitation \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2. As, however, from the divergency of Matthew, the\nfact that Judas himself bought that piece of ground and came to his end\nupon it, is doubtful: while it can scarcely be supposed that the piece\nof land on which the betrayer of Jesus met his end would be so\nabhorrent to the Jews that they would let it lie waste as a land of\nblood; it is more probable that this name had another origin no longer\nto be discovered, and was interpreted by the Christians in accordance\nwith their own ideas; so that we must not derive the application of the\npassage in the Psalms, and the naming of that waste piece of land, from\nan actual possession of it by Judas, but on the contrary, we must refer\nto those two causes the existence of the legend, which ascribes such a\npossession to Judas. For if the two psalms in question were once\napplied to the betrayer, and if in one of them the desolation of his\n\u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 (LXX.) was denounced, he must have previously been in\npossession of such an \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, and this it was thought, he would\nprobably have purchased with the reward of his treason. Or rather, that\nout of the above psalms the desolation of the \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 was a particular\nspecially chosen, appears to have been founded on the natural\npresupposition, that the curse would be chiefly manifested in relation\nto something which he had acquired by the wages of his iniquity; added\nto the circumstance that among the objects anathematized in the psalm,\nthe one most capable of being bought was the \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2. This conception\nof the facts was met in the most felicitous manner by the \u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u1f70\nlying near Jerusalem, which, the less was known of the origin of its\nname and of the horror attached to it, might the more easily be applied\nby the primitive Christian legend to its own purposes, and regarded as\nthe desolate habitation, \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f20\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, of the betrayer.\n\nInstead of these passages from the Psalms, the first gospel cites as\nbeing fulfilled by the last acts of Judas, a passage which it\nattributes to Jeremiah, but to which nothing corresponding is to be\nfound except in Zech. xi. 12 f., whence it is now pretty generally\nadmitted that the Evangelist substituted one name for the other by\nmistake. [1915] How Matthew might be led by the fundamental idea of\nthis passage\u2014an unreasonably small price for the speaker in the\nprophecy\u2014to an application of it to the treachery of Judas, who for a\npaltry sum had as it were sold his master, has been already shown.\n[1916] Now the prophetic passage contains a command from Jehovah to the\nauthor of the prophecy, to cast the miserable sum with which he had\nbeen paid, into the house of the Lord, and also \u200f\u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05e6\u05b5\u05e8\u200e, which, it\nis added, was done. The person who casts down the money is in the\nprophecy the same with the speaker, and consequently with him who is\nrated at the low price, because the sum here is not purchase money but\nhire, and hence is received by the person so meanly estimated, who\nalone can cast it away again: in the application of the Evangelist, on\nthe contrary, the sum being considered as purchase money, another than\nthe one so meanly estimated was to be thought of as receiving and\ncasting away the sum. If the one sold for so paltry a price was Jesus:\nhe who received the money and finally rejected it could be no other\nthan his betrayer. Hence it is said of the latter, that he cast down\nthe pieces of silver in the temple \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03b1\u1ff7 corresponding to the\nphrase \u200f\u05d5\u05b7\u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05da\u05b0 \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05b9\u05d4\u200e in the prophetic passage, although these\nvery words happen to be absent from the extremely mutilated citation of\nMatthew. But in apposition to the \u200f\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05b9\u05d4\u200e, wherein the money was\ncast, there stood besides \u200f\u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05e6\u05b5\u05e8\u200e. The LXX. translates: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, into the melting furnace; now, it is with reason\nconjectured that the pointing should be altered thus: \u200f\u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05e6\u05b8\u05e8\u200e, and\nthe word rendered: into the treasury; [1917] the author of our gospel\nadhered to the literal translation by \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 potter. But what the\npotter had to do here,\u2014why the money should be given to him, must at\nfirst have been as incomprehensible to him as it is to us when we\nadhere to the common reading. Here however there occurred to his\nrecollection the field of blood, to which, as we gather from the Acts,\nthe Christian legend gave a relation to Judas, and hence resulted the\nwelcome combination, that it was probably that field for which the\nthirty pieces of silver were to be given to the potter. As, however, it\nwas impossible to conceive the potter as being in the temple when\nreceiving the money, and yet according to the prophetic passage the\npieces of silver were cast into the temple: a separation was made\nbetween the casting into the temple and the payment to the potter. If\nthe former must be ascribed to Judas, if he had thus once cast away the\nmoney, he himself could no longer purchase the piece of ground from the\npotter, but this must be done by another party, with the money which\nJudas had cast away. Who this party must be followed of course: if\nJudas gave up the money, he would give it up to those from whom he had\nreceived it; if he cast it into the temple, it would fall into the\nhands of the rulers of the temple: thus in both ways it would revert to\nthe Sanhedrim. The object of the latter in purchasing the ground was\nperhaps drawn from the use to which that waste place was actually\nappropriated. Lastly, if Judas cast away again the reward of his\ntreachery, this, it must be inferred, could only be out of remorse. To\nmake Judas manifest remorse, and thus win from the traitor himself a\ntestimony to the innocence of Jesus, was as natural to the conception\nof the primitive Christian community, as to convert Pilate, and to make\nTiberius himself propose in the Roman senate the deification of Christ.\n[1918] But how would the remorse of Judas further manifest itself? A\nreturn to the right on his part, was not only unattested by any facts,\nbut was besides far too good a lot for the traitor: hence repentance\nmust have become in him despair, and he must have chosen the end of the\nwell-known traitor in the history of David, Ahithophel, of whom it is\nsaid, 2 Sam. xvii. 23: \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, he arose, and\nwent\u2014and hanged himself, as of Judas here: \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, he departed, and went and hanged himself.\n\nA tradition referred to Papias appears to be allied to the narrative in\nthe Acts rather than to that of Matthew. \u0152cumenius, quoting the above\ncollector of traditions, says, that Judas, as an awful example of\nimpiety, had his body distended to such a degree, that a space where a\nchariot could pass was no longer sufficiently wide for him, and that at\nlast being crushed by a chariot, he burst asunder and all his bowels\nwere pressed out. [1919] The latter statement doubtless arose from a\nmisconstruction of the ancient legend; for the chariot was not\noriginally brought into immediate contact with the body of Judas, but\nwas merely used as a measure of his size, and this was afterwards\nerroneously understood as if a chariot in passing had crushed the\nswollen body of Judas. Hence, not only in Theophylact and in an ancient\nScholium, [1920] without any distinct reference to Papias, but also in\na Catena with an express citation of his \u03b5\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, we actually find\nthe fact narrated without that addition. [1921] The monstrous swelling\nof Judas, spoken of in this passage, might, it is supposed, originally\nbe only an explanation of the displacing and protrusion of the viscera,\nand in like manner the dropsy into which Theophylact represents him as\nfalling might be regarded as an explanation of this swelling: when,\nhowever, in Ps. cix., applied in the Acts to Judas, amongst other\nmaledictions, we read: \u200f\u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b9\u05d0 (\u05e7\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4) \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e7\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e LXX: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd (\u1f21\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1) \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, so let it (cursing) come into\nhis bowels like water (v. 18): it appears possible that the dropsical\ndisease, \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74, may have been also taken from this passage; as\nalso one of the features in the monstrous description which Papias\ngives of the condition of Judas, namely, that from the enormous\nswelling of his eyelids he could no longer see the light of day, might\nremind us of v. 23 in the other psalm applied to Judas, where, among\nthe curses this is enumerated: Let their eyes be darkened that they see\nnot, \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, a hindrance to\nsight, which when once the swollen body of Judas was presupposed, must\nnecessarily assume the form of a swelling up of the eyelids. If then\nthe tradition which is allied to the account in Acts i. developed its\nidea of the end of Judas chiefly in correspondence with the ideas\npresented in these two psalms; and if in that passage of the Acts\nitself the account of the connexion of Judas with the piece of ground\nis derived from the same source: it is no farfetched conjecture that\nwhat is said in the Acts concerning the end of the betrayer may have\nhad a similar origin. That he died an early death may be historical;\nbut even if not so, in Psalm cix. in the very same verse (v. 8), which\ncontains the transfer of the office, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1f74, to another, an early\ndeath is predicted for the betrayer in the words: Let his days be few,\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03b1\u03b9, and it might also be believed that\nthe death by falling headlong also was gathered from Ps. lxix. 22,\nwhere it is said: Let their table become a snare before them, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\n\u1f21 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u2014\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd (\u200f\u05dc\u05b4\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e7\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1\u200e).\n\nThus we scarcely know with certainty concerning Judas even so much as\nthat he came to a violent and untimely death, for if, as was natural,\nafter his departure from the community of Jesus, he retired, so far as\nthe knowledge of its members was concerned, into an obscurity in which\nall historical information as to his further fate was extinguished: the\nprimitive Christian legend might without hindrance represent as being\nfulfilled in him all that the prophecies and types of the Old Testament\nthreatened to the false friend of the Son of David, and might even\nassociate the memory of his crime with a well-known desecrated place in\nthe vicinity of Jerusalem. [1922]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 131.\n\nJESUS BEFORE PILATE AND HEROD.\n\nAccording to all the Evangelists it was in the morning when the Jewish\nmagistrates, after having declared Jesus worthy of death, [1923] caused\nhim to be led away to the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate (Matt.\nxxvii. 1 ff. parall.; John xviii. 28). According to Matthew and Mark,\nJesus was bound preparatory to his being conducted before Pilate,\naccording to John xviii. 12, immediately on his arrest in the garden;\nLuke says nothing of his being bound. To this measure of sending him to\nPilate they were compelled, according to John xviii. 31, by the\ncircumstance that the Sanhedrim was deprived of the authority to\nexecute the punishment of death (without the concurrence of the Roman\ngovernment): [1924] but at all events the Jewish rulers must in this\ninstance have been anxious to call in the agency of the Romans, since\nonly their power could afford security against an uproar among the\npeople \u03b8\u03cc\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff7, which the former feared as a result of the\nexecution of Jesus during the feast time (Matt. xxvi. 5 parall.).\n\nArrived at the Pr\u00e6torium, the Jews, according to the representation of\nthe fourth gospel, remained without, from fear of Levitical defilement,\nbut Jesus was led into the interior of the building: so that Pilate\nmust alternately have come out when he would speak to the Jews, and\nhave gone in again when he proceeded to question Jesus (xviii. 28 ff.).\nThe synoptists in the sequel represent Jesus as in the same locality\nwith Pilate and the Jews, for in them Jesus immediately hears the\naccusations of the Jews, and answers them in the presence of Pilate.\nSince they, as well as John, make the condemnation take place in the\nopen air (after the condemnation they represent Jesus as being led into\nthe Pr\u00e6torium, Matt. xxvii. 27, and Matthew, like John, xix. 13,\ndescribes Pilate ascending the judgment seat \u03b2\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, which according to\nJosephus [1925] stood in the open air), without mentioning any change\nof place in connexion with the trial: they apparently conceived the\nwhole transaction to have passed on the outer place, and supposed, in\ndivergency from John, that Jesus himself was there.\n\nThe first question of Pilate to Jesus is according to all the gospels:\nArt thou the king of the Jews? \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b5\u1f36 \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, i.e. the\nMessiah? In the two first Evangelists this question is not introduced\nby any accusation on the part of the Jews (Matt. v. 11; Mark v. 2); in\nJohn, Pilate, stepping out of the Pr\u00e6torium, asks the Jews what\naccusation they have to bring against Jesus (xviii. 29), on which they\ninsolently reply: If he were not a malefactor, we would not have\ndelivered him up unto thee: an answer by which they could not expect to\nfacilitate their obtaining from the Roman a ratification of their\nsentence, [1926] but only to embitter him. After Pilate, with\nsurprising mildness, has rejoined that they may take him and judge him\naccording to their law\u2014apparently not supposing a crime involving\ndeath\u2014and the Jews have opposed to this permission their inability to\nadminister the punishment of death: the procurator re-enters and\naddresses to Jesus the definite question: Art thou the king of the\nJews? which thus here likewise has no suitable introduction. This is\nthe case only in Luke, who first adduces the accusations of the\nSanhedrists against Jesus, that he stirred up the people and encouraged\nthem to refuse tribute to C\u00e6sar, giving himself out to be Christ a\nking, \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 (xxiii. 2).\n\nIf in this manner the narrative of Luke enables us to understand how\nPilate could at once put to Jesus the question whether he were the king\nof the Jews; it leaves us in all the greater darkness as to how Pilate,\nimmediately on the affirmative answer of Jesus, could without any\nfurther inquiries declare to the accusers that he found no fault in the\naccused. He must first have ascertained the grounds or the want of\ngrounds for the charge of exciting the populace, and also have informed\nhimself as to the sense in which Jesus claimed the title of king of the\nJews, before he could pronounce the words: I find no fault in this man.\nIn Matthew and Mark, it is true, to the affirmation of Jesus that he is\nthe king of the Jews is added his silence, in opposition to the\nmanifold accusations of the Sanhedrists\u2014a silence which surprises\nPilate: and this is not followed by a precise declaration that no fault\nis to be found in Jesus, but merely by the procurator\u2019s attempt to set\nJesus at liberty by coupling him with Barabbas; still what should move\nhim even to this attempt does not appear from the above gospels. On the\nother hand, this point is sufficiently clear in the fourth gospel. It\nis certainly surprising that when Pilate asks whether he be really the\nKing of the Jews, Jesus should reply by the counter-question, whether\nhe say this of himself or at the suggestion of another. In an accused\nperson, however conscious of innocence, such a question cannot be held\nwarrantable, and hence it has been sought in every possible way to give\nthe words of Jesus a sense more consonant with propriety: but the\nquestion of Jesus is too definite to be a mere repulse of the\naccusation as absurd, [1927] and too indefinite to be regarded as an\ninquiry, whether the Procurator intended the title \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd in the Roman sense (\u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) or in the Jewish (\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd). [1928] And Pilate does not so understand it, but as an\nunwarrantable question to which it is a mark of his indulgence that he\nreplies;\u2014in the first instance, it is true, with some impatience, by\nthe second counter-question, whether he be a Jew, and thus able of\nhimself to have information concerning a crime so specifically Jewish;\nbut hereupon he good-naturedly adds that it is the Jews and their\nrulers by whom Jesus has been delivered to him, and that he is\ntherefore at liberty to speak more particularly of the crime which\nthese lay to his charge. Now on this Jesus gives Pilate an answer\nwhich, added to the impression of his whole appearance, might certainly\ninduce in the Procurator a conviction of his innocence. He replies,\nnamely, that his kingdom \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 is not of this world \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, and adduces as a proof of this, the peaceful, passive conduct\nof his adherents on his arrest (v. 36). On the further question of\nPilate, whether, since Jesus has thus ascribed to himself a kingdom,\nalthough no earthly one, he then claims to be a king? he replies that\ncertainly he is so, but only in so far as he is born to be a witness to\nthe truth: whereupon follows the famous question of Pilate: What is\ntruth? \u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1; Although in this latter reply of Jesus we\ncannot but be struck by its presenting the peculiar hue of thought\nwhich characterizes the author of the fourth gospel, in the use of the\nidea of truth \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, as we were before surprised at the unwarrantable\nnature of the counter-question of Jesus; still this account in John\nrenders it conceivable how Pilate could immediately step forth and\ndeclare to the Jews that he found no fault in Jesus. But another point\nmight easily create suspicion against this narrative of John. According\nto him the trial of Jesus went forward in the interior of the\nPr\u00e6torium, which no Jew would venture to enter; who then are we to\nsuppose heard the conversation of the Procurator with Jesus, and was\nthe informant who communicated it to the author of the fourth gospel?\nThe opinion of the older commentators that Jesus himself narrated these\nconversations to his disciples after the resurrection is renounced as\nextravagant; the more modern idea that perhaps Pilate himself was the\nsource of the information concerning the trial, is scarcely less\nimprobable, and rather than take refuge, with L\u00fccke, in the supposition\nthat Jesus remained at the entrance of the Pr\u00e6torium, so that those\nstanding immediately without might with some attention and stillness\n(?) have heard the conversation, I should prefer appealing to the\nattendants of the Procurator, who would scarcely be alone with Jesus.\nMeanwhile it is easily conceivable that we have here a conversation,\nwhich owes its origin solely to the Evangelist\u2019s own combination, and\nin this case we need not bestow so much labour in ascertaining the\nprecise sense of Pilate\u2019s question: what is truth? since this would\nonly be an example of the fourth Evangelist\u2019s favourite form of\ndialogue, the contrast of profound communications on the part of Jesus,\nwith questions either of misapprehension or of total unintelligence on\nthe part of the hearers, as xii. 34, the Jews ask who is this Son of\nman? \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4. \u03b1.? so here Pilate: what is truth? \u03c4\u03af\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1? [1929]\n\nBefore the introduction of Barabbas, which in all the other Evangelists\ncomes next in order, Luke has an episode peculiar to himself. On the\ndeclaration of Pilate that he finds no guilt in the accused, the chief\npriests and their adherents among the multitude persist in asserting\nthat Jesus stirred up the people by his agency as a teacher from\nGalilee to Jerusalem: Pilate notices the word Galilee, asks whether the\naccused be a Galilean, and when this is confirmed, he seizes it as a\nwelcome pretext for ridding himself of the ungrateful business, and\nsends Jesus to the Tetrarch of Galilee, Herod Antipas, at that time in\nJerusalem in observance of the feast; perhaps also designing as a\nsecondary object, what at least was the result, to conciliate the petty\nprince by this show of respect for his jurisdiction. This measure, it\nis said, gave great satisfaction to Herod, because having heard much of\nJesus, he had long been desirous to see him, in the hope that he would\nperhaps perform a miracle. The Tetrarch addressed various questions to\nhim, the Sanhedrists urged vehement accusations against him, but Jesus\ngave no answer; whereupon Herod with his soldiers betook themselves to\nmockery, and at length, after arraying him in a gorgeous robe, sent him\nback to Pilate (xxiii. 4 ff.). This narrative of Luke\u2019s, whether we\nconsider it in itself or in its relation to the other gospels, has much\nto astonish us. If Jesus as a Galilean really belonged to the\njurisdiction of Herod, as Pilate, by delivering the accused to him,\nappears to acknowledge: how came Jesus (and the question is equally\ndifficult whether we regard him as the sinless Jesus of the orthodox\nsystem, or as the one who in the history of the tribute-penny\nmanifested his subjection to the existing authorities) to withhold from\nhim the answer which was his due? and how was it that Herod, without\nany further procedures, sent him away again from his tribunal? To say,\nwith Olshausen, that the interrogation before Herod had elicited the\nfact that Jesus was not born in Nazareth and Galilee, but in Bethlehem,\nand consequently in Jud\u00e6a, is on the one hand an inadmissible appeal to\nthe history of the birth of Jesus, of the statements in which there is\nno further trace in the whole subsequent course of Luke\u2019s gospel; and\non the other hand, a totally accidental birth in Jud\u00e6a, such as that\nrepresented by Luke, the parents of Jesus, and even Jesus himself,\nbeing both before and after resident in Galilee, would not have\nconstituted Jesus a Jud\u00e6an; but above all we must ask, through whom was\nthe Jud\u00e6an origin of Jesus brought to light, since it is said of Jesus\nthat he gave no answer, while according to all the information we\npossess, that origin was totally unknown to the Jews? It would be\npreferable to explain the silence of Jesus by the unbecoming manner of\nHerod\u2019s interrogation, which manifested, not the seriousness of the\njudge, but mere curiosity; and to account for his being sent back to\nPilate by the fact, that not only the arrest, but also a part of the\nministry of Jesus had occurred within the jurisdiction of Pilate. But\nwhy do the rest of the Evangelists say nothing of the entire episode?\nEspecially when the author of the fourth gospel is regarded as the\nApostle John, it is not easy to see how this omission can be explained.\nThe common plea, that he supposed the fact sufficiently known from the\nsynoptists, will not serve here, since Luke is the sole Evangelist who\nnarrates the incident, and thus it does not appear to have been very\nwidely spread; the conjecture, that it may probably have appeared to\nhim too unimportant, [1930] loses all foundation when it is considered\nthat John does not scorn to mention the leading away to Annas, which\nnevertheless was equally indecisive; and in general, the narrative of\nthese events in John is, as Schleiermacher himself confesses, so\nconsecutive that it nowhere presents a break in which such an episode\ncould be inserted. Hence even Schleiermacher at last takes refuge in\nthe conjecture that possibly the sending to Herod may have escaped the\nnotice of John, because it happened on an opposite side to that on\nwhich the disciple stood, through a back door; and that it came to the\nknowledge of Luke because his informant had an acquaintance in the\nhousehold of Herod, as John had in that of Annas: the former\nconjecture, however, is figuratively as well as literally nothing more\nthan a back door; the latter, a fiction which is but the effort of\ndespair. Certainly if we renounce the presupposition that the author of\nthe fourth gospel was an apostle, we lose the ground of attack against\nthe narrative of Luke, which in any case, since Justin knows of the\nconsignment to Herod, [1931] is of very early origin. Nevertheless,\nfirst, the silence of the other Evangelists in a portion of their\ncommon history, in which, with this exception, there prevails an\nagreement as to the principal stages in the development of the fate of\nJesus; and secondly, the internal difficulties of the narrative, remain\nso suspicious, that it must still be open to us to conjecture, that the\nanecdote arose out of the effort to place Jesus before all the\ntribunals that could possibly be gathered together in Jerusalem; to\nmake every authority not hierarchical, though treating him with\nignominy, still either explicitly or tacitly acknowledge his innocence;\nand to represent him as maintaining his equable demeanour and dignity\nbefore all. If this be probable with respect to the present narrative,\nin which the third Evangelist stands alone, a similar conjecture\nconcerning the leading away to Annas, in which we have seen that the\nfourth Evangelist stands alone, would only be warded off by the\ncircumstance that this scene is not described in detail, and hence\npresents no internal difficulties.\n\nAfter Jesus, being sent back by Herod, was returned upon his hands,\nPilate, according to Luke, once more called together the Sanhedrists\nand the people, and declared, alleging in his support the judgment of\nHerod as accordant with his own, his wish to dismiss Jesus with\nchastisement; for which purpose he might avail himself of the custom of\nreleasing a prisoner at the feast of the passover. [1932] This\ncircumstance, which is somewhat abridged in Luke, is more fully\nexhibited in the other Evangelists, especially in Matthew. As the\nprivilege to entreat the release of a prisoner belonged to the people,\nPilate, well knowing that Jesus was persecuted by the rulers out of\njealousy, sought to turn to his advantage the better disposition of the\npeople towards him; and in order virtually to oblige them to free\nJesus, whom, partly out of mockery of the Jews, partly to deter them\nfrom his execution as degrading to themselves, he named the Messiah or\nKing of the Jews, he reminded them that their choice lay between him\nand a notable prisoner, \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, Barabbas, [1933] whom John\ndesignates as a robber, \u03bb\u1fc3\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, but Mark and Luke as one who was\nimprisoned for insurrection and murder. This plan however failed, for\nthe people, suborned, as the two first Evangelists observe, by their\nrulers, with one voice desired the release of Barabbas and the\ncrucifixion of Jesus.\n\nAs a circumstance which had especial weight with Pilate in favour of\nJesus, and moved him to make the proposal relative to Barabbas as\nurgently as possible, it is stated by Matthew that while the procurator\nsat on his tribunal, his wife, [1934] in consequence of a disturbing\ndream, sent to him a warning to incur no responsibility in relation to\nthat just man (xxvii. 19). Not only Paulus, but even Olshausen,\nexplains this dream as a natural result of what Pilate\u2019s wife might\nhave heard of Jesus and of his capture on the preceding evening; to\nwhich may be added as an explanatory conjecture, the notice of the\nEvangelium Nicodemi, that she was pious, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u1f74\u03c2, and judaizing,\n\u1f30\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u0390\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1. [1935] Nevertheless, as constantly in the New Testament,\nand particularly in the Gospel of Matthew, dreams are regarded as a\nspecial dispensation from heaven, so this assuredly in the opinion of\nthe narrator happened non sine numine; and hence it should be possible\nto conceive a motive and an object for the dispensation. If the dream\nwere really intended to prevent the death of Jesus, taking the orthodox\npoint of view, in which this death was necessary for the salvation of\nman, we must be led to the opinion of some of the ancients, that it may\nhave been the devil who suggested that dream to the wife of the\nprocurator, in order to hinder the propitiatory death; [1936] if on the\ncontrary, the dream were not intended to prevent the death of Jesus,\nits object must have been limited to Pilate or his wife. But as far as\nPilate was concerned, so late a warning could only aggravate his guilt,\nwithout sufficing to deter him from the step already half taken; while\nthat his wife was converted by means of this dream, as many have\nsupposed, [1937] is totally unattested by history or tradition, and\nsuch an object is not intimated in the narrative. But, as the part\nwhich Pilate himself plays in the evangelical narrative is such as to\nexhibit the blind hatred of the fellow-countrymen of Jesus in contrast\nwith the impartial judgment of a Gentile; so his wife is made to render\na testimony to Jesus, in order that, not only out of the mouth of babes\nand sucklings (Matt. xxi. 16), but also out of the mouth of a weak\nwoman, praise might be prepared for him; and to increase its importance\nit is traced to a significant dream. To give this an appearance of\nprobability, similar instances are adduced from profane history of\ndreams which have acted as presentiments and warnings before a\nsanguinary catastrophe: [1938] but the more numerous are these\nanalogous cases, the more is the suspicion excited that as the majority\nof these, so also the dream in our evangelical passage, may have been\nfabricated after the event, for the sake of heightening its tragical\neffect.\n\nWhen the Jews, in reply to the repeated questions of Pilate, vehemently\nand obstinately demand the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of\nJesus, the two intermediate Evangelists represent him as at once\nyielding to their desire; but Matthew first interposes a ceremony and a\ncolloquy (xxvii. 24 ff.). According to him Pilate calls for water,\nwashes his hands before the people, and declares himself innocent of\nthe blood of this just man. The washing of the hands, as a protestation\nof purity from the guilt of shedding blood, was a custom specifically\nJewish, according to Deut. xxi. 6 f. [1939] It has been thought\nimprobable that the Roman should have here intentionally imitated this\nJewish custom, and hence it has been contended, that to any one who\nwished so solemnly to declare his innocence nothing would more readily\nsuggest itself than the act of washing the hands. [1940] But that an\nindividual, apart from any allusion to a known usage, should invent\nextemporaneously a symbolical act, or even that he should merely fall\nin with the custom of a foreign nation, would require him to be deeply\ninterested in the fact which he intends to symbolize. That Pilate,\nhowever, should be deeply interested in attesting his innocence of the\nexecution of Jesus, is not so probable as that the Christians should\nhave been deeply interested in thus gaining a testimony to the\ninnocence of their Messiah: whence there arises a suspicion that\nperhaps Pilate\u2019s act of washing his hands owes its origin to them\nalone. This conjecture is confirmed, when we consider the declaration\nwith which Pilate accompanies his symbolical act: I am innocent of the\nblood of this just man, \u1f00\u03b8\u1ff6\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\nFor that the judge should publicly and emphatically designate as a just\nman, \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, one whom he was nevertheless delivering over to the\nseverest infliction of the law,\u2014this even Paulus finds so contradictory\nthat he here, contrary to his usual mode of exposition, supposes that\nthe narrator himself expresses in these words his own interpretation of\nPilate\u2019s symbolical act. It is surprising that he is not also struck by\nthe equal improbability of the answer which is attributed to the Jews\non this occasion. After Pilate has declared himself guiltless of the\nblood of Jesus, and by the addition: see ye to it, has laid the\nresponsibility on the Jews, it is said in Matthew that all the people\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2, cried: His blood be on us and on our children, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. But this is obviously spoken from the\npoint of view of the Christians, who in the miseries which shortly\nafter the death of Jesus fell with continually increasing weight on the\nJewish nation, saw nothing else than the payment of the debt of blood\nwhich they had incurred by the crucifixion of Jesus: so that this whole\nepisode, which is peculiar to the first gospel, is in the highest\ndegree suspicious.\n\nAccording to Matthew and Mark, Pilate now caused Jesus to be scourged,\npreparatory to his being led away to crucifixion. Here the scourging\nappears to correspond to the virgis c\u00e6dere, which according to Roman\nusage preceded the securi percutere, and to the scourging of slaves\nprior to crucifixion. [1941] In Luke it has a totally different\ncharacter. While in the two former Evangelists it is said: When he had\nscourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38. \u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7: in Luke, Pilate repeatedly (v. 16 and 22) makes\nthe proposal: having chastised him I will let him go, \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9: i.e. while there the scourging has the appearance of a mere\naccessory of the crucifixion, here it appears to be intended as a\nsubstitute for the crucifixion: Pilate wishes by this chastisement to\nappease the hatred of the enemies of Jesus, and induce them to desist\nfrom demanding his execution. Again, while in Luke the scourging does\nnot actually take place,\u2014because the Jews will in nowise accede to the\nrepeated proposal of Pilate: in John the latter causes Jesus to be\nscourged, exhibits him to the people with the purple robe and the crown\nof thorns and tries whether his pitiable aspect, together with the\nrepeated declaration of his innocence, will not mollify their\nembittered minds: this, however, proving also in vain (xix. 1 ff.).\nThus there exists a contradiction between the Evangelists in relation\nto the scourging of Jesus, which is not to be conciliated after the\nmethod of Paulus, namely by paraphrasing the words \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38. \u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7 in Matthew and Mark thus: Jesus, whom he had\nalready before scourged in order to save him, suffered this in vain,\nsince he was still delivered over to crucifixion. But, acknowledging\nthe difference in the accounts, we must only ask, which of the two has\nthe advantage as regards historical probability? Although it is\ncertainly not to be proved that scourging before crucifixion was a\nRoman custom admitting no exception: still, on the other hand, it is a\npurely harmonistic effort to allege, that scourging was only made to\nprecede crucifixion in cases where the punishment was intended to be\nparticularly severe, [1942] and that consequently Pilate, who had no\nwish to be cruel to Jesus, can only have caused him to be scourged with\nthe special design which Luke and John mention, and which is also to be\nunderstood in the narratives of their predecessors. It is far more\nprobable that in reality the scourging only took place as it is\ndescribed by the two first Evangelists, namely, as an introduction to\nthe crucifixion, and that the Christian legend (to which that side of\nPilate\u2019s character, in virtue of which he endeavoured in various ways\nto save Jesus, was particularly welcome as a testimony against the\nJews) gave such a turn even to the fact of the scourging as to obtain\nfrom it a new attempt at release on the part of Pilate. This use of the\nfact is only incipient in the third gospel, for here the scourging is a\nmere proposal of Pilate: whereas in the fourth, the scourging actually\ntakes place, and becomes an additional act in the drama.\n\nWith the scourging is connected in the two first gospels and the\nfourth, the maltreatment and mockery of Jesus by the soldiers, who\nattired him in a purple robe, placed a crown of thorns on his head,\n[1943] put, according to Matthew, a reed in his hand, and in this\ndisguise first greeted him as King of the Jews, and then smote and\nmaltreated him. [1944] Luke does not mention any derision on the part\nof the soldiers here, but he has something similar in his narrative of\nthe interrogation of Jesus before Herod, for he represents this prince\nwith his men of war, \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, as mocking Jesus, and\nsending him back to Pilate in a gorgeous robe, \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u1f74\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac. Many\nsuppose that this was the same purple robe which was afterwards put on\nJesus by the soldiers of Pilate; but it must rather have been thrice\nthat Jesus had to wear this disguise, if we take the narrative of John\ninto the account and at the same time refuse to attribute error to any\nof the synoptists: first in the presence of Herod (Luke); secondly,\nbefore Pilate brought Jesus forth to the Jews, that he might excite\ntheir compassion with the words: Behold the man, \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 (John);\nthirdly, after he was delivered to the soldiers for crucifixion\n(Matthew and Mark). This repetition is as improbable as it is probable\nthat the one disguising of Jesus, which had come to the knowledge of\nthe Evangelists, was assigned by them to different places and times,\nand ascribed to different persons.\n\nWhile in the two first gospels the process of trial is already\nconcluded before the scourging, and in the third, on the rejection of\nhis proposal to scourge and release Jesus by the Jews, Pilate forthwith\ndelivers him to be crucified: in the fourth Evangelist the scene of the\ntrial is further developed in the following manner. When even the\nexhibition of Jesus scourged and disguised avails nothing, but his\ncrucifixion is obstinately demanded, the procurator is incensed, and\ncries to the Jews, that they may take him and crucify him themselves,\nfor he finds no fault in him. The Jews reply that according to their\nlaw he must die, since he had made himself the Son of God \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6; a\nremark which affects Pilate with a superstitious fear, whence he once\nmore leads Jesus into the Pr\u00e6torium, and inquires concerning his origin\n(whether it be really heavenly), on which Jesus gives him no answer,\nand when the procurator seeks to alarm him by reminding him of the\npower which he possesses over his life, refers to the higher source\nfrom whence he had this power. Pilate, after this reply, seeks (yet\nmore earnestly than before) to release Jesus; but at last the Jews hit\nupon the right means of making him accede to their will, by throwing\nout the intimation that, if he release Jesus who has opposed himself to\nC\u00e6sar as an usurper, he cannot be C\u00e6sar\u2019s friend. Thus, intimidated by\nthe possibility of his being calumniated to Tiberius, he mounts the\ntribunal, and, since he cannot prosecute his will, betakes himself to\nderision of the Jews in the question, whether they then wish that he\nshould crucify their king? Whereupon they, keeping to the position\nwhich they had last taken with such evident effect, protest that they\nwill have no king but C\u00e6sar. The procurator now consents to deliver\nJesus to be crucified, for which purpose, as the two first Evangelists\nremark, the purple mantle was removed, and he was again attired in his\nown clothes.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 132.\n\nTHE CRUCIFIXION.\n\nEven concerning the progress of Jesus to the place of crucifixion there\nis a divergency between the synoptists and John, for according to the\nlatter Jesus himself carried his cross thither (xix. 17), while the\nformer state that one Simon a Cyrenian bore it in his stead (Matt.\nxxvii. 32 parall.). The commentators indeed, as if a real agreement\nwere assumed as a matter of course, reconcile these statements thus: at\nfirst Jesus himself endeavoured to bear the cross, but as the attempt\nmade it obvious that he was too much exhausted, it was laid on Simon.\n[1945] But when John says: And he bearing his cross went forth\ninto\u2014Golgotha, where they crucified him, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\u2014\u0393\u03bf\u03bb\u03b3\u03bf\u03b8\u1fb6\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd: he plainly presupposes that\nthe cross was borne by Jesus on the way thither. [1946] But the\nstatement so unanimously given by the synoptists respecting the\nsubstitution of Simon appears the less capable of being rejected, the\nmore difficult it is to discover a motive which might lead to its\nfabrication. On the contrary, this individual trait might very probably\nhave remained unknown in the circle in which the fourth gospel had its\norigin, and the author might have thought that, according to the\ngeneral custom, Jesus must have carried his cross. All the synoptists\ndesignate this Simon as a Cyrenian, i.e. probably one who had come to\nJerusalem to the feast, from the Libyan city of Cyrene, where many Jews\nresided. [1947] According to all, the carrying of the cross was forced\nupon him, a circumstance which can as little be urged for as against\nthe opinion that he was favourable to Jesus. [1948] According to Luke\nand Mark, the man came directly out of the country, \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, and as\nhe attempted to pass by the crowd advancing to the place of\ncrucifixion, he was made use of to relieve Jesus. Mark designates him\nyet more particularly as the father of Alexander and Rufus, who appear\nto have been noted persons in the primitive church (comp. Rom. xvi. 13;\nActs xix. 33 (?); 1 Tim. i. 20 (?); 2 Tim. iv. 14 (?)). [1949]\n\nOn the way to the place of execution, according to Luke, there followed\nJesus, lamenting him, a great company, consisting especially of women,\nwhom he however admonished to weep rather for themselves and their\nchildren, in prospect of the terrible time, which would soon come upon\nthem (xxiii. 27 ff.). The details are taken partly from the discourse\non the second advent, Luke xxi. 23; for as there it is said, \u039f\u1f50\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c7\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, so here Jesus says, that the days are coming in which \u03b1\u1f31\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f33 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f33 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b8\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, will\nbe pronounced blessed; partly from Hosea x. 8, for the words \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\n\u1f04\u03c1\u03be\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (then shall they begin to say to the\nmountains, etc.) are almost exactly the Alexandrian translation of that\npassage.\n\nThe place of execution is named by all the Evangelists Golgotha, the\nChaldaic \u200f\u05d2\u05bb\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u200e, and they all interpret this designation by \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 the place of a skull, or \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03bd a skull (Matt. v. 33 parall.).\nFrom the latter name it might appear that the place was so called\nbecause it resembled a skull in form; whereas the former\ninterpretation, and indeed the nature of the case, renders it probable\nthat it owed its name to its destination as a place of execution, and\nto the bones and skulls of the executed which were heaped up there.\nWhere this place was situated is not known, but doubtless it was out of\nthe city; even that it was a hill, is a mere conjecture. [1950]\n\nThe course of events after the arrival at the place of execution is\nnarrated by Matthew (v. 34 ff.) in a somewhat singular order. First, he\nmentions the beverage offered to Jesus; next, he says that after they\nhad nailed him to the cross, the soldiers shared his clothes among\nthem; then, that they sat down and watched him; after this he notices\nthe superscription on the cross, and at length, and not as if supplying\na previous omission, but with a particle expressive of succession in\ntime (\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5), the fact that two thieves were crucified with him. Mark\nfollows Matthew, except that instead of the statement about the\nwatching of the cross, he has a determination of the time at which\nJesus was crucified: while Luke more correctly relates first the\ncrucifixion of the two malefactors with Jesus, and then the casting of\nlots for the clothes; and the same order is observed by John. But it is\ninadmissible on this account to transpose the verses in Matthew (34,\n37, 38, 35, 36), as has been proposed; [1951] and we must rather\nabandon the author of the first gospel to the charge, that in his\nanxiety not to omit any of the chief events at the crucifixion of\nJesus, he has neglected the natural order of time. [1952]\n\nAs regards the mode of the crucifixion there is now scarcely any\ndebated point, if we except the question, whether the feet as well as\nthe hands were nailed to the cross. As it lay in the interest of the\northodox view to prove the affirmative: so it was equally important to\nthe rationalistic system to maintain the negative. From Justin Martyr\n[1953] down to Hengstenberg [1954] and Olshausen, the orthodox find in\nthe nailing of the feet of Jesus to the cross a fulfilment of the\nprophecy Ps. xxii. 17, which the LXX. translates: \u1f64\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, but it is doubtful whether the original text really speaks of\npiercing, and in no case does it allude to crucifixion: moreover the\npassage is nowhere applied to Christ in the New Testament. To the\nrationalists, on the contrary, it is at once more easy to explain the\ndeath of Jesus as a merely apparent death, and only possible to\nconceive how he could walk immediately after the resurrection, when it\nis supposed that his feet were left unwounded; but the case should\nrather be stated thus: if the historical evidence go to prove that the\nfeet also of Jesus were nailed, it must be concluded that the\nresuscitation and the power of walking shortly after, either happened\nsupernaturally or not at all. Of late there have stood opposed to each\nother two learned and profound investigations of this point, the one by\nPaulus against, the other by B\u00e4hr, in favour of\u2014the nailing of the\nfeet. [1955] From the evangelical narrative, the former opinion can\nprincipally allege in its support, that neither is the above passage in\nthe Psalms anywhere used by the Evangelists, though on the\npresupposition of a nailing of the feet it was so entirely suited to\ntheir mode of accounting for facts, nor in the history of the\nresurrection is there any mention of wounds in the feet, together with\nthe wounds in the hands and side (John xx. 20, 25, 27). The other\nopinion appeals not without reason to Luke xxiv. 39, where Jesus\ninvites the disciples to behold his hands and his feet (\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5): it is certainly not here said that the\nfeet were pierced, but it is difficult to understand how Jesus should\nhave pointed out his feet merely to produce a conviction of the reality\nof his body. The fact that among the fathers of the church, those who,\nliving before Constantine, might be acquainted with the mode of\ncrucifixion from personal observation, as Justin and Tertullian,\nsuppose the feet of Jesus to have been nailed, is of weight. It might\nindeed be concluded from the remark of the latter: Qui (Christus) solus\na populo tam insigniter crucifixus est, [1956] that for the sake of the\npassage in the Psalms these fathers supposed that in the crucifixion of\nChrist his feet also were pierced by way of exception; but, as\nTertullian had before called the piercing of the hands and feet the\npropria atrocia crucis, it is plain that the above words imply, not a\nspecial manner of crucifixion, but the special manner of death by\ncrucifixion, which does not occur in the Old Testament, and by which\ntherefore Jesus was distinguished from all the characters therein\ncelebrated. Among the passages in profane writers, the most important\nis that of Plautus, in which, to mark a crucifixion as extraordinarily\nsevere, it is said: offigantur bis pedes, bis brachia. [1957] Here the\nquestion is: does the extraordinary feature lie in the bis, so that the\nnailing of the feet as well as of the hands only once is presupposed as\nthe ordinary usage; or was the bis offigere of the hands, i.e. the\nnailing of both the hands, the usual practice, and the nailing of the\nfeet an extraordinary aggravation of the punishment? Every one will\npronounce the former alternative to be the most accordant with the\nwords. Hence it appears to me at present, that the balance of\nhistorical evidence is on the side of those who maintain that the feet\nas well as the hands of Jesus were nailed to the cross.\n\nIt was before the crucifixion, according to the two first Evangelists,\nthat there was offered to Jesus a beverage, which Matthew (v. 34)\ndescribes as vinegar mingled with gall, \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\nMark (v. 23) as wine mingled with myrrh, \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, but\nwhich, according to both, Jesus (Matthew says, after having tasted it)\nrefused to accept. As it is not understood with what object gall could\nbe mixed with the vinegar, the \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7 of Matthew is usually explained, by\nthe aid of the \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd of Mark, as implying bitter vegetable\ningredients, especially myrrh; and then either \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd wine is actually\nsubstituted for \u1f44\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 vinegar, or the latter is understood as sour wine;\n[1958] in order that the beverage offered to Jesus may thus appear to\nhave been the stupefying draught consisting of wine and strong spices,\nwhich, according to Jewish usage, was presented to those about to be\nexecuted, for the purpose of blunting their susceptibility to pain.\n[1959] But even if the text admitted of this reading, and the words of\nthis interpretation, Matthew would assuredly protest strongly against\nthe real gall and the vinegar being thus explained away from his\nnarrative, because by this means he would lose the fulfilment of the\npassage in the psalm of lamentation elsewhere used messianically:\n(LXX.) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bc\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, they gave me also gall for my meat, and in my thirst\nthey gave me vinegar to drink (Ps. lxix. 21). Matthew incontestably\nmeans, in accordance with this prophecy, real gall with vinegar, and\nthe comparison with Mark is only calculated to suggest the question,\nwhether it be more probable that Mark presents the incident in its\noriginal form, which Matthew has remodelled into a closer accordance\nwith the prophecy; or that Matthew originally drew the particular from\nthe passage in the Psalm, and that Mark so modified it as to give it an\nappearance of greater historical probability?\n\nIn order to come to a decision on this question we must take the two\nother Evangelists into consideration. The presentation to Jesus of a\ndrink mingled with vinegar is mentioned by all four, and even the two\nwho have the vinegar mingled with gall, or the myrrhed wine, as the\nfirst drink offered to Jesus, mention afterwards the offering of simple\nvinegar. According to Luke, this offering of vinegar \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\nwas an act of derision committed by the soldiers not very long after\nthe crucifixion, and before the commencement of the darkness (v. 36\nf.); according to Mark, shortly before the end, three hours after the\ndarkness came on, one of the bystanders, on hearing the cry of Jesus:\nmy God, my God, etc., presented vinegar to him, likewise in derision,\nby means of a sponge fixed on a reed (v. 36); according to Matthew, one\nof the bystanders, on the same cry, and in the same manner, presented\nvinegar to him, but with a benevolent intention, as we gather from the\ncircumstance that the scoffers wished to deter him from the act (v. 48\nf.); [1960] whereas in John it is on the exclamation: I thirst, that\nsome fill a sponge with vinegar from a vessel standing near, and raise\nit on a stem of hyssop to the mouth of Jesus (v. 29). Hence it has been\nsupposed that there were three separate attempts to give a beverage to\nJesus: the first before the crucifixion, with the stupefying drink\n(Matthew and Mark); the second after the crucifixion, when the soldiers\nin mockery offered him some of their ordinary beverage, a mixture of\nvinegar and water called posca [1961] (Luke); and the third, on the\ncomplaining cry of Jesus (Matt., Mark and John). [1962] But if the\nprinciple of considering every divergent narrative as a separate event\nbe once admitted, it must be consistently carried out: if the beverage\nmentioned by Luke must be distinguished from that of Matthew and Mark\non account of a difference in the time, then must that of Matthew be\ndistinguished from that of Mark on account of the difference in the\ndesign; and, again, the beverage mentioned by John must not be regarded\nas the same with that of the two first synoptists, since it follows a\ntotally different exclamation. Thus we should obtain in all five\ninstances in which a drink was offered to Jesus, and we should at least\nbe at a loss to understand why Jesus after vinegar had already been\nthrice presented to his lips, should yet a fourth time have desired to\ndrink. If then we must resort to simplification, it is by no means only\nthe beverage in the two first gospels, and that in the fourth, which,\non account of the agreement in the time and manner of presentation, are\nto be understood as one; but also that of Mark (and through this the\nothers) must be pronounced identical with that of Luke, on account of\ntheir being alike offered in derision. Thus there remain two instances\nof a drink being offered to Jesus, the one before the crucifixion, the\nother after; and both have a presumptive support from history, the\nformer in the Jewish custom of giving a stupefying draught to persons\nabout to be executed, the other in the Roman custom, according to which\nthe soldiers on their expeditions,\u2014and the completing an execution was\nconsidered as such,\u2014were in the habit of taking with them their posca.\nBut together with this possible historical root, there is a possible\nprophetic one in Ps. lxix., and the two have an opposite influence: the\nlatter excites a suspicion that the narrative may not have anything\nhistorical at its foundation; the former throws doubt on the\nexplanation that the whole story has been spun out of the prophecies.\n\nOn once more glancing over the various narratives, we shall at least\nfind that their divergencies are precisely of a nature to have arisen\nfrom a various application of the passage in the Psalms. The eating of\ngall and the drinking of vinegar being there spoken of, it appears as\nif in the first instance the former particular had been set aside as\ninconceivable, and the fulfilment of the prophecy found in the\ncircumstance (very possibly historical, since it is mentioned by all\nthe four Evangelists), that Jesus had vinegar presented to him when on\nthe cross. This might either be regarded as an act of compassion, as by\nMatthew and John, or of mockery, with Mark and Luke. In this manner the\nwords: they gave me vinegar to drink, \u1f10\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2, were indeed\nliterally fulfilled, but not the preceding phrase: in my thirst, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5; hence the author of the fourth gospel might think it\nprobable that Jesus actually complained of thirst, i.e. cried, I\nthirst, \u03b4\u03b9\u03c8\u1ff6, an exclamation, which he expressly designates as a\nfulfilment of the scripture, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74, by which we are doubtless to\nunderstand the above passage in the Psalms (comp. Ps. xxii. 16); nay,\nsince he introduces the \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74, that the scripture might\nbe fulfilled, by \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Jesus,\nknowing that all things were now accomplished, he almost appears to\nmean that the fulfilment of the prophecy was the sole object of Jesus\nin uttering that exclamation: but a man suspended on the cross in the\nagonies of death is not the one to occupy himself with such typological\ntrifling\u2014this is only the part of his biographer who finds himself in\nperfect ease. Even this addition, however, only showed the fulfilment\nof one half of the messianic verse, that relating to the vinegar: there\nstill remained what was said of the gall, which, as the concentration\nof all bitterness, was peculiarly adapted to be placed in relation to\nthe suffering Messiah. It is true that the presentation of the gall,\n\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74, as meat, \u03b2\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, which the prophecy strictly taken required, was\nstill suppressed as inconceivable: but it appeared to the first\nEvangelist, or to the authority which he here follows, quite\npracticable to introduce the gall as an ingredient in the vinegar, a\nmixture which Jesus might certainly be unable to drink, from its\nunpalatableness. More concerned about historical probability than\nprophetic connexion, the second Evangelist, with reference to a Jewish\ncustom, and perhaps in accordance with historical fact, converted the\nvinegar mingled with gall, into wine mingled with myrrh, and made Jesus\nreject this, doubtless from a wish to avoid stupefaction. As however\nthe narrative of the vinegar mingled with gall reached these two\nEvangelists in company with the original one of the presentation of\nsimple vinegar to Jesus; they were unwilling that this should be\nexcluded by the former, and hence placed the two side by side. But in\nmaking these observations, as has been before remarked, it is not\nintended to deny that such a beverage may have been offered to Jesus\nbefore the crucifixion, and afterwards vinegar also, since the former\nwas apparently customary, and the latter, from the thirst which\ntormented the crucified, natural: it is merely intended to show, that\nthe Evangelists do not narrate this circumstance, and under such\nvarious forms, because they knew historically that it occurred in this\nor that manner, but because they were convinced dogmatically that it\nmust have occurred according to the above prophecy, which however they\napplied in different ways. [1963]\n\nDuring or immediately after the crucifixion Luke represents Jesus as\nsaying: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (v. 34);\nan intercession which is by some limited to the soldiers who crucified\nhim, [1964] by others, extended to the real authors of his death, the\nSanhedrists and Pilate. [1965] However accordant such a prayer may be\nwith the principles concerning love to enemies elsewhere inculcated by\nJesus (Matt. v. 44), and however great the internal probability of\nLuke\u2019s statement viewed in this light: still it is to be observed,\nespecially as he stands alone in giving this particular, that it may\npossibly have been taken from the reputed messianic chapter, Isa.\nliii., where in the last verse, the same from which the words: he was\nnumbered with the transgressors, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 are borrowed, it\nis said: \u200f\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b7\u05e4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e2\u05b7\u200e (he made intercession for the transgressors),\nwhich the LXX. erroneously translate \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7, he\nwas delivered for their transgressions, but which already the Targum\nJonathan renders by pro peccatis (it should be peccatoribus) deprecatus\nest.\n\nAll the Evangelists agree in stating that two malefactors \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\n(Matthew and Mark call them \u03bb\u1fc3\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 thieves) were crucified, one on each\nside of Jesus; and Mark, if his 28th verse be genuine, sees in this a\nliteral fulfilment of the words: he was numbered with the\ntransgressors, which, according to Luke xxii. 37, Jesus had the evening\nbefore quoted as a prophecy about to be accomplished in him. Of the\nfurther demeanour of these fellow-sufferers, John says nothing; the two\nfirst Evangelists represent them as reviling Jesus (Matt. xxvii. 44;\nMark xv. 32): whereas Luke narrates that only one of them was guilty of\nthis offence, and that he was rebuked by the other (xxiii. 39 ff.). In\norder to reconcile this difference, commentators have advanced the\nsupposition, that at first both criminals reviled Jesus, but that\nsubsequently one of them was converted by the marvellous darkness;\n[1966] more modern ones have resorted to the supposition of an enallage\nnumeri: [1967] but without doubt those only are right who admit a real\ndifference between Luke and his predecessors. [1968] It is plain that\nthe two first Evangelists knew nothing of the more precise details\nwhich Luke presents concerning the relation of the two malefactors to\nJesus. He narrates, namely, that when one of them derided Jesus by\ncalling upon him, if he were the Messiah, to deliver himself and them,\nthe other earnestly rebuked such mockery of one with whom he was\nsharing a like fate, and moreover as a guilty one with the guiltless,\nentreating for his own part that Jesus would remember him when he\nshould come into his kingdom \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1: whereupon Jesus gave him the\npromise that he should that very day be with him in Paradise \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u1ff3. In this scene there is nothing to create difficulty, until\nwe come to the words which the second malefactor addresses to Jesus.\nFor to expect from one suspended on the cross a future coming to\nestablish the messianic kingdom, would presuppose the conception of the\nwhole system of a dying Messiah, which before the resurrection the\napostles themselves could not comprehend, and which therefore,\naccording to the above representation of Luke, a thief must have been\nbeforehand with them in embracing. This is so improbable, that it\ncannot excite surprise to find many regarding the conversion of the\nthief on the cross as a miracle, [1969] and the supposition which\ncommentators call in to their aid, namely, that the man was no common\ncriminal, but a political one, perhaps concerned in the insurrection of\nBarabbas, [1970] only serves to render the incident still more\ninconceivable. For if he was an Israelite inclined to rebellion, and\nbent on liberating his nation from the Roman yoke, his idea of the\nMessiah was assuredly the most incompatible with the acknowledgment as\nsuch, of one so completely annihilated in a political view, as Jesus\nthen was. Hence we are led to the question, whether we have here a real\nhistory and not rather a creation of the legend? Two malefactors were\ncrucified with Jesus: thus much was indubitably presented by history\n(or did even this owe its origin to the prophecy, Isa. liii. 12?). At\nfirst they were suspended by the side of Jesus as mute figures, and\nthus we find them in the narrative of the fourth Evangelist, into whose\nregion of tradition only the simple statement, that they were crucified\nwith Jesus, had penetrated. But it was not possible for the legend long\nto rest contented with so slight a use of them: it opened their mouths,\nand as only insults were reported to have proceeded from the\nbystanders, the two malefactors were at first made to join in the\ngeneral derision of Jesus, without any more particular account being\ngiven of their words (Matt. and Mark). But the malefactors admitted of\na still better use. If Pilate had borne witness in favour of Jesus; if\nshortly after, a Roman centurion\u2014nay, all nature by its miraculous\nconvulsions\u2014had attested his exalted character: so his two\nfellow-sufferers, although criminals, could not remain entirely\nimpervious to the impression of his greatness, but, though one of them\ndid indeed revile Jesus agreeably to the original form of the legend,\nthe other must have expressed an opposite state of feeling, and have\nshown faith in Jesus as the Messiah (Luke). The address of the latter\nto Jesus and his answer are besides conceived entirely in the spirit of\nJewish thought and expression; for according to the idea then\nprevalent, paradise was that part of the nether world which was to\nharbour the souls of the pious in the interval between their death and\nthe resurrection: a place in paradise and a favourable remembrance in\nthe future age were the object of the Israelite\u2019s petition, to God, as\nhere to the Messiah; [1971] and it was believed concerning a man\ndistinguished for piety that he could conduct those who were present at\nthe hour of his death into paradise. [1972]\n\nTo the cross of Jesus was affixed, according to the Roman custom,\n[1973] a superscription \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 (Mark and Luke), or a title \u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n(John) which contained his accusation \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (Matthew and\nMark), consisting according to all the Evangelists in the words: \u1f41\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, the King of the Jews. Luke and John state that\nthis superscription was couched in three different tongues, and the\nlatter informs us that the Jewish rulers were fully alive to the\nderision which this form of superscription reflected on their nation,\nand on this account entreated Pilate, but in vain, for an alteration of\nthe terms (v. 21 f.).\n\nOf the soldiers, according to John four in number, who crucified Jesus,\nthe Evangelists unanimously relate that they parted the clothes of\nJesus among themselves by lot. According to the Roman law de bonis\ndamnatorum [1974] the vestments of the executed fell as spolia to the\nexecutioners, and in so far that statement of the Evangelists has a\npoint of contact with history. But, like most of the features in this\nlast scene of the life of Jesus, it has also a point of contact with\nprophecy. It is true that in Matthew the quotation of the passage Ps.\nxxii. 18 is doubtless an interpolation; but on the other hand the same\nquotation is undoubtedly genuine in John (xix. 24): \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7\n\u1f21 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u00b7 (verbally after the LXX.) \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f10\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, that the scripture\nmight be fulfilled which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and\nfor my vesture they did cast lots. Here also, according to the\nassertion of orthodox expositors, David the author of the psalm, under\ndivine guidance, in the moments of inspiration chose such figurative\nexpressions as had a literal fulfilment in Christ. [1975] Rather we\nmust say, David, or whoever else may have been the author of the psalm,\nas a man of poetical imagination used those expressions as mere\nmetaphors to denote a total defeat; but the petty, prosaic spirit of\nJewish interpretation, which the Evangelists shared without any fault\nof theirs, and from which orthodox theologians, by their own fault\nhowever, have not perfectly liberated themselves after the lapse of\neighteen centuries, led to the belief that those words must be\nunderstood literally, and in this sense must be shown to be fulfilled\nin the Messiah. Whether the Evangelists drew the circumstance of the\ncasting of lots for the clothes more from historical information which\nstood at their command, or from the prophetic passage which they\nvariously interpreted, must be decided by a comparison of their\nnarratives. These present the divergency, that while according to the\nsynoptists all the clothes were parted by lot, as is evident from the\nwords: \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, they parted his\ngarments, casting lots, in Matthew (v. 35), and the similar turn of\nexpression in Luke (v. 34), but still more decidedly from the addition\nof Mark: \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af \u1f04\u03c1\u03b7, what every man should take (v. 24): in John it is\nthe coat or tunic, \u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1f7c\u03bd, alone for which lots are cast, the other\ngarments being parted equally (v. 23 f.). This divergency is commonly\nthought of much too lightly, and is tacitly treated as if the\nsynoptical representation were related to that of John as the\nindefinite to the definite. Kuin\u00f6l in consideration of John translates\nthe words \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 of Matthew thus: partim dividebant,\npartim in sortem conjiciebant: but the meaning is not to be thus\ndistributed, for the \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, they parted, states what they did,\nthe \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, casting lots, how they did it: besides Kuin\u00f6l\npasses in total silence over the words \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af \u1f04\u03c1\u03b7, because they\nundeniably imply that lots were cast for several articles: while\naccording to John the lots had reference only to one garment. If it be\nnow asked, which of the two contradictory narratives is the correct\none, the answer given from the point of view to which the comparative\ncriticism of the gospels has at present attained is, that the\neye-witness John gives the correct particulars, but the synoptists had\nmerely received the indefinite information, that in parting the clothes\nof Jesus the soldiers made use of the lot, and this, from\nunacquaintance with the more minute particulars, they understood as if\nlots had been cast for all the garments of Jesus. [1976] But not only\ndoes the circumstance that it is John alone who expressly cites the\npassage in the Psalms prove that he had an especial view to that\npassage: but, in general, this divergency of the Evangelists is\nprecisely what might be expected from a difference in the\ninterpretation of that supposed prophecy. When the psalm speaks of the\nparting of the garments and a casting of lots for the vesture: the\nsecond particular is, according to the genius of the Hebrew language\nwhich abounds in parallelism, only a more precise definition of the\nfirst, and the synoptists, correctly understanding this, make one of\nthe two verbs a participle. One however who did not bear in mind this\npeculiarity of the Hebrew style, or had an interest in exhibiting the\nsecond feature of the prophecy as specially fulfilled, might understand\nthe and, which in reality was indicative only of more precise\ndefinition, as denoting addition, and thus regard the casting of lots\nand the distribution as separate acts. Then the \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 (\u200f\u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e)\nwhich was originally a synonyme of \u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 (\u200f\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d2\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) must become a\ndistinct garment, the closer particularization of which, since it was\nnot in any way conveyed in the word itself, was left to choice. The\nfourth Evangelist determined it to be the \u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1f7c\u03bd, tunic, and because he\nbelieved it due to his readers to show some cause for a mode of\nprocedure with respect to this garment, so different from the equal\ndistribution of the others, he intimated that the reason why it was\nchosen to cast lots for the tunic rather than to divide it, probably\nwas that it had no seam (\u1f04\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2) which might render separation easy,\nbut was woven in one piece (\u1f51\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5). [1977] Thus we should\nhave in the fourth Evangelist exactly the same procedure as we have\nfound on the side of the first, in the history of the entrance into\nJerusalem: in both cases the doubling of a trait originally single,\nowing to a false interpretation of the \u200f\u05d5\u200e in the Hebrew parallelism;\nthe only difference being that the first Evangelist in the passage\nreferred to is less arbitrary than the fourth is here, for he at least\nspares us the tracing out of the reason why two asses must then have\nbeen required for one rider. The more evident it thus becomes that the\nrepresentation of the point in question in the different Evangelists is\ndependent on the manner in which each interpreted that supposed\nprophecy in the Psalms: the less does a sure historical knowledge\nappear to have had any share in their representation, and hence we\nremain ignorant whether lots were cast on the distribution of the\nclothes of Jesus, nay whether in general a distribution of clothes took\nplace under the cross of Jesus; confidently as Justin appeals in\nsupport of this very particular to the Acts of Pilate, which he had\nnever seen. [1978]\n\nOf the conduct of the Jews who were present at the crucifixion of\nJesus, John tells us nothing; Luke represents the people as standing to\nlook on, and only the rulers \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 and the soldiers as deriding\nJesus by the summons to save himself if he were the Messiah, to which\nthe latter adds the offer of the vinegar (v. 35 ff.); Matthew and Mark\nhave nothing here of mockery on the part of the soldiers, but in\ncompensation they make not only the chief priests, scribes, and elders,\nbut also the passers by, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, vent insults against Jesus\n(v. 39 ff., 29 ff.). The expressions of these people partly refer to\nformer discourses and actions of Jesus; thus, the sarcasm: Thou that\ndestroyest the temple and buildest it again in three days, save thyself\n(Matt. and Mark), is an allusion to the words of that tenor ascribed to\nJesus; while the reproach: he saved others, himself he cannot save, or\nsave thyself (in all three), refers to his cures. Partly however the\nconduct of the Jews towards Jesus on the cross, is depicted after the\nsame psalm of which Tertullian justly says that it contains totam\nChristi passionem. [1979] When it is said in Matthew and Mark: And they\nthat passed by reviled him, wagging their heads and saying: \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 (Luke says of the rulers \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 they derided him\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bc\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd), this is certainly nothing else than a mere reproduction\nof what stands in Ps. xxii. 8 (LXX.): All they that see me laugh me to\nscorn, they shoot out the lip and shake the head: \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bc\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5, \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd; and the\nwords which are hereupon lent to the Sanhedrists in Matthew: He trusted\nin God; let him deliver him now if he will have him, \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd, \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, are the same with those of the\nfollowing verse in that Psalm: He trusted in the Lord that he would\ndeliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him, \u1f24\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. Now though\nthe taunts and shaking of the head on the part of the enemies of Jesus\nmay, notwithstanding that the description of them is drawn according to\nthe above Old Testament passage, still very probably have really\nhappened: it is quite otherwise with the words which are attributed to\nthese mockers. Words which, like those above quoted, are in the Old\nTestament put into the mouth of the enemies of the godly, could not be\nadopted by the Sanhedrists without their voluntarily assuming the\ncharacter of the ungodly: which they would surely have taken care to\navoid. Only the Christian legend, if it once applied the Psalm to the\nsufferings of Jesus, and especially to his last hours, could attribute\nthese words to the Jewish rulers, and find therein the fulfilment of a\nprophecy.\n\nThe two first Evangelists do not tell us that any one of the twelve was\npresent at the crucifixion of Jesus: they mention merely several\nGalilean women, three of whom they particularize: namely, Mary\nMagdalene; Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses; and, as the\nthird, according to Matthew, the mother of the sons of Zebedee,\naccording to Mark, Salome, both which designations are commonly\nunderstood to relate to the same person (Matt. v. 55 f.; Mark v. 40\nf.): according to these Evangelists the twelve appear not yet to have\nreassembled after their flight on the arrest of Jesus. [1980] In Luke,\non the contrary, among all his acquaintance, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\nwhom he represents as beholding the crucifixion (v. 49) the twelve\nwould seem to be included: but the fourth gospel expressly singles out\nfrom among the disciples the one whom Jesus loved, i.e. John, as\npresent, and among the women, together with Mary Magdalene and the wife\nof Cleopas, names instead of the mother of James and John, the mother\nof Jesus himself. Moreover, while according to all the other accounts\nthe acquaintances of Jesus stood afar off, \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, according to the\nfourth gospel John and the mother of Jesus must have been in the\nclosest proximity to the cross, since it represents Jesus as addressing\nthem from the cross, and appointing John to be his substitute in the\nfilial relation to his mother (v. 25 ff.). Olshausen believes that he\ncan remove the contradiction which exists between the synoptical\nstatement and the presupposition of the fourth gospel as to the\nposition of the friends of Jesus, by the conjecture that at first they\ndid indeed stand at a distance, but that subsequently some approached\nnear to the cross: it is to be observed, however, in opposition to\nthis, that the synoptists mention that position of the adherents of\nJesus just at the close of the scene of crucifixion and death,\nimmediately before the taking down from the cross, and thus presuppose\nthat they had retained this position until the end of the scene; a\nstate of the case which cannot but be held entirely consistent with the\nalarm which filled the minds of the disciples during those days, and\nstill more with feminine timidity. If the heroism of a nearer approach\nmight perhaps be expected from maternal tenderness: still, the total\nsilence of the synoptists, as the interpreters of the common\nevangelical tradition, renders the historical reality of that\nparticular doubtful. The synoptists cannot have known anything of the\npresence of the mother of Jesus at the cross, otherwise they would have\nmentioned her as the chief person, before all the other women; nor does\nanything appear to have been known of a more intimate relation between\nher and John: at least in the Acts (i. 12 f.) the mother of Jesus is\nsupposed to be with the twelve in general, his brothers, and the women\nof the society. It is at least not so easy to understand how the memory\nof that affecting presence and remarkable relation could be lost, as to\nconceive how the idea of them might originate in the circle from which\nthe fourth gospel proceeded. If this circle be imagined as one in which\nthe Apostle John enjoyed peculiar veneration, on which account our\ngospel drew him out of the trio of the more confidential associates of\nJesus, and isolated him as the beloved disciple: it will appear that\nnothing could be more strikingly adapted to confirm this relation than\nthe statement that Jesus bequeathed, as it were, the dearest legacy,\nhis mother (in reference to whom, as well as to the alleged beloved\ndisciple, it must have been a natural question, whether she had left\nthe side of Jesus in this last trial), to John, and thus placed this\ndisciple in his stead,\u2014made him vicarius Christi.\n\nAs the address of Jesus to his mother and the favourite disciple is\npeculiar to the fourth gospel: so, on the other hand, the exclamation,\nMy God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? \u1f20\u03bb\u1f76, \u1f20\u03bb\u1f76, \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af; is\nonly found in the two first gospels (Matt. v. 46; Mark v. 34). This\nexclamation, with the mental state from which it proceeded, like the\nagony in Gethsemane, constitutes in the opinion of the church a part of\nthe vicarious suffering of Christ. As however in this instance also it\nwas impossible to be blind to the difficulties of the supposition, that\nthe mere corporeal suffering, united with the external depression of\nhis cause, overwhelmed Jesus to such a degree that he felt himself\nforsaken by God, while there have been both before and after him\npersons who, under sufferings equally severe, have yet preserved\ncomposure and fortitude: the opinion of the church has here also, in\naddition to the natural corporeal and spiritual affliction, supposed as\nthe true cause of that state of mind in Jesus, a withdrawal of God from\nhis soul, a consciousness of the divine wrath, which it was decreed\nthat he should bear in the stead of mankind, by whom it was deserved as\na punishment. [1981] How, presupposing the dogma of the church\nconcerning the person of Christ, a withdrawal of God from his soul is\nconceivable, it is the part of the defenders of this opinion\nthemselves, to decide. Was it the human nature in him which felt so\nforsaken? Then would its unity with the divine have been interrupted,\nand thus the very basis of the personality of Christ, according to the\nabove system, removed. Or the divine? In that case the second person in\nthe Godhead would have been separated from the first. As little can it\nhave been the God-man, consisting of both natures, that felt forsaken\nby God, since the very essence of this is the unity and inseparableness\nof the divine and the human. Thus urged by the self-contradiction of\nthis supranaturalistic explanation, to fall back on the natural mode of\naccounting for the above exclamation by the sense of external\nsuffering, and yet repelled from the idea that Jesus should have been\nso completely subdued by this, commentators have attempted to mollify\nthe sense of the exclamation. It consists of the opening words of Ps.\nxxii., a passage which is classical for this last scene in the life of\nJesus. Now this psalm begins with a complaining description of the\ndeepest suffering, but in the course of its progress soars into joyful\nhope of deliverance; hence it has been supposed that the words which\nJesus immediately utters do not give his entire experience, and that in\nthus reciting the first verse he at the same time quotes the whole\npsalm and especially its exulting close, just as if he meant to say: It\nis true that I, like the author of this psalm, appear now forsaken of\nGod, but in me, as in him, the divine succour will only be so much the\nmore glorified. [1982] But if Jesus uttered this exclamation with a\nview to the bystanders, and in order to assure them that his affliction\nwould soon be merged in triumph, he would have chosen the means the\nleast adapted to his purpose, if he had uttered precisely those words\nof the Psalm which express the deepest misery; and instead of the first\nverse he would rather have chosen one from the 10th to the 12th, or\nfrom the 20th to the end. If however in that exclamation he meant\nmerely to give vent to his own feeling, he would not have chosen this\nverse if his actual experience in these moments had been, not what is\nthere expressed, but what is described in the succeeding verses. Now if\nthis experience was his own, and if, all supernatural grounds of\nexplanation being dismissed, it proceeded from his external calamities;\nwe must observe that one who, as the gospels narrate of Jesus, had long\nincluded suffering and death in his idea of the Messiah, and hence had\nregarded them as a part of the divine arrangements, could scarcely\ncomplain of them when they actually arrived as an abandonment by God;\nrather, on the above supposition, we should be led to think that Jesus\nhad found himself deceived in the expectations which he had previously\ncherished, and thus believed himself forsaken by God in the prosecution\nof his plan. [1983] But we could only resort to such conjectures if the\nabove exclamation of Jesus were shown to have an historical foundation.\nIn this respect the silence of Luke and John would not, it is true, be\nso serious a difficulty in our eyes, that we should take refuge in\nexplanations like the following: John suppressed the exclamation, lest\nit should serve to countenance the Gnostic opinion, by admitting the\ninference that the \u00c6on which was insusceptible of suffering, departed\nfrom Jesus in that moment. [1984] But the relation of the words of\nJesus to the 22nd Psalm does certainly render this particular\nsuspicious. If the Messiah was once conceived of as suffering, and if\nthat psalm was used as a sort of programme of his suffering\u2014for which\nit was by no means necessary as an inducement that Jesus should have\nreally quoted one of its verses on the cross:\u2014the opening words of the\npsalm which are expressive of the deepest suffering must appear\nsingularly adapted to be put into the mouth of the crucified Messiah.\nIn this case the derisive speech [1985] of the bystanders, he calleth\nfor Elias, etc., can have had no other origin than this\u2014that the wish\nfor a variety of taunts to complete this scene after the model of the\npsalm, was met by the similarity of sound between the \u1f20\u03bb\u1f76 in the\nexclamation lent to Jesus, and the name of Elias which was associated\nwith the Messiah.\n\nConcerning the last words which the expiring Jesus was heard to utter,\nthe Evangelists differ. According to Matthew and Mark, it was merely a\nloud voice, \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, with which he departed (v. 50, 37); according\nto Luke it was the petition: Father, into thy hands I commend my\nspirit, \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u1fb4 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (v. 46); while\naccording to John it was on the brief expression: it is finished,\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, that he bowed his head and expired (v. 30). Here it is\npossible to reconcile the two first Evangelists with one or other of\nthe succeeding ones by the supposition, that what the former describe\nindefinitely as a loud cry, and what according to their representation\nmight be taken for an inarticulate expression of anguish, the others,\nwith more particularity, give in its precise verbal form. It is more\ndifficult to reconcile the two last gospels. For whether we suppose\nthat Jesus first commended his soul to God, and hereupon cried: it is\nfinished; or vice vers\u00e2; both collocations are alike opposed to the\nintention of the Evangelists, for the expression of Luke \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd cannot be rendered, as Paulus would have it, by: soon\nafter he had said this, he expired; and the very words of the\nexclamation in John define it as the last utterance of Jesus; the two\nwriters forming different conceptions of the closing words. In the\naccount of Luke, the common form of expression for the death of Jesus:\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 (he delivered up his spirit) appears to have been\ninterpreted as an actual commending of his soul to God on the part of\nJesus, and to have been further developed with reference to the passage\nPs. xxxi. 5: (Lord) into thy hands I commend my spirit, (\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5) \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (LXX.),\u2014a passage which from the\nstrong resemblance of this Psalm to the 22nd would be apt to suggest\nitself. [1986] Whereas the author of the fourth gospel appears to have\nlent to Jesus an expression more immediately proceeding from his\nposition in relation to his messianic office, making him express in the\nword \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 it is finished the completion of his work, or the\nfulfilment of all the prophecies (with the exception, of course, of\nwhat could only be completed and fulfilled in the resurrection).\n\nNot only these last words, however, but also the earlier expressions of\nJesus on the cross, will not admit of being ranged in the succession in\nwhich they are generally supposed. The speeches of Jesus on the cross\nare commonly reckoned to be seven; but so many are not mentioned by any\nsingle Evangelist, for the two first have only one: the exclamation my\nGod, my God, etc. \u1f20\u03bb\u1f76, \u1f20\u03bb\u1f76, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Luke has three; the prayer of Jesus\nfor his enemies, the promise to the thief, and the commending of his\nspirit into the hands of the Father; John has likewise three, but all\ndifferent: the address to his mother and the disciple, with the\nexclamations, I thirst \u03b4\u03b9\u03c8\u1ff6 and It is finished \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Now the\nintercessory prayer, the promise and the recommendation of Mary to the\ncare of the disciple, might certainly be conceived as following each\nother: but the \u03b4\u03b9\u03c8\u1ff6 and the \u1f20\u03bb\u1f76 come into collision, since both\nexclamations are followed by the same incident, the offering of vinegar\nby means of a sponge on a reed. When to this we add the entanglement of\nthe \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 with the \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., it should surely be seen and\nadmitted, that no one of the Evangelists, in attributing words to Jesus\nwhen on the cross, knew or took into consideration those lent to him by\nthe others; that on the contrary each depicted this scene in his own\nmanner, according as he, or the legend which stood at his command, had\ndeveloped the conception of it to suit this or that prophecy or design.\n\nA special difficulty is here caused by the computation of the hours.\nAccording to all the synoptists the darkness prevailed from the sixth\nhour until the ninth hour, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f15\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (in our\nreckoning, from twelve at midday to three in the afternoon); according\nto Matthew and Mark, it was about the ninth hour that Jesus complained\nof being forsaken by God, and shortly after yielded up the ghost;\naccording to Mark it was the third hour \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 (nine in the morning)\nwhen Jesus was crucified (v. 25). On the other hand, John says (xix.\n14) that it was about the sixth hour (when according to Mark Jesus had\nalready hung three hours on the cross) that Pilate first sat in\njudgment over him. Unless we are to suppose that the sun-dial went\nbackward, as in the time of Hezekiah, this is a contradiction which is\nnot to be removed by a violent alteration of the reading, nor by\nappealing to the \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 (about) in John, or to the inability of the\ndisciples to take note of the hours under such afflictive\ncircumstances; at the utmost it might perhaps be cancelled if it were\npossible to prove that the fourth gospel throughout proceeds upon\nanother mode of reckoning time than that used by the synoptists. [1987]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nDEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS.\n\n\u00a7 133.\n\nPRODIGIES ATTENDANT ON THE DEATH OF JESUS.\n\nAccording to the evangelical accounts, the death of Jesus was\naccompanied by extraordinary phenomena. Three hours before, we are\ntold, a darkness diffused itself, and lasted until Jesus expired (Matt.\nxxvii. 45 parall.); in the moment of his death the veil of the temple\nwas torn asunder from the top to the bottom, the earth quaked, the\nrocks were rent, the graves were opened, and many bodies of departed\nsaints arose, entered into the city, and appeared to many (Matt. v. 51\nff. parall.). These details are very unequally distributed among the\nEvangelists: the first alone has them all; the second and third merely\nthe darkness and the rending of the veil: while the fourth knows\nnothing of all these marvels.\n\nWe will examine them singly according to their order. The darkness\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 which is said to have arisen while Jesus hung on the cross,\ncannot have been an ordinary eclipse of the sun, caused by the\ninterposition of the moon between his disc and the earth, [1988] since\nit happened during the Passover, and consequently about the time of the\nfull moon. The gospels however do not directly use the terms \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (eclipse of the sun), the two first speaking only of darkness\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in general; and though the third adds with somewhat more\nparticularity: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and the sun was darkened, still\nthis might be said of any species of widely extended obscuration. Hence\nit was an explanation which lay near at hand to refer this darkness to\nan atmospheric, instead of an astronomical cause, and to suppose that\nit proceeded from obscuring vapours in the air, such as are especially\nwont to precede earthquakes. [1989] That such obscurations of the\natmosphere may be diffused over whole countries, is true; but not only\nis the statement that the one in question extended \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd or \u1f45\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03b7\u03bd, i.e., according to the most natural explanation, over the\nentire globe, to be subtracted as an exaggeration of the narrator:\n[1990] but also the presupposition, evident in the whole tenor of their\nrepresentation, that the darkness had a supernatural cause, appears\ndestitute of foundation from the want of any adequate object for such a\nmiracle. Since then, with these accessory features the event does not\nin itself at once carry the conviction of its credibility, it is\nnatural to inquire if it have any extrinsic confirmation. The fathers\nof the church appeal in its support to the testimony of heathen\nwriters, among whom Phlegon especially in his \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 is alleged to\nhave noticed the above darkness: [1991] but on comparing the passage\npreserved by Eusebius, which is apparently the one of Phlegon alluded\nto, we find that it determines merely the Olympiad, scarcely the year,\nand in no case the season and day of this darkness. [1992] More modern\napologists appeal to similar cases in ancient history, of which\nWetstein in particular has made a copious collection. He adduces from\nGreek and Roman writers the notices of the eclipses of the sun which\noccurred at the disappearance of Romulus, the death of C\u00e6sar, [1993]\nand similar events; he cites declarations which contain the idea that\neclipses of the sun betoken the fall of kingdoms and the death of\nkings; lastly he points to Old Testament passages (Isa. l. 3; Joel iii.\n20; Amos viii. 9; comp. Jer. xv. 9) and rabbinical dicta, in which\neither the obscuring of the light of day is described as the mourning\ngarb of God, [1994] or the death of great teachers compared with the\nsinking of the sun at mid-day, [1995] or the opinion advanced that at\nthe death of exalted hierarchical personages, if the last honours are\nnot paid to them, the sun is wont to be darkened. [1996] But these\nparallels, instead of being supports to the credibility of the\nevangelical narrative, are so many premises to the conclusion, that we\nhave here also nothing more than the mythical offspring of universally\nprevalent ideas,\u2014a Christian legend, which would make all nature put on\nthe weeds of mourning to solemnize the tragic death of the Messiah.\n[1997]\n\nThe second prodigy is the rending of the veil of the temple, doubtless\nthe inner veil before the Holy of Holies, since the word \u200f\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b9\u05db\u05b6\u05ea\u200e, used\nto designate this, is generally rendered in the LXX. by \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1. It\nwas thought possible to interpret this rending of the veil also as a\nnatural event, by regarding it as an effect of the earthquake. But, as\nLightfoot has already justly observed, it is more conceivable that an\nearthquake should rend stationary fixed bodies such as the rocks\nsubsequently mentioned, than that it should tear a pliant, loosely hung\ncurtain. Hence Paulus supposes that the veil of the temple was\nstretched and fastened not only above but also below and at the sides.\nBut first, this is a mere conjecture: and secondly, if the earthquake\nshook the walls of the temple so violently, as to tear a veil which\neven though stretched, was still pliant: such a convulsion would rather\nhave caused a part of the building to fall, as is said to have been the\ncase in the Gospel of the Hebrews: [1998] unless it be chosen to add,\nwith Kuin\u00f6l, the conjecture that the veil was tender from age, and\nmight therefore be torn by a slight concussion. That our narrators had\nno such causes in their minds is proved by the fact that the second and\nthird Evangelists are silent concerning the earthquake, and that the\nfirst does not mention it until after the rending of the veil. Thus if\nthis event really happened we must regard it as a miracle. Now the\nobject of the divine Providence in effecting such a miracle could only\nhave been this: to produce in the Jewish cotemporaries of Jesus a deep\nimpression of the importance of his death, and to furnish the first\npromulgators of the gospel with a fact to which they might appeal in\nsupport of their cause. But, as Schleiermacher has shown, nowhere else\nin the New Testament, either in the apostolic epistles or in the Acts,\nor even in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in connexion with the subject of\nwhich it could scarcely fail to be suggested, is this event mentioned:\non the contrary, with the exception of this bare synoptical notice,\nevery trace of it is lost; which could scarcely have been the case if\nit had really formed a ground of apostolical argument. Thus the divine\npurpose in ordaining this miracle must have totally failed; or, since\nthis is inconceivable, it cannot have been ordained for this object\u2014in\nother words, since neither any other object of the miracle, nor yet a\nmode in which the event might happen naturally can be discovered, it\ncannot have happened at all. In another way, certainly, a peculiar\nrelation of Jesus to the veil of the temple is treated of in the\nEpistle to the Hebrews. While before Christ, only the priests had\naccess into the holy place, and into the Holy of Holies only the high\npriest might enter once in the year with the blood of atonement; Christ\nas the eternal high priest, entered by his own blood into the holy\nplace within the veil, into the Holy of Holies in heaven, whereby he\nbecame the forerunner, \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, of Christians, and opened access to\nthem also, founding an eternal redemption, \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (vi. 19 f.,\nix. 6, 12, x. 19 f.). Even Paulus finds in these metaphors so close an\naffinity to our narrative, that he thinks it possible to number the\nlatter among those fables which according to Henke\u2019s definitions are to\nbe derived e figurato genere dicendi; [1999] at least the event, even\nif it really happened, must have been especially important to the\nChristians on account of its symbolical significance, as interpreted by\nthe images in the Epistle to the Hebrews: namely, that by Christ\u2019s\ndeath the veil of the Jewish worship was rent asunder, and access to\nGod opened to all by means of worship in the Spirit. But if, as has\nbeen shown, the historical probability of the event in question is\nextremely weak, and on the other hand, the causes which might lead to\nthe formation of such a narrative without historical foundation very\npowerful; it is more consistent, with Schleiermacher, entirely to\nrenounce the incident as historical, on the ground that so soon as it\nbegan to be the practice to represent the office of Christ under the\nimages which reign throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews, nay, in the\nvery earliest dawn of this kind of doctrine, on the first reception of\nthe Gentiles, who were left free from the burthen of Jewish\nobservances, and who thus remained without participation in the Jewish\nsacrifices, such representations must have entered into the Christian\nhymns (and the evangelical narratives). [2000]\n\nOn the succeeding particulars of the earthquake and the rending of the\nrocks, we can only pronounce a judgment in connexion with those already\nexamined. An earthquake by which rocks are disparted, is not\nunprecedented as a natural phenomenon: but it also not seldom occurs as\na poetical or mythical embellishment of the death of a distinguished\nman; as, for example, on the death of C\u00e6sar, Virgil is not content with\neclipsing the sun, but also makes the Alps tremble with unwonted\ncommotion. [2001] Now as we have only been able to view the prodigies\npreviously mentioned in the latter light, and as, besides, the\nhistorical validity of the one before us is weakened by the fact that\nit rests solely on the testimony of Matthew; we must pronounce upon\nthis also in the words of Fritzsche: Messi\u00e6 obitum atrocibus ostentis,\nquibus, quantus vir quummaxime exspir\u00e2sset, orbi terrarum indicaretur,\nillustrem esse oportebat. [2002]\n\nThe last miraculous sign at the death of Jesus, likewise peculiar to\nthe first Evangelist, is the opening of the graves, the resurrection of\nmany dead persons, and their appearance in Jerusalem. To render this\nincident conceivable is a matter of unusual difficulty. It is neither\nin itself clear how it is supposed to have fared with these ancient\nHebrew saints, \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, [2003] after their resurrection; [2004] nor is\nanything satisfactory to be discovered concerning a possible object for\nso extraordinary a dispensation. [2005] Purely in the resuscitated\nthemselves the object cannot apparently have lain, for had it been so,\nthere is no conceivable ground why they should be all awaked precisely\nin the moment of the death of Jesus, and not each at the period\nprescribed by the course of his own development. But if the conviction\nof others was the object, this was still less attained than in the\nmiracle of the rending of the veil, for not only is any appeal to the\napparition of the saints totally wanting in the apostolic epistles and\ndiscourses, but also among the Evangelists, Matthew is the only one by\nwhom it is recorded. A special difficulty arises from the position\nwhich the determination of time: after his resurrection, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, occupies between the apparently consecutive stages of\nthe event. For if we connect these words with what precedes, and thus\nsuppose that at the moment of the death of Jesus, the deceased saints\nwere only reanimated, and did not come out of their graves until after\nhis resurrection,\u2014this would have been a torment for the damned rather\nthan a guerdon for the holy; if, on the contrary, we unite that\ndetermination of time to what follows, and thus interpret the\nEvangelist\u2019s meaning to be, that the resuscitated saints did indeed\ncome out of their graves immediately on their being reanimated at the\nmoment that Jesus died, but did not go into the city until after his\nresurrection,\u2014any reason for the latter particular is sought in vain.\nIt is but an inartificial way of avoiding these difficulties to\npronounce the whole passage an interpolation, without any critical\ngrounds for such a decision. [2006] A more dexterous course is pursued\nby the rationalistic expositors, when they endeavour to subtract the\nmiraculous from the event, and by this means indirectly to remove the\nother difficulties. Here, as in relation to the rending of the veil,\nthe earthquake is regarded as the chief agent: this, it is said, laid\nopen several tombs, particularly those of some prophets, which were\nfound empty, because the bodies had either been removed by the shock,\nor become decomposed, or fallen a prey to wild beasts. After the\nresurrection of Jesus, those who were friendly to him in Jerusalem\nbeing filled with thoughts of resurrection from the dead, these\nthoughts, together with the circumstance of the graves being found\nempty, excited in them dreams and visions in which they believed that\nthey beheld the pious ancestors who had been interred in those graves.\n[2007] But the fact of the graves being found empty would scarcely,\neven united with the news of the resurrection of Jesus, have sufficed\nto produce such visions, unless there had previously prevailed among\nthe Jews the expectation that the Messiah would recall to life the\ndeparted saints of Israel. If however this expectation existed, it\nwould more probably give birth to the legend of a resurrection of the\nsaints coincident with the death of Jesus than to dreams; whence Hase\nwisely discards the supposition of dreams, and attempts to find a\nsufficient explanation of the narrative in the emptiness of the graves\non the one hand, and the above Jewish expectation on the other. [2008]\nBut on a nearer view it appears that if once this Jewish idea existed\nthere needed no real opening of the graves in order to give rise to\nsuch a mythus: accordingly Schneckenburger has left the emptiness of\nthe graves out of his calculation. [2009] When, however, he yet speaks\nof visionary appearances which were seen by the adherents of Jesus in\nJerusalem, under the excitement produced by his resurrection, he is not\nless inconsequent than Hase, when he omits the dreams and yet retains\nthe laying open of the graves; for these two particulars being\nconnected as cause and effect, if one of them be renounced as\nunhistorical so also must the other.\n\nIn opposition to this view it is remarked, not without an appearance of\nreason, that the above Jewish expectation does not suffice to explain\nthe origin of such a mythus. [2010] The actual expectation may be more\ncorrectly stated thus. From the epistles of Paul (1 Thess. iv. 16;\ncomp. 1 Cor. xv. 22 f.) and more decidedly from the Apocalypse (xx. 4\nf.), we gather that the first Christians anticipated, as a concomitant\nof the return of Christ, a resurrection of the saints, who would\nthenceforth reign with Christ a thousand years; only at the end of this\nperiod, it was thought, would the rest of the dead arise, and from this\nsecond resurrection the former was distinguished as the first\nresurrection \u1f21 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f11 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7, or the resurrection of the just \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd (Luke xiv. 14?), in place of which Justin has the holy\nresurrection \u1f21 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. [2011] But this is the Christianized\nform of the Jewish idea; for the latter referred, not to the return,\nbut to the first advent of the Messiah, and to a resurrection of\nIsraelites only. [2012] Now in the statement of Matthew likewise, that\nresurrection is assigned to the first appearance of the Messiah; for\nwhat reason, however, it is there connected with his death, there is\ncertainly no indication in the Jewish expectation taken in and by\nitself, while in the modification introduced by the adherents of Jesus\nthere would appear rather to have lain an inducement to unite the\nresurrection of the saints with his own; especially as the connecting\nof it with his death seems to be in contradiction with the primitive\nChristian idea elsewhere expressed, that Jesus was the first-begotten\nfrom the dead, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd (Col. i. 18; Rev. i. 5), the\nfirst fruits of them that sleep, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd (1 Cor. xv.\n20). But we do not know whether this idea was universal, and if some\nthought it due to the messianic dignity of Jesus to regard him as the\nfirst who rose from the dead, there are obvious motives which might in\nother cases lead to the representation that already at the death of\nJesus there was a resurrection of saints. First there was an external\nmotive: among the prodigies at the death of Jesus an earthquake is\nmentioned, and in describing its violence it was natural to add to the\nrending of the rocks another feature which appears elsewhere in\naccounts of violent earthquakes, [2013] namely, the opening of the\ngraves: here then was an inviting hinge for the resurrection of the\nsaints. But there was also an internal motive: according to the ideas\nearly developed in the Christian community, the death of Jesus was the\nspecially efficacious point in the work of redemption, and in\nparticular the descent into Hades connected with it (1 Pet. iii. 19 f.)\nwas the means of delivering the previously deceased from this abode;\n[2014] hence from these ideas there might result an inducement to\nrepresent the bonds of the grave as having been burst asunder for the\nancient saints precisely in the moment of the death of Jesus. Besides,\nby this position, yet more decidedly than by a connexion with the\nresurrection of Jesus, the resuscitation of the righteous was assigned\nto the first appearance of the Messiah, in accordance with the Jewish\nidea, which might very naturally be echoed in such a narrative, in the\nJudaizing circles of primitive Christendom; while at the same time Paul\nand also the author of the Apocalypse already assigned the first\nresurrection to the second and still future advent of the Messiah. It\nwas then apparently with reference to this more developed idea, that\nthe words after his resurrection were added as a restriction, probably\nby the author of the first gospel himself.\n\nThe synoptists conclude their description of the events at the death of\nJesus, with an account of the impression which they made more\nimmediately on the Roman centurion whose office it was to watch the\ncrucifixion. According to Luke (v. 47) this impression was produced by\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (what was done), i.e., since he had beforehand mentioned\nthe darkness, by the departure of Jesus with an audible prayer, that\nbeing the particular which he had last noticed; indeed Mark, as if\nexpounding Luke, represents the exclamation: truly this man was the Son\nof God as being called forth from the centurion by the circumstance\nthat Jesus so cried out, and gave up the ghost, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n(v. 39). Now in Luke, who gives a prayer as the last utterance of\nJesus, it is possible to conceive that this edifying end might impress\nthe centurion with a favourable opinion of Jesus: but how the fact of\nhis expiring with a loud cry could lead to the inference that he was\nthe Son of God, will in no way appear. Matthew however gives the most\nsuitable relation to the words of the centurion, when he represents\nthem as being called forth by the earthquake and the other prodigies\nwhich accompanied the death of Jesus: were it not that the historical\nreality of this speech of the centurion must stand or fall with its\nalleged causes. In Matthew and Mark this officer expresses the\nconviction that Jesus is in truth the Son of God, in Luke, that he is a\nrighteous man. The Evangelists in citing the former expression\nevidently intend to convey the idea that a Gentile bore witness to the\nMessiahship of Jesus; but in this specifically Jewish sense the words\ncannot well have been understood by the Roman soldier: we might rather\nsuppose that he regarded Jesus as a son of God in the heathen sense, or\nas an innocent man unjustly put to death, were it not that the\ncredibility of the whole synoptical account of the events which\nsignalized the death of Jesus being shaken, this, which forms the top\nstone as it were, must also be of doubtful security; especially when we\nlook at the narrative of Luke, who besides the impression on the\ncenturion adds that on the rest of the spectators, and makes them\nreturn to the city with repentance and mourning\u2014a trait which appears\nto represent, not so probably what the Jews actually felt and did, as\nwhat in the opinion of the Christians they ought to have felt and done.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 134.\n\nTHE WOUND BY A SPEAR IN THE SIDE OF JESUS.\n\nWhile the synoptists represent Jesus as hanging on the cross from the\n\u1f65\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7, i.e. three in the afternoon, when he expired, until the\n\u1f40\u03c8\u03af\u03b1, i.e. probably about six in the evening, without anything further\nhappening to him: the fourth Evangelist interposes a remarkable\nepisode. According to him, the Jews, in order to prevent the\ndesecration of the coming sabbath, which was a peculiarly hallowed one,\nby the continued exposure of the bodies on the cross, besought the\nProcurator that their legs might be broken and that they might\nforthwith be carried away. The soldiers, to whom this task was\ncommitted, executed it on the two criminals crucified with Jesus; but\nwhen they perceived in the latter the signs of life having already\nbecome extinct, they held such a measure superfluous in his case, and\ncontented themselves with thrusting a spear into his side, whereupon\nthere came forth blood and water (xix. 31\u201337).\n\nThis event is ordinarily regarded as the chief voucher for the reality\nof the death of Jesus, and in relation to it the proof to be drawn from\nthe synoptists is held inadequate. According to the reckoning which\ngives the longest space of time, that of Mark, Jesus hung on the cross\nfrom the third to the ninth hour, that is, six hours, before he died;\nif, as to many it has appeared probable, in the two other synoptists\nthe commencement of the darkness at the sixth hour marks also the\ncommencement of the crucifixion, Jesus, according to them, hung only\nthree hours living on the cross; and if we presuppose in John the\nordinary Jewish mode of reckoning the hours, and attribute to him the\nsame opinion as to the period of the death of Jesus, it follows, since\nhe makes Pilate pronounce judgment on him only about the sixth hour,\nthat Jesus must have died after hanging on the cross not much more than\ntwo hours. But crucifixion does not in other cases kill thus speedily.\nThis may be inferred from the nature of the punishment, which does not\nconsist in the infliction of severe wounds so as to cause a rapid loss\nof blood, but rather in the stretching of the limbs, so as to produce a\ngradual rigidity; moreover it is evident from the statements of the\nEvangelists themselves, for according to them Jesus, immediately before\nthe moment which they regard as the last, had yet strength to utter a\nloud cry, and the two thieves crucified with him were still alive after\nthat time; lastly, this opinion is supported by examples of individuals\nwhose life has lasted for several days on the cross, and who have only\nat length expired from hunger and similar causes. [2015] Hence fathers\nof the church and older theologians advanced the opinion, that the\ndeath of Jesus, which would not have ensued so quickly in a natural\nway, was accelerated supernaturally, either by himself or by God;\n[2016] physicians and more modern theologians have appealed to the\naccumulated corporeal and spiritual sufferings of Jesus on the evening\nof the night prior to his crucifixion; [2017] but they also for the\nmost part leave open the possibility that what appeared to the\nEvangelists the supervention of death itself, was only a swoon produced\nby the stoppage of the circulation, and that the wound with the spear\nin the side first consummated the death of Jesus.\n\nBut concerning this wound itself, the place, the instrument, and the\nmanner of its infliction\u2014concerning its object and effects, there has\nalways been a great diversity of opinion. The instrument is called by\nthe Evangelist a \u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c7\u03b7, which may equally signify either the light\njavelin or the heavy lance; so that we are left in uncertainty as to\nthe extent of the wound. The manner in which the wound was inflicted he\ndescribes by the verb \u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, which sometimes denotes a mortal wound,\nsometimes a slight scratch, nay, even a thrust which does not so much\nas draw blood; hence we are ignorant of the depth of the wound: though\nsince Jesus, after the resurrection, makes Thomas lay only his fingers\nin the print of the nails, but, in or even merely on the wound in the\nside, his hand (John xx. 27), the stroke of the spear seems to have\nmade a considerable wound. But the question turns mainly on the place\nin which the wound was made. This John describes as the \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70 side,\nand certainly if the spear entered the left side between the ribs and\npenetrated into the heart, death must inevitably have ensued: but the\nabove expression may just as properly imply the right side as the left,\nand in either side any spot from the shoulder to the hip. Most of these\npoints indeed would be at once decided, if the object of the soldier\nhad been to kill Jesus, supposing he should not be already dead; in\nthis case he would doubtless have pierced Jesus in the most fatal\nplace, and as deeply as possible, or rather, have broken his legs, as\nwas done to the two thieves: but since he treated Jesus otherwise than\nhis fellow sufferers, it is evident that in relation to him he had a\ndifferent object, namely, in the first place to ascertain by this\nstroke of the spear, whether death had really taken place\u2014a conclusion\nwhich he believed might securely be drawn from the flowing of blood and\nwater out of the wound.\n\nBut this result of the wound is in fact the subject on which there is\nthe least unanimity. The fathers of the Church, on the ground that\nblood no longer flows from corpses, regarded the blood and water, \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1, which flowed from the corpse of Jesus as a miracle, a sign of\nhis superhuman nature. [2018] More modern theologians, founding on the\nsame experience, have interpreted the expression as a hendiadys,\nimplying that the blood still flowed, and that this was a sign that\ndeath had not yet, or not until now taken place. [2019] As, however,\nblood is itself a fluid, the water \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 added to the blood \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 cannot\nsignify merely the fluid state of the latter, but must denote a\npeculiar admixture which the blood flowing from the side of Jesus\ncontained. To explain this to themselves, and at the same time obtain\nthe most infallible proof of death, others have fallen on the idea that\nthe water mixed with the blood came out of the pericardium, which had\nbeen pierced by the spear, and in which, especially in such as die\nunder severe anguish, a quantity of fluid is said to be accumulated.\n[2020] But\u2014besides that the piercing of the pericardium is a mere\nsupposition\u2014on the one hand, the quantity of such fluid, where no\ndropsy exists, is so trifling, that its emission would not be\nperceptible; and on the other hand, it is only a single small spot in\nfront of the breast where the pericardium can be so struck that an\nemission outward is possible: in all other cases, whatever was emitted\nwould be poured into the cavity of the thorax. [2021] Without doubt the\nidea which was present in the Evangelist\u2019s mind was rather the fact,\nwhich may be observed in every instance of blood-letting, that the\nblood, so soon as it has ceased to take part in the vital process,\nbegins to divide itself into placenta and serum; and he intended by\nrepresenting this separation as having already taken place in the blood\nof Jesus, to adduce a proof of his real death. [2022] But whether this\noutflow of blood and water in perceptible separation be a possible\nproof of death,\u2014whether Hase and Winer be right when they maintain that\non deep incisions in corpses the blood sometimes flows in this\ndecomposed state; or the fathers, when they deem this so unprecedented\nthat it must be regarded as a miracle in Jesus,\u2014this is another\nquestion. A distinguished anatomist has explained the state of the fact\nto me in the following manner: [2023] Ordinarily, within an hour after\ndeath the blood begins to coagulate in the vessels, and consequently no\nlonger to flow on incisions; only by way of exception in certain\nspecies of death, as nervous fevers, or suffocation, does the blood\nretain its fluidity in the corpse. Now if it be chosen to place the\ndeath on the cross under the category of suffocation\u2014which, however,\nfrom the length of time that crucified persons have often remained\nalive, and in relation to Jesus especially, from his being said to have\nspoken to the last, appears impracticable; or if it be supposed that\nthe wound in the side followed so quickly on the instant of death that\nit found the blood still fluid,\u2014a supposition which is discordant with\nthe narratives, for they state Jesus to have been already dead at three\nin the afternoon, while the bodies must have been taken away only at\nsix in the evening: then, if the spear struck one of the larger blood\nvessels, blood would have flowed, but without water; if, however, Jesus\nhad already been dead about an hour, and his corpse was in the ordinary\nstate: nothing at all would have flowed. Thus either blood or nothing:\nin no case blood and water, because the serum and placenta are not\nseparated in the vessels of the corpse as in the basin after\nblood-letting. Hardly then had the author of this trait in the fourth\ngospel himself seen the \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 flowing out of the side of Jesus,\nas a sign that his death had taken place; rather, because after\nblood-letting he had seen the above separation take place in the blood\nas it lost its vitality, and because he was desirous to show a certain\nproof of the death of Jesus, he represented those separate ingredients\nas flowing out of his wounded corpse.\n\nThe Evangelist assures us, with the most solicitous earnestness, that\nthis really happened to Jesus, and that his account is trustworthy, as\nbeing founded on personal observation (v. 35). According to some, he\ngives this testimony in opposition to docetic Gnostics, who denied the\ntrue corporeality of Jesus: [2024] but wherefore then the mention of\nthe water? According to others, on account of the noteworthy fulfilment\nof two prophecies by that procedure with respect to the body of Jesus.\n[2025] But, as L\u00fccke himself says, though John does certainly\nelsewhere, even in subordinate points, seek a fulfilment of prophecy,\nhe nowhere attaches to it so extraordinary a weight as he would here\nhave done according to this supposition. Hence it appears the most\nnatural supposition that the Evangelist intended by those assurances to\nconfirm the truth of the death of Jesus, [2026] and that he merely\nappended the reference to the fulfilment of Scripture as a secondary\nillustrative addition. The absence of an historical indication, that so\nearly as the period of the composition of the fourth gospel, there\nexisted a suspicion that the death of Jesus was only apparent, does not\nsuffice, in the paucity of information at our command concerning that\nperiod, to prove that a suspicion so easy of suggestion had not\nactually to be combated in the circle in which the above gospel arose,\nand that it may not have given occasion to the adduction of proofs not\nonly of the resurrection of Jesus, but also of his death. [2027] Even\nin the Gospel of Mark a similar effort is visible. When this\nEvangelist, in narrating Joseph\u2019s entreaty for the body of Jesus, says:\nAnd Pilate marvelled if he were already dead (v. 44): this suggests the\nidea that he lent to Pilate an astonishment which he must have heard\nexpressed by many of his cotemporaries concerning the rapidity with\nwhich the death of Jesus had ensued; and when he proceeds to state that\nthe procurator obtained from the centurion certain information that\nJesus had been some time dead, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5: it appears as if he\nwished, in silencing the doubt of Pilate, to silence that of his\ncotemporaries also; but in that case he can have known nothing of a\nwound with a spear, and its consequences, otherwise he would not have\nleft unnoticed this securest warrant of death having really taken\nplace: so that the representation in John has the appearance of being a\nfuller development of a tendency of the legend already visible in Mark.\n\nThis view of John\u2019s narrative is further confirmed by his citation of\nOld Testament passages, as fulfilled in this event. In the stroke of\nthe spear he sees the fulfilment of Zech. xii. 10 (better translated by\nJohn than by the LXX.), where Jehovah says to the Israelites \u200f\u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5\u05bc\n\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b5\u05ea \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u200e they shall look on him whom they have pierced, in the\nsense, that they will one day return to him whom they had so grievously\noffended. [2028] The word \u200f\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05e7\u05b7\u05e8\u200e, to pierce, understood literally,\nexpresses an act which appears more capable of being directed against a\nman than against Jehovah: this interpretation is supported by the\nvariation in the reading \u200f\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e; and it must have been confirmed by the\nsucceeding context, which proceeds in the third person thus: and they\nshall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in\nbitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.\nHence the Rabbins interpreted this passage of the Messiah ben Joseph,\nwho would be pierced by the sword in battle, [2029] and the Christians\nmight refer it, as they did so many passages in Psalms of lamentation,\nto their Messiah, at first understanding the piercing either\nfiguratively or as implying the nailing of the hands (and feet) in\ncrucifixion (comp. Rev. i. 7); until at last some one, who desired a\nmore decisive proof of death than crucifixion in itself afforded,\ninterpreted it as a special piercing with the spear.\n\nIf then this trait of the piercing with the spear proceeded from the\ncombined interests of obtaining a proof of death, and a literal\nfulfilment of a prophecy: the rest must be regarded as merely its\npreparatory groundwork. The piercing was only needful as a test of\ndeath, if Jesus had to be early taken down from the cross, which\naccording to Jewish law (Deut. xxi. 22; Josh. viii. 29, x. 26, f.\u2014an\nexception occurs in 2 Sam. xxi. 6 ff. [2030]) must in any case be\nbefore night; but in particular in the present instance (a special\ncircumstance which John alone notes), before the commencement of the\npassover. If Jesus died unusually soon, and if the two who were\ncrucified with him were yet to be taken down at the same time, the\ndeath of the latter must be hastened by violent means. This might be\ndone likewise by means of a stroke of the spear: but then the piercing,\nwhich in Zech. xii. 10 was predicted specially of the Messiah, would\nequally happen to others. Thus in their case it would be better to\nchoose the breaking of the legs, which would not, indeed,\ninstantaneously superinduce death, but which yet made it ultimately\ncertain as a consequence of the mortification produced by the fracture.\nIt is true that the crurifragium appears nowhere else in connexion with\ncrucifixion among the Romans, but only as a separate punishment for\nslaves, prisoners of war, and the like. [2031] But it was not the less\nsuitable in a prophetic point of view; for was it not said of the\nPaschal lamb with which Jesus was elsewhere also compared (1 Cor. v.\n7): not a bone of him shall be broken (Exod. xii. 46)? so that both the\nprophecies were fulfilled, the one determining what should happen\nexclusively to Jesus, the other what should happen to his\nfellow-sufferers, but not to him.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 135.\n\nBURIAL OF JESUS.\n\nAccording to Roman custom the body of Jesus must have remained\nsuspended until consumed by the weather, birds of prey, and corruption;\n[2032] according to the Jewish, it must have been interred in the\ndishonourable burying place assigned to the executed: [2033] but the\nevangelical accounts inform us that a distinguished adherent of the\ndeceased begged his body of the procurator, which, agreeably to the\nRoman law, [2034] was not refused, but was immediately delivered to him\n(Matt. xxvii. 57 parall.). This man, who in all the gospels is named\nJoseph, and said to be derived from Arimathea, was according to Matthew\na rich man and a disciple of Jesus, but the latter, as John adds, only\nin secret; the two intermediate Evangelists describe him as an\nhonourable member of the high council, in which character, Luke\nremarks, he had not given his voice for the condemnation of Jesus, and\nthey both represent him as cherishing messianic expectations. That we\nhave here a personal description gradually developed into more and more\npreciseness is evident. In the first gospel Joseph is a disciple of\nJesus\u2014and such must have been the man who under circumstances so\nunfavourable did not hesitate to take charge of his body; that,\naccording to the same gospel, he was a rich man \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\nalready reminds us of Isa. liii. 9, where it is said \u200f\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05df \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05e8\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05e7\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e which might possibly be understood of a burial\nwith the rich, and thus become the source at least of this predicate of\nJoseph of Arimathea. That he entertained messianic ideas, as Luke and\nMark add, followed of course from his relation to Jesus; that he was a\ncounsellor, \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, as the same Evangelists declare, is certainly a\nnew piece of information: but that as such he could not have concurred\nin the condemnation of Jesus was again a matter of course; lastly, that\nhe had hitherto kept his adherence to Jesus a secret, as John observes,\naccords with the peculiar position in relation to Jesus which this\nEvangelist gives to certain exalted adherents, especially to Nicodemus,\nwho is subsequently associated with Joseph. Hence it must not be at\nonce supposed that the additional particulars which each succeeding\nEvangelist gives, rest on historical information which he possessed\nover and above that of his predecessors.\n\nWhile the synoptists represent the interment of Jesus as being\nperformed by Joseph alone, with no other beholders than the women,\nJohn, as we have observed, introduces Nicodemus as an assistant; a\nparticular, the authenticity of which has been already considered in\nconnexion with the first appearance of Nicodemus. [2035] This\nindividual brings spices for the purpose of embalming Jesus; a mixture\nof myrrh and aloes, in the quantity of about a hundred pounds. In vain\nhave commentators laboured to withdraw from the word \u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, which John\nhere uses, the signification of the Latin libra, and to substitute a\nsmaller weight: [2036] the above surprising quantity is, however,\nsatisfactorily accounted for by the remark of Olshausen, that the\nsuperfluity was a natural expression of the veneration of those men for\nJesus. In the fourth gospel the two men perform the office of embalming\nimmediately after the taking down of the body from the cross, winding\nit in linen clothes after the Jewish practice; in Luke the women, on\ntheir return home from the grave of Jesus, provide spices and\nointments, in order to commence the embalming after the sabbath (xxiii.\n56, xxiv. 1); in Mark they do not buy the sweet spices \u1f00\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 until\nthe sabbath is past (xvi. 1); while in Matthew there is no mention of\nan embalming of the body of Jesus, but only of its being wrapped in a\nclean linen cloth (xxvii. 59).\n\nHere it has been thought possible to reconcile the difference between\nMark and Luke in relation to the time of the purchase of the spices, by\ndrawing over one of the two narrators to the side of the other. It\nappeared the most easy to accommodate Mark to Luke by the supposition\nof an enallage temporum; his verb \u1f20\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, they bought, used in\nconnexion with the day after the sabbath, being taken as the\npluperfect, and understood to imply, in accordance with the statement\nof Luke, that the women had the spices in readiness from the evening of\nthe burial. [2037] But against this reconciliation it has already been\nremarked with triumphant indignation by the Fragmentist, that the\naorist, standing between a determination of time and the statement of\nan object, cannot possibly signify anything else than what happened at\nthat time in relation to that object, and thus the words \u1f20\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, they bought sweet spices, placed between \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, The sabbath being past, and \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd,\nthat they might come and anoint him, can only signify a purchase made\nafter the sabbath had elapsed. [2038] Hence Michaelis, who undertook to\nvindicate the histories of the burial and resurrection from the charge\nof contradiction urged by the Fragmentist, betook himself to the\nopposite measure, and sought to conform Luke to Mark. When Luke writes:\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1, and they returned, and\nbought sweet spices and ointments, he does not, we are told, mean that\nthey had made this purchase immediately after their return, and\nconsequently on the evening of the burial: on the contrary, by the\naddition \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03c3\u03cd\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd, and rested the\nsabbath day, according to the commandment, he himself gives us to\nunderstand that it did not happen until the sabbath was past, since\nbetween their return from the grave and the commencement of the sabbath\nat six in the evening, there was no time left for the purchase. [2039]\nBut when Luke places his \u1f21\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (they prepared) between \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n(being returned) and \u1f21\u03c3\u03cd\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (they rested), this can as little signify\nsomething occurring after the rest of the sabbath, as in Mark the\nsimilarly placed word \u1f20\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd can signify something which had happened\nbefore the sabbath. Hence more recent theologians have perceived that\neach of these two Evangelists must be allowed to retain the direct\nsense of his words; nevertheless they have believed it possible to free\nboth the one and the other from the appearance of error by the\nsupposition that the spices prepared before the sabbath were not\nsufficient, and that the women, agreeably to Mark\u2019s statement, really\nbought an additional stock after the sabbath. [2040] But there must\nhave been an enormous requirement of spices if first the hundred pounds\nweight contributed by Nicodemus had not sufficed, and on this account\nthe women on the evening before the sabbath had laid ready more spices,\nand then these too were found insufficient, so that they had to buy yet\nmore on the morning after the sabbath.\n\nThus however, in consistency, it is necessary to solve the second\ncontradiction which exists between the two intermediate Evangelists\nunitedly and the fourth, namely, that according to the latter Jesus was\nembalmed with a hundred weight of ointment before being laid in the\ngrave, while according to the former the embalming was deferred until\nafter the sabbath. But as far as the quantity was concerned, the\nhundred pounds of myrrh and aloes were more than enough: that which was\nwanting, and had to be supplied after the sabbath, could only relate to\nthe manner, i.e. that the spices had not yet been applied to the body\nin the right way\u2014because the process had been interrupted by the\narrival of the sabbath. [2041] But, if we listen to John, the interment\nof Jesus on the evening of his death was performed \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, as the manner of the Jews is to bury, i.e. rit\u00e8,\nin due form, the corpse being wound in the linen clothes \u1f40\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 with\nthe spices \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (v. 40), which constituted the whole of\nJewish embalming, so that according to John nothing was wanting in\nrelation to the manner; [2042] not to mention that if the women, as\nMark and Luke state, bought fresh spices and placed them in readiness,\nthe embalming of Nicodemus must have been defective as to quantity\nalso. Thus in the burial of Jesus as narrated by John nothing objective\nwas wanting: nevertheless, it has been maintained that subjectively, as\nregarded the women, it had not been performed, i.e. they were ignorant\nthat Jesus had already been embalmed by Nicodemus and Joseph. [2043]\nOne is astonished that such a position can be advanced, since the\nsynoptists expressly state that the women were present at the interment\nof Jesus, and beheld, not merely the place (\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Mark), but\nalso the manner in which he was interred (\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7, Luke).\n\nThere is a third divergency relative to this point between Matthew and\nthe rest of the Evangelists, in so far as the former mentions no\nembalming either before or after the sabbath. This divergency, as it\nconsists merely in the silence of one narrator, has been hitherto\nlittle regarded, and even the Fragmentist admits that the wrapping of\nthe body in a clean linen cloth, mentioned by Matthew, involves also\nthe Jewish method of embalming. But in this instance there might easily\nbe drawn an argument ex silentio. When we read in the narrative of the\nanointing at Bethany the declaration of Jesus, that the woman by this\ndeed had anointed his body for burial (Matt. xxvi. 12 parall.): this\nhas indeed its significance in all the narratives, but a peculiarly\nstriking one in Matthew, according to whose subsequent narrative no\nanointing took place at the burial of Jesus, [2044] and this fact\nappears to be the only sufficient explanation of the special importance\nwhich the Evangelical tradition attached to the action of the woman. If\nhe who was revered as the Messiah did not, under the pressure of\nunfavourable circumstances, receive at his burial the due honour of\nembalmment: then must the thoughts of his adherents revert with\npeculiar complacency to an event in the latter part of his life, in\nwhich a humble-minded female votary, as if foreboding that this honour\nwould be denied to him when dead, rendered it to him while yet living.\nViewed in this light the different representation of the anointing in\nthe other Evangelists would have the appearance of a gradual\ndevelopment of the legend. In Mark and Luke it still remains, as in\nMatthew, that the corpse of Jesus is not really embalmed: but, said the\nlegend, already outstepping the narrative of the first gospel, the\nembalming was designed for him,\u2014this intention was the motive for the\nresort of the women to his grave on the morning after the sabbath, and\nits execution was only prevented by the resurrection. In the fourth\ngospel, on the other hand, this anointing, from being first performed\non him by anticipation while he was yet living, and then intended for\nhim when dead, resolved itself into an actual embalming of his body\nafter death: in conjunction with which, however, after the manner of\nlegendary formations, the reference of the earlier anointing to the\nburial of Jesus was left standing.\n\nThe body of Jesus, according to all the narrators, was forthwith\ndeposited in a tomb hewn out of a rock, and closed with a great stone.\nMatthew describes this tomb as \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd, new; an epithet which Luke and\nJohn more closely determine by stating that no man had yet been laid\ntherein. We may observe in passing, that there is as much reason for\nsuspicion with respect to this newness of the grave, as with respect to\nthe unridden ass in the history of the entrance of Jesus, since here in\nthe same way as there, the temptation lay irresistibly near, even\nwithout historical grounds, to represent the sacred receptacle of the\nbody of Jesus as never having been polluted by any corpse. But even in\nrelation to this tomb the Evangelists exhibit a divergency. According\nto Matthew it was the property of Joseph, who had himself caused it to\nbe hewn in the rock; and the two other synoptists also, since they make\nJoseph unhesitatingly dispose of the grave, appear to proceed on the\nsame presupposition. According to John, on the contrary, Joseph\u2019s right\nof property in the grave was not the reason that Jesus was laid there;\nbut because time pressed, he was deposited in the new sepulchre, which\nhappened to be in a neighbouring garden. Here again the harmonists have\ntried their art on both sides. Matthew was to be brought into agreement\nwith John by the observation, that a manuscript of his gospel omits the\n\u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (his own) after \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3; while an ancient translation read,\ninstead of \u1f43 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (which he had hewn),\u2014\u1f43 \u1f26\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (which\nwas hewn): [2045] as if these alterations were not obviously owing\nalready to harmonizing efforts. Hence the opposite side has been taken,\nand it has been remarked that the words of John by no means exclude the\npossibility that Joseph may have been the owner of the tomb, since both\nreasons\u2014the vicinity, and the fact that the grave belonged to\nJoseph\u2014may have co-operated. [2046] But the contrary is rather the\ntruth: namely, that the vicinity of the grave when alleged as a motive,\nexcludes the fact of possession: a house in which I should take shelter\nfrom a shower, because it is near, would not be my own; unless indeed I\nwere the owner of two houses, one near and one more distant, of which\nthe latter was my proper dwelling: and in like manner a grave, in which\na person lays a relative or friend who does not himself possess one,\nbecause it is near, cannot be his own, unless he possess more than one,\nand intend at greater leisure to convey the deceased into the other;\nwhich however in our case, since the near grave was from its newness\nadapted above all others for the interment of Jesus, is not easily\nconceivable. If according to this the contradiction subsists, there\ndoes not appear in the narratives themselves any ground for decision in\nfavour of the one or of the other. [2047]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 136.\n\nTHE WATCH AT THE GRAVE OF JESUS.\n\nOn the following day, the Sabbath, [2048] the chief priests and\nPharisees, according to Matthew (xxvii. 62 ff.) came to Pilate, and\nwith reference to the prediction of Jesus, that he should rise again\nafter three days, requested him to place a watch by his grave, lest his\ndisciples should take occasion from the expectation which that\nprediction had awakened, to steal his body and then spread a report\nthat he was risen again. Pilate granted their request, and accordingly\nthey went away, sealed the stone, and placed the watch before the\ngrave. The subsequent resurrection of Jesus (we must here anticipate so\nfar), and the angelic appearances which accompanied it, so terrified\nthe guards, that they became as dead men, \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76,\u2014forthwith,\nhowever, hastened to the city and gave an account of the event to the\nchief priests. The latter after having deliberated on the subject in an\nassembly with the elders, bribed the soldiers to pretend that the\ndisciples had stolen the body by night; whence, the narrator adds, this\nreport was disseminated, and was persisted in up to his time (xxviii.\n4, 11 ff.).\n\nIn this narrative, peculiar to the first gospel, critics have found all\nkinds of difficulties, which have been exposed with the most acumen by\nthe author of the Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragments, and after him by Paulus.\n[2049] The difficulties lie first of all in this: that neither the\nrequisite conditions of the event, nor its necessary consequences, are\npresented in the rest of the New Testament history. As regards the\nformer, it is not to be conceived how the Sanhedrists could obtain the\ninformation, that Jesus was to return to life three days after his\ndeath: since there is no trace of such an idea having existed even\namong his disciples. They say: We remember that that deceiver said,\nwhile he was yet alive, etc. If we are to understand from this that\nthey remembered to have heard him speak to that effect; Jesus,\naccording to the evangelical accounts, never spoke plainly of his\nresurrection in the presence of his enemies; and the figurative\ndiscourses which remained unintelligible to his confidential disciples,\ncould still less be understood by the Jewish hierarchs, who were less\naccustomed to his mode of thought and expression. If, however, the\nSanhedrists merely intend to say, that they had heard from others of\nhis having given such a promise: this intelligence could only have\nproceeded from the disciples; but as these had not, either before or\nafter the death of Jesus, the slightest anticipation of his\nresurrection, they could not have excited such an anticipation in\nothers;\u2014not to mention that we have been obliged to reject as\nunhistorical the whole of the predictions of the resurrection lent to\nJesus in the gospels. Equally incomprehensible with this knowledge on\nthe part of the enemies of Jesus, is the silence of his friends, the\nApostles and the other Evangelists besides Matthew, concerning a\ncircumstance so favourable to their cause. It is certainly applying too\nmodern a standard to the conduct of the disciples to say with the\nWolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist, that they must have entreated from Pilate a\nletter under his seal in attestation of the fact that a watch had been\nset over the grave: but it must be held surprising that in none of the\napostolic speeches is there anywhere an appeal to so striking a fact,\nand that even in the gospels, with the exception of the first, it has\nleft no discoverable trace. An attempt has been made to explain this\nsilence from the consideration, that the bribing of the guards by the\nSanhedrim had rendered an appeal to them fruitless: [2050] but truth is\nnot so readily surrendered to such obvious falsehoods, and at all\nevents, when the adherents of Jesus had to defend themselves before the\nSanhedrim, the mention of such a fact must have been a powerful weapon.\nThe cause is already half given up when its advocates retreat to the\nposition, that the disciples probably did not become acquainted with\nthe true cause of the event immediately, but only later, when the\nsoldiers began to betray the secret. [2051] For even if the guards in\nthe first instance merely set afloat the tale of the theft, and thus\nadmitted that they had been placed by the grave, the adherents of Jesus\ncould already construe for themselves the real state of the case, and\nmight boldly appeal to the guards, who must have been witnesses of\nsomething quite different from the theft of a corpse. But lest we be\ntold of the invalidity of an argument drawn from the merely negative\nfact of silence, there is something positive narrated concerning a part\nof the adherents of Jesus, namely, the women, which is not reconcilable\nwith the fact of a watch being placed at the grave. Not only do the\nwomen who resort to the grave on the morning after the Sabbath, intend\nto complete the embalming which they could not hope to be permitted to\ndo, if they knew that a watch was placed before the grave, and that\nthis was besides sealed: [2052] but according to Mark their whole\nperplexity on their way to the grave turns upon the question, who will\nroll away the stone for them from the grave; a clear proof that they\nknew nothing of the guards, since these either would not have allowed\nthem to remove the stone, however light, or if they would have allowed\nthis, would also have helped them to roll away a heavier one; so that\nin any case the difficulty as to the weight of the stone would have\nbeen superfluous. But that the placing of the watch should have\nremained unknown to the women is, from the attention which everything\nrelative to the end of Jesus excited in Jerusalem (Luke xxiv. 18),\nhighly improbable.\n\nBut within the narrative also, every feature is full of difficulties,\nfor, according to the expression of Paulus, no one of the persons who\nappear in it, acts in accordance with his character. That Pilate should\nhave granted the request of the Jewish magistrates for a watch, I will\nnot say without hesitation, but so entirely without ridicule, must be\nheld surprising after his previous conduct; [2053] such minor\nparticulars might however be merely passed over by Matthew in his\nsummary mode of recounting the incidents. It is more astonishing that\nthe guards should have been so easily induced to tell a falsehood which\nthe severity of Roman discipline made so dangerous, as that they had\nfailed in their duty by sleeping on their post; especially as, from the\nbad understanding which existed between the Sanhedrim and the\nprocurator, they could not know how far the mediation promised by the\nformer would avail. But the most inconceivable feature is the alleged\nconduct of the Sanhedrim. The difficulty which lies in their going to\nthe heathen procurator on the Sabbath, defiling themselves by\napproaching the grave, and placing a watch, has certainly been\noverstrained by the Fragmentist; but their conduct, when the guards,\nreturning from the grave, apprised them of the resurrection of Jesus,\nis truly impossible. They believe the assertion of the soldiers that\nJesus had arisen out of his grave in a miraculous manner. How could the\ncouncil, many of whose members were Sadducees, receive this as\ncredible? Even the Pharisees in the Sanhedrim, though they held in\ntheory the possibility of a resurrection, would not, with the mean\nopinion which they entertained of Jesus, be inclined to believe in his\nresurrection; especially as the assertion in the mouth of the guards\nsounded just like a falsehood invented to screen a failure in duty. The\nreal Sanhedrists, on hearing such an assertion from the soldiers, would\nhave replied with exasperation: You lie! you have slept and allowed him\nto be stolen; but you will have to pay dearly for this, when it comes\nto be investigated by the procurator. But instead of this, the\nSanhedrists in our gospel speak them fair, and entreat them thus: Tell\na lie, say that you have slept and allowed him to be stolen: moreover,\nthey pay them richly for the falsehood, and promise to exculpate them\nto the procurator. This is evidently spoken entirely on the Christian\npresupposition of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus; a\npresupposition however which is quite incorrectly attributed to the\nmembers of the Sanhedrim. It is also a difficulty, not merely searched\nout by the Fragmentist, but even acknowledged by orthodox expositors,\n[2054] that the Sanhedrim, in a regular assembly, and after a formal\nconsultation, should have resolved to corrupt the soldiers and put a\nlie into their mouths. That in this manner a college of seventy men\nshould have officially decided on suggesting and rewarding the\nutterance of a falsehood, is, as Olshausen justly observes, too widely\nat variance with the decorum, the sense of propriety, inseparable from\nsuch an assembly. The expedient of supposing that it was merely a\nprivate meeting, since only the chief priests and elders, not the\nscribes, are said to have embraced the resolution of bribing the\nsoldiers, [2055] would involve the singularity, that in this assembly\nthe scribes were absent, while in the shortly previous interview with\nthe procurator, where the scribes are represented by the Pharisees who\nformed their majority, the elders were wanting: whence it is evident\nrather that, it being inconvenient invariably to designate the\nSanhedrim by a full enumeration of its constituent parts, it was not\nseldom indicated by the mention of only some or one of these. If it\ntherefore remains that according to Matthew the high council must in a\nformal session have resolved on bribing the guards: such an act of\nbaseness could only be attributed to the council as such, by the\nrancour of the primitive Christians, among whom our anecdote arose.\n\nThese difficulties in the present narrative of the first gospel have\nbeen felt to be so pressing, that it has been attempted to remove them\nby the supposition of interpolation; [2056] which has lately been\nmoderated into the opinion, that while the anecdote did not indeed\nproceed from the Apostle Matthew himself it was not however added by a\nhand otherwise alien to our gospel, but was inserted by the Greek\ntranslator of the Hebrew Matthew. [2057] Against the former supposition\nthe absence of all critical authority is decisive; the appeal of those\nwho advance the other opinion to the unapostolic character of the\nanecdote, would not warrant its separation from the context of the main\nnarrative, unless that narrative itself were already proved to be of\napostolic origin; while the anecdote is so far from presenting any want\nof connexion with the rest, that, on the contrary, Paulus is right in\nhis remark that an interpolator (or inserting translator) would\nscarcely have given himself the trouble to distribute his interpolation\nin three different places (xxvii. 62\u201366; xxviii. 4, 11\u201315), but would\nhave compressed it into one passage, or at most two. Neither can the\nquestion be settled so cheaply as Olshausen imagines, when he concludes\nthat the entire narrative is apostolic and correct, save that the\nEvangelist erred in representing the corruption of the guards as being\nresolved on in full council, whereas the affair was probably managed in\nsecret by Caiaphas alone: as if this assembly of the council were the\nsole difficulty of the narrative, and as if, when errors had insinuated\nthemselves in relation to this particular, they might not extend to\nothers also. [2058]\n\nPaulus correctly points out how Matthew himself, by the statement: and\nthis saying is commonly reported among the Jews to this day,\u2014indicates\na calumnious Jewish report as the source of his narrative. But when\nthis theologian expresses the opinion that the Jews themselves\npropagated the story, that they had placed a watch at the grave of\nJesus, but that the guards had permitted his body to be stolen: this is\nas perverted a view as that of Hase, when he conjectures that the\nreport in question proceeded first of all from the friends of Jesus,\nand was afterwards modified by his enemies. For as regards the former\nsupposition, Kuin\u00f6l has already correctly remarked, that Matthew merely\ndesignates the assertion respecting the theft of the corpse as a Jewish\nreport, not the entire narrative of the placing of a watch; neither is\nthere any reason to be conceived why the Jews should have fabricated\nsuch a report as that a watch was set at the grave of Jesus: Paulus\nsays, it was hoped thereby to render the assertion that the body of\nJesus was stolen by his disciples more easy of acceptation with the\ncredulous: but those must indeed have been very credulous who did not\nobserve, that the placing of the watch was the very thing to render a\nfurtive removal of the body of Jesus improbable. Paulus appears to\nrepresent the matter to himself thus: the Jews wished to obtain\nwitnesses as it were to the accusation of a theft, and for this purpose\nfabricated the story of the guard being placed by the grave. But that\nthe guards with open eyes quietly beheld the disciples of Jesus carry\naway his body, no one could credit: while, if they saw nothing of this,\nbecause they slept, they gave no testimony, since they could then only\nby inference arrive at the conclusion, that the body might have been\nstolen: a conclusion which could be drawn just as well without them.\nThus in no way can the watch have belonged to the Jewish basis of the\npresent narrative; but the report disseminated among the Jews\nconsisted, as the text also says, merely in the assertion that the\ndisciples had stolen the body. As the Christians wished to oppose this\ncalumny, there was formed among them the legend of a watch placed at\nthe grave of Jesus, and now they could boldly confront their slanderers\nwith the question: how can the body have been carried away, since you\nplaced a watch at the grave and sealed the stone? And because, as we\nhave ourselves proved in the course of our inquiry, a legend is not\nfully convicted of groundlessness until it has been shown how it could\narise even without historical grounds: it was attempted on the side of\nthe Christians, in showing what was supposed to be the true state of\nthe case, to expose also the origin of the false legend, by deriving\nthe falsehood propagated among the Jews from the contrivance of the\nSanhedrim, and their corruption of the guards. Thus the truth is\nprecisely the reverse of what Hase says, namely, that the legend\nprobably arose among the friends of Jesus and was modified by his\nenemies:\u2014the friends first had an inducement to the fiction of the\nwatch, when the enemies had already spoken of a theft. [2059]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 137.\n\nFIRST TIDINGS OF THE RESURRECTION.\n\nThat the first news of the grave of Jesus being opened and empty on the\nsecond morning after his burial, came to the disciples by the mouth of\nwomen, is unanimously stated by the four Evangelists: but in all the\nmore particular circumstances they diverge from each other, in a way\nwhich has presented the richest material for the polemic of the\nWolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist, and on the other hand has given abundant work\nto the harmonists and apologists, without there having been hitherto\nany successful attempt at a satisfactory mediation between the two\nparties. [2060]\n\nLeaving behind the difference which is connected with the divergencies\nin the history of the burial, as to the object of the women in\nresorting to the grave,\u2014namely, that according to the two intermediate\nEvangelists they intended to embalm the body of Jesus, according to the\ntwo others merely to pay a visit to the grave,\u2014we find, first, a very\ncomplicated divergency relative to the number of the women who made\nthis visit. Luke merely speaks indefinitely of many women; not alone\nthose whom he describes xxiii. 55, as having come with Jesus from\nGalilee, and of whom he mentions by name, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and\nMary the mother of James, but also certain others with them, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 (xxiv. 1). Mark has merely three women; two of those whom Luke\nalso names, but as the third, Salome instead of Joanna (xvi. 1).\nMatthew has not this third woman, respecting whom the two intermediate\nEvangelists differ, but merely the two Maries concerning whom they\nagree (xxviii. 1). Lastly, John has only one of these, Mary Magdalene\n(xx. 1). The time at which the women go to the grave is likewise not\ndetermined with uniformity; for even if the words of Matthew, In the\nend of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the\nweek, \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, make no\ndifference, [2061] still the addition of Mark: at the rising of the\nsun, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, are in contradiction with the expressions\nwhen it was yet dark, \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, in John, and very early in the\nmorning, \u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2, in Luke.\u2014In relation to the circumstances in\nwhich the women first saw the grave there may appear to be a\ndifference, at least between Matthew and the three other Evangelists.\nAccording to the latter, as they approach and look towards the grave,\nthey see that the stone has already been rolled away by an unknown\nhand: whereas the narrative of the first Evangelist has appeared to\nmany to imply that the women themselves beheld the stone rolled away by\nan angel.\u2014Manifold are the divergencies as to what the women further\nsaw and learned at the grave. According to Luke they enter into the\ngrave, find that the body of Jesus is not there, and are hence in\nperplexity, until they see standing by them two men in shining\ngarments, who announce to them his resurrection. In Mark, who also\nmakes them enter into the grave, they see only one young man in a long\nwhite garment, not standing, but sitting on the right side, who gives\nthem the same intelligence. In Matthew they receive this information\nbefore they enter into the grave, from the angel, who after rolling\naway the stone had sat upon it. Lastly, according to John, Mary\nMagdalene, as soon as she sees the stone taken away, and without\nwitnessing any angelic appearance, runs back into the city.\u2014Moreover\nthe relation in which the disciples of Jesus are placed with respect to\nthe first news of his resurrection is a different one in the different\ngospels. According to Mark, the women, out of fear, tell no one of the\nangelic appearance which they have beheld; according to John, Mary\nMagdalene has nothing more to say to John and Peter, to whom she\nhastens from the grave, than that Jesus is taken away; according to\nLuke, the women report the appearance to the disciples in general, and\nnot merely to two of them; while according to Matthew, as they were in\nthe act of hastening to the disciples, Jesus himself met them, and they\nwere able to communicate this also to the disciples. In the two first\ngospels nothing is said of one of the disciples himself going to the\ngrave on hearing the report of the women; according to Luke, Peter went\nthither, found it empty and returned wondering, and from Luke xxiv. 24\nit appears that other disciples besides him went thither in a similar\nmanner; according to the fourth gospel Peter was accompanied by John,\nwho on this occasion was convinced of the resurrection of Jesus. Luke\nsays that Peter made his visit to the sepulchre after he had already\nbeen informed by the women of the angelic appearance; but in the fourth\ngospel the two disciples go to the grave before Mary Magdalene can have\ntold them of such an appearance; it was only when she had proceeded a\nsecond time to the grave with the two disciples, and when they had\nreturned home again, that, stooping into the sepulchre, she saw,\naccording to this gospel, two angels in white, sitting, the one at the\nhead and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain, by\nwhom she was asked, why she wept? and on turning round she beheld Jesus\nhimself; a particular of which there is a fragmentary notice in Mark v.\n9, with the additional remark, that she communicated this news to his\nformer companions.\n\nIt has been thought possible to reconcile the greater part of these\ndivergencies by supposing, instead of one scene variously described, a\nmultiplicity of different scenes; for which purpose the ordinary\ngrammatical and other artifices of the harmonists were pressed into the\nservice. That Mark might not contradict the \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 while it\nwas yet dark of John, the apologists did not scruple to translate the\nwords \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 by orituro sole; [2062] the contradiction\nbetween Matthew and the rest, when the former appears to say that the\nwomen saw the stone rolled away by the angel, seemed to be more easy of\nsolution, not indeed by supposing, with Michaelis, [2063] that \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\n(and behold!) denotes a recurrence to a previous event, and that\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 has the signification of a pluperfect (an expedient which has\nbeen justly combated by modern criticism in opposition to Lessing, who\nwas inclined to admit it); [2064] but by understanding the \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 v. 1 to\nexpress a yet unfinished progress of the women towards the grave, in\nwhich case the \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a and what follows may, in accordance with its\nproper meaning, relate something that happened after the departure of\nthe women from their home, but before their arrival at the grave.\n[2065] In relation to the number and the visit of the women, it was in\nthe first place urged that even according to John, although he mentions\nonly Mary Magdalene by name,\u2014several women must have accompanied her to\nthe grave, since he makes her say after her return to the two\ndisciples: we know not where they have laid him; [2066] a plural, which\ncertainly intimates the presence of other but unspecified persons, with\nwhom Mary Magdalene, whether at the grave itself or on her return, had\nconversed on the subject before she came to the Apostles. Thus, it is\nsaid, Mary Magdalene went to the grave with the other women, more or\nfewer of whom are mentioned by the other Evangelists. As however she\nreturned without having, like the other women, seen an angel, it is\nsupposed that she ran back alone as soon as she saw the stone rolled\naway: which is accounted for by her impetuous temperament, she having\nbeen formerly a demoniac. [2067] While she hastened back to the city,\nthe other women saw the appearances of which the synoptists speak.\u2014To\nall it is maintained, the angels appeared within the grave; for the\nstatement in Matthew that one sat outside on the stone, is only a\npluperfect: when the women came he had already withdrawn into the\nsepulchre, and accordingly, after their conversation with him, the\nwomen are described as departing from the sepulchre, \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (v. 8): [2068] in which observation it is only overlooked that\nbetween the first address of the angel and the above expression, there\nstands his invitation to the women to come with him into the grave and\nsee the place where Jesus had lain. In relation to the difference that\naccording to the two first Evangelists the women see only one angel,\naccording to the third, two, even Calvin resorts to the miserable\nexpedient of supposing a synecdoche, namely that all the Evangelists\ncertainly knew of two angels, but Matthew and Mark mention only the one\nwho acted as speaker. Others make different women see different\nappearances: some, of whom Matthew and Mark speak, seeing only one\nangel; the others, to whom Luke refers, and who came earlier or perhaps\nlater than the above, seeing two; [2069] but Luke makes the same two\nMaries who, according to his predecessors, had seen only one angel,\nnarrate to the Apostles an appearance of two angels. It is also said\nthat the women returned in separate groups, so that Jesus might meet\nthose of whom Matthew speaks without being seen by those of Luke; and\nthough those of Mark at first tell no one from fear, the rest, and they\nthemselves afterwards, might communicate what they had seen to the\ndisciples. [2070]\u2014On hearing the report brought by several women,\nPeter, according to Luke, straightway goes to the grave, finds it empty\nand turns away wondering. But according to the hypothesis which we are\nnow detailing, Mary Magdalene had run back a considerable time before\nthe other women, and had brought with her to the grave Peter and John.\nThus Peter, first on hearing the imperfect intelligence of Mary\nMagdalene that the grave was empty, must have gone thither with John;\nand subsequently, on the account of the angelic appearance brought by\nthe other women, he must have gone a second time alone: in which case\nit would be particularly surprising that while his companion arrived at\na belief in the resurrection of Jesus on the very first visit, he\nhimself had not attained further than wonder even on the second.\nBesides, as the Fragmentist has already ably shown, the narrative in\nthe third gospel of the visit of Peter alone, and that in the fourth of\nthe visit of Peter and John, are so strikingly similar even in words,\n[2071] that the majority of commentators regard them as referring to a\nsingle visit, Luke having only omitted to notice the companion of\nPeter: in support of which opinion they can appeal to Luke xxiv. 24.\nBut if the visit of the two Apostles, occasioned by the return of Mary\nMagdalene, be one and the same with that occasioned by the return of\nthe other women, then the return of the women is also not a double one;\nif however they returned in company with each other, we have a\ncontradiction. After the two Apostles are returned without having seen\nan angel, Mary, who remains behind, as she looks into the grave, all at\nonce sees two. What a strange playing at hide and seek must there have\nbeen on the part of the angels, according to the harmonistic\ncombination of these narratives! First only one shows himself to one\ngroup of women, to another group two show themselves; both forthwith\nconceal themselves from the disciples; but after their departure both\nagain become visible. To remove these intermissions Paulus has placed\nthe appearance presented to Mary Magdalene before the arrival of the\ntwo disciples: but by this violent transposition of the order chosen by\nthe narrator, he has only confessed the impossibility of thus\nincorporating the various Evangelists with each other. Hereupon, as\nMary Magdalene raises herself from looking into the grave and turns\nround, she sees Jesus standing behind her. According to Matthew, Jesus\nappeared to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, when they had already\nset out on their way to the city, consequently when they were at some\ndistance from the grave. Thus Jesus would have first appeared to Mary\nMagdalene alone, close to the grave, and a second time when she was on\nher way from thence, in the company of another woman. In order to avoid\nthe want of purpose attaching to the repetition of an appearance of\nJesus after so short an interval, commentators have here called in the\nabove supposition, that Mary Magdalene had previously separated herself\nfrom the women of whom Matthew speaks: [2072] but in that case, since\nMatthew has besides Mary Magdalene only the other Mary, it would have\nbeen only one woman to whom Jesus appeared on the way from the grave:\nwhereas Matthew throughout speaks of several (\u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2).\n\nTo escape from this restless running to and fro of the disciples and\nthe women, this phantasmagoric appearance, disappearance, and\nreappearance of the angels, and the useless repetition of the\nappearances of Jesus before the same person, which result from this\nharmonistic method, we must consider each Evangelist by himself: we\nthen obtain from each a quiet picture with simple dignified features;\none visit of the women to the grave, or according to John, two; one\nangelic appearance; one appearance of Jesus, according to John and\nMatthew; and one visit to the grave by one or two of the disciples,\naccording to Luke and John.\n\nBut with the above difficulties of the harmonistic method of\nincorporation as to the substance, there is associated a difficulty as\nto form, in the question, how comes it, under the presuppositions of\nthis mode of viewing the gospels, that from the entire series of\noccurrences, each narrator has selected a separate portion for\nhimself,\u2014that of the many visits and appearances not one Evangelist\nrelates all, and scarcely one the same as his neighbour, but for the\nmost part each has chosen only one for representation, and each again a\ndifferent one? The most plausible answer to this question has been\ngiven by Griesbach in a special treatise on this subject. [2073] He\nsupposes that each Evangelist recounts the resurrection of Jesus in the\nmanner in which it first, became known to him: John received the first\ninformation from Mary Magdalene, and hence he narrates only what he\nlearned from her; to Matthew (for without doubt the disciples, as\nstrangers visiting the feast, resided in different quarters of the\ncity), the first news was communicated by those women to whom Jesus\nhimself appeared on their way from the grave, and hence he relates only\nwhat these had experienced. But here this explanation already founders\non the facts, that in Matthew, of the women who see Jesus on their way\nhomeward, Mary Magdalene is one; and that in John, Mary Magdalene,\nafter her second visit to the grave, in which Jesus appeared to her, no\nlonger went to John and Peter alone, but to the disciples in general,\nand communicated to them the appearance she had seen and the commission\nshe had received: so that Matthew in any case must also have known of\nthe appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene. [2074] Further, when,\naccording to this hypothesis, Mark narrates the history of the\nresurrection as he had learned it in the house of his mother who lived\nin Jerusalem (Acts xii. 12); Luke, as he had received it from Joanna,\nwhom he alone mentions: we cannot but wonder at the tenacity with\nwhich, according to this, each must have clung to the narrative which\nhe had happened first to receive, since the resurrection of Jesus must\nhave been the subject of all others on which there was the most lively\ninterchange of narratives among his adherents, so that the ideas\nconcerning the first tidings of the event must have found their level.\nTo remove these difficulties, Griesbach has further supposed, that the\ndisciples had it in their intention to compare the discordant accounts\nof the women and reduce them to order; when, however, the resuscitated\nJesus himself appeared in the midst of them, they neglected this,\nbecause they now no longer founded their faith on the assertions of the\nwomen, but on the appearances which they had themselves witnessed: but\nthe more the information of the women fell into the background, the\nless conceivable is it, how in the sequel each could so obstinately\ncling to what this or that woman had chanced first to communicate to\nhim.\n\nIf then the plan of incorporation will not lead to the desired end,\n[2075] we must try that of selection, and inquire whether we must not\nadhere to one of the four accounts, as pre-eminently apostolic, and by\nthis rectify the others; in which inquiry here as elsewhere, from the\nessential equality of the external evidence, only the internal\ncharacter of the separate narratives can decide.\n\nFrom the number of those accounts concerning the first intelligence of\nthe resurrection of Jesus which have any claim to the rank of\nautoptical testimonies, modern criticism has excluded that of the first\ngospel; [2076] and we cannot, as in other instances, complain of this\ndisfavour as an injustice. For in many respects the narrative of the\nfirst gospel here betrays itself to have been carried a step farther in\ntraditional development than that of the other gospels. First, that the\nmiraculous opening of the grave is seen by the women\u2014if indeed Matthew\nintends to say this\u2014could scarcely, had it really been the case, have\nbeen so entirely lost from remembrance as it is in the other\nEvangelists, but might very well be formed gradually in tradition;\nfurther, that the rolling away of the stone was effected by the angel,\nevidently rests only on the combination of one who did not know any\nbetter means of answering the question, how the great stone was removed\nfrom the grave, and the guards taken out of the way, than to use for\nboth purposes the angel presented to him in the current narratives of\nthe appearance witnessed by the women; to which he added the earthquake\nas a further embellishment of the scene. But besides this, there is in\nthe narrative of Matthew yet another trait, which has anything but an\nhistorical aspect. After the angel has already announced the\nresurrection of Jesus to the women, and charged them to deliver to the\ndisciples the message that they should go into Galilee, where they\nwould see the risen one: Jesus himself meets them and repeats the\nmessage which they are to deliver to the disciples. This is a singular\nsuperfluity. Jesus had nothing to add to the purport of the message\nwhich the angel had given to the women; hence he could only wish to\nconfirm it and render it more authentic. But to the women it needed no\nfurther confirmation, for they were already filled with great joy by\nthe tidings of the angel, and thus were believing; while for the\ndisciples even that confirmation did not suffice, for they remained\nincredulous even to the account of those who assured them that they had\nseen Jesus, until they had seen him themselves. Thus it appears that\ntwo different narrations, as to the first news of the resurrection,\nhave here become entangled with each other; the one representing\nangels, the other Jesus himself, as the medium by which the women were\ninformed of the event and sent with a message to the disciples:\u2014the\nlatter evidently the later tradition.\n\nThe pre-eminence in originality denied to the narrative of Matthew, is\nhere as elsewhere awarded to that of John. Traits so characteristic,\nsays L\u00fccke, as that on the visit to the grave the other disciple went\nfaster than Peter and came to the spot before him, attest the\nauthenticity of the gospel even to the most sceptical. But the matter\nhas yet another aspect. It has been already remarked, at an earlier\npoint of our inquiry, that this particular belongs to the effort, which\nthe fourth gospel exhibits in a peculiar manner, to place John above\nPeter. [2077] We may now discuss the point with more particularity, by\ncomparing the account in Luke already mentioned of the visit of Peter\nto the grave, with the account in the fourth gospel of the visit of the\ntwo disciples. According to Luke (xxiv. 12), Peter runs to the grave:\naccording to John (xx. 3 ff.), Peter and the favourite disciple go\ntogether, but so that the latter runs faster, and comes first to the\ngrave. In the third gospel, Peter stoops down, looks into the\nsepulchre, and sees the linen clothes: in the fourth, John does this,\nand sees the same. In the third gospel, nothing is said of an entering\ninto the grave: but the fourth makes Peter enter first, and look more\nclosely at the linen clothes, then John also, and the latter with the\nresult that he begins to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. [2078]\nThat in these two narratives we have one and the same incident, has\nbeen above shown probable from their similarity even in the\nexpressions. Thus the only question is: which is the original\nnarrative, the one nearest to the fact? If that of John: then must his\nname have been gradually lost out of the narrative in the course of\ntradition, and the visit to the grave ascribed to Peter only; which,\nsince the importance of Peter threw all others into the shade, is\neasily conceivable. We might rest contented with this conclusion,\nregarding these two parallel narratives by themselves: but in connexion\nwith the whole suspicious position which the fourth gospel assigns to\nJohn in relation to Peter, the contrary relation of the two narratives\nmust here again be held the more probable. As in the entrance into the\nhigh priest\u2019s palace, so in the visit to the grave of Jesus, only in\nthe fourth gospel is John given as a companion to Peter; as in the\nformer case it is he who gains an entrance for Peter, so in the latter\nhe runs before him and casts the first glance into the grave, a\ncircumstance which is repeatedly mentioned. That afterwards Peter is\nthe first to enter into the grave, is only an apparent advantage, which\nis allowed him out of deference to the common idea of his position: for\nafter him John also enters, and with a result of which Peter could not\nboast, namely, that he believed in the resurrection of Jesus, and thus\nwas the first who attained to that degree of faith. From this effort to\nmake John the first-born among the believers in the resurrection of\nJesus may also be explained the divergency, that according to the\nnarrative of the fourth gospel alone, Mary Magdalene hastens back to\nthe two disciples before she has yet seen an angel. For had she\nbeforehand witnessed an angelic appearance, which she would not any\nmore than the women in Matthew have mistrusted, she would have been the\nfirst believer, and would have won the precedence of John in this\nrespect; but this is avoided by representing her as coming to the two\ndisciples immediately after perceiving the emptiness of the grave, and\nunder the disquietude excited in her by this circumstance. This\npresupposition serves also to explain why the fourth gospel makes the\nwoman returning from the grave go, not to the disciples in general, but\nonly to Peter and John. As, namely, the intelligence which, according\nto the original narrative, was brought to all the disciples,\noccasioned, according to Luke, only Peter to go to the grave, and as\nmoreover, according to Mark (v. 7), the message of the women was\ndestined more especially for Peter: the idea might easily be formed,\nthat the news came to this disciple alone, with whom the object of the\nfourth Evangelist would then require that he should associate John.\nOnly after the two disciples had come to the grave, and his John had\nattained faith, could the author of the fourth gospel introduce the\nappearances of the angel and of Jesus himself, which were said to have\nbeen granted to the women. That instead of these collectively he names\nonly Mary Magdalene\u2014although as has been earlier remarked, he xx. 2\npresupposes at least a subsequent meeting between her and other\nwomen\u2014this might certainly, under other circumstances, be regarded as\nthe original representation, whence the synoptical one arose by a\nprocess of generalization: but it might just as well be the case that\nthe other women, being less known, were eclipsed by Mary Magdalene. The\ndescription of the scene between her and Jesus, with the\nnon-recognition of him at the first moment, etc., certainly does honour\nto the ingenuity and pathos of the author; [2079] but here also there\nis an unhistorical superfluity similar to that in Matthew. For here the\nangels have not, as in the other Evangelists, to announce the\nresurrection to Mary Magdalene, and to make a disclosure to her; but\nthey merely ask her, Why weepest thou? whereupon she complains to them\nof the disappearance of the body of Jesus, but, without waiting for any\nfurther explanation, turns round and sees Jesus standing. Thus as in\nMatthew the appearance of Jesus, since it is not represented as the\nprincipal and effective one, is a superfluous addition to that of the\nangel: so here the angelic appearance is an idle, ostentatious\nintroduction to the appearance of Jesus.\n\nIf we turn to the third account, that of Mark, to ascertain whether he\nmay not perhaps be the nearest to the fact: we find it so incoherent,\nand composed of materials so little capable of being fitted together,\nthat such a relation is not to be thought of. After it has been already\nnarrated that early in the morning of the day succeeding the Sabbath\nthe women came to the grave of Jesus, and were informed by an angel of\nhis resurrection, but out of fear said nothing to any one of the\nappearance which they had seen (xvi. 1\u20138): at v. 9, as if nothing had\npreviously been said either of the resurrection or of the time at which\nit happened, the narrator proceeds: Now when Jesus was risen early the\nfirst day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom\nhe had cast seven devils, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7. This statement also does not suit the foregoing\nnarrative, because this is not formed on the supposition of an\nappearance specially intended for Mary Magdalene: on the contrary, as\nshe is said to be informed by an angel of the resurrection of Jesus,\ntogether with two other women, Jesus could not have appeared to her\nbeforehand; while afterwards, on her way to the city, she was in\ncompany with the other women, when, according to Matthew, they were all\nactually met by Jesus. Whether on this account we are to regard the end\nof the gospel of Mark, from v. 9, as a later addition, [2080] is indeed\ndoubtful, from the want of decisive critical grounds, and still more\nfrom the abruptness of the conclusion \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1, for they were\nafraid, which the gospel would then present: but in any case we have\nhere a narrative which the author, without any clear idea of the state\nof the fact and the succession of the events, hastily compiled out of\nthe heterogeneous elements of the current legend, which he knew not how\nto manage.\n\nIn the narrative of Luke there would be no special difficulty: but it\nhas a suspicious element in common with the others, namely, the angelic\nappearance, and moreover, in a twofold form. What had the angels to do\nin this scene? Matthew tells us: to roll away the stone from the grave;\non which it has already been remarked by Celsus, that according to the\northodox presupposition, the Son of God could find no such aid\nnecessary for this purpose: [2081] he might indeed find it suitable and\nbecoming. In Mark and Luke the angels appear more as having to impart\ninformation and commissions to the women: but as, according to Matthew\nand John, Jesus himself appeared immediately after, and repeated those\ncommissions, the delivery of them by angels was superfluous. Hence,\nnothing remains but to say: the angels belonged to the embellishment of\nthe great scene, as celestial attendants who had to open to the Messiah\nthe door by which he meant to issue forth; as a guard of honour on the\nspot from which the once dead had just departed with recovered life.\nBut here occurs the question: does this species of pomp exist in the\nreal court of God, or only in the childish conception formed of it by\nantiquity?\n\nHence commentators have laboured in various ways to transform the\nangels in the history of the resurrection into natural appearances.\nSetting out from the account of the first gospel in which the angel is\nsaid to have a form or countenance like lightning, \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u1f74, and\nto effect the rolling away of the stone and the prostration of the\nguards, while an earthquake is connected with his appearance: it no\nlonger lay far out of the way to think of a flash of lightning, which\nstruck the stone with force sufficient to shatter it, and cast the\nguards to the earth; or of an earthquake which, accompanied by flames\nbursting out of the ground, produced the same effect; in which case the\nflames and the overwhelming force of the phenomenon were taken by the\nwatching soldiers for an angel. [2082] But partly the circumstance that\nthe angel seated himself on the stone after it had been rolled away,\npartly, and still more decidedly, the statement that he spoke to the\nwomen, renders this hypothesis insufficient. Hence an effort has been\nmade to complete it by the supposition that the sublime thought, Jesus\nis risen! which on the discovery that the grave was empty began to\narise in the women and gradually to subdue their first doubts, was\nascribed by them, after the oriental mode of thought and language, to\nan angel. [2083] But how comes it that in all the gospels the angels\nare represented as clothed in white, shining garments? Is that too an\noriental figure of speech? The oriental may indeed describe a good\nthought which occurs to him as being whispered to him by an angel: but\nto depict the clothing and aspect of this angel, passes the bounds of\nthe merely figurative even among orientals. In the description of the\nfirst gospel the supposed lightning might be called to aid, in the\nconjecture that the effect thereby produced on the senses of the women\nwas ascribed by them to an angel, which, with reference to that\nlightning, they depicted as one clothed in shining garments. But,\naccording to the other Evangelists, the rolling away of the stone, ex\nhypothesi by the lightning, was not seen by the women; on the contrary,\nwhen they went or looked into the grave, the white forms appeared to\nthem in a perfectly tranquil position. According to this, it must have\nbeen something within the grave which suggested to them the idea of\nwhite-robed angels. Now in the grave, according to Luke and John, there\nlay the white linen clothes in which the body of Jesus had been wrapt:\nthese, which were recognized simply as such by the more composed and\ncourageous men, might, it is said, by timid and excited women, in the\ndark grave and by the deceptive morning twilight, be easily mistaken\nfor angels. [2084] But how should the women, who must have expected to\nfind in the grave a corpse enveloped in white, be prompted by the sight\nof these clothes to a thought so strange, and which then lay so remote\nfrom their anticipations, as that they might be an angel who would\nannounce to them the resurrection of their deceased master? It has been\nthought in another quarter quite superfluous here to advance so many\ningenious conjectures as to what the angels may have been, since, among\nthe four narratives, two expressly tell us what they were: namely,\nnatural men, Mark calling his angel a young man, \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, Luke his\ntwo angels, two men, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf. [2085] Whom then are we to suppose\nthese men to have been? Here again the door is opened for the\nsupposition of secret colleagues of Jesus, who must have been unknown\neven to the two disciples:\u2014these men seen at the grave may have been\nthe same who met him in the so-called Transfiguration, perhaps Essenes,\nwhite being worn by this sect,\u2014or whatever else of the like conjectures\nthe antiquated pragmatism of a Bahrdt or Venturini has to offer. Or\nwill it rather be chosen to suppose a purely accidental meeting? or,\nlastly, with Paulus, to leave the matter in an obscurity, from the\nmidst of which, so soon as it is endeavoured to clear it up by definite\nthoughts, the two forms of the secret colleagues invariably present\nthemselves? A correct discernment will here also rather recognize the\nforms of the Jewish popular conception, by which the primitive\nChristian tradition held it necessary to glorify the resurrection of\nits Messiah: a recognition, which at once solves in the most simple\nmanner the differences in the number and modes of appearance of those\ncelestial beings. [2086]\n\nHerewith, however, it is at the same time acknowledged that we can\nsucceed no better with the plan of selection than with that of\nincorporation; but must rather confess, that in all the evangelical\naccounts of these first tidings of the resurrection, we have before us\nnothing more than traditional reports. [2087]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 138.\n\nAPPEARANCES OF THE RISEN JESUS IN GALILEE AND IN JUDEA, INCLUDING THOSE\nMENTIONED BY PAUL AND BY APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS.\n\nThe most important of all the differences in the history of the\nresurrection turns upon the question, what locality did Jesus design to\nbe the chief theatre of his appearances after the resurrection? The two\nfirst gospels make Jesus, before his death, when retiring to the Mount\nof Olives, utter this promise to his disciples: After I am risen again\nI will go before you into Galilee (Matt. xxvi. 32; Mark xiv. 28); the\nsame assurance is given to the women by the angels on the morning of\nthe resurrection, with the addition: there shall ye see him (Matt.\nxxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7); and in Matthew, besides all this, Jesus in his\nown person commissions the women to say to the disciples: that they go\ninto Galilee, and there shall they see me (xxviii. 10). In Matthew the\njourney of the disciples into Galilee, with the appearance of Jesus\nwhich they there witnessed (the only one to the disciples recorded by\nthis Evangelist), is actually narrated in the sequel. Mark, after\ndescribing the amazement into which the women were thrown by the\nangelic appearance, breaks off in the enigmatical manner already\nmentioned, and appends some appearances of Jesus, which,\u2014as the first\nhappens immediately after the resurrection, and therefore necessarily\nin Jerusalem, and no change of place is mentioned before the succeeding\nones, while the earlier direction to go into Galilee is lost sight\nof,\u2014must all be regarded as appearances in and around Jerusalem. John\nknows nothing of a direction to the disciples to go into Galilee, and\nmakes Jesus show himself to the disciples on the evening of the day of\nresurrection, and again eight days after, in Jerusalem; the concluding\nchapter, however, which forms an appendix to his gospel, describes an\nappearance by the Sea of Galilee. In Luke, on the other hand, not only\nis there no trace of an appearance in Galilee, Jerusalem with its\nenvirons being made the sole theatre of the appearances of Christ which\nthis gospel relates; but there is also put into the mouth of Jesus\nwhen, on the evening after the resurrection, he appears to the\nassembled disciples in Jerusalem, the injunction: tarry ye in the city\nof Jerusalem (in the Acts i. 4, more definitely expressed by the\nnegative, that they should not depart from Jerusalem), until ye be\nendued with power from on high (xxiv. 49). Here two questions\ninevitably arise: 1st, how can Jesus have directed the disciples to\njourney into Galilee, and yet at the same time have commanded them to\nremain in Jerusalem until Pentecost? and 2ndly, how could he refer them\nto a promised appearance in Galilee, when he had the intention of\nshowing himself to them that very day in and near Jerusalem?\n\nThe first contradiction which presents itself more immediately between\nMatthew and Luke, has by no one been more pointedly exhibited than by\nthe Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist. If, he writes, it be true, as Luke says,\nthat Jesus appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem on the day of his\nresurrection, and commanded them to remain there, and not to depart\nthence until Pentecost: then is it false that he commanded them within\nthe same period to journey into Galilee, that he might appear to them\nthere, and vice vers\u00e2. [2088] The harmonists indeed affected to regard\nthis objection as unimportant, and only remarked briefly, that the\ninjunction to remain in a city was not equivalent to an arrest, and did\nnot exclude walks and excursions in the neighbourhood; and that Jesus\nmerely forbade the removal of residence from Jerusalem, and the going\nout into all the world to preach the gospel, before the given term\nshould arrive. [2089] But the journey from Jerusalem to Galilee is not\na mere walk, but the longest expedition which the Jew could make within\nthe limits of his own country; as little was it an excursion for the\napostles, but rather a return to their home: while what Jesus intended\nto prohibit to the disciples in that injunction cannot have been the\ngoing out into all the world to preach the gospel, since they would\nhave no impulse to do this before the outpouring of the Spirit; nor can\nit have been the removal of residence from Jerusalem, since they were\nthere only as strangers visiting at the feast: rather Jesus must have\nmeant to deter them from that very journey which it was the most\nnatural for them to take, i.e. from the return to their native province\nGalilee, after the expiration of the feast days. Besides this\u2014and even\nMichaelis confesses himself obliged to wonder here\u2014if Luke does not\nmean by that prohibition of Jesus to exclude the journey into Galilee,\nwhy is it that he alludes to this by no single word? and in like\nmanner, if Matthew knew that his direction to go into Galilee was\nconsistent with the command to remain in the metropolis, why has he\nomitted the latter, together with the appearances in Jerusalem? This is\ncertainly a plain proof that the accounts of the two Evangelists are\nbased on a different idea as to the theatre on which the risen Jesus\nappeared.\n\nIn this exigency of having to reconcile two contradictory commands\ngiven on the same day, the comparison with the Acts presented a welcome\nhelp by indicating a distinction of the times. Here, namely, the\ncommand of Jesus that the disciples should not leave Jerusalem is\nplaced in his last appearance, forty days after the resurrection, and\nimmediately before the ascension: at the close of the gospel of Luke it\nis likewise in the last interview, terminating in the ascension, that\nthe above command is given. Now though from the summary representation\nof the gospel taken by itself, it must be believed that all occurred on\nthe very day of the resurrection: we nevertheless see, it is said, from\nthe history of the Acts by the same author, that between v. 43 and 44\nin the last chapter of his gospel we must interpose the forty days from\nthe resurrection to the ascension. Herewith, then, the apparent\ncontradiction between these two commands vanishes: for one who in the\nfirst instance indeed enjoins a journey into Galilee, may very well\nforty days later, after this journey has been made, and the parties are\nonce more in the metropolis, now forbid any further removal from\nthence. [2090] But as the dread of admitting a contradiction between\ndifferent New Testament authors is no ground for departing from the\nnatural interpretation of their expressions: so neither can this be\njustified by the apprehension that the same author may in different\nwritings contradict himself; since if the one were written somewhat\nlater than the other, the author may in the interim have been on many\npoints otherwise informed, than when he composed his first work. That\nthis was actually the case with Luke in relation to that part of the\nlife of Jesus which followed his resurrection, we shall have reason to\nbe convinced when we come to the history of the ascension: and this\nconclusion removes all ground for interposing nearly five weeks between\nthe \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd, v. 43, and \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72, v. 44, in defiance of their obviously\nimmediate connexion; at the same time, however, it does away with the\npossibility of reconciling the opposite commands of Jesus in Matthew\nand Luke by a distinction of times.\n\nMeanwhile, even admitting that this contradiction might be in some way\nor other removed, still, even without that express command which Luke\nmentions, the mere facts as narrated by him and his predecessor and\nsuccessor, remain irreconcilable with the injunction which Jesus gives\nto the disciples in Matthew. For, asks the Fragmentist, if the\ndisciples collectively twice saw him, spoke with him, touched him, and\nate with him, in Jerusalem; how can it be that they must have had to\ntake the long journey into Galilee in order to see him? [2091] The\nharmonists, it is true, boldly reply: when Jesus causes his disciples\nto be told that they will see him in Galilee, it is by no means said\nthat they will see him nowhere else, still less that they will not see\nhim in Jerusalem. [2092] But, the Fragmentist might rejoin, after his\nmanner: as little as one who says to me, go to Rome, there you shall\nsee the Pope, can mean that the Pope will indeed first come through my\npresent place of residence, so as to be seen by me here, but afterwards\nI must yet go to Rome, in order to see him again there: so little would\nthe angel in Matthew and Mark, if he had had any anticipation of the\nappearance in Jerusalem on the very same day, have said to the\ndisciples: go into Galilee, there will Jesus show himself to you; but\nrather: be comforted, you shall yet see him here in Jerusalem before\nevening. Wherefore the reference to the more remote event, when there\nwas one of the same kind close at hand? wherefore an appointment by\nmeans of the women, for the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee, if the\nlatter foresaw that he should on the same day personally speak with the\ndisciples? With reason does the latest criticism insist on what Lessing\nhad previously urged; [2093] namely, that no rational person would make\nan appointment with his friends through a third party for a joyful\nreunion at a distant place, if he were certain of seeing them\nrepeatedly on the same day in their present locality. [2094] If thus\nthe angel and Jesus himself, when they in the morning by means of the\nwomen directed the disciples to go into Galilee, cannot yet have known\nthat he would show himself to them on the evening of the same day in\nand near Jerusalem: he must in the morning have still held the\nintention of going immediately into Galilee, but in the course of the\nday have embraced another purpose. According to Paulus, [2095] an\nindication of such an original intention is found in Luke, in the\ntravelling of Jesus towards Emmaus, which lay in the direction of\nGalilee; while the reason for the alteration of plan is supposed by the\nsame expositor, with whom in this instance Olshausen agrees, [2096] to\nhave been the belief of the disciples, as more particularly manifested\nto Jesus on occasion of the journey to Emmaus. How so erroneous a\ncalculation on the part of Jesus can consist with the orthodox view of\nhis person, is Olshausen\u2019s care; but even regarding him in a purely\nhuman character, there appears no sufficient reason for such a change\nof mind. Especially after Jesus had been recognised by the two\ndisciples going to Emmaus, he might be certain that the testimony of\nthe men would so accredit the assertion of the women, as to lead the\ndisciples with at least a glimmering ray of faith and hope into\nGalilee. But in general, if a change of mind and a diversity of plan in\nJesus before and after that change, really existed: why does no one\nEvangelist take any notice of such a retractation? Why does Luke speak\nas if he knew nothing of the original plan; Matthew, as if he knew\nnothing of a subsequent alteration; John, as if the principal theatre\nof the appearances of the risen Jesus had been Jerusalem, and he had\nonly by way of supplement at length showed himself in Galilee? Lastly,\nwhy does Mark speak so as to make it evident that, having gathered the\noriginal direction to go into Galilee from Matthew, and the succeeding\nappearances in Jerusalem and its environs from Luke or elsewhere, he\nwas unable, nor did he even make the attempt, in any way to reconcile\nthem; but placed them together as he found them, rough hewn and\ncontradictory.\n\nAccording to this we must agree with the latest criticism of the gospel\nof Matthew, in acknowledging the contradiction between it and the rest\nin relation to the locality of the appearances of Jesus after the\nresurrection: but, it must be asked, can we also approve the verdict of\nthis criticism when it at once renounces the representation of the\nfirst gospel in favour of that of the other Evangelists. [2097] If,\nsetting aside all presuppositions as to the apostolic origin of this or\nthat gospel, we put the question: which of the two divergent accounts\nis the best adapted to be regarded as a traditional modification and\ndevelopment of the other? we can here refer, not merely to the general\nnature of the accounts, but also to a single point at which the two\ntouch each other in a characteristic manner. This is the address of the\nangel to the women, in which according to all the synoptists Galilee is\nmentioned, but in a different way. In Matthew the angel, as has been\nalready noticed, says of Jesus: he goeth before you into Galilee,\u2014lo, I\nhave told you (xxviii. 7), \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u2014\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd. In Mark he says the same, except that instead of the latter\naddition, by which in Matthew the angel seeks to impress his own words\non the women, he has the expression: as he said unto you, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, with which he refers to the earlier prediction of Jesus\nconcerning this circumstance. If we first compare these two\nrepresentations: the confirmatory I have told you, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, might\neasily appear superfluous and nugatory; while on the other hand the\nreference to the earlier prediction of Jesus by he said, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, might\nseem more appropriate, and on this the conjecture might be founded that\nperhaps Mark has here the correct and original phrase, Matthew a\nvariation not unaccompanied by a misunderstanding. [2098] But if we\ninclude the account of Luke in the comparison, we find here, as in\nMark, the words: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in\nGalilee, \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u1fb3, a reference\nto an earlier prediction of Jesus, not however referring to Galilee,\nbut delivered in Galilee. Here the question occurs: is it more probable\nthat Galilee, from being the designation of the locality in which the\nprophecy of the resurrection was uttered, should at a later period be\nerroneously converted into a designation of the locality where the\nrisen one would appear; or the contrary? In order to decide this, we\nmust ascertain in which of the two positions the mention of Galilee is\nthe more intrinsically suited to the context. Now that on the\nannouncement of the resurrection it was an important point whether and\nwhere the risen Jesus was to be seen, is self-evident; it was of less\nmoment, in referring to an earlier prediction, to specify where this\nprediction was uttered. Hence from this comparison of the passages it\nmight already be held more probable that it was originally said, the\nangels directed the disciples to go into Galilee, there to see the\nrisen one (Matt.); but afterwards, when the narratives of the\nappearances of Jesus in Judea had gradually supplanted those in\nGalilee, a different turn was given to the mention of Galilee in the\naddress of the angel, so as to make it imply that already in Galilee\nJesus had predicted his resurrection (Luke); whereupon Mark appears to\nhave taken a middle course, since he with Luke refers the \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n(changed into \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd) to Jesus, but with Matthew retains Galilee as the\ntheatre, not of the earlier prediction of Jesus, but of the coming\nappearance.\n\nIf we next take into consideration the general character of the two\nnarratives and the nature of the case, there exist the same objections\nto the supposition that Jesus after his resurrection appeared several\ntimes to his disciples in and near Jerusalem, but that the remembrance\nof this fact was lost, and the same arguments in favour of the opposite\nsupposition, as we have respectively applied to the analogous\nalternatives in relation to the various journeys to the feasts and\nJud\u00e6an residences of Jesus. [2099] That the appearances of the risen\nJesus in Jerusalem should undesignedly, that is, by a total\nobliteration of them from the minds of individuals, have sunk into\noblivion in Galilee, where according to this presupposition the\ntradition of Matthew was formed, is difficult to conceive, both from\nthe pre-eminent importance of these appearances, which, as for example\nthose before the assembled eleven and before Thomas, involved the\nsurest attestations of the reality of his resurrection, and also from\nthe organizing influence of the community in Jerusalem; while that the\nJud\u00e6an appearances of Jesus were indeed known in Galilee, but\nintentionally suppressed by the author of the first gospel, in order to\npreserve the honour for his province alone, would presuppose an\nexclusivism, an opposition of the Galilean Christians to the church at\nJerusalem, of which we have not the slightest historical trace. The\nother contrary possibility, that perhaps originally only Galilean\nappearances of the risen Jesus were known, but that tradition gradually\nadded appearances in Judea and Jerusalem, and that at length these\ncompletely supplanted the former, may on many grounds be heightened\ninto a probability. First, as respects the time, the tidings of the\nresurrection of Jesus were the more striking, the more immediately his\nappearances followed on his burial and resurrection: if however he\nfirst appeared in Galilee, such an immediate sequence of the events\ncould not exist; further, it was a natural idea that the resurrection\nof Jesus must have been attested by appearances in the place where he\ndied; lastly, the objection that Jesus after his pretended resurrection\nonly appeared to his own friends, and in a corner of Galilee, was in\nsome degree repelled when it could be alleged that on the contrary, he\nwalked as one arisen from the dead in the metropolis, in the midst of\nhis furious enemies, though indeed he was neither to be taken nor seen\nby them. But when once several appearances of Jesus were laid in Judea\nand Jerusalem, the appearances in Galilee lost their importance, and\nmight thenceforth either be appended in a subordinate position, as in\nthe fourth gospel, or even be entirely overlooked, as in the third.\nThis result, drawn from the possible mode of legendary formation, not\nbeing opposed, as in the inquiry concerning the theatre of the ministry\nof the living Jesus, by a contrary one drawn from the circumstances and\ndesigns of Jesus: we may, in contradiction to the criticism of the day,\ndecide in favour of the first gospel, whose account of the appearance\nof the risen Jesus recommends itself as the more simple and free from\ndifficulty. [2100]\n\nAs regards the appearances of the risen Jesus taken singly, the first\ngospel has two: one on the morning of the resurrection to the women\n(xxviii. 9 f.), and one, the time of which is undetermined, before the\ndisciples in Galilee (xxviii. 16 f.). Mark, in what is indeed a merely\nsummary statement, enumerates three: the first, to Mary Magdalene on\nthe morning of the resurrection (xvi. 9 f.); a second, to two disciples\ngoing into the country (xvi. 12); and a third, to the eleven as they\nsat at meat, doubtless in Jerusalem (xvi. 14). Luke narrates only two\nappearances: that before the disciples going to Emmaus on the day of\nthe resurrection (xxiv. 13 ff.), and the last, before the eleven and\nother disciples in Jerusalem, according to xxiv. 36 ff., on the evening\nof the same day, according to the Acts i. 4 ff. forty days later; but\nwhen the travellers to Emmaus, on rejoining the apostles, are greeted\nby them, before Jesus has appeared in the midst of them, with the\ninformation: the Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon\n(xxiv. 34): here a third appearance is presupposed, which was granted\nto Peter alone. John has four such appearances: the first, to Mary\nMagdalene at the grave (xx. 14 ff.); the second to the disciples when\nthe doors were shut (xx. 19 ff.); the third, likewise in Jerusalem,\neight days later, when Thomas was convinced (xx. 26 ff.); the fourth,\nof which the time is unspecified, at the Galilean sea (xxi.). But here\nwe have also to take into consideration a statement of the Apostle\nPaul, who 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff., if we deduct the appearance of Christ\ngranted to himself, enumerates five appearances after the resurrection,\nwithout however giving any precise description of them: one to Cephas;\none to the twelve; one before more than five hundred brethren at once;\none to James; and lastly, one before all the apostles.\n\nNow how shall we make an orderly arrangement of these various\nappearances? The right of priority is, in John, and still more\nexpressly in Mark, claimed for that to Mary Magdalene. The second must\nhave been the meeting of Jesus with the women returning from the grave,\nin Matthew; but as Mary Magdalene was likewise among these, and there\nis no indication that she had previously seen Jesus, these two\nappearances cannot be regarded as distinct, but rather as one under two\ndifferent garbs. Paul, who in the above named passage speaks as if he\nmeant to enumerate all the appearances of the resuscitated Christ, of\nwhich he knew, omits the one in question; but it may perhaps be said in\nexplanation of this, that he did not choose to adduce the testimony of\nwomen. As the order in which he enumerates his Christophanies, to judge\nfrom the succession of \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 and \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 and the conclusion with \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\nappears to be the order of time: [2101] according to him the appearance\nbefore Cephas was the first that happened before a man. This would\nagree well with the representation of Luke, in which the journeyers to\nEmmaus, on rejoining the disciples in Jerusalem, are met by them with\nthe information that Jesus is really arisen and has appeared to Simon,\nwhich might possibly be the case before his interview with those two\ndisciples. As the next appearance, however, according to Luke, we must\nnumber that last named, which Paul would not mention, perhaps because\nhe chose to adduce only those which were seen by apostles, and from\namong the rest only those which happened before great masses of\nwitnesses, or more probably, because it was unknown to him. Mark xvi.\n12 f. evidently refers to the same appearance; the contradiction, that\nwhile in Luke the assembled disciples meet those coming from Emmaus\nwith the believing exclamation: the Lord is risen, etc., in Mark the\ndisciples are said to have remained incredulous even to the account of\nthose two witnesses, probably proceeds from nothing more than an\nexaggeration of Mark, who will not lose his hold of the contrast\nbetween the most convincing appearances of Jesus and the obstinate\nunbelief of the disciples. The appearance on the way to Emmaus is in\nLuke immediately followed by that in the assembly of the eleven and\nothers. This is generally held to be identical with the appearance\nbefore the twelve mentioned by Paul, and with that which John narrates\nwhen Jesus on the evening after the resurrection entered while the\ndoors were closed among the disciples, out of whose number, however,\nThomas was wanting. It is not fair to urge in opposition to this\nidentification the eleven of Luke, as at variance with the statement of\nJohn that only ten apostles were present, any more than the twelve of\nPaul, from which number Judas at least must be deducted; moreover the\nsimilar manner in which the two Evangelists describe the entrance of\nJesus by \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd and \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, and the greeting\ncited in both instances: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, appear to indicate the identity\nof the two appearances; nevertheless, if we consider that the handling\nof the body of Jesus, which in John first happens eight days later, and\nthe eating of the broiled fish, which John assigns to the still later\nappearance in Galilee, are connected by Luke with that scene in\nJerusalem on the day of the resurrection: it is evident that either the\nthird Evangelist has here compressed several incidents into one, or the\nfourth has divided one into several\u2014whichever alternative may be\nchosen. This appearance before the apostles in Jerusalem however, as\nhas been above remarked, according to Matthew could not have happened,\nsince this Evangelist makes the eleven journey to Galilee in order to\nsee Jesus. Mark, and Luke in his gospel, annex the ascension to this\nappearance, and thus exclude all subsequent ones. As the next\nappearance, the apostle Paul has that before five hundred brethren,\nwhich is generally regarded as the same with the one which Matthew\nplaces on a mountain in Galilee: [2102] but at this only the eleven are\nstated to have been present, and moreover the discourse of Jesus on the\noccasion, consisting principally of official instructions, appears more\nsuited to this narrow circle. Paul next adduces an appearance to James,\nof which there is also an apocryphal account, in the Hebrew gospel of\nJerome, according to which however it must have been the first of all.\n[2103] Here there would be space for that appearance in which,\naccording to the fourth gospel eight days after the resurrection of\nJesus, Thomas was convinced; wherewith Paul would closely agree, if his\nexpression, to all the apostles, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (v. 7), which he\nuses in relation to this appearance, were really to be understood of a\nfull assembly of the eleven in distinction from the earlier one, when\nThomas was not present: which however, as Paul, according to the above\npresupposition, had described this also as an appearance before the\ntwelve, is impossible; on the contrary, the apostle intends as well by\nthe \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1, twelve, as by \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, all the apostles, the\ncollective body of apostles (whose proper number was then indeed\nincomplete by one man), in opposition to the individuals (Cephas and\nJames) of whom in each case he had just before spoken, as having\nwitnessed a Christophany. If however we were nevertheless to regard the\nfifth appearance of Jesus according to Paul as identical with the third\nin John: it would only be the more clearly evident that the fourth of\nPaul, before the five hundred brethren, cannot have been the one in\nGalilee recorded by Matthew. For as, in John, the third took place in\nJerusalem, the fourth in Galilee: Jesus and the apostles must in that\ncase have gone into Galilee after the first appearances in Jerusalem,\nand have met on the mountain; then have returned to Jerusalem where\nJesus showed himself to Thomas; then again have proceeded into Galilee\nwhere the appearance by the sea occurred; and lastly, have once more\nreturned to Jerusalem for the ascension. In order to avoid this useless\njourneying backwards and forwards, and yet to be able to combine those\ntwo appearances, Olshausen lays the appearance before Thomas in\nGalilee: an inadmissible violence, since not only is there no mention\nof a change of place between this and the foregoing, which is by\nimplication represented as happening in Jerusalem, but the place of\nassembly is in both instances described in the same manner; nay the\naddition, the doors being shut, will not allow the supposition of any\nother locality than Jerusalem, because in Galilee, where there was less\nexcitement against Jesus from the enmity of the priesthood, there\ncannot be supposed to have been the same reason for that precaution, in\nthe fear of the Jews. Thus, first where the Judean appearances close\nwith that happening eight days after the resurrection, we should obtain\nroom to insert the Galilean appearances of Matthew and John. But these\nhave the peculiar position, that each claims to be the first, and that\nof Matthew at the same time the last. [2104] By the tenor of his whole\nnarrative, and expressly by adding, after the statement that the\ndisciples went to a mountain in Galilee, the words: where Jesus had\nappointed them, \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f10\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f38., Matthew marks this appearance\nas the one to which Jesus had referred on the morning of the\nresurrection, first by the angel, and then in his own person; but no\none concerts a second meeting in a particular place, leaving the first\nundetermined: consequently, as an unforeseen earlier meeting is\nincompatible with the evangelical idea of Jesus, [2105] that meeting,\nsince it was the concerted one, was also the first in Galilee. If thus\nthe appearance at the sea of Tiberias in John, cannot possibly be\nplaced before that on the mountain in Matthew: so the latter will just\nas little suffer the other to follow it, since it is a formal\nleave-taking of Jesus from his disciples. Moreover, it would be more\nthan ever difficult to understand how the appearance in John could be\nmade out, in accordance with the Evangelist\u2019s own statement, to be the\nthird \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of the risen Christ before his disciples (xxi. 14), if\nthat of the first gospel must also be supposed to precede it.\nMeanwhile, even allowing the priority to the former, this numerical\nnotice of John remains sufficiently perplexing. We might, it is true,\ndeduct the appearances before the women, because, though John himself\nnarrates that to Mary Magdalene, he does not take it into his account;\nbut if we number that to Cephas as the first, and that on the way to\nEmmaus as the second: then this Galilean appearance, as the third,\nwould fall between the above and that before the eleven on the evening\nof the resurrection, which would presuppose a rapidity of locomotion\ntotally impossible; nay, if that appearance before the assembled eleven\nis the same with the one at which, according to John, Thomas was\nabsent, the third appearance of John would fall before his first.\nPerhaps, however, when we consider the expression: showed himself to\nhis disciples, \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, we ought to understand\nthat John only numbers such appearances as happened before several\ndisciples at once, so that those before Peter and James should be\ndeducted. In that case, we must number as the first, the appearance to\nthe two disciples going to Emmaus; as the second, that before the\nassembled eleven on the evening of the resurrection: and thus in the\neight days between this and the one before Thomas, the journey into\nGalilee would fall somewhat more conveniently,\u2014but also the third\nappearance of John would fall before his second. Perhaps, then, the\nauthor of the fourth gospel held the two disciples whom Jesus met on\nthe way to Emmaus too small a number, to entitle this Christophany to\nrank as a \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2. On this supposition the entrance\nof Jesus among the assembled disciples in the evening would be the\nfirst appearance; hereupon the five hundred brethren to whom Jesus\nshowed himself at once would surely be numerous enough to be taken into\nthe reckoning: so that the Galilean appearance of John, that is, his\nthird, must be inserted after this, but then it would still fall before\nthat to Thomas and all the apostles, which John enumerates as the\nsecond. Perhaps, however, the appearance of Jesus before the five\nhundred is to be placed later, so that after that entrance of Jesus\namong the assembled disciples would first follow the scene with Thomas,\nafter this the appearance at the sea of Galilee, and only then the\nsight of Jesus granted to the five hundred. But if the appearance\nbefore Thomas is to be reckoned the same with the fifth in Paul\u2019s\nenumeration, this apostle must have reversed the order of his two last\nappearances, a transposition for which there was no reason: on the\ncontrary, it would have been more natural to place last the appearance\nbefore the five hundred brethren, as the most important. Thus nothing\nremains but to say: John understood under the word \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 merely a\ngreater or a smaller assembly of the apostles; but among the five\nhundred there was no apostle; hence he omitted these also, and thus\ncorrectly numbered the appearance at the sea of Tiberias as the third:\nif indeed this could have happened before the one on the mountain in\nGalilee, which, we have seen, to be inconceivable. The above expedients\nresorted to by way of accommodation are in part ridiculous enough: but\nKern has lately surpassed them all by a suggestion which he advances\nwith great confidence, namely, that John here intends to number, not\nthe appearances, but the days on which appearances took place, so that\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41 \u1f38. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, this is now the third\ntime that Jesus showed himself to the disciples, means: now had Jesus\nalready appeared to his disciples on three separate days: namely, four\ntimes on the day of the resurrection; then once eight days after; and\nnow again some days later. [2106] Renouncing such expedients, nothing\nremains but to acknowledge that the fourth Evangelist numbers only\nthose appearances of Jesus to his disciples, which he had himself\nnarrated; and the reason of this can scarcely have been that the rest,\nfrom some cause or other, appeared to him less important, but rather\nthat he knew nothing of them. [2107] And again, Matthew with his last\nGalilean appearance, can have known nothing of the two in Jerusalem\nrecorded by John; for if in the first of these ten apostles had been\nconvinced of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus, and in the\nsecond Thomas also: it could not have been that at that later\nappearance on the mountain in Galilee some of the eleven (for only\nthese are represented by Matthew as going thither) still doubted (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, v. 17). Lastly, if Jesus here delivered to his disciples the\nfinal command to go into all the world teaching and baptizing, and gave\nthem the promise to be with them until the end of the existing age,\nwhich is manifestly the tone of one who is taking leave: he cannot\nsubsequently, as is narrated in the introduction to the Acts, have\ncommunicated to them his last commands and taken leave of them at\nJerusalem. According to the conclusion of the gospel of Luke, this\nfarewell departure on the contrary occurs much earlier than can be\nsupposed in accordance with Matthew; and in the close of the gospel of\nMark, where Jesus is represented as parting from his disciples in\nJerusalem on the very day of his resurrection, partly the same words\nare put into his mouth as, according to Matthew, are spoken in Galilee,\nand in any case later than on the day of the resurrection. The fact,\nthat the two books of the same author, Luke, diverge so widely from\neach other in relation to the time during which Jesus appeared to his\ndisciples after his resurrection, that one determines this time to have\nbeen a single day, the other, forty days, cannot be taken into more\nparticular consideration until we have reached a farther point of our\ninquiry.\n\nThus the various evangelical writers only agree as to a few of the\nappearances of Jesus after his resurrection; the designation of the\nlocality in one excludes the appearances narrated by the rest; the\ndetermination of time in another leaves no space for the narratives of\nhis fellow Evangelists; the enumeration of a third is given without any\nregard to the events reported by his predecessors; lastly, among\nseveral appearances recounted by various narrators, each claims to be\nthe last, and yet has nothing in common with the others. Hence nothing\nbut wilful blindness can prevent the perception that no one of the\nnarrators knew and presupposed what another records; that each again\nhad heard a different account of the matter; and that consequently at\nan early period, there were current only uncertain and very varied\nreports concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus. [2108]\n\nThis conclusion, however, does not shake the passage in the first\nEpistle to the Corinthians which, (it being undoubtedly genuine,) was\nwritten about the year 59 after Christ, consequently not 30 years after\nhis resurrection. On this authority we must believe that many members\nof the primitive church who were yet living at the time when this\nepistle was written, especially the apostles, were convinced that they\nhad witnessed appearances of the risen Christ. Whether this involves\nthe admission that some objective reality lay at the foundation of\nthese appearances, will hereafter become the subject of inquiry;\nconcerning the present point, the divergencies of the Evangelists,\nespecially in relation to the locality, the passage of Paul offers\nnothing decisive, since he has given no particular description of any\nof those appearances.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 139.\n\nQUALITY OF THE BODY AND LIFE OF JESUS AFTER THE RESURRECTION.\n\nBut how are we to represent to ourselves this continuation of the life\nof Jesus after the resurrection, and especially the nature of his body\nin this period? In order to answer this question we must once more cast\na glance over the separate narratives of his appearances when risen.\n\nAccording to Matthew, Jesus on the morning of the resurrection meets\n(\u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd) the women as they are hastening back from the grave; they\nrecognize him, embrace his feet in sign of veneration, and he speaks to\nthem. At the second interview on the Galilean mountain the disciples\nsee him (\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2), but some still doubt, and here also Jesus speaks to\nthem. Of the manner in which he came and went, we have here no precise\ninformation.\n\nIn Luke, Jesus joins the two disciples who are on their way from\nJerusalem to the neighbouring village of Emmaus (\u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2); they do not recognize him on the way, a circumstance which\nLuke attributes to a subjective hindrance produced in them by a higher\ninfluence (\u03bf\u1f31 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd), and\nonly Mark, who compresses this event into few words, to an objective\nalteration of his form (\u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1fc7). On the way Jesus converses\nwith the two disciples, after their arrival in the village complies\nwith their invitation to accompany them to their lodging, sits down to\ntable with them, and proceeds according to his wont to break and\ndistribute bread. In this moment the miraculous spell is withdrawn from\nthe eyes of the disciples, and they know him: [2109] but in the same\nmoment he becomes invisible to them (\u1f04\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd). Just\nas suddenly as he here vanished, he appears to have shown himself\nimmediately after in the assembly of the disciples, when it is said\nthat he all at once stood in the midst of them (\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd),\nand they, terrified at the sight, supposed that they saw a spirit. To\ndispel this alarming idea, Jesus showed them his hands and feet, and\ninvited them to touch him, that by feeling his flesh and bones then\nmight convince themselves that he was no spectre; he also caused a\npiece of broiled fish and of honeycomb to be brought to him, and ate it\nin their presence. The appearance to Simon is in Luke described by the\nexpression \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7; Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians uses the\nsame verb for all the Christophanies there enumerated, and Luke in the\nActs comprises all the appearances of the risen Jesus during the forty\ndays under the expressions \u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (i. 3) and \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (x.\n40). In the same manner Mark describes the appearance to Mary Magdalene\nby \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7, and those to the disciples on the way to Emmaus and to the\neleven by \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7. John describes the appearance at the sea of\nTiberias by \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1f72\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, and to all the Christophanies narrated\nby him he applies the word \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7. Mark and Luke add, as the close\nof the earthly life of the risen Jesus, that he was taken away from\nbefore the eyes of the disciples, and (by a cloud, according to Acts i.\n9) carried up to heaven.\n\nIn the fourth gospel Jesus first stands behind Mary Magdalene as she is\nturning away from the grave; she however, does not recognize him even\nwhen he speaks to her, but takes him for the gardener, until he (in the\ntone so familiar to her) calls her by her name. When on this she\nattempts to manifest her veneration, Jesus prevents her by the words:\nTouch me not, \u03bc\u03ae \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, and sends her with a message to the\ndisciples. The second appearance of Jesus in John occurred under\npeculiarly remarkable circumstances. The disciples were assembled, from\nfear of the hostile Jews, with closed doors: when all at once Jesus\ncame and stood in the midst of them, greeted them, and\npresented\u2014apparently to their sight only\u2014his hands and feet, that they\nmight recognize him as their crucified master. When Thomas, who was not\npresent, refused to be convinced by the account of his fellow disciples\nof the reality of this appearance, and required for his satisfaction\nhimself to see and touch the wounds of Jesus: the latter, in an\nappearance eight days after, granted him this proof, making him touch\nthe marks of the nails in his hands and the wound in his side. Lastly,\nat the appearance by the sea of Galilee, Jesus stood on the shore in\nthe morning twilight, without being known by the disciples in the ship,\nasked them for fish, and was at length recognized by John, through the\nrich draught of fishes which he procured them; still, however, the\ndisciples, when come to land, did not venture to ask him whether it\nwere really he. Hereupon he distributed among them bread and fish, of\nwhich he doubtless himself partook, and finally held a conversation\nwith John and Peter. [2110]\n\nNow the general ideas which may be formed of the life of Jesus after\nhis resurrection are two: either it was a natural and perfectly human\nlife, and accordingly his body continued to be subject to the physical\nand organic laws; or his life was already of a higher, superhuman\ncharacter, and his body supernatural and transfigured: and the\naccounts, taken unitedly, present certain traits to which, on the first\nview, each of these two ideas may respectively appeal. The human form\nwith its natural members, the possibility of being known by means of\nthem, the continuance of the marks of the wounds, the human speech, the\nacts of walking and breaking bread,\u2014all these appear to speak in favour\nof a perfectly natural life on the part of Jesus even after the\nresurrection. If it were possible still to demur to this, and to\nconjecture, that even a higher, heavenly corporeality might give itself\nsuch an aspect and perform such functions: all doubts must be quelled\nby the further statement, that Jesus after the resurrection consumed\nearthly food, and allowed himself to be touched. Such things are indeed\nascribed even to higher beings in old myths, as for example, eating to\nthe heavenly forms from whom Abraham received a visit (Gen. xviii. 8),\nand palpability to the God that wrestled with Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 24\nff.): but it must nevertheless be insisted that in reality both these\nconditions can only belong to material, organized bodies. Hence not\nonly the rationalists, but even orthodox expositors, consider these\nparticulars as an irrefragable proof that the body and life of Jesus\nafter the resurrection must be regarded as remaining still natural and\nhuman. [2111] This opinion is further supported by the remark, that in\nthe state of the risen Jesus there is observable precisely the same\nprogress as might be expected in the gradual, natural cure of a person\nseverely wounded. In the first hours after the resurrection he is\nobliged to remain in the vicinity of the grave; in the afternoon his\nstrength suffices for a walk to the neighbouring village of Emmaus; and\nonly later is he able to undertake the more distant journey into\nGalilee. Then also in the permission to touch his body there exists the\nremarkable gradation, that on the morning of the resurrection Jesus\nforbids Mary Magdalene to touch him, because his wounded body was as\nyet too suffering and sensitive; but eight days later, he himself\ninvites Thomas to touch his wounds. Even the circumstance that Jesus\nafter his resurrection was so seldom with his disciples and for so\nshort a time, is, according to this explanation, a proof that he had\nbrought from the grave his natural, human body, for such an one would\nnecessarily feel so weak from the wounds and torture of the cross, as\nalways after short periods of exertion to require longer intervals of\nquiet retirement.\n\nBut the New Testament narratives, as we have seen, also contain\nparticulars which favour the opposite idea of the corporeality of Jesus\nafter the resurrection: hence the advocates of the opinion hitherto\ndetailed must undertake so to interpret these apparently antagonistic\nfeatures that they may no longer present a contradiction. Here it may\nseem that the very expressions by which the appearances of Jesus are\nordinarily introduced, as \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 used of the appearance in the burning\nbush (Exod. iii. 2, LXX.); \u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, of the appearance of the angel\nin Tobit xii. 19; \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7, of the angelic appearances in Matt. i. and\nii., may seem already to point to something supernatural. As still more\ndecided indications, the idea of a natural going and coming which may\nbe presupposed in some scenes, is contradicted in others by a sudden\nappearance and disappearance; the supposition of an ordinary human body\nis opposed by the frequent non-recognition on the part of friends, nay,\nby the express mention of another form, \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74; above all, the\npalpability of the body of Jesus appears to be opposed by the\ncapability which, according to the first impression from the text, is\nlent to him in John, namely, that of entering through closed doors.\nBut, that Mary Magdalene mistook Jesus at first for the gardener, is\nthought even by commentators who ordinarily are not diffident of the\nmiraculous, to be most probably accounted for by the supposition that\nJesus had borrowed clothes from the gardener, who very likely dwelt\nnear to the grave; moreover, say these writers, both in this instance\nand in the journey to Emmaus, the disfiguration of the countenance of\nJesus by the sufferings of crucifixion may have contributed to prevent\nhis being recognized, and these two circumstances are alone to be\nunderstood from the expression \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74, another form, in Mark.\n[2112] As to the disciples going to Emmaus, in the joyful astonishment\ncaused by the sudden recognition of him whom they had believed dead,\nJesus, it is said, may easily have withdrawn from them unobserved in\nthe most natural manner; which, however, they, to whom the whole fact\nof the resuscitation of Jesus was a miracle, might regard as a\nsupernatural disappearance. [2113] Nor, we are told, do the\nexpressions: \u1f12\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd or \u03b5\u1f31\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd he stood in the midst\nof them, especially in John, where they are accompanied by the ordinary\nwords \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd he came, and \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 he comes, imply anything supernatural,\nbut merely the startling arrival of one who had just been spoken of,\nwithout his being expected; and the assembled disciples took him for a\nspirit, not because he entered in a miraculous manner, but because they\ncould not believe in the real resuscitation of their deceased master.\n[2114] Lastly, even the trait which is supposed to be decisive against\nthe opinion that the body of the risen Jesus was a natural and human\none,\u2014the coming when the doors were shut \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd in\nJohn,\u2014has long been interpreted even by orthodox theologians so as no\nlonger to present any obstacle to that opinion. We will not discuss\nexplanations such as that of Heumann, according to which the doors were\nnot those of the house in which the disciples were assembled, but the\ndoors of Jerusalem in general, and the statement that they were shut is\nan intimation of its having been that hour of the night in which it was\ncustomary to close the doors, while the fear of the Jews represents the\nmotive, not for the closing of the doors, but for the assembling of the\ndisciples. Apart from these expedients, Calvin himself pronounces the\nopinion that the body of the risen Jesus passed per medium ferrum et\nasseres, to be pueriles arguti\u00e6, for which the text gives no occasion,\nsince it does not say that Jesus entered per januas clausas, but only\nthat he suddenly appeared among his disciples, cum claus\u00e6 essent janu\u00e6.\n[2115] Still Calvin upholds the entrance of Jesus of which John here\nspeaks as a miracle, which must consequently be supposed to consist in\nthis, that Jesus entered cum fores claus\u00e6 fuissent, sed qu\u00e6 Domino\nveniente subito patuerunt ad nutum divin\u00e6 majestatis ejus. [2116] While\nmore modern orthodox divines only contend for the less definite\nposition, that in the entrance of Jesus some miracle took place, its\nprecise character being unascertained. [2117] Rationalism has found\nmeans entirely to banish the miraculous from the event. The closed\ndoors, we are told, were opened to Jesus by human hands; which John\nomits to notice, only because it is understood as a matter of course,\nnay, it would have been absurd of him to say: they opened the doors for\nhim, and he went in. [2118]\n\nBut in thus interpreting the words \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\ntheologians have been by no means unprejudiced. Least of all Calvin;\nfor when he says, the papists maintain a real penetration of the body\nof Jesus through closed doors in order to gain support for their tenet\nthat the body of Christ is immense, and contained in no place, ut\ncorpus Christi immensum esse, nulloque loco contineri obtineant: it is\nplain that he combats that interpretation of the words of John merely\nto avoid giving any countenance to the offensive doctrine of the\nubiquity of Christ\u2019s body. The more modern expositors, on the other\nhand, were interested in avoiding the contradiction which to our\nperceptions is contained in the statement, that a body can consist of\nsolid matter, and yet pass without hindrance through other solid\nmatter: but as we know not whether this was also a contradiction in the\nview of the New Testament writers, the apprehension of it gives us no\nauthority to discard that interpretation, providing it be shown to be\nin accordance with the text. We might certainly, on a partial\nconsideration, understand the expression the doors being shut, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, as an intimation of the anxious state into which\nthe disciples were thrown by the death of Jesus. But already the\ncircumstance that this particular is repeated on the appearance of\nJesus before Thomas excites doubts, since if the above was the only\nmeaning, it was scarcely worth while to repeat the observation. [2119]\nBut as in fact in this second instance the above cause for the closing\nof the doors no longer exists, while the words \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\nare immediately united with \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, he comes: what was before the most\napparent meaning, namely, that they are intended to determine the\nmanner of the coming of Jesus, is here heightened into a probability.\n[2120] Further, the repeated statement that Jesus came when the doors\nwere closed is again followed by the words \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, which\neven in connexion with \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, to which they are related as a more\nprecise determination, imply that Jesus suddenly presented himself,\nwithout his approach having been seen: whence it is undeniably evident\nthat the writer here speaks of a coming without the ordinary means,\nconsequently, of a miraculous coming. But did this miracle consist in\npassing through the boards of the doors? This is combated even by those\nwho espouse the cause of miracles in general, and they confidently\nappeal to the fact, that it is nowhere said, he entered through the\nclosed doors \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. [2121] But the Evangelist does\nnot mean to convey the precise notion that Jesus, as Michaelis\nexpresses himself, passed straight through the pores of the wood of\nwhich the doors were made; he merely means that the doors were shut and\nremained so, and nevertheless Jesus suddenly stood in the\nchamber,\u2014walls, doors, in short all material barriers, forming no\nobstacle to his entrance. Thus in reply to their unjust demand of us,\nto show them in the text of John a precise determination which is quite\naway from the intention of this writer, we must ask them to explain why\nhe has not noticed the (miraculous) opening of the doors, if he\npresupposed such a circumstance? In relation to this point Calvin very\ninfelicitously refers to Acts xii. 6 ff., where it is narrated of\nPeter, that he came out of the closed prison; no one, he says, here\nsupposes that the doors remained closed, and that Peter penetrated\nthrough wood and iron. Assuredly not; because here it is expressly said\nof the iron gate of the prison which led into the city, that it opened\nto him of its own accord (v. 10). This observation serves to give so\nlively and graphic an idea of the miracle, that our Evangelist would\ncertainly not, in two instances, have omitted a similar one, if he had\nthought of a miraculous opening of the doors.\n\nThus in this narrative of John the supernatural will not admit of being\nremoved or diminished: nor is the natural explanation more satisfactory\nin relation to the expressions by which Luke describes the coming and\ngoing of Jesus. For if, according to this Evangelist, his coming was a\nstanding in the midst of the disciples, \u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, his\ngoing a becoming invisible to them, \u1f04\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd: the\nconcurrence of these two representations, taken in connexion with the\nterror of the disciples and their mistaking him for a spirit, will\nhardly allow the supposition of anything else than a miraculous\nappearance. Besides, if we might perhaps form some idea how Jesus could\nenter in a natural manner without being observed into a room filled\nwith men: we should still be at a loss to imagine how it could be\npossible for him, when he sat at table at Emmaus, apparently with the\ntwo disciples alone, to withdraw himself from them unobserved, and so\nthat they were not able to follow him. [2122]\n\nThat Mark, under the words \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74 understands a form miraculously\naltered, ought never to have been denied; [2123] but this is a point of\nminor importance, because it involves only the narrator\u2019s own\ninterpretation of the circumstance which had been already stated, but\nwith a different explanation, by Luke: namely, that the two disciples\ndid not know Jesus. That Mary Magdalene took Jesus for the gardener,\nwas hardly, in the view of the Evangelist, the consequence of his\nhaving borrowed the gardener\u2019s clothes: rather, the spirit of the\nnarrative would require us to explain her not knowing him by supposing\nthat her eyes were held (\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Luke xxiv. 16), or that Jesus had\nassumed another form; while her taking him for the gardener might then\nbe simply accounted for by the fact that she met the unknown man in the\ngarden. Nor are we authorized by the evangelical narratives to suppose\na disfiguration of Jesus by the sufferings of the cross, and a gradual\nhealing of his wounds. The words Touch me not in John, if they were to\nbe regarded as a prohibition of a touch as painful, would be in\ncontradiction, not merely with Matthew, according to whom Jesus on the\nsame morning\u2014that of the resurrection\u2014allowed the women to embrace his\nfeet, but also with Luke, according to whom he on the same day invited\nthe disciples to handle him; and we must then ask, which representation\nis correct? But there is nothing at all in the context to intimate that\nJesus forbade Mary to touch him for fear of pain; he may have done so\nfrom various motives: concerning which, however, the obscurity of the\npassage has hitherto precluded any decision. [2124]\n\nBut the most singularly perverted inference is this: that the\ninfrequent and brief interviews of Jesus with his disciples after the\nresurrection are a proof that he was as yet too weak for long and\nmultiplied efforts, and consequently was undergoing a natural cure. On\nthis very supposition of his needing bodily tendance, he should have\nbeen not seldom, but constantly, with his disciples, who were those\nfrom whom he could the most immediately expect such tendance. For where\nare we to suppose that he dwelt in the long intervals between his\nappearances? in solitude? in the open air? in the wilderness and on\nmountains? That was no suitable abode for an invalid, and nothing\nremains but to suppose that he must have been concealed among secret\ncolleagues of whom even his disciples knew nothing. But thus to conceal\nhis real abode even from his own disciples, to show himself to them\nonly seldom, and designedly to present and withdraw himself suddenly,\nwould be a kind of double dealing, an affectation of the supernatural,\nwhich would exhibit Jesus and his cause in a light foreign to the\nobject itself so far as it lies before us in our original sources of\ninformation, and only thrown upon it by the dark lantern of modern, yet\nalready obsolete, conceptions. The opinion of the Evangelists is no\nother than that the risen Jesus, after those short appearances among\nhis followers, withdrew like a higher being into invisibility, from\nwhich, on fitting occasions, he again stept forth. [2125]\n\nLastly, on the presupposition that Jesus by his resurrection returned\nto a purely natural existence, what conception must be formed of his\nend? In consistency he must be supposed, whether at the end of a longer\n[2126] or a shorter time after his resuscitation, to have died a\nnatural death; and accordingly Paulus intimates that the too intensely\naffected body of Jesus, notwithstanding it had recovered from the\ndeath-like rigidity produced by crucifixion, was yet completely worn\nout by natural maladies and consuming fever. [2127] That this is at\nleast not the view of the Evangelists concerning the end of Jesus is\nevident, since two of them represent him as taking leave of his\ndisciples like an immortal, the others as being visibly carried up to\nheaven. Thus before the ascension, at the latest, if until then Jesus\nhad retained a natural human body, it must have undergone a change\nwhich qualified him to dwell in the heavenly regions; the sediment of\ngross corporeality must have fallen to the earth, and only its finest\nessence have ascended. But of any natural remains of the ascended Jesus\nthe Evangelists say nothing; and as the disciples who were spectators\nof his ascension must have observed them had there been such, nothing\nis left for the upholders of this opinion but the expedient of certain\ntheologians of the T\u00fcbingen school, who regard as the residuum of the\ncorporeality of Jesus, the cloud which enveloped him in his ascension,\nand in which what was material in him is supposed to have been\ndissolved and as it were evaporated. [2128] As thus the Evangelists\nneither represent to themselves the end of the earthly life of Jesus\nafter the resurrection as a natural death, nor mention any change\nundergone by his body at the ascension, and moreover narrate of Jesus\nin the interval between the resurrection and ascension things which are\ninconceivable of a natural body: they cannot have represented to\nthemselves his life after the resurrection as natural, but only as\nsupernatural, nor his body as material and organic, but only as\ntransfigured.\n\nIn the point of view held by the Evangelists, this conception is not\ncontradicted even by those particulars which the friends of the purely\nnatural opinion respecting the life of the risen Jesus are accustomed\nto urge in their support. That Jesus ate and drank was, in the circle\nof ideas within which the gospels originated, as far from presupposing\na real necessity, as the meal of which Jehovah partook with two angels\nin the tent of Abraham: the power of eating is here no proof of a\nnecessity for eating. [2129] That he caused himself to be touched, was\nthe only possible mode of refuting the conjecture that an incorporeal\nspectre had appeared to the disciples; moreover, divine existences, not\nmerely in Grecian, but also (according to the passage above quoted,\nGen. xxxii. 24) in Hebrew antiquity, sometimes appeared palpable, in\ndistinction from unsubstantial shades, though they otherwise showed\nthemselves as little bound by the laws of materiality as the palpable\nJesus, when he suddenly vanished, and was able to penetrate without\nhindrance into a room of which the door was closed. [2130]\n\nIt is quite another question, whether on our more advanced position,\nand with our more correct knowledge of nature, those two different\nclasses of particulars can be held compatible with each other. Here we\nmust certainly say: a body which consumes visible food, must itself be\nvisible; the consumption of food presupposes an organism, but an\norganism is organized matter, and this has not the property of\nalternately vanishing and becoming visible again at will. [2131] More\nespecially, if the body of Jesus was capable of being felt, and\npresented perceptible flesh and bones, it thus exhibited the\nimpenetrability of matter, proper to it as solid: if on the other hand\nhe was able to pass into closed houses and rooms, unhindered by the\ninterposition of walls and doors, he thus proved that the\nimpenetrability of solid matter did not belong to him. Since then\naccording to the evangelical accounts he must at the same time have had\nand not have had the same property: the evangelical representation of\nthe corporeality of Jesus after the resurrection is manifested to be\ncontradictory. And this contradiction is not of such a kind that it is\ndivided among the different narrators; but the account of one and the\nsame Evangelist includes those contradictory features within itself.\nThe brief account of Matthew, it is true, implies in the embracing of\nthe feet of Jesus by the women (v. 9) only the attribute of\npalpability, without at the same time presenting an opposite one; with\nMark the case is reversed, his statement that Jesus appeared in another\nform (v. 12) implying something supernatural, while on the other hand\nhe does not decidedly presuppose the opposite; in Luke, on the other\nhand, the permission to touch his body and the act of eating speak as\ndecidedly in favour of organic materiality, as the sudden appearance\nand disappearance speak against it; but the members of this\ncontradiction come the most directly into collision in John, where\nJesus, immediately after he has entered into the closed room unimpeded\nby walls and doors, [2132] causes the doubting Thomas to touch him.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 140.\n\nDEBATES CONCERNING THE REALITY OF THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS.\n\nThe proposition: a dead man has returned to life, is composed of two\nsuch contradictory elements, that whenever it is attempted to maintain\nthe one, the other threatens to disappear. If he has really returned to\nlife, it is natural to conclude that he was not wholly dead; if he was\nreally dead, it is difficult to believe that he has really become\nliving. [2133]\n\nWhen we form a correct opinion of the relation between soul and body,\nnot abstractly separating the two, but conceiving them at once in their\nidentity, the soul as the interior of the body, the body as the\nexterior of the soul, we know not how to imagine, to say nothing of\ncomprehending, the revivification of a dead person. What we call the\nsoul is the governing centre which holds in combination the powers and\noperations of the body; its function, or rather the soul itself,\nconsists in keeping all other processes of which the body is\nsusceptible in uninterrupted subjection to the superior unity of the\nprocess of organic life, which in man is the basis of his spiritual\nnature: so soon as this regulating power ceases to act, the supremacy\nin the various parts of the body is assumed by these other, inferior\nprinciples, whose work in its prosecution is corruption. When once\nthese have acceded to the dominion, they will not be inclined to render\nit back to their former monarch, the soul; or rather this is\nimpossible, because, quite apart from the question of the immortality\nof the human spirit (Geist), the soul (Seele) as such ceases in the\nsame moment with its dominion and activity, which constitute its\nexistence; consequently, in a revivification, even if resort be had to\na miracle, this must consist in the direct creation of a new soul.\n\nOnly in the dualism which has become popular on the subject of the\nrelation between body and soul, is there anything to favour the opinion\nof the possibility of a revivification properly so called. In this\nsystem, the soul in its relation to the body is represented as like a\nbird, which, though it may for a time have flown out of the cage, can\nyet be once more caught and replaced in its former abode; and it is to\nsuch figures that an imaginative species of thought cleaves, in order\nto preserve the notion of revivification. But even in this dualistic\nview, the inconceivability of such an event is rather concealed than\nreally diminished. For in the most abstract separation, the\nco-existence of the body and soul cannot be held as indifferent and\nlifeless as that of a box and its contents; on the contrary, the\npresence of the soul in the body produces effects, which again are the\nconditions whereby that presence is rendered possible. Thus so soon as\nthe soul has forsaken the body, there is a cessation in the latter of\nthose activities which according to the dualistic idea were the\nimmediate expressions of the influence of the soul; at the same time,\nthe organs of these activities\u2014brain, blood, etc., begin to stagnate; a\nchange which is coincident with the moment of death. Thus if it could\noccur to the departed soul, or be imposed on it by another, to re-enter\nits former dwelling-place: it would find this dwelling, even after the\nfirst moments, uninhabitable in its noblest parts, and unfit for use.\nTo restore, in the same way as an infirm member, the most immediate\norgans of its activity, is an impossibility to the soul, since in order\nto effect anything in the body it has need of the service of these very\norgans: thus the soul, although remanded into the body, must suffer it\nto decay, from inability to exercise any influence over it; or there\nmust be added to the miracle of its reconveyance into the body, the\nsecond miracle of a restoration of the lifeless bodily organs: an\nimmediate interposition of God in the regular course of nature,\nirreconcileable with enlightened ideas of the relation of God to the\nworld.\n\nHence the cultivated intellect of the present day has very decidedly\nstated the following dilemma: either Jesus was not really dead, or he\ndid not really rise again.\n\nRationalism has principally given its adhesion to the former opinion.\nThe short time that Jesus hung on the cross, together with the\notherwise ascertained tardiness of death by crucifixion, and the\nuncertain nature and effects of the wound from the spear, appeared to\nrender the reality of the death doubtful. That the agents in the\ncrucifixion, as well as the disciples themselves, entertained no such\ndoubt, would be explained not only by the general difficulty of\ndistinguishing deep swoons and the rigidity of syncope from real death,\nbut also from the low state of medical science in that age; while at\nleast one example of the restoration of a crucified person appeared to\nrender conceivable a resuscitation in the case of Jesus also. This\nexample is found in Josephus, who informs us that of three crucified\nacquaintances whose release he begged from Titus, two died after being\ntaken down from the cross, but one survived. [2134] How long these\npeople had hung on the cross Josephus does not mention; but from the\nmanner in which he connects them with his expedition to Thekoah, by\nstating that he saw them on his return from thence, they must probably\nhave been crucified during this expedition, and as this, from the\ntrifling distance of the above place from Jerusalem, might possibly be\nachieved in a day, they had in all probability not hung on the cross\nmore than a day, and perhaps a yet shorter time. These three persons,\nthen, can scarcely have hung much longer than Jesus, who, according to\nMark, was on the cross from nine in the morning till towards six in the\nevening, and they were apparently taken down while they still showed\nsigns of life; yet with the most careful medical tendance only one\nsurvived. Truly it is difficult to perceive how it can hence be shown\nprobable that Jesus, who when taken from the cross showed all the signs\nof death, should have come to life entirely of himself, without the\napplication of medical skill. [2135]\n\nAccording to a certain opinion, however, these two conditions\u2014some\nremains of conscious life, and careful medical treatment\u2014were not\nwanting in the case of Jesus, although they are not mentioned by the\nEvangelists. Jesus, we are told, seeing no other way of purifying the\nprevalent messianic idea from the admixture of material and political\nhopes, exposed himself to crucifixion, but in doing so relied on the\npossibility of procuring a speedy removal from the cross by early\nbowing his head, and of being afterwards restored by the medical skill\nof some among his secret colleagues; so as to inspirit the people at\nthe same time by the appearance of a resurrection. [2136] Others have\nat least exonerated Jesus from such contrivance, and have admitted that\nhe really sank into a deathlike slumber; but have ascribed to his\ndisciples a preconceived plan of producing apparent death by means of a\npotion, and thus by occasioning his early removal from the cross,\nsecuring his restoration to life. [2137] But of all this our\nevangelical sources give no intimation, and for conjecturing such\ndetails we have no ground. Judicious friends of the natural\nexplanation, who repudiate such monstrous productions of a system which\nremodels history at will, have hence renounced the supposition of any\nremains of conscious life in Jesus, and have contented themselves, for\nthe explanation of his revivification, with the vital force which\nremained in his still young and vigorous body, even after the cessation\nof consciousness; and have pointed out, instead of premeditated\ntendance by the hands of men, the beneficial influence which the partly\noleaginous substances applied to his body must have had in promoting\nthe healing of his wounds, and, united with the air in the cave,\nimpregnated with the perfumes of the spices, in reawakening feeling and\nconsciousness in Jesus; [2138] to all which was added as a decisive\nimpulse, the earthquake and the lightning which on the morning of the\nresurrection opened the grave of Jesus. [2139] Others have remarked, in\nopposition to this, that the cold air in the cave must have had\nanything rather than a vivifying tendency; that strong aromatics in a\nconfined space would rather have had a stupefying and stifling\ninfluence; [2140] and the same effect must have been produced by a\nflash of lightning bursting into the grave, if this were not a mere\nfigment of rationalistic expositors.\n\nNotwithstanding all these improbabilities, which are against the\nopinion that Jesus came to life after a merely apparent death by the\noperation of natural causes, this nevertheless remains so far possible,\nthat if we had secure evidence of the resuscitation of Jesus, we might,\non the strength of such certainty as to the result, supply the\nomissions in the narrative, and approve the opinion above\npresented,\u2014with the rejection, however, of all precise conjectures.\nSecure evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, would be the attestation\nof it in a decided and accordant manner by impartial witnesses. But the\nimpartiality of the alleged witnesses for the resurrection of Jesus, is\nthe very point which the opponents of Christianity, from Celsus down to\nthe Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist, have invariably called in question. Jesus\nshowed himself to his adherents only: why not also to his enemies, that\nthey too might be convinced, and that by their testimony posterity\nmight be precluded from every conjecture of a designed fraud on the\npart of his disciples? [2141] I cannot certainly attach much weight to\nthe replies by which apologists have sought to repel this objection,\nfrom that of Origen, who says: Christ avoided the judge who condemned\nhim, and his enemies, that they might not be smitten with blindness;\n[2142] to the opinions of the modern theologians, who by their\nvacillation between the assertion that by such an appearance the\nenemies of Jesus would have been compelled to believe, and the opposite\none, that they would not have believed even on such evidence,\u2014mutually\nconfute one another. [2143] Nevertheless, it can still be urged in\nreply to that objection, that the adherents of Jesus, from their\nhopelessness, which is both unanimously attested by the narratives, and\nis in perfect accordance with the nature of the case, here rise to the\nrank of impartial witnesses. If they had expected a resurrection of\nJesus and we had then been called upon to believe it on their testimony\nalone: there would certainly be a possibility and perhaps also a\nprobability, if not of an intentional deception, yet of an involuntary\nself-delusion on their part; but this possibility vanishes in\nproportion as the disciples of Jesus lost all hope after his death. Now\neven if it be denied that any one of the gospels proceeded immediately\nfrom a disciple of Jesus, it is still certain from the epistles of Paul\nand the Acts that the Apostles themselves had the conviction that they\nhad seen the risen Jesus. We might then rest satisfied with the\nevangelical testimonies in favour of the resurrection, were but these\ntestimonies in the first place sufficiently precise, and in the second,\nin agreement with themselves and with each other. But in fact the\ntestimony of Paul, which is intrinsically consistent and is otherwise\nmost important, is so general and vague, that taken by itself, it does\nnot carry us beyond the subjective fact, that the disciples were\nconvinced of the resurrection of Jesus; while the more fully detailed\nnarratives of the gospels, in which the resurrection of Jesus appears\nas an objective fact, are, from the contradictions of which they are\nconvicted, incapable of being used as evidence, and in general their\naccount of the life of Jesus after his resurrection is not one which\nhas connexion and unity, presenting a clear historical idea of the\nsubject, but a fragmentary compilation, [2144] which presents a series\nof visions, rather than a continuous history.\n\nIf we compare with this account of the resurrection of Jesus, the\nprecise and internally consistent attestation of his death: we must\nincline to the other side of the dilemma above stated, and be induced\nto doubt the reality of the resurrection rather than that of the death.\nHence Celsus chose this alternative, deriving the alleged appearance of\nJesus after the resurrection, from the self-delusion of the disciples,\nespecially the women, either dreaming or waking; or from what appeared\nto him still more probable, intentional deception: [2145] and more\nmodern writers, as, for example, the Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist, have\nadopted the accusation of the Jews in Matthew, namely, that the\ndisciples stole the body of Jesus, and afterwards fabricated, with\nslender agreement, stories of his resurrection and subsequent\nappearances. [2146] This suspicion is repelled by the remark of Origen,\nthat a spontaneous falsehood on the part of the disciples could not\npossibly have animated them to so unflinching an announcement of the\nresurrection of Jesus amid the greatest perils; [2147] and it is a just\nargument of modern apologists that the astonishing revolution from the\ndeep depression and utter hopelessness of the disciples at the death of\nJesus, to the strong faith and enthusiasm with which they proclaimed\nhim as the Messiah on the succeeding Pentecost, would be inexplicable\nunless in the interim something extraordinarily encouraging had taken\nplace\u2014something, in fact, which had convinced them of his resurrection.\n[2148] But that this cause of conviction was precisely a real\nappearance of the risen Jesus\u2014that, indeed it was necessarily an\nexternal event at all\u2014is by no means proved. If we chose to remain on\nsupranatural ground, we might with Spinoza suppose that a vision was\nproduced by miraculous means in the minds of the disciples, the object\nof which was to make evident to them, in a manner accordant with their\npowers of comprehension and the ideas of their age, that Jesus by his\nvirtuous life had risen from spiritual death, and that to those who\nfollowed his example he would grant a similar resurrection. [2149] With\none foot at least on the same ground stands the supposition of Weisse,\nthat the departed spirit of Jesus really acted on the disciples whom he\nhad left behind; in connexion with which he refers to the apparitions\nof spirits, the impossibility of which remains unproved. [2150] In\norder to escape from the magic circle of the supernatural, others have\nsearched for natural external causes which might induce the belief that\nJesus had risen and had been seen after his resurrection. The first\nimpetus to this opinion, it has been conjectured, was given by the\ncircumstance that on the second morning after the burial his grave was\nfound empty, the linen clothes which lay in it being taken first for\nangels and then for an appearance of the risen Jesus himself: [2151]\nbut if the body of Jesus was not reanimated, how are we to suppose that\nit came out of the grave? Here it would be necessary to recur to the\nsupposition of a theft: unless the intimation of John, that Jesus on\naccount of haste was laid in a strange grave, were thought available\nfor the conjecture that perhaps the owner of the grave caused the\ncorpse to be removed: which however the disciples must subsequently\nhave learned, and which in any case has too frail a foundation in the\nsolitary statement of the fourth gospel.\n\nFar more fruitful is the appeal to the passage of Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5\nff.), as the most appropriate starting point in this inquiry, and the\nkey to the comprehension of all the appearances of Jesus after his\nresurrection. [2152] When Paul there places the Christophany which\noccurred to himself in the same series with the appearances of Jesus in\nthe days after his resurrection: this authorizes us, so far as nothing\nelse stands in the way of such an inference, to conclude that, for\naught the Apostle knew, those earlier appearances were of the same\nnature with the one experienced by himself. Now with respect to the\nlatter as narrated to us in the Acts (ix. 1 ff., xxii. 3 ff., xxvi. 12\nff.), it is no longer possible, after the analysis of Eichhorn [2153]\nand Ammon, [2154] to retain it as an external, objective appearance of\nthe real Christ; even Neander [2155] does not positively dare to\nmaintain more than an internal influence of Christ on the mind of Paul,\nonly appending in a very beseeching manner the supposition of an\nexternal appearance; and even that internal influence he himself\nrenders superfluous by detailing the causes which might in a natural\nmanner produce such a revolution in the disposition of the man thus:\nthe favourable impression of Christianity, of the doctrine, life and\nconduct of its adherents, which he had here and there received,\nespecially on the occasion of the martyrdom of Stephen, threw his mind\ninto a state of excitement and conflict, which he might indeed for a\ntime forcibly repress, perhaps even by redoubled zeal against the new\nsect, but which must at last find vent in a decisive spiritual crisis,\nconcerning which it need not surprise us that in an oriental it took\nthe form of a Christophany. If according to this we have in the Apostle\nPaul an example, that strong impressions from the infant Christian\ncommunity might carry an ardent mind that had long striven against it,\nto a pitch of exaltation which issued in a Christophany, and a total\nchange of sentiment: surely the impression of the sublime personality\nof Jesus would suffice to inspire into his immediate disciples,\nstruggling with the doubts concerning his messiahship which his death\nhad excited in them, the experience of similar visions. They who think\nit necessary and desirable in relation to the Christophany of Paul to\ncall in the aid of external natural phenomena, as thunder and\nlightning, may also seek to facilitate the explanation of the\nappearances of the risen Jesus which his immediate disciples believed\nthemselves to have previously had, by the supposition of similar\nincidents. [2156] Only it must be observed that, as Eichhorn\u2019s\nexplanation of the event in the life of Paul proved a failure from his\nmaintaining as historical every single detail in the New Testament\nnarrative, as the blindness of Paul and his cure, the vision of\nAnanias, and so on, which he could only transform into natural\noccurrences by a very strained interpretation: so it would inevitably\nrender impossible the psychological explanation of the appearances of\nJesus, to acknowledge as historical all the evangelical narratives\nconcerning them, especially those of the tests which Thomas applied by\ntouching the wounds of Jesus, and which Jesus himself afforded by\ntaking material nourishment; and indeed these narratives, from the\ncontradiction which they are shown to present, have not the slightest\nclaim to such a character. The two first gospels, and our chief\ninformant in this matter, the Apostle Paul, tell us nothing of such\ntests, and it is quite natural that the Christophanies which, in the\nactual experience of the women and Apostles, may have floated before\nthem as visions of much the same character as that which Paul had on\nthe way to Damascus, when once received into tradition, should by\nreason of the apologetic effort to cut off all doubts as to their\nreality, be continually more and more consolidated so that the mute\nappearances became speaking ones, the ghostlike form was exchanged for\none that ate, and the merely visible body was made palpable also.\n\nHere however there presents itself a distinction, which seems at once\nto render the event in the history of Paul unavailable for the\nexplanation of those earlier appearances. To the Apostle Paul, namely,\nthe idea that Jesus had risen and appeared to many persons was\ndelivered as the belief of the sect which he persecuted; he had only to\nreceive it into his conviction and to vivify it in his imagination\nuntil it became a part of his own experience: the earlier disciples, on\nthe contrary, had before them as a fact merely the death of their\nMessiah,\u2014the notion of a resurrection on his part they could nowhere\ngather, but must, according to our conception of the matter, have first\nproduced it; a problem which appears to be beyond all comparison more\ndifficult than that subsequently presented to the Apostle Paul. In\norder to form a correct judgment on this subject, we must transport\nourselves yet more completely into the situation and frame of mind into\nwhich the disciples of Jesus were thrown by his death. During several\nyears\u2019 intercourse with them he had constantly impressed them more and\nmore decidedly with the belief that he was the Messiah; but his death,\nwhich they were unable to reconcile with their messianic ideas, had for\nthe moment annihilated this belief. Now when, after the first shock was\npast, the earlier impression began to revive: there spontaneously arose\nin them the psychological necessity of solving the contradiction\nbetween the ultimate fate of Jesus and their earlier opinion of him\u2014of\nadopting into their idea of the Messiah the characteristics of\nsuffering and death. As, however, with the Jews of that age to\ncomprehend meant nothing else than to derive from the sacred\nscriptures: they turned to these, to ascertain whether they might not\nperhaps find in them intimations of a suffering and dying Messiah.\nForeign as the idea of such a Messiah is to the Old Testament, the\ndisciples, who wished to find it there, must nevertheless have regarded\nas intimations of this kind, all those poetical and prophetic passages\nwhich, like Isa. liii., Ps. xxii., represented the man of God as\nafflicted and bowed down even to death. Thus Luke states as the chief\noccupation of the risen Jesus in his interview with the disciples, that\nbeginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all\nthe scriptures the things concerning himself, i.e. that Christ ought to\nhave suffered such things (xxiv. 26 f., 44 ff.). When they had in this\nmanner received into their messianic idea ignominy, suffering and\ndeath, the ignominiously executed Jesus was not lost, but still\nremained to them: by his death he had only entered into his messianic\nglory (Luke xxiv. 26) in which he was invisibly with them always, even\nunto the end of the world (Matt. xxviii. 20). But how could he fail,\nout of this glory, in which he lived, to give tidings of himself to his\nfollowers? and how could they, when their mind was opened to the\nhitherto hidden doctrine of a dying Messiah contained in the\nscriptures, and when in moments of unwonted inspiration their hearts\nburned within them (Luke xxiv. 32),\u2014how could they avoid conceiving\nthis to be an influence shed on them by their glorified Christ, an\nopening of their understanding by him (v. 45), nay, an actual\nconversing with him? [2157] Lastly, how conceivable is it that in\nindividuals, especially women, these impressions were heightened, in a\npurely subjective manner, into actual vision; that on others, even on\nwhole assemblies, something or other of an objective nature, visible or\naudible, sometimes perhaps the sight of an unknown person, created the\nimpression of a revelation or appearance of Jesus: a height of pious\nenthusiasm which is wont to appear elsewhere in religious societies\npeculiarly oppressed and persecuted. But if the crucified Messiah had\ntruly entered into the highest form of blessed existence, he ought not\nto have left his body in the grave: and if in precisely such Old\nTestament passages as admitted of a typical relation to the sufferings\nof the Messiah, there was at the same time expressed the hope: thou\nwilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one\nto see corruption (Ps. xvi. 10; Acts ii. 27); while in Isa. liii. 10,\nhe who had been represented as led to the slaughter and buried, was yet\npromised a prolongation of his days: what was more natural to the\ndisciples than to reinstate their earlier Jewish ideas, which the death\nof Jesus had disturbed, namely, that the Christ remaineth for ever\n(John xii. 34), through the medium of an actual revivification of their\ndead master, and, as it was a messianic attribute one day to call the\ndead bodily from the grave, to imagine also as returning to life in the\nmanner of a resurrection?\n\nMeanwhile, if the body of Jesus was interred in a known place, and\ncould there (so far as we are not at liberty to suppose a theft, or an\naccidental removal) be sought for and exhibited: it is difficult to\nconceive how the disciples in Jerusalem itself, and not quite two days\nafter the interment, could believe and declare that Jesus was risen,\nwithout refuting themselves, or meeting with refutation from their\nadversaries, (to whom however they appear to have made the first\ndisclosure as to the resurrection of their Messiah at Pentecost,) by\nocular demonstration at the grave. [2158] Now it is here that the\nnarrative of the first gospel, which has been unjustly placed below the\nothers, presents an explanatory and satisfactory indication. According\nto this gospel also the risen Jesus does indeed appear in Jerusalem,\nbut only to the women, and so entirely as a mere preparation for a\nsucceeding interview, nay, so superfluously, that we have already\nquestioned the truth of this appearance, and pronounced it to be a\nlater modification of the legend of the angelic appearance, which\nMatthew nevertheless also included in his narrative. [2159] The sole\nimportant appearance of Jesus after the resurrection occurs, according\nto Matthew, in Galilee, whither an angel, and Jesus himself on the last\nevening of his life and on the morning of the resurrection, most\nurgently directed his disciples, and where the fourth gospel also, in\nits appendix, places an appearance of the resuscitated Jesus. That the\ndisciples, dispersed by their alarm, at the execution of their Messiah,\nshould return to their home in Galilee, where they had no need, as in\nthe metropolis of Judea, the seat of the enemies of their crucified\nChrist, to shut the doors for fear of the Jews, was natural. Here was\nthe place where they gradually began to breathe freely, and where their\nfaith in Jesus, which had been temporarily depressed, might once more\nexpand with its former vigour. But here also, where no body lay in the\ngrave to contradict bold suppositions, might gradually be formed the\nidea of the resurrection of Jesus; and when this conviction had so\nelevated the courage and enthusiasm of his adherents that they ventured\nto proclaim it in the metropolis, it was no longer possible by the\nsight of the body of Jesus either to convict themselves, or to be\nconvicted by others.\n\nAccording to the Acts, it is true, the disciples so early as on the\nnext Pentecost, seven weeks after the death of Jesus, appeared in\nJerusalem with the announcement of his resurrection, and were\nthemselves already convinced of it on the second morning after his\nburial, by appearances which they witnessed. But how long will it yet\nbe, until the manner in which the author of the Acts places the first\nappearance of the disciples of Jesus with the announcement of the new\ndoctrine, precisely on the festival of the announcement of the old law,\nbe recognized as one which rests purely on dogmatical grounds; which is\ntherefore historically worthless, and in no way binds us to assign so\nshort a duration to that time of quiet preparation in Galilee? As\nregards the other statement\u2014it might certainly require some time for\nthe mental state of the disciples to become exalted in the degree\nnecessary, before this or that individual amongst them could, purely as\nan operation of his own mind, make present to himself the risen Christ\nin a visionary manner; or before whole assemblies, in moments of highly\nwrought enthusiasm, could believe that they heard him in every\nimpressive sound, or saw him in every striking appearance: but it would\nnevertheless be conceived, that, as it was not possible that he should\nbe held by the bonds of death (Acts ii. 24), he had passed only a short\ntime in the grave. As to the more precise determination of this\ninterval, if it be held an insufficient explanation, that the sacred\nnumber three would be the first to suggest itself; there is a further\nidea which might occur,\u2014whether or not it be historical that Jesus was\nburied on the evening before a sabbath,\u2014namely, that he only remained\nin the grave during the rest of the sabbath, and thus rose on the\nmorning after the sabbath \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u1fd2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 which by the known mode of\nreckoning might be reconciled with the round number of three days.\n[2160]\n\nWhen once the idea of a resurrection of Jesus had been formed in this\nmanner, the great event could not be allowed to have happened so\nsimply, but must be surrounded and embellished with all the pomp which\nthe Jewish imagination furnished. The chief ornaments which stood at\ncommand for this purpose, were angels: hence these must open the grave\nof Jesus, must, after he had come forth from it, keep watch in the\nempty place, and deliver to the women, who (because without doubt women\nhad had the first visions) must be the first to go to the grave, the\ntidings of what had happened. As it was Galilee where Jesus\nsubsequently appeared to them, the journey of the disciples thither,\nwhich was nothing else than their return home, somewhat hastened by\nfear, was derived from the direction of an angel; nay, Jesus himself\nmust already before his death, and, as Matthew too zealously adds, once\nmore after the resurrection also, have enjoined this journey on the\ndisciples. But the further these narratives were propagated by\ntradition, the more must the difference between the locality of the\nresurrection itself and the appearances of the risen one, be allowed to\nfall out of sight as inconvenient; and since the locality of the death\nand resurrection was not transferable, the appearances were gradually\nplaced in the same locality as the resurrection,\u2014in Jerusalem, which as\nthe more brilliant theatre and the seat of the first Christian Church,\nwas especially appropriate for them. [2161]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE ASCENSION.\n\n\u00a7 141.\n\nTHE LAST COMMANDS AND PROMISES OF JESUS.\n\nIn the last interview of Jesus with his disciples, which according to\nMark and Luke closed with the ascension, the three first Evangelists\n(the fourth has something similar on the very first interview)\nrepresent Jesus as delivering testamentary commands and promises, which\nreferred to the establishment and propagation of the messianic kingdom\non earth.\n\nWith regard to the commands, Jesus in Luke (xxiv. 47 f.; Acts i. 8) in\nparting from his disciples appoints them to be witnesses of his\nmessiahship, and charges them to preach repentance and remission of\nsins in his name from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the earth. In\nMark (xvi. 15 f.) he enjoins them to go into all the world and bring to\nevery creature the glad tidings of the messianic kingdom founded by\nhim; he who believes and is baptized will be saved, he who believeth\nnot, will (in the future messianic judgment) be condemned. In Matthew\n(xxviii. 19 f.) the disciples are also commissioned to make disciples\nof all nations \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7, and here baptism is not mentioned\nincidentally merely, as in Mark, but is made the subject of an express\ncommand by Jesus, and is besides more precisely described as a baptism\nin the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, \u1f10\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nThe impediments to the supposition that Jesus delivered to his\ndisciples the express command to carry the announcement of the gospel\nto the Gentiles, have been already pointed out in an earlier connexion.\n[2162] But that this more definite form of baptism proceeded from\nJesus, is also opposed by the fact, that such an allocation of Father,\nSon, and Spirit does not elsewhere appear, except as a form of\nsalutation in apostolic epistles (2 Cor. xiii. 14: the grace of our\nLord Jesus Christ, etc.); while as a more definite form of baptism it\nis not to be met with throughout the whole New Testament save in the\nabove passage of the first gospel: for in the apostolic epistles and\neven in the Acts, baptism is designated as a \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, or \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 baptising in Christ Jesus, or\nin the name of the Lord Jesus, or their equivalent (Rom. vi. 3; Gal.\niii. 27; Acts ii. 38, viii. 16, x. 48, xix. 5), and the same threefold\nreference to God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is only found in\necclesiastical writers, as, for example, Justin. [2163] Indeed the\nformula in Matthew sounds so exactly as if it had been borrowed from\nthe ecclesiastical ritual, that there is no slight probability in the\nsupposition that it was transferred from thence into the mouth of\nJesus. But this does not authorize us to throw the passage out of the\ntext as an interpolation, [2164] since, if everything in the gospels\nwhich cannot have happened to Jesus, or which cannot have been done or\nspoken by him in the manner there described, were to be pronounced\nforeign to the original text, the interpolations would soon become too\nnumerous. So far it is with justice that others have defended the\ngenuineness of the baptismal formula; [2165] but their grounds for the\nassertion that it was delivered in this manner by Jesus himself are\ninsufficient: the two opinions then resolve themselves into a third,\nnamely, that this more definite form of baptism does indeed belong to\nthe original context of the first gospel, but without having been so\ndelivered by Jesus. [2166] Jesus had, during his life, predicted in\ndivers ways the propagation of his kingdom beyond the limits of the\nJewish nation, perhaps also had intimated the introduction of baptism\nto be his will; and\u2014whether it be the fact that, as we learn in the\nfourth gospel, the disciples already practised baptism in the lifetime\nof Jesus, or that they first made this rite a sign of reception into\nthe new messianic society after his death,\u2014in any case it was entirely\nin the manner of the legend to place the injunction to baptize, as well\nas to go out into all the world, in the mouth of the departing Christ\nas a last declaration of his will.\n\nThe promises which Jesus gives to his adherents in parting from them,\nare in Matthew, where they are directed exclusively to the eleven,\nlimited simply to the assurance that he, to whom as the exalted Messiah\nall power was delivered both in heaven and on earth, would be invisibly\nwith them during the present age, \u03b1\u1f30\u1f7c\u03bd, until at the consummation\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 of this term, he should enter into permanent visible\ncommunion with them: precisely the expression of the belief which was\nformed in the first Christian community, when the equilibrium was\nrecovered after the oscillations caused by the death of Jesus.\u2014In Mark,\nthe last promises of Jesus seem to be gathered from the popular opinion\nconcerning the gifts of the Christians, which was current at the period\nof the composition of this gospel. Of the signs, \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, which are here\npromised to believers in general, the speaking with (new) tongues,\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2) in the sense intended 1 Cor. xiv., not in the\nmanner described in Acts ii. which is a mythical modification, [2167]\nactually appeared in the primitive church; as also the casting out of\ndevils \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; and it may even be conceived that sick\npersons were cured in a natural manner by faith in the laying on of\nhands, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd by a Christian: on the contrary the taking up of\nserpents \u1f44\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (comp. Luke x. 19) and the power of drinking\npoisons with impunity, have never had any existence except in the\nsuperstitious belief of the vulgar, and such signs of discipleship\nwould have been the last to which Jesus would have attached any\nvalue.\u2014In Luke, the object of the last promise of Jesus is the power\nfrom on high \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f55\u03c8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, which according to the promise of the\nFather, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, he would send on the apostles, and the\nimpartation of which they were to await in Jerusalem (xxiv. 49); and in\nActs i. 5 ff. Jesus more precisely designates this impartation of power\nas a baptism with the Holy Spirit, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, which in a few days\nwould be granted to the disciples in order to qualify them for the\nannouncement of the gospel. These passages of Luke, which place the\nimpartation of the Holy Spirit in the days after the ascension, seem to\nbe in contradiction with the statement of the fourth gospel, that Jesus\ncommunicated the Holy Spirit to his disciples in the days of his\nresurrection, nay, on his very first appearance in the circle of the\neleven. In John xx. 22 f. we read, that Jesus, appearing among the\ndisciples when the doors were closed, breathed on them and said:\nReceive ye the Holy Ghost, \u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, wherewith he connected\nthe authority to remit and retain sins.\n\nIf this were the only passage relating to the impartation of the\nSpirit, every one would believe that the disciples had it communicated\nto them by Jesus when he was personally present among them, and not\nfirst after his exaltation to heaven. But in accordance with the\nharmonizing interest, it has been concluded, first by Theodore of\nMopsuestia, and recently by Tholuck, [2168] that the word \u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5,\nreceive, in John, must be taken in the sense of \u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, ye shall\nreceive, because according to Luke the Holy Spirit was not imparted to\nthe disciples until later, at Pentecost. But as if he wished to\npreclude such a wresting of his words, the Jesus of John adds to them\nthe symbolical action of breathing on the disciples, which unmistakably\nrepresents the receiving of the Holy Spirit as a present fact. [2169]\nIt is true that expositors have found out a way of eluding even this\nact of breathing, by attributing to it the following signification: as\ncertainly as Jesus now breathes upon them, so certainly will they at a\nfuture time receive the Holy Ghost. [2170] But the act of breathing\nupon a person is as decided a symbol of a present impartation as the\nlaying on of hands, and as those on whom the apostles laid their hands\nwere immediately filled with the Spirit (Acts viii. 17, xix. 6), so,\naccording to the above narrative, the author of the fourth gospel must\nhave thought that the Apostles on that occasion received the Spirit\nfrom Jesus. In order to avoid the necessity of denying, in opposition\nto the clear meaning of John, that an impartation of the Spirit\nactually took place immediately after the resurrection, or of coming\ninto contradiction with Luke, who assigns the outpouring of the Spirit\nto a later period, expositors now ordinarily suppose that the Spirit\nwas granted to the Apostles both at the earlier and the later period,\nthe impartation at Pentecost being only an increasing and perfecting of\nthe former. [2171] Or more correctly, since Matthew x. 20 speaks of the\nSpirit of the Father as already sustaining the disciples in their first\nmission: it is supposed that they were first endowed with some\nextraordinary power before that mission, in the lifetime of Jesus; that\non the occasion in question, shortly after his resurrection, he\nheightened this power; but that all the fulness of the Spirit was not\npoured out upon them until Pentecost. [2172] What constitutes the\ndistinction between these steps, and especially in what the increase of\nthe gifts of the Spirit consisted in the present instance, is, however,\nas Michaelis has already remarked, not easy to discern. If in the first\ninstance the apostles were endowed with the power of working miracles\n(Matt. x. 1, 8) together with the gift of speaking freely (par)r(\u00easi/a)\nbefore tribunals (v. 20), it could only be a more correct insight into\nthe spirituality of his kingdom that Jesus communicated to them by\nbreathing on them; but of this they were still destitute immediately\nbefore the ascension, when, according to Acts i. 6, they asked whether,\nwith the impartation of the Spirit, within the next few days, would be\nassociated the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. If however it be\nsupposed that each successive impartation of the Spirit conferred no\nnew powers on the disciples, but was merely an addition in measure to\nthat which was already present in all its diversified powers: [2173] it\nmust still be held surprising that no Evangelist mentions, together\nwith an earlier impartation, a later amplification; but instead of\nthis, besides an incidental mention of the Spirit as enabling the\ndisciples to defend themselves before tribunals, in Luke (xii.\n12),\u2014which, since it is not here, as in Matthew, connected with a\nmission, may be regarded merely as a reference to the time after the\nlater outpouring of the Spirit,\u2014each of the Evangelists mentions only\none impartation, and represents this as the first and last. This is,\nindeed, a clear proof that, to place in juxtaposition three\nimpartations and to regard them as so many different degrees, is only\nan effort to harmonize the gospels by introducing into them what is\nforeign to the text.\n\nThus there are in the New Testament three distinct opinions concerning\nthe impartation of the Spirit to the disciples of Jesus; and in two\nrespects they form a climax. As regards the time, Matthew places the\nimpartation the earliest\u2014within the period of the natural life of\nJesus; Luke, the latest\u2014in the time after his complete departure from\nthe earth; John in an intermediate position\u2014in the days of the\nresurrection. As regards the conception of the fact, it is the simplest\nin Matthew, the least perceptible to the senses, for he has no special\nand external act of impartation; John already has such a feature, in\nthe act of breathing on the disciples; while with Luke, in the Acts,\nthe gentle breathing has become a violent storm, which shakes the\nhouse, and with which other miraculous appearances are united. These\ntwo series of gradations stand in opposite relations to historical\nprobability. That the Spirit \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, which, whether it be regarded as\nnatural or as supernatural, is in either case the animating power of\nthe messianic idea in its Christian modification, was communicated to\nthe adherents of Jesus so early as Matthew narrates, is contradicted by\nhis own representation, for according to him, that Christian\nmodification\u2014the introduction of the characteristics of suffering and\ndeath into the idea of the Messiah,\u2014was not comprehended by the\ndisciples long after the mission described in Matt. x.; and as the\ndiscourse of instructions there given contains other particulars also,\nwhich will only suit later times and circumstances: it is easy to\nimagine that the promise in question may have been erroneously referred\nto that earlier period. Only after the death and resurrection of Jesus\ncan we conceive what the New Testament calls the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd to have\nbeen developed in the disciples, and in so far the representation of\nJohn stands nearer to reality than that of Matthew; but, as certainly\nthe revolution in the sentiments of the disciples described in the\nforegoing section, had not taken place so early as two days after the\ncrucifixion: the account of John does not approach so near to the truth\nas that of Luke, who allows an interval of at least fifty days for the\nformation of the new opinions in the disciples. The position of the\nnarratives with respect to historical truth is reversed by the other\nclimax. For in proportion as a narrative represents the impartation of\na spiritual power as perceptible to the senses, the formation of a\nsentiment which might spring from natural causes as miraculous, the\norigin of a faculty which can only have been developed gradually, as\ninstantaneous: in the same proportion does such a narrative diverge\nfrom the truth; and in this respect, Matthew would stand at the least\ndistance from the truth, Luke at the greatest. If we therefore\nrecognise in the representation of the latter the most mature product\nof tradition, it may be wondered how tradition can have wrought in two\nopposite ways: receding from the truth in relation to the determination\nof the manner and form of the impartation, approaching the truth in\nrelation to the determination of the time. But this is explained as\nsoon as it is considered, that in the changes in the determination of\nthe time, tradition was not guided by critical inquiry after truth\u2014this\nmight well have caused surprise,\u2014but by the same tendency that led to\nthe other alteration, namely, to present the impartation of the Spirit\nas a single miraculous act. If Jesus was said to have shed the Spirit\non his disciples by a special act: it must seem appropriate to assign\nthis act to his state of glorification, and thus either with John to\nplace it after the resurrection, or with Luke after the ascension;\nindeed the fourth Evangelist expressly remarks that in the lifetime of\nJesus, the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet\nglorified (vii. 39).\n\nThis interpretation of the opinion of the fourth Evangelist concerning\nthe impartation of the Spirit to the disciples, is attested as the\ncorrect one by the fact, that it throws unexpected light on an\nobscurity in his gospel with respect to which we were previously unable\nto come to a decision. In relation to the farewell discourses of Jesus,\nit was not possible to settle the dispute, whether what Jesus there\nsays of his return is to be referred to the days of his resurrection,\nor to the outpouring of the Spirit, because the description of that\nreturn as a seeing again seemed to speak as decidedly for the former,\nas the observation that in that time they would no longer ask him\nanything, and would understand him fully, for the latter: a dispute\nwhich is decided in the most welcome manner, if it can be shown to be\nthe opinion of the narrator that the impartation of the Spirit fell in\nthe days of the resurrection. [2174] At first indeed it might be\nthought, that this impartation, especially as in John it is connected\nwith the formal appointment of his disciples as his envoys, and the\ncommunication of the authority to remit and retain sins (comp. Matt.\nxviii. 18), would have been more appropriate at the close than the\ncommencement of the appearances of the risen Jesus, and in a full\nassembly of the Apostles than in one from which Thomas was absent; but\non this account to suppose with Olshausen that the Evangelist for the\nsake of brevity merely appends the impartation of the Spirit to the\nfirst appearance, though it really belonged to a later interview, is an\ninadmissible violence; and we must rather allow, that the author of the\nfourth gospel regarded this first appearance of Jesus as the principal\none, and the one eight days later as merely supernumerary in favour of\nThomas. The appearance chap. xxi. is also a supplement, which the\nauthor, when he wrote his gospel, either had not known, or at least did\nnot recollect.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 142.\n\nTHE SO-CALLED ASCENSION CONSIDERED AS A SUPERNATURAL AND AS A NATURAL\nEVENT.\n\nThe ascension of Jesus is reported to us in the New Testament in three\ndifferent narratives, which in point of fulness of detail and\npicturesqueness of description form a progressive series. Mark, who in\nthe last portion of his gospel is in general very brief and abrupt,\nonly says, that after Jesus had spoken to the disciples for the last\ntime, he was received up (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7) into heaven and sat on the right\nhand of God (xvi. 19). With scarcely more definiteness it is said in\nthe gospel of Luke that Jesus led his disciples out as far as Bethany,\n\u1f10\u03be\u03c9 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, and while he here with uplifted hands gave them\nhis blessing, he was parted from them (\u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7), and carried up into\nheaven (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf); whereupon the disciples fell down and worshipped\nhim, and forthwith returned to Jerusalem with great joy (xxiv. 50 ff.).\nIn the introduction to the Acts, Luke gives more ample details\nconcerning this scene. On the mount of Olives, where Jesus delivered to\nhis disciples his last commands and promises, he was taken up before\ntheir eyes (\u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7), and a cloud received him out of their sight. While\nthe disciples were watching him, as he went up into heaven on the\ncloud, there suddenly stood by them two men in white apparel, who\ninduced them to desist from thus gazing after him by the assurance,\nthat the Jesus now taken from them would come again from heaven in the\nsame manner as he had just ascended into heaven; on which they were\nsatisfied, and returned to Jerusalem (i. 1\u201312).\n\nThe first impression from this narrative is clearly this: that it is\nintended as a description of a miraculous event, an actual exaltation\nof Jesus into heaven, as the dwelling-place of God, and an attestation\nof this by angels; as orthodox theologians, both ancient and modern,\ncorrectly maintain. The only question is, whether they can also help us\nto surmount the difficulties which stand in our way when we attempt to\nform a conception of such an event? One main difficulty is this: how\ncan a palpable body, which has still flesh and bones, and eats material\nfood, be qualified for a celestial abode? how can it so far liberate\nitself from the laws of gravity, as to be capable of an ascent through\nthe air? and how can it be conceived that God gave so preternatural a\ncapability to Jesus by a miracle? [2175] The only possible reply to\nthese questions is, that the grosser elements which the body of Jesus\nstill retained after the resurrection, were removed before the\nascension, and only the finest essence of his corporeality, as the\nintegument of the soul, was taken by him into heaven. [2176] But as the\ndisciples who were present at the ascension observed no residuum of his\nbody which he had left behind, this leads either to the above mentioned\nabsurdity of an evaporation of the body of Jesus, or to Olshausen\u2019s\nprocess of subtilization which, still incomplete even after the\nresurrection, was not perfected until the moment of the ascension; a\nprocess which must have been conducted with singularly rapid retrograde\ntransitions in these last days, if the body of Jesus, when penetrating\ninto the closed room where the disciples were assembled, is to be\nsupposed immaterial; immediately after when Thomas touched him,\nmaterial; and lastly, in the ascension, again immaterial. The other\ndifficulty lies in the consideration, that according to a just idea of\nthe world, the seat of God and of the blessed, to which Jesus is\nsupposed to have been exalted, is not to be sought for in the upper\nregions of the air, nor, in general, in any determinate place;\u2014such a\nlocality could only be assigned to it in the childish, limited\nconceptions of antiquity. We are well aware that he who would attain to\nGod and the circle of the blessed would make a superfluous circuit, if\nhe thought it necessary for this purpose to soar aloft into the higher\nregions of the firmament; and the more intimately Jesus was acquainted\nwith God and divine things, the farther certainly would he be from\nmaking such a circuit, or from being caused to make it by God. [2177]\nThus there would be no other resource than to suppose a divine\naccommodation to the idea of the world in that age, and to say: God in\norder to convince the disciples of the return of Jesus into the higher\nworld, although this world is in reality by no means to be sought for\nin the upper air, nevertheless prepared the spectacle of such an\nexaltation. [2178] But this is to represent God as theatrically\narranging an illusion.\n\nAs an attempt to set us free from such difficulties and absurdities,\nthe natural explanation of this narrative must needs be welcome. [2179]\nThis distinguishes in the evangelical accounts of the ascension, what\nwas actually beheld, and what was inferred by reasoning. Certainly,\nwhen it is said in the Acts: while they beheld, he was taken up,\n\u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7: the exaltation to heaven seems here to be\nrepresented as a fact actually witnessed. But the Rationalists tell us\nthat we are not to understand \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7, as signifying an elevation above\nthe earth, but only that Jesus, in order to bless the disciples, drew\nup his form and thus appeared more elevated to them. They then bring\nforward the word \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7, he was parted from them, in the conclusion of\nLuke\u2019s gospel, and interpret it to mean that Jesus in taking leave of\nhis disciples removed himself farther from them. Hereupon, they\ncontinue, in the same way as on the mount of Transfiguration, a cloud\nwas interposed between Jesus and the disciples, and together with the\nnumerous olive-trees on the mount, concealed him from their sight; a\nresult which, on the assurance of two unknown men, they regarded as a\nreception of Jesus into heaven. But, when Luke in the Acts immediately\nconnects \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 with the statement, and a cloud received him, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd: he implies that the taking up was an\nintroduction to the being received by the cloud; which it would not be\nif it were a mere drawing up of the body, but only if it were an\nexaltation of Jesus above the earth, since only in this case could a\ncloud float under, carry, and envelop him, which is the idea expressed\nby \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd. Again, in the Gospel of Luke, the fact that he was parted\nfrom them is represented as something which took place while he blessed\nthem, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2; now no one when pronouncing a\nbenediction on another, will remove from him: whereas it appears very\nsuitable, that Jesus while communicating his blessing to the disciples\nshould be carried upward, and thus, while rising, have continued to\nextend over them his outstretched hand as a symbol of his blessing.\nThus the natural explanation of the disappearance in the cloud falls to\nthe ground of itself; while in the supposition that the two individuals\nclothed in white apparel were natural men, Paulus only disguises a\nfinal and strongly marked essay of the opinion espoused by Bahrdt and\nVenturini, that several epochs in the life of Jesus, especially after\nhis crucifixion, were brought about by the agency of secret colleagues.\nAnd Jesus himself\u2014what, according to this opinion, must we suppose to\nhave become of him after this last separation from his disciples? Shall\nwe, with Bahrdt, dream of an Essene lodge, into which he retired after\nthe completion of his work? and with Brennecke appeal, in proof that\nJesus long continued silently to work for the welfare of mankind, to\nhis appearance for the purpose of the conversion of Paul? But, taking\nthe narrative of the Acts as historical, this was connected with\ncircumstances and effects which could be produced by no natural man,\neven though a member of a secret order. Or shall we with Paulus\nsuppose, that shortly after the last interview the body of Jesus sank\nbeneath the injuries it had received? This could not well have happened\nin the very next moments after he had appeared still active among his\ndisciples, so that the two men who joined them might have been\nwitnesses of his decease,\u2014who, even admitting this, would not have\nspoken in accordance with the truth; but if he continued to live for\nany length of time he must have had the intention to remain for that\nperiod in the concealment of a secret society; and to this must then be\nsupposed to belong the two men clothed in white, who, doubtless with\nhis previous sanction, persuaded the disciples that he had ascended\ninto heaven. [2180] But this is a mode of representation, from which in\nthis instance as in every other, a sound judgment must turn away with\naversion.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 143.\n\nINSUFFICIENCY OF THE NARRATIVES OF THE ASCENSION. MYTHICAL CONCEPTION\nOF THOSE NARRATIVES.\n\nAmong all the New Testament histories of miracles, the ascension least\ndemanded such an expenditure of perverted acumen, since the\nattestations to its historical validity are peculiarly weak,\u2014not only\nto us who, having no risen Jesus, can consequently have no ascended\none, but apart from all prior conclusions and in every point of view.\nMatthew and John, who according to the common idea were the two\neyewitnesses among the Evangelists, do not mention it; it is narrated\nby Mark and Luke alone, while in the rest of the New Testament writings\ndecided allusions to it are wanting. But this absence of allusions to\nthe ascension in the rest of the New Testament is denied by orthodox\nexpositors. When, say they, Jesus in Matthew (xxvi. 64), declares\nbefore the high priest, that hereafter the Son of Man will be seen\nsitting at the right hand of God: this presupposes an exaltation\nthither, consequently an ascension; when in John (iii. 13), he says, no\none hath ascended into heaven but the Son of Man who came from heaven,\nand at another time (vi. 62) tells the disciples that they will\nhereafter see him ascend where he was before; further, when on the\nmorning of the resurrection he declares that he is not yet ascended to\nhis Father, implying that he is about to do so (xx. 17): there could\nhardly be more explicit allusions to the ascension; again, when the\napostles in the Acts so often speak of an exaltation of Jesus to the\nright hand of God (ii. 33, v. 31, comp. vii. 56), and Paul represents\nhim as ascended up far above all heavens \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd (Ephes. iv. 10), Peter, as gone into heaven \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd (1 Pet. iii. 22): there can be no doubt that they all knew of\nhis ascension. [2181] All these passages, however, with the exception\nperhaps of John vi. 62, where a SEEING the Son of Man ascend, \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, is spoken of, contain only in\ngeneral his exaltation to heaven, without intimating that it was an\nexternal, visible fact, that took place in the presence of the\ndisciples. Rather, when we find Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff. ranking the\nappearance of Jesus to himself, which occurred long after the alleged\nascension, with the Christophanies before this epoch, so entirely\nwithout any pause or indication of a distinction: we must doubt, not\nmerely that all the appearances which he enumerates besides his own can\nhave occurred before the ascension, [2182] but whether the Apostle can\nhave had any knowledge at all of an ascension as an external fact which\nclosed the earthly life of Jesus. As to the author of the fourth\ngospel,\u2014in his metaphorical language, we are not compelled by the word\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5, any more than by the \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 in relation to the angels\nascending and descending upon Jesus, i. 52, to ascribe to him a\nknowledge of the visible ascension of Jesus, of which he gives no\nintimation at the conclusion of his gospel.\n\nCommentators have, it is true, taken all possible pains to explain the\nwant of a narrative of the ascension in the first and fourth gospels,\nin a way which may not prove inimical either to the authority of the\nwritings, or to the historical value of the fact. They maintain that\nthe Evangelists who are silent on the subject, held it either\nunnecessary, or impossible, to narrate the ascension. They held it\nunnecessary, say these expositors, either intrinsically, from the minor\nimportance of the event; [2183] or extrinsically, on the consideration\nthat it was generally known as a part of the evangelical tradition;\n[2184] John in particular supposed it to be known from Mark and Luke;\n[2185] or lastly, both Matthew and John omitted it as not belonging to\nthe earthly life of Jesus, to the description of which their writings\nwere exclusively devoted. [2186] But we must contend, on the contrary,\nthat the life of Jesus, especially that enigmatical life which he led\nafter his return from the grave, absolutely required such a close as\nthe ascension. Whether it were generally known or not, whether it were\nimportant or unimportant,\u2014the simple \u00e6sthetic interest which dictates\neven to an uncultivated author, that a narrative should be wound up\nwith a conclusion, must have led every evangelical writer who knew of\nthe ascension to mention it, though it were but summarily at the end of\nhis history, in order to avoid the strange impression left by the first\ngospel and still more by the fourth, as narratives losing themselves in\nvague obscurity. Hence our apologists resort to the supposition that\nthe first and fourth Evangelists held it impossible to give an account\nof the ascension of Jesus, because the eyewitnesses, however long they\nmight gaze after him, could still only see him hovering in the air and\nencircled by the cloud, not entering heaven and taking his place on the\nright hand of God. [2187] But in the ideas of the ancient world, to\nwhich heaven was nearer than to us, an entrance into the clouds was in\nitself a real ascent into heaven, as we see from the stories of Romulus\nand Elijah.\n\nThus it is undeniable that the above Evangelists were ignorant of the\nascension: but the conclusion of the most recent criticism, that this\nignorance is a reproach to the first Evangelist as a sign of his\nunapostolic character, [2188] is the less in place here, because the\nevent in question is rendered suspicious not merely by the silence of\ntwo Evangelists, but also by the want of agreement between those who\nnarrate it. Mark is at variance with Luke, nay, Luke is at variance\nwith himself. In the account of the former, it appears as if Jesus had\nascended into heaven immediately from the meal in which he appeared to\nthe eleven, consequently from out of a house in Jerusalem; for the\nphrases: he appeared with the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided\nthem\u2014and he said\u2014So then after the Lord had spoken unto them he was\nreceived up into heaven, etc., \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\u2014\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f60\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u0342\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u2014\u1f49 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. have an\nimmediate dependence on each other, and it is only by violence that a\nchange of place or a distinction of time can be introduced. [2189] Now\nan ascent into heaven directly out of a room is certainly not easy to\nimagine; hence Luke represents it as taking place in the open air. In\nhis gospel he makes Jesus immediately before his ascension, lead out\nhis disciples as far as Bethany \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, but in the Acts he\nplaces the scene on the mount called Olivet \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1;\nthis, however, cannot be imputed to him as a contradiction, since\nBethany lay in the neighbourhood of the mount of Olives. [2190] But\nthere is a more important divergency in his statement of time; for in\nhis gospel, as in Mark, we are left to infer that the ascension took\nplace on the same day with the resurrection: whereas in the Acts it is\nexpressly remarked, that the two events were separated by an interval\nof forty days. It has already been remarked that the latter\ndetermination of time must have come to the knowledge of Luke in the\ninterim between the composition of the gospel and that of the Acts. The\nmore numerous the narratives of appearances of the risen Jesus, and the\nmore various the places to which they were assigned: the less would the\nshort space of a day suffice for his life on earth after the\nresurrection; while the determination of the lengthened period which\nhad become necessary to forty days precisely, had its foundation in the\npart which this number is known to have played in the Jewish, and\nalready in the Christian legend. The people of Israel were forty years\nin the wilderness; Moses was forty days on mount Sinai; he and Elias\nfasted forty days; and Jesus himself previous to the temptation\nremained the same length of time without nourishment in the wilderness.\nAs, then, all these mysterious intermediate states and periods of\ntransition were determined by the number forty: this number presented\nitself as especially appropriate for the determination of the\nmysterious interval between the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.\n[2191]\n\nAs regards the description of the event itself, it might be thought\nadmissible to ascribe the silence of Mark, and of Luke in his gospel,\nconcerning the cloud and the angels, purely to the brevity of their\nnarratives; but since Luke at the close of his gospel narrates\ncircumstantially enough the conduct of the disciples\u2014how they fell down\nand worshipped the ascended Jesus, and returned to the city with great\njoy: so he would doubtless have pointed out the information\ncommunicated to them by angels as the immediate source of their joy,\nhad he known anything of such a particular at the time when he composed\nhis first writing. Hence this feature seems rather to have been\ngradually formed in tradition, in order to render due honour to this\nlast point also in the life of Jesus, and to present a confirmation of\nthe insufficient testimony of men as to his exaltation into heaven by\nthe mouth of two heavenly witnesses.\n\nAs, according to this, those who knew of an ascension of Jesus, had by\nno means the same idea of its particular circumstances: there must have\nbeen in general two different modes of conceiving the close of the life\nof Jesus; some regarding it as a visible ascension, others not so.\n[2192] When Matthew makes Jesus before the tribunal of the high priest\npredict his exaltation to the right hand of the divine power (xxvi.\n64), and after his resurrection declare that now all power is given to\nhim in heaven and earth (xxviii. 18); and nevertheless has nothing of a\nvisible ascension, but on the contrary puts into the mouth of Jesus the\nassurance: I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (v. 20):\nit is evident that the latent idea, on which his representation is\nfounded, is that Jesus, doubtless immediately on his resurrection,\nascended invisibly to the Father, though at the same time remaining\ninvisibly with his followers; and that out of this concealment he, as\noften as he found it expedient, revealed himself in Christophanies. The\nsame view is to be discerned in the Apostle Paul, when in 1 Cor. xv. he\nundistinguishingly places the appearance to himself of the Christ\nalready ascended into heaven, in one series with the earlier\nChristophanies; and also the author of the fourth gospel and the rest\nof the New Testament writers only presuppose what must necessarily be\npresupposed according to the messianic passage: Sit thou at my right\nhand, Ps. cx. 1: that Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God;\nwithout deciding anything as to the manner of the exaltation, or\nrepresenting to themselves the ascension as a visible one. The\nimagination of the primitive Christians must however have felt a strong\ntemptation to depict this exaltation as a brilliant spectacle. When it\nwas once concluded that the Messiah Jesus had arrived at so exalted a\nposition, it would appear desirable to gaze after him, as it were, on\nhis way thither. If it was expected, in accordance with the prophecy of\nDaniel, that his future return from heaven would be a visible descent\nin the clouds: this would naturally suggest that his departure to\nheaven should be represented as a visible ascent on a cloud; and when\nLuke makes the two white-apparelled angels, who joined the disciples\nafter the removal of Jesus, say: this same Jesus, who is taken up from\nyou into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go\ninto heaven (Acts i. 11): we need only take the converse of this\ndeclaration in order to have before us the genesis of the conception of\nthe ascension of Jesus; for the mode of conclusion was this: as Jesus\nwill at some future time return from heaven in the clouds, so he must\nsurely have departed thither [2193] in the same manner.\n\nCompared with these primary incentives, the Old Testament precedents\nwhich the ascension of Jesus has in the translation of Enoch (Gen. v.\n24; comp. Wis. xliv. 16, xlix. 16; Heb. xi. 5), and especially in the\nascension of Elijah (2 Kings ii. 11; comp. Wis. xlviii. 9; 1 Macc. ii.\n58), together with the Grecian and Roman apotheoses of Hercules and\nRomulus, recede into the background. Apart from the question whether\nthe latter were known to the second and third Evangelists; the\nstatement relative to Enoch is too vague; while the chariot and horses\nof fire that transported Elijah were not adapted to the milder spirit\nof Christ. Instead of this the enveloping cloud and the removal while\nholding a farewell conversation, may appear to have been borrowed from\nthe later representation of the removal of Moses, which however in\nother particulars has considerable divergencies from that of Jesus.\n[2194] Perhaps also one trait in the narrative of the Acts may be\nexplained out of the history of Elijah. When this prophet, before his\ntranslation, is entreated by his servant Elisha that he will bequeath\nhim a double measure of his spirit: Elijah attaches to the concession\nof this boon the condition: if thou see me when I am taken from thee,\nit shall be so unto thee; but if not, it shall not be so; whence we\nmight perhaps gather the reason why Luke (Acts i. 9) lays stress on the\nfact that the disciples beheld Jesus as he went up (\u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7): namely, because, according to the narrative concerning Elijah,\nthis was necessary, if the disciples were to receive the spirit of\ntheir master.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUDING DISSERTATION.\n\nTHE DOGMATIC IMPORT OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.\n\n\u00a7 144.\n\nNECESSARY TRANSITION FROM CRITICISM TO DOGMA.\n\nThe results of the inquiry which we have now brought to a close, have\napparently annihilated the greatest and most valuable part of that\nwhich the Christian has been wont to believe concerning his Saviour\nJesus, have uprooted all the animating motives which he has gathered\nfrom his faith, and withered all his consolations. The boundless store\nof truth and life which for eighteen centuries has been the aliment of\nhumanity, seems irretrievably dissipated; the most sublime levelled\nwith the dust, God divested of his grace, man of his dignity, and the\ntie between heaven and earth broken. Piety turns away with horror from\nso fearful an act of desecration, and strong in the impregnable\nself-evidence of its faith, pronounces that, let an audacious criticism\nattempt what it will, all which the Scriptures declare, and the Church\nbelieves of Christ, will still subsist as eternal truth, nor needs one\niota of it to be renounced. Thus at the conclusion of the criticism of\nthe history of Jesus, there presents itself this problem: to\nre-establish dogmatically that which has been destroyed critically.\n\nAt the first glance, this problem appears to exist merely as a\nchallenge addressed by the believer to the critic, not as a result of\nthe moral requirements of either. The believer would appear to need no\nre-establishment of the faith, since for him it cannot be subverted by\ncriticism. The critic seems to require no such re-establishment, since\nhe is able to endure the annihilation resulting from his own labours.\nHence it might be supposed that the critic, when he seeks to rescue the\ndogma from the flames which his criticism has kindled, acts falsely in\nrelation to his own point of view, since, to satisfy the believer, he\ntreats what is valueless for himself as if he esteemed it to be a\njewel; while in relation to the believer, he is undertaking a\nsuperfluous task, in labouring to defend that which the latter\nconsiders in no way endangered.\n\nBut on a nearer view the case appears otherwise. To all belief, not\nbuilt on demonstration, doubt is inherent, though it may not be\ndeveloped; the most firmly believing Christian has within him the\nelements of criticism as a latent deposit of unbelief, or rather as a\nnegative germ of knowledge, and only by its constant repression can he\nmaintain the predominance of his faith, which is thus essentially a\nre-established faith. And just as the believer is intrinsically a\nsceptic or critic, so, on the other hand, the critic is intrinsically a\nbeliever. In proportion as he is distinguished from the naturalistic\ntheologian, and the free-thinker,\u2014in proportion as his criticism is\nconceived in the spirit of the nineteenth century,\u2014he is filled with\nveneration for every religion, and especially for the substance of the\nsublimest of all religions, the Christian, which he perceives to be\nidentical with the deepest philosophical truth; and hence, after having\nin the course of his criticism exhibited only the differences between\nhis conviction and the historical belief of the Christian, he will feel\nurged to place that identity in a just light.\n\nFurther, our criticism, though in its progress it treats of details,\nyet on becoming part of our internal conviction, resolves itself into\nthe simple element of doubt, which the believer neutralizes by an\nequally simple veto, and then spreads anew in undiminished luxuriance\nall the fulness of his creed. But hereby the decisions of criticism are\nonly dismissed, not vanquished, and that which is believed is supported\nby no intermediate proof, but rests absolutely on its own evidence.\nCriticism cannot but direct itself against this absence of intermediate\nproof, and thus the controversy which seemed ended is renewed, and we\nare thrown back to the beginning of our inquiry; yet with a difference\nwhich constitutes a step forward in the discussion. Hitherto our\ncriticism had for its object the data of Christianity, as historically\npresented in the evangelical records; now, these data having been\ncalled in question in their historical form, assume that of a mental\nproduct, and find a refuge in the soul of the believer; where they\nexist, not as a simple history, but as a reflected history, that is, a\nconfession of faith, a received dogma. Against this dogma, presenting\nitself totally unsupported by evidence, criticism must indeed awake, as\nit does against all deficiency of proof, in the character of a\nnegativing power, and a contender for intermediate proof: it will,\nhowever, no longer be occupied with history, but with doctrines. Thus\nour historical criticism is followed up by dogmatical criticism, and it\nis only after the faith has passed through both these trials, that it\nis thoroughly tested and constituted science.\n\nThis second process through which the faith has to pass, ought, like\nthe first, to be made the subject of a distinct work: I shall here\nmerely give a sketch of its most important features, that I may not\nterminate an historical criticism without pointing out its ultimate\nobject, which can only be arrived at by dogmatical criticism as a\nsequel.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 145.\n\nTHE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE ORTHODOX SYSTEM.\n\nThe dogmatic import of the life of Jesus implicitly received, and\ndeveloped on this basis, constitutes the orthodox doctrine of the\nChrist.\n\nIts fundamental principles are found in the New Testament. The root of\nfaith in Jesus was the conviction of his resurrection. He who had been\nput to death, however great during his life, could not, it was thought,\nbe the Messiah: his miraculous restoration to life proved so much the\nmore strongly that he was the Messiah. Freed by his resurrection from\nthe kingdom of shades, and at the same time elevated above the sphere\nof earthly humanity, he was now translated to the heavenly regions, and\nhad taken his place at the right hand of God (Acts ii. 32 ff., iii. 15\nff., v. 30 ff.; and elsewhere). Now, his death appeared to be the chief\narticle in his messianic destination; according to Isa. liii., he had\nsuffered for the sins of his people and of mankind (Acts viii. 32 ff.;\ncomp. Matt. xx. 28; John i. 29, 36; 1 John ii. 2); his blood poured out\non the cross, operated like that which on the great day of atonement\nthe high priest sprinkled on the mercy-seat (Rom. iii. 25); he was the\npure lamb by whose blood the believing are redeemed (1 Pet. i. 18 f.);\nthe eternal, sinless high priest, who by the offering of his own body,\nat once effected that, which the Jewish high priests were unable to\neffect, by their perpetually repeated sacrifices of animals (Heb. x. 10\nff., etc.). But, thenceforth, the Messiah who was exalted to the right\nhand of God, could not have been a common man: not only was he anointed\nwith the divine spirit in a greater measure than any prophet (Acts iv.\n27, x. 38); not only did he prove himself to be a divine messenger by\nmiracles and signs (Acts ii. 22); but also, according as the one idea\nor the other was most readily formed, either he was supernaturally\nengendered by the Holy Spirit (Matt. and Luke i.), or he had descended\nas the Word and Wisdom of God into an earthly body (John i.). As,\nbefore his appearance on the earth, he was in the bosom of the Father,\nin divine majesty (John xvii. 5); so his descent into the world of\nmortals, and still more his submission to an ignominious death, was a\nvoluntary humiliation, to which he was moved by his love to mankind\n(Phil. ii. 5 ff.). The risen and ascended Jesus will one day return to\nwake the dead and judge the world (Acts i. 11, xvii. 31); he even now\ntakes charge of his church (Rom. viii. 34; 1 John ii. 1), participating\nin the government of the world, as he originally did in its creation\n(Matt. xxviii. 18; John i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16 f.). In addition to all\nthis, every trait in the image of the Messiah as sketched by the\npopular expectation, was attributed with necessary or gratuitous\nmodifications to Jesus; nay, the imagination, once stimulated, invented\nnew characteristics.\n\nHow richly fraught with blessing and elevation, with encouragement and\nconsolation, were the thoughts which the early Church derived from this\nview of the Christ! By the mission of the Son of God into the world, by\nhis delivery of himself to death for the sake of the world, heaven and\nearth are reconciled (2 Cor. v. 18 ff.; Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 20); by\nthis most stupendous sacrifice, the love of God is securely guaranteed\nto man (Rom. v. 8 ff., viii. 31 ff.; 1 John iv. 9), and the brightest\nhopes are revealed to him. Did the Son of God become man? Then are men\nhis brethren, and as such the children of God, and heirs with Christ to\nthe treasure of divine bliss (Rom. viii. 16 f., 29). The servile\nrelation of man to God, as it existed under the law, has ceased; love\nhas taken the place of the fear of the punishment threatened by the law\n(Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 1 ff.). Believers are redeemed from the curse\nof the law by Christ\u2019s sacrifice of himself, inasmuch as he suffered a\ndeath on which the law had laid a curse (Gal. iii. 13). Now, there is\nno longer imposed on us the impossible task of satisfying all the\ndemands of the law (Gal. iii. 10 f.)\u2014a task which, as experience shows,\nno man fulfils (Rom. i. 18-iii. 20), which, by reason of his sinful\nnature, no man can fulfil (Rom. v. 12 ff.), and which only involves him\nwho strives to fulfil it, more and more deeply in the most miserable\nconflict with himself (Rom. vii. 7 ff.): whereas he who believes in\nChrist, and confides in the atoning efficacy of his death, possesses\nthe favour of God; not by works and qualifications of his own, but by\nthe free mercy of God, is the man who throws himself on that mercy just\nbefore God, by which all self-exaltation is excluded (Rom. iii. 31\nff.). As the Mosaic law is no longer binding on the believer, he being\ndead to it with Christ (Rom. vii. 1 ff.); as, moreover, by the eternal\nand all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ, the Jewish sacrificial and\npriestly service is abolished (Heb.); therefore the partition wall\nwhich separated the Jews and Gentiles is broken down: the latter, who\nbefore were aliens and strangers to the theocracy, without God and\nwithout hope in the world, are now invited to participate in the new\ncovenant, and free access is opened to them to the paternal God; so\nthat the two portions of mankind, formerly separated by hostile\nopinions, are now at peace with each other, members in common of the\nbody of Christ\u2014stones in the spiritual building of his Church (Eph. ii.\n11 ff.). But to have justifying faith in the death of Christ, is,\nvirtually, to die with him spiritually\u2014that is, to die to sin; and as\nChrist arose from the dead to a new and immortal life, so must the\nbeliever in him arise from the death of sin to a new life of\nrighteousness and holiness, put off the old man and put on the new\n(Rom. vi. 1 ff.). In this, Christ himself aids him by his Spirit, who\nfills those whom he inspires with spiritual strivings, and makes them\never more and more free from the slavery of sin (Rom. viii. 1 ff.). Nor\nalone spiritually, will the Spirit of Christ animate those in whom he\ndwells, but corporeally also, for at the end of their earthly course,\nGod, through Christ, will resuscitate their bodies, as he did the body\nof Christ (Rom. viii. 11). Christ, whom the bonds of death and the\nnether world could not hold, has vanquished both for us, and has\ndelivered the believer from the fear of these dread powers which rule\nover mortality (Rom. viii. 38 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 55 ff.; Heb. ii. 14 f.).\nHis resurrection not only confers atoning efficacy on his death (Rom.\niv. 25), but at the same time is the pledge of our own future\nresurrection, of our share in Christ in a future life, in his messianic\nkingdom, to the blessedness of which he will, at his second advent,\nlead all his people. Meanwhile, we may console ourselves that we have\nin him an Intercessor, who from his own experience of the weakness and\nfrailty of our nature, which he himself assumed, and in which he was in\nall points tempted as we are, but without sin, knows how much\nindulgence and aid we need (Heb. ii. 17 f., iv. 15 f.).\n\nThe expediency of describing in compendious forms the riches of their\nfaith in Christ, was early felt by his followers. They celebrated him\nas Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at\nthe right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us, \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd, \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f45\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03bd\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd (Rom. viii. 34); or with more particularity as\nJesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to\nthe flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to\nthe Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, \u1f38. \u03a7. \u1f41\n\u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1, \u1f41\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd (Rom. i. 3 f.); and\nas confessedly the great mystery of godliness, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, the following propositions were presented: God was\nmanifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,\npreached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into\nglory, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76, \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u1fc3 (1 Tim. iii.\n16).\n\nThe baptismal formula (Matt. xxviii. 19), by its allocation of Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost, presented a sort of framework in which to arrange\nthe materials of the new faith. On this basis was constructed in the\nfirst centuries what was called the rule of faith, regula fidei, which\nin divers forms, some more concise, others more diffuse, some more\npopular, others more subtle, is found in the different fathers. [2195]\nThe more popular form at length settled into what is called the creed\nof the apostles. This symbol, in that edition of it which is received\nin the evangelical church, has in its second and most elaborate article\non the Son, the following points of belief: et (credo) in Jesum\nChristum, filium ejus (Dei patris) unicum, Dominum nostrum; qui\nconceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine; passus sub\nPontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus et sepultus, descendit ad inferna;\ntertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit ad c\u0153los, sedet ad dextram\nDei patris omnipotentis; inde venturus est, judicare vivos et mortuos.\n\nTogether with this popular form of the confession of faith in relation\nto Christ, there was also framed a more rigorous and minute theological\ndigest, occasioned by the differences and controversies which early\narose on certain points. The fundamental thesis of the Christian faith,\nthat the Word was made flesh, \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, or, God was\nmanifested in the flesh, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76, was endangered on all\nsides, one questioning the Godhead, another the manhood, and a third\nthe veritable union of the two natures.\n\nIt is true that those who, like the Ebionites, denied the Godhead, or\nlike that sect of the Gnostics called Docet\u00e6, the manhood of Christ,\nseparated themselves too decidedly from the Christian community, which\non her part maintained that it was necessary that the mediator of God\nand man should unite both in friendship and harmony by means of a\nproper relationship to each, and that while he represented man to God,\nhe should reveal God to man, \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd. [2196] But when it was merely the plenitude of\nthe one nature or the other, which was contested,\u2014as when Arius\nmaintained that the being who became man in Christ was indeed divine,\nbut created, and subordinate to the supreme God; when, while ascribing\nto Christ a human body, he held that the place of the soul was occupied\nby that superior being; when Apollinaris maintained that not only the\nbody of Jesus was truly human, but his soul also, and that the divine\nbeing only served in the stead of the third principle in man, the \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\n(understanding);\u2014these were opinions to which it was easier to give a\nChristian guise. Nevertheless the Church rejected the Arian idea of a\nsubordinate God become man in Jesus, for this reason among others less\nessential, that on this theory the image of the Godhead would not have\nbeen manifested in Christ; [2197] and she condemned the idea of Arius\nand Apollinaris, that the human nature of Christ had not the human \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\n(soul), or the human \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 (understanding), for this reason chiefly,\nthat only by the union of the divine, with an entire human nature,\ncould the human race be redeemed. [2198]\n\nNot only might the one or the other aspect of the nature of Christ be\ndefaced or put out of sight, but in relation also to the union of the\ntwo, there might be error, and again in two opposite directions. The\ndevout enthusiasm of many led them to believe, that they could not draw\ntoo closely the newly-entwined bond between heaven and earth; hence\nthey no longer wished to distinguish between the Godhead and manhood in\nChrist, and since he had appeared in one person, they acknowledged in\nhim only one nature, that of the Son of God made flesh. Others, more\nscrupulous, could not reconcile themselves to such a confusion of the\ndivine and the human: it seemed to them blasphemous to say that a human\nmother had given birth to God: hence they maintained that she had only\nborne the man whom the Son of God selected as his temple; and that in\nChrist there were two natures, united indeed so far as the adoration of\nhis followers was concerned, but distinct as regarded their essence. To\nthe Church, both these views appeared to encroach on the mystery of the\nincarnation: if the two natures were held to be permanently distinct,\nthen was the union of the divine and human, the vital point of\nChristianity, destroyed; if a mixture of the two were admitted, then\nneither nature in its individual quality was capable of a union with\nthe other, and thus again no true unity would be attained. Hence both\nthese opinions were condemned, the latter in the person of Eutyches,\nthe former, not with equal justice, in that of Nestorius; and as the\nNicene creed established the true Godhead of Christ, so that of\nChalcedon established his true and perfect manhood, and the union of\nthe two natures in one undivided person. [2199] When subsequently there\narose a controversy concerning the will of Christ, analogous to that\nconcerning his nature, the Church, in accordance with its previous\ndecisions, pronounced that in Christ, as the God-man, there were two\nwills, distinct but not discordant, the human will being subordinate to\nthe divine. [2200]\n\nIn comparison with the controversies on the being and essence of\nChrist, the other branch of the faith, the doctrine of his work, was\ndeveloped in tranquillity. The most comprehensive view of it was this:\nthe Son of God, by assuming the human nature, gave it a holy and divine\ncharacter [2201]\u2014above all he endowed it with immortality; [2202] while\nin a moral view, the mission of the Son of God into the world being the\nhighest proof of the love of God, was the most efficacious means of\nawakening a return of love in the human breast. [2203] To this one\ngreat effect of the appearance of Christ, were annexed collateral\nbenefits: his salutary teaching, his sublime example, were held up to\nview, [2204] but especial importance was attached to the violent death\nwhich he suffered. The idea of substitution, already given in the New\nTestament, was more fully developed: the death of Jesus was regarded,\nnow as a ransom paid by him to the devil for the liberation of mankind,\nwho had fallen into the power of the evil one through sin; now as a\nmeans devised by God for removing guilt, and enabling him to remit the\npunishment threatened to the sins of man, without detriment to his\ntruthfulness, Christ having taken that punishment on himself. [2205]\nThe latter idea was worked up by Anselm, in his book entitled Cur Deus\nhomo, into the well known theory of satisfaction, by which the doctrine\nof Christ\u2019s work of redemption is placed in the closest connexion with\nthat of his person. Man owes to God perfect obedience; but the\nsinner\u2014and such, are all men\u2014withholds from God the service and honour\nwhich are His due. Now God, by reason of his justice, cannot suffer an\noffence against his honour: therefore, either man must voluntarily\nrestore to God that which is God\u2019s, nay, must, for complete\nsatisfaction, render to him more than he has hitherto withheld; or, God\nmust as a punishment take from man that which is man\u2019s, namely, the\nhappiness for which he was originally created. Man is not able to do\nthe former; for as he owes to God all the duties that he can perform,\nin order not to fall into sin, he can have no overplus of merit,\nwherewith to cover past sins. On the other hand, that God should obtain\nsatisfaction by the infliction of eternal punishment, is opposed to his\nunchangeable goodness, which moves him actually to lead man to that\nbliss for which he was originally destined. This, however, cannot\nhappen consistently with divine justice, unless satisfaction be made\nfor man, and according to the measure of that which has been taken from\nGod, something be rendered to him, greater than all else except God.\nBut this can be none other than God himself; and as, on the other hand,\nman alone can satisfy for man: it must therefore be a God-man who gives\nsatisfaction. Moreover this cannot consist in active obedience, in a\nsinless life, because every reasonable being owes this to God on his\nown behalf; but to suffer death, the wages of sin, a sinless being is\nnot bound, and thus the satisfaction for the sins of man consists in\nthe death of the God-man, whose reward, since he himself, as one with\nGod, cannot be rewarded, is put to the account of man.\n\nThis doctrinal system of the ancient church concerning the person and\nwork of Christ, passed also into the confessions of the Lutheran\nchurches, and was still more elaborately developed by their\ntheologians. [2206] With regard to the person of Christ, they adhered\nto the union of the divine and human natures in one person: according\nto them, in the act of this union, unitio personalis, which was\nsimultaneous with the conception, it was the divine nature of the Son\nof God which adopted the human into the unity of its personality; the\nstate of union, the unio personalis, was neither essential, nor yet\nmerely accidental, neither mystical nor moral, still less merely\nverbal, but a real and supernatural union, and eternal in its duration.\nFrom this union with the divine nature, there result to the human\nnature in Christ certain pre-eminent advantages: namely, what at first\nappears a deficiency, that of being in itself impersonal, and of having\npersonality only by its union with the divine nature; further,\nimpeccability, and the possibility of not dying. Besides these special\nadvantages, the human nature of Christ obtains others also from its\nunion with the divine. The relation of the two natures is not a dead,\nexternal one, but a reciprocal penetration, a \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2; an union not\nlike that of two boards glued together, but like that of fire and metal\nin glowing iron, or of the body and soul in man. This communion of\nnatures, communio naturarum, is manifested by a communication of\nproperties, communicatio idiomatum, in virtue of which the human nature\nparticipates in the advantages of the divine, and the divine in the\nredeeming work of the human. This relation is expressed in the\npropositions concerning the person, propositionibus personalibus, and\nthose concerning the properties, idiomaticis; the former are\npropositions in which the concrete of the one nature, i.e. the one\nnature as conceived in the person of Christ, is predicated of the\nother, as in 1 Cor. xv. 47: the second man is the Lord from heaven; the\nlatter are propositions in which determinations of one or the other\nnature, are referred to the entire person (genus idiomaticum), or in\nwhich acts of the entire person are referred to one or the other nature\n(genus apotelesmaticum), or lastly, in which attributes of the one\nnature are transferred to the other, which however is only possible\nfrom the divine to the human, not from the human to the divine (genus\nauchematicum).\n\nIn passing through the successive stages of the work of redemption,\nChrist with his person endowed with two natures, experienced, according\nto the expression of the dogmatical theologians, founded on Phil. ii. 6\nff., two states, statum exinanitionis, and statum exaltationis. His\nhuman nature in its union with the divine, participated from the moment\nof conception in divine properties: but as during his earthly life\nJesus made no continuous use of them, that life to the time of his\ndeath and burial, is regarded as a state of humiliation: whereas, with\nthe resurrection, or even with the descent into hell, commenced the\nstate of exaltation which was consummated by the sessio ad dextram\npatris.\n\nAs to the work of Christ, the doctrine of our Church attributes to him\na triple office. As prophet, he has revealed to man the highest truth,\nthe divine decree of redemption, confirming his testimony by miracles;\nand he still unceasingly controls the announcement of this truth. As\nhigh priest, he has, on the one hand, by his irreproachable life,\nfulfilled the law in our stead (obedientia activa); on the other, he\nhas borne, in his sufferings and death, the punishment which impended\nover us (obedientia passiva), and now perpetually intercedes for us\nwith the Father. Lastly, as king, he governs the world, and more\nparticularly the Church, which he will lead from the conflicts of earth\nto the glory of heaven, completing its destiny by the general\nresurrection and the last judgment.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 146.\n\nOBJECTIONS TO THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE CHURCH.\n\nThe Reformed Church did not go thus far with the Lutherans in their\ndoctrine of the person of Christ, for they did not admit the last and\nboldest consequence drawn by the latter from the union of the manhood\nand Godhead\u2014the communicatio idiomatum, or communication of properties.\nThe Lutherans themselves did not hold that the properties of the human\nnature were communicated to the divine, nor that all the properties of\nthe divine nature, eternity for example, could be communicated to the\nhuman; [2207] and this gave occasion on the part of the Reformed\nChurch, to the following objection: the communication of properties\nmust be reciprocal and complete, or it is none at all; moreover, by the\ncommunication of the properties of an infinite nature to a finite one,\nthe latter is not less annihilated as to its essence than an infinite\nnature would be, were it to receive the properties of a finite one.\n[2208] When the Lutherans sought shelter in the position, that the\nproperties of the one nature were only so far shared by the other, as\naccording to its character is possible, uti per suam indolem potest,\n[2209] they in fact did away altogether with the communicatio\nidiomatum; and indeed this doctrine has been explicitly given up even\nby orthodox theologians since Reinhard.\n\nBut the simple root of this complicated exchange of properties, the\nunion of the divine and human natures in one person, has also met with\ncontradiction.\n\nThe Socinians denied it on the ground that two natures, each of which\nalone constitutes a person, cannot be united to form a single person,\nespecially when they possess properties so opposite, as where the one\nis immortal, the other mortal, the one uncreated, the other created;\n[2210] and the Rationalists agree with them, insisting more\nparticularly that the formul\u00e6 of the Church, in which the above union\nis defined, are almost entirely negative, thus presenting no conception\nto the mind, and that in a Christ, who by the aid of a divine nature\ndwelling within him, withstood evil and kept himself from sin, the man\nwho is destitute of such aid can have no true example. [2211]\n\nThe essential and tenable points of the rationalistic objections to\nthis doctrine, have been the most acutely perceived and arranged by\nSchleiermacher, who, on this subject as on many others, has brought the\nnegative criticism of the dogmas of the Church to completeness. [2212]\nBefore all else he finds it a difficulty, that by the expression,\ndivine nature and human nature, divinity and humanity are placed under\none category, and what is more, under the category of nature, which\nessentially denotes only a limited being, conceived by means of its\nopposite. Further, while ordinarily one nature is common to many\nindividuals or persons, here one person is supposed to partake of two\ndifferent natures. Now if by person be meant the permanent conscious\nunity of a living being, and by nature, the sum of the laws which\ngovern the conditions of life in that being: it is not to be conceived,\nhow two opposite systems of conditions can have but one centre. The\nabsurdity of this doctrine becomes, according to Schleiermacher,\nespecially evident in the supposition of two wills in Christ, since,\nfor consistency, two wills must be associated with two understandings,\nand as the understanding and will constitute the personality, Christ\nwould on this supposition be inevitably divided into two persons. It is\ntrue that the two wills are supposed always to will in unison: but, on\nthe one hand, there results from this only a moral, not a personal\nunity; on the other hand, this unison of wills is not possible in\nrelation to the divine and the human will, since the latter, which from\nits very essence can only exercise itself on particulars as they\npresent themselves in succession, can as little will the same with the\nformer, whose object is the whole in its development, as the human\nunderstanding, which acts by reasoning, can think the same with the\ndivine understanding, which acts intuitively. Hence it evidently\nfollows also that a communication of properties between the two natures\nis not to be admitted.\n\nThe doctrine of the work of Christ did not escape a similar criticism.\nPassing over what has been objected in point of form to the division of\nthis work into three offices, the ideas of revelation and miracles,\nunder the head of the prophetic office, were chiefly called in\nquestion. It was argued that these ideas agreed neither objectively\nwith just conceptions of God and the world in their reciprocal\nrelation, nor subjectively with the laws of the human intellect; that\nthe perfect God could not have created a world which from time to time\nneeded the extraordinary interposition of the Creator, nor more\nparticularly a human nature which was incapable of attaining its\ndestination by the development of its innate faculties; that the\nimmutable Being could not operate on the world first in this manner,\nthen in that, at one time mediately, at another immediately, but that\nhe must always have operated on it in the same manner, namely, in\nhimself and on the whole immediately, but for us and on individuals\nmediately; that to admit an interruption of the order of nature, and of\nthe development of humanity, would be to renounce all rational thought,\nwhile, in the particular case in question, a revelation or miracle is\nnot confidently to be recognized as such, since, in order to be sure\nthat certain results have not proceeded from the powers of nature and\nthe faculties of the human mind, a perfect knowledge of the resources\nof both would be requisite, and of such a knowledge man is not\npossessed. [2213]\n\nBut the main difficulty lay in the office of high priest, attributed to\nJesus\u2014in the doctrine of the atonement. That which especially drew\nforth objections was the human aspect which in Anselm\u2019s system was\ngiven to the relation of God to the Son of man. As it well becomes man\nto forgive offences without exacting vengeance, so, thought Socinus,\nmight God forgive the offences committed against him by men, without\nsatisfaction. [2214] To meet this objection Hugo Grotius argued, that\nnot as in consequence of personal injuries, but to maintain the order\nof the moral world inviolable, or in virtue of his justitia rectoria,\nGod cannot forgive sins without satisfaction. [2215] Nevertheless,\ngranting the necessity for satisfaction, it did not appear to be met by\nthe death of Jesus. While Anselm, and still more decidedly Thomas\nAquinas, [2216] spoke of a satisfactio superabundans, Socinus denied\nthat Christ had even borne as much punishment as men have deserved; for\nevery individual man having deserved eternal death, consequently, as\nmany substitutes as sinners ought to have suffered eternal death;\nwhereas in this case, the single Christ has suffered merely temporal\ndeath, and that as an introduction to the highest glory; nor did this\ndeath attach to his divine nature, so that it might be said to have\ninfinite value, but only to his human nature. On the other hand, Duns\nScotus, [2217] in opposition to Thomas, and subsequently Grotius and\nthe Arminians (equi-distant from orthodoxy and Socinianism), adopted\nthe expedient of maintaining, that the merit of Christ was indeed in\nitself finite like its subject, his human nature, and hence was\ninadequate as a satisfaction for the sins of the world; but that God\naccepted it as adequate out of his free grace. But from the admission\nthat God can content himself with an inadequate satisfaction, and thus\ncan forgive a part of the guilt without satisfaction, it follows\nnecessarily, that he must also be able thus to forgive the whole.\nBesides these more precise definitions, however, the fundamental idea\nof the whole fabric, namely, that one individual can take upon himself\nthe punishment due to the sins of another, has been attacked as an\nignorant transference of the conditions of a lower order of relation to\na higher. Moral transgressions, it has been said, are not transmissible\nobligations; it is not with them as with debts of money, which it is\nimmaterial to the creditor who pays, provided they are paid; rather it\nis essential to the punishment of sin, that it should fall on the\nguilty only. [2218] If, according to this, the so-called passive\nobedience of Christ cannot have been vicarious, still less can his\nactive obedience have been so, since as man he was bound to render this\non his own behalf. [2219]\n\nIn relation to the kingly office of Christ, the hope of his second\nadvent to judge the world lost ground in the sentiment of the Church,\nin proportion as the opinion obtained, that every individual enters on\na state of complete retribution immediately after death, for this\nopinion made the general judgment appear superfluous. [2220]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 147.\n\nTHE CHRISTOLOGY OF RATIONALISM.\n\nThe Rationalists, rejecting the doctrine of the Church concerning\nChrist, his person, and his work, as self-contradictory, useless, nay,\neven hurtful to the true morality of the religious sentiment,\npropounded in its stead a system which, while it avoided all\ncontradictions, yet in a certain sense retained for Jesus the character\nof a divine manifestation, which even, rightly considered, placed him\nfar higher, and moreover embodied the strongest motives to practical\npiety. [2221]\n\nAccording to them, Jesus was still a divine messenger, a special\nfavourite and charge of the Deity, inasmuch as, furnished by the\ndisposition of Providence with an extraordinary measure of spiritual\nendowment, he was born in an age and nation, and guided in a career,\nthe most favourable to his development into that for which he was\ndestined; and, especially, inasmuch as he was subjected to a species of\ndeath that rendered possible his apparent resurrection, on which\ndepended the success of his entire work, and was encompassed by a\nseries of circumstances which actually brought that resurrection to\npass. The Rationalists hold that their idea of the Christ is not\nessentially below the orthodox one, as regards his natural endowments\nand his external destiny, for in their view also he is the greatest man\nthat ever trod the earth\u2014a hero, in whose fate Providence is in the\nhighest degree glorified: while, as regards the internal development\nand free agency of Jesus, they believe their doctrine essentially to\nsurpass that of the Church. The Christ of the Church, they contend, is\na mere automaton, whose manhood lies under the control of his Godhead\nlike a lifeless instrument, which acts with moral perfection because it\nhas no power to sin, and for this reason can neither have moral merit,\nnor be the object of affection and reverence: according to the\nrationalistic view, on the contrary, Jesus had implanted in him by God\nthe natural conditions only of that which he was ultimately to become,\nand his realization of this destiny was the result of his own\nspontaneity. His admirable wisdom he acquired by the judicious\napplication of his intellectual powers, and the conscientious use of\nall the aids within his reach; his moral greatness, by the zealous\nculture of his moral dispositions, the restraint of his sensual\ninclinations and passions, and a scrupulous obedience to the voice of\nhis conscience: and on these alone rested all that was exalted in his\npersonality, all that was encouraging in his example.\n\nAs regards the work of Jesus, the rationalistic view is, that he has\nendeared himself to mankind by this above all else, that he has taught\nthem a religion to which for its purity and excellence is justly\nascribed a certain divine power and dignity; and that he has\nillustrated and enforced this religion by the brilliant example of his\nown life. This prophetic office of Christ is with Socinians and\nRationalists the essence of his work, and to this they refer all the\nrest, especially what the doctrine of the Church comprehends under the\noffice of high priest. With them the so-called active obedience has\nvalue solely as an example; and the death of Jesus conduces to the\nforgiveness of sins, solely by furthering the reformation of the sinner\nin one of these two ways: either, as a confirmation of his doctrine,\nand a type of the devoted fulfilment of duty, it serves to kindle a\nzeal for virtue; or, as a proof of the love of God to man, of his\ninclination to pardon the converted sinner, it invigorates moral\ncourage. [2222]\n\nIf Christ was no more, and did no more, than this rationalistic\ndoctrine supposes, it is not easy to see how piety has come to make him\nher special object, or dogmatism to lay down special propositions\nconcerning him. Consistent Rationalists have in fact admitted, that\nwhat the orthodox dogma calls Christology, forms no integral part of\nthe rationalistic system, since this system consists indeed of a\nreligion which Christ taught, but not of a religion of which he is the\nobject; that, viewing Christology as the doctrine of the Messiah, it is\nmerely an accommodation to the Jewish mind,\u2014that even taken in a more\nnoble sense, as the doctrine of the life, the actions, and the fate of\nJesus as a divine messenger, it does not belong to a system of faith,\nfor the universal truths of religion are as little connected with our\nideas concerning the person of him who first enunciated them, as are\nthe philosophical propositions in the systems of Leibnitz and Wolf, of\nKant, Fichte, and Schelling, with the opinions we may happen to form of\nthe persons of their authors; that what relates to the person and work\nof Jesus belongs, not to religion itself, but to the history of\nreligion, and must either be prefixed to a system of religious doctrine\nas an historical introduction, or appended to it as an elucidatory\nsequel. [2223] Accordingly Henke, in his Lineaments, has removed\nChristology from its wonted position as an integral part of systematic\ntheology, and has placed it as a subdivision under the head of\nanthropology.\n\nThus, however, Rationalism enters into open war with the Christian\nfaith, for it seeks to thrust into the background, nay, to banish from\nthe province of theology, that which is its essential point, and\ncorner-stone. But this very opposition is decisive of the insufficiency\nof the rationalistic system, proving that it does not perform what is\ndemanded from every system of religious doctrine: namely, first, to\ngive adequate expression to the faith which is the object of the\ndoctrine; and secondly, to place this expression in a relation, whether\npositive or negative, to science. Now the Rationalists, in the effort\nto bring the faith into harmony with science, restrict its expression;\nfor a Christ who is only a distinguished man, creates indeed no\ndifficulty to the understanding, but is not the Christ in whom the\nChurch believes.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 148.\n\nTHE ECLECTIC CHRISTOLOGY OF SCHLEIERMACHER.\n\nIt is the effort of this theologian to avoid both these ungrateful\nresults, and without prejudice to the faith, to form such a conception\nof the doctrine of the Christ as may be proof against the attacks of\nscience. [2224] On the one hand, he has adopted in its fullest extent\nthe negative criticism directed by Rationalism against the doctrine of\nthe Church, nay, he has rendered it even more searching; on the other\nhand, he has sought to retain what Rationalism had lost, the essential\npart of positive Christianity: and thus he has saved many in these days\nfrom the narrowness of Supranaturalism, and the emptiness of\nRationalism. This simplification of the faith Schleiermacher effects in\nthe following manner: he does not set out, with the Protestant, from\nthe doctrine of Scripture, nor with the Catholic from the decision of\nthe church, for in both these ways he would have to deal with a\nprecise, developed system, which, having originated in remote\ncenturies, must come into collision with the science of the present\nday; but he sets out from the consciousness of the Christian, from that\ninternal experience resulting to the individual from his connexion with\nthe Christian community, and he thus obtains a material which, as its\nbasis is feeling, is more flexible, and to which it is easier to give\ndialectically a form that satisfies science.\n\nAs a member of the Christian church\u2014this is the point of departure in\nthe Christology of Schleiermacher [2225]\u2014I am conscious of the removal\nof my sinfulness, and the impartation of absolute perfection: in other\nwords, in communion with the church, I feel operating upon me the\ninfluence of a sinless and perfect principle. This influence cannot\nproceed from the Christian community as an effect of the reciprocal\naction of its members on each other; for to every one of these sin and\nimperfection are inherent, and the co-operation of impure beings can\nnever produce anything pure as its result. It must be the influence of\none who possessed that sinlessness and perfection as personal\nqualities, and who moreover stands in such a relation to the Christian\ncommunity, that he can impart these qualities to its members: that is,\nsince the Christian church could not exist prior to this impartation,\nit must be the influence of its founder. As Christians, we find\nsomething operated within us; hence, as from every effect we argue to\nits cause, we infer the influence of Christ, and from this again, the\nnature of his person, which must have had the powers necessary to the\nexertion of this influence.\n\nTo speak more closely, that which we experience as members of the\nChristian church, is a strengthening of our consciousness of God, in\nits relation to our sensuous existence; that is, it is rendered easier\nto us to deprive the senses of their ascendancy within us, to make all\nour impressions the servants of the religious sentiment, and all our\nactions its offspring. According to what has been stated above, this is\nthe effect wrought in us by Christ, who imparts to us the strength of\nhis consciousness of God, frees us from the bondage of sensuality and\nsin, and is thus the Redeemer. In the feeling of the strengthened\nconsciousness of God which the Christian possesses by his communion\nwith the Redeemer, the obstructions of his natural and social life are\nnot felt as obstructions to his consciousness of God; they do not\ninterrupt the blessedness which he enjoys in his inmost religious life;\nwhat has been called evil, and divine chastisement, is not such for\nhim: and as it is Christ who by receiving him into the communion of his\nblessedness, frees him therefrom, the office of expiation is united to\nthat of redemption.\n\nIn this sense alone is the doctrine of the church concerning the\nthreefold office of Christ to be interpreted. He is a prophet, in that\nby the word\u2014by the setting forth of himself, and not otherwise,\u2014he\ncould draw mankind towards himself, and therefore the chief object of\nhis doctrine was his own person; he is at once a high priest and a\nsacrifice, in that he, the sinless one, from whose existence,\ntherefore, no evil could be evolved, entered into communion with the\nlife of sinful humanity, and endured the evils which adhere to it, that\nhe might take us into communion with his sinless and blessed life: in\nother words, deliver us from the power and consequences of sin and\nevil, and present us pure before God; lastly, he is a king, in that he\nbrings these blessings to mankind in the form of an organized society,\nof which he is the head.\n\nFrom this which Christ effects, we gather what he is. If we owe to him\nthe continual strengthening of the consciousness of God within us, this\nconsciousness must have existed in him in absolute strength, so that\nit, or God in the form of the consciousness, was the only operative\nforce within him, and this is the sense of the expression of the\nchurch\u2014God became man in Christ. If, further, Christ works in us a more\nand more complete conquest over sensuality, in himself there must have\nbeen an absolute conquest over it; in no moment of his life can the\nsensual consciousness have disputed the victory with his consciousness\nof God; never can a vacillation or struggle have had place within him:\nin other words, the human nature in him was sinless, and in the\nstricter sense, that, in virtue of the essential predominance within\nhim of the higher powers over the lower, it was impossible for him to\nsin. By this peculiarity of his nature he is the Archetype, the\nactualization of the ideal of humanity, which his church can only\napproach, never surpass; yet must he,\u2014for otherwise there could be no\ntrue fellowship between him and us,\u2014have been developed under the\nordinary conditions of human life: the ideal must in him have been\nperfectly historical, each phasis of his actual life must have borne\nthe impress of the ideal; and this is the proper sense of the church\nformula, that the divine and human nature were in him united into one\nperson.\n\nOnly thus far can the doctrine of the Christ be deduced from the\nexperience of the Christian, and thus far, according to Schleiermacher,\nit is not opposed to science: whatever in the dogma of the church goes\nbeyond this,\u2014as, for example, the supernatural conception of Jesus, and\nhis miracles, also the facts of the resurrection and ascension, and the\nprophecies of his second coming to judge the world,\u2014ought not to be\nbrought forward as integral parts of the doctrine of the Christ For he\nfrom whose influence upon us comes all the strengthening of our\nconsciousness of God, may have been the Christ, though he should not\nhave risen bodily from the dead, and ascended into heaven, etc.: so\nthat we believe these facts, not because they are involved in our\ninternal experience, but only because they are stated in Scripture; not\nso much, therefore, in a religious and dogmatical, as in an historical\nmanner.\n\nThis Christology is undeniably a beautiful effort of thought, and as we\nshall presently see, does the utmost towards rendering the union of the\ndivine and the human in Christ conceivable; but if its author supposed\nthat he kept the faith unmutilated and science unoffended, we are\ncompelled to pronounce that he was in both points deceived. [2226]\n\nScience opens its attack on the proposition, that the ideal man was\nhistorically manifested in the person of Christ. It did not escape\nSchleiermacher himself that this was a dangerous point. No sooner has\nhe put forth the above proposition, than he reflects on the difficulty\nof supposing that the ideal should be realized in one historical\nindividual; since, in other cases, we never find the ideal realized in\na single appearance, but only in an entire cycle of appearances, which\nreciprocally complete each other. It is true that this theologian does\nnot hold the character of Christ, as the ideal man, to extend to the\nmanifold relations of human life, so as to be the archetype for all the\nscience, art, and policy, that are developed in human society; he\nconfines it to the domain of the consciousness of God. But, as Schmid\nhas justly observed, this does not alter the case, for the\nconsciousness of God also, being, in its development and manifestation,\nsubject to the conditions of finiteness and imperfection; the\nsupposition that even in this department exclusively, the ideal was\nmanifested in a single historical individual, involves a violation of\nthe laws of nature by a miracle. This, however, is far from alarming\nSchleiermacher; on the contrary, he maintains that this is the place,\nand the only place, in which the Christian doctrine must necessarily\nadmit a miracle, since the originating of the person of Christ can only\nbe conceived as the result of a special divine act of creation. It is\ntrue, he limits the miraculous to the first introduction of Christ into\nthe series of existences, and allows the whole of his further\ndevelopment to have been subject to all the conditions of finite\nexistence: but this concession cannot repair the breach, which the\nsupposition only of one miracle makes in the scientific theory of the\nworld. Still less can any help be derived from vague analogies like the\nfollowing: as it is still possible that matter should begin to\nagglomerate and thence to revolve in infinite space; so science must\nadmit, that there may be in the domain of spiritual life an appearance,\nwhich in like manner we can only explain as the commencement, the first\npoint, in a higher process of development. [2227]\n\nThis comparison suggests the observation made by Braniss, namely, that\nit would be contrary to the laws of all development to regard the\ninitial member of a series as the greatest\u2014to suppose that in Christ,\nthe founder of that community, the object of which is the strengthening\nof the consciousness of God, the strength of this consciousness was\nabsolute, a perfection which is rather the infinitely distant goal of\nthe progressive development of the community founded by him.\nSchleiermacher does indeed attribute to Christianity perfectibility in\na certain sense: not as a capability of surpassing Christ in his\nnature, but solely in the conditions of its manifestation. His view is\nthis: the limitation, the imperfection of the relations of Christ, the\nlanguage in which he expressed himself, the nationality within which he\nwas placed, modified his thoughts and actions, but in their form alone;\ntheir essence remained nevertheless the perfect ideal. Now if\nChristianity in its progressive advancement in doctrine and practice,\nrejects more and more of those temporal and national limitations by\nwhich the actions and teaching of Jesus were circumscribed; this is not\nto surpass Christ, it is rather to give a more perfect expression of\nhis inner life. But, as Schmid has satisfactorily shown, an historical\nindividual is that which appears of him, and no more; his internal\nnature is known by his words and actions, the condition of his age and\nnation are a part of his individuality, and what lies beneath this\nphenomenal existence as the essence, is not the nature of this\nindividual, but the human nature in general, which in particular beings\noperates only under the limitations of their individuality, of time,\nand of circumstances. Thus to surpass the historical appearance of\nChrist, is to rise nearer, not to his nature, but to the idea of\nhumanity in general; and if we are to suppose that it is still Christ\nwhose nature is more truly expressed, when with the rejection of the\ntemporal and national, the essential elements of his doctrine and life\nare further developed: it would not be difficult, by a similar\nabstraction, to represent Socrates, as the one who in this manner\ncannot be surpassed.\n\nAs neither an individual in general, nor, in particular, the commencing\npoint in an historical series, can present the perfect ideal: so, if\nChrist be regarded decidedly as man, the archetypal nature and\ndevelopment which Schleiermacher ascribes to him, cannot be brought to\naccord with the laws of human existence. Impeccability, in the sense of\nthe impossibility of sinning, as it is supposed to exist in Christ, is\na quality totally incompatible with the human nature; for to man, in\nconsequence of his agency being liable to guidance by the motives of\nthe senses as well as of the reason, the possibility of sinning is\nessential. And if Christ was entirely free from inward conflict, from\nall vacillation of the spiritual life between good and evil, he could\nnot be a man of like nature with us; for the action and re-action\nbetween the spiritual nature in general and the external world, and, in\nparticular, between the superior religious and moral powers, and the\noperations of the mind in subordination to the senses, necessarily\nmanifests itself as a conflict. [2228]\n\nIf, on the one side, the Christology in question is far from satisfying\nscience, it is equally far, on the other side, from satisfying the\nfaith. We will not enter into those points in which, instead of the\ndecisions of the church, it at least offers acceptable substitutes\n(concerning which, however, it may be doubted whether they are a full\ncompensation). [2229] Its disagreement with the faith is the most\nconspicuous in the position, that the facts of the resurrection and\nascension do not form essential parts of the Christian faith. For the\nbelief in the resurrection of Christ is the foundation stone, without\nwhich the Christian church could not have been built; nor could the\ncycle of Christian festivals, which are the external representation of\nthe Christian faith, now suffer a more fatal mutilation than by the\nremoval of the festival of Easter: the Christ who died could not be\nwhat he is in the belief of the church, if he were not also the Christ\nwho rose again.\n\nThus the doctrine of Schleiermacher concerning the person and\nconditions of Christ, betrays a twofold inadequacy, not meeting the\nrequirements either of the faith of the church, or of science. It is\nclear, however, from his doctrine of the work of Christ, that in order\nto satisfy the former so far as is here done, such a contradiction of\nthe latter was quite unnecessary, and an easier course might have been\npursued. For resting merely on a backward inference from the inward\nexperience of the Christian as the effect, to the person of Christ as\nthe cause, the Christology of Schleiermacher has but a frail support,\nsince it cannot be proved that that inward experience is not to be\nexplained without the actual existence of such a Christ. Schleiermacher\nhimself did not overlook the probable objection that the church,\ninduced merely by the relative excellence of Jesus, conceived an ideal\nof absolute perfection, and transferred this to the historical Christ,\nfrom which combination she continually strengthens and vivifies her\nconsciousness of God: but he held this objection to be precluded by the\nobservation, that sinful humanity, by reason of the mutual dependence\nof the will and the understanding, is incapable of conceiving an\nimmaculate ideal. But, as it has been aptly remarked, if Schleiermacher\nclaims a miracle for the origination of his real Christ, we have an\nequal right to claim one for the origination of the ideal of a Christ\nin the human soul. [2230] Meanwhile, it is not true that sinful human\nnature is incapable of conceiving a sinless ideal. If by this ideal be\nunderstood merely a general conception, then the conception of the\nperfect and the sinless is as necessarily co-existent with the\nconsciousness of imperfection and sinfulness as the conception of\ninfinity with that of finiteness; since the two ideas conditionate one\nanother, and the one is not possible without the other. If, on the\nother hand, by this ideal be meant a concrete image, the conception of\na character in which all the individual features are portrayed, it may\nbe admitted that a sinful individual or age cannot depict such an image\nwithout blemish; but of this inability the age or individual itself is\nnot conscious, not having any superior standard, and if the image be\nbut slightly drawn, if it leave room for the modifications of increased\nenlightenment, it may continue to be regarded as immaculate even by a\nlater and more clear-sighted age, so long as this age is inclined to\nview it under the most favourable light.\n\nWe may now estimate the truth of the reproach, which made\nSchleiermacher so indignant, namely, that his was not an historical,\nbut an ideal Christ. It is unjust in relation to the opinion of\nSchleiermacher, for he firmly believed that the Christ, as construed by\nhim, really lived; but it is just in relation to the historical state\nof the facts, because such a Christ never existed but in idea; and in\nthis sense, indeed, the reproach has even a stronger bearing on the\nsystem of the church, because the Christ therein presented can still\nless have existed. Lastly, it is just in relation to the consequence of\nSchleiermacher\u2019s system, since to effect what Schleiermacher makes him\neffect, no other Christ is necessary, and, according to the principles\nof Schleiermacher respecting the relation of God to the world, of the\nsupernatural to the natural, no other Christ is possible, than an ideal\none:\u2014and in this sense the reproach attaches specifically to\nSchleiermacher\u2019s doctrine, for according to the premises of the\northodox doctrine, an historical Christ is both possible and necessary.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 149.\n\nCHRISTOLOGY INTERPRETED SYMBOLICALLY. KANT. DE WETTE.\n\nThe attempt to retain in combination the ideal in Christ with the\nhistorical, having failed, these two elements separate themselves: the\nlatter falls as a natural residuum to the ground, and the former rises\nas a pure sublimate into the ethereal world of ideas. Historically,\nJesus can have been nothing more than a person, highly distinguished\nindeed, but subject to the limitations inevitable to all that is\nmortal: by means of his exalted character, however, he exerted so\npowerful an influence over the religious sentiment, that it constituted\nhim the ideal of piety; in accordance with the general rule, that an\nhistorical fact or person cannot become the basis of a positive\nreligion until it is elevated into the sphere of the ideal. [2231]\n\nSpinoza made this distinction when maintaining, that to know the\nhistorical Christ is not necessary to felicity, but only to know the\nideal Christ, namely, the eternal wisdom of God, which is manifested in\nall things, in the human mind particularly, and in a pre-eminent degree\nin Jesus Christ\u2014that wisdom which alone teaches man what is true and\nfalse, good and bad. [2232]\n\nAccording to Kant, also, it ought not to be made a condition of\nsalvation to believe, that there was once a man who by his holiness and\nmerit gave satisfaction for himself and for all others; for of this the\nreason tells us nothing; but it is the duty of men universally to\nelevate themselves to the ideal of moral perfection deposited in the\nreason, and to obtain moral strength by the contemplation of this\nideal. Such moral faith alone man is bound to exercise, and not\nhistorical faith. [2233]\n\nTaking his stand on this principle, Kant proceeds to interpret the\ndoctrines of the Bible and the church as symbols of the ideal. It is\nhumanity, or the rational part of this system of things, in its entire\nmoral perfection, that could alone make a world the object of divine\nProvidence, and the end of creation. This idea of a humanity\nwell-pleasing to God, has existed in God from all eternity; it proceeds\nfrom his essence, and is therefore no created thing, but his eternal\nSon, the Word, through whom, that is, for whose sake, all things were\ncreated, and in whom God loved the world. As this idea of moral\nperfection has not man for its author, as it has been introduced into\nhim even without his being able to conceive how his nature can have\nbeen susceptible of such an idea, it may be said to have come down to\nus from heaven, and to have assumed the human nature, and this union\nwith us may be regarded as an abasement of the Son of God. This ideal\nof moral perfection, so far as it is compatible with the condition of a\nbeing dependent on necessities and inclinations, can only be conceived\nby us under the form of a man. Now just as we can obtain no idea of the\namount of a force, but by calculating the degree of resistance which it\ncan overcome, so we can form no estimate of the strength of the moral\ndisposition, but by imagining hard conflicts in which it can triumph:\nhence the man who embodies the perfect ideal must be one who would\nvoluntarily undertake, not only to perform every duty of man on his own\nbehalf, and by precept and example to disseminate the good and the true\naround him as extensively as possible; but also, though tempted by the\nstrongest allurements, to submit to all sufferings, even to the most\nignominious death, for the welfare of mankind.\n\nIn a practical relation this idea has its reality completely within\nitself, and it needed no exemplification in experience in order to\nbecome a model binding on us, since it is enshrined as such in our\nreason. Nay, this ideal remains essentially confined to the reason,\nbecause it cannot be adequately represented by any example in outward\nexperience, since such an example would not fully disclose the inward\ndisposition, but would only admit of our forming dubious inferences\nthereon. Nevertheless, as all men ought to be conformed to this ideal,\nand consequently must be capable of such conformity, it is always\npossible in experience that a man may appear, who in his teaching,\ncourse of life, and sufferings, may present an example of a man\nwell-pleasing to God: but even in this manifestation of the God-man, it\nwould not properly be that which is obvious to the senses, or can be\nknown by experience, which would be the object of saving faith; but the\nideal lying in the reason, which we should attribute to this\nmanifestation of the God-man, because he appeared to us to be conformed\nto it\u2014that is, indeed, so far only as this can be concluded from\noutward experience. Inasmuch as all of us, though naturally generated\nmen, feel bound, and consequently able, ourselves to present such an\nexample, we have no reason to regard that exemplification of the ideal\nman as supernaturally generated, nor does he need the attestation of\nmiracles; for besides the moral faith in the idea, nothing further is\nrequisite than the historical conviction that his life was conformed to\nthat idea, in order to accredit him as its personification.\n\nHe who is conscious of such a moral disposition, as to have a\nwell-founded confidence, that under temptations and sufferings similar\nto those which are attributed to the ideal man, as a touchstone of his\nmoral disposition, he would adhere unalterably to this exemplar, and\nfaithfully follow his steps, such a man alone is entitled to consider\nhimself an object of the divine complacency. To elevate himself to such\na state of mind, man must depart from evil, cast off the old man,\ncrucify the flesh; a change which is essentially connected with a\nseries of sorrows and sufferings. These the former man has deserved as\na punishment, but they fall on the new: for the regenerated man, who\ntakes them on himself, though physically and in his empirical\ncharacter, as a being determined by the senses, he remains the former\nman; is morally, as an intellectual being, with his changed\ndisposition, become a new man. Having by this change taken upon him the\ndisposition of the Son of God, that which is strictly a substitution of\nthe new man for the old, may be represented, by a personification of\nthe idea, as a substitution of the Son of God, and it may be said, that\nthe latter himself, as a substitute, bears for man, for all who\npractically believe in him, the guilt of sin; as a redeemer, satisfies\nsupreme justice by suffering and death; and as an intercessor, imparts\nthe hope of appearing justified before the judge: the suffering which\nthe new man, in dying to the old, must perpetually incur through life,\nbeing conceived in the representative of mankind, as a death suffered\nonce for all. [2234]\n\nKant, like Schleiermacher (whose Christology in many respects recalls\nthat of Kant), [2235] carries his appropriation of the Christology of\nthe church no further than the death of Christ: of his resurrection and\nascension, he says, that they cannot be available to religion within\nthe limits of pure reason, because they would involve the materiality\nof all existences. Still, in another light, he employs these facts as\nsymbols of the ideas of the reason; as images of the entrance into the\nabode of blessedness, that is, into communion with all the good: while\nTieftrunk has yet more decidedly given it as his opinion, that without\nthe resurrection, the history of Jesus would terminate in a revolting\ncatastrophe; that the eye would turn away with melancholy and\ndissatisfaction from an event, in which the pattern of humanity fell a\nvictim to impious rage, and in which the scene closed with a death as\nunmerited as sorrowful; that the history requires to be crowned with\nthe fulfilment of the expectation towards which the moral\ncontemplations of every one are irresistibly drawn\u2014with the passage\ninto a compensating immortality. [2236]\n\nIn the same manner, De Wette ascribed to the evangelical history, as to\nevery history, and particularly to the history of religion, a\nsymbolical, ideal character, in virtue of which it is the expression\nand image of the human mind and its various operations. The history of\nthe miraculous conception of Jesus represents the divine origin of\nreligion; the narratives of his miracles, the independent force of the\nhuman mind, and the sublime doctrine of spiritual self-reliance; his\nresurrection is the image of the victory of truth, a fore-shadowing of\nthe future triumph of good over evil; his ascension, the symbol of the\neternal majesty of religion. The fundamental religious ideas which\nJesus enunciated in his teaching, are expressed with equal clearness in\nhis history. This history is an expression of devoted enthusiasm, in\nthe courageous ministry of Jesus, and in the victorious power of his\nappearance; of resignation, in his contest with the wickedness of men,\nin the melancholy of his premonitory discourses, and above all in his\ndeath. Christ on the cross is the image of humanity purified by\nself-sacrifice; we ought all to crucify ourselves with him, that we may\nrise with him to new life. Lastly, the idea of devotion was the\nkey-note in the history of Jesus, every moment of his life being\ndedicated to the thought of his heavenly Father. [2237]\n\nAt an earlier period, Horst presented this symbolical view of the\nhistory of Jesus with singular clearness. Whether, he says, all that is\nnarrated of Christ happened precisely so, historically, is a question\nindifferent to us, nor can it now be settled. Nay, if we would be\ncandid with ourselves, that which was once sacred history for the\nChristian believer, is, for the enlightened portion of our\ncotemporaries, only fable: the narratives of the supernatural birth of\nChrist, of his miracles, of his resurrection and ascension, must be\nrejected by us as at variance with the inductions of our intellect. Let\nthem however only be no longer interpreted merely by the understanding\nas history, but by the feelings and imagination, as poetry; and it will\nbe found that in these narratives nothing is invented arbitrarily, but\nall springs from the depths and divine impulses of the human mind.\nConsidered from this point of view, we may annex to the history of\nChrist all that is important to religious trust, animating to the pure\ndispositions, attractive to the tender feelings. That history is a\nbeautiful, sacred poem of the human race\u2014a poem in which are embodied\nall the wants of our religious instinct; and this is the highest honour\nof Christianity, and the strongest proof of its universal\napplicability. The history of the gospel is in fact the history of\nhuman nature conceived ideally, and exhibits to us in the life of an\nindividual, what man ought to be, and, united with him by following his\ndoctrine and example, can actually become. It is not denied that what\nto us can appear only sacred poetry, was to Paul, John, Matthew and\nLuke, fact and certain history. But it was the very same internal cause\nwhich made the narratives of the gospel sacred fact and history to\nthem, which makes those narratives to us a sacred mythus and poetry.\nThe points of view only are different: human nature, and in it the\nreligious impulse, remains ever the same. Those first Christians needed\nin their world, for the animating of the religious and moral\ndispositions in the men of their time, history and fact, of which,\nhowever, the inmost kernel consisted of ideas: to us, the facts are\nbecome superannuated and doubtful, and only for the sake of the\nfundamental ideas, are the narratives of those facts an object of\nreverence. [2238]\n\nThis view was met immediately on the part of the church by the\nreproach, that instead of the riches of divine reality which faith\ndiscovers in the history of Christ, it palmed upon us a collection of\nempty ideas and ideals; instead of a consolatory work effected, an\noverwhelming obligation. For the certainty, that God once actually\nunited himself with human nature, the admonition that man ought to\nobtain divine dispositions, offers a poor compensation: for the peace\nwhich the redemption completed by Christ brings to the believer, it is\nno equivalent to put before him the duty of freeing himself from sin.\nBy this system, man is thrust out of the reconciled world in which\nChristianity places him, into an unreconciled world, out of a world of\nhappiness into a world of misery; for where reconciliation has yet to\nbe effected, where happiness has yet to be attained, there is at\npresent enmity and unhappiness. And, in truth, the hope of entire\ndeliverance from these conditions, is, according to the principles of\nthis system, which only admits an infinite approximation towards the\nidea, a deceptive one; for that which is only to be reached in an\nendless progression, is in fact unattainable.\n\nBut not the faith alone, science also in its newest development, has\nfound this system unsatisfactory. Science has perceived that to convert\nideas simply into an obligatory possibility, to which no reality\ncorresponds, is in fact to annihilate them; just as it would be to\nrender the infinite finite, to represent it as that which lies beyond\nthe finite. Science has conceived that the infinite has its existence\nin the alternate production and extinction of the finite; that the idea\nis realised only in the entire series of its manifestations; that\nnothing can come into existence which does not already essentially\nexist; and, therefore, that it is not to be required of man, that he\nshould reconcile himself with God, and assimilate his sentiments to the\ndivine, unless this reconciliation and this assimilation are already\nvirtually effected.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 150.\n\nTHE SPECULATIVE CHRISTOLOGY.\n\nKant had already said that the good principle did not descend from\nheaven merely at a particular time, but had descended on mankind\ninvisibly from the commencement of the human race; and Schelling laid\ndown the proposition: the incarnation of God is an incarnation from\neternity. [2239] But while the former understood under that expression\nonly the moral instinct, which, with its ideal of good, and its sense\nof duty, has been from the beginning implanted in man; the latter\nunderstood under the incarnate Son of God the finite itself, in the\nform of the human consciousness, which in its contradistinction to the\ninfinite, wherewith it is nevertheless one, appears as a suffering God,\nsubjected to the conditions of time.\n\nIn the most recent philosophy this idea has been further developed in\nthe following manner. [2240] When it is said of God that he is a\nSpirit, and of man that he also is a Spirit, it follows that the two\nare not essentially distinct. To speak more particularly, it is the\nessential property of a spirit, in the distribution of itself into\ndistinct personalities, to remain identical with itself, to possess\nitself in another than itself. Hence the recognition of God as a spirit\nimplies, that God does not remain as a fixed and immutable Infinite\nencompassing the Finite, but enters into it, produces the Finite,\nNature, and the human mind, merely as a limited manifestation of\nhimself, from which he eternally returns into unity. As man, considered\nas a finite spirit, limited to his finite nature, has not truth; so\nGod, considered exclusively as an infinite spirit, shut up in his\ninfinitude, has not reality. The infinite spirit is real only when it\ndiscloses itself in finite spirits; as the finite spirit is true only\nwhen it merges itself in the infinite. The true and real existence of\nspirit, therefore, is neither in God by himself, nor in man by himself,\nbut in the God-man; neither in the infinite alone, nor in the finite\nalone, but in the interchange of impartation and withdrawal between the\ntwo, which on the part of God is revelation, on the part of man\nreligion.\n\nIf God and man are in themselves one, and if religion is the human side\nof this unity: then must this unity be made evident to man in religion,\nand become in him consciousness and reality. Certainly, so long as man\nknows not that he is a spirit, he cannot know that God is man: while he\nis under the guidance of nature only, he will deify nature; when he has\nlearned to submit himself to law, and thus to regulate his natural\ntendencies by external means, he will set God before him as a lawgiver.\nBut when, in the vicissitudes of the world\u2019s history, the natural state\ndiscloses its corruptions, the legal its misery; the former will\nexperience the need of a God who elevates it above itself, the latter,\nof a God who descends to its level. Man being once mature enough to\nreceive as his religion the truth that God is man, and man of a divine\nrace; it necessarily follows, since religion is the form in which the\ntruth presents itself to the popular mind, that this truth must appear,\nin a guise intelligible to all, as a fact obvious to the senses: in\nother words, there must appear a human individual who is recognised as\nthe visible God. This God-man uniting in a single being the divine\nessence and the human personality, it may be said of him that he had\nthe Divine Spirit for a father and a woman for his mother. His\npersonality reflecting itself not in himself, but in the absolute\nsubstance, having the will to exist only for God, and not at all for\nitself, he is sinless and perfect. As a man of Divine essence, he is\nthe power that subdues nature, a worker of miracles; but as God in a\nhuman manifestation, he is dependent on nature, subject to its\nnecessities and sufferings\u2014is in a state of abasement. Must he even pay\nthe last tribute to nature? does not the fact that the human nature is\nsubject to death preclude the idea that that nature is one with the\ndivine? No: the God-man dies, and thus proves that the incarnation of\nGod is real, that the infinite spirit does not scorn to descend into\nthe lowest depths of the finite, because he knows how to find a way of\nreturn into himself, because in the most entire alienation of himself,\nhe can retain his identity. Further, the God-man, in so far as he is a\nspirit reflected in his infinity, stands contrasted with men, in so far\nas they are limited to their finiteness: hence opposition and contest\nresult, and the death of the God-Man becomes a violent one, inflicted\nby the hands of sinners; so that to physical degradation is added the\nmoral degradation of ignominy and accusation of crime. If God then\nfinds a passage from heaven to the grave, so must a way be discoverable\nfor man from the grave to heaven: the death of the prince of life is\nthe life of mortals. By his entrance into the world as God-man, God\nshowed himself reconciled to man; by his dying, in which act he cast\noff the limitations of mortality, he showed moreover the way in which\nhe perpetually effects that reconciliation: namely, by remaining,\nthroughout his manifestation of himself under the limitations of a\nnatural existence, and his suppression of that existence, identical\nwith himself. Inasmuch as the death of the God-man is merely the\ncessation of his state of alienation from the infinite, it is in fact\nan exaltation and return to God, and thus the death is necessarily\nfollowed by the resurrection and ascension.\n\nThe God-man, who during his life stood before his cotemporaries as an\nindividual distinct from themselves, and perceptible by the senses, is\nby death taken out of their sight; he enters into their imagination and\nmemory: the unity of the divine and human in him, becomes a part of the\ngeneral consciousness; and the church must repeat spiritually, in the\nsouls of its members, those events of his life which he experienced\nexternally. The believer, finding himself environed with the conditions\nof nature, must, like Christ, die to nature\u2014but only inwardly, as\nChrist did outwardly,\u2014must spiritually crucify himself and be buried\nwith Christ, that by the virtual suppression of his own sensible\nexistence, he may become, in so far as he is a spirit, identical with\nhimself, and participate in the bliss and glory of Christ.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 151.\n\nLAST DILEMMA.\n\nThus by a higher mode of argumentation, from the idea of God and man in\ntheir reciprocal relation, the truth of the conception which the church\nforms of Christ appears to be confirmed, and we seem to be reconducted\nto the orthodox point of view, though by an inverted path: for while\nthere, the truth of the conceptions of the church concerning Christ is\ndeduced from the correctness of the evangelical history; here, the\nveracity of the history is deduced from the truth of those conceptions.\nThat which is rational is also real; the idea is not merely the moral\nimperative of Kant, but also an actuality. Proved to be an idea of the\nreason, the unity of the divine and human nature must also have an\nhistorical existence. The unity of God with man, says Marheineke,\n[2241] was really and visibly manifested in the person of Jesus Christ;\nin him, according to Rosenkranz, [2242] the divine power over nature\nwas concentrated, he could not act otherwise than miraculously, and the\nworking of miracles, which surprises us, was to him natural. His\nresurrection, says Conradi, [2243] is the necessary sequel of the\ncompletion of his personality, and so little ought it to surprise us,\nthat, on the contrary, we must rather have been surprised if it had not\nhappened.\n\nBut do these deductions remove the contradictions which have exhibited\nthemselves in the doctrine of the church, concerning the person and\nwork of Christ? We need only to compare the structures, which\nRosenkranz in his Review has passed on Schleiermacher\u2019s criticism of\nthe Christology of the church, with what the same author proposes as a\nsubstitute in his Encyclop\u00e6dia, in order to perceive, that the general\npropositions on the unity of the divine and human natures, do not in\nthe least serve to explain the appearance of a person, in whom this\nunity existed individually, in an exclusive manner. Though I may\nconceive that the divine spirit in a state of renunciation and\nabasement becomes the human, and that the human nature in its return\ninto and above itself becomes the divine; this does not help me to\nconceive more easily, how the divine and human natures can have\nconstituted the distinct and yet united portions of an historical\nperson. Though I may see the human mind in its unity with the divine,\nin the course of the world\u2019s history, more and more completely\nestablish itself as the power which subdues nature; this is quite\nanother thing, than to conceive a single man endowed with such power,\nfor individual, voluntary acts. Lastly, from the truth, that the\nsuppression of the natural existence is the resurrection of the spirit,\ncan never be deduced the bodily resurrection of an individual.\n\nWe should thus have fallen back again to Kant\u2019s point of view, which we\nhave ourselves found unsatisfactory: for if the idea have no\ncorresponding reality, it is an empty obligation and ideal. But do we\nthen deprive the idea of all reality? By no means: we reject only that\nwhich does not follow from the premises. [2244] If reality is ascribed\nto the idea of the unity of the divine and human natures, is this\nequivalent to the admission that this unity must actually have been\nonce manifested, as it never had been, and never more will be, in one\nindividual? This is indeed not the mode in which Idea realizes itself;\nit is not wont to lavish all its fulness on one exemplar, and be\nniggardly towards all others [2245]\u2014to express itself perfectly in that\none individual, and imperfectly in all the rest: it rather loves to\ndistribute its riches among a multiplicity of exemplars which\nreciprocally complete each other\u2014in the alternate appearance and\nsuppression of a series of individuals. And is this no true realization\nof the idea? is not the idea of the unity of the divine and human\nnatures a real one in a far higher sense, when I regard the whole race\nof mankind as its realization, than when I single out one man as such a\nrealization? is not an incarnation of God from eternity, a truer one\nthan an incarnation limited to a particular point of time.\n\nThis is the key to the whole of Christology, that, as subject of the\npredicate which the church assigns to Christ, we place, instead of an\nindividual, an idea; but an idea which has an existence in reality, not\nin the mind only, like that of Kant. In an individual, a God-man, the\nproperties and functions which the church ascribes to Christ contradict\nthemselves; in the idea of the race, they perfectly agree. Humanity is\nthe union of the two natures\u2014God become man, the infinite manifesting\nitself in the finite, and the finite spirit remembering its infinitude;\nit is the child of the visible Mother and the invisible Father, Nature\nand Spirit; it is the worker of miracles, in so far as in the course of\nhuman history the spirit more and more completely subjugates nature,\nboth within and around man, until it lies before him as the inert\nmatter on which he exercises his active power; [2246] it is the sinless\nexistence, for the course of its development is a blameless one,\npollution cleaves to the individual only, and does not touch the race\nor its history. It is Humanity that dies, rises, and ascends to heaven,\nfor from the negation of its phenomenal life there ever proceeds a\nhigher spiritual life; from the suppression of its mortality as a\npersonal, national, and terrestrial spirit, arises its union with the\ninfinite spirit of the heavens. By faith in this Christ, especially in\nhis death and resurrection, man is justified before God; that is, by\nthe kindling within him of the idea of Humanity, the individual man\nparticipates in the divinely human life of the species. Now the main\nelement of that idea is, that the negation of the merely natural and\nsensual life, which is itself the negation of the spirit (the negation\nof negation, therefore), is the sole way to true spiritual life. [2247]\n\nThis alone is the absolute sense of Christology: that it is annexed to\nthe person and history of one individual, is a necessary result of the\nhistorical form which Christology has taken. Schleiermacher was quite\nright when he foreboded, that the speculative view would not leave much\nmore of the historical person of the Saviour than was retained by the\nEbionites. The phenomenal history of the individual, says Hegel, is\nonly a starting point for the mind. Faith, in her early stages, is\ngoverned by the senses, and therefore contemplates a temporal history;\nwhat she holds to be true is the external, ordinary event, the evidence\nfor which is of the historical, forensic kind\u2014a fact to be proved by\nthe testimony of the senses, and the moral confidence inspired by the\nwitnesses. But mind having once taken occasion by this external fact,\nto bring under its consciousness the idea of humanity as one with God,\nsees in the history only the presentation of that idea; the object of\nfaith is completely changed; instead of a sensible, empirical fact, it\nhas become a spiritual and divine idea, which has its confirmation no\nlonger in history but in philosophy. When the mind has thus gone beyond\nthe sensible history, and entered into the domain of the absolute, the\nformer ceases to be essential; it takes a subordinate place, above\nwhich the spiritual truths suggested by the history stand\nself-supported; it becomes as the faint image of a dream which belongs\nonly to the past, and does not, like the idea, share the permanence of\nthe spirit which is absolutely present to itself. [2248] Even Luther\nsubordinated the physical miracles to the spiritual, as the truly great\nmiracles. And shall we interest ourselves more in the cure of some sick\npeople in Galilee, than in the miracles of intellectual and moral life\nbelonging to the history of the world\u2014in the increasing, the almost\nincredible dominion of man over nature\u2014in the irresistible force of\nideas, to which no unintelligent matter, whatever its magnitude, can\noppose any enduring resistance? Shall isolated incidents, in themselves\ntrivial, be more to us than the universal order of events, simply\nbecause in the latter we presuppose, if we do not perceive, a natural\ncause, in the former the contrary? This would be a direct contravention\nof the more enlightened sentiments of our own day, justly and\nconclusively expressed by Schleiermacher. The interests of pity, says\nthis theologian, can no longer require us so to conceive a fact, that\nby its dependence on God it is divested of the conditions which would\nbelong to it as a link in the chain of nature; for we have outgrown the\nnotion, that the divine omnipotence is more completely manifested in\nthe interruption of the order of nature, than in its preservation.\n[2249] Thus if we know the incarnation, death and resurrection, the\nduplex negatio affirmat, as the eternal circulation, the infinitely\nrepeated pulsation of the divine life; what special importance can\nattach to a single fact, which is but a mere sensible image of this\nunending process? Our age demands to be led in Christology to the idea\nin the fact, to the race in the individual: a theology which, in its\ndoctrines on the Christ, stops short at him as an individual, is not\nproperly a theology, but a homily.\n\nIn what relation, then, must the pulpit stand to theology,\u2014nay, how is\nthe continuance of a ministry in the church possible when theology has\nreached this stage? This is the difficult question which presents\nitself to us in conclusion.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 152.\n\nRELATION OF THE CRITICAL AND SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY TO THE CHURCH.\n\nSchleiermacher has said, that when he reflected on the approaching\ncrisis in theology, and imagined himself obliged to choose one of two\nalternatives, either to surrender the Christian history, like every\ncommon history, as a spoil to criticism, or to hold his faith in fee to\nthe speculative system; his decision was, that for himself, considered\nsingly, he would embrace the latter, but that, regarding himself as a\nmember of the church, and especially as one of its teachers, he should\nbe induced rather to take the opposite course. For the idea of God and\nof man on which, according to the speculative system, the truth of the\nChristian faith rests, is indeed a precious jewel, but it can be\npossessed only by a few, and he would not wish to be that privileged\nindividual in the church, who alone among thousands held the faith on\nits true grounds. As a member of the church, he could have no\nsatisfaction but in perfect equality, in the consciousness that all\nreceive alike, both in kind and manner, from the same source. And as a\nteacher and spokesman to the church, he could not possibly attempt the\ntask of elevating old and young, without distinction, to the idea of\nGod and of man: he must rather attack their faith as a groundless one,\nor else endeavour to strengthen and confirm it while knowing it to be\ngroundless. As thus in the matter of religion an impassable gulf would\nbe fixed between two parties in the church, the speculative theology\nthreatens us with the distinction of an esoteric and exoteric doctrine,\nwhich ill accords with the declaration of Christ, that all shall be\ntaught of God. The scientific alone have the foundation of the faith:\nthe unscientific have only the faith, and receive it only by means of\ntradition. If the Ebionitish view, on the contrary, leave but little of\nChrist, yet this little is equally attainable by all, and we are\nthereby secured from the hierarchy of speculation, which ever tends to\nmerge itself in the hierarchy of Rome. [2250]\n\nHere we see presented, under the form of thought belonging to a\ncultivated mind, the same opinion which is now expressed by many in a\nless cultivated fashion: namely, that the theologian who is at once\ncritical and speculative, must in relation to the church be a\nhypocrite. The real state of the case is this. The church refers her\nChristology to an individual who existed historically at a certain\nperiod: the speculative theologian to an idea which only attains\nexistence in the totality of individuals; by the church the evangelical\nnarratives are received as history: by the critical theologian, they\nare regarded for the most part as mere mythi. If he would continue to\nimpart instruction to the church, four ways are open to him:\n\n\n\nFirst, the attempt already excluded by the above observations of\nSchleiermacher, namely, to elevate the church to his own point of view,\nand for it, also, to resolve the historical into the ideal:\u2014an attempt\nwhich must necessarily fail, because to the Church all those premises\nare wanting on which the theologian rests his speculative conclusions;\nand upon which, therefore, only an enthusiast for interpretation would\nventure.\n\n\n\nThe second and opposite measure would be, to transport himself to the\npoint of view of the church, and for the sake of imparting edification\necclesiastically, to descend from the sphere of the ideal into the\nregion of the popular conception. This expedient is commonly understood\nand judged too narrowly. The difference between the theologian and the\nchurch is regarded as a total one; it is thought, that in answer to the\nquestion, whether he believes in the history of Christ, he ought to say\nexactly, no; whereas he says, yes: and this is a falsehood. It is true,\nthat if in the discourses and instructions of the spiritual teacher,\nthe main interest were an historical one, this would be a correct\nrepresentation of the case: but, in fact, the interest is a religious\none,\u2014it is essential religion which is here communicated under the form\nof a history; hence he who does not believe in the history as such, may\nyet appreciate the religious truths therein contained, equally with one\nwho does also receive the history as such: the distinction is one of\nform merely, and does not affect the substance. Hence it is an evidence\nof an uncultivated mind, to denounce as a hypocrite a theologian who\npreaches, for example, on the resurrection of Christ, since, though he\nmay not believe in the reality of that event as a single sensible fact,\nhe may, nevertheless, hold to be true the representation of the process\nof spiritual life, which the resurrection of Christ affords. Strictly\nconsidered, however, this identity of the substantial truth, exists\nonly in the apprehension of him who knows how to distinguish the\nsubstance from the form of religion, i.e., of the theologian, not of\nthe church, to whom he speaks. The latter can conceive no faith in the\ndogmatical truth of the resurrection of Christ, for example, apart from\na conviction of its historical reality: and if it come to discover that\nthe theologian has not this conviction, and yet preaches on the\nresurrection, he must appear in the eyes of the church a hypocrite, and\nthus the entire relation between the theologian and the church would be\nvirtually cancelled.\n\n\n\nIn this case, the theologian, though in himself no hypocrite, would\nappear such to the church, and would be conscious of this\nmisconstruction. If notwithstanding this, he should continue to\ninstruct the church under the form of its own conceptions, he would\nultimately appear a hypocrite to himself also, and would be driven to\nthe third, desperate course, of forsaking the ministerial office. It\navails nothing to say, he has only to descend from the pulpit, and\nmount the professor\u2019s chair, where he will not be under the necessity\nof withholding his scientific opinions from such as are destined to\nscience; for if he, whom the course of his own intellectual culture has\nobliged to renounce the ministerial office, should by his instructions\nlead many to the same point, and thus render them also incapable of\nthat office, the original evil would only be multiplied. On the other\nhand, it could not be held good for the church, that all those who\npursue criticism and speculation to the results above presented, should\ndepart from their position as teachers. For no clergyman would any\nlonger meddle with such inquiries, if he thus ran the risk of being led\nto results which would oblige him to abandon the ministerial office;\ncriticism and philosophy would fall into the hands of those who are not\nprofessed theologians, and to the theologian nothing would remain but\nthe faith, which then could not possibly long resist the attacks of the\ncritical and speculative laity. But where truth is concerned, the\npossible consequences have no weight; hence the above remark ought not\nto be made. Thus much, however, may be maintained in relation to the\nreal question: he whom his theological studies have led to an\nintellectual position, respecting which he must believe, that he has\nattained the truth, that he has penetrated into the deepest mysteries\nof theology, cannot feel either inclined or bound just at this point in\nhis career to abandon theology: on the contrary, such a step would be\nunnatural, nay, impossible.\n\n\n\nHe will therefore seek another expedient; and as such there presents\nitself a fourth, which is not, like the two first, one-sided, nor like\nthe third, merely negative, but which offers a positive mode of\nreconciling the two extremes\u2014the consciousness of the theologian, and\nthat of the church. In his discourses to the church, he will indeed\nadhere to the forms of the popular conception, but on every opportunity\nhe will exhibit their spiritual significance, which to him constitutes\ntheir sole truth, and thus prepare\u2014though such a result is only to be\nthought of as an unending progress\u2014the resolution of those forms into\ntheir original ideas in the consciousness of the church also. Thus, to\nabide by the example already chosen, at the festival of Easter, he will\nindeed set out from the sensible fact of the resurrection of Christ,\nbut he will dwell chiefly on the being buried and rising again with\nChrist, which the Apostle himself has strenuously inculcated. This very\ncourse every preacher, even the most orthodox, strictly takes, as often\nas he draws a moral from the evangelical text on which he preaches: for\nthis is nothing else than the transition from the externally historical\nto the inward and spiritual. It is true, we must not overlook the\ndistinction, that the orthodox preacher builds his moral on the text in\nsuch a way, that the latter remains as an historical foundation;\nwhereas, with the speculative preacher, the transition from the\nbiblical history or the church doctrine, to the truth which he thence\nderives, has the negative effect of annihilating the former. Viewed\nmore closely, however, the transition of the orthodox preacher from the\nevangelical text to the moral application, is not free from this\nnegative tendency; in proceeding from the history to the doctrine he\nimplies at least thus much: the history is not enough, it is not the\nwhole truth, it must be transmuted from a past fact into a present one,\nfrom an event external to you, it must become your own intimate\nexperience: so that with this transition, the case is the same as with\nthe proof of the existence of God, in which the cosmical existence,\nwhich is the point of departure, apparently remains as a foundation,\nbut is in fact negatived as a true existence, and merged in the\nabsolute. Nevertheless, there remains a marked distinction between\nthese two propositions: since, and in so far as, this has happened, so\nand so is your duty and your consolation\u2014and: this is indeed related as\nhaving happened once, but the truth is, that it always so happens, and\nboth in and by you ought to happen. At least, the community will not\nreceive both as identical; and thus, here again, in every excess or\ndiminution which the more or less spontaneous relation of the teacher\nto critical theology, together with the variety in the degrees of\nculture of the community, introduces,\u2014the danger is incurred that the\ncommunity may discover this difference, and the preacher appear to it,\nand consequently to himself, a hypocrite.\n\n\n\nIn this difficulty, the theologian may find himself driven either\ndirectly to state his opinions, and attempt to elevate the people to\nhis ideas: or, since this attempt must necessarily fail, carefully to\nadapt himself to the conception of the community; or, lastly, since,\neven on this plan, he may easily betray himself, in the end to leave\nthe ministerial profession.\n\n\n\nWe have thus admitted the difficulty with which the critical and\nspeculative views are burthened, with reference to the relation of the\nclergyman to the church; we have exhibited the collision into which the\ntheologian falls, when it is asked, what course remains for him in so\nfar as he has adopted such views? and we have shown that our age has\nnot arrived at a certain decision on this subject. But this collision\nis not the effect of the curiosity of an individual; it is necessarily\nintroduced by the progress of time and the development of Christian\ntheology; it surprises and masters the individual, without his being\nable to guard himself from it. Or rather he can do this with slight\nlabour, if he abstain from study and thought, or, if not from these,\nfrom freedom of speech and writing. Of such there are already enough in\nour day, and there was no need to make continual additions to their\nnumber through the calumniation of those who have expressed themselves\nin the spirit of advanced science. But there are also a few, who,\nnotwithstanding such attacks, freely declare what can no longer be\nconcealed\u2014and time will show whether by the one party or the other, the\nChurch, Mankind, and Truth are best served.\n\n\n THE END.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n\n[1] [This passage varies slightly from the original, a subsequent\namplification by Dr. Strauss being incorporated with it.\u2014Tr.]\n\n[2] Plato, de Republ. ii. p. 377. Steph.; Pindar, Nem. vii. 31.\n\n[3] Diog. La\u00ebrt. L. ii. c. iii. No. 7.\n\n[4] Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 10. 15. Comp. Athenag. Legat. 22. Tatian, c.\nGr\u00e6c. Orat. 21. Clement. homil. 6, 1 f.\n\n[5] Diodor. Sic. Bibl. Fragm. L. vi. Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 42.\n\n[6] Hist. vi. 56.\n\n[7] D\u00f6pke, die Hermeneutik der neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, s.\n123. ff.\n\n[8] Gfr\u00f6rer. D\u00e4hne.\n\n[9] Homil. 5. in Levit. \u00a7 5.\n\n[10] Homil. 2. in Exod. iii.: Nolite putare, ut s\u00e6pe jam diximus,\nveterum vobis fabulas recitari, sed doceri vos per h\u00e6c, ut agnoscatis\nordinem vit\u00e6.\n\n[11] Homil. 5. in Levit. i.: H\u00e6c omnia, nisi alio sensu accipiamus quam\nliter\u00e6 textus ostendit, obstaculum magis et subversionem Christian\u00e6\nreligioni, quam hortationem \u00e6dificationemque pr\u00e6stabunt.\n\n[12] Contra Cels. vi. 70.\n\n[13] De principp. L. iv. \u00a7 20: \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd (\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74) \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n[14] Comm. in Joann., Tom. x. \u00a7 4:\u2014\u03c3\u03c9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bb\u03c0\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff7, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n[15] De principp. iv. 15: \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03cd\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u03c0\u1f74 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. De principp. iv. 16: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[16] De principp. iv. 16.\n\n[17] Homil. 6, in Gen. iii.: Qu\u00e6 nobis \u00e6dificatio erit, legentibus,\nAbraham, tantam patriarcham, non solum mentitum esse Abimelech regi,\nsed et pudicitiam conjugis prodidisse? Quid nos \u00e6dificat tanti\npatriarch\u00e6 uxor, si putetur contaminationibus exposita per conniventiam\nmaritalem? H\u00e6c Jud\u00e6i putent et si qui cum eis sunt liter\u00e6 amici, non\nspiritus.\n\n[18] De principp. iv. 16: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1fa0\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019, \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03c5\u03bd\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6,\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[19] Contra Celsum, i. 40.\n\n[20] Comm. in Matth., Tom. xvi. 26.\n\n[21] Comm. in Joann., Tom. x. 17.\n\n[22] De principp. iv. 19. After Origen, that kind of allegory only\nwhich left the historical sense unimpaired was retained in the church;\nand where, subsequently, a giving up of the verbal meaning is spoken\nof, this refers merely to a trope or a simile.\n\n[23] In his Amyntor, 1698. See Leland\u2019s View of the Deistical Writers.\n\n[24] See Leland.\n\n[25] In his work entitled The Moral Philosopher.\n\n[26] Posthumous Works, 1748.\n\n[27] Chubb, Posthumous Works, i. 102.\n\n[28] Ibid., ii. 269.\n\n[29] The Resurrection of Jesus Considered, by a Moral Philosopher,\n1744.\n\n[30] Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour. Published singly,\nfrom 1727\u20131729.\n\n[31] Schr\u00f6ckh, Kirschengesch, seit der Reform. 6 Th. s. 191.\n\n[32] Fragmente des Wolfenb\u00fcttelschen Ungenannten von G. E. Lessing\nherausgegeben.\n\n[33] Recension der \u00fcbrigen, noch ungedruckten Werke des Wolfenb\u00fctteler\nFragmentisten, in Eichhorns allgemeiner Bibliothek, erster Band 1tes u.\n2tes St\u00fcck.\n\n[34] Paulus\u2019s Commentar \u00fcber das neue Testament.\n\n[35] Eichhorn\u2019s Urgeschichte, herausgegeben von Gabler, 3 Thl. s. 98.\nff.\n\n[36] Allgem. Biblioth. 1 Bd. s. 989, and Einleitung in das A. T. 3 Thl.\ns. 82.\n\n[37] Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, drittes\nSt\u00fcck. No. VI.: Der Kirchenglaube hat zu seinem h\u00f6chsten Ausleger den\nreinen Religionsglauben.\n\n[38] Ad. Apollod. Athen. Biblioth. not\u00e6, p. 3 f.\n\n[39] Hebraische Mythologie des alten und neuen Testaments. G. L. Bauer,\n1802.\n\n[40] Institutiones Theol. Chr. Dogm. \u00a7 42.\n\n[41] Ammon, Progr. quo inquiritur in narrationum de vit\u00e6 Jesu Christi\nprimordiis fontes, etc., in Pott\u2019s and Ruperti\u2019s Sylloge Comm. theol.\nNo. 5, und Gabler\u2019s n. theol. Journal, 5 Bd. s. 83 und 397.\n\n[42] Ueber Mythen, historische Sagen und Philosopheme der \u00e4ltesten\nWelt. In Paulus Memorabilien, 5 stuck. 1793.\n\n[43] Vid. die Abhandlung \u00fcber Moses und die Verfasser des Pentateuchs,\nim 3ten. Band des Comm. \u00fcber den Pent. s. 660.\n\n[44] Kritik der Mosaischen Geschichte. Einl. s. 10. ff.\n\n[45] Einleit. in das N. T. 1, s. 408. ff.\n\n[46] Antiquit. xix. viii. 2.\n\n[47] Die verschiedenen R\u00fccksichten, in welchen und f\u00fcr welche der\nBiograph Jesu arbeiten kann. In Bertholdt\u2019s krit. Journal, 5 Bd. s.\n235. ff.\n\n[48] Recens-von Paulus Commentar, im neuesten theol. Journal 7, 4, s.\n395 ff. (1801).\n\n[49] Hebr\u00e4ische Mythologie. 1 Thl. Einl. \u00a7 5.\n\n[50] Ist es erlaubt, in der Bibel, und sogar im N.T., Mythen\nanzunehmen? Im Journal f\u00fcr auserlesene theol. Literatur, 2, 1, s. 49\nff.\n\n[51] Ueber den T\u00e4ufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi, in\nUllmann\u2019s u. Umbreit\u2019s theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 2, 3, s. 456 ff.\n\n[52] Beitrag zur Erkl\u00e4rung der Versuchungsgeschichte, in ders.\nZeitschrift, 1832, 4. Heft.\n\n[53] Einleitung in das N. T. 1, s. 422 ff. 453 ff.\n\n[54] Besonders durch Gieseler, \u00fcber die Entstehung und die fr\u00fchsten\nSchicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien.\n\n[55] Vid. den Anhang der Schulz\u2019schen Schrift \u00fcber das Abendmahl, und\ndie Schriften von Sieffert und Schneckenburger \u00fcber den Ursprung des\nersten kanonischen Evangeliums.\n\n[56] In den Probabilien.\n\n[57] Geschichte der hebr\u00e4ischen Nation, Theil. i. s. 123.\n\n[58] In Henke\u2019s Magazin, 5ten Bdes. 1tes St\u00fcck. s. 163.\n\n[59] Versuch \u00fcber die genetische oder formelle Erkl\u00e4rungsart der\nWunder. In Henke\u2019s Museum, i. 3. 1803.\n\n[60] Kaiser\u2019s biblische Theologie, 1 Thl.\n\n[61] Gabler\u2019s Journal f\u00fcr auserlesene theol. Literatur. ii. 1. s. 46.\n\n[62] Gabler\u2019s neuestes theolog. Journal, 7 Bd.\n\n[63] Bertholdt\u2019s Krit. Journal, v. s. 235.\n\n[64] Ullmann, Recens. meines L. J., in den Theol. Studien u. Kritiken\n1836. 3.\n\n[65] George, Mythus und Sage; Versuch einer wissenschaftlichen\nEntwicklung dieser Begriffe und ihres Verh\u00e4ltnisses zum christlichen\nGlauben, s. 11. ff. 108. ff.\n\n[66] Work cited, \u00a7 8, note 4. Hase, Leben Jesu, \u00a7 32. Tholuck, s. 208.\nff. Kern, die Hauptsachen der evangelischen Geschichte, 1st Article,\nT\u00fcbinger Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Theologie, 1836, ii. s. 39.\n\n[67] Comp. Kuin\u00f6l, Prolegom. in Matth\u00e6um, \u00a7 3; in Lucam, \u00a7 6.\n\n[68] e.g. Ammon, in der Diss.: Ascensus J. C. in c\u0153lum historia\nbiblica, in seinen Opusc. nov.\n\n[69] In Bertholdt\u2019s Krit. Journ. v. Bd. s. 248.\n\n[70] Gabler\u2019s neuestes theol. Journal, Bd. vii. s. 395.\n\n[71] Encyclop\u00e4die der theol. Wissenschaften, s. 161.\n\n[72] In Gabler\u2019s neuestem theolog. Journal, Bd. vi. 4tes St\u00fcck. s. 350.\n\n[73] Gr\u00e4nzbestimmung dessen, was in der Bibel Mythus, u. s. f., und was\nwirkliche Geschichte ist. In seiner Bibliothek der heiligen Geschichte,\nii. Bd. s. 155. ff.\n\n[74] Meyer, Apologie der geschichtlichen Auffassung der historischen\nBucher des A. T., besonders des Pentateuchs, im Gegensatz gegen die\nblos mythische Deutung des letztern. Fritzsche. Kelle.\n\n[75] Exegetisches Handbuch, i. a. s. 1, 71.\n\n[76] Greiling in Henke\u2019s Museum, i. 4. s. 621. ff.\n\n[77] See the quotations given by De Wette in his \u201cEinleitung in d. N.\nT.\u201d \u00a7 76.\n\n[78] Euseb. H. E., iii. 39.\n\n[79] Ullman, Credner, L\u00fccke, De Wette.\n\n[80] Hieron. de vir. illustr. 3.\n\n[81] Contra Celsum, ii. 16. v. 56.\n\n[82] Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.\n\n[83] This is clearly demonstrated by Griesbach in his \u201cCommentatio, qu\u00e2\nMarci Evangelium totum e Matth\u00e6i et Luc\u00e6 commentariis decerptum esse\ndemonstratur.\u201d\n\n[84] Chap. xvi. 10\u201317; xx. 5\u201315; xxi. 1\u201317; xxvii. 1\u201328; xxviii. 10\u201316.\n\n[85] Euseb. H. E. v. 20, 24.\n\n[86] De Wette, Gieseler.\n\n[87] Ad. Autol. ii., 22.\n\n[88] See Schleiermacher.\n\n[89] This same want of distinction has led the Alexandrians to\nallegorize, the Deists to scoff, and the Supernaturalists to strain the\nmeaning of words; as was done lately by Hoffmann in describing David\u2019s\nbehaviour to the conquered Ammonites. (Christoterpe auf 1838, s. 184.)\n\n[90] Heydenreich, \u00fcber die Unzul\u00e4ssigkeit, u. s. f. 1 st\u00fcck. Compare\nStorr, doctr. christ. \u00a7 35. ff.\n\n[91] If the Supranatural view contains a theological contradiction, so\nthe new evangelical theology, which esteems itself raised so far above\nthe old supranatural view, contains a logical contradiction. To say\nthat God acts only mediately upon the world as the general rule, but\nsometimes, by way of exception, immediately,\u2014has some meaning, though\nperhaps not a wise one. But to say that God acts always immediately on\nthe world, but in some cases more particularly immediately,\u2014is a flat\ncontradiction in itself. On the principle of the immanence or immediate\nagency of God in the world, to which the new evangelical theology lays\nclaim, the idea of the miraculous is impossible. Comp. my\nStreitschriften, i. 3, s. 46 f.\n\n[92] In this view essentially coincide Wegscheider, instit. theol.\ndogm. \u00a7 12; De Wette, bibl. Dogm., Vorbereitung; Schleiermacher,\nGlaubensl. \u00a7 46 f.; Marheineke, Dogm. \u00a7 269 ff. Comp. George, s. 78 f.\n\n[93] To a freedom from this presupposition we lay claim in the\nfollowing work; in the same sense as a state might be called free from\npresupposition where the privileges of station, etc., were of no\naccount. Such a state indeed has one presupposition, that of the\nnatural equality of its citizens; and similarly do we take for granted\nthe equal amenability to law of all events; but this is merely an\naffirmative form of expression for our former negation. But to claim\nfor the biblical history especial laws of its own, is an affirmative\nproposition, which, according to the established rule, is that which\nrequires proof, and not our denial of it, which is merely negative. And\nif the proof cannot be given, or be found insufficient, it is the\nformer and not the latter, which is to be considered a presupposition.\nSee my Streitschriften i. 3. s. 36 ff.\n\n[94] Prolegomena zu einer wissenschaftlichen Mythologie, s. 110 ff.\nWith this Ullmann, and J. M\u00fcller in their reviews of this work,\nHoffmann, s. 113 f., and others are agreed as far as relates to the\nheathen mythi. Especially compare George, Mythus und Sage, s. 15 ff.\n103.\n\n[95] The words of Baur in his review of M\u00fcller\u2019s Prolegomena, in Jahn\u2019s\nJahrb\u00fcchern f. Philol. u. P\u00e4dag. 1828. 1 Heft, s. 7.\n\n[96] I. 19.\n\n[97] Midrasch Koheleth f. 73, 3 (in Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6 hebraic\u00e6 et\ntalmudic\u00e6, 2, S. 251 f.). R. Berechias nomine R. Isaaci dixit:\nQuemadmodum Go\u00ebl primus (Moses), sic etiam postremus (Messias)\ncomparatus est. De Go\u00eble primo quidnam scriptura dicit? Exod. iv. 20:\net sumsit Moses uxorem et filios, eosque asino imposuit. Sic Go\u00ebl\npostremus, Zachar. ix. 9: pauper et insidens asino. Quidnam de Go\u00eble\nprimo nosti? Is descendere fecit Man, q. d. Exod. xvi. 14: ecce ego\npluere faciam vobis panem de c\u00e6lo. Sic etiam Go\u00ebl postremus Manna\ndescendere faciet, q. d. Ps. lxxii. 16: erit multitudo frumenti in\nterra. Quomodo Go\u00ebl primus comparatus fuit? Is ascendere fecit puteum:\nsic quoque Go\u00ebl postremus ascendere faciet aquas, q. d. Joel iv. 18: et\nfons e domo Domini egredietur, et torrentem Sittim irrigabit.\n\n[98] Tanchuma f. 54, 4. (in Sch\u00f6ttgen, p. 74): R. Acha nomine R.\nSamuelis bar Nachmani dixit: Qu\u00e6cumque Deus S. B. facturus est \u200f\u05dc\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05da\n\u05dc\u05d1\u05d0\u200e (tempore Messiano) ea jam ante fecit per manus justorum \u200f\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e (seculo ante Messiam elapso). Deus S. B. suscitabit mortuos, id\nquod jam ante fecit per Eliam, Elisam et Ezechielem. Mare exsiccabit,\nprout per Mosen factum est. Oculos c\u00e6corum aperiet, id quod per Elisam\nfecit. Deus S. B. futuro tempore visitabit steriles, quemadmodum in\nAbrahamo et Sar\u00e2 fecit.\n\n[99] The Old Testament legends have undergone many changes and\namplifications, even without any reference to the Messiah, so that the\npartial discrepancy between the narratives concerning Jesus with those\nrelating to Moses and the prophets, is not a decisive proof that the\nformer were not derived from the latter. Compare Acts vii. 22, 53, and\nthe corresponding part of Josephus Antiq. ii. & iii. with the account\nof Moses given in Exodus. Also the biblical account of Abraham with\nAntiq. i. 8, 2; of Jacob with i. 19, 6; of Joseph with ii. 5, 4.\n\n[100] George, s. 125: If we consider the firm conviction of the\ndisciples, that all which had been prophesied in the Old Testament of\nthe Messiah must necessarily have been fulfilled in the person of their\nmaster; and moreover that there were many blank spaces in the history\nof Christ; we shall see that it was impossible to have happened\notherwise than that these ideas should have embodied themselves, and\nthus the mythi have arisen which we find. Even if a more correct\nrepresentation of the life of Jesus had been possible by means of\ntradition, this conviction of the disciples must have been strong\nenough to triumph over it.\n\n[101] Compare O. M\u00fcller, Prolegomena, s. 7, on a similar conclusion of\nGrecian poets.\n\n[102] The comparison of the first chapter of this book with the history\nof Joseph in Genesis, gives an instructive view of the tendency of the\nlater Hebrew legend and poetry to form new relations upon the pattern\nof the old. As Joseph was carried captive to Egypt, so was Daniel to\nBabylon (i. 2); like Joseph he must change his name (7). God makes the\n\u200f\u05e9\u05b7\u05c2\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e1\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e favourable to him, as the \u200f\u05e1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05b7\u05c2\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d8\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e to Joseph (9);\nhe abstains from polluting himself with partaking of the king\u2019s meats\nand drinks, which are pressed upon him (8); a self-denial held as\nmeritorious in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, as that of Joseph with\nregard to Potiphar\u2019s wife; like Joseph he gains eminence by the\ninterpretation of a dream of the king, which his \u200f\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d8\u05bb\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e were unable\nto explain to him (ii.); whilst the additional circumstance that Daniel\nis enabled to give not only the interpretation, but the dream itself,\nwhich had escaped the memory of the king, appears to be a romantic\nexaggeration of that which was attributed to Joseph. In the account of\nJosephus, the history of Daniel has reacted in a singular manner upon\nthat of Joseph; for as Nebuchadnezzar forgets his dream, and the\ninterpretation according to Josephus revealed to him at the same time,\nso does he make Pharaoh forget the interpretation shown to him with the\ndream. Antiq. ii. 5, 4.\n\n[103] Thus J. M\u00fcller, theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1836, iii. s. 839 ff.\n\n[104] It may here be observed, once for all, that whenever in the\nfollowing inquiry the names \u201cMatthew,\u201d \u201cLuke,\u201d etc., are used, it is\nthe author of the several Gospels who is thus briefly indicated, quite\nirrespective of the question whether either of the Gospels was written\nby an apostle or disciple of that name, or by a later unknown author.\n\n[105] See Kuin\u00f6l Comm. in Luc., Proleg., p. 247.\n\n[106] Paulus, exeget. Handbuch, 1 a. s. 78 f. 96. Bauer, hebr. Mythol.,\n2 Bd. s. 218 f.\n\n[107] Here Michael is called one of the chief princes.\n\n[108] Here Raphael is represented as one of the seven angels which go\nin and out before the glory of the holy One; (Tobit, xii. 15), almost\nthe same as Gabriel in Luke i. 19, excepting the mention of the number.\nThis number is in imitation of the Persian Amschaspands. Vid. De Wette,\nbibl. Dogmatik, \u00a7 171 b.\n\n[109] Hieros. rosch haschanah f. lvi. 4. (Lightfoot, hor\u00e6 hebr. et\ntalmud. in IV. Evangg., p. 723): R. Simeon ben Lachisch dicit: nomina\nangelorum ascenderunt in manu Isra\u00eblis ex Babylone. Nam antea dictum\nest: advolavit ad me unus \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd Seraphim, Seraphim steterunt ante eum,\nJes. vi.; at post: vir Gabriel, Dan. ix. 21, Micha\u00ebl princeps vester,\nDan. x. 21.\n\n[110] Olshausen, biblischer Commentar zum N.T., 1 Thl. s. 29 (2te\nAuflage). Comp. Hoffmann, s. 124 f.\n\n[111] Olshausen, ut sup. Hoffmann, s. 135.\n\n[112] Ut sup. s. 77.\n\n[113] Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu, sammt dessen\nJugendgeschichte. T\u00fcbingen, 1779. 1 Bd. s. 12.\n\n[114] Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 115.\n\n[115] Hebr. Mythol. ii. s. 218.\n\n[116] Bauer, ut sup. i. s. 129. Paulus, exeget. Handbuch, i. a, 74.\n\n[117] Paulus, Commentar, i. s. 12.\n\n[118] Bauer, ut sup.\n\n[119] Glaubenslehre, 1 Thl. \u00a7 42 und 43 (2te Ausgabe).\n\n[120] Binder, Studien der evang. Geistlichkeit W\u00fcrtembergs, ix. 2, 5.\n11 ff.\n\n[121] Compare my Dogmatik, i. \u00a7 49.\n\n[122] Bibl. Comm., 1. Thl. s. 119.\n\n[123] Ut sup. s. 92.\n\n[124] Hess, Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu u. s. w., 1.\nThl. s. 13, 33.\n\n[125] Horst in Henke\u2019s Museum, i. 4. s. 733 f. Gabler in seinem neuest.\ntheol. Journal, vii. 1. s. 403.\n\n[126] Briefe \u00fcber die Bibel im Volkstone (Ausg. Frankfurt und Leipzig,\n1800), 1tes B\u00e4ndchen, 6ter Brief, s. 51 f.\n\n[127] Bahrdt, ut sup. s. 52.\n\n[128] Exeget. Handb. 1, a. s. 74 ff.\n\n[129] Bahrdt, ut sup. 7ter Brief, s. 60.\u2014E. F. \u00fcber die beiden ersten\nKapitel des Matth\u00e4us und Lukas, in Henke\u2019s Magazin, v. 1. s. 163.\nBauer, hebr. Mythol. 2, s. 220.\n\n[130] Exeget. Handb. 1, a. s. 77\u201380.\n\n[131] Ut sup. s. 73.\n\n[132] Comp. Schleiermacher \u00fcber die Schriften des Lukas, s. 25.\n\n[133] Hor\u00e6 hebr. et talmud., ed. Carpzov. p. 722.\n\n[134] Ut sup. s. 26.\n\n[135] Examples borrowed from Aulus Gellius, v. 9, and from Valerius\nMaximus, i. 8, are cited.\n\n[136] Ut sup. s. 26.\n\n[137] Ut sup. s. 72 f.\n\n[138] Ut sup. s. 69.\n\n[139] In Schmidt\u2019s Bibliothek f\u00fcr Kritik und Exegese, iii. 1, s. 119.\n\n[140] Paulus, ut sup.\n\n[141] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1. 2, s. 9.\n\n[142] \u00dcber die Schriften des Lukas, s. 23.\n\n[143] Paulus und Olshausen z. d. St., Heydenreich a. a. O. 1, s. 87.\n\n[144] Comp. Horst, in Henke\u2019s Museum, i. 4, s. 705; Vater, Commentar\nzum Pentateuch, 3, s. 597 ff.; Hase L. J., \u00a7 35; auch George, s. 33 f.\n91.\n\n[145] E. F. \u00fcber die zwei ersten Kapitel u. s. w. in Henke\u2019s Magazin,\nv. 1, s. 162 ff., und Bauer hebr. Mythol., ii. 220 f.\n\n[146] The adoption of this opinion is best explained by a passage\u2014with\nrespect to this matter classical\u2014in the Evangelium de nativitate Mari\u00e6,\nin Fabricius codex apocryphus N. Ti. 1, p. 22 f., and in Thilo 1, p.\n322, \u201cDeus\u201d\u2014it is here said,\u2014cum alicujus uterum claudit, ad hoc facit,\nut mirabilius denuo aperiat, et non libidinis esse, quod nascitur, sed\ndivini muneris cognoscatur. Prima enim gentis vestr\u00e6 Sara mater nonne\nusque ad octogesimum annum infecunda fuit? et tamen in ultim\u00e2\nsenectutis \u00e6tate genuit Isaac, cui repromissa erat benedictio omnium\ngentium. Rachel quoque, tantum Domino grata tantumque a sancto Jacob\namata diu sterilis fuit, et tamen Joseph genuit, non solum dominum\n\u00c6gypti, sed plurimarum gentium fame periturarum liberatorem. Quis in\nducibus vel fortior Sampsone, vel sanctior Samuele? et tamen hi ambo\nsteriles matres habuere.\u2014ergo\u2014crede\u2014dilatos diu conceptus et steriles\npartus mirabiliores esse solere.\n\n[147] Neuestes theol. Journal, vii. 1, s. 402 f.\n\n[148] In Henke\u2019s Museum, i. 4, s. 702 ff.\n\n[149] Hase in his Leben Jesu makes the same admission; compare \u00a7 52\nwith \u00a7 32.\n\n[150] Wetstein zu Luke i. 11, s. 647 f. adduces passages from Josephus\nand from the Rabbins recording apparitions seen by the high priests.\nHow readily it was presumed that the same thing happened to ordinary\npriests is apparent from the narrative before us.\n\n[151]\n\nJudges xiii. 14 (LXX.): Luc. i. 15.:\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 (al. \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f72\nhebr. \u200f\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u200e) \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9. \u03c0\u03af\u1fc3.\n\n[152]\n\nJudg. xiii. 5: Luc. i. 15.:\n\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 (al. \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u1f76\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 (al. \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2). \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n[153]\n\nJudg. xiii. 24 f.: Luc. i. 80:\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b7\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b7\u1f54\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u2019\u03be\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 (al. \u1f21\u03b4\u03c1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u1f70\u03b9 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc7 \u0394\u1f70\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u1f72\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f01\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f18\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03cc\u03bb. \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb.\n\nComp. Gen. xxi. 20.\n\n[154]\n\nGen. xvi. 11. (LXX.): Luc. i. 13:\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nxvii. 19: \u2014 \u2014 \u1f38\u03c3\u03b1\u03ac\u03ba.\n\n[155] Olshausen, bibl. Commentar, 1. s. 116. Hoffmann, s. 146.\n\n[156] With this view of the passage compare De Wette, Exeg. Handbuch\nzum N. T., 1, 2, s. 12.\n\n[157] Kuin\u00f6l, Comm. in Matth. Proleg., p. xxvii. f.\n\n[158] Paulus, p. 292.\n\n[159] Hieron. in Daniel. init.\n\n[160] See Wetstein.\n\n[161] e.g. Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., p. 13.\n\n[162] Exegt. Handbuch, i. 1, s. 12 f.\n\n[163] The expedient of Kuin\u00f6l, Comm. in Matth. p. 3, to distinguish the\nRahab here mentioned from the celebrated one, becomes hence\nsuperfluous, besides that it is perfectly arbitrary.\n\n[164] Hoffmann, s. 154, according to Hug, Einl., ii. s. 271.\n\n[165] Compare Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., p. 19; Paulus, exeget.\nHandbuch, i. s. 289; De Wette, exeg. Handb. in loco.\n\n[166] Fritzsche in Matth., p. 11.\n\n[167] Paulus, s. 292.\n\n[168] Bibl. Comm., p. 46, note.\n\n[169] See Schneckenburger, Beitr\u00e4ge zur Einleitung in das N. T., s. 41\nf., and the passage cited from Josephus, B. j. vi. 8. Also may be\ncompared the passage cited by Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6 hebr. et talm. zu Matth.\ni. from Synopsis Sohar, p. 132, n. 18. Ab Abrahamo usque ad Salomonem\nXV. sunt generationes; atque tunc luna fuit in plenilunio. A Salomone\nusque ad Zedekiam iterum sunt XV. generationes, et tunc luna defecit,\net Zedeki\u00e6 effossi sunt oculi.\n\n[170] De Wette has already called attention to the analogy between\nthese Old Testament genealogies and those of the Gospels, with regard\nto the intentional equality of numbers. Kritik der mos. Geschichte, s.\n69. Comp. s. 48.\n\n[171] See Chrysostom and Luther, in Credner, Einleitung in d. N. T., 1,\ns. 143 f. Winer, bibl. Realw\u00f6rterbuch, 1., s. 659.\n\n[172] Orig. homil. in Lucam 28.\n\n[173] Luther, Werke, Bd. 14. Walch. Ausg. s. 8 ff.\n\n[174] De consensu Evangelistarum, ii. 3, u. c. Faust., iii. 3; amongst\nthe moderns, for example, E. F. in Henke\u2019s Magazin 5, 1, 180 f. After\nAugustine had subsequently become acquainted with the writing of\nAfricanus, he gave up his own opinion for that of the latter. Retract,\nii. 7.\n\n[175] Eusebius, H. E. i. 7, and lately e.g. Schleiermacher on Luke, p.\n53.\n\n[176] S. 53. Comp. Winer, bibl. Realw\u00f6rterbuch, 1 Bd. s. 660.\n\n[177] Comp. Michaelis, Mos. Recht. ii. s. 200. Winer, bibl.\nRealw\u00f6rterb. ii. s. 22 f.\n\n[178] Thus e.g. Spanheim, dubia evang. p. 1. s. 13 ff. Lightfoot,\nMichaelis, Paulus, Kuin\u00f6l, Olshausen, lately Hoffmann and others.\n\n[179] Epiphanius, Grotius. Olshausen, s. 43.\n\n[180] Testament XII. Patriarch., Test. Simeon c. 71. In Fabric. Codex\npseudepigr. V. T. p. 542: \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd (the races of Levi and Juda)\n\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0391\u03b5\u03c5\u1fd2 \u1f61\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[181] Comp. Thilo, cod. apocr. N.T. 1, s. 374 ff.\n\n[182] Thus e.g. the Manich\u00e6an Faustus in Augustin. contra Faust. L.\nxxiii. 4.\n\n[183] Protevangel. Jacobi c. 1 f. u. 10. and evangel. de nativitate\nMari\u00e6 c. 1. Joachim and Anna, of the race of David, are here mentioned\nas the parents of Mary. Faustus on the contrary, in the above cited\npassage, gives Joachim the title of Sacerdos.\n\n[184] Dial. c. Tryph. 43. 100. (Paris, 1742.)\n\n[185] Paulus. The Jews also in their representation of a Mary, the\ndaughter of Heli, tormented in the lower world (see Lightfoot), appear\nto have taken the genealogy of Luke, which sets out from Heli, for that\nof Mary.\n\n[186] e.g. Lightfoot, hor\u00e6, p. 750; Osiander, s. 86.\n\n[187] Juchasin f. 55, 2. in Lightfoot s. 183, and Bava bathra, f. 110,\n2. in Wetstein s. 230 f. Comp. Joseph. Vita, 1.\n\n[188] Thus Eichhorn, Einl. in das N. T. 1 Dd s. 425. Kaiser, bibl.\nTheol. 1, s. 232. Wegscheider, Institut. \u00a7 123, not. d. de Wette, bibl.\nDogm. \u00a7 279, and exeget. Handbuch 1, 2, s. 32. Winer, bibl.\nRealw\u00f6rterb. 1, s. 660 f. Hase, Leben Jesu, \u00a7 33. Fritzsche, Comm. in\nMatt, p. 35. Ammon, Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion 1,\ns. 196 ff.\n\n[189] See De Wette, bibl. Dogm. and exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 14; Hase, L.\nJ. Eusebius gives a not improbable explanation of this disagreement\n(ad. Steph. qu\u00e6st. iii., pointed out by Credner, 1, p. 68 f.) that\nbesides the notion amongst the Jews, that the Messiah must spring from\nthe royal line of David, another had arisen, that this line having\nbecome polluted and declared unworthy of continuing on the throne of\nDavid (Jerem. xxii. 30), by the wickedness of its later reigning\nmembers, a line more pure though less famed was to be preferred to it.\n\n[190] The farther considerations on the origin and import of these\ngenealogies, which arise from their connexion with the account of the\nmiraculous birth of Jesus, must be reserved till after the examination\nof the latter point.\n\n[191] Fabricius, Codex apocryphus N. T. 1, p. 19 ff. 66 ff.; Thilo, 1,\np. 161 ff. 319 ff.\n\n[192] Gregory of Nyssa or his interpolator is reminded of this mother\nof Samuel by the apocryphal Anna when he says of her: \u039c\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u1f74\u03bb \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Fabricius, 1,\np. 6.\n\n[193] Evang. de nativ. Mar. c. 7: cunctos de domo et familia David\nnuptui habiles, non conjugatos.\n\n[194] Protev. Jac c. 8: \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n[195] It is thus in the Evang. de nativ. Mariae vii. and viii.; but\nrather different in the Protev. Jac. c. ix.\n\n[196] Protev. c. 9: \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. Evang. de nativ. Mar. 8.: grandaevus.\nEpiphan. adv. haeres. 78, 8: \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f40\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1.\n\n[197] \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7. c. ix. Compare with Evang. de\nnativ. Mar. viii. and x.\n\n[198] See the variations in Thilo, p. 227, and the quotations from the\nFathers at p. 365 not.\n\n[199] Numb. v. 18.\n\n[200] Protev. Jac. x.\u2013xvi. The account in the Evang. de nativ. Mar. is\nless characteristic.\n\n[201] \u201cDie nat\u00fcrliche Geschichte des grossen Propheten von Nazaret,\u201d\n1ter Band, s. 119 ff.\n\n[202] Augustin, de consens. evangelist. ii. 5.\n\n[203] Paulus, Olshausen, Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. p. 56.\n\n[204] Comp. de Wette\u2019s exeg. Handbuch, i. 1, s. 18. Schleiermacher,\nUeber die Schriften des Lukas, s. 42 ff.\n\n[205] Protev. Jac. c. 12: \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03bc \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f67\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u0393\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03ae\u03bb. When questioned by Joseph she assures him with\ntears: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9, \u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5. c. 13.\n\n[206] Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu u. s. w. 1. Thl. s.\n36. Comp. Hoffmann, s. 176 f.\n\n[207] Ch. viii.\u2013x.\n\n[208] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1 a, s. 121. 145.\n\n[209] To this opinion Neander inclines, L. J. Ch. s. 18.\n\n[210]\n\nGen. xvii. 19; LXX. (Annunciation of Matt. i. 21.\nIsaac):\n (\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03bc\n\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u03a3\u03ac\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03ad\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u2014) \u03c4\u03ad\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f38\u03c3\u03b1\u03ac\u03ba. \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\u00b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\nJudg. xiii. 5. (Annunciation of \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.\nSamson):\n Luke i. 30 ff.\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u1f74\u03bb\n\u1f10\u03ba \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u0390\u03bc. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7\u2014\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03be\u1fc3\nGen. xvi. 11 ff. (Annunciation of \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\nIshmael): \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd. \u039f\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\u2014\u2014.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7\n\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u03c3\u1f7a \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03be\u03b7\n\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f38\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb. \u039f\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u2014 \u2014.\n\n[211] Comp. de Wette, Kritik der mos. Geschichte, s. 86 ff.\n\n[212] The vision which, according to Matthew, Joseph had in his sleep,\nhad besides a kind of type in the vision by which, according to the\nJewish tradition related by Josephus, the father of Moses was comforted\nunder similar circumstances, when suffering anxiety concerning the\npregnancy of his wife, although for a different reason. Joseph. Antiq.\nII. ix. 3. \u201cA man whose name was Amram, one of the nobler sort of\nHebrews, was afraid for his whole nation, lest it should fail, by the\nwant of young men to be brought up hereafter, and was very uneasy at\nit, his wife being then with child, and he knew not what to do.\nHereupon he betook himself to prayer to God.... Accordingly God had\nmercy on him, and was moved by his supplication. He stood by him in his\nsleep, and exhorted him not to despair of his future favours.... For\nthis child of thine shall deliver the Hebrew nation from the distress\nthey are under from the Egyptians. His memory shall be famous while the\nworld lasts.\u201d\n\n[213] Comp. Ammon, Fortbildung des Christenthums, i. s. 208 f.\n\n[214] Ueber die Schriften des Lukas, s. 23.\n\n[215] Compare Gesenius and Hitzig. Commentaren zum Jesaia; Umbreit,\nUeber die Geburt des Immanuel durch eine Jungfrau, in den theol.\nStudien u. Krit., 1830, 3. Heft, s. 541 ff.\n\n[216] This explanation does away with the importance of the controversy\nrespecting the word \u200f\u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e. Moreover it ought to be decided by the fact\nthat the word does not signify an immaculate, but a marriageable young\nwoman (see Gesenius). So early as the time of Justin the Jews\nmaintained that the word \u200f\u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e ought not to be rendered by \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\nbut by \u03bd\u03b5\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2. Dial c. Tryph. no. 43. p. 130 E. Comp. Iren. adv. haer.\niii. 21.\n\n[217] Christologie des A. T. s. 1, b, s. 47.\n\n[218] See Winer, Grammatik des neutest. Sprachidioms, 3te Aufl. s. 382\nff. Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. p. 49. 317 und Excurs. 1, p. 836 ff.\n\n[219] See the Introduction, \u00a7 14.\n\n[220] See Bleek in den theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1835, 2, s. 441 ff.\n\n[221] The whole rationalistic interpretation of Scripture rests upon a\nsufficiently palpable paralogism, by which it stands or falls:\n\nThe New Testament authors are not to be interpreted as if they said\nsomething irrational (certainly not something contrary to their own\nmodes of thinking).\n\nNow according to a particular interpretation their assertions are\nirrational (that is contrary to our modes of thinking).\n\nConsequently the interpretation cannot give the original sense, and a\ndifferent interpretation must be given.\n\nWho does not here perceive the quaternio terminorum and the fatal\ninconsequence, when Rationalism takes its stand upon the same ground\nwith supernaturalism; that, namely, whilst with regard to all other men\nthe first point to be examined is whether they speak or write what is\njust and true, to the New Testament writers the prerogative is granted\nof this being, in their case, already presupposed?\n\n[222] Conjugial. pr\u00e6cept. Opp. ed. Hutton, Vol. 7. s. 428.\n\n[223] Iren\u00e4us, adv. haer. 1, 26: Cerinthus, Jesum subjecit non ex\nvirgine natum, impossibile enim hoc ei visum est.\n\n[224] In Henke\u2019s neuem Magazin, iii. 3, s. 369.\n\n[225] Homil. in Lucam xiv. Comp. my Streitschriften, i. 2, s. 72 f.\n\n[226] Olshausen, Bibl. Comm. s. 49. Neander, L. J. Ch. s. 16 f.\n\n[227] e.g. by Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N. T. 1. Bd. s. 407.\n\n[228] Glaubenslehre, 2 Thl. \u00a7 97. s. 73 f. der zweiten Auflage.\n\n[229] This side is particularly considered in der Skiagraphie des\nDogma\u2019s von Jesu \u00fcbernat\u00fcrlicher Geburt, in Schmidt\u2019s Bibliothek, i. 3,\ns. 400 ff.; in den Bemerkungen \u00fcber den Glaubenspunkt: Christus ist\nempfangen vom heil. Geist, in Henke\u2019s neuem Magazin, iii. 3, 365 ff.;\nin Kaiser\u2019s bibl. Theol. 1, s. 231 f.; De Wette\u2019s bibl. Dogmatik, \u00a7\n281; Schleiermacher\u2019s Glaubenslehre, 2 Thl. \u00a7 97.\n\n[230] Brought to bear upon this point by Neander, L. J. Ch. s. 12.\n\n[231] Augustinus contra Faustum Manichaeum, L. 23. 3. 4. 8.\n\n[232] See Schmidt, Schleiermacher, and Wegscheider, Instit. \u00a7 123 (not.\nd).\n\n[233] Eichhorn thinks this probable, Einl. in das N. T. i. s. 425, De\nWette possible, exeg. Handb. i. 1, s. 7.\n\n[234] Justin Mart. Dial. cum Tryphone, 48; Origines contra Celsum, L.\n5, 61. Euseb. H. E. 3, 27.\n\n[235] Epiphan. haeres. 30, 14.\n\n[236] Haeres. 29, 9.\n\n[237] Credner, in den Beitr\u00e4gen zur Einleitung in das N. T. 1, s. 443.\nAnm.\n\n[238] Orig. ut sup.\n\n[239] See Neander, K. G. 1, 2, s. 615 f.\n\n[240] Credner, \u00fcber Essener, und einen theilweisen Zusammenhang beider,\nin Winer\u2019s Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1. Bd. 2tes and\n3tes Heft; see Baur, Progr. de Ebionitarum origine et doctrin\u00e2 ab\nEssenis repetend\u00e2, und christl. Gnosis, s. 403.\n\n[241] De carne Christi, c. 14: Poterit haec opinio Hebioni convenire,\nqui nudum hominem, et tantum ex semine David, i.e. non et Dei filium,\nconstituit Jesum, ut in illo angelum fuisse edicat.\n\n[242] Neander and Schneckenburger are of the latter, Gieseler and\nCredner of the former opinion.\n\n[243] I here refer to the account of Hegesippus in Eusebius, H. E. iv.\n22.\n\n[244] Homil. 3, 23\u201327.\n\n[245] Epiphan. haeres. 30, 18. comp. 15.\n\n[246] That these were the traits in David\u2019s character which displeased\nthe Christian sect in question, is sufficiently evident from a passage\nin the Clementine Homilies, though the name is not given: Homil. 3, 25;\n\u1f15\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03b1\u0390\u03bd) \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf. \u0394\u1f76 \u1f43 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u1f41\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, \u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03b4\u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n[247] Epiphan. haer. 30, 14. 16. 34.\n\n[248] Homil. 3, 17.\n\n[249] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber das Evang. der Aegypter, s. 7; Baur,\nchristl. Gnosis, s. 760 ff. See on the other side Credner and Hoffmann.\n\n[250] Orig. Comm. in Matth. T. 16, 12. Tertullian, De carne Christi,\n14, s. Anm. 13 (a passage in which indeed the speculative and ordinary\nEbionites are mingled together).\n\n[251] Clement, homil. 18, 13. They referred the words of Matth. xi. 27:\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. to \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, and complained that \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[252] Haeres. 30, 14: \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u039a\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03ac\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f19\u03b2\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2) \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u0392\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fb7\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n[253] Dial. c. Tryph. 100. 120.\n\n[254] Br..., die Nachricht, dass Jesus durch den heil. Geist und von\neiner Jungfrau geboren sei, aus Zeitbegriffen erl\u00e4utert. In Schmidt\u2019s\nBibl. 1, 1. s. 101 ff.\u2014Horst, in Henke\u2019s Museum 1, 4, 497 ff., \u00fcber die\nbeiden ersten Kapitel in Evang. Lukas.\n\n[255] Bemerkungen \u00fcber den Glaubenspunkt: Christus ist empfangen vom\nheil. Geist. In Henke\u2019s neuem Magazin, 3, 3, 399.\n\n[256] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 26 f.\n\n[257] Im neuesten theol. Journal, 7. Bd. 4. St\u00fcck, s. 407 f.\n\n[258] Antiq. xviii. 3, 4.\n\n[259] Iter Theil, s. 140 ff.\n\n[260] The legend has undergone various modifications, but the name of\nPanthera or Pandira has been uniformly retained. Vid. Origenes c. Cels.\n1, 28., 32. Sch\u00f6ttgen, Hor\u00e6 2, 693 ff. aus Tract. Sanhedrin u. A.;\nEisenmenger, entdecktes Judenthum, 1, s. 105 ff. aus der Schm\u00e4hschrift:\nToledoth Jeschu; Thilo, cod. apocr. s. 528. Comp. my Abhandlung \u00fcber\ndie Namen Panther, Pantheras, Pandera, in j\u00fcdischen und patristischen\nErz\u00e4hlungen von der Abstammung Jesu. Athen\u00e4um, Febr. 1839, s. 15 ff.\n\n[261] Orig. c. Celsus i. 32.\n\n[262] Ibid. vi. 8.\n\n[263] Ibid. i. 37.\n\n[264] Gabler, in seinem neuesten theol. Journal, 7, 4. s. 408 f.;\nEichhorn, Einleitung in das N. T. 1, s. 428 f.; Bauer, hebr. Mythol. 1,\n192 e ff.; Kaiser, bibl. Theologie, 1, s. 231 f.; Wegscheider, Instit.\n\u00a7 123; De Wette, bibl. Dogmat. \u00a7 281, und exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 18 f.,\nAmmon, Fortbildung des Christenth. s. 201 ff.; Hase, L. J. \u00a7 33;\nFritzsche, Comment. in Matth. s. 56. The latter justly remarks in the\ntitle to the first chapter: non minus ille (Jesus) ut ferunt doctorum\nJudaicorum de Messi\u00e2 sententi\u00e6, patrem habet spiritum divinum, matrem\nvirginem.\n\n[265] Jamblich. vita Pythagor\u00e6. cap. 2, ed. Kiessling.\n\n[266] Adv. Jovin. 1, 26. Diog. La\u00ebrt., 3, 1, 2.\n\n[267] Glaubw\u00fcrdigkeit, s. 64.\n\n[268] Apologie des L. J. s. 92.\n\n[269] Diog. La\u00ebrt a. a. O.: \u03a3\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 (Sororis Platonis filius,\nHieron.) \u03b4\u2019\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd,\n\u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[270] Neander, L. J. Ch. s. 10.\n\n[271] Antiq. 15. 2. 6.\n\n[272]\n\nGen. xviii., 14 Sept. Luke i. 37.\n\n\u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1; \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd\n \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n[273] De Wette, Exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 17.\n\n[274] They are to be found however in the more modern Rabbins, s.\nMatth\u00e6i, Religionsgl. der Apostel 2, a. s. 555 ff.\n\n[275] Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 47. Also Daub. 2 a. s. 311 f; Theile, \u00a7 14.\nNeander, s. 9.\n\n[276] Diog. La\u00ebrt. a. a. O. See Origenes c. Cels. 1, 37.\n\n[277] Demonax, 29.\n\n[278] S. Origenes in Matth\u00e6um, Opp. ed. de la Rue, Vol. 3. s. 463.\n\n[279] The Arian Eunomius according to Photius taught \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f04\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3. This was also, according to\nEpiphanius, the doctrine of those called by him Dimaerites and\nAntidicomarianites, and in the time of Jerome, of Helvidius and his\nfollowers. Compare on this point the Sammlung von Suicer, im Thesaurus\nii., s. v. \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, fol. 305 f.\n\n[280] Comp. Hieron. adv. Helv. 6, 7, Theophylact and Suidas in Suicer,\n1, s. v. \u1f14\u03c9\u03c2, fol. 1294 f.\n\n[281] Hieron. z. d. St.\n\n[282] See Orig. in Matth. Tom. 10, 17; Epiphan. haeres. 78, 7; Historia\nJosephi, c. 2; Protev. Jac. 9. 18.\n\n[283] Chrysostomus, hom. 142, in Suicer, s. v. \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, most repulsively\ndescribed in the Protev. Jac. xix. and xx.\n\n[284] Hieron. ad Matth. 12, und advers. Helvid. 19.\n\n[285] Die Br\u00fcder Jesu. In Winer\u2019s Zeitschrift f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche\nTheologie, 1, 3. s. 364 f.\n\n[286] Biblisches Realw\u00f6rterbuch, 1 Bd. s. 664, Anm. De Wette, z. d. St.\nNeander L. J. Ch., s. 34.\n\n[287] Comment. in Matth. s. 53 ff., vgl. auch s. 835.\n\n[288] Olshausen is exceedingly unhappy in the example chosen by him in\nsupport of his interpretation of \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57. For when it is said, we waited\ntill midnight but no one came, certainly this by no means implies that\nafter midnight some one did come, but it does imply that after midnight\nwe waited no longer; so that here the expression till retains its\nsignification of exclusion.\n\n[289] On this subject compare in particular Clemen, die Br\u00fcder Jesu, in\nWiner\u2019s Zeitschrift f\u00fcr wiss. Theol. 1, 3, s. 329 ff.; Paulus, Exeg.\nHandbuch, 1 Bd. s. 557 ff.; Fritzsche, a. a. O. s. 480 ff.; Winer,\nbibl. Realw\u00f6rterbuch, in den A. A.; Jesus, Jacobus, Apostel.\n\n[290] See the different names assigned them in the legend in Thilo,\nCodex apocryphus N.T., 1. s. 360 note.\n\n[291] Euseb. H. E. 2, 1.\n\n[292] Euseb. H. E. 3, 11.\n\n[293] Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. p. 482.\n\n[294] Theile, Biographie Jesu, \u00a7 18.\n\n[295] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1. a, s. 120 ff.\n\n[296] S. Olshausen und de Wette, z. d. St.\n\n[297] Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 26; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. z. d.\nSt.; Hoffmann, s. 226; Lange, s. 76 ff.\n\n[298] Compare Luke i. 47 with 1 Sam. ii. 1.\n \u00a0,,\u00a0 i. 49 ,,\u00a0,,\u00a0 ii. 2.\n \u00a0,,\u00a0 i. 51 ,,\u00a0,,\u00a0 ii. 3, 4.\n \u00a0,,\u00a0 i. 52 ,,\u00a0,,\u00a0 ii. 8.\n \u00a0,,\u00a0 i. 53 ,,\u00a0,,\u00a0 ii. 5.\n\nParticularly Compare Luke i. 48 with 1 Sam. i. 11.\n Luke i. 50 Deut. vii. 9.\n \u00a0,,\u00a0 i. 52 Ecclesiasticus x. 14.\n \u00a0,,\u00a0 i. 54 Ps. xcviii. 3.\n\n[299] 5 Band, 1. St\u00fcck, s. 161. f.\n\n[300] In Henke\u2019s Museum, 1, 4, s. 725.\n\n[301] Ueber den Lukas, s. 23 f.\n\n[302] Olshausen, Paulus, Kuin\u00f6l.\n\n[303] Tholuck, s. 194 ff. Neander, s. 19.\n\n[304] Cassiodor. Variarum, 3, 52. Isidor. Orig. 5, 36.\n\n[305] To refer here to the Monumentum Ancyranum, which is said to\nrecord a census of the whole empire in the year of Rome 746 (Osiander,\np. 95), is proof of the greatest carelessness. For he who examines this\ninscription will find mention only of three assessments census civium\nRomanorum, which Suetonius designates census populi, and of which Dio\nCassius speaks, at least of one of them, as \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f38\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. See Ideler, Chronol. 2, s. 339.\n\n[306] In the authoritative citations in Suidas are the words taken from\nLuke, \u03b1\u1f54\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n[307] Hoffmann, s. 231.\n\n[308] Joseph. Antiq. 17, 13, 2. B. j. 2, 7, 3.\n\n[309] Antiq. 17, 13, 5. 18, 1, 1. B. j. 2, 8, 1.\n\n[310] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 171. Winer, bibl. Realw\u00f6rterbuch.\n\n[311] Tacit. Annal. 1, 11. Sueton. Octav. 191. But if in this document\nopes public\u00e6 continebantur: quantum civium sociorumque in armis; quot\nclasses, regna, provinci\u00e6, tributa aut vectigalia, et necessitates ac\nlargitiones: the number of troops and the sum which the Jewish prince\nhad to furnish, might have been given without a Roman tax being levied\nin their land. For Judea in particular Augustus had before him the\nsubsequent census made by Quirinus.\n\n[312] \u1f4d\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03c9, \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u1ff3 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Joseph.\nAntiq. 16, 9, 3. But the difference was adjusted long before the death\nof Herod. Antiq. 16, 10, 9.\n\n[313] Joseph. Ant. 17, 2, 4. \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019\n\u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u1f23 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u039a\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9. That this\noath, far from being a humiliating measure for Herod, coincided with\nhis interest, is proved by the zeal with which he punished the\nPharisees who refused to take it.\n\n[314] Tholuck, s. 192 f. But the insurrection which the \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 after\nthe depositions of Archelaus actually occasioned\u2014a fact which outweighs\nall Tholuck\u2019s surmises\u2014proves it to have been the first Roman measure\nof the kind in Judea.\n\n[315] Antiq. 17, 9, 10, 1 ff. B. j. 2. 2. 2. His oppressions however\nhad reference only to the fortresses and the treasures of Herod.\n\n[316] Antiq. 18, 1, 1.\n\n[317] Bell. jud. 2, 8, 1. 9. 1. Antiq. 17, 13, 5.\n\n[318] Kuin\u00f6l, Comm. in Luc. p. 320.\n\n[319] Winer.\n\n[320] Adv. Marcion. 4, 19.\n\n[321] Storr, opusc. acad. 3, s. 126 f. S\u00fcskind, vermischte Aufs\u00e4tze, s.\n63. Tholuck, s. 182 f.\n\n[322] Michaelis, Anm. z. d. St. und Einl. in d. N.T. 1, 71.\n\n[323] M\u00fcnter, Stern der Weisen, s. 88.\n\n[324] Paulus. Wetstein.\n\n[325] Credner.\n\n[326] In Schmidt\u2019s Bibliothek f\u00fcr Kritik und Exegese, 3, 1. s. 124. See\nKaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 230; Ammon, Fortbildung, 1, s. 196; Credner,\nEinleitung, in d. N.T. 1, s. 155; De Wette, exeget. Handbuch.\n\n[327] Chap. 17. Compare Historia de nativ. Mariae et de infanti\u00e2\nServatoris, c. 13.\n\n[328] Fabricius, im Codex Apocryph. N.T. 1, s. 105, not. y.\n\n[329] Ambrosius and Jerome. See Gieseler, K. G. 1, s. 516.\n\n[330] Dial. c. Tryph. 78.\n\n[331] C. Cels. 1, 51.\n\n[332] Hess, Olshausen, Paulus.\n\n[333] Paulus.\n\n[334] Chap. 14.\n\n[335] Chap. 4 in Thilo, s. 69.\n\n[336] In seinem Versuch \u00fcber die Wundergeschichten des N. T. See\nGabler\u2019s Neuestes theol. Journal, 7, 4, s. 411.\n\n[337] Exeg. Handb. s. 180 ff. As Paulus supposes an external natural\nphenomenon so Matth\u00e6i imagines a mental vision of angels. Synopse der\nvier Evangelien, s. 3.\n\n[338] Hebr\u00e4ische Mythologie, 2. Thl. s. 223 ff.\n\n[339] Recension von Bauer\u2019s hebr. Mythologie in Gabler\u2019s Journal f\u00fcr\nauserlesene theol. Literatur, 2, 1, s. 58 f.\n\n[340] Neuestes theol. Journal, 7, 4, s. 412 f.\n\n[341] In Luc. 2. in Suicer, 2, p. 789.\n\n[342] Servius ad Verg. Ecl. 10, 26.\n\n[343] Liban. progymn. p. 138, in Wetstein, s. 662.\n\n[344] Thus Cyrus, see Herod. 1, 110 ff. Romulus, see Livy, 1, 4.\n\n[345] Thilo, Codex Apocr. N. T. 1, s. 383 not.\n\n[346] Vid. Sch\u00f6ttgen, 2, s. 531.\n\n[347] Sota, 1, 48: Sapientes nostri perhibent, circa horam nativitatis\nMosis totam domum repletam fuisse luce (Wetstein).\n\n[348] Ueber den Lukas, s. 29. f. With whom Neander and others now\nagree.\u2014L. J. Ch. s. 21 f.\n\n[349] Comp. De Wette, Kritik der mosaischen Geschichte, s. 116; George,\nMythus u. Sage, s. 33 f.\n\n[350]\n\nGen. xxxvii. 11 (LXX.): Luc. 2, 18 f.:\n\n\u1f18\u03b6\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u2014 \u2014\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03bc \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1.\u2014Sch\u00f6ttgen, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\nhorae, 1, 262. 2, 51: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n[351] See Introduction.\n\n[352] Perhaps as a precautionary measure to obviate objections on the\npart of the Jews. (Ammon, Fortbildung, 1, s. 217.)\n\n[353] Pirke R. Elieser, 33: Sex hominum nomina dicta sunt, antequam\nnascerentur: Isaaci nempe, Isma\u00eblis, Mosis, Salomonis, Josi\u00e6 et nomen\nregis Messi\u00e6. Bereschith rabba, sect. 1, fol. 3, 3.\u2014(Sch\u00f6ttgen, horae,\n2, s. 436): Sex res pr\u00e6venerunt creationem mundi: qu\u00e6dam ex illis\ncreat\u00e6 sunt, nempe lex et thronus glori\u00e6; ali\u00e6 ascenderunt in\ncogitationem (Dei) ut crearentur, nimirum Patriarch\u00e6, Isra\u00ebl, templum,\net nomen Messi\u00e6.\n\n[354] Comp. Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen\nEvangeliums, s. 69 ff.\n\n[355] Joseph. B. J. vi. vi. 4: Tacit. Histor. v. 13; Sueton. Vespas. 4.\nAll the extant allusions to the existence of such a hope at the era of\nChrist\u2019s birth, relate only in an indeterminate manner to a ruler of\nthe world. Virg. Eclog. 4; Sueton. Octav. 94.\n\n[356] In saying that it is inadmissible to suppose a divine\nintervention directly tending to countenance superstition, I refer to\nwhat is called immediate intervention. In the doctrine of mediate\nintervention, which includes the co-operation of man, there is\ndoubtless a mixture of truth and error. Neander confuses the two. L. J.\nCh., s. 29.\n\n[357] Paulus and De Wette, exeg. Handb. in loc.\n\n[358] According to Hoffmann (p. 256), that he might control the\nassertion of the magi by inquiring of his own astrologers, whether they\nhad seen the star at the same time. This is not merely unsupported by\nthe text\u2014it is in direct contradiction to it, for we are there told\nthat Herod at once gave terrified credence to the magi.\n\n[359] Fritzsche, in loc. aptly says\u2014comperto, quasi magos non ad se\nredituros statim scivisset, orti sideris tempore, etc.\n\n[360] K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beitr\u00e4ge, 1, s. 150 f. Comp. Fritzsche\nand De Wette in loc.\n\n[361] Hoffman thinks that Herod shunned this measure as a breach of\nhospitality; yet this very Herod he represents as a monster of cruelty,\nand that justly, for the conduct attributed to the monarch in chap. ii.\nof Matthew is not unworthy of his heart, against which Neander\nsuperfluously argues (p. 30 f.), but of his head.\n\n[362] Schmidt, ut sup. p. 155 f.\n\n[363] Stark, Synops. bibl. exeg. in N. T., p. 62.\n\n[364] This was the opinion of some of the Fathers, e.g. Euseb.\nDemonstr. evang. 9, ap. Suicer, 1, s. 559; Joann. Damasc. de fide\northod. ii. 7.\n\n[365] Chrysostomus and others ap. Suicer, ut sup. and the Evang.\ninfant. arab. c. vii.\n\n[366] See Kuin\u00f6l, Comm. in Matth., p. 23.\n\n[367] Vermischte Aufs\u00e4tze, s. 8.\n\n[368] Bibl. Comm. in loc, Hoffmann, s. 261.\n\n[369] Schmidt, exeg. Beitr\u00e4ge, 1, 152 ff.\n\n[370] This is shown in opposition to Olshausen by Steudel in Bengel\u2019s\nArchiv. vii. ii. 425 f. viii. iii. 487.\n\n[371] Schmidt, ut sup. p. 156.\n\n[372] Babylon. Sanhedr. f. cvii. 2, ap. Lightfoot, p. 207. Comp.\nSch\u00f6ttgen, ii. p. 533. According to Josephus Antiq. xiii. xiii. 5, xiv.\n2, they were Jews of each sex and of all ages, and chiefly Pharisees.\n\n[373] Joseph. B. J. i. xxx. 3. Comp. Antiq. xvii. iv. 1.\n\n[374] Macrob. Saturnal. ii. 4: Quum audisset (Augustus) inter pueros,\nquos in Syri\u00e2 Herodes rex Jud\u00e6orum intra bimatum jussit interfici,\nfilium quoque ejus occisum, ait: melius est, Herodis porcum (\u1f57\u03bd) esse\nquam filium (\u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03bd).\n\n[375] Vid. Wetstein, Kuin\u00f6l, Olshausen in loc. Winer d. A. Herodes.\n\n[376] Fritzsche, Comm. in Matt., p. 93 f.\n\n[377] Chrysostom and others.\n\n[378] Vid. Gratz, Comm. zum Ev. Matth. 1, s. 115.\n\n[379] Kuin\u00f6l, ad Matth. p. 44 f.\n\n[380] Wetstein, in loc.\n\n[381] Schneckenburger, Beitr\u00e4ge zur Einleitung in das N. T., s. 42.\n\n[382] Gieseler, Studien und Kritiken, 1831, 3. Heft, s. 588 f.\nFritzsche, s. 104. Comp. Hieron. ad Jesai. xi. 1.\n\n[383] For both these explanations, see Kuin\u00f6l, in loc.\n\n[384] Kepler, in various treatises; M\u00fcnter, der Stern der Weisen;\nIdeler, Handbuch der mathemat. und technischen Chronologie, 2. Bd. s.\n399 ff.\n\n[385] Olshausen, s. 67.\n\n[386] Paulus, ut sup. s. 202, 221.\n\n[387] Bengel\u2019s Archiv. vii. ii. p. 424.\n\n[388] At a later period, it is true, this journey of Jesus was the\noccasion of calumnies from the Jews, but those were of an entirely\ndifferent nature, as will be seen in the following chapter.\n\n[389] Ueber formelle oder genetische Erkl\u00e4rungsart der Wunder. In\nHenke\u2019s Museum, 1, 3, 399 ff. Similar essays see in the Abhandlungen\n\u00fcber die beiden ersten Kapitel des Matth\u00e4us u. Lukas, in Henke\u2019s\nMagazin, 5, 1, 171 ff., and in Matth\u00e4i, Religionsgl. der Apostel, 2, s.\n422 ff.\n\n[390] L. J. Ch., s. 29 ff.\n\n[391] Orig. c. Cels. i. 60. Auctor, op. imperf. in Matth. ap. Fabricius\nPseudepigr. V. T., p. 807 ff.\n\n[392] Schmidt\u2019s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 130.\n\n[393] In loc. Num. (Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6, ii. p. 152): Multi Interpretati\nsunt h\u00e6c de Messi\u00e2.\n\n[394] Justin, Hist. 37.\n\n[395] Sueton. Jul. C\u00e6s. 88.\n\n[396] Jalkut Rubeni, f. xxxii. 3 (ap. Wetstein): qu\u00e2 hor\u00e2 natus est\nAbrahamus, pater noster, super quem sit pax, stetit quoddam sidus in\noriente et deglutivit quatuor astra, qu\u00e6 erant in quatuor c\u0153li plagis.\nAccording to an Arabic writing entitled Maallem, this star,\nprognosticating the birth of Abraham, was seen by Nimrod in a dream.\nFabric. Cod. pseudepigr. V. T. i. s. 345.\n\n[397] Testamentum XII. Patriarcharum, test. Levi, 18 (Fabric. Cod.\npseud. V. T. p. 584 f.): \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (of the Messianic\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2) \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7,\u2014\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Pesikta Sotarta,\nf. xlviii. 1 (ap. Sch\u00f6ttgen, ii. p. 531): Et prodibit stella ab\noriente, qu\u00e6 est stella Messi\u00e6, et in oriente versabitur dies X V.\nComp. Sohar Genes. f. 74. Sch\u00f6ttgen, ii. 524, and some other passages\nwhich are pointed out by Ideler in the Handbuch der Chronologie, 2 Bd.\ns. 409, Anm. 1, and Bertholdt, Christologia Jud\u00e6orum, \u00a7 14.\n\n[398] Compare with the passages cited Note 7. Protevang. Jac. cap.\nxxi.: \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7, \u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Still more exaggerated in Ignat. ep. ad\nEphes. 19. See the collection of passages connected with this subject\nin Thilo, cod. apocr. i. p. 390 f.\n\n[399] Exeg. Beitr\u00e4ge, i. s. 159 ff.\n\n[400] Fritzsche in the paraphrase of chap. ii. Etiam stella, quam\njudaica disciplina sub Messi\u00e6 natale visum iri dicit, quo Jesus\nnascebatur tempore exorta est.\n\n[401] As in Matt. ii. 11 it is said of the magi \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\u2014\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd: so in Isa. lx. 6 (LXX.): \u1f25\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af, \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9. The third present is in Matt. \u03c3\u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1, in Isa. \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[402] V. 1. und 3: \u200f\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0 \u05d5\u05bc\u05db\u05b0\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05b9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05da\u05b0\u200e (LXX: \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc) \u200f\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d7:\u2014\u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd \u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0 \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05b0\u05e0\u05b9\u05d2\u05b7\u05d4\u05bc \u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05d7\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e\n\n[403] \u00c6neid, ii. 693 ff.\n\n[404] Wetstein, in loc.\n\n[405] Herod, i. 108 ff. Liv. i. 4.\n\n[406] Octav. 94:\u2014ante paucos quam nasceretur menses prodigium Rom\u00e6\nfactum publice, quo denuntiabatur, regem populi Romani naturam\nparturire. Senatum exterritum, censuisse, ne quis illo anno genitus\neducaretur. Eos, qui gravidas uxores haberent, quo ad se quisque spem\ntraheret, curasse, ne Senatus consultum ad \u00e6rarium deferretur.\n\n[407] Bauer (\u00fcber das Mythische in der fr\u00fcheren Lebensper. des Moses,\nin the n. Theol. Journ. 13, 3) had already compared the marvellous\ndeliverance of Moses with that of Cyrus and Romulus; the comparison of\nthe infanticides was added by De Wette, Kritik der Mos. Geschichte, s.\n176.\n\n[408] Joseph. Antiq. ii. ix. 2.\n\n[409] Jalkut Rubeni (cont. of the passage cited in Note 6): dixerunt\nsapientes Nimrodi: natus est Thar\u00e6 filius h\u00e2c ips\u00e2 hor\u00e2, ex quo\negressurus est populus, qui h\u00e6reditabit pr\u00e6sens et futurum seculum; si\ntibi placuerit, detur patri ipsius domus argento auroque plena, et\noccidat ipsum. Comp. the passage of the Arabic book quoted by Fabric.\nCod. pseudepigr. ut sup.\n\n[410] Protev. Jacobi, c. xxii. f.\n\n[411]\n\nEx. iv. 19, LXX: Matt. ii. 20:\n\n\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5, \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0391\u1f34\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2\u2014\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb\u00b7\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd. \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nWe may remark that the inappropriate use of the plural in the\nevangelical passage, can only be explained on the supposition of a\nreference to the passage in Exod. See Winer, N. T. Gramm. s. 149. Comp.\nalso Exod. iv. 20 with Matt. ii. 14, 21.\n\n[412] Vide e.g. Sch\u00f6ttgen, Hor\u00e6, ii. p. 209.\n\n[413] Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, \u00a7 15, Anm. 9. Hoffmann, s. 269.\n\n[414] Comp. my Streitschriften, i. 1, s. 42 f.; George, s. 39.\n\n[415] Neander, L. J. Ch. s. 27.\n\n[416] Schleiermacher (Ueber den Lukas, s. 47), explains the narrative\nconcerning the magi as a symbolical one; but he scorns to take into\nconsideration the passages from the O. T. and other writings, which\nhave a bearing on the subject, and by way of retribution, his\nexposition at one time rests in generalities, at another, takes a wrong\npath.\n\n[417] Lightfoot, Hor\u00e6, p. 202.\n\n[418] Schneckenburger, Ueber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen\nEvangeliums, s. 69 ff.\n\n[419] Thus, e.g. Augustin de consensu evangelistarum, ii. 5. Storr,\nopusc. acad. iii. s. 96 ff. S\u00fcskind, in Bengel\u2019s Archiv. i. 1, s. 216\nff.\n\n[420] E.g. Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 51 ff. Paulus, Olshausen, in\nloc.\n\n[421] S\u00fcskind, ut sup. s. 222.\n\n[422] The same difference as to the chronological relation of the two\nincidents exists between the two different texts of the apocryphal\nbook: Historia de nativitate Mari\u00e6 et de inf. Serv., see Thilo, p. 385,\nnot.\n\n[423] This incompatibility of the two narratives was perceived at an\nearly period by some opponents of Christianity. Epiphanius names one\nPhilosabbatius, together with Celsus and Porphyry (h\u00e6res. li. 8).\n\n[424] Neander, L. J. Ch. s. 33, Anm.\n\n[425] Schleiermacher, Ueber den Lukas, s. 47. Schneckenburger, ut sup.\n\n[426] Antiq. xiv. ix. 4, xv. i. 1 and x. 4.\n\n[427] The Evang. Nicodemi indeed calls him, c. xvi. \u1f41 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\nand the Protev. Jacobi, c. xxiv. makes him a priest or even high\npriest, vid. Varr. ap. Thilo Cod. Apocr. N. T. 1, s. 271, comp. 203.\n\n[428] 1 Th. s. 205 ff.\n\n[429] Cap. vi. Viditque illum Simeon senex instar column\u00e6 lucis\nrefulgentem, cum Domina Maria virgo, mater ejus, ulnis suis eum\ngestaret,\u2014et circumdabant eum angeli instar circuli, celebrantes illum,\netc. Ap. Thilo, p. 71.\n\n[430] Thus E. F. in the treatise, on the two first chapters of Matth.\nand Luke. In Henke\u2019s Mag. 5 bd. s. 169 f. A similar half measure is in\nMatth\u00e4i, Synopse der 4 Evan. s. 3, 5 f.\n\n[431] With the words of Simeon addressed to Mary: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1fe5\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 (v. 35) comp. the words in the messianic\npsalm of sorrow, xxii. 21: \u1fe5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ad\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[432] Schleiermacher, Ueber den Lukas, s. 37. Compare on the other hand\nthe observations in \u00a7 18, with those of the authors there quoted, Note\n19.\n\n[433] Neander here (s. 24 f.) mistakes the apocryphal for the mythical,\nas he had before done the poetical.\n\n[434] Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1. s. 142 f.\n\n[435] Dial. c. Trypho, 78: Joseph came from Nazareth, where he lived,\nto Bethlehem, whence he was, to be enrolled, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 (\u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6) \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u1f72\u03c4, \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f64\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03bb\u03b5\u1f72\u03bc, \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. The words \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f26\u03bd might however be understood as signifying merely the place of his\ntribe, especially if Justin\u2019s addition be considered: For his race was\nof the tribe of Judah, which inhabits that land, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd.\n\n[436] Beitr\u00e4ge zur Einleit. in das N. T. 1. s. 217. Comp. Hoffmann, s.\n238 f. 277 ff.\n\n[437] C. I. 8. 10.\n\n[438] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 178.\n\n[439] Ueber die Unzul\u00e4ssigkeit der mythischen Auffassung u. s. f. 1, s.\n101.\n\n[440] L. J. Ch. s. 33.\n\n[441] Tertull. adv. Marcion iv. 8. Epiphan. h\u00e6r. xxix. 1.\n\n[442] Comp K. Ch. L. Schmidt, in Schmidt\u2019s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 123 f.;\nKaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 230.\n\n[443] On this Heydenreich rests his defence, Ueber die Unzul\u00e4ssigkeit.\n1. s. 99.\n\n[444] Ueber den Lukas, s. 49. There is a similar hesitation in Thelte,\nBiographie Jesu, \u00a7 15.\n\n[445] Ueber den Ursprung u. s. w., s. 68 f. u. s. 158.\n\n[446] Comp. Ammon. Fortbildung, 1, s. 194 ff.; De Wette, exeget. Handb.\n1, 2, s. 24 f.; George, s. 84 ff. That different narrators may give\ndifferent explanations of the same fact, and that these different\nexplanations may afterwards be united in one book, is proved by many\nexamples in the O. T. Thus in Genesis, three derivations are given of\nthe name of Isaac; two of that of Jacob (xxv. 26., xxvii. 16), and so\nof Edom and Beersheba (xxi. 31., xxvi. 33). Comp. De Wette, Kritik der\nmos. Gesch., s. 110. 118 ff. and my Streitschriften, I, 1, s. 83 ff.\n\n[447] Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 110.\n\n[448] Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 145 f.\n\n[449] Olshausen, ut sup. 1. 150.\n\n[450] Hase, Leben Jesu, \u00a7 37.\n\n[451] Heydenreich, \u00fcber die Unzul\u00e4ssigkeit u. s. f. 1, s. 103.\n\n[452] Megillah, f. 21, apud Lightfoot, in loc.\n\n[453] Vid. Kuin\u00f6l, in Luc. p. 353.\n\n[454] Evang. Thom\u00e6, c. vi. ff. Ap. Thilo. p. 288 ff. and Evang. infant,\narab. c. xlviii. p. 123, Thilo.\n\n[455] Ibid.\n\n[456] Evang. infant, arab. c. l.\n\n[457] Ibid. c. l. and li.; comp. ev. Thom\u00e6, c. xix.\n\n[458] Olshausen confesses this, s. 151.\n\n[459] For proofs (e.g. Hieros. Taanith, lxvii. 4) see Wetstein and\nLightfoot, in loc.\n\n[460] Lightfoot, Hor\u00e6, p. 742.\n\n[461] Paulus, s. 279.\n\n[462] Kuin\u00f6l, s. 353 f.\n\n[463] Hor\u00e6, ii. p. 886.\n\n[464] Bibl. Comm. p. 151.\n\n[465] Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 112.\n\n[466] In the similar account also which Josephus gives us of himself\nwhen fourteen, it is easy to discern the exaggeration of a\nself-complacent man. Life, 2: Moreover, when I was a child, and about\nfourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to\nlearning, on which account the high priests and principal men of the\ncity came there frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion\nabout the accurate understanding of points of the law.\n\n[467]\n\n1 Sam. ii. 26 (LXX): Luc. ii. 52:\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u1f74\u03bb \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd. \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nCompare also what Josephus says Antiq. ii. ix. 6 of the \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\nof Moses.\n\n[468] Gabler neuest. theol. Journal 3, 1, s. 39.\n\n[469] Joseph. Antiq. ii. ix. 6.\n\n[470] Philo, de vita Mosis, Opp. ed. Mangey, Vol. 2. p. 83 f. \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6 \u03bd\u03ae\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f25\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03c9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\u2014\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f03 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f60\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c7\u03b5. \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7\u2014\u1f67\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f50\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03c6\u03b7\u03b3\u1f74\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[471] Chagiga, ap. Wetstein, in loc. A XII anno filius censetur\nmaturus. So Joma f. lxxxii. 1. Berachoth f. xxiv. 1; whereas Bereschith\nRabba lxiii. mentions the 13th year as the critical one.\n\n[472] Schemoth R. ap. Wetstein: Dixit R, Chama: Moses duodenarius\navulsus est a domo patris sui etc.\n\n[473] Joseph. Antiq. v. x. 4: \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7\n\u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n[474] Ignat. ep. (interpol.) ad Magnes. c. iii.: \u03a3\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\u2014\u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03be\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf.\u2014\u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u1f74\u03bb \u1f41 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\n\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03be\u03b5. But Solomon, ...\nbeing king at the age of twelve years, gave that terrible and profound\njudgment between the women with respect to the children.... Daniel, the\nwise man, when twelve years old, was possessed by the divine spirit,\nand convicted those calumniating old men who, carrying gray hairs in\nvain, coveted the beauty that belonged to another. This, it is true, is\nfound in a Christian writing, but on comparing it with the above data,\nwe are led to believe that it was drawn from a more ancient Jewish\nlegend.\n\n[475] This Kaiser has seen, bibl. Theol. 1, 234.\n\n[476] Neither do we learn what Hase (Leben Jesu \u00a7 37) supposes to be\nconveyed in this narrative, namely, that as it exhibits the same union\nwith God that constituted the idea of the later life of Jesus, it is an\nintimation that his later excellence was not the result of conversion\nfrom youthful errors, but of the uninterrupted development of his\nfreedom.\n\n[477] Ueber die Unzul\u00e4ssigkeit u. s. f. 1, s. 92.\n\n[478] Ueber den Lukas, s. 39 f.\n\n[479] Cap. v. In the Greek text also the more probable reading is \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, vid. Thilo, p. 287.\n\n[480] Hence the title of an Arabian apocryphal work (according to the\nLatin translation in Thilo, 1, p. 3): historia Josephi, fabri lignarii.\n\n[481] Vid. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. p. 368 f. not.\n\n[482] Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. 88. According to him Jesus makes these\nimplements, doubtless under the direction of Joseph. In the Evang.\nThom\u00e6 c. xiii. Joseph is the workman.\n\n[483] Cap. xxxviii. ap. Thilo, p. 112 ff.\n\n[484] C. ix. and xiii.\n\n[485] C. Cels. vi. 36.\n\n[486] Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 200.\n\n[487] Vid. Wetstein and Paulus, in loc.; Winer, Realw\u00f6rterbuch, 1, s.\n665. Note; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 46 f. Note.\n\n[488] Ut sup.: \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd,\n\u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac. \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u1fc6 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[489] Cap. xxxviii.\n\n[490] Theodoret. H. E. iii. 23.\n\n[491] Hase, Leben Jesu, \u00a7 70; Winer, bibl. Realw. 1, s. 665.\n\n[492] Winer, ut sup.\n\n[493] This is done by both the above-named theologians.\n\n[494] Paulus, exeget. Handb. 1, a, s. 273 ff.\n\n[495] Such, however, are the arguments of Paulus, ut sup. 275 ff.\n\n[496] Comp. Hase, Leben Jesu, \u00a7 38; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 45 f.\n\n[497] Paulus, ut sup.\n\n[498] To this Sch\u00f6ttgen appeals, Christus rabbinorum summus, in his\nhor\u00e6, ii. p. 890 f.\n\n[499] As e.g. Reinhard does, in his Plan Jesu.\n\n[500] Evang. infant. arab. c. i. p. 60 f. ap. Thilo, and the passages\nquoted \u00a7 40 out of the same Gospel and the Evang. Thom\u00e6.\n\n[501] Cap. ii. p. 278, Thilo.\n\n[502] Cap. x. ff.\n\n[503] E.g. Evang. Thom\u00e6, c. iii.\u2013v. Evang. infant. arab. c. xlvi. f.\nEvang. Thom\u00e6, c. ii. Evang. inf. arab. c. xxxvi.\n\n[504] Yet some isolated instances occur, vid. Semler, Baumgarten\u2019s\nGlaubenslehre, 1, s. 42, Anm. 8.\n\n[505] Orig. c. Cels. 1. 28: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 (\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9) \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (\u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0391\u1f34\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u1f80\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2\n\u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5.\n\n[506] Sanhedr. f. cvii. 2: R. Josua f. Perachja et \u200f\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u200e Alexandrian\nAegypti profecti sunt \u2014 \u2014 \u200f\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u200e ex illo tempore magiam exercuit, et\nIsra\u00eblitas ad pessima qu\u00e6vis perduxit. (An important anachronism, as\nthis Josua Ben Perachja lived about a century earlier. See Jost,\nGeschichte des Isr., 2, s. 80 ff. and 142 of the Appendices.) Schabbath\nf. civ. 2: Traditio est, R. Elieserem dixisse ad viros doctos: annon f.\nSatdae (i.e. Jesus) magiam ex Aegypto adduxit per incisionem in carne\nsu\u00e2 factam? vid. Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6, ii. p. 697 ff. Eisenmenger,\nentdecktes Judenthum, 1, s. 149 f.\n\n[507] E.g. Des C\u00f4tes, Schutzschrift f\u00fcr Jesus von Nazaret, s. 128 ff.\n\n[508] Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 39 ff.\n\n[509] Vid. Joseph. B. j. ii. viii. 2\u201313. Antiq. xviii. i. 5. Comp.\nPhilo, quod omnis probus liber and de vita contemplativa.\n\n[510] This opinion is judiciously developed by St\u00e4udlin, Geschichte der\nSittenlehre Jesu, 1, s. 570 ff.; and in a romantic manner in the\nGeschichte des Grossen Propheten von Nazaret, 1. Band.\n\n[511] H. E. ii. 16 f.\n\n[512] Comp. Bengel, Bemerkungen \u00fcber den Versuch. das Christenthum aus\ndem Ess\u00e4ismus abzuleiten, in Flatt\u2019s Magazin, 7, s. 126 ff.; Neander,\nL. J. Chr. s. 41 ff.\n\n[513] This is stated with exaggeration by Bahrdt, Briefe \u00fcber die\nBibel, zweites B\u00e4ndchen, 18ter, 20ster Brief ff. 4tes B\u00e4ndchen, 49ster\nBrief.\n\n[514] Comp. Paulus ut sup. 1, a, 273 ff. Planck, Geschichte des\nChristenthums in der Periode seiner ersten Einf\u00fchrung 1, s. 84. De\nWette, bibl. Dogm. \u00a7 212. Hase L. J. \u00a7 38. Winer, bibl. Realw. s. 677\nf. Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 38 ff.\n\n[515] Exeget. Handbuch. 1 a, s. 46. Schneckenburger agrees with him,\n\u00fcber den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 30.\n\n[516] Vermischte Aufs\u00e4tze, s. 76 ff. Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup.\n\n[517] De Wette and Fritzsche, in loc.\n\n[518] See Paulus, ut sup., s. 336.\n\n[519] I here collect all the passages in Josephus relative to Lysanias,\nwith the parallel passages in Dion Cassius. Antiq. xiii. xvi. 3, xiv.\niii. 2, vii. 8.\u2014Antiq. xv. iv. 1. B. j. i. xiii. 1 (Dio Cassius xlix.\n32). Antiq. xv. x. 1\u20133. B. j. i. xx. 4 (Dio Cass. liv. 9). Antiq. xvii.\nxi. 4. B. j. ii. vi. 3. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10. B. j. ii. ix. 6 (Dio\nCass. lix. 8). Antiq. xix. v. 1. B. j. ii. xi. 5. Antiq. xx. v. 2, vii.\n1. B. j. ii. xii. 8.\n\n[520] S\u00fcskind, vermischte Aufs\u00e4tze, s. 15 ff. 93 ff.\n\n[521] Tholuck thinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in\nTacitus. When this historian, Annal. ii. 42 (A.D. 17), mentions the\ndeath of an Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and yet, Annal. vi. 41 (A.D.\n36), cites an Archelaus, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clit\u00e6, the\nsame historical conjecture, says Tholuck, is necessary, viz., that\nthere were two Cappadocians named Archelaus. But when the same\nhistorian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the\nsame name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a\nclear historic datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite\notherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one\nof the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a\nconjecture to admit two successive persons; a conjecture so much the\nless historical, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the\ntwo writers would have been silent respecting the second of the\nlike-named men, had such an one existed.\n\n[522] Michaelis, Paulus, in loc. Schneckenburger, in Ullmann\u2019s und\nUmbreit\u2019s Studien, 1833, 4 Heft, s. 1056 ff. Tholuck, s. 201 ff.\n\n[523] For, on the authority of a single manuscript to erase, with\nSchneckenburger and others, the second \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, is too evident\nviolence.\n\n[524] Compare with this view, Allgem. Lit. Ztg., 1803, No. 344, s. 552:\nDe Wette, exeg. Handbuch, in loc.\n\n[525] See Paulus, s. 294.\n\n[526] See Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 62.\n\n[527] Bengel was also of this opinion. Ordo temporum, s. 204 f. ed. 2.\n\n[528] Antiq. xviii. v. 2.\n\n[529] So Cludius, \u00fcber die Zeit und Lebensdauer Johannis und Jesu. In\nHenke\u2019s Museum, ii. iii. 502 ff.\n\n[530] Cludius, ut sup.\n\n[531] St\u00e4udlin, Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, s. 580. Paulus,\nexeg. Handb. 1 a, s. 136. Comp. also Creuzer, Symbolik, 4, s. 413 ff.\n\n[532] Ut sup. p. 347.\n\n[533] Bell. jud. iii. x. 7.\n\n[534] See Winer, bibl. Realw\u00f6rterbuch, A. W\u00fcste. Schneckenburger, \u00fcber\nden Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 39.\n\n[535] Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 38 f.\n\n[536] Winer, ut sup., s. 691.\n\n[537] Paulus, ut sup., s. 301.\n\n[538] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber das Alter der J\u00fcdischen Proselytentaufe.\n\n[539] Sanhedr. f. xcvii. 2: R. Elieser dixit: si Isra\u00eblit\u00e6 p\u0153nitentiam\nagunt, tunc per Go\u00eblem liberantur; sin vero, non liberantur. Sch\u00f6ttgen,\nhor\u00e6, 2, p. 780 ff.\n\n[540] Antiq. xviii. v. 2.\n\n[541] Thus Paulus, ut sup., s. 314 and 361, Anm.\n\n[542] Fragment von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner J\u00fcnger, herausgegeben von\nLessing, s. 133 ff.\n\n[543] So thinks Semler in his answer to the above Fragments, in loc.;\nso think most of the moderns; Plank, Geschichte des Christenthums in\nder Periode seiner Einf\u00fchrung, 1, K. 7. Winer, bibl. Realw\u00f6rterbuch, 1,\ns. 691.\n\n[544] Let the reader judge for himself whether Neander\u2019s arguments be\nnot forced: \u201cEven if the Baptist could have expected\u201d (say rather must\nnecessarily have known) \u201cfrom the circumstances of the birth of Jesus,\nthat he was the Messiah, the divine witness in his own mind would\neclipse all external testimony, and compared with this divine\nillumination, all previous knowledge would seem ignorance.\u201d p. 68.\n\n[545] L\u00fccke, Commentar zum Evang. Johannis 1, s. 362.\n\n[546] Osiander, in despair, answers, that the heavenly communications\nthemselves might contain directions for\u2014keeping the two youths apart!\ns. 127.\n\n[547] Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 117 f. Paulus, ut sup., s. 366.\n\n[548] Comp. the Fragmentist, ut sup.\n\n[549] H\u00e6res, xxx. 13: \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f21\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u00b7\n\u1f43\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd, \u1f41 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\u00b7 \u03c3\u03cd \u03c4\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36, \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd, \u1f41 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u00b7 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5, \u03c3\u03cd \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd. And when he came from the water, the heavens\nwere opened, and he saw the holy spirit of God in the form of a dove,\netc., and a voice was heard, etc., and immediately a great light\nilluminated the place; seeing which, John said to him, Who art thou,\nLord? and again a voice, etc. And then, John falling at his feet, said\nto him, I beseech thee, Lord, baptize me.\n\n[550] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen\nEvangeliums, s. 121 f.; L\u00fccke, Comm. z. Ev. Joh., 1, s. 361. Usteri,\n\u00fcber den T\u00e4ufer Johannes u. s. w., Studien, 2, 3. s. 446.\n\n[551] Tertull. adv. Marcion, iv. 18. Comp. Bengel, historico-exegetical\nremarks in Matt. xi. 2\u201319, in his Archiv. 1, iii. p. 754 ff.\n\n[552] See Paulus, Kuin\u00f6l, in loc. Bengel, ut sup., p. 763.\n\n[553] Calvin, Comm. in harm. ex. Matth., Marc. et Luc. in loc.\n\n[554] We agree with Schleiermacher, (\u00fcber den Lukas, s. 106 f.) in thus\ndesignating the narrative of the third evangelist, first, on account of\nthe idle repetition of the Baptist\u2019s words, ver. 20; secondly, on\naccount of the mistake in ver. 18 and 21, of which we shall presently\ntreat, and to which ver. 29, 30, seem to betray a similar one.\n\n[555] Compare Calvin in loc. and Bengel ut sup., s. 753 ff.\n\n[556] Thus most recent commentators: Paulus, Kuin\u00f6l, Bengel, Hase,\nTheile, and even Fritzsche.\n\n[557] This difficulty occurred to Bengel also, ut sup., p. 769.\n\n[558] The gospel writers, after what they had narrated of the relations\nbetween Jesus and the Baptist, of course understood the question to\nexpress doubt, whence probably v. 6 (Matt.) and v. 23 (Luke) came in\nthis connection. Supposing these passages authentic, they suggest\nanother conjecture; viz. that Jesus spoke in the foregoing verses of\nspiritual miracles, and that the Baptist was perplexed by the absence\nof corporeal ones. The \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4. \u03a7. must then be set down to\nthe writer\u2019s misapprehension of the expressions of Jesus.\n\n[559] Gabler and Paulus.\n\n[560] De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. theol., s.\n77 ff. L\u00fccke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh. 1, s. 347 ff. Winer, bibl.\nRealw\u00f6rterb. 1, s. 693, Anm.\n\n[561] Gabler and Paulus. De Wette.\n\n[562] De Wette, ut sup., p. 76.\n\n[563] Paulus, Leben Jesu, 2 a, die \u00dcbers., s. 29. 31.\n\n[564] Tholuck and L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[565] L\u00fccke, ut sup.\n\n[566] See Bertholdt, Christologia Jud\u00e6orum Jesu apostolorumque \u00e6tate, \u00a7\n23\u201325.\n\n[567] Probabilia, p. 41.\n\n[568] See Gfr\u00f6rer, Philo und die Alexandr. Theosophie, part ii. p. 180.\n\n[569] L\u00fccke, ut sup., p. 500.\n\n[570] Compare especially:\n\nJoh. iii. 11 (Jesus to Nicodemus): Joh. iii. 32 (the Baptist): \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f43 \u03bf\u1f34\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f43 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f43 \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9.\n\u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5.\n\nV. 18: \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 V. 36: \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c5\u1f31\u1ff7, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f21\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nComp. also the words of the Baptist v. 31, with Joh. iii. 6. 12 f.\nviii. 23; v. 32 with viii. 26; v. 33 with vi. 27; v. 34 with xii. 49,\n50; v. 35 with v. 22, 27, x. 28 f. xvii. 2.\n\n[571] Bibl. Comm. 2, p. 105.\n\n[572] Paulus, Olshausen, in loc.\n\n[573] E.g. here, v. 32, it is said: \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, but in the Prolog. v. 11: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd.\nComp. L\u00fccke, s. 501.\n\n[574] Ut sup.\n\n[575] De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in s. Opusc. theol. p. 81;\nbiblische Dogmatik, \u00a7 209; Winer, bibl. Realw\u00f6rterbuch 1, s. 692.\n\n[576] Neander, p. 75. This author erroneously supposes that there is an\nindication of the Baptist having directed his disciples to Jesus in\nActs xviii. 25, where it is said of Apollos: \u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. For on comparing the\nfollowing chapter, we find that Paul had to teach the disciples of\nJohn, that by the \u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 announced by their master, they were to\nunderstand Jesus; whence it is clear that the things of the Lord\nexpounded by Apollos, consisted only in the messianic doctrine,\npurified by John into an expectation of one who was to come, and that\nthe more accurate instruction which he received from the Christians,\nAquila and Priscilla, was the doctrine of its fulfilment in the person\nof Jesus.\n\n[577] Gesenius, Probeheft der Ersch und Gruber\u2019schen Encyclop\u00e4die, d.\nA. Zabier.\n\n[578] Bretschneider, Probab., s. 46 f.; comp. L\u00fccke, s. 493 f.; De\nWette, Opusc a. a. O.\n\n[579] Greiling, Leben Jesu von Nazaret, s. 132 f.\n\n[580]\n\n 2 Sam. iii. 1. John iii. 30.\n\n \u200f\u05d5\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05d5\u05b4\u05d3 \u05d4\u05b9\u05dc\u05b5\u05da\u05b0 \u05d5\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d6\u05b5\u05e7\u200e \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n \u200f\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05d9\u05ea \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc \u05d4\u05b9\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b4\u05dd \u05d5\u05b0\u05d3\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd :\u200f\u200e \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[581] Schulz, die Lehre vom Abendmahl, s. 145. Winer, Realw\u00f6rterbuch,\n1, s. 693.\n\n[582] Commentar, s. 380.\n\n[583] The passage above quoted from the Acts gives us also some\nexplanation, why the fourth Evangelist of all others should be\nsolicitous to place the Baptist in a more favourable relation to Jesus,\nthan history allows us to conceive. According to v. 1 ff. there were\npersons in Ephesus who knew only of John\u2019s baptism, and were therefore\nrebaptized by the Apostle Paul in the name of Jesus. Now an old\ntradition represents the fourth gospel to have been written in Ephesus\n(Ir\u00e6neus adv. h\u00e6r. iii. 1). If we accept this (and it is certainly\ncorrect in assigning a Greek locality for the composition of this\nGospel), and presuppose, in accordance with the intimation in the Acts,\nthat Ephesus was the seat of a number of the Baptist\u2019s followers, all\nof whom Paul could hardly have converted; the endeavour to draw them\nover to Jesus would explain the remarkable stress laid by the fourth\nEvangelist on the \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. Storr has very judiciously remarked\nand discussed this, \u00fcber den Zweck der Evangelischen Geschichte und der\nBriefe Johannis, s. 5 ff. 24 f. Compare Hug, Einleitung in das N. T.,\ns. 190 3te Ausg.\n\n[584] Antiq. xviii. v. 2.\n\n[585] Ueber den Lukas, s. 109.\n\n[586] Ibid. p. 106.\n\n[587] Ueber den Ursprung u. s. w. s. 79.\n\n[588] The expression \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 is thus interpreted by the most\nlearned exegetists. Comp. Paulus, L\u00fccke, Tholuck in loc.\n\n[589] L\u00fccke, Commentar, s. 327.\n\n[590] L\u00fccke, s. 339.\n\n[591] Whether the dialogue between John and his complaining disciples\n(John iii. 25 ff.) be likewise a transmutation of the corresponding\nscene, Matt. ix. 14 f., as Bretschneider seeks to show, must remain\nuncertain. Probab., p. 66 ff.\n\n[592] That Jesus, as many suppose, assigns a low rank to the Baptist,\nbecause the latter thought of introducing the new order of things by\nexternal violence, is not to be detected in the gospels.\n\n[593] For a different explanation see Schneckenburger, Beitr\u00e4ge, s. 48\nff.\n\n[594] Antiq. xviii. v. 2.\n\n[595] This former husband of Herodias is named by the Evangelists,\nPhilip, by Josephus, Herod. He was the son of the high priest\u2019s\ndaughter, Mariamne, and lived as a private person. V. Antiq. xv. ix. 3;\nxviii. v. 1. 4. B. j. i. xxix. 2, xxx. 7.\n\n[596] Antiq. xviii. v. 4.\n\n[597] Hase, Leben Jesu, s. 88.\n\n[598] Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. in loc. Winer, bibl. Realw\u00f6rterb. 1,\ns. 694.\n\n[599] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 361; Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den\nLukas, s. 109.\n\n[600] Vergl. Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., p. 225.\n\n[601] E.g. Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen\nEvangeliums, s. 86 f. That the \u1f10\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 of Matthew, v. 9, is not\ncontradictory to his own narrative, see Fritzsche, in loc.\n\n[602] S. Winer, b. Realw\u00f6rterb. d. A. Herodes Antipas.\n\n[603] Fritzsche, Commentar. in Matt., p. 491.\n\n[604] Antiq. xviii. v. 1.\n\n[605] Dial. c. Tryph. 8, s. 110. der Mauriner Ausg.\n\n[606] Hess. Geschichte Jesu, 1 Bd. s. 118.\n\n[607] Paulus, ut sup., s. 362 ff. 337. Hase, L. J., s. 48, erste Ausg.\n\n[608] Hieron. adv. Pelagian. iii. 2: In Evangelio juxta Hebr\u00e6os\u2014narrat\nhistoria: Ecce mater Domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei: Joannes\nbaptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum; eamus et baptizemur ab eo.\nDixit autem eis: quid peccavi ut vadam et baptizer ab eo? nisi forte\nhoc ipsum quod dixi, ignorantia est.\n\n[609] The author of the Tractatus de non iterando baptismo in Cyprian\u2019s\nworks, Rigalt., p. 139, says (the passage is also found in Fabric. Cod.\napocr. N.T., s. 799 f.): Est\u2014liber, qui inscribitur Pauli pr\u00e6dicatio.\nIn quo libro, contra omnes scripturas et de peccato proprio confitentem\ninvenies Christum, qui solus omnino nihil deliquit, et ad accipiendum\nJoannis baptisma p\u00e6ne invitum \u00e2 matre su\u00e2 Mari\u00e2 esse compulsum.\n\n[610] Justin. Mart. dial. c. Tryph. 88: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.. Epiphan. h\u00e6res. 30, 13\n(after the heavenly voice): \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1.\n\n[611] See Usteri, \u00fcber den T\u00e4ufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung\nChristi, in the theolog. Studien und Kritiken, 2 Bd. 3 Heft, s. 442\nff., and Bleek, in the same periodical, 1833, 2, s. 428 ff.\n\n[612] Bauer, hebr. Mythologie, 2 s. 225 f. Comp. Gratz, Comm. zum\nEvang. Matt. i. s. 172 ff.\n\n[613] These are Theodore\u2019s words, in M\u00fcnter\u2019s Fragmenta patr. gr\u00e6c.\nFasc. 1, s. 142. Orig. c. Cels. i. 48. Basil. M. in Suicer\u2019s Thesaurus,\n2, p. 1479.\n\n[614] As even L\u00fccke confesses, Comm. zum Evang. Joh. i., s. 370, and\nBleek, ut sup., s. 437.\n\n[615] Comp. Eusebius, H. E. vi. 29.\n\n[616] See Paulus, Bauer, Kuin\u00f6l, Hase and Theile.\n\n[617] De Wette, bibl. Dogmatik, \u00a7 208. Anm. 6, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 34\nf. 1, 3, s. 29 f. Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 58 f. Usteri,\nBleek, Hase, Kern, Neander.\n\n[618] According to Bava Mezia, f. lix. 1 (in Wetstein, p. 427), R.\nElieser appealed to a heavenly sign, in proof that he had tradition in\nhis favour: tum personuit echo c\u0153lestis: quid vobis cum R. Eliesere?\nnam ubivis secundum illum obtinet traditio.\n\n[619] Dial. c. Tryph. 88.\n\n[620] H\u00e6res. xxx. 13.\n\n[621] P\u00e6dagog. i. 6.\n\n[622] De consens. Evangg. ii. 14.\n\n[623] S. Wetstein in loc. des Lukas, and De Wette, Einl. in das N. T.,\ns. 100.\n\n[624] S. Rosenm\u00fcller\u2019s Schol. in Psalm ii.\n\n[625] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 57.\n\n[626] Tibull. Carm. L. 1, eleg. 8, v. 17 f. See the remark of\nBroeckhuis on this passage; Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. s. 70 f.; Paulus,\nexeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 369.\n\n[627] Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. s. 80.\n\n[628] Chagiga c. ii.: Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas, sicut\ncolumba, qu\u00e6 fertur super pullos suos nec tangit illos. Ir Gibborim ad\nGenes. 1, 2, ap. Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6, i. p. 9.\n\n[629] Targum Koheleth, ii. 12, vox turturis is interpreted as vox\nspiritus sancti. To regard this, with L\u00fccke, as an arbitrary\ninterpretation, seems itself like arbitrariness, in the face of the\nabove data.\n\n[630] Bereschith rabba, s. 2, f. 4, 4, ad Genes. T. 2 (ap. Sch\u00f6ttgen ut\nsup.): intelligitur spiritus regis Messi\u00e6, de quo dicitur, Jes. xi. 2:\net quiescet super illum spiritus Domini.\n\n[631] Sohar. Numer. f. 68. col. 271 f. (in Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6, 2, p. 537\nf.). The purport of this passage rests on the following cabalistic\nconclusion: If David, according to Ps. lii. 10, is the olive tree; the\nMessiah, a scion of David, is the olive leaf: and since it is said of\nNoah\u2019s dove, Gen. viii. 11, that it carried an olive leaf in its mouth;\nthe Messiah will be ushered into the world by a dove.\u2014Even Christian\ninterpreters have compared the dove at the baptism of Jesus to the\nNoachian one; see Suicer, Thesaurus, 2, Art. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70, p. 688. It has\nbeen customary to cite in this connection, that the Samaritans paid\ndivine honours to a dove under the name of Achima, on Mount Gerizim;\nbut this is a Jewish accusation, grounded on a wilful misconstruction.\nSee St\u00e4udlin\u2019s and Tzschirner\u2019s Archiv. f\u00fcr K. G. 1, 3, s. 66. L\u00fccke,\n1, s. 367.\n\n[632] See Fritzsche, Comm. in Matt., p. 148.\n\n[633] Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 120.\n\n[634] Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 175 f.\n\n[635] Comm. zum Evang. Joh. 1, s. 378 f.\n\n[636] From the orthodox point of view, it cannot be consistently said,\nwith Hoffmann (p. 301), that for the conviction of his messiahship and\nthe maintenance of the right position, amid so many temptations and\nadverse circumstances, an internally wrought certainty did not suffice\nJesus, and external confirmation by a fact was requisite.\n\n[637] Epiphan. h\u00e6res. xxx. 14: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.:\u2014They maintain that Jesus was really\nman, but that that which descended from heaven in the form of a dove\nbecame Christ in him.\n\n[638] Epiphan. h\u00e6res. xxviii. 1.\n\n[639] Epiphan. h\u00e6res. xxx. 13:\u2014\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd:\u2014of a dove descending and entering into him.\n\n[640] See the passage above, \u00a7 48, note 7.\n\n[641] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evang.,\ns. 39.\n\n[642] Comm. z. Ev. Joh. 1, s. 344.\n\n[643] Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 27.\n\n[644] Compare Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc, s. 23 De Wette, exeg. Handb.,\n1, 2, s. 33.\n\n[645] Kuin\u00f6l, Comm. in Luc., s. 379.\n\n[646] Lightfoot, hor\u00e6, p. 243.\n\n[647] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung des ersten kan. Evang., s. 46.\n\n[648] Ibid.\n\n[649] Thus Euthymius, Kuin\u00f6l, and others.\n\n[650] Fritzsche, in loc.\n\n[651] Beitrag zur Erkl\u00e4rung der Versuchungsgeschichte, in Ullmann\u2019s and\nUmbreit\u2019s Studien, 1834, 4, s. 789.\n\n[652] Ueber den Lukas, s. 56.\n\n[653] Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 46 f.\n\n[654] Exegetische Beitr\u00e4ge, 1, s. 277 ff.\n\n[655] Comm. in Matth. s. 172 ff.\n\n[656] In the Essay quoted, s. 768.\n\n[657] Thus, e.g., Kuin\u00f6l, Comm. in Matth., p. 84. Comp. Gratz, Comm.\nzum Matth., 1, s. 229. Hoffmann, p. 315.\n\n[658] Usteri, \u00fcber den T\u00e4ufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung\nChristi. In den theol. Studien und Kritiken, zweiten Jahrgangs (1829),\ndrittes Heft, s. 450. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 38.\n\n[659] De Wette, bibl. Dogmatik, \u00a7 171. Gramberg, Grundz\u00fcge einer\nEngellehre des A. T., \u00a7 5, in Winer\u2019s Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftliche\nTheologie, 1 Bd. s. 182 f.\n\n[660] Glaubenslehre, 1, ss. 44, 45, der zweiten Ausg.\n\n[661] Schmidt, exeg. Beitr\u00e4ge. Kuin\u00f6l, in Matt.\n\n[662] In a fragment of Theodore of Mopsuestia in M\u00fcnter\u2019s Fragm. Patr.\nGr\u00e6c. Fasc. 1, p. 99 f.\n\n[663] Paulus.\n\n[664] Hoffmann thinks that the devil, in his second temptation,\ndesignedly chose so startling an example as the leap from the temple\nroof, the essential aim of the temptation being to induce Jesus to a\nfalse use of his miraculous power and consciousness of a divine nature.\nBut this evasion leaves the matter where it was, for there is the same\nabsurdity in choosing unfit examples as unfit temptations.\n\n[665] Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 124.\n\n[666] See the author of the discourse de jejunio et tentationibus\nChristi, among Cyprian\u2019s works.\n\n[667] Compare Joseph. B. J. v. v. 6, vi. v. 1. Fritzsche, in Matth., s.\n164. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 40.\n\n[668] The one proposed by Kuin\u00f6l, in Matth., p. 90; the other by\nFritzsche, p. 168.\n\n[669] Theodore of Mopsuestia, ut sup. p. 107, maintained against Julian\nthat the devil had made the image of a mountain, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, and according to the author of the discourse,\nalready cited, de jejunio et tentationibus Christi, the first\ntemptation it is true passed localiter in deserto, but Jesus only went\nto the temple and the mountain as Ezekiel did from Chaboras to\nJerusalem\u2014that is, in spiritu.\n\n[670] Paulus, s. 379.\n\n[671] See for the former, H. Farmer, Gratz, Comm. zum Ev. Matth. 1, s.\n217; for the latter, Olshausen in loc., and Hoffmann (s. 326 f.) if I\nrightly apprehend him.\n\n[672] Paulus, s. 377 ff.\n\n[673] Fritzsche, in Matth. 155 f. Usteri, Beitrag zur Erkl\u00e4rung der\nVersuchungsgeschichte, s. 774 f.\n\n[674] Ullmann, \u00fcber die Uns\u00fcndlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, 1, s.\n56. Usteri, ut sup., s. 775.\n\n[675] Usteri, s. 776.\n\n[676] 1 Bd. s. 512 ff.\n\n[677] The former in Henke\u2019s n. Magazin 4, 2, s. 352; the latter in the\nnat\u00fcrlichen Geschichte, 1, s. 591 ff.\n\n[678] This view is held by Ullmann, Hase, and Neander.\n\n[679] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 54. Usteri, ut sup., s. 777.\n\n[680] If something really experienced by Jesus is supposed as the germ\nof the parable, this opinion is virtually the same as the preceding.\n\n[681] J. E. C. Schmidt, in seiner Bibliothek, 1, 1, s. 60 f.\nSchleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 54 f. Usteri, \u00fcber den T\u00e4ufer\nJohannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi, in den theol. Studien, 2,\n3, s. 456 ff.\n\n[682] K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beitr\u00e4ge, 1, s. 339.\n\n[683] Hasert, Bemerkungen \u00fcber die Ansichten Ullmann\u2019s und Usteri\u2019s von\nder Versuchungsgesch., Studien, 3, 1, s. 74 f.\n\n[684] Hasert, ut sup., s. 76.\n\n[685] Zur Biographie Jesu, \u00a7 23.\n\n[686] See Zech. iii. 1, where Satan resists the high priest standing\nbefore the angel of the Lord; farther Vajikra rabba, f. cli. 1 (in\nBertholdt, Christol. Jud., p. 183), where, according to Rabbi Jochanan,\nJehovah said to \u200f\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e (i.e. to Satan, comp. Heb. ii. 14 and\nLightfoot, hor\u00e6, p. 1088): Feci quidem te \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1, at vero cum\npopulo f\u0153deris negotium nulla in re tibi est.\n\n[687] See the passages quoted by Fabricius in Cod. pseudepigr. V. T.,\np. 395, from Gemara Sanhedrin.\n\n[688] The same, p. 396. As Abraham went out to sacrifice his son in\nobedience to Jehovah, antevertit eum Satanas in via, et tali colloquio\ncum ipso habito a proposito avertere eum conatus est, etc. Schemoth, R.\n41 (ap. Wetstein in loc. Matth.): Cum Moses in altum adscenderet, dixit\nIsra\u00ebli: post dies XL hora sexta redibo. Cum autem XL illi dies elapsi\nessent, venit Satanas, et turbavit mundum, dixitque: ubi est Moses,\nmagister vester? mortuus est. It is worthy of remark that here also the\ntemptation takes place after the lapse of 40 days.\n\n[689] Thus Fritzsche, in Matt. p. 173. His very title is striking, p.\n154: Quod in vulgari Jud\u00e6orum opinione erat, fore, ut Satanas\nsalutaribus Messi\u00e6 consiliis omni modo, sed sine effectu tamen, nocere\nstuderet, id ipsum Jesu Messi\u00e6 accidit. Nam quum is ad exemplum\nillustrium majorum quadraginta dierum in deserto loco egisset jejunium,\nSatanas eum convenit, protervisque atque impiis\u2014 \u2014consiliis ad\nimpietatem deducere frustra conatus est.\n\n[690] Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6, ii. 538, adduces from Fini Flagellum Jud\u00e6orum,\niii. 35, a passage of Pesikta: Ait Satan: Domine, permitte me tentare\nMessiam et ejus generationem? Cui inquit Deus: Non haberes ullam\nadversus eum potestatem. Satanas iterum ait: Sine me, quia potestatem\nhabeo. Respondit Deus: Si in hoc diutius perseverabis, Satan, potius\n(te) de mundo perdam quam aliquam animam generationis Messi\u00e6 perdi\npermittam. This passage at least proves that a temptation of the\nMessiah undertaken by the devil, was not foreign to the circle of\nJewish ideas. Although the author of the above quotation represents the\ndemand of Satan to have been denied, others, so soon as the imagination\nwas once excited, would be sure to allow its completion.\n\n[691] Deut. viii. 2 (LXX.) the people are thus addressed: \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f25\u03bd \u1f24\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad \u03c3\u03b5 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3, \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f54.\n\n[692] Ziegler, in Gabler\u2019s n. theol. Journ., 5, 201; Theile, zur Biogr.\nJ., \u00a7 23.\n\n[693] See Wetstein, s. 270; De Wette, Kritik der mos. Geschichte, s.\n245; the same in Daub\u2019s and Creuzer\u2019s Studien, 3, s. 245; v. Bohlen,\nGenesis, s. 63 f.\n\n[694] Deut. viii. 3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03ad \u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b5, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[695] S. Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. V. T., p. 398 ff.\n\n[696] Gemara Sanh., as in note 3. The colloquy between Abraham and\nSatan is thus continued:\n\n1. Satanas: Annon tentare te (Deum) in tali re \u00e6gre feras? Ecce\nerudiebas multos\u2014labantem erigebant verba tua\u2014quum nunc advenit ad te\n(Deus taliter te tentans) nonne \u00e6gre ferres (Job iv. 2\u20135)?\n\nCui resp. Abraham: Ego in integritate mea ambulo (Ps. xxvi. 11).\n\n2. Satanas: Annon timor tuus, spes tua (Job iv. 6)?\n\nAbraham: Recordare qu\u00e6so, quis est insons, qui perierit (v. 7)?\n\n3. Quare, quum videret Satanas, se nihil proficere, nec Abrahamum sibi\nobedire, dixit ad illum: et ad me verbum furtim ablatum est (v. 12),\naudivi\u2014pecus futurum esse pro holocausto (Gen. xxii. 7), non autem\nIsaacum.\n\nCui resp. Abraham: H\u00e6c est p\u00e6na mendacis, ut etiam cum vera loquitur,\nfides ei non habeatur.\n\nI am far from maintaining that this rabbinical passage was the model of\nour history of the temptation; but since it is impossible to prove, on\nthe other side, that such narratives were only imitations of the New\nTestament ones, the supposed independent formation of stories so\nsimilar shows plainly enough the ease with which they sprang out of the\ngiven premises.\n\n[697] Note 1.\n\n[698] Bertholdt, Christolog. Jud\u00e6orum Jesu \u00e6tate, \u00a7 36, not. 1 and 2;\nFritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 169 f.\n\n[699] Compare with the above statement the deductions of Schmidt,\nFritzsche, and Usteri, as given \u00a7 54, notes 1\u20133, and of De Wette, exeg.\nHandbuch, 1, 1, s. 41 ff.\n\n[700] Fritzsche, p. 591.\n\n[701] Olshausen, bibl. Comm., 1, s. 189 f.\n\n[702] Schneckenburger, Beitr\u00e4ge, s. 38 f.; \u00fcber den Ursprung u. s. f.,\ns. 7 f.\n\n[703] De Wette, Einleitung in das N. T., \u00a7 98 u. 106.\n\n[704] Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, a, s. 39.\n\n[705] Guerike, Beitr\u00e4ge zur Einleitung in das N. T., s. 33; Tholuck,\nGlaubw\u00fcrdigkeit, s. 303.\n\n[706] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung u. s. w., s. 9.\n\n[707] Kern, \u00fcber den Ursprung des Evang. Matth\u00e4i, in der T\u00fcbinger\nZeitschrift, 1834, 2tes Heft, s. 198 ff. Comp. Hug, Einleit. in d. N.\nT., 2, s. 205 ff. (3te Ausg.).\n\n[708] Tholuck, Comm. zum Evang. Joh., p. 207.\n\n[709] Comp. L\u00fccke, ut sup., s. 546.\n\n[710] De Wette, Einleitung in das N. T., \u00a7 98.\n\n[711] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 7.; Beitr\u00e4ge u.\ns. f., s. 38 ff.\n\n[712] Schneckenburger, Beitr\u00e4ge, s. 207. Comp. Gabler\u2019s Treatise on the\nResurrection of Lazarus, in his Journal f\u00fcr auserlesene theol.\nLiteratur, 3, 2.\n\n[713] Hug, Einleit. in das N. T., 2, s. 210.\n\n[714] Hug, ut supra, s. 211. f.\n\n[715] Compare Weisse, die evang. Geschichte 1, s. 29 ff.\n\n[716] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, 6, s. 463.\n\n[717] This Schleiermacher has made evident, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 63.\n\n[718] Sieffert, \u00fcber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums,\ns. 89.\n\n[719] Olshausen, Fritzsche, in loc. Hase, Leben Jesu, \u00a7 62. Sieffert,\nut supra.\n\n[720] Sieffert, ut supra.\n\n[721] What these mighty works were can only be made clear when we come\nto the chapter on the Miracles.\n\n[722] Schleiermacher, ut supra, s. 64.\n\n[723] Schleiermacher, ut supra, s. 63 f.\n\n[724] Ordo temporum, p. 220 ff. ed. 2.\n\n[725] Paulus, ut supra, 1, b, s. 407.\n\n[726] Paulus, ut supra. Lightfoot, hor\u00e6, p. 765.\n\n[727] Bibl. Comm. 1, 470.\n\n[728] Hase, Leben Jesu, \u00a7 62.\n\n[729] Ueber den Lukas, s. 93.\n\n[730] Ut supra, 479; comp. 2, p. 214.\n\n[731] Adv. Marcion, iv. 8.\n\n[732] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 788 f.\n\n[733] L\u00fccke, Comm. zum Evang. Joh., 2, s. 6.\n\n[734] Bengel, ordo temporum, p. 219 f.\n\n[735] Hug, Einleit. in das N. T. 2, s. 229 ff.\n\n[736] Paulus, Comm. zum Ev. Joh., s. 279 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 784\nff.\n\n[737] Summaries of the different opinions are given by Hase, L. J., \u00a7\n53; and by L\u00fccke, Comm. z. Ev. Joh., 2, s. 2 ff.\n\n[738] Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 785.\n\n[739] See Storr, \u00fcber den Zweck der evang. Gesch. und der Briefe\nJohannis, s. 330.\n\n[740] Winer, b. Realw. 1, s. 666.\n\n[741] Clem. Alex. Stromat. 1, p. 174, W\u00fcrzb. ed., 340 Sylburg; Orig. de\nprincipp. iv. 5, comp. homil. in Luc. 32.\n\n[742] Iren. adv. h\u00e6r. i. 1, 5. ii. 35, 38, on the Valentinians. Clem.\nhom. xvii. 19.\n\n[743] Iren. ii. xxii. 5 f. Comp. Credner, Einl. in das N. T. 1, s. 215.\n\n[744] Lightfoot and Tholuck in loc.\n\n[745] Joseph. Antiq. xviii. iv. 2.\n\n[746] Sueton. Tiber. c. lxxiii. Joseph. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10.\n\n[747] Comp. Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, 214 f.\n\n[748] See especially the labours of Paulus in the Chronological\nExcursus of his Commentary and his exegetical Manual; of Hug, in the\nEinl. z. N. T. 2, s. 2, 233 ff.; and others, given by Winer in his\nbibl. Realw\u00f6rterbuch 1, s. 667.\n\n[749] Winer, ut sup.; comp. Kaiser, biblische Theologie, 1, s. 254.\nAnm.; die Abhandlung \u00fcber die verschiedenen R\u00fccksichten u. s. w., in\nBertholdt\u2019s krit. Journal, 5, s. 239.\n\n[750] Olshausen 1, s. 24 ff.\n\n[751] Schneckenburger\u2019s Beitr\u00e4ge, s. 25 ff.\n\n[752] All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying,\nand rising again, is here omitted, and reserved for the history of the\nPassion.\n\n[753] Paulus, exeget. Handb. 1, 6, s. 465; Fritzsche, in Matth., p.\n320.\n\n[754] Thus after Herder, K\u00f6ster e.g. in Immanuel, s. 265.\n\n[755] L\u00fccke, Comm. zum Joh., 1, s. 397 f.\n\n[756] e.g. Grotius.\n\n[757] Abenesra, see H\u00e4vernick, ut sup. Comm. zum Daniel, s. 244.\n\n[758] Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6, ii. s. 63, 73; H\u00e4vernick, ut sup., s. 243 f.\n\n[759] See for the most important opinions, H\u00e4vernick, ut sup., s. 242\nf.\n\n[760] Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David\u2019s elegy, 2\nSam. i. 17 ff. as \u200f\u05e7\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05ea\u200e and the denomination of the Messiah as \u200f\u05e6\u05b6\u05de\u05b7\u05d7\u200e.\nHad Schleiermacher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he\nwould not have called the reference of \u03c5\u1f30\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00. to the passage in\nDaniel, a strange idea. (Glaubensl., \u00a7 99, s. 99, Anm.)\n\n[761] That the expression \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f11\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u1ff7 includes more than the\ndisciples, vid. Fritzsche, in loc.\n\n[762] There is a difficulty involved in the form of the question, put\nby Jesus to his disciples: \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5; i.e. what opinion have the people of me, the Messiah?\nThis, when compared with the sequel, seems a premature disclosure;\nhence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its prim\u00e2\nfacie meaning. Some (e.g. Beza) understand the subordinate clause, not\nas a declaration of Jesus concerning his own person, but as a closer\nlimitation of the question: For whom do the people take me? for the\nMessiah? But this would be a leading question, which, as Fritzsche well\nobserves, would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title, not\nelsewhere discernible in Jesus. Others, therefore, (as Paulus and\nFritzsche,) give the expression \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4. \u1f00. a general signification, and\ninterpret the question thus: Whom do men say that I, the individual\naddressing you, am? But this explanation has been already refuted in\nthe foregoing section. If, then, we reject the opinion that the \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4.\n\u1f00. is an addition which the exuberant faith of the writer was apt to\nsuggest even in an infelicitous connexion, we are restricted to De\nWette\u2019s view (exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 86 f.), namely, that the\nexpression, \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4. \u1f00. was indeed an appellation of the Messiah, but\nan indirect one, so that it might convey that meaning, as an allusion\nto Daniel, to Jesus and those already aware of his Messiahship, while\nto others it was merely the equivalent of, this man.\n\n[763] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 28 f.\n\n[764] This distinction of two periods in the public life of Jesus is\nalso made by Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 213. 536, and\nSchneckenburger ut sup.\n\n[765] Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 29.\n\n[766] Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 309, comp. 352. Olshausen, s. 265.\n\n[767] Fritzsche, p. 352. Olshausen, ut sup.\n\n[768] The opposite view is held by the Fragmentist, who thinks the\nprohibition was intended to stimulate the popular eagerness.\n\n[769] Fritzsche, s. 309.\n\n[770] Comp. Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 74.\n\n[771] Comp. the excellent treatise of Paulus on the following question\nin the Einl. zum Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 28 ff.\n\n[772] Even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage\nin Matthew (xix. 16 f.), it must remain questionable whether his\nstatement deserves the preference to that of the two other Evangelists.\n\n[773] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 130, 253.\n\n[774] Olshausen, ut sup. 1, s. 108 ff.\n\n[775] Bertholdt, Christol. Jud\u00e6or. \u00a7\u00a7 8. 35, 42.\n\n[776] Bretschneider, Probab., p. 59.\n\n[777] Porphyr. Vita Pythag., 26 f. Jamblich. 14, 63. Diog. Laert. viii.\n4 f. 14. Baur, Apollonius von Tyana, pp. 64 f. 98 f. 185 f.\n\n[778] See a notification and exposition of the passages in L\u00fccke, Comm.\nzum Ev. Joh., 1, s. 211 ff.\n\n[779] Winer, de Onkeloso, p. 10. Comp. De Wette, Einleit. in das A. T.,\n\u00a7 58.\n\n[780] Bertholdt, Christol. Jud\u00e6or., \u00a7\u00a7 23\u201325. Comp. L\u00fccke ut sup., s.\n244, note.\n\n[781] Sch\u00f6ttgen, ii. s. 6 f.\n\n[782] Targ. Jes. xvi 1: Iste (Messias) in deserto fuit rupes ecclesi\u00e6\nZionis. In Bertholdt, ut sup. p. 145.\n\n[783] Sohar chadasch f. lxxxii. 4, ap. Sch\u00f6ttgen, ii. s. 440.\n\n[784] Nezach Isra\u00ebl c. xxxv. f. xlviii. 1. Schmidt, Bibl. f\u00fcr Kritik u.\nExegese, 1, s. 38: \u200f\u05de\u05e9\u05c2\u05d9\u05d7 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u200e. Sohar Levit. f. xiv. 56.\nSch\u00f6ttgen, ii. s. 436: Septem (lumina condita sunt, antequam mundus\nconderetur), nimirum ... et lumen Messi\u00e6. Here we have the\npre-existence of the Messiah represented as a real one: for a more\nideal conception of it, see Bereschith Rabba, sect. 1, f. iii. 3\n(Sch\u00f6ttgen).\n\n[785] Von dem Zweck Jesu und seiner J\u00fcnger, s. 108\u2013157.\n\n[786] Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 114.\n\n[787] Kuin\u00f6l, Comm. in Matt., p. 518. Olshausen also, p. 744,\nunderstands the discourse symbolically, though he attaches to it a\ndifferent meaning.\n\n[788] Paulus, exeget. Handb. 2, s. 613 f.\n\n[789] Liebe, in Winer\u2019s exeg. Studien, 1, 59 ff.\n\n[790] So Reinhard, \u00fcber den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen\nReligion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf, s. 57 ff. (4te Aufl.).\n\n[791] Paulus, Leben Jesu 1, b, s. 85, 94, 106 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 310\nf.; Hase, Leben Jesu 1 ed. \u00a7\u00a7 68, 84. Hase has modified this opinion in\nhis 2nd edition, \u00a7\u00a7 49, 50 (comp. theol. Streitschrift, 1, s. 61 ff.),\nthough with apparent reluctance, and he now maintains that Jesus had\nrisen above the political notion of the messianic kingdom before his\npublic appearance.\n\n[792] Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 606 f.\n\n[793] De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., \u00a7 216.\n\n[794] Bertholdt, Christol. Jud\u00e6or., \u00a7\u00a7 30 ff.\n\n[795] Ibid., \u00a7 39.\n\n[796] E.g. Reinhard, Plan Jesu, s. 14 ff.\n\n[797] For an exaggeration in the Ebionite Gospel, vid. Epiphanius,\nh\u00e6res. xxx. 16.\n\n[798] Bertholdt, ut sup. \u00a7 31.\n\n[799] This is done the most concisely in the Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragments,\nvon dem Zweck u. s. f., s. 66 ff.\n\n[800] Especially Fritzsche, in Matt., s. 214 ff.\n\n[801] Winer, bibl. Realw\u00f6rterb. 2, s. 406 ff.\n\n[802] Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 273.\n\n[803] Winer, b. Realw., 1 Bd. s. 426.\n\n[804] Fritzsche, s. 214 ff.\n\n[805] Reinhard, s. 15 ff. Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der\nPeriode seiner Einf\u00fchrung, 1, s. 175 ff.\n\n[806] De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., \u00a7 210.\n\n[807] Fritzsche, s. 214.\n\n[808] Vid. the Fragmentist, s. 69.\n\n[809] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 600 f. Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 296,\n312.\n\n[810] Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 598 f.\n\n[811] Comp. Hase, L. J., s. 84. Rabbinical notions of the abrogation of\nthe Law in Sch\u00f6ttgen, ii. s. 611 ff.\n\n[812] Thus the Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist, ut sup. s. 72 ff.\n\n[813] Reinhard; Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Per. seiner\nEinf\u00fchrung, 1, s. 179 ff.\n\n[814] Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 380 f. Hase, L. J., \u00a7 102.\n\n[815] Olshausen, 1, s. 507.\n\n[816] Hase, ut sup.\n\n[817] Antiq. xx. vi. 1. For some rabbinical rules not quite in\naccordance with this, see Lightfoot, p. 991.\n\n[818] Bertholdt, Christol. Jud\u00e6or., \u00a7 7.\n\n[819] Some erroneously attribute this meaning to their question; see in\nL\u00fccke 1, s. 533.\n\n[820] Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 47 ff. 97 f.\n\n[821] L\u00fccke, 1, s. 520 ff.\n\n[822] Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[823] L\u00fccke and Tholuck, in loc. Hase, L. J., 67.\n\n[824] E.g. Tholuck, in many passages.\n\n[825] Comp. Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6, i. s. 970 f. Wetstein, s. 863.\n\n[826] Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, 187; Comment. 4, in loc.\n\n[827] Comp. Olshausen in loc., and Bretschneider, Probab., s. 50.\n\n[828] Olshausen, L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[829] Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 49 f.\n\n[830] Homil. ii. 6, comp. iii. 12.\n\n[831] Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6, ii. p. 371 f.\n\n[832] Lightfoot, p. 1002.\n\n[833] L\u00fccke, 1, s. 542.\n\n[834] L\u00fccke, s. 540, note. Bretschneider, s. 52\n\n[835] Comm. in Joan, tom. 13.\n\n[836] Kuin\u00f6l, Comm. in Matth., s. 100; L\u00fccke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, s. 388;\nOlshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 197; Hase, Leben Jesu, \u00a7\u00a7 56, 61.\n\n[837] Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 212.\n\n[838] Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 213; Sieffert, \u00fcber den Ursprung u.\ns. f., s. 72.\n\n[839] See Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 189.\n\n[840] Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6, ii. p. 372.\n\n[841] Paulus, ut sup.\n\n[842] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 464.\n\n[843] Gnomon, in loc.\n\n[844] Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 168.\n\n[845] S. 385.\n\n[846] Vid. L\u00fccke, s. 389 f.\n\n[847] Ut sup.\n\n[848] P. 141.\n\n[849] Storr, \u00fceber den Zweck der ev. Gesch. und der Br. Joh., s. 350.\n\n[850] Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 449.\n\n[851] Bibl. Comm. 1, p. 283.\n\n[852] Ueber den Lukas, s. 70.\n\n[853] This, with the legendary character of both narratives, is\nacknowledged by De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 37, 1, 2, s. 38 f.\n\n[854] Neander is of the same opinion, L. J., s. 249 f.\n\n[855] Uber den Ursprung des ersten kan. Ev., s. 73.\n\n[856] Berliner Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834 Nov.; now\nin the Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 264 f.\n\n[857] According to De Wette, the copious draught of fishes was a\nsymbolical miracle, typifying the rich fruits of the apostolic\nministry.\n\n[858] Porphyr. vita Pythagor\u00e6, no. 25, ed. Kiessling; Jamblich. v. P.\nno. 36. ders. Ausg. It is fair to adduce this history, because, being\nless marvellous than the gospel narrative, it can hardly be an\nimitation, but must have arisen independently, and hence it evinces a\ncommon tendency of the ancient legend.\n\n[859] Luke v. 5: \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. John\nxxi. 3: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd.\n\n[860] Comp. de Wette, exeg Handb., 1, 3, s. 213.\n\n[861] Vid. Kuin\u00f6l, in Matth., p. 255.\n\n[862] Sieffert, ut sup. p. 55.\n\n[863] Kuin\u00f6l, ut sup. Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 513. L. J., 1, a,\n240.\n\n[864] Bertholdt, Einleitung, 3, s. 1255 f. Fritzsche, s. 340.\n\n[865] Sieffert, s. 56; De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 91.\n\n[866] Sieffert, s. 60.\n\n[867] De Wette, ut sup.\n\n[868] Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 510. L. J., 1, a, 240.\n\n[869] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 76.\n\n[870] Gr\u00e4tz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 470.\n\n[871] Augustin c. Faust. Manich. xvii. 1.\n\n[872] iii. i. 4.\n\n[873] Plutarch. de gloria Atheniens., at the beginning.\n\n[874] Schulz, Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 308.\n\n[875] Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, p. 134.\n\n[876] Ut sup., p. 77.\n\n[877] De Wette, exeg. Handb. I, 1, p. 93.\n\n[878] Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 48. Kuin\u00f6l, in Luc., p. 632.\n\n[879] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 85.\n\n[880] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 85.\n\n[881] Ut sup., s. 88.\n\n[882] Ep. Barnab. 8, and the Gospel of the Ebionites ap. Epiphanius,\nh\u00e6r. xxx. 13.\n\n[883] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 87.\n\n[884] If \u1f21 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, John i. 45, mean the same as \u1f21\n\u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, Matth. ix. 1, that is, the place where they were resident,\nthere exists a contradiction on this point between John and the\nsynoptists.\n\n[885] Comp. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 358.\n\n[886] Comp. Lightfoot, in loc.\n\n[887] Comp. Saunier, \u00fcber die Quellen des Markus, s. 55 f.\n\n[888] Comp. de Wette, in loc.\n\n[889] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 556.\n\n[890] This is probably a mere inference of Mark. Because Jesus excluded\nthe multitude, and forbade the publication of the event, the Evangelist\nsaw in it one of those secret scenes, to which Jesus was accustomed to\nadmit only the three favoured apostles.\n\n[891] In the ancient church it was thought that Jesus had communicated\nto these three individuals the \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, to be mysteriously transmitted.\nVid. in Gieseler, K. G. 1, s. 234.\n\n[892] Even Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 167 f., remarks that the fourth\nEvangelist seems to have had a design in noticing this circumstance.\n\n[893] This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the\nfirst volume of the second ed. of L\u00fccke\u2019s Comm. zum Johannes, in Lt.\nBl. zur allg. Kirchenzeitung, Febr., 1834, no. 18, s. 137 f., he says:\n\u201cThe gospel of John has only preserved the less advantageous\ncircumstances connected with Peter (excepting vi. 68), such as place\nhim in marked subordination to John [here the passages above considered\nare cited]. An adherent of Peter can hardly have had a hand in the\nGospel of John.\u201d We may add that it seems to have proceeded from an\nantagonist of Peter, for it is probable that he had such of the school\nof John, as well as of Paul.\n\n[894] Vid. L\u00fccke, Comm. zum Joh. 2, s. 708.\n\n[895] Paulus, in his review of Bretschneider\u2019s Probabilien, in the\nHeidelberger Jahrb\u00fcchern, 1821, no. 9, s. 138.\n\n[896] L\u00fccke, ut sup. s. 664.\n\n[897] Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 111 f.\n\n[898] Comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 137.\n\n[899] Thus most of the expositors, Fritzsche, Matth., s. 359; Winer,\nRealw\u00f6rterb. 1, s. 163 f. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98.\n\n[900] Joseph., bell. jud. iv. iii. 9.\n\n[901] Comp. Credner, Einleitung 1, s. 64; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1,\ns. 98 f.\n\n[902] De Wette, ut sup.\n\n[903] Ueber den Lukas, s. 88 f.\n\n[904] Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendmahl, s. 307; Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den\nUrsprung, s. 13 f.\n\n[905] Tuf haarez, f. xix. c. iii.; Clem. hom. xviii. 4; Recognit.\nClement. ii. 42; Epiphan. h\u00e6r. i. 5.\n\n[906] Schneckenburger, ut sup.; Gieseler, \u00fcber Entstehung der schriftl.\nEvangelien, s. 127 f.\n\n[907] Lightfoot, p. 786.\n\n[908] De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 99 f. 1, 2, s. 61. 1, 3, s.\n220; Theile, zur Biogr. J., \u00a7 24. For the contrary opinion, see\nNeander, L. J. Chr., s. 498 f.\n\n[909] All that relates to the sufferings, death, and resurrection of\nJesus is here excluded.\n\n[910] Augustin, de consens. ev. ii. 19; Storr, \u00fcber den Zweck des\nEvang. u. d. Br. Joh., s. 347 ff. For further references see Tholuck\u2019s\nAuslegung der Bergpredigt, Einl., \u00a7 1.\n\n[911] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 47 ff. 1, 2, s. 44.\n\n[912] Tholuck, s. 24; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 584.\n\n[913] Schulz, vom Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Sieffert, s. 74 ff.; Fritzsche,\ns. 301.\n\n[914] Olshausen, Bibl. Comm., 1, s. 197; Kern, in der T\u00fcb. Schrift,\n1834, 2, s. 33.\n\n[915] Schulz, ut sup. s. 315; Schneckenburger, Beitr\u00e4ge, s. 26;\nCredner, Einleit., 1, s. 69.\n\n[916] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 89 f.\n\n[917] Tholuck, p. 11, and my Review of the writings of Sieffert and\nothers in the Jahrbuch f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in my\nCharakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 252 ff.\n\n[918] Comp. Tholuck, ut sup. s. 25 ff.; De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1,\ns. 49.\n\n[919] Storr, Ueber den Zweck u. s. w., s. 348 f. Olshausen.\n\n[920] De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 44 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s.\n155 f., Anm.\n\n[921] Homil. xv. 7; comp. Credner in Winer\u2019s Zeitschrift f. wiss.\nTheologie, 1, s. 298 f.; Schneckenburger, \u00fcber das Evangelium der\nAegyptier, \u00a7 6.\n\n[922] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung, s. 29.\n\n[923] Ut sup. s. 90, Neander agrees with him, ut sup.\n\n[924] The Rabbins also attached weight to these Mosaic blessings and\ncurses, vid. Lightfoot, p. 255. As here we have eight blessings, they\nheld that Abraham had beenblessed benedictionibus septem (Baal Turim,\nin Gen. xii. Lightfoot, p. 256); David, Daniel with his three\ncompanions, and the Messiah, benedictionibus sex. (Targ. Ruth. 3,\nibid.) They also counted together with the twenty beatitudines in the\nPsalms, as many v\u00e6 in Isaiah. (Midrasch Tehillim in Ps. i. ib.).\n\n[925] Schneckenburger, Beitr\u00e4ge, s. 58. Neander tries to show, very\nartificially, a real connection of thought, s. 157, Anm.\n\n[926] Olshausen in loc. The true reading is indicated by\nSchneckenburger, Beitr\u00e4ge, s. 58; Tholuck, ut sup. s. 11.\n\n[927] This cause is overlooked by Schleiermacher, s. 205; comp. De\nWette, in loc.\n\n[928] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 90. Tholuck, s. 21.\n\n[929] Tholuck, s. 12, 187; De Wette, in loc.\n\n[930] Ut sup. 206 f.\n\n[931] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 86.\n\n[932] De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 48.\n\n[933] Orig. de orat. xviii. and Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 2, s. 48 f.\n\n[934] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 173; Olshausen, 1, s. 235; Sieffert,\ns. 78 ff. Neander, s. 235 f. note.\n\n[935] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 69. 1, 2, s. 65.\n\n[936] N.T. 1, 323. The parallels may be seen in Wetstein and Lightfoot.\n\n[937] Comm. in Matt., p. 265.\n\n[938] Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 69 ff.; Neander, s. 237 ff.\n\n[939] Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 176.\n\n[940] From vi. 19 to the end of the chapter even Neander finds no\norderly association, and conjectures that the editor of the Greek\nGospel of Matthew was the compiler of this latter half of the discourse\n(p. 169, note).\n\n[941] Neander, ut sup.; De Wette, in loc.\n\n[942] De Wette, 1, 2, s. 45.\n\n[943] De Wette in loc. des Lukas.\n\n[944] E.g. Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 545.\n\n[945] Schulz, ut sup. s. 308, 314; Sieffert, s. 80 ff.\n\n[946] Olshausen, in loc. The latter bold assertion in Kern, \u00dcber den\nUrsprung des Evang. Matth., s. 63.\n\n[947] Schulz, s. 315.\n\n[948] Vid. De Wette, Arch\u00e4ol., \u00a7 265, and in loc.\n\n[949] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 99.\n\n[950] Schulz, s. 308; Sieffert, s. 82 ff.\n\n[951] The satisfactory connexion which modern criticism finds\nthroughout the 12th chap. of Luke, I am as little able to discover as\nTholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt, s. 13 f., who has strikingly\nexposed the partiality of Schleiermacher for Luke, to the prejudice of\nMatthew.\n\n[952] Vid. De Wette in loc.\n\n[953] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 169 f.; Schneckenburger, \u00fcber\nden Ursprung u. s. f., s. 32 f.\n\n[954] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 110. 1, 2, s. 62.\n\n[955] Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendmahl, s. 314.\n\n[956] Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 437.\n\n[957] L. J. Chr., s. 175.\n\n[958] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 33.\n\n[959] Olshausen, s. 438.\n\n[960] Schleiermacher, s. 120.\n\n[961] Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., s. 120, 128, 134; De Wette, in loc.\n\n[962] Comp. Saunier, \u00fcber die Quellen des Markus, s. 74; Fritzsche ut\nsup.; De Wette in loc.\n\n[963] Schleiermacher, ut. sup. s. 192; Olshausen, 1, s. 431;\nSchneckenburger, ut sup. s. 33.\n\n[964] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 73 f.\n\n[965] Analogies to these parables and apothegms are given out of the\nrabbinical literature by Wetstein, Lightfoot, and Sch\u00f6ttgen, in loc.\n\n[966] Ueber den Lukas, s. 220.\n\n[967] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 202 ff. Olshausen in loc.\n\n[968] Ut sup.\n\n[969] Schneckenburger has decided, Beitr\u00e4ge, No. V. where he refutes\nOlshausen\u2019s interpretation of the parable, that this verse does not\nreally belong to its present position, while with respect to the\npreceding verses from v. 9, he finds it possible to hold the contrary\nopinion. De Wette also considers that v. 13 is the only one decidedly\nout of place. He thinks it possible, by supplying an intermediate\nproposition, which he supposes the writer to have omitted, and which\nled from the prudent use of riches to faithfulness in preserving those\nentrusted to us, to give a sufficient connexion to v. 9 and 10\u201312,\nwithout necessarily referring the idea of faithfulness to the conduct\nof the steward. The numerous attempts, both ancient and modern, to\nexplain the parable of the steward without a critical dislocation of\nthe associated passages, are only so many proofs that it is absolutely\nrequisite to a satisfactory interpretation.\n\n[970] Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 80.\n\n[971] Ut sup. s. 208.\n\n[972] Vid. Kuin\u00f6l, in loc.\n\n[973] Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 86 f.\n\n[974] On the Essenes as contemners of riches (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5),\ncomp. Joseph., b. j. ii. viii. 3; Credner, \u00fcber Essener und Ebioniten,\nin Winer\u2019s Zeitschrift, 1, s. 217; Gfr\u00f6rer, Philo, 2, s. 311.\n\n[975] Thus Kuin\u00f6l, Comm. in Luc., p. 635.\n\n[976] Ueber den Lukas, 239 f. Neander agrees with him, L. J. Chr., p.\n188.\n\n[977] This is a reply to Neander\u2019s objection, p. 191, note.\n\n[978] How Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, p. 76, can pronounce the more\ncomplex form of the parable in Luke as not only the most fully\ndeveloped but the best wound up, I am at a loss to understand.\n\n[979] Comp. De Wette, I, I, s. 208 f.\n\n[980] V. 12. \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd, \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9. 14. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f40\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2. 15. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u2014(\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\u00b7) 27.\n\u2014\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ad\u03c0\u2019\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f15\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[981] Fritzsche, p. 656. This remark serves to refute De Wette\u2019s\nvindication of the above particular in his exeg. Handb.\n\n[982] Paulus, exeg. Handb 3, a, s. 210; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s.\n811.\n\n[983] Vid. Fritzsche, ut sup.\n\n[984] From the appendix to Schneckenburger\u2019s Beitr\u00e4gen, I see that a\nreviewer in the Theol. Literaturblatt, 1831, No. 88, has also\nconjectured that we have here a blending of two originally distinct\nparables.\n\n[985] Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 152.\n\n[986] Ueber den Lukas, s. 153 f.\n\n[987] Comp. De Wette, in loc.\n\n[988] Vid. Fritzsche and De Wette, in loc.\n\n[989] Saunier, \u00fcber die Quellen des Markus, s. 111.\n\n[990] Comp. De Wette, in loc., Matt.\n\n[991] Vid. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, p. 155.\n\n[992] Analogous passages from Jewish writings are given in Wetstein,\nLightfoot, Sch\u00f6ttgen, in loc.\n\n[993] Bemidbar R. ad. Num. v. 30, in Wetstein, p. 303.\n\n[994] E.g. Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 46.\n\n[995] For probable doubts as to the correctness of the position given\nto this discourse of Jesus, vid. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 525, Anm.\n\n[996] Paulus, ib. s. 50, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 599.\n\n[997] In this passage, it is true that celibacy is at first recommended\nas good for the present distress; but the Apostle does not rest there;\nfor at v. 32 ff. he adds, He that is unmarried careth for the things of\nthe Lord\u2014he that is married for the things of the world:\u2014a motive to\ncelibacy which must be equally valid under all circumstances, and which\naffords us a glimpse into the fundamental asceticism of Paul\u2019s views.\nComp. R\u00fcckert\u2019s Commentary in loc.\n\n[998] Vid. Gfr\u00f6rer, Philo, 2, s. 310 f.\n\n[999] A concise elucidation of them may be found in Hase, L. J. \u00a7 129.\n\n[1000] Vid. Gemara Hieros. Berac. f. v. 4, in Lightfoot, p. 423, and R.\nManasse Ben Isr. in Sch\u00f6ttgen, i. p. 180.\n\n[1001] See his 4th Fragment, Lessing\u2019s 4ten Beitrag, s. 434 ff.\n\n[1002] L. J. 1, b, s. 115 ff.\n\n[1003] Vid. Wetstein, in loc. Hengstenberg, Christol. 1, a, s. 140 f.;\nalso Paulus himself, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 283 f.\n\n[1004] Comp. De Wette, in loc.\n\n[1005] Ueber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 45, 47.\n\n[1006] Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.\n\n[1007] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 186.\n\n[1008] Sieffert, \u00fcber den Ursprung des ersten Ev., s. 117 f.\n\n[1009] Comp. De Wette, 1, 1. s. 189.\n\n[1010] Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den\nUrsprung, s. 54.\n\n[1011] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 182, 196 f.; Olshausen, in\nloc., and the writers mentioned in the foregoing note.\n\n[1012] Ut sup. 180.\n\n[1013] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 189, 1, 2, s. 67, 76.\n\n[1014] Joseph., b. j. iv. v. 4.\n\n[1015] Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N.T., 1, s. 510 ff.; Hug, Einl. in\ndas N.T., 2, s. 10 ff.; Credner, Einl., 1, s. 207.\n\n[1016] Vid. Theile, \u00fcber Zacharias Barachias Sohn, in Winer\u2019s und\nEngelhardt\u2019s neuem krit. Journ., 2, s. 401 ff.; De Wette, in loc.\n\n[1017] Targum Thren. ii. 20, in Wetstein, s. 491.\n\n[1018] Comp. De Wette, in loc.\n\n[1019] Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendmahl, s. 321.\n\n[1020] This \u201csecret information\u201d is very welcome to Dr. Paulus, because\nit gives a useful hint \u201cas to many occurrences in the life of Jesus,\nthe causes of which are not obvious\u201d (L. J. 1, b, s. 141); that is\nPaulus, like Bahrdt and Venturini, though less openly, is fond of using\nsuch secret and influential allies as deus ex machin\u00e2, for the\nexplanation of much that is miraculous in the life of Jesus (the\ntransfiguration, residence after the resurrection, etc.).\n\n[1021] Orig. c. Cels. i. 62.\n\n[1022] Let the reader bear in mind the kindred names Nicolaus and\nNicolaitans.\n\n[1023] Prob., p. 44. Bretschneider is right, however, in declaring\nagainst Kuin\u00f6l\u2019s method of supplying a connexion between the discourses\nin John, by the insertion of propositions and intermediate discourses,\nsupposed to have been omitted. L\u00fccke judiciously admits (1, p. 446)\nthat if, in John, something appears to be wanting between two\nconsecutive expressions of Jesus, we are yet to suppose that there was\nan immediate connexion between them in the mind of the Evangelist, and\nit is this connexion which it is the task of exegesis to ascertain. In\ntruth the discourses in the fourth gospel are never entirely wanting in\nconnexion (apart from the exceptions to be noticed in \u00a7 81), though\nthat connexion is sometimes very latent.\n\n[1024] Bereschith R., sect 39 f. xxxviii. 2. Bammidbar R., s. 11 f.\nccxi. 2. Tanchuma f. v. 2, in Sch\u00f6ttgen, i. s. 704. Something similar\nis said of Moses, from Schemoth R., ib.\n\n[1025] Jevamoth f. lxii. 1, xcii. 1, in Lightfoot, p. 984.\n\n[1026] E.g. Knapp, comm. in colloq. Christi cum Nicod. in loc.\n\n[1027] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 183. L. J. 1, a, s. 176.\n\n[1028] L\u00fccke and Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1029]\n\nIII. 11: \u1f43 \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 I. 18: \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5. 13: \u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5. \u1f41 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f63\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf.\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7. 11: \u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1030] Sup. \u00a7 46.\n\n[1031] This is informed in the Probabilia, p. 46.\n\n[1032] Ut sup. p. 476.\n\n[1033] Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup.\n\n[1034] De Wette adduces as examples of a similar procedure on the part\nof Jesus in the synoptical gospels, Matt. xix. 21, xx. 22 f. But these\ntwo cases are of a totally different kind from the one under\nconsideration in John. We have here to treat of a want of\ncomprehension, in the face of which it is surprising that Jesus instead\nof descending to its level, chooses to elevate himself to a still less\nattainable altitude. In the passages quoted from the synoptists, on the\nother hand, we have examples of an excessive self-valuation, too high\nan estimate of their ability to promote the cause of Jesus, on the part\nof the rich young man and of the sons of Zebedee, and Jesus with\nperfect propriety checks their egotistic ardour by the abrupt\npresentation of a higher demand. These instances could only be parallel\nwith that of Nicodemus, if the latter had piqued himself on his\nenlightenment, and Jesus, by a sudden flight into a higher region, had\nsought to convince him of his ignorance.\n\n[1035] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 96.\n\n[1036]\n\nIII. 19: \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, I. 9: \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. 5: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\n\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2. \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bf\u1f50\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd.\nIII. 16: \u1f45\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f20\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 1 John iv. 9: \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f21\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b7 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b6\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n[1037] Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.\n\n[1038] Tholuck (Glaubw\u00fcrdigkeit, s. 335) adduces as examples of a\nsimilar unobserved fusion of a discourse quoted from a foreign source,\nwith the writer\u2019s own matter, Gal. ii. 14 ff. Euseb., H. E. iii. 1, 39.\nHieron. Comm. in Jes. 53. But such instances in an epistle, a\ncommentary or an historical work interspersed with reasoning and\ncriticism are not parallel with those in an historical narrative of the\nnature of our fourth gospel. In works of the former kind, the reader\nexpects the author to reason, and hence, when the discourse of another\nparty has been introduced, he is prepared at the slightest pause to see\nthe author again take up the argument. It is quite different with a\nwork like our fourth gospel. The introduction, it is true, is put forth\nas the author\u2019s own reasoning, and it is there quite natural that after\na brief quotation from the discourse of another, v. 15, he should, at\nv. 16, resume the character of speaker without any express intimation.\nBut when once he has entered on his narrative, which is strictly a\nrecital of what has been done, and what has been said, all that he\nannexes without any mark of distinction (as e.g. xii. 37) to a\ndiscourse explicitly ascribed to another, must be considered as a\ncontinuation of that discourse.\n\n[1039] Philo. Opp. ed. Mang. i. 44. apud Gfr\u00f6rer, i. p. 122.\n\n[1040]\n\nJoh. v. 20: \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd John iii. 35 (the Baptist): \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, \u1f03 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6. \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n24: \u1f41 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 1 Joh. iii. 14: \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f34\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd\u2014\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae\u03bd. \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n32: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 Joh. xix. 35: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u1f23\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6. \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u03ba\u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd,\n \u1f43\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9. Comp. xxi. 24. 1\n34: \u1f11\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd Joh. 3, 12.\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9.\n 1 Joh. v. 9: \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n36: \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03c9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f54\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f23\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\n37: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6.\n Joh. i. 18: \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\nIb.: \u1f44\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5. Comp. 1 Joh. iv. 12.\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5. 1 Joh. i. 10: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd.\n38: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd. 1 Joh. v. 12: \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9.\n40: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5,\n\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5. 1 Joh. ii. 15: \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7.\n42: \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. Joh. xi. 43: \u1f21\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f24\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\n44: \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5\u00b7\n\n[1041] Vid. the passages compared by Gfr\u00f6rer, 1, s. 194, from Philo, de\nlinguarum confusione.\n\n[1042] Sup. \u00a7 14.\n\n[1043] De profugis, Opp. Mang., i. s. 566, Gfr\u00f6rer, 1, s. 202. What is\nfarther said of the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2: \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f52 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03b9 may be compared with John iv. 14, vi. 35, vii. 38.\n\n[1044] See L\u00fccke\u2019s History of the interpretation of this passage in his\nComm. 2, Appendix B, p. 727 ff.\n\n[1045] Hase, L. J. \u00a7 99.\n\n[1046] Comp. Bretschneider, Probab., pp. 56, 88 ff.\n\n[1047] In relation to this chapter, I entirely approve the following\nremark in the Probabilia (p. 56): videretur\u2014Jesus ipse studuisse, ut\nverbis illuderet Jud\u00e6is, nec ab iis intelligeretur, sed reprobaretur.\nIta vero nec egit, nec agere potuit, neque si ita docuisset, tanta\neffecisset, quanta illum effecisse historia testatur. Comp. De Wette,\nexeg. Handb., 1, 3, s. 6.\n\n[1048] E.g. by Tholuck and L\u00fccke. The latter, however, allows that it\nis rather an incipient than a complete parable. Olshausen also remarks,\nthat the discourses of the Shepherd and the Vine are rather comparisons\nthan parables; and Neander shows himself willing to distinguish the\nparable presented by the synoptists as a species, under the genus\nsimilitude, to which the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 of John belong.\n\n[1049]\n\nx. 27: \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 x. 3: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n\u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac\u00b7 14: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 \u03c4\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\n\n28: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9. 4: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6.\n\nAlso \u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u03c9 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 corresponds to \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f20\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f33\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9, v. 10, and \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 is the\ncounterpart of what is said v. 12 of the hireling who allows the sheep\nto be scattered.\n\n[1050] Comp. v. 44 with vii. 17; v. 46 with viii. 12; v. 47 with iii.\n17; v. 48 with iii. 18, v. 45; v. 49 with viii. 28; v. 50 with vi. 40,\nvii. 17, viii. 28.\n\n[1051] L. J., b, s. 142.\n\n[1052] L\u00fccke, Tholuck, Paulus, in loc.\n\n[1053] Cyril, Erasmus. Tholuck\u2019s expedient, which Olshausen approves,\nis to give \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd the signification of the pluperfect, and to\nunderstand \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 as an explicative. But I do not see how this can be of\nany avail, for \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 and \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd (v. 45) would still form a relation of\nagreement between two propositions, which one would have expected to be\nopposed to each other by \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd and \u03b4\u1f72.\n\n[1054] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 251, 56.\n\n[1055] This idea is so entirely in the spirit of the ancient\nharmonists, that I can scarcely believe L\u00fccke to be the first to whom\nit had occurred (Comm. 1, s. 545 f.).\n\n[1056] Vid. sup. \u00a7 39.\n\n[1057] Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 158.\n\n[1058] L\u00fccke, 2, s. 478.\n\n[1059] Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1060] Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 175; L\u00fccke, Tholuck, Olshausen, in loc.;\nHug, Einl. in das N. T. 2, s. 209.\n\n[1061] Wegscheider, Einl. in das Evang. Joh., s. 271; Tholuck, Comm. s.\n37 f.\n\n[1062] Thus Eckermann, theol. Beitr\u00e4ge, 5, 2, s. 228; (Vogel) der\nEvangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger vor dem j\u00fcngsten Gericht, 1, s.\n28 ff.; Wegscheider, s. 281; Bretschneider, Probabil., 33, 45, apud\nWegscheider, ut sup. s. 281; Bretschneider, Probab., p. 33, 45.\n\n[1063] De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., \u00a7 105; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh., s.\n38 f.; Glaubw\u00fcrdigkeit, s. 344 ff.; L\u00fccke, 1, s. 198 f.\n\n[1064] Commentar, 4, s. 275 f.\n\n[1065] Verosimilia de origine evangelii Joannis, opusc. p. 1 ff.,\nEinleit. in das N. T., s. 1302 ff. This opinion is approved by\nWegscheider, ut sup. p. 270 ff. and also Hug, 2. 263 f., and Tholuck,\nComm. p. 38, think the supposition of early notes not to be altogether\nrejected.\n\n[1066] L\u00fccke, 1, s. 192 f.\n\n[1067] Henke, programm. quo illustratur Johannes apostolus nonnullorum\nJesu apophthegmatum et ipse interpres.\n\n[1068] Bretschneider, Probab., p. 14 f.\n\n[1069] Ut sup. p. 199.\n\n[1070] Wegscheider, p. 286; L\u00fccke, p. 195 f.\n\n[1071] Wegscheider, p. 285; L\u00fccke, ut sup.\n\n[1072] L\u00fccke, s. 124 f. 175. Kern, \u00fcber den Ursprung des Evang.\nMatth\u00e4i, in der T\u00fcb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 109.\n\n[1073] S. 39.\n\n[1074] S. 197. \u201cBut lastly, why should we fear to adduce,\u201d etc.\n\n[1075] The aid promised to the disciples when brought before rulers and\ntribunals, Matt. x. 19 f., is quite distinct from a bringing to\nremembrance of the discourses of Jesus (John xiv. 26).\n\n[1076] Bretschneider, Probab., p. 2, 3, 31 ff.\n\n[1077] De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., \u00a7 103; Hase, L. J., \u00a7 7.\n\n[1078] L\u00fccke, ut sup. pp. 336, 337. Kern, ut sup.\n\n[1079] Tholuck, ut sup.\n\n[1080] Bretschneider, ut sup.\n\n[1081] De Wette, ut sup. \u00a7 105.\n\n[1082] Comp. Schulze, der schriftst. Charakter und Werth des Johannes.\n1803.\n\n[1083] Stronck\u2014de doctrin\u00e2 et dictione Johannis apostoli, ad Jesu\nmagistri doctrinam dictionemque exacte composita. 1797.\n\n[1084] L\u00fccke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, p. 200.\n\n[1085] Ut. sup. p. 199.\n\n[1086] In his review of the 2nd Ed. of L\u00fccke\u2019s Commentar., in the Litt.\nBlatt der allgem. Kirchenzeitung 1834, no. 18.\n\n[1087] This peculiarity of the discourses in John cannot be better\ndescribed than by Erasmus in his Epist. ad Ferdinandum, prefatory to\nhis Paraphrase: habet Johannes suum quoddam dicendi genus, ita sermonem\nvelut ansulis ex sese coh\u00e6rentibus contexens, nonnunquam ex contrariis,\nnonnunquam ex similibus, nonnunquam ex iisdem, subinde repetitis,\u2014\u2014ut\norationis quodque membrum semper excipiat prius, sic ut prioris finis\nsit initium sequentis, etc.\n\n[1088] Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendmahl, s. 303 ff.; Sieffert, \u00fcber den\nUrspr. des ersten kanon. Evang. s. 58, 73, u. s.; Schneckenburger, \u00fcber\nden Urspr. s. 73.\n\n[1089] Olshausen, b. Comm. 1. s. 15.\n\n[1090] See the above named critics, passim; and Hug, Einl. in das N. T.\n2, s. 212.\n\n[1091] Comp. Saunier, \u00fcber die Quellen des Markus, s. 42 ff.\n\n[1092] Kern, \u00fcber den Urspr. des Ev. Matt. ut sup. s. 70 f.\n\n[1093] I say, examine whether\u2014not, consider it decided that\u2014so that the\naccusation of opponents, that I use both the particularity and the\nbrevity of narratives as proofs of their mythical character, falls to\nthe ground of itself.\n\n[1094] Ueber den Lukas, s. 74, and elsewhere.\n\n[1095] Ut sup. s. 311.\n\n[1096] Schleiermacher (s. 175) does not perceive the connexion of the\ndiscourse on the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, in Matthew (xii. 31\nf.), though it links on excellently to the foregoing expression, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 (v. 28). It is more easy, however, to\nunderstand this difficulty, than that he should think (s. 185 f.) that\ndiscourse better introduced in Luke (xii. 10). For here, between the\npreceding proposition, that whosoever denies the Son of Man before men,\nshall be denied before the angels of God, and the one in question, the\nonly connexion is that the expression \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f30\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\nbrought to the writer\u2019s recollection the words \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1ff6 \u03bb\u1f78\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u03af\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5. One proof of this is that between the latter passage and\nthe succeeding declaration, that the necessary words would be given to\nthe disciples, when before the tribunal, by the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, the\nconnexion consists just as superficially in the expression \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. What follows in Matthew (v. 33\u201337), had been partly given\nalready in the Sermon on the Mount, but stands here in a better\nconnexion than Schleiermacher is willing to admit.\n\n[1097] Luke makes the demand of a sign follow immediately on the\naccusation, and then gives in succession the answers of Jesus to both.\nThis representation modern criticism holds to be far more probable than\nthat of Matthew, who gives first the accusation and its answer, then\nthe demand of a sign and its refusal; and this judgment is grounded on\nthe difficulty of supposing, that after Jesus had given a sufficiently\nlong answer to the accusation, the very same people who had urged it\nwould still demand a sign (Schleiermacher, s. 175; Schneckenburger,\n\u00fcber den Urspr. s. 52 f.). But on the other hand, it is equally\nimprobable that Jesus, after having some time ago delivered a forcible\ndiscourse on the more important point, the accusation concerning\nBeelzebub, and even after an interruption which had led him to a\ntotally irrelevant declaration (Luke xi. 27 f.), should revert to the\nless important point, namely, the demand of a sign. The discourse on\nthe departure and return of the unclean spirit, is in Matthew (v.\n43\u201345) annexed to the reply of Jesus to this demand; but in Luke (xi.\n24 ff.) it follows the answer to the imputation of a league with\nBeelzebub, and this may at first seem to be a more suitable\narrangement. But on a closer examination, it will appear very\nimprobable that Jesus should conclude a defence, exacted from him by\nhis enemies, with so calm and purely theoretical a discourse, which\nsupposes an audience, if not favourably prepossessed, at least open to\ninstruction; and it will be found that here again there is no further\nconnexion than that both discourses treat of the expulsion of demons.\nBy this single feature of resemblance, the writer of the third gospel\nwas led to sever the connexion between the answer to the oft-named\naccusation, and that to the demand of a sign, which accusation and\ndemand, as the strongest proofs of the malevolent unbelief of the\nenemies of Jesus, seem to have been associated by tradition. The first\nEvangelist refrained from this violence, and reserved the discourse on\nthe return of the unclean spirit, which was suggested by the suspicion\ncast on the expulsion of demons by Jesus, until he had communicated the\nanswer by which Jesus parries the demand of a sign.\n\n[1098] Vid. Griesbach, Comm. crit. in loc.\n\n[1099] Comp. Schleiermacher, s. 190 f.\n\n[1100] De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 139.\n\n[1101] Ueber den Urspr. s. 115.\n\n[1102] For the proof of this interpretation, see Fritzsche, comm. in\nMarc. p. 97 ff.\n\n[1103] Ueber den Lukas, s. 121.\n\n[1104] Schneckenburger (\u00fcber den Ur. s. 54) finds an attempt at\ndramatic effect in the \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, and the \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 of Matthew,\nas compared with the \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd and \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff3 of Mark. This is a\nremarkable proof of the partial acumen which plays so distinguished a\npart to the disadvantage of Matthew in modern criticism. For who does\nnot see that if Matthew had \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, it would be numbered among the\nproofs that his narrative is wanting in dramatic life? As for the words\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1, there is nothing to be discovered in them which\ncould give to them more than to the \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 of Mark, the stamp\nof artificiality; we might as well attribute the latter expression to\nMark\u2019s already discovered fondness for describing the action of the\neyes, and consequently regard it as an addition of his own.\n\n[1105]\n\nAnswer to the announcement, viii. Answer to the woman, xi. 28:\n21: \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 (sc. \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f21 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\n\u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u1f78\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019) \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n[1106] Ut sup s. 177 f.\n\n[1107] That which decided the Evangelist to place the visit after the\nparable of the sower, was probably not, as Schleiermacher thinks, a\nreal chronological connexion. On the contrary, we recognize the usual\ncharacteristic of his arrangement, in the transition from the\nconcluding sentence in the explanation of the parable: these are they\nwho having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with\npatience, to the similar expression of Jesus on the occasion of the\nvisit: those who hear the word of God and do it.\n\n[1108] Ut sup. s. 152.\n\n[1109] Schulz (\u00fcb. d. Abendm. s. 320) speaks consistently with the tone\nof the recent criticism on Matthew when he asserts, that he does not\ndoubt for a moment that every observant reader will, without\nhesitation, prefer the representation of Mark, who, without mentioning\nthe mother, confines the whole transaction to Jesus and the two\napostles. But so far as historical probability is concerned, I would\nask, why should not a woman, who was one of the female companions of\nJesus (Matt. xxvii. 56), have ventured on such a petition? As regards\npsychological probability, the sentiment of the church, in the choice\nof the passage for St. James\u2019s day, has usually decided in favour of\nMatthew; for so solemn a prayer, uttered on the spur of the moment, is\njust in character with a woman, and more especially a mother devoted to\nher sons.\n\n[1110] Compare Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 283.\n\n[1111] Paulus and Tholuck, in loc.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 388, Anm.\n\n[1112] Ueber den Urspr. s. 108 ff.\n\n[1113] L\u00fccke, 1, s. 435 ff.; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 174 f.; i.\n3, s. 40.\n\n[1114] Ut sup. s. 109; comp. Schneckenburger, s. 26 f.\n\n[1115] Lightfoot, s. 632, from Bab. Jevamoth, f. vi. 2.\n\n[1116] L\u00fccke, s. 438.\n\n[1117] L\u00fccke, s. 437; Sieffert, s. 110.\n\n[1118] Comm. in Joh. tom. 10, \u00a7 17; Opp. 1, p. 322, ed. Lommatzsch.\n\n[1119] Kuin\u00f6l, in loc.\n\n[1120] Bretschneider, Probab. p. 43.\n\n[1121] English Commentators, ap. L\u00fccke, 1, s. 435 f., Anm.\n\n[1122] Eng. Comm. ap. L\u00fccke. According to Neander (s. 387, Anm.),\nJesus, after his last entrance into Jerusalem, when the enthusiasm of\nthe populace was on his side, must have shunned every act that could be\ninterpreted into a design of using external force, and thus creating\ndisturbances. But he must equally have shunned this at the beginning,\nas at the end, of his career, and the proceeding in the temple was\nrather a provocation of external force against himself, than a use of\nit for his own purposes.\n\n[1123] Comm. in Joh. Tom. 10, 16, p. 321 f., ed. Lommatzsch.\n\n[1124] L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[1125] L\u00fccke, s. 413.\n\n[1126] Ib. and Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1127] Olshausen, 1, s. 785.\n\n[1128] Comm. 4, s. 164.\n\n[1129] Hieros. Joh. tobh. f. lxi. 3, ap. Lightfoot, p. 411.\n\n[1130] L\u00fccke, Comm. 1, s. 410.\n\n[1131] Ut sup., comp. also Woolston, Disc. 1.\n\n[1132] Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 766; L. J. 1, a, s. 292;\nTholuck, L\u00fccke, Olshausen, in loc.; Hase, L. J. \u00a7 96, Anm.\n\n[1133] This difference struck Origen, who has given a critical\ncomparison of these four narratives, to which, in point of acumen,\nthere is no parallel in more modern commentaries. See his in Matth.\nCommentarior. series, Opp. ed. de la Rue, 3, s. 892 ff.\n\n[1134] Origenes, ut sup.\n\n[1135] Ib.\n\n[1136] Ib.\n\n[1137] Ib.\n\n[1138] Comp. Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 111.\n\n[1139] Origenes and Schleiermacher. Winer, N. T. Gramm., s. 149.\n\n[1140]\n\nLuke vii. 38: \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u2014\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 John xii. 3: \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03be\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5. \u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03be\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n[1141] Kuin\u00f6l, Comm. in Matt., p. 687.\n\n[1142] Sieffert, \u00fcber den Ursprung, s. 125 f.\n\n[1143] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 277.\n\n[1144] Vid. Kuin\u00f6l, ut sup. p. 688; also Tholuck, s. 228.\n\n[1145] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 582; 3, b, s. 466.\n\n[1146] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 60. There is no\ntrace in Mark\u2019s account that the words \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd signify\nan accidental fracture; nor, on the other hand can they, without the\nharshest ellipsis, be understood to imply merely the removal of that\nwhich stopped the opening of the vessel, as Paulus and Fritzsche\nmaintain. Interpreted without violence, they can only mean a breaking\nof the vessel itself. Is it asked with Paulus (Ex. Handb. 3. b. s.\n471): To what purpose destroy a costly vessel? or with Fritzsche (in\nMarc. p. 602): To what purpose risk wounding her own hand, and possibly\nthe head of Jesus also? These are questions which have a bearing on the\nmatter considered as the act of the woman, but not as a narrative of\nMark; for that to him, the destruction of a precious vessel should\nappear suited to the noble prodigality of the woman, is in perfect\naccordance with the exaggerating style which we have often observed in\nhim.\n\n[1147] Kuin\u00f6l, in Matth., p. 689.\n\n[1148] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 466, and many others.\n\n[1149] Ueber den Lukas, s. 111 ff.\n\n[1150] Sieffert, ut sup. s. 123 f.\n\n[1151] Schulz, ut sup. s. 320 f.\n\n[1152] Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 60.\n\n[1153] L\u00fccke, 2, s. 417; comp. Lightfoot, hor\u00e6, p. 468, 1081.\n\n[1154] Schulz, ut sup.\n\n[1155] Thus Grotius and Herder.\n\n[1156] Ap. Wetstein, Paulus, L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[1157] Maimonides on Sanhedr. 7, 1.\n\n[1158] Mischna, tr. Sanhedr. c. 10.\n\n[1159] For a thorough discussion of this and the following points, vid.\nPaulus and L\u00fccke in loc.\n\n[1160] Probab., p. 72 ff.\n\n[1161] Euseb. H. E. iii. 39: \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 (\u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\n\u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f23\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n[1162] L\u00fccke, 2, s. 217. Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 410.\n\n[1163] Elsewhere also the two were confounded, vid. Fabricii Cod.\napocryph. N. T. 1, s. 357, not.\n\n[1164] 3, s. 379 f.\n\n[1165] See the passages quoted in the first volume, Introd. \u00a7 14, notes\n9, 10, to which may be added 4 Esdr. xiii. 50 (Fabric. Cod. pseudepigr.\nV. T. ii. p. 286), and Sohar Exod. fol. iii. col. 12 (Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6,\nii. p. 541, also in Bertholdt\u2019s Christol. \u00a7 33, note 1).\n\n[1166] See the rabbinical passages quoted in the 1st vol. ut sup.\n\n[1167] That the \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 associated with them by Matthew are only\na particular species of demoniacs, whose malady appeared to be governed\nby the changes of the moon, is proved by Matt. xvii. 14 ff. where a\n\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is expelled from a \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[1168] Compare the passages of ancient physicians, ap. Winer, bibl.\nRealw\u00f6rterb. 1, s. 191.\n\n[1169] Rabbinical and other passages, ap. Winer, ut sup. s. 192.\n\n[1170] Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 475; comp. Hase, L. J. s. 60.\n\n[1171] Ut sup. s. 191.\n\n[1172] Gr\u00e4tz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 615.\n\n[1173] B. Comm. 1, s. 424. According to this, the passage relates to\nthe Jewish people, who before the exile were possessed by the devil in\nthe form of idolatry, and afterwards in the worst form of Pharisaism.\n\n[1174] Thus Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 447.\n\n[1175] Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 566.\n\n[1176] Ut sup. 1, b, s. 483; 2, s. 96.\n\n[1177] Hence the words \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1fb7\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1fb7\u03bd were used as synonymous\nwith \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1fb7\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Hippocrates had to combat the opinion that\nepilepsy was the effect of demoniacal influence. Vid. Wetstein, s. 282\nff.\n\n[1178] Let the reader compare the \u200f\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7 \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4 \u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b5\u05ea \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05b9\u05d4\u200e, which made Saul\nmelancholy, 1 Sam. xvi. 14. Its influence on Saul is expressed by\n\u200f\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05e2\u05b2\u05ea\u05b7\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e.\n\n[1179] Vid. Creuzer, Symbolik, 3, s. 69 f.; Baur, Apollonius von Tyana\nund Christus, s. 144.\n\n[1180] Bell. jud. vii. vi. 3.\n\n[1181] Antiq. vi. xi. 2. On the state of Saul.\n\n[1182] Philopseud., 16.\n\n[1183] Vit\u00e6 Apollon. iv. 20, 25, comp. Baur, ut sup. s. 38 f. 42. Even\nAristotle speaks of \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. de mirab. 166,\ned. Bekk.\n\n[1184] Ut sup., bell. j.: \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u2014\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b4\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03c4\u03c5\u03bd\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[1185] Apoll. i. 18.\n\n[1186] Ut sup. iii. 38.\n\n[1187] Vid. Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenthum, 2, s. 427.\n\n[1188] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 39; L. J. 1, a, s. 217. He appeals in\nsupport of this to Matt. xiv. 2, where Herod, on hearing of the\nmiracles of Jesus, says: It is John the Baptist, he is risen from the\ndead. In this expression Paulus finds the rabbinical opinion of the\n\u200f\u05e2\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u200e, which is distinct from that of the \u200f\u05d2\u05dc\u05d2\u05d6\u05dc\u200e, or transmigration\nof souls properly so called, (that is, the passage of disembodied souls\ninto the bodies of infants, while in the process of formation), and\naccording to which the soul of a dead person might unite itself to that\nof a living one, and add to its power (vid. Eisenmenger 2, s. 85 ff.)\nBut, as Fritzsche and others have shown, the word \u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 refers to an\nactual resurrection of the Baptist, and not to this rabbinical notion;\nwhich, moreover, even were it implied, is totally different from that\nof demoniacal possession. Here it would be a good spirit who had\nentered into a prophet for the strengthening of his powers, as\naccording to a later Jewish idea the soul of Seth was united to that of\nMoses, and again the souls of Moses and Aaron to that of Samuel\n(Eisenmenger, ut sup.); but from this it would by no means follow, that\nit was possible for wicked spirits to enter into the living.\n\n[1189] Justin, Apol. ii. 5., Eisenmenger, ut sup.\n\n[1190] Homil. viii. 18 f., ix. 9 f.\n\n[1191] Orat. contra Gr\u00e6cos, 16.\n\n[1192] See his Commentatio de d\u00e6moniacis quorum in N. T. fit mentio,\nand his minute consideration of demoniacal cases. So early as the time\nof Origen, physicians gave natural explanations of the state of those\nsupposed to be possessed. Orig. in Matth. xvii. 15.\n\n[1193] B. Comm. 1, s. 296, Anm.\n\n[1194] S. 295 f.\n\n[1195] S. 302, after the example of Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 474.\n\n[1196] Homil. viii. 19.\n\n[1197] Thus Asmodeus chooses Sara and her husband as objects of torment\nand destruction, not because either the former or the latter were\nparticularly wicked, but because Sara\u2019s beauty attracted him. Tob. vi.\n12\u201315.\n\n[1198] S. 294.\n\n[1199] It fills s. 289\u2013298.\n\n[1200] I have endeavoured to present helps towards a scientific\nconception of the states in question in several essays, which are now\nincorporated in my Charakteristiken u. Kritiken. Comp. Wirth, Theorie\ndes Somnambulismus. S. 311 ff.\n\n[1201] See note 16, the passage quoted from Lucian.\n\n[1202] Joseph., Antiq. viii. ii. 5.\n\n[1203] Joseph., ut sup.\n\n[1204] Gittin, f. lxvii. 2.\n\n[1205] Justin Mart. dial. c. Tryph. lxxxv.\n\n[1206] Exeg. Handb. 1, 6, s. 422; L. J. 1, a, s. 128.\n\n[1207] Bibl. Comm. i. 296.\n\n[1208] Comp. Bertholdt, Christol. Jud. \u00a7\u00a7 36\u201341.\n\n[1209] According to Pesikta in Jalkut Schimoni ii. f. lvi. 3 (s.\nBertholdt, p. 185). Satan recognizes in the same manner the\npre-existing Messiah at the foot of the throne of God with terror, as\nhe qui me et omnes gentiles in infernum pr\u00e6cipitaturus est.\n\n[1210] Fritzsche, in Marc., p. 35: In multis evangeliorum locis homines\nlegas a pravis d\u00e6monibus agitatos, quum primum conspexerint Jesum, eum\nMessiam esse, a nemine unquam de hac re commonitos, statim intelligere.\nIn qua re hac nostri scriptores ducti sunt sententia, consentaneum\nesse. Satan\u00e6 satellites facile cognovisse Messiam, quippe insignia de\nse supplicia aliquando sumturum.\n\n[1211] A favourite resort of maniacs, vid. Lightfoot and Sch\u00f6ttgen, in\nloc., and of unclean spirits, vid. rabbinical passages, ap. Wetstein.\n\n[1212] The notion that the cutting himself with stones which Mark\nascribes to the demoniac, was an act of penance in lucid moments,\nbelongs to the errors to which Olshausen is led by his false opinion of\na moral and religious point of view in relation to these phenomena. It\nis well known, however, that the paroxysms of such disorders are\nprecisely the occasions on which a self-destructive fury is manifested.\n\n[1213] Vid. the collection of such explanations, ap. Fritzsche, in\nMatt., p. 327.\n\n[1214] Thus Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendmahl, s. 309; Paulus, in loc. Hase,\nL. J. \u00a7 75.\n\n[1215] Schulz, ut sup.\n\n[1216] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 127.\n\n[1217] Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 232.\n\n[1218] Vid. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 329.\n\n[1219] Nat\u00fcrliche Geschichte, 2, 174.\n\n[1220] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, 473; Olshausen, s. 302.\n\n[1221] This even Paulus, s. 474, and Olshausen, s. 303, find\nsurprising.\n\n[1222] It is the narrative of the manner in which Apollonius of Tyana\nunmasked a demon (empusa), vit. Ap. iv. 35; ap. Baur, s. 145.\n\n[1223] Ut sup. s. 128. When, however, he accounts for this incorrect\nsupplement of Luke\u2019s by supposing that his informant, being engaged in\nthe vessel, had remained behind, and thus had missed the commencement\nof the scene with the demoniac, this is too laboured an exercise of\ningenuity, and presupposes the antiquated opinion, that there was the\nmost immediate relation possible between the evangelical histories and\nthe facts which they report.\n\n[1224] S. 305, Anm.\n\n[1225] Clem. Horn. ix. 10.\n\n[1226] Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 332. According to Eisenmenger, 2, 447\nff., the Jews held that demons generally had a predilection for impure\nplaces, and in Jalkut Rubeni f. x. 2. (Wetstein) we find this\nobservation: Anima idololatrarum, qu\u00e6 venit a spiritu immundo, vocatur\nporcus.\n\n[1227] Ut sup. s. 474, 485. Winer, b. Realw. 1, s. 192.\n\n[1228] Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 330.\n\n[1229] Paulus, ut sup. s. 475 f.\n\n[1230] Olshausen, s. 307.\n\n[1231] Paulus, s. 474.\n\n[1232] Paulus, s. 485; Winer, ut sup.\n\n[1233] Olshausen, ut sup.\n\n[1234] Ibid.\n\n[1235] Ullmann, \u00fcber die Uns\u00fcndlichkeit Jesu, in seinen Studien, 1, 1,\ns. 51 f.\n\n[1236] Olshausen, ut sup.\n\n[1237] Paulus.\n\n[1238] Ullmann.\n\n[1239] E.g. Woolston, Disc. 1, p. 32 ff.\n\n[1240] Jamblich. vita Pythag. no. 36. ed. Kiessling.\n\n[1241] In the Abhandlung \u00fcber genetische oder formelle Erkl\u00e4rungsart\nder Wunder in Henke\u2019s Museum, 1, 3, s. 410 ff.\n\n[1242] Exeg. Beitr\u00e4ge, 2, 109 ff.\n\n[1243] Antiq. viii. ii. 5.\n\n[1244] Philostr. v. Ap. iv. 20; ap. Baur, ut sup. s. 39.\n\n[1245] Schulz. s. 319.\n\n[1246] As Schulz appears to do, ut sup.\n\n[1247] See the passages quoted by Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 569,\nand by Winer, 1, s. 191 f.\n\n[1248] Thus Fritzsche, in loc.\n\n[1249] Schleiermacher, s. 150.\n\n[1250] K\u00f6ster, Immanuel, s. 197; Fritzsche, in loc.\n\n[1251] De abstinent. ii. p. 204 and 417 f.; Vid. Winer, 1, s. 191.\n\n[1252] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 471 f.\n\n[1253] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 438; L. J. 1, a, s. 223; De Wette,\nbibl. Dogm. \u00a7 222, Anm. c.\n\n[1254] Exeg. Handb. in loc.\n\n[1255] Nat\u00fcrliche Geschichte, 2, s. 429.\n\n[1256] Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 196.\n\n[1257] Among the transient disorders on which Jesus may have acted\npsychologically, we may perhaps number the fever of Peter\u2019s\nmother-in-law, which Jesus is said to have cured, Matt. viii. 14 ff.\nparall.\n\n[1258] It is so more or less by Eichhorn, in the allg. Bibliothek, 4,\ns. 435; Herder, von Gottes Sohn u. s. f., s. 20; Wegscheider, Einl. in\ndas Evang. Joh., s. 313; De Wette, bibl. Dogm., \u00a7 269.\n\n[1259] Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 698 ff.\n\n[1260] Ut sup. s. 705, and elsewhere.\n\n[1261] Compare Hase, L. J., \u00a7 86.\n\n[1262] Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 68.\n\n[1263] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 215.\n\n[1264] Vid. Winer, Realw., Art. Blinde.\n\n[1265] Gratz, Comm z. Matth. 2, s. 323.\n\n[1266] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 44.\n\n[1267] Schulz, Anmerkungen zu Michaelis, 2, s. 105.\n\n[1268] Sieffert, ut sup. s. 104.\n\n[1269] Ueber den Zweck der evang. Geschichte und der Briefe Joh., s.\n345.\n\n[1270] Ut sup. s. 237.\n\n[1271] Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 249.\n\n[1272] Nat\u00fcrl. Gesch. des Propheten von Naz. 2, s. 216.\n\n[1273] Vid. vol. i. p. 81, note.\n\n[1274] Elsewhere also we find proof that in those times the power of\neffecting miraculous cures, especially of blindness, was commonly\nascribed to men who were regarded as favourites of the Deity. Thus\nTacitus, Hist. iv. 81, and Suetonius, Vespas. vii. tell us, that in\nAlexandria a blind man applied to Vespasian, shortly after he was made\nemperor, alleging that he did so by the direction of the god Serapis,\nwith the entreaty that he would cure him of his blindness by wetting\nhis eyes with his spittle. Vespasian complied, and the result was that\nthe blind man immediately had his sight restored. As Tacitus attests\nthe truth of this story in a remarkable manner, Paulus is probably not\nwrong in regarding the affair as the contrivance of adulatory priests,\nwho to procure for the emperor the fame of a miracle-worker, and by\nthis means to secure his favour on behalf of their god, by whose\ncounsel the event was occasioned, hired a man to simulate blindness.\nEx. Handb. 2, s. 56 f. However this may be, we see from the narrative\nwhat was expected, even beyond the limits of Palestine, of a man who,\nas Tacitus here expresses himself concerning Vespasian, enjoyed favor e\nc\u0153lis and an inclinatio numinum.\n\n[1275] These are nearly the words of Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 312,\n391.\n\n[1276] De Wette, Beitrag zur Charakteristik des Evangelisten Markus, in\nUllmann\u2019s und Umbreit\u2019s Studien, 1, 4, 789 ff. Comp. K\u00f6ster, Immanuel,\nf. 72. On the other hand: comp. De Wette\u2019s exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 148 f.\n\n[1277] Pliny, H. N. xxviii. 7, and other passages in Wetstein.\n\n[1278] Paulus, ut sup. s. 312 f. 392 ff.; Nat\u00fcrliche Geschichte, 3, s.\n31 ff. 216 f.; K\u00f6ster, Immanuel, s. 188 ff.\n\n[1279] For the former explanation, Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s, 390 f.;\nfor the latter, Olshausen, b, Comm. 1. s. 510.\n\n[1280] Kuin\u00f6l, in Marc., p. 110.\n\n[1281] Olshausen, s. 509.\n\n[1282] Comp. De Wette, Kritik der Mosaischen Geschichte, s. 36 f.\n\n[1283] Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., p. xliii.\n\n[1284] Vid. ap. Wetstein and Lightfoot, John ix. 6.\n\n[1285] Thus Fritzsche, after Euthymius, in Marc., p. 304.\n\n[1286] The former is the supposition of Kuin\u00f6l, the latter of Schott.\n\n[1287] Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 391, Anm. 1.\n\n[1288] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 472.\n\n[1289] Nat\u00fcrliche Gesch. 3, s. 215.\n\n[1290] Vid. Tholuck and L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[1291] Vid. Paulus and L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[1292] Thus Euthymius and Paulus, in loc.\n\n[1293] B. Comm. 2, s. 230, where, however, he refers the \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\nto the outflow of the spirit proceeding from God.\n\n[1294] S. 93.\n\n[1295] K\u00f6ster, Immanuel, s. 79; Bretschneider, Probab., s. 122.\n\n[1296] Wetstein, in loc.\n\n[1297] Nedarim f. xli. 1. (Sch\u00f6ttgen, 1, p. 93): Dixit R. Chija fil.\nAbba: nullus \u00e6grotus a morbo suo sanatur, donec ipsi omnia peccata\nremissa sint.\n\n[1298] Hase, L. J. \u00a7 73. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 335.\n\n[1299] Sanhedr. f. xci. 2, and Bereschith Rabba f. xxxviii. 1.\n(Lightfoot, p. 1050): Antonius interrogavit Rabbi (Judam): a quonam\ntempore incipit malus affectus pr\u00e6valere in homine? an a tempore\nformationis ejus (in utero), an a tempore processionis ejus (ex utero)?\nDicit ei Rabbi: a tempore formationis ejus.\n\n[1300] Paulus Comm. 4, s. 264; L\u00fccke, 2, s. 22.\n\n[1301] This is done by Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1302] See the examples in Wetstein, N. T. 1, s. 284, and in Wahl\u2019s\nClavis.\n\n[1303] Comp. Winer, Realw., and Fritzsche, in Matt. p. 194.\n\n[1304] Winer, ut sup. Art. Dach.\n\n[1305] Lightfoot, p. 601.\n\n[1306] Woolston, Disc. 4.\n\n[1307] 1, s. 310 f.\n\n[1308] K\u00f6ster, Immanuel, s. 166, Anm. 66.\n\n[1309] This appears to be the meaning of Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 238.\nOtherwise exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 505.\n\n[1310] Thus Lightfoot, Kuin\u00f6l, Olshausen, in loc.\n\n[1311] Vid. Fritzsche, in Marc., p. 52.\n\n[1312] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 498, 501.\n\n[1313] Bengel, Gnomon, 1, 245, ed. 2. Paulus, s. 502, again takes an\nobvious fable in Livy ii. 36 for a history, capable of a natural\nexplanation.\n\n[1314] Paulus, ut sup. s. 501.\n\n[1315] Ueber den Zweck der evang. Geschichte und der Briefe Joh., s.\n351 f.\n\n[1316] Schulz, ut sup. s. 317; Olshausen, 1, s. 322.\n\n[1317] Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 524 f.; bibl. Comm. 1, s. 324 f.; comp.\nK\u00f6ster, Immanuel, s. 201 ff.\n\n[1318] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 524 f. 530. L. J. 1, a, s. 244 f.;\nVenturini, 2, s. 204 ff.; K\u00f6ster, ut sup.\n\n[1319] Vid. Evangelium infanti\u00e6 arabicum, ap. Fabricius and Thilo.\n\n[1320] See the observations of Paulus, L\u00fccke, Tholuck, and Olshausen,\nin loc.\n\n[1321] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 92.\n\n[1322] Augustin, de consens. evang. i. 20; Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b,\ns. 709; K\u00f6ster, Immanuel, s. 63.\n\n[1323] Ueber den Zweck Jesu, u. s. f., s. 351.\n\n[1324] Vid. L\u00fccke, 1, s. 552.\n\n[1325] Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 310: discrepat autem Lucas ita a Matth\u00e6i\nnarratione, ut centurionem non ipsum venisse ad Jesum, sed per legatos\ncum eo egisse tradat; quibus dissidentibus pacem obtrudere, boni nego\ninterpretis esse.\n\n[1326] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 92 f.\n\n[1327] Kuin\u00f6l, in Matt., p. 221 f.\n\n[1328] Tholuck, in loc.; Hase \u00a7 68, Anm. 2.\n\n[1329] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 253 f.; Venturini, 2, s. 140 ff.; comp.\nHase, \u00a7 68.\n\n[1330] L\u00fccke, 1, s. 550 f.\n\n[1331] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 710 f.; Nat\u00fcrliche Geschichte, 2,\ns. 285 ff.\n\n[1332] Clem. homil. ix. 21; Fritzsche, in Matth., 313.\n\n[1333] Wetstein, N. T. 1, p. 349; comp. Olshausen, in loc.\n\n[1334] K\u00f6ster, Immanuel, s. 195, Anm.\n\n[1335] L\u00fccke, 1, s. 550.\n\n[1336] Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 268.\n\n[1337] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 80 f.\n\n[1338] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 50.\n\n[1339] Schleiermacher, ut sup.\n\n[1340] Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 48 ff.\n\n[1341] Nat\u00fcrliche Geschichte, 2, s. 421.\n\n[1342] Winer, b. Realw. 1, s. 796.\n\n[1343] Paulus, ut sup. s. 49, 54; K\u00f6ster, Immanuel, s. 185 f.\n\n[1344] Ut sup. s. 83, ex Tract. Schabbat.\n\n[1345] Schabbat, f. 12, ap. Sch\u00f6ttgen, i. p. 123.\n\n[1346] See the passage last cited.\n\n[1347] Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 427; in Mar., p. 79.\n\n[1348]\n\n1 Kings xiii. 4, LXX: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a Matth. xii. 10: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03c7\u03b5\u1f76\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. \u1f10\u0342\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd (Mark,\n \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd.)\n6: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf 13: \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u1ff3\u00b7 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f51\u03b3\u03b9\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f21 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7.\n\n[1349] Tacit. Hist. iv. 81.\n\n[1350] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 341 f.\n\n[1351] Ut sup. s. 196.\n\n[1352] Winer (bibl. Realw. 1, s. 796) says: We should be contented to\nrefrain from seeking a natural explanation in individual cases (of the\ncures of Jesus), and ever bear in mind that the banishment of the\nmiraculous out of the agency of Jesus can never be effected so long as\nthe gospels are regarded historically.\n\n[1353] Disc. 3.\n\n[1354] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 263 ff. L. J. 1, a, s. 298.\n\n[1355] Vid. L\u00fccke and Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1356] Comp. with Comm. 4, s. 290, his Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 298.\n\n[1357] Bretschneider, Probab., s. 69.\n\n[1358] As by Hase, L. J. \u00a7 92.\n\n[1359]\n\nMark ii. 9: (\u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f50\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, John v. 8: \u1f14\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f06\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u2014\u2014) \u1f14\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f06\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9.\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9;\n\n11:\u2014\u1f14\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f06\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 9: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f51\u03b3\u03b9\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5. \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03c1\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n12: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f64\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9.\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[1360] Ueber den Zweck des Evang. und der Briefe Joh., s. 351 ff.\n\n[1361] Comm. in Matth. p. 263. Observe his argumentation: verba [N.B.\nMatthaei]: \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, non possunt latine reddi: jam mortua est:\nnam, auctore [N.B. Luca] patri adhuc cum Christo colloquenti nuntiabat\nservus, filiam jam exspirasse; ergo [auctore Matthaeo?] nondum mortua\nerat, cum pater ad Jesum accederet.\n\n[1362] Compare, on the subject of these vain attempts at\nreconciliation, Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 132, and Fritzsche,\nin Matth., p. 347 f.\n\n[1363] Olshausen, in loc.\n\n[1364] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 131 ff.; Schulz, \u00fcber d. Abendmahl,\ns. 316 f.\n\n[1365] Vid. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 2, p. 449 ff.\n\n[1366] Homil. ii. 19.\n\n[1367] Cap. x.\n\n[1368] Ut sup. s. 129.\n\n[1369] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 526, 31 f.; Schleiermacher, ut\nsup. s. 132; Olshausen, 1, s. 327. Even Neander does not express\nhimself decidedly against this interpretation of the words of Jesus;\nwhile with regard to the girl\u2019s real condition, he thinks the\nsupposition of a merely apparent death probable. L. J. Chr., s. 343.\nComp. 338 f.\n\n[1370] Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 95; Weisse, die ev.\nGeschichte, 1, s. 503.\n\n[1371] Comp. Neander. L. J., s. 342.\n\n[1372] Nat\u00fcrliche Geschichte, 2, s. 212.\n\n[1373] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 716, Anm. and 719 f.\n\n[1374] Ibid, ut sup. s. 723. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 47.\n\n[1375] Thus Hase also, L. J. \u00a7 87.\n\n[1376] Venturini, 2, s. 293.\n\n[1377] Comp. Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 103 f.\n\n[1378] Paulus, Comp. 4, s. 535 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 55 ff.\n\n[1379] Im the translation of the text in his Leben Jesu, 2, b, s. 46,\nPaulus appears to suppose, beside the message mentioned in the gospel,\nthree subsequent messages.\n\n[1380] Comp. C. Ch. Flatt, etwas zur Vertheidigung des Wunders der\nWiederbelebung des Lazarus, in S\u00fcskind\u2019s Magazin, 14tes St\u00fcck, s. 93\nff.\n\n[1381] Journal f\u00fcr auserlesene theol. Literatur, 3, 2, s. 261, Anm.\n\n[1382] Flatt, ut sup. 102 f.; De Wette, in loc.; Neander, s. 351 f.\n\n[1383] Flatt, ut sup.; L\u00fccke, Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.\n\n[1384] L\u00fccke, 2, s. 388.\n\n[1385] Flatt, ut sup. s. 104 f.; L\u00fccke, ut sup.\n\n[1386] Flatt, s. 106; Olshausen, 2, s. 269.\n\n[1387] Flatt, s. 97 f.\n\n[1388] Compare on this subject, especially Flatt and L\u00fccke.\n\n[1389] Comm. 4, s. 437; in the L. J. 1, b, s. 57, and 2, b, s. 46, this\nconjecture is no longer employed.\n\n[1390] Ut sup. s. 272 ff. Even Neander shows himself not disinclined to\nsuch a conjecture as far as regards v. 4 (s. 349). As Gabler believes\nthat these expressions cannot have come from Jesus, but only from John,\nso Dieffenbach, in Bertholdt\u2019s Krit. Journal, 5, s. 7 ff., maintains\nthat they cannot have proceeded from John, and as he holds that the\nrest of the gospel is the production of that apostle, he pronounces\nthose passages to be interpolations.\n\n[1391] Disc. 5.\n\n[1392] Bretschneider, Probab., s. 61.\n\n[1393] 1, s. 276 f.\n\n[1394] Comm. 2, s. 376. Also Neander, s. 346.\n\n[1395] Tholuck, s. 202; Olshausen, 2, s. 260.\n\n[1396] Ut sup.\n\n[1397] Andachtsbuch, 1, s. 292 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 134.\n\n[1398] S. 59 f. 79.\n\n[1399] Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 135.\n\n[1400] This is what Neander maintains, L. J. Chr., s. 354. He objects\nthat the fourth Evangelist must in any case have known of\nresuscitations of the dead by Jesus, even supposing the narrative in\nquestion to be an unhistorical exaggeration. But this objection is\nrefuted by the observation, that, as an inducement to the formation of\nsuch a narrative, the general tradition that Jesus had raised the dead\nwould be sufficient, and an acquaintance with particular instances as\nexemplars was not at all requisite.\n\n[1401] This argument applies also to De Wette, who, while acknowledging\nthat such an idea would be unsuitable in the mouth of Jesus, supposes\nnevertheless that it was really in his mind.\n\n[1402] Dieffenbach, \u00fcber einige wahrscheinliche Interpolationen im\nEvangelium Johannis, in Bertholdt\u2019s krit. Journal, 5, s. 8 f.\n\n[1403] Comm. z. Joh., 1te Aufl., 2, s. 310.\n\n[1404] Thus the author of the Probabilia also argues, p. 61.\n\n[1405] Disc. 5.\n\n[1406] Comp. Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 103 ff.\n\n[1407] Saunier, \u00fcber die quellen des Markus, s. 66 ff.\n\n[1408] Comp. Winer bibl. Realw. d. A.\n\n[1409] Let the reader recollect the well-known expression of Spinoza.\n\n[1410] Whitby, Annot. in loc.\n\n[1411] Thus Grotius and Herder; Olshausen also adopts this explanation\nunder the form of conjecture, 2, s. 256 f., Anm.\n\n[1412] See these arguments dispersed in Paulus and L\u00fccke on this\nchapter; in Gabler, ut sup. p. 238 ff.; and Hase, L. J. \u00a7 119.\u2014A new\nreason why Matthew in particular is silent on the resurrection of\nLazarus, has been excogitated by Heydenreich (\u00fcber die Unzul\u00e4ssigkeit\nder mythischen Auffassung, 2tes St\u00fcck, s. 42). The Evangelist, he says,\nomitted it, because it required to be represented and treated with a\ntenderness and liveliness of feeling, of which he did not think himself\ncapable. Hence, the modest man chose to avoid the history altogether\nrather than to deprive it by his manner of narration, of its proper\npathos and sublimity.\u2014Idle modesty truly!\n\n[1413] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Urspr., s. 10.\n\n[1414] Gabler, ut sup. s. 240 f.; also Neander, s. 357.\n\n[1415] Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 402.\n\n[1416] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 139. In Schleiermacher\u2019s\nLectures on the Life of Jesus (if I may be permitted to refer to a work\nnot yet printed), the silence in question is explained in the following\nmanner. The synoptical Evangelists in general were ignorant of the\nrelations of Jesus with the family of Bethany, because perhaps the\napostles did not wish an intimate personal connection of this kind to\npass into the general tradition, from which those Evangelists drew; and\nignorance of the relations of Jesus with the family in general, of\ncourse included ignorance of this particular fact connected with them.\nBut what motive could the apostles have for such reserve? Are we to\ninfer secret, or even, with Venturini, tender ties? Must not such a\nprivate relation in the case of Jesus have presented much to edify us?\nThe intimations which John and Luke afford us on this subject contain\nin fact much of this description, and from the narrative which the\nlatter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that\nthe apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to\nallow something of these relations to appear, so far as they could\nretain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection of\nLazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than\nthat visit with its single aphorism \u201cOne thing is needful,\u201d and\ninvolved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of\nBethany; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore\nhave hindered the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus.\n\n[1417] Kern, \u00fcber den Ursprung des Evang. Matth., T\u00fcbing. Zeitschrift,\n1834, 2, s. 110.\n\n[1418] Bertholdt. Christol. Jud. \u00a7 35.\n\n[1419] See the passages quoted from Tanchuma, Vol. I. \u00a7 14.\n\n[1420] 1 Kings xvii. 23, LXX. \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, Luke vii.\n15: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n[1421] Thus the author of the Abhandlung \u00fcber die verschiedenen\nR\u00fccksichten, in welchen der Biograph Jesu arbeiten kann, in Bertholdt\u2019s\nkrit. Journ., 5, s. 237 f., Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 202.\u2014A\nresuscitation strikingly similar to that of the young man at Nain is\nnarrated by Philostratus, of Apollonius of Tyana. \u201cAs according to\nLuke, it was a young man, the only son of a widow, who was being\ncarried out of the city; so, in Philostratus, it is a young maiden\nalready betrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The command to set down\nthe bier, the mere touch, and a few words, are sufficient here, as\nthere, to bring the dead to life\u201d (Baur, Apollonius v. Tyana und\nChristus, s. 145). I should like to know whether Paulus, or any other\ncritic, would be inclined to explain this naturally; if, however, it\nought to be regarded as an imitation of the evangelical narrative (a\nconclusion which can hardly be avoided), we must have a preconceived\nopinion of the character of the books of the New Testament, to evade\nthe consequence, that the resuscitations of the dead which they contain\nare only less designed imitations of those in the Old Testament; which\nare themselves to be derived from the belief of antiquity, that a\nvictorious power over death was imparted to the favourites of the gods\n(Hercules, Esculapius, etc), and more immediately, from the Jewish idea\nof a prophet.\n\n[1422] Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 287.\n\n[1423] Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 468 ff.; Venturini, 2, s.\n166 ff.; Kaiser, bibl. Theol., 1, s. 197. Hase, also, \u00a7 74, thinks this\nview probable.\n\n[1424] Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 363, who for the rest here offers but a\nweak defence against the natural explanation.\n\n[1425] Hase, ut sup.\n\n[1426] Vid. Vol. 1, \u00a7 14, note 9.\n\n[1427] Neander alters the fact, when he describes Jesus as falling\nasleep in the midst of the fury of the storm and the waves, and thus\nmanifesting a tranquillity of soul which no terror of nature could\ndisturb (s. 362). Luke says expressly, as they sailed he fell asleep:\nand there came down a storm, etc., \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u1f7a\u03c0\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7 \u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c8 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., and according to the representation of the other\nEvangelists also, the sleeping of Jesus appears to have preceded the\nbreaking out of the storm, since otherwise the timorous disciples would\nnot have awaked him\u2014they would rather not have allowed him to go to\nsleep.\n\n[1428] Comp Saunier, \u00fcber die Quellen des Markus, s. 82.\n\n[1429] This may serve as an answer to Tholuck\u2019s accusation,\nGlaubw\u00fcrdigkeit, s. 110.\n\n[1430] Ueber den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 68 f.\n\n[1431] According to Jamblich. vita Pyth, 135, ed. Kiessling, there were\nnarrated of Pythagoras, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc6 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, instantaneous tranquillizings of violent\nwinds and hailstorms, and soothings of the waves of rivers and seas, to\nafford easy transit to his companions. Comp. Porphyr. v. p. 29 same ed.\n\n[1432] Ut sup. s. 491.\n\n[1433] Paulus, Memorabilien, 6, Stuck, No. V.; exeg. Handb. 2, s. 238\nff.\n\n[1434] Against the extremely arbitrary expedient which Paulus has here\nadopted, see Storr, Opusc. acad. 3, p. 288.\n\n[1435] The former by Bolten, Bericht des Matth\u00e4us, in loc; the latter\nin Henke\u2019s neuem Magazin, 6, 2, s. 327 ff.\n\n[1436] Comp. Paulus and Fritzsche, in loc.\n\n[1437] See the excellent passage in Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., p. 505.\n\n[1438] Mark\u2019s inclination to exaggerate shows itself also in his\nconcluding sentence, v. 51, (comp. vii. 37): and they were sore amazed\nin themselves beyond measure and wondered; which will scarcely be\nunderstood to import, as Paulus supposes (2, s. 266), a disapproval of\nthe excessive astonishment.\n\n[1439] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 68 f.; Weisse,\ndie evang. Geschichte, 1, s. 521.\n\n[1440] Vid. L\u00fccke and Tholuck.\n\n[1441] Homil. in Joann. 43.\n\n[1442] In De Wette\u2019s objection, that the opinion of an exaggeration of\nthe miracle in John, is discountenanced by the addition that they were\nimmediately at the land (ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 79), there appears to me\nonly a misunderstanding; but his assertion that in John the manner in\nwhich Jesus goes over the sea is not represented as a miracle (s. 78),\nis to me thoroughly incomprehensible.\n\n[1443] Bretschneider, Probab., p. 81.\n\n[1444] See the passages in Wetstein, p. 417 f.\n\n[1445] Jamblich, vita Pythagor\u00e6, 136; comp. Porphyr. 29.\n\n[1446] Lucian, Philopseudes, 13.\n\n[1447] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Urspr., s. 68.\n\n[1448] See the examples in Wetstein, in loc.\n\n[1449] Die h. Schrift des n. Bundes, 1, s. 314, 2te Aufl.\n\n[1450] Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, 502 ff. Comp. Hase, L. J. \u00a7 111.\n\n[1451] Comp. Storr, in Flatt\u2019s Magazin, 2, s. 68 ff.\n\n[1452] Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200. Comp. Hase, ut sup.\n\n[1453] Olshausen, 1, s. 512. This theologian, in the note on the same\npage, observes, that according to the words, We have taken no bread,\nMatt. xvi. 7, the disciples, even after the second feeding, were not\nalive to the fact, that there was no necessity for providing themselves\nwith food for the body in the neighbourhood of the Son of Man. But this\ninstance is not to the point, for the circumstances are here altogether\ndifferent. That from the miraculous feeding of the people when they\nwere accidentally belated in the wilderness, the disciples did not draw\nthe same convenient conclusion with the biblical commentator, can only\nredound to their honour.\n\n[1454] Ibid.\n\n[1455] Gratz, Comm. z. Matth. 2, s. 90 f.; Sieffert, \u00fcber den Ursprung,\ns. 97.\n\n[1456] Thiesz, Krit. Commentar, 1, s. 168 ff.; Schulz, \u00fcber das\nAbendmahl, s. 311. Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 523.\n\n[1457] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 145; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 95\nff.; Hase, \u00a7 97. Neander is undecided, L. J. Chr., s. 372 ff., Anm.\n\n[1458] Comp. Saunier, ut sup. s. 105.\n\n[1459] Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, s. 315; Olshausen, ut sup.\n\n[1460] Olshausen, s. 513.\n\n[1461] See the proof in De Wette, Kritik der mos. Gesch., s. 220 ff.,\n314 ff.\n\n[1462] Thus Olshausen, in loc. after Pfenninger. Comp. Hase, \u00a7 97.\n\n[1463] This lamentable observation of mine, according to Olshausen, has\nits source in something worse than intellectual incapacity, namely, in\nmy total disbelief in a living God: otherwise assuredly it would not\nhave appeared so great a difficulty to me that the Divine causality\nshould have superseded human operations (s. 479, der 3ten Aufl.).\n\n[1464] Jesus Messias, 2, Bd. No. 14, 15 and 20.\n\n[1465] For this reason Neander (s. 377) passes over the miracle with a\nfew entirely general remarks.\n\n[1466] Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 205 ff.\n\n[1467] Olshausen, in loc.\n\n[1468] Against Neander\u2019s attempt at reconciliation, compare De Wette,\nexeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 77.\n\n[1469] This indication has been recently followed up by Weisse. He\nfinds the key to the history of the miraculous multiplication of the\nloaves, in the question addressed by Jesus to the disciples when they\nmisunderstand his admonition against the leaven of the Pharisees and\nSadducees. He asks them whether they did not remember how many baskets\nthey had been able to fill from the five and again from the seven\nloaves, and then adds, How is it that ye do not understand that I spake\nit not to you concerning bread, etc. (Matt. xvi. 11). Now, says Weisse,\nthe parallel which Jesus here institutes between his discourse on the\nleaven, and the history of the feeding of the multitude, shows that the\nlatter also is only to be interpreted parabolically (s. 511 ff.). But\nthe form of the question of Jesus: \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (\u03c3\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2) \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5;\nhow many baskets ye took up, presupposes a real event; we can form no\nconception, as we have already remarked in relation to the history of\nthe temptation, of a parable in which Jesus and his disciples would\nhave played a principal part; moreover, the inference which Jesus would\nconvey is, according to the text, not that because the present\nnarrative was figurative, so also must be the interpretation of the\nsubsequent discourse, but that after the earlier proof how superfluous\nwas any solicitude about physical bread where Jesus was at hand, it was\nabsurd to understand his present discourse as relating to such.\n\n[1470] Vid. Vol. I. \u00a7 14.\n\n[1471]\n\n2 Kings iv. 43, LXX.: \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u1ff6 John vi. 9: \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f14\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd; \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2;\nIbid. v. 44: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f15\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 Matt. xiv. 20: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[1472] Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 237 f.\n\n[1473] Joma f. 39, 1: Tempore Simeonis justi benedictio erat super duos\npanes pentecostales et super decem panes \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, ut singuli\nsacerdotes, qui pro rata parte acciperent quantitatem oliv\u00e6, ad\nsatietatem comederent, imo ut adhuc reliqui\u00e6 superessent.\n\n[1474] Comp. De Wette, ex Handb. 1, 1, s. 133 f.\n\n[1475] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 74.\n\n[1476] Neander is of opinion that an analogy may be found for this\nmiracle yet more easily than for that of the loaves\u2014in the mineral\nsprings, the water of which is rendered so potent by natural agencies,\nthat it produces effects which far exceed those of ordinary water, and\nin part resemble those of wine! (s. 369.)\n\n[1477] In Joann. tract. 8: Ipse vinum fecit in nuptiis, qui omni anno\nhoc facit in vitibus.\n\n[1478] Thus Augustine, ut sup. approved by Olshausen: sicut enim, quod\nmiserunt ministri in hydrias in vinum conversum est opere Domini, sic\net quod nubes fundunt, in vinum convertitur ejusdem opere Domini.\n\n[1479] Even L\u00fccke, 1, s. 405, thinks the analogy with the above natural\nprocess deficient and unintelligible, and does not know how to console\nhimself better than by the consideration, that a similar inconvenience\nexists in relation to the miracle of the loaves.\n\n[1480] Chrysost. hom. in Joann. 21.\n\n[1481] Woolston, Disc. 4.\n\n[1482] P. 42.\n\n[1483] Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1484] Comm. 4, s. 151 f.\n\n[1485] Von Gottes Sohn u. s. f. nach Johannes Evangelium, s. 131 f.\n\n[1486] C. Ch. Flatt, \u00fcber die Verwandlung des Wassers in Wein, in\nS\u00fcskind\u2019s Magazin, 14. St\u00fcck, s. 86 f.; Olshausen, ut sup. s. 75 f.;\ncomp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 372.\n\n[1487] Olshausen, ut sup.\n\n[1488] L\u00fccke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too\nfar-fetched, and too little supported by the tone of the narrative, s.\n406. Comp. De Wette, ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 37.\n\n[1489] [A Wirtemberg wine Maas, or measure, is equal to about 3\u00bd pints\nEnglish, or more exactly 3\u00b732.\u2014Tr.]\n\n[1490] Wurm, de ponderum, mensurarum etc. rationibus, ap. Rom. et\nGr\u00e6c., p. 123, 126. Comp. L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[1491] Homil. in Joann. in loc.\n\n[1492] Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1493] This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the\nfaith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the\nbaptism (s. 370).\n\n[1494] Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc.\n\n[1495] E.g. by Woolston, ut sup.\n\n[1496] Flatt, ut sup. s. 90; Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1497] Olshausen, in loc.\n\n[1498] Comp. also the Probabilia, p. 41 f.\n\n[1499] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 150 ff.; L. J. 1, a, s. 169 ff.; Nat\u00fcrliche\nGesch. 2, s. 61 ff.\n\n[1500] Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sup. s. 77 ff. and L\u00fccke, in\nloc.\n\n[1501] He makes the word \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03cd\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, v. 10, refer to John also.\n\n[1502] L\u00fccke, s. 407.\n\n[1503] Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200.\n\n[1504] In the passages cited Vol. I. \u00a7 14, out of Midrasch Koheleth, it\nis said among other things: Go\u00ebl primus\u2014ascendere fecit puteum: sic\nquoque Go\u00ebl postremus ascendere faciet aquas, etc.\n\n[1505] A natural explanation of this miracle is given by Josephus in a\nmanner worthy of notice, Antiq. iii. 1, 2.\n\n[1506] We may also remind the reader of the transmutation of water into\noil, which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 9.) narrates of a Christian bishop.\n\n[1507] Compare the Probabilia, ut sup.\n\n[1508] De Wette thinks the analogies adduced from the Old Testament too\nremote; according to him, the metamorphosis of wine into water by\nBacchus, instanced by Wetstein, would be nearer to the subject, and not\nfar from the region of Greek thought, out of which the gospel of John\narose. The most analogous mythical derivation of the narrative would be\nto regard this supply of wine as the counterpart to the supply of\nbread, and both as corresponding to the bread and wine in the last\nsupper. But, he continues, the mythical view is opposed, 1, by the not\nyet overthrown authenticity of the fourth gospel; 2, by the fact that\nthe narrative bears less of a legendary than a subjective impress, by\nthe obscurity that rests upon it, and its want of one presiding idea,\ntogether with the abundance of practical ideas worthy of Jesus which it\nembodies. By these observations De Wette seems to intimate his approval\nof a natural explanation, built on the self-deception of John; an\nexplanation which is encumbered with the difficulties above noticed.\n\n[1509] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 157 ff.\n\n[1510] L. J. \u00a7 128.\n\n[1511] Augustin. de verbis Domini in ev. sec. Joann., sermo 44: Quid\narbor fecerat, fructum non afferendo? qu\u00e6 culpa arboris inf\u00e6cunditas?\n\n[1512] Disc. 4.\n\n[1513] Orig. Comm. in Matt., Tom. xvi. 29: \u1f49 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2,\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\u2014\u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f26\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd.\u2014\u0395\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f03\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd,\n\u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f38. \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7\u00b7\n\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u1fc3; comp. Augustin ut sup.\nMark, in relating this event, adds something which seems not to tally\nwell with his statement, when he observes that it was not the season\nfor figs. It might be urged: if it was not the season for figs, why\nshould Jesus go and look for fruit on the tree, and how could he, with\njustice, say to it, Let no man eat fruit of thee for ever?\n\n[1514] Toupii emendd. in Suidam, 1, p. 330 f.\n\n[1515] Heinsius and others, ap. Fritzsche, in loc.\n\n[1516] Maji Obs., ib.\n\n[1517] Dahme, in Henke\u2019s n. Magazin, 2. Bd. 2. Heft, s. 252. Kuin\u00f6l, in\nMarc, p. 150 f.\n\n[1518] Vid. Kuin\u00f6l, in loc.\n\n[1519] Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 175; Olshausen, b, Comm. 1, s.\n782.\n\n[1520] As Sieffert thinks, Ueber den Urspr., s. 113 ff. Compare my\nreviews, in the Charakteristiken und Kritiken, s. 272.\n\n[1521] Vid. Paulus, ut sup. s. 168 f.; Winer, b. Realw. d. A.\nFeigenbaum.\n\n[1522] Bell. Jud. III. x. 8.\n\n[1523] Ullman, \u00fcber die Uns\u00fcndlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, s. 50;\nSieffert, ut sup. s. 115 ff.; Olshausen, 1, s. 783 f.; Neander, L. J.\nChr., s. 378.\n\n[1524] Paulus, ut sup. s. 170; Hase, L. J. \u00a7 128; also Sieffert, ut\nsup.\n\n[1525] Heydenreich, in the Theol. Nachrichten, 1814, Mai., s. 121 ff.\n\n[1526] Comm. in Matt. p. 637.\n\n[1527] Comm., in Marc. p. 481: Male\u2014vv. dd. in eo h\u00e6serunt, quod Jesus\nsine ratione innocentem ficum aridam reddidisse videretur, mirisque\nargutiis usi sunt, ut aliquod hujus rei consilium fuisse ostenderent.\nNimirum apostoli, evangelist\u00e6 et omnes primi temporis Christiani, qua\nerant ingeniorum simplicitate, quid quantumque Jesus portentose fecisse\ndiceretur, curarunt tantummodo, non quod Jesu in edendo miraculo\nconsilium fuerit, subtiliter et argute qu\u00e6si verunt.\n\n[1528] \u039c\u1f74 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f42\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n[1529] Ambrosius, Comm. in Luc, in loc. Neander adopts this opinion, ut\nsup.\n\n[1530] Conceptions of the narrative in the main accordant with that\nhere given, may be found in De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 176 f.; 1,\n2, s. 174 f., and Weisse, die evang. Gesch., 1, s. 576 f.\n\n[1531] Vom Erl\u00f6ser der Menschen nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien, s.\n114.\n\n[1532] In a treatise on the history of the Transfiguration, in his\nneuesten theol. Journal, 1. Bd. 5. St\u00fcck, s. 517 ff. Comp. Bauer, hebr.\nMythol. 2, s. 233 ff.\n\n[1533] Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 534 f.\n\n[1534] Olshausen, ut sup. s. 537.\n\n[1535] Olshausen, 1, s. 539; comp. s. 178.\n\n[1536] Thus Tertull. adv. Marcion, iv. 22; Herder, ut sup. 115 f., with\nwhom also Gratz agrees. Comm. z. Matth. 2, s. 163 f., 169.\n\n[1537] Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 552; Olshausen, 1, s. 523.\n\n[1538] Olshausen, ut sup.\n\n[1539] Rau, symbola ad illustrandam Evv. de metamorphosi J. Chr.\nnarrationem; Gabler, ut sup. s. 539 ff.; Kuin\u00f6l, Comm. z. Matth. p. 459\nff.; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 474 f.\n\n[1540] Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendmahl, s. 319; Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den\nLukas, s. 148 f.; comp. also K\u00f6ster, Immanuel, s. 60 f.\n\n[1541] Bauer has discerned this, ut sup. s. 237; Fritzsche, p. 556; De\nWette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 56 f.; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 1, s.\n536; and Paulus also partly, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 447 f.\n\n[1542] Paulus, exeg. Handb., 2, 436 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 7 ff.;\nNat\u00fcrliche Geschichte, 3, s. 256 ff.\n\n[1543] Ut sup.\n\n[1544] Paulus, exeg. Handb., s. 446; Gratz, 2, s. 165 f.\n\n[1545] Comp. De Wette, Einleitung in das N. T. \u00a7 79.\n\n[1546] Thus Schneckenburger, Beitr\u00e4ge, s. 62 ff.\n\n[1547] Neander, because he considers the objective reality of the\ntransfiguration doubtful, also finds the silence of the fourth\nEvangelist a difficulty in this instance (s. 475 f.).\n\n[1548] Olshausen, s. 533, Anm.\n\n[1549] Vid. Rau, in the Programme quoted in Gabler, neuestes theolog.\nJournal, 1, 3, s. 506; De Wette, in loc. Matth.\n\n[1550] Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 553; Olshausen, 1, s. 541. Still less\nsatisfactory expedients in Gabler, ut sup. and in Matth\u00e4i, Religionsgl.\nder Apostel, 2, s. 596.\n\n[1551] This even Paulus admits, 2, s. 442.\n\n[1552] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 149.\n\n[1553] This is an answer to Weisse\u2019s objection, s. 539.\n\n[1554] Comp. Jalkut Simeoni, p. 2 f. x. 3, (ap. Wetstein, p. 435):\nFacies justorum futuro tempore similes erunt soli et luna, c\u00e6lo et\nstellis, fulguri, etc.\n\n[1555] Bereschith Rabba, xx. 29, (ap. Wetstein): Vestes lucis vestes\nAdami primi. Pococke, ex Nachmanide (ibid.): Fulgida facta fuit facies\nMosis instar solis, Josu\u00e6 instar lun\u00e6; quod idem affirmarunt veteres de\nAdamo.\n\n[1556] In Pirke Elieser, ii. there is, according to Wetstein, the\nfollowing statement: inter docendum radios ex facie ipsius, ut olim e\nMosis facie, prodiisse, adeo ut non dignosceret quis, utrum dies esset\nan nox.\n\n[1557] Nizzachon vetus, p. 40, ad Exod. xxxiv. 33 (ap. Wetstein): Ecce\nMoses magister noster felicis memori\u00e6, qui homo merus erat, quia Deus\nde facie ad faciem cum eo locutus est, vultum tam lucentem retulit, ut\nJud\u00e6i vererentur accedere: quanto igitur magis de ipsa divinitate hoc\ntenere oportet, atque Jesu faciem ob uno orbis cardine ad alterum\nfulgorem diffundere conveniebat? At non pr\u00e6ditus fuit ullo splendore,\nsed reliquis mortalibus fuit simillimus. Qua propter constat, non esse\nin eum credendum.\n\n[1558] From this parallel with the ascent of the mountain by Moses may\nperhaps be derived the interval\u2014the \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f13\u03be\u2014by which the two first\nEvangelists separate the present event from the discourses detailed in\nthe foregoing chapter. For the history of the adventures of Moses on\nthe mountain begins with a like statement of time, it being said that\nafter the cloud had covered the mountain six days, Moses was called to\nJehovah (v. 16). Although the point of departure was a totally\ndifferent one, this statement of time might be retained for the opening\nof the scene of transfiguration in the history of Jesus.\n\n[1559] Vide Bertholdt, Christologia Jud\u00e6orum, \u00a7 15, s. 60 ff.\n\n[1560] Debarim Rabba, iii. (Wetstein): Dixit Deus S. B. Mosi: per vitam\ntuam, quemadmodum vitam tuam posuisti pro Israelitis in hoc mundo, ita\ntempore futuro, quando Eliam prophetam ad ipsos mittam, vos quo eodem\ntempore venietis. Comp. Tanchuma f. xlii. 1, ap. Sch\u00f6ttgen 1, s. 149.\n\n[1561] This narrative is pronounced to be a mythus by De Wette, Kritik\nder mos. Gesch. s. 250; comp. exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 146 f.; Bertholdt,\nChristologia Jud. \u00a7 15, not. 17; Credner, Einleitung in das N. T. 1, s.\n241; Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendmahl, s. 319, at least admits that there is\nmore or less of the mythical in the various evangelical accounts of the\ntransfiguration, and Fritzsche, in Matt. p. 448 f. and 456 adduces the\nmythical view of this event not without signs of approval. Compare also\nKuin\u00f6l, in Matth., p. 459, and Gratz, 2, s. 161 ff.\n\n[1562] Plato also in the Symposion (p. 223, B. ff. Steph.), glorifies\nhis Socrates by arranging in a natural manner, and in a comic spirit, a\nsimilar group to that which the Evangelists here present in a\nsupernatural manner, and in a tragic spirit. After a bacchanalian\nentertainment, Socrates outwatches his friends, who lie sleeping around\nhim: as here the disciples around their master; with Socrates there are\nawake two noble forms alone, the tragic and the comic poet, the two\nelements of the early Grecian life, which Socrates united in himself:\nas, with Jesus, the lawgiver and prophet, the two pillars of the Old\nTestament economy, which in a higher manner were combined in Jesus;\nlastly, as in Plato both Agathon and Aristophanes at length sleep, and\nSocrates remains alone in possession of the field: so in the gospel,\nMoses and Elias at last vanish, and the disciples see Jesus left alone.\n\n[1563] Weisse, not satisfied with the interpretation found by me in the\nmythus, and labouring besides to preserve an historical foundation for\nthe narrative, understands it as a figurative representation in the\noriental manner, by one of the three eye-witnesses, of the light which\nat that time arose on them concerning the destination of Jesus, and\nespecially concerning his relation to the Old Testament theocracy and\nto the messianic prophecies. According to him, the high mountain\nsymbolizes the height of knowledge which the disciples then attained;\nthe metamorphosis of the form of Jesus, and the splendour of his\nclothes, are an image of their intuition of the spiritual messianic\nidea; the cloud which overshadowed the appearance, signifies the\ndimness and indefiniteness in which the new knowledge faded away, from\nthe inability of the disciples yet to retain it; the proposal of Peter\nto build tabernacles, is the attempt of this apostle at once to give a\nfixed dogmatical form to the sublime intuition. Weisse is fearful (s.\n543) that this his conception of the history of the transfiguration may\nalso be pronounced mythical: I think not; it is too manifestly\nallegorical.\n\n[1564] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 160.\n\n[1565] Kuin\u00f6l and Gratz, in loc.\n\n[1566] Thus e.g. Lightfoot, in loc.\n\n[1567] Wetstein, Olshausen, in loc., Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 164,\n214.\n\n[1568] Vid. De Wette, in loc.\n\n[1569] Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 415: Marcus Matth\u00e6i, xix. 1, se\nauctoritati h. l. adstringit, dicitque, Jesum e Galil\u00e6a (cf. ix. 33)\nprofectum esse per Peraeam. Sed auctore Luca, xvii. 11, in Jud\u00e6am\ncontendit per Samariam itinere brevissimo.\n\n[1570] Paulus, 2, s. 293, 554. Comp. Olshausen, 1, s. 583.\n\n[1571] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 159.\n\n[1572] Paulus, 2, s. 294 ff.\n\n[1573] Paulus, ut sup. 295 f., 584 f.\n\n[1574] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 161 f.; Sieffert, \u00fcber den Urspr., s.\n104 ff. With the former agrees, in relation to Luke, Olshausen, ut sup.\n\n[1575] Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh., s. 227; Olshausen, 1, s. 771 f.\n\n[1576] Tholuck and Olshausen, ut sup.\n\n[1577] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 92 ff., 98 ff.; Schleiermacher,\n\u00fcber den Lukas, s. 244 f.\n\n[1578] Schleiermacher, ut sup.\n\n[1579] Comp. L\u00fccke, 2, s. 432, Anm.\n\n[1580] Hase, L. J. \u00a7 124.\n\n[1581] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 172.\n\n[1582] Paulus, 3, a, s. 115; Kuin\u00f6l, in Matth., p. 541.\n\n[1583] Olshausen, 1, s. 776.\n\n[1584] Comm. in Matth., p. 630. His expedient is approved by De Wette,\nexeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 173.\n\n[1585] Paulus, ut sup. s. 143 f.\n\n[1586] Glassius, phil. sacr., p. 172. Thus also Kuin\u00f6l and Gratz, in\nloc.\n\n[1587] N. T. Gramm., s. 149.\n\n[1588] Eichhorn, allgem. Bibliothek, 5, s. 896 f.; comp. Bolten,\nBericht des Matth\u00e4us, s. 317 f.\n\n[1589] Vide Fritzsche, in loc. This is admitted by Neander also, s.\n550, Anm.\n\n[1590] Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendmahl, s. 310 f.; Sieffert, \u00fcber den\nUrspr., s. 107 f.\n\n[1591] That the above motive will not suffice to explain the conduct of\nJesus, Paulus has also felt; for only the despair on his part of\nfinding a more real and special motive, can account for his becoming in\nthis solitary instance mystical, and embracing the explanation of\nJustin Martyr, whom he elsewhere invariably attacks, as the author of\nthe perverted ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible. According to\nJustin, the ass designated \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b6\u03cd\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (that is under the yoke), is a\nsymbol of the Jews; the ass never yet ridden, of the Gentiles (Dial. c.\nTryph. 53); and Paulus, adopting this idea, endeavours to make it\nprobable that Jesus, by mounting an animal which had never before been\nridden, intended to announce himself as the founder and ruler of a new\nreligious community. Exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 116 ff.\n\n[1592] Nat\u00fcrliche Gesch. 3, s. 566 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 550,\nAnm.\n\n[1593] Weisse, s. 573.\n\n[1594] Apol. i. 32: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u1ff6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u2014\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. \u03c0\u1ff6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03b4\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f04\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Binding his colt to\na vine\u2014was a symbol indicative of what would happen to Christ; for\nthere stood at the entrance of a certain village, bound to a vine, an\nass\u2019s colt, which he ordered them to bring to him, etc.\n\n[1595] Vid. Sch\u00f6ttgen, hor\u00e6, ii. p. 146.\n\n[1596] Midrasch Rabba, f. xcviii.\n\n[1597] On account of this silence of the fourth Evangelist, even\nNeander (ut sup.) is in this instance inclined to admit, that a more\nsimple event, owing to the disproportionate importance subsequently\nattached to it, was unhistorically modified.\n\n[1598] Comp. Paulus, in loc.\n\n[1599] The citation given by Matthew is a combination of a passage from\nIsaiah with that of Zechariah. For the words Tell ye the daughter of\nZion, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd, are from Isa. lxii. 11; the rest from\nZechariah ix. 9, where the LXX. has with some divergency: \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u1f41\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u1fe2\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u1f7c\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b6\u03cd\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1600] Hitzig, \u00fcber die Abfassungszeit der Orakel, Zach. ix.\u2013xiv. in\nthe Theol. Studien, 1830, 1, s. 36 ff. refers the preceding verse to\nthe warlike deeds of this king, and the one in question to his pacific\nvirtues.\n\n[1601] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 121 ff.\n\n[1602] Rosenm\u00fcller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, s. 274 ff.\n\n[1603] In the passage cited Introd., \u00a7 14, from Midrasch Coheleth, the\ndescription, pauper et insidens asino in Zechariah, is in the very\nfirst instance referred to the Go\u00ebl postremus. This ass of the Messiah\nwas held identical with that of Abraham and Moses, vid. Jalkut Rubeni\nf. lxxix. 3, 4, ap. Sch\u00f6ttgen, i. s. 169; comp. Eisenmenger, entdecktes\nJudenthum, 2, s. 697 f.\n\n[1604] Sanhedrin f. xcviii. 1 (ap. Wetstein): Dixit R. Alexander: R.\nJosua f. Levi duobus inter se collatis locis tanquam contrariis visis\nobjecit: scribitur Dan. vii. 13: et ecce cum nubibus c\u0153li velut filius\nhominis venit. Et scribitur Zach. ix. 9: pauper et insidens asino.\nVerum h\u00e6c duo loca ita inter se conciliari possunt: nempe, si justitia\nsua mereantur Isra\u00eblit\u00e6, Messias veniet cum nubibus c\u0153li: si autem non\nmereantur, veniet pauper, et vehetur asino.\n\n[1605] His predictions concerning particular circumstances of his\npassion, uttered shortly before its occurrence, in the last days of his\nlife, can only be considered farther on, in the history of those days.\n\n[1606] Comp. Olshausen, bibl. Comm., 1, s. 528.\n\n[1607] Gesenius, Jesaias, iii. 137 ff.; Hitzig, Comm. zu Jes., s. 550.\n\n[1608] Gesenius, ut sup. s. 158 ff.; Hitzig, s. 577 ff.; Vatke, bibl.\nTheol. 1, s. 528 ff.\n\n[1609] De Wette, Comm. zu den Psalmen, s. 514 ff.; 3te Aufl.\n\n[1610] Ibid. s. 224 ff.\n\n[1611] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 677 ff., and De Wette in loc.\n\n[1612] See this view developed by Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc, p. 381 f.\n\n[1613] Vid. Fritzsche, ut sup.\n\n[1614] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 415 ff.; Ammon, bibl. Theol. 2, s.\n377 f.; Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 246. Fritzsche also, ut sup. and\nWeisse, 1, s. 423, partly admit this.\n\n[1615] Bertholdt, Einleitung in d. N. T. 1305 ff.; Wegscheider, Einl.\nin das Evang. Johannis, s. 271 f.\n\n[1616] Daniel, \u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt von Bertholdt, 2, s. 541 ff., 660\nff.; Rosenm\u00fcller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, p. 339 ff.\n\n[1617] De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. Theol., p.\n130; Hase, L. J. \u00a7 06.\n\n[1618] Vom Zweck Jesu und seiner Junger, s. 114 ff. 153 f.\n\n[1619] Ueber den Zweck und die Wirkungen des Todes Jesu, in the\nG\u00f6ttingischen Bibliothek, 1, 4, s. 252 ff.\n\n[1620] See the list in De Wette, ut sup. s. 6 ff. The most important\nvoices for the existence of the idea in question in the time of Jesus,\nhave been noticed by St\u00e4udlin in the above treatise, 1, s. 233 ff., and\nby Hengstenberg, Christologie des A. T., 1, a, s. 270 ff., b, s, 290\nff; for the opposite opinion, by De Wette, ut sup. p. 1 ff.\n\n[1621] Comp. De Wette, bibl. Dogm, \u00a7 201 f.; Baumgarten Crusius, bibl.\nTheol. \u00a7 54.\n\n[1622] Vid. De Wette, ut sup. \u00a7 189 ff.\n\n[1623] Comp. De Wette, ut sup. \u00a7 193.\n\n[1624] Gfr\u00f6rer, Philo, 1, s. 495 ff.\n\n[1625] A passage to this effect out of the law (\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) properly so\ncalled, would be difficult to find: De Wette, de morte, p. 72, refers\nto Isa. ix. 5; L\u00fccke, in loc. to Ps. cx. 4; Dan. vii. 14, ii. 44.\n\n[1626] Vom Zweck Jesu und seiner J\u00fcnger, s. 179 f.\n\n[1627] Vid. De Wette, de morte Chr. p. 73 f.\n\n[1628] Comp. Gesenius, Jesaias 2, Th. s. 66; De Wette, Einleitung in\ndas A. T. \u00a7 59, 3te Ausg.\n\n[1629]\n\nLiteral translation according to Targum of Jonathan: Quemadmodum\nHitzig, lii. 14:\u2014As many were per multos dies ipsum exspect\u00e2runt\namazed at him, so disfigured, not Isra\u00eblitae, quorum contabuit inter\nhuman, was his appearance, and his gentes adspectus et splendor (et\nform not that of the children of evanuit) e filiis hominum, etc.\nmen, etc.\n\nliii. 4:\u2014But he bore our Idcirco pro delictis nostris ipse\ninfirmities, and charged himself deprecabitur, et iniquitates\nwith our sorrows, and we esteemed nostr\u00e6 propter eum condonabuntur,\nhim stricken, smitten of God and licet nos reputati simus contusi,\nafflicted. plagis affecti et afflicti.\n\nOrigen also relates, c. Celsus, i. 55, how a person esteemed a wise man\namong the Jews, \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2, maintained, in\nopposition to his Christian interpretation of the passage in Isaiah,\nthat this was prophesied concerning the whole nation, which had been\ndispersed and afflicted, in order that many might become proselytes,\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f33\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1630] Vid. Sch\u00f6ttgen, 2, s. 182 f.; Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenthum,\n2, s. 758.\n\n[1631] Ap. Sch\u00f6ttgen, 2 s. 181 f.\n\n[1632] De Wette, de morte Chr. expiatoria, ut sup. s. 50.\n\n[1633] vii. 29.\n\n[1634] Sch\u00f6ttgen, 2, s. 509 ff.; Schmidt, Christologische Fragmente, in\nhis Bibliothek, 1, s. 24 ff.; Bertholdt, Christol. Jud., \u00a7 13.\n\n[1635] Schmidt, ut sup.; Bertholdt, ut sup., \u00a7 16.\n\n[1636] Pesikta in Abkath Rochel, ap. Schmidt, s. 48 f.\n\n[1637] Sohar, P. II. lxxxv. 2, ap. Schmidt, \u00a7 47 f.\n\n[1638] Gemara Sanhedrin, f. xcviii. 1; ap. De Wette, de morte Chr., p.\n95 f., and ap. Hengstenberg, s. 292.\n\n[1639] Sohar, P. II. f. lxxx. ii. 2; ap. De Wette, s. 94: Cum Isra\u00eblit\u00e6\nessent in terra sancta, per cultus religiosos et sacrificia qu\u00e6\nfaciebanto, omnes illos morbos et p\u0153nas e mundo, sustulerunt; nunc vero\nMessias debet auferre eas ab hominibus.\n\n[1640] Vid. Bertholdt, ut sup. \u00a7 17.\n\n[1641] De Wette, de morte Chr., p. 112; comp. 53 ff.\n\n[1642] Hase, L. J. \u00a7 108.\n\n[1643] Ibid.\n\n[1644] Ibid. and \u00a7 109.\n\n[1645] See his animated and impressive treatise, vom Zweck, u. s. f.,\ns. 121 ff. Comp. Briefe \u00fcber den Rationalismus, s. 224 ff., and De\nWette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 143.\n\n[1646] Thus especially Herder, vom Erl\u00f6ser der Menschen, s. 133 ff.\nBriefe \u00fcber den Rationalismus, s. 227. Comp. Kuin\u00f6l, Comm. in Matth.,\np. 444 f.\n\n[1647] LXX.: \u1f51\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n[1648] Comp. S\u00fcskind, einige Bemerkungen \u00fcber die Frage, ob Jesus seine\nAuferstehung bestimmt vorhergesagt habe? in Flatt\u2019s Magazin, 7, s. 203\nff.\n\n[1649] Paulus, ut sup. 2, s. 415 ff.; Hase, L. J. \u00a7 109.\n\n[1650] E.g. L\u00fccke, 1, s. 426; comp., on the contrary, Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1651] Vid. Tholuck, ut sup.\n\n[1652] Henke, Joannes apostolus nonnullorum Jesu apophthegmatum in\nevang. suo et ipse interpres. In Pott\u2019s and Ruperti\u2019s Sylloge Comm.\ntheol. 1, s. 9; Gabler, Recension des Henke\u2019schen Programms im neuesten\ntheol. Journal, 2, 1, s. 88; L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[1653] Thus, besides Henke in the above Programm, Herder, von Gottes\nSohn nach Johannes Evang., s. 135 f.; Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 165 f.; L. J.\n1, a, s. 173 f.; L\u00fccke, and De Wette, in loc.\n\n[1654] Storr, in Flatt\u2019s Magazin, 4, s. 199.\n\n[1655] Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.\n\n[1656] Hence Neander remains suspended in indecision between the two,\ns. 395 f.\n\n[1657] Thus Kern, die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch., T\u00fcb.\nZeitschrift, 1836, 2, s. 128.\n\n[1658] Thus Olshausen.\n\n[1659] Kern says, indeed, that a similar doubleness of meaning is found\nelsewhere in significant discourse; but he refrains from adducing an\nexample.\n\n[1660] Probab., p. 23 ff.\n\n[1661] Comp. Neander, s. 396, Anm.\n\n[1662] Paulus, exeg. Handb. in loc.\n\n[1663] Comp. Fritzsche and Olshausen, in loc.\n\n[1664] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 97 ff. Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendm., s.\n317 f.\n\n[1665] S\u00fcskind, ut sup. s. 184 ff.\n\n[1666] Vid. L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[1667] Vid. de Wette, Comm. \u00fcber die Psalmen, s. 178.\n\n[1668] Compare, on the import and connexion of this discourse,\nFritzsche, in Matth., p. 695 ff; De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 197\nff; Weizel, die unchristliche Unsterblichkeitslehre, in the theol.\nStudien und Kritiken, 1836, s. 599 ff.\u2014In agreement with these\ncommentators I append the following division of the passage in Matthew:\n\nI. Signs of the end, \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, xxiv. 4\u201314.\n\n a. More remote signs, the beginning of sorrows, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u1f60\u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\n 4\u20138.\n b. More immediate signs, the actual sorrows, 9\u201314.\n\nII. The end, \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, itself, xxiv. 15\u201325, 46.\n\n a. Its commencement with the destruction of Jerusalem, and\n the great tribulation \u03b8\u03bb\u1fd6\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 which accompanies it, 15\u201328.\n b. Its culminating point: the advent of the Messiah, together\n with the assembling of his elect, 29\u201331. (Here follow\n retrospective observations and warnings, xxiv. 32-xxv. 30.)\n c. Close of the \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 with the messianic judgment, 31\u201346.\n\n[1669] Vom Zweck Jesu und seiner J\u00fcnger, s. 184, 201 ff., 207 ff.\n\n[1670] The former adv. h\u00e6res. v. 25; the latter, Comm. in Matth. in\nloc. Compare on the different interpretations of this passage the list\nin Schott, Commentarius in eos J. Chr. sermones, qui de reditu ejus ad\njudicium\u2014agunt, p. 73 ff.\n\n[1671] Bahrdt., Uebersetzung des N. T., 1, s. 1103, 3te Ausg.;\nEckermann, Handb. der Glaubenslehre, 2, s. 579, 3, s. 427, 437, 709 ff;\nand others in Schott, ut sup.\n\n[1672] This is the opinion of Lightfoot, in loc., Flatt, Comm. de\nnotione vocis \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, in Velthusen\u2019s und A. Sammlung 2,\n461 ff.; Jahn, Erkl\u00e4rung der Weissagungen Jesu von der Zerst\u00f6rung\nJerusalems u. s. w., in Bengel\u2019s Archiv. 2, 1, s. 79 ff., and others,\ncited in Schott, s. 75 f.\n\n[1673] Thus especially Jahn, in the treatise above cited.\n\n[1674] Kern, Hauptthatsachen der evang. Geschichte, T\u00fcb. Zeitschr.\n1836, 2, s. 140 ff.\n\n[1675] Thus Storr, Opusc. acad. 3, s. 34 ff.; Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3,\na, s. 346 f. 402 f.\n\n[1676] Ut sup. s. 188.\n\n[1677] Storr, ut sup. s. 39, 116 ff.\n\n[1678] Paulus, in loc.\n\n[1679] Vid. Kuin\u00f6l in Matt., s. 649.\n\n[1680] Comp. the Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist, ut sup. s. 190 ff. Schott,\nut sup. s. 127 ff.\n\n[1681] Kern, ut sup. s. 141 f. That Jesus conceived the epoch at which\nhe spoke to be separated from the end of the world by a far longer\ninterval than would elapse before the destruction of Jerusalem, Kern\nthinks he can prove in the shortest way from v. 14, of the 24th chapter\nof Matthew, where Jesus says, And this gospel of the kingdom shall be\npreached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then\nshall the end come. For such a promulgation of Christianity, he thinks,\nit is \u201cbeyond contradiction\u201d that a far longer space of time than these\nfew lustrums would be requisite. As it happens, the apostle Paul\nhimself presents the contradiction, when he represents the gospel as\nhaving been already preached to that extent before the destruction of\nJerusalem, e.g. Col. i. 5: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, (6) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u2014\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3\u2014(23)\u2014\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd. Comp.\nRom. x. 13.\n\n[1682] The former is chosen by S\u00fcskind, vermischte Aufs\u00e4tze, s. 90 ff.;\nthe latter by Kuin\u00f6l, in Matth., p. 653 ff.\n\n[1683] See his Commentarius, in loc.\n\n[1684] Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 315 f.\n\n[1685] Ueber den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evangel., s. 119 ff. Also\nWeisse, ut sup.\n\n[1686] Ueber den Lukas, s. 215 ff., 265 ff. Here also his opinion is\napproved by Neander, s. 562.\n\n[1687] Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 865; Kern, ut sup. s. 138 ff. Comp.\nSteudel Glaubensl. s. 479 ff.\n\n[1688] [\u201cDie Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht:\u201d Schiller. Tr.]\n\n[1689] Comp. especially Weizel, die Zeit des j\u00fcngsten Tags u. s. f. in\nden Studien der evang. Geistlichkeit W\u00fcrtembergs, 9, 2, s. 140 ff., 154\nff.\n\n[1690] According to Kern, the appearing of the Son of Man in the\nclouds, signifies \u201cthe manifestation of everything which forms so great\nan epoch in the development of the history of mankind, that from it,\nthe agency of Christ, who is the governing power in the history of\nmankind, may be as clearly recognised as if the sign of Christ were\nseen in the heavens. The mourning of all the tribes of the earth is to\nbe understood of the sorrow with which men will be visited, owing to\nthe judgment, \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, which accompanies the propagation of the kingdom\nof Christ, as consisting in an expulsion of ungodliness out of the\nworld, and the annihilation of the old man.\u201d Still further does Weisse\nallow himself to be carried away by the allegorizing propensity: Christ\n\u201ccommiserates those who are with child and who give suck, i.e. those\nwho would still labour and produce in the old order of things; he\nfurther pities those whose flight falls in the winter, i.e. in a rude,\ninhospitable period, which bears no fruit for the spirit.\u201d (Die evang.\nGesch. 2, s. 592.)\n\n[1691] Hengstenberg, Christologie des A. T., 1, a, s. 305 ff.\n\n[1692] Exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 403. Comp. also Kern, Hauptthatsachen, ut\nsup. s. 137.\n\n[1693] Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 865 ff.\n\n[1694] Ueber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 119. Weisse advances a similar\nopinion, ut sup.\n\n[1695] Compare also my Streitschriften, 1, 1, conclusion.\n\n[1696] Comp. e.g. Gratz, Comm. zum Matth. 2, 444 ff.\n\n[1697] Antiq. xx. viii. 6 (comp. bell. jud. ii. xiii. 4.): And now\nthese impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them\ninto the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest\nwonders and signs that should be performed by the providence of God.\nAnd many that were prevailed on by them, suffered the punishments of\ntheir folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them.\n\n[1698] Bell. jud. v. xii. 1, 2.\n\n[1699] More ample comparisons of the results mentioned by Josephus and\nothers, with the prophecy, see in Credner, Einleit. in das N. T. 1, s.\n207.\n\n[1700] Bertholdt, Daniel \u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt, 2, s. 668 ff.; Paulus,\nexeg. Handb. 3, a, s, 340 f.; De Wette, Einleit. in das A. T., \u00a7 254\nff.\n\n[1701] Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 247; Credner, Einl. in das N. T. 1,\ns. 206 f.\n\n[1702] De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., \u00a7 97, 101. Exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s.\n204, 1, 2, s. 103.\n\n[1703] Paulus, Fritzsche, De Wette in loc.\n\n[1704] B. j. V. xii. 1: To encompass the whole city round with his\narmy, was not very easy, by reason of its magnitude and the difficulty\nof the situation; and on other accounts dangerous.\n\n[1705] B. j. V. xi. 1 ff, xii. 1.\n\n[1706] Vid. Sch\u00f6ttgen, 2, s. 509 ff.; Bertholdt, \u00a7 13; Schmidt,\nBiblioth. 1, s. 24 ff.\n\n[1707] Vid. Sch\u00f6ttgen, 2, s. 525 f.\n\n[1708] Antiq. X. xi. 7. After having interpreted the little horn of\nAntiochus, he briefly adds: In the very same manner Daniel also wrote\nconcerning the government of the Romans, and that our country should be\nmade desolate by them. He doubtless supposed that the fourth, iron\nmonarchy, Dan. ii. 40, represented the Romans, since, besides\nattributing it to a dominion over all the earth, he explains its\ndestruction by the stone as something still future, Ant. X. x. 4:\nDaniel did also declare the meaning of the stone to the King; but I do\nnot think proper to relate it, since I have only undertaken to describe\nthings past or things present, but not things that are future. Now\nDaniel ii. 44 interprets the stone to mean the heavenly kingdom, which\nwould destroy the iron one, but would itself endure for ever,\u2014a\nmessianic particular, on which Josephus does not choose to dilate. But\nthat, correctly interpreted, the iron legs of the image signify the\nMacedonian empire, and the feet of iron mixed with clay, the Syrian\nempire which sprang out of the Macedonian, see De Wette, Einleit. in\ndas N. T., \u00a7 254.\n\n[1709] Vid. Joseph., Antiq. xii. v.\n\n[1710] Vid. Hase, L. J., \u00a7 130.\n\n[1711] The passages bearing on this subject are collected and explained\nin Schott, Commentarius, etc., p. 364 ff. Comp. L\u00fccke, in loc. and\nWeizel, urchristl. Unsterblichkeitslehre, in the Theol. Studien, 1836,\ns. 626 ff.\n\n[1712] Vid. Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1713] Comp. Tholuck, ut sup.\n\n[1714] Thus L\u00fccke, and also Tholuck, in loc.; Schott, p. 409.\n\n[1715] Olshausen, 1, s. 870.\n\n[1716] Fleck, de regno divino, p. 483.\n\n[1717] Winer\u2019s bibl. Realw\u00f6rterb.\n\n[1718] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Urspr., s. 9 f. L\u00fccke, 1, s. 133, 159,\n2, s. 402.\n\n[1719] Comp. besides the critics above cited, Hug, Enleit. in das N. T.\n2, s. 215.\n\n[1720] For the most correct views on this point see L\u00fccke, 2, s. 407\nff.\n\n[1721] As the author of the Probabilia thinks, s. 94.\n\n[1722] Hug, ut sup. s. 221.\n\n[1723] Kuin\u00f6l, in loc.\n\n[1724] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 579 f.\n\n[1725] L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[1726] Lightfoot, in loc.\n\n[1727] Probabil. ut sup.\n\n[1728] Vol. II. \u00a7 62.\n\n[1729] Olshausen gives us more precise information concerning the\ndescent of the traitor, when he says (bibl. Comm. 2, s. 458 Anm.):\n\u201cPerhaps the passage, Gen. xlix. 17, Dan shall be a serpent, an adder\nin the path, that biteth the horse\u2019s heels, so that his rider shall\nfall backward, is a prophetic intimation of the treachery of Judas,\nwhence we might conclude that he was of the tribe of Dan.\u201d\n\n[1730] That, according to the account in John, Judas first went to the\nchief priests from the meal, is acknowledged by Lightfoot also (hor\u00e6,\np. 465), but he on this account regards the meal described by John as\nearlier than the synoptical one.\n\n[1731] Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 484.\n\n[1732] Vol. II. \u00a7 89.\n\n[1733] See these and the following reasons in Olshausen, 2, s. 458 ff.\n\n[1734] Olshausen, ut sup.\n\n[1735] Such an argument may be gathered from what Olshausen says, 2, s.\n387, 388.\n\n[1736] Ueber den Lukas, s. 88.\n\n[1737] Orig. c. Cels., ii. 11 f.\n\n[1738] Comp. Probabil., p. 139.\n\n[1739] Still farther back we find, not the knowledge of Jesus\nconcerning his betrayer, but an important meeting between them, in the\napocryphal Evangelium infanti\u00e6 arabicum, c. xxxv. ap. Fabricius 1, p.\n197 f., ap. Thilo, 1, p. 108 f. Here a demoniacal boy, who in his\nattacks bit violently at everything around him, is brought to the child\nJesus, attempts to bite him, and because he cannot reach him with his\nteeth gives him a blow on the right side, whereupon the child Jesus\nweeps, while Satan comes out of the boy in the form of a furious dog.\nHic autem puer, qui Jesum percussit et ex quo Satanas sub forma canis\nexivit, fuit Judas Ischariotes, qui illum Jud\u00e6is prodidit.\n\n[1740] Iren. adv. h\u00e6r. I. 35: Judam proditorem\u2014solum pr\u00e6 ceteris\ncognoscentem veritatem perfecisse proditionis mysterium, per quem et\nterrena et c\u00e6lestia omnia dissoluta dicunt. Epiphan. xxxviii. 3: Some\nCainites say, that Judas betrayed Jesus because he regarded him as a\nwicked man \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, who meant to destroy the good law: \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f64\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u1fc7\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff7, \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f64\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[1741] Theophylact, in Matth. xxvii. 4.\n\n[1742] Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 249. Klopstock gives a similar\nrepresentation in his Messias.\n\n[1743] K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beitr\u00e4ge, 1, Thl. 2ter Versuch, s. 18\nff.; comp. Schmidt\u2019s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 163 ff.\n\n[1744] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 451 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 143 ff.;\nHase, L. J., \u00a7 132. Comp. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, \u00a7 33.\n\n[1745] Schmidt, ut sup.\n\n[1746] Hase.\n\n[1747] Paulus.\n\n[1748] Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 578 f.\n\n[1749] Vol. II. \u00a7 88; comp. Hase, ut sup.\n\n[1750] [The German Thaler (Rixthaler) is equivalent to about three\nshillings. Tr.]\n\n[1751] Rosenm\u00fcller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, s. 318 ff.\n\n[1752] Even Neander thinks this a possible origin of the above\nstatement in the first gospel, s. 574, Anm.\n\n[1753] L. J. Chr., s. 573.\n\n[1754] Comp. also Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 759 f.\n\n[1755] Ueber die Anordnung des letzten Paschamahls Jesu, in his neust.\ntheol. Journal, 2, 5, s. 441 ff.\n\n[1756] Bell. jud. vi. ix. 3.\n\n[1757] Thus Gabler, ut sup.; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b, s. 781; Kern,\nHauptthatsachen, T\u00fcb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 3 f.; Neander, s. 583.\n\n[1758] Beza, in Matth. xxvi. 18, correctly, save that he supposes too\nspecial a reference to the approaching sufferings of Jesus, thus\nrepresents the object of this prediction: ut magis ac magis\nintelligerent discipuli, nihil temere in urbe magistro eventurum, sed\nqu\u00e6 ad minutissimas usque circumstantias penitus perspecta haberet.\n\n[1759] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 385 f. Comp. in opposition to this De Wette,\nin loc.\n\n[1760] Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendmahl, s. 321; Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den\nLukas, s. 280; Weisse, die evang. Gesch., s. 600 f.\n\n[1761] Vid. Theile, \u00fcber die letzte Mahlzeit Jesu, in Winer\u2019s and\nEngelhardt\u2019s neuem krit. Journal, 2, s. 169, Anm., and zur Biographie\nJesu, \u00a7 31.\n\n[1762] Thus Lightfoot, hor\u00e6, p. 463 ff.; Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 2, s.\n273 ff.; also Venturini 3, s. 634 ff.\n\n[1763] An insufficient outlet from this difficulty is pointed out by\nLightfoot, p. 482 f.\n\n[1764] Fragm. ex Claudii Apollinaris libro de Paschate, in Chron.\nPaschal, ed. du Fresne. Paris, 1688, p. 6 f. pr\u00e6f.\n\n[1765] See especially Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.; Kern,\nHauptthatsachen, T\u00fcb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 5 ff.\n\n[1766] Diss. de ver\u00e2 notione c\u0153n\u00e6 Domini, annexed to Cudworth, syst.\nintell., p. 22, not. 1.\n\n[1767] See these counter observations particularly in L\u00fccke and de\nWette, in loc.; in Sieffert \u00fcber den Ursprung, s. 127 ff., and Winer,\nbibl. Realw\u00f6rterb. 2, s. 238 ff.\n\n[1768] Antiq. II. xiv. 16.\n\n[1769] Fritzsche, vom Osterlamm; more recently, Rauch, in the theol.\nStudien und Kritiken, 1832, 3, s. 537 f.\n\n[1770] Comp. De Wette, theol. Studien und Krit. 1834, 4, s. 939 f.;\nTholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 245 f.; Winer, ut sup.\n\n[1771] Calvin, in Matth. xxvi. 17.\n\n[1772] Grotius, in Matth. xxvi. 18.\n\n[1773] Iken, Diss. philol. theol., vol. 2, p. 416 ff.\n\n[1774] Vid. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 486 ff.\n\n[1775] Michaelis, Anm. zu Joh. 13.\n\n[1776] Sieffert, ut sup.; Hase, L. J., \u00a7 124; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1,\n3, s. 149 ff; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, \u00a7 31.\n\n[1777] Theile, in Winer\u2019s Krit. Journal, 2, s. 157 ff.; Sieffert and\nL\u00fccke, ut sup.\n\n[1778] Pesachin f. lxv. 2, ap. Lightfoot, p. 654: Paschate primo\ntenetur quispiam ad pernoctationem. Gloss.: Paschatizans tenetur ad\npernoctandum in Hierosolyma nocte prima. On the other hand, Tosaphoth\nad tr. Pesachin 8: In Paschate Aegyptiaco dicitur: nemo exeat\u2014usque ad\nmane. Sed sic non fuit in sequentibus generationibus,\u2014quibus\ncomedebatur id uno loco et pernoctabant in alio. Comp. Schneckenburger,\nBeitr\u00e4ge, s. 9.\n\n[1779] Tract. Sanhedr. f. lxxxix. 1, ap. Sch\u00f6ttgen, i. p. 221; comp.\nPaulus, ut sup. s. 492.\n\n[1780] Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763 f.; comp. 755; L\u00fccke, 2, s. 614.\n\n[1781] Sanhedr. f. xliii. 1, ap. Sch\u00f6ttgen, ii. p. 700.\n\n[1782] Ueber die urspr\u00fcngliche Bedeutung des Passahfestes u. s. w.,\nT\u00fcbinger Zeitschrift f. Theol. 1832, 1, s. 90 ff.\n\n[1783] Ut sup. s. 167 ff.\n\n[1784] Sieffert, ut sup. s. 144 ff.; L\u00fccke, s. 628 ff.; Theile, zur\nBiogr. Jesu, \u00a7 31; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff.; comp.\nNeander, L. J. Chr., s. 580 ff. Anm.\n\n[1785] Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763; Kern, \u00fcber den Urspr. des Ev.\nMatth. in der T\u00fcb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 98.\n\n[1786] Comp. Suicer, thesaur. 2, s. 613.\n\n[1787] Another view as to the cause of the error in the fourth gospel\nis given in the Probabilia, s. 100 ff.; comp. Weisse, die evang. Gesch.\n1, s. 446 f. Anm.\n\n[1788] Paulus, 3, b, s. 499; Olshausen, 2, s. 294.\n\n[1789] L\u00fccke, 2, s. 484 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 583, Anm.\n\n[1790] Olshausen, ut sup.\n\n[1791] Sieffert, \u00fcber den Urspr., s. 152.\n\n[1792] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 310, 381 f.\n\n[1793] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 497.\n\n[1794] Meyer, Comm. \u00fcber den Joh., in loc.\n\n[1795] L. J. Chr., s. 587, Anm.\n\n[1796] Sieffert, s. 152 ff.\n\n[1797] Comp. L\u00fccke, s. 468.\n\n[1798] Die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch. T\u00fcb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s.\n12.\n\n[1799] Hase, L. J., \u00a7 133; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, s. 11; Theile, zur\nBiographie Jesu, \u00a7 31.\n\n[1800] Sieffert, s. 153; Paulus and Olshausen, in loc. For the opposite\nopinion comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 222, 1, 2, s. 107.\n\n[1801] Vol. II. \u00a7 83.\n\n[1802] The conjecture as to the origin of this anecdote in the\nProbabilia, s. 70 f. is too far-fetched.\n\n[1803] Comp. De Wette, in loc.\n\n[1804] Ueber den Lukas, s. 275.\n\n[1805] Olshausen, 2, s. 380.\n\n[1806] Thus L\u00fccke, Paulus, Olshausen.\n\n[1807] Kuin\u00f6l, in Matth., p. 707.\n\n[1808] This is Olshausen\u2019s expedient, 2, s. 402. Against it see\nSieffert, s. 148. f.\n\n[1809] Ut sup. s. 147 ff.\n\n[1810] Comm. \u00fcber die Gesch. des Leidens und Todes Jesu, in loc.\n\n[1811] See De Wette, in loc.\n\n[1812] Vid. L\u00fccke and Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1813] P. 62: reliqui quidem narrant evangelist\u00e6 servatorem scivisse\nproditionis consilium, nee impedivisse; ipsum vero excit\u00e2sse Judam ad\nproditionem nemo eorum dicit, neque convenit hoc Jesu.\n\n[1814] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 538. L. J. 1, b, s. 192. Hase, L.\nJ., \u00a7 137.\n\n[1815] Comp. Lightfoot and Paulus, in loc.\n\n[1816] Comp. on this subject especially, Lightfoot, hor\u00e6, p. 474 ff.,\nand Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 511 ff.\n\n[1817] S\u00fcskind, in the treatise: Hat Jesus das Abendmahl als einen\nmnemonischen Ritus angeordnet? in his Magazin 11, s. 1 ff.\n\n[1818] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 527.\n\n[1819] Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 217 ff.\n\n[1820] Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 2, a, s. 39; Stephani, das h. Abendmahl, s.\n61.\n\n[1821] Vol. II. \u00a7 81.\n\n[1822] Paulus, ut sup. s. 519 ff.; Kaiser, ut sup. s. 37 ff.\n\n[1823] Orig. c. Cels. ii. 24: \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 (\u1f41 \u039a\u03ad\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2)\u00b7 \u03c4\u03af \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f40\u03b4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f40\u03bb\u03ad\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.:\nHe says (i.e. Celsus): Why then does he supplicate help, and bewail\nhimself, and pray for escape from the fear of death, saying, etc.\nJulian, in a Fragment of Theodore of Mopsuestia, ap. M\u00fcnter, Fragm.\nPatr. gr\u00e6c. Fasc. 1, p. 121: \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c6\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f41 \u1f38.,\n\u03bf\u1f36\u03b1 \u1f04\u03b8\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Jesus, says he, also presents such\npetitions as a wretched mortal would offer, when unable to bear a\ncalamity with serenity; and although divine, he is strengthened by an\nangel.\n\n[1824] Gramond. hist. Gall. ab. exc. Henr. IV. L. iii. p. 211: Lucilius\nVanini\u2014dum in patibulum trahitur\u2014Christo illudit in h\u00e6c eadem verba:\nilli in extremis pr\u00e6 timore imbellis sudor: ego imperterritus morior.\n\n[1825] Evang. Nicod. c. xx. ap. Thilo, 1, s. 702 ff.: \u1f10\u03b3\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f25\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[1826] Ibid. s. 706. Hades replies to Satan: \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f25\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03be\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf, \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c3\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc7.\n\n[1827] Orig. c. Cels. ii. 25.\n\n[1828] Hieron. Comm. in Matth. in loc.: Contristabatur non timore\npatiendi, qui ad hoc venerat, ut pateretur, sed propter infelicissimum\nJudam, et scandalum omnium apostolorum, et rejectionem populi Jud\u00e6orum,\net eversionem miser\u00e6 Hierusalem.\n\n[1829] Calvin, Comm. in harm. evangg. Matth. xxvi. 37: Non\u2014mortem\nhorruit simpliciter, quatenus transitus est e mundo sed quia\nformidabile Dei tribunal illi erat ante oculos, judex ipse\nincomprehensibili vindicta armatus, peccata vero nostra, quorum onus\nilli erat impositum, sua ingenti mole eum premebant. Comp. Luther\u2019s\nHauspostille, die erste Passionspredigt.\n\n[1830] Lightfoot, p. 884 f.\n\n[1831] Thiess, Krit. Comm. s. 418 ff.\n\n[1832] Ut sup. s. 549, 554 f., Anm.\n\n[1833] Schuster, zur Erl\u00e4uterung des N. T., in Eichhorn\u2019s Biblioth. 9,\ns. 1012 ff.\n\n[1834] Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 2, s. 322 ff.; Kuin\u00f6l, in Matth., p. 719.\n\n[1835] Ullmann, \u00fcber die Uns\u00fcndlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, s. 61.\nHasert, ib. 3, 1, s. 66 ff.\n\n[1836] Ullmann, ut sup.\n\n[1837] Hasert, ut sup.\n\n[1838] Luther, in der Predigt vom Leiden Christi im Garten.\n\n[1839] Ambrosius in Luc., Tom. x. 56.\n\n[1840] In Matthaei\u2019s N. T., p. 447.\n\n[1841] Lightfoot, ut sup.\n\n[1842] Venturini, 3, 677, and conjecturally Paulus also, s. 561.\n\n[1843] Eichhorn, allg. Bibl. 1, s. 628; Thiess, in loc.\n\n[1844] Comp. on this subject and the following, Gabler, neust. theol.\nJournal, 1, 2, s. 109 ff. 3, s. 217 ff.\n\n[1845] Comp. Julian, ap. Theod. of Mopsuestia in M\u00fcnter\u2019s Fragm. Patr.\n1, p. 121 f.\n\n[1846] Ueber den Lukas, s. 288; comp. De Wette, in loc. and Theile,\nzur. Biogr. Jesu, \u00a7 32. Neander also appears willing silently to\nabandon this trait and the following one.\n\n[1847] Ancoratus, 31.\n\n[1848] Vid. Wetstein, s. 807.\n\n[1849] De part. animal. iii. 15.\n\n[1850] Vid. ap. Michaelis, not. in loc., and Kuin\u00f6l, in Luc., p. 691 f.\n\n[1851] Paulus, ut sup. s. 549.\n\n[1852] Theile, in Winer\u2019s and Engelhardt\u2019s krit. Journal, 2, s. 353;\nNeander, L. J. Chr., s. 616 f.\n\n[1853] Comp. Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 611.\n\n[1854] Olshausen, 2, s. 429.\n\n[1855] L\u00fccke, 2, s. 591.\n\n[1856] Schneckenburger, Beitr\u00e4ge, s. 65 f.\n\n[1857] Comm. 1, s. 177 f.\n\n[1858] L\u00fccke, 2, s. 392 ff.\n\n[1859] Olshausen, 2, s. 429 f.\n\n[1860] Commentatio critica, qua Evangelium Joannis genuinum\nesse\u2014ostenditur, p. 57 ff.\n\n[1861] Probab. p. 33 ff.\n\n[1862] Goldhorn, \u00fcber das Schweigen des Joh. Evangeliums \u00fcber den\nSeelenkampf Jesu in Gethsemane, in Tzschirner\u2019s Magazin. f. christl.\nPrediger, 1, 2, s. 1 ff.\n\n[1863] Vid. the Review of Usteri\u2019s Comm. crit., in Winer\u2019s and\nEngelhardt\u2019s n. krit. Journal, 2, s. 359 ff.\n\n[1864] Hase, L. J., \u00a7 134; L\u00fccke, 2, s. 591 f., Anm.\n\n[1865] Against the offence which it has pleased Tholuck (Glaubw. s. 41)\nto take at this expression (Verwischen), comp. the Aphorismen zur\nApologie des Dr. Strauss und seines Werkes, s. 69 f.\n\n[1866] L. J. 1, b, s. 165 f.\n\n[1867] Vom Zweck J. und seiner J\u00fcnger, s. 124.\n\n[1868] 2, s. 588 f.\n\n[1869] Ut sup.\n\n[1870] Vid. L\u00fccke, in loc.; Hase, L. J., \u00a7 135.\n\n[1871] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 567.\n\n[1872] L\u00fccke, 2, s. 599; Hase, ut sup.; Olshausen, 2. s. 435.\n\n[1873] How can L\u00fccke explain the omission of the kiss of Judas in the\nGospel of John from its having been too notorious a fact? and how can\nhe adduce as an analogous instance the omission of the transaction\nbetween the betrayer and the Sanhedrim by John? for this, as something\npassing behind the scenes, might very well be left out, but by no means\nan incident which, like that kiss, happened so conspicuously in the\nforeground and centre of the scene.\n\n[1874] So says the Jew of Celsus, Orig. c. Cels. ii. 9: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f20\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f11\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9. When we, having convicted and\ncondemned him, had determined that he should suffer punishment;\nconcealing himself, and endeavouring to escape, he experienced a most\nshameful capture.\n\n[1875] L\u00fccke, 2, s. 597 f.; Olshausen, 2, s. 435; Tholuck, s. 299. The\nreference to the murderer of Coligny is, however, unwarranted, as any\none will find who will look into the book incorrectly cited by Tholuck:\nSerrani commentatorium de statu religionis et reip. in regno Galli\u00e6, L.\nx. p. 32, b. The murderer was not in the least withheld from the\nprosecution of his design by the firmness of the noble old man. Comp.\nalso Schiller, Werke, 16 Bd. s. 382 f., 384; Ersch and Gruber\u2019s\nEncyclop\u00e4die, 7 Band, s. 452 f. Such inaccuracies in the department of\nmodern history cannot indeed excite surprise in a writer who elsewhere\n(Glaubw\u00fcrdigkeit, s. 437) speaks of the duke of Orleans, Louis\nPhilippe\u2019s father, as the brother of Louis XVI. How can a knowledge so\ndiversified as that of Dr. Tholuck be always quite accurate.\n\n[1876] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 570.\n\n[1877] Ibid.\n\n[1878] As L\u00fccke, Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.\n\n[1879] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 290.\n\n[1880] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 576.\n\n[1881] Paulus, ut sup. s. 577; Olshausen, 2, s. 244.\n\n[1882] Thus e.g. Erasmus, in loc.\n\n[1883] Thus Winer, N. T. Gramm., \u00a7 41, 5; Tholuck and L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[1884] Winer, Gramm., \u00a7 57, 4.\n\n[1885] Thus Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 295.\n\n[1886] Schleiermacher, ut sup.; comp. Fritzsche, in loc. Matth.\n\n[1887] Vol. II. \u00a7 67. Vol. III. \u00a7 114.\n\n[1888] Ut sup.\n\n[1889] Matthew does not mention the blindfolding, and appears to\nimagine that Jesus named the person who maltreated him, whom he saw,\nbut did not otherwise know.\n\n[1890] Vid. Gesenius, in loc.\n\n[1891] Matth. xxvi. 63; comp. Mark xiv. 61: \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38. \u1f10\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c0\u03b1.\n\nMatth. xxvii. 12: \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nMatth. xxvii. 14; comp. Mark xv. 5: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f13\u03bd \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nLuke xxiii. 9: \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7.\n\nJohn xix. 9: \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38. \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7.\n\n[1892] Vol. II. \u00a7 74.\n\n[1893] Thus Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 289; Olshausen, 2, s.\n445.\n\n[1894] Thus Paulus, ut sup. s. 577 f.\n\n[1895] Comp. Weisse, die evang. Geschichte, 1, s. 609.\n\n[1896] Bengel, in the Gnomon.\n\n[1897] Paulus, ut sup. s. 578.\n\n[1898] Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 2, s. 343.\n\n[1899] Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.; Schleiermacher, ut sup. 289;\nNeander, s. 622, Anm.\n\n[1900] Comp. de Wette, in loc.\n\n[1901] Thesaurus, vid. \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c7\u03c9.\n\n[1902] Grotius.\n\n[1903] Heinsius.\n\n[1904] Perizonius.\n\n[1905] Thus the Vulgate and Erasmus. See in opposition to all these\ninterpretations, Kuin\u00f6l, in Matth., p. 473 ff.\n\n[1906] \u0152cumenius, on the Acts, I.: \u1f41 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u1fc3,\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b2\u03af\u03c9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03bd\u03b9\u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Comp. Theophylact, on\nMatth. xxvii. and a Schol. \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 ap. Matth\u00e6i.\n\n[1907] Thus, after Casaubon, Paulus, 3, b, s. 457 f.; Kuin\u00f6l, in Matth.\n747 f.; Winer, b. Realw. Art. Judas, and with some indecision\nOlshausen, 2, s. 455 f. Even Fritzsche is become so weary on the long\nway to these last chapters of Matthew, that he contents himself with\nthis reconciliation, and, on the presupposition of it, maintains that\nthe two accounts concur amicissime.\n\n[1908] 2 Band, 2 St\u00fcck, s. 248 f.\n\n[1909] L. J., \u00a7 132. Comp. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, \u00a7 33.\n\n[1910] Vid. Kuin\u00f6l, in Matth., p. 748.\n\n[1911] Vid. Schmidt\u2019s Biblioth., ut sup. s. 251 f.\n\n[1912] Paulus, 3, b, s. 457 f.; Fritzsche, p. 799.\n\n[1913] Vid. De Wette, in loc.\n\n[1914] In other parts of the N. T. also we find passages from this\npsalm messianically applied: as v. 4, John xv. 25, v. 9; John ii. 17;\nand John xix. 28 f., probably v. 21.\n\n[1915] Still for other conjectures see Kuin\u00f6l, in loc.\n\n[1916] \u00a7 119.\n\n[1917] Hitzig, in Ullmann\u2019s and Umbreit\u2019s Studien, 1830, 1, s. 35;\nGesenius, W\u00f6rterbuch; comp. Rosenm\u00fcller\u2019s Scholia in V. T. 7, 4, s. 320\nff.\n\n[1918] Tertull. Apologet. c. xxi.: Ea omnia super Christo Pilatus, et\nipse jam pro sua conscientia Christianus, C\u00e6sari tum Tiberio nunciavit.\nc. v.: Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore nomen Christianum in seculum\nintroit, annunciatum sibi ex Syria Pal\u00e6stina, quod illic veritatem\nillius Divinitatis revelaverat, detulit ad Senatum cum pr\u00e6rogativa\nsuffragii sui. Senatus, quia non ipse probaverat, respuit. For further\ndetails on this subject, see Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 1, p. 214\nff., 298 ff.; comp. 2, p. 505.\n\n[1919] \u0152cumen. ad Act. i.: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f41\n\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2. \u03a0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f01\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b7\u03c2 \u1fe5\u1fb3\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03ac\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7,\n\u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1920] Vid. sup.\n\n[1921] In M\u00fcnter\u2019s Fragm. Patr. 1, p. 17 ff. For the rest the passage\nis of very similar tenor with that of \u0152cumenius, and is partly an\nexaggeration of it: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ad\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f03\u03bc\u03b1\u03be\u03b1 \u1fe5\u1fb3\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03af\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (Cod. Venet.:\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3, \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76, \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.. Papias, the disciple of\nJohn, gives a clearer account of this (in the fourth section of his\nexegesis of our Lord\u2019s words) as follows: Judas moved about in this\nworld a terrible example of impiety, being swollen in body to such a\ndegree that where a chariot could easily pass he was not able to find a\npassage, even for the bulk of his head. His eyelids, they say, were so\nswelled out that he could not see the light, nor could his eyes be made\nvisible even by the physician\u2019s dioptra, etc. After suffering many\ntorments and judgments, dying, as they say, in his own field, etc.\n\n[1922] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 231 f.; 1, 4, s. 10 f.\n\n[1923] According to Babl. Sanhedrin, ap. Lightfoot, p. 486, this mode\nof procedure would have been illegal. It is there said: Judicia de\ncapitalibus finiunt eodem die si sint ad absolutionem; si vero sini ad\ndamnationem, finiuntur die sequente.\n\n[1924] Besides this passage of John: \u1f21\u03bc\u1f76\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death, there is no\nother authority for the existence of this state of things than an\nobscure and variously interpreted tradition, Avoda Zara f. viii. 2\n(Lightfoot, p. 1123 f.): Rabh Cahna dicit, cum \u00e6grotaret R. Isma\u00ebl bar\nJose, miserunt ad eum, dicentes: dic nobi, \u00f4 Domine, duo aut tria, qu\u00e6\naliquando dixisti nobis nomine patris tui. Dicit iis \u2014\u2014 quadraginta\nannis ante excidium templi migravit Synedrium et sedit in tabernis.\nQuid sibi vult h\u00e6c traditio? Rabh Isaac, bar Abdimi dicit: non\njudic\u00e2runt judicia mulctativa. Dixit R. Nachman bar Isaac: ne dicat,\nquod non judic\u00e2runt judicia mulctativa, sed quod non judic\u00e2runt judicia\ncapitalia. With this may be compared moreover the information given by\nJosephus, Antiq. xx. ix. 1, that it was not lawful for Ananus (the high\npriest) to assemble the Sanhedrim without the consent of the\nprocurator. On the other hand the execution of Stephen (Acts vii.)\nwithout the sanction of the Romans might seem to speak to the contrary;\nbut this was a tumultuary act, undertaken perhaps in the confidence\nthat Pilate was absent. Compare on this point L\u00fccke, 2, s. 631 ff.\n\n[1925] De bell. Jud. II. ix. 3.\n\n[1926] As L\u00fccke supposes, s. 631.\n\n[1927] Calvin, in loc.\n\n[1928] L\u00fccke and Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1929] Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 252.\n\n[1930] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 291.\n\n[1931] Dial. cum Tryph. 103.\n\n[1932] It is doubted whether this custom, of which we should have known\nnothing but for the N. T., was of Roman or Jewish origin; comp.\nFritzsche and Paulus, in loc, and Baur, \u00fcber die ursprungliche\nBedeutung des Passahfestes, u. s. f., T\u00fcb. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1832, 1,\ns. 94.\n\n[1933] According to one reading, the full name of this man was Jesus\nBarabbas, which we mention here merely because Olshausen finds it\n\u201cremarkable.\u201d Bar Abba meaning Son of the father, Olshausen exclaims:\nAll that was essential in the Saviour appears in the murderer as\ncaricature! and he quotes as applicable to this case the verse: ludit\nin humanis divina potentia rebus. For our own part, we can only see in\nthis idea of Olshausen\u2019s a lusus human\u00e6 impotenti\u00e6.\n\n[1934] In the Evang. Nicodemi and in later ecclesiastical historians\nshe is called Procula \u03a0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7. Comp. Thilo. Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. 522,\nPaulus, exeg. Handb., 2, b, s. 640 f.\n\n[1935] Cap. II. s. 520, ap. Thilo.\n\n[1936] Ignat. ad Philippens. iv.: \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd. (The devil)\nterrifies the woman, troubling her in her dreams, and endeavours to put\na stop to the things of the cross. The Jews in the Evang. Nicodemi, c.\nII. p. 524, explain the dream as a result of the magic arts of Jesus:\n\u03b3\u03cc\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u2014\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, He is a\nmagician\u2014see, he has sent messages in a dream to thy wife.\n\n[1937] E.g. Theophylact, vid. Thilo, p. 523.\n\n[1938] Vid. Paulus and Kuin\u00f6l, in loc. They especially adduce the dream\nof C\u00e6sar\u2019s wife the night before his assassination.\n\n[1939] Comp. Sota, viii 6.\n\n[1940] Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 808.\n\n[1941] Comp. in particular the passages cited by Wetstein, on Matth.\nxxvii. 26.\n\n[1942] Paulus, ut sup. s. 647.\n\n[1943] From the explanation of Paulus, s. 649 f., it appears highly\nprobable that the \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd was not a crown of sharp thorns,\nbut one taken from the nearest hedge, in order to deride Jesus by the\nvilissima corona, spineola (Plin. H. N. xxi. 10).\n\n[1944] A similar disguising of a man, in derision of a third party, is\nadduced by Wetstein, (p. 533 f.) from Philo, in Flaccum.\n\n[1945] Thus Paulus, Kuin\u00f6l, Tholuck and Olshausen in their\nCommentaries; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 634.\n\n[1946] Fritzsche, in Marc. 684: Significat Joannes, Jesum suam crucem\nportavisse, donec ad Calvari\u00e6 locum pervenisset.\n\n[1947] Joseph., Antiq. xiv. vii. 2.\n\n[1948] It is used in the former way by Grotius; in the latter, by\nOlshausen, 2. s. 481.\n\n[1949] Comp. Paulus, Fritzsche, and De Wette, in loc.\n\n[1950] Vid. Paulus and Fritzsche, in loc. Winer, bibl. Realw. art.\nGolgotha.\n\n[1951] Wassenbergh, Diss. de trajectionibus N. T. in Balcknaer\u2019s schol\u00e6\nin 11. quosdam N. T. 2, p. 31.\n\n[1952] Comp. Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 295; Winer, N. T.\nGramm., s. 226, and Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 814.\n\n[1953] Apol. i. 35. Dial. c. Tryph. xcvii.\n\n[1954] Christologie des A. T. 1, a, s. 182 ff.\n\n[1955] Paulus, exeg. Handbuch 3, b, s. 669\u2013754; B\u00e4hr, in Tholuck\u2019s\nliter. Anzeiger f\u00fcr christl. Theol. 1835, No. 1\u20136. Comp. also Neander,\nL. J. Chr., s. 636, Anm.\n\n[1956] Adv. Marcion, iii. 19.\n\n[1957] Mostellaria, ii. 1.\n\n[1958] Vid. Kuin\u00f6l, Paulus, in loc.\n\n[1959] Sanhedrim, f. xliii. 1, ap. Wetstein, p. 635: Dixit R. Chaja, f.\nR. Ascher, dixisse R. Chasdam: exeunti, ut capite plectatur, dant\nbibendum granum turis in poculo vini, ut alienetur mens ejus, sec. d.\nProv. xxxi. 6: date siceram pereunti et vinum amaris anima.\n\n[1960] Vid. Fritzsche, in loc.\n\n[1961] Comp. Paulas, in loc.\n\n[1962] Thus Kuin\u00f6l, in Luc., p. 710 f.; Tholuck, s. 316.\n\n[1963] Comp. also Bleek, Comm. zum Hebr\u00e4erbrief, 2, s. 312, Anm.; De\nWette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 198.\n\n[1964] Kuin\u00f6l, in Luc. p. 710.\n\n[1965] Olshausen, p. 484; Neander, s. 637.\n\n[1966] Thus Chrysostom and others.\n\n[1967] Beza and Grotius.\n\n[1968] Paulus, s. 763; Winer, N. T. Gramm., s. 143; Fritzsche, in\nMatth., p. 817.\n\n[1969] Vid. Thilo, Cod. apocr. 1, s. 143. Further apocryphal\ninformation concerning the two malefactors crucified with Jesus is to\nbe found in the evang. infant. arab. c. xxiii. ap. Thilo, p. 92 f.;\ncomp. the note p. 143; in the evang. Nicod. c. ix. 10, Thilo, p. 581\nff.; c. xxvi. p. 766 ff.\n\n[1970] Paulus and Kuin\u00f6l, in loc.\n\n[1971] Confessio Jud\u00e6i \u00e6groti, ap. Wetstein, p. 820:\u2014da portionem meam\nin horto Edenis, et memento mei in seculo futuro, quod absconditum est\njustis. Other passages are given, ib., p. 819.\n\n[1972] Cetuboth, f. ciii. ap. Wetstein, p. 819: Quo die Rabbi moriturus\nerat, venit vox de c\u0153lo, dixitque: qui pr\u00e6sens aderit morienti Rabbi,\nille intrabit in paradisum.\n\n[1973] Vid. Wetstein, in loc. Matth.\n\n[1974] Quoted in Wetstein, p. 536; compare, however, the correction of\nthe text in Paulus, ex. handb. 3, b, s. 751.\n\n[1975] Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[1976] E. G. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, \u00a7 36, Anm. 13.\n\n[1977] Expositors observe in connexion with this particular, that the\ncoat of the Jewish high priest was also of this kind. Jos. Antiq. iii.\nvii. 4\u2014The same view of the above difference nas been already presented\nin the Probabilia, p. 80 f.\n\n[1978] Apol. i. 35.\n\n[1979] Adv. Marcion, ut sup.\n\n[1980] Justin, Apol. i. 50, and elsewhere, even speaks of apostacy and\ndenial on the part of all the disciples after the crucifixion.\n\n[1981] Vid. Calvin, Comm. in harm. evv. in Matth. xxvii. 46; Olshausen,\nin loc.\n\n[1982] Thus Paulus, Gratz, in loc. Schleiermacher, Glaubenslehre, 2, s.\n154, Anm.\n\n[1983] Such is the inference drawn by the author of the Wolfenb\u00fcttel\nFragments, von Zweck Jesu und seiner J\u00fcnger, s. 153.\n\n[1984] Schneckenburger, Beitr\u00e4ge, s. 66 f.\n\n[1985] According to Olshausen, s. 495, there is no syllable in this\nspeech by which such a meaning is intimated; on the contrary, a secret\nhorror had already diffused itself over the minds of the scoffers, and\nthey trembled at the thought that Elias might appear in the storm. But\nwhen one who attempts to give a beverage to Jesus is dissuaded under\nthe pretext of waiting to see if Elias would come to save him, \u03b5\u1f30\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f28\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c3\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, this pretext is plainly enough shown to be\nmeant in derision, and hence the horror and trembling belong only to\nthe unscientific animus of the biblical commentator, which makes him\ncontemplate the history of the passion above all else, as a mysterium\ntremendum, and causes him to discover even in Pilate a depth of feeling\nwhich is nowhere attributed to this Roman in the gospels.\n\n[1986] Credner, Einleitung in das N. T. 1, s. 198.\n\n[1987] Thus Rettig, exegetische Analekten, in Ullmann\u2019s und Umbreit\u2019s\nStudien, 1830, 1, s. 106 ff.; Tholuck, Glaubw\u00fcrdigkeit, s. 307 ff.;\ncomp. on the various attempts at reconciliation L\u00fccke and De Wette, in\nloc. Joh.\n\n[1988] The Evang. Nicodemi makes the Jews very absurdly maintain: there\nhappened an eclipse of the sun in the ordinary course \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c9\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, c. xi. p. 592, ap. Thilo.\n\n[1989] Thus Paulus and Kuin\u00f6l, in loc.; Hase, L. J. \u00a7 143; Neander, L.\nJ. Chr. s. 639 f.\n\n[1990] Comp. Fritzsche and De Wette, in loc. Matth.\n\n[1991] Tertull. Apologet. c. xxi.; Orig. c. Cels. ii. 33, 59.\n\n[1992] Euseb. can. chron. ad. Ol. 202, Anm. 4; comp. Paulus, s. 765 ff.\n\n[1993] Serv. ad Virgil. Georg. i. 465 ff.: Constat, occiso C\u00e6sare in\nSenatu pridie Idus Martias, solis fuisse defectum ab hora sexta usque\nad noctem.\n\n[1994] Echa R. iii. 28.\n\n[1995] R. Bechai Cod. Hakkema: Cum insignis Rabbinus fato concederet,\ndixit quidam: iste dies gravis est Isra\u00ebli, ut cum sol occidit ipso\nmeridie.\n\n[1996] Succa, f. xxix. 1: Dixerunt doctores: quatuor de causis sol\ndeficit: prima, ob patrem domus judicii mortuum, cui exequi\u00e6 non fiunt\nut decet, etc.\n\n[1997] Vid. Fritzsche, in loc.; comp. also De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1,\ns. 238; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, \u00a7 36.\n\n[1998] Hieron. ad Hedib. ep. cxlix. 8 (comp. his Comm. in loc.): In\nevangelio autem, quod hebraicis literis scriptum est, legimus, non\nvelum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi mir\u00e6 magnitudinis\ncorruisse.\n\n[1999] The possibility of this is admitted by Neander also, but with\nthe presupposition of some fact as a groundwork (s. 640 f.).\n\n[2000] Ueber den Lukas, s. 293. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s.\n240.\n\n[2001] Georg. i. 463 ff.\n\n[2002] When Hase, \u00a7 143, writes: \u201cThe earth trembled, mourning for her\ngreatest Son,\u201d we see how the historian in speaking of this feature,\nwhich he maintains to be historical, involuntarily becomes a poet; and\nwhen in the second edition the author qualifies the phrase by the\naddition of an \u201cas it were:\u201d it is further evident that his historical\nconscience had not failed to reproach him for the license.\n\n[2003] Only such must be here thought of, and not sectatores Christi,\nas Kuin\u00f6l maintains. In the Evang. Nicodemi, c. xvii., there are indeed\nadherents of Jesus, namely, Simeon (Luke ii.) and his two sons, among\nthose who come to life on this occasion; but the majority in this\napocryphal book also, and as well in the \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70 \u03a0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (Thilo, p.\n810), according to Epiphanius, orat. in sepulchrum Chr. 275, Ignat. ad\nMagnes. IX. and others (comp. Thilo, p. 780 ff.), are Old Testament\npersons, as Adam and Eve, the patriarchs and prophets.\n\n[2004] Comp. the various opinions in Thilo, p. 783 f.\n\n[2005] Comp. especially Eichhorn, Einl. in d. N. T. 1, s. 446 ff.\n\n[2006] Stroth, von Interpolationen im Evang. Matth. In Eichhorn\u2019s\nRepertorium, 9, s. 139. It is hardly a preferable expedient to regard\nthe passage as an addition of the Greek translator. See Kern, Ueber den\nUrspr. des Evang. Matth. s. 25 and 100.\n\n[2007] Thus Paulus and Kuin\u00f6l, in loc. The latter calls this\nexplanation a mythical one.\n\n[2008] Leben Jesu, \u00a7 148.\n\n[2009] Ueber den Urspr. s. 67.\n\n[2010] Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 798.\n\n[2011] Dial. c. Tryph. cxiii.\n\n[2012] See the collection of passages relative to this subject in\nSch\u00f6ttgen, 2, p. 570 ff.; and in Bertholdt\u2019s Christologia, \u00a7 35.\n\n[2013] See the passages collected by Wetstein.\n\n[2014] See this idea further developed in the Evang. Nicod. c. xviii.\nff.\n\n[2015] The instances are collected in Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s.\n781 ff.; Winer, bibl. Realw\u00f6rterb. 1, s. 672 ff.; and Hase, \u00a7 144.\n\n[2016] According to Tertullian by the former, according to Grotius by\nthe latter; see Paulus, s. 784, Anm.\n\n[2017] Thus Gruner and others ap. Paulus, s. 782 ff.; Hase, ut sup.;\nNeander, L. J. Chr. s. 647.\n\n[2018] Orig. c. Cels. ii. 36: \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b5\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd. Comp. Euthymius in loc. \u1f10\u03ba \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u1f04\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cd\u03be\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1. \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c6\u03c5\u1f72\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c0\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bd\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c2.\n\n[2019] Schuster, in Eichhorn\u2019s Bibl. 9, s. 1036 ff.\n\n[2020] Gruner, Comm. de morte J. Chr. vera, p. 47; Tholuck, Comm. z.\nJoh. s. 318.\n\n[2021] Comp. Hase, ut sup.\n\n[2022] Winer, ut sup.\n\n[2023] Comp. the similar statement of an anatomist in De Wette, in loc.\nand Tholuck ut sup.\n\n[2024] Wetstein and Olshausen, in loc.; comp. Hase, ut sup.\n\n[2025] L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[2026] Thus Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 95 f.; Tholuck, in loc.\nAccording to Weisse (die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 102, 2, s. 237 ff.) the\nEvangelist referred to a passage of the apostolic epistle, under a\nmisapprehension of its meaning, namely, to 1 John v. 6: \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f38. \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1.\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9.\n\n[2027] Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.\n\n[2028] Rosenm\u00fcller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, p. 340.\n\n[2029] Vid. ap. Rosenm\u00fcller, in loc.; Sch\u00f6ttgen, 2, p. 221; Bertholdt,\n\u00a7 17, not. 12.\n\n[2030] Comp. Joseph, b. j. iv. v. 2. Sanhedrin, vi. 5, ap. Lightfoot,\np. 499.\n\n[2031] Vid. Lipsius, de cruce, L. II. cap. 14.\n\n[2032] Comp. Winer, 1, s. 802.\n\n[2033] Sanhedrin, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.\n\n[2034] Ulpian, xlviii. 24, 1 ff.\n\n[2035] Vol. II. \u00a7 80.\n\n[2036] Michaelis, Begr\u00e4bniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 68 ff.\n\n[2037] Thus Grotius; Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 165.\n\n[2038] See the fifth Fragment, in Lessing\u2019s viertem Beitrag zur\nGeschichte und Literatur, s. 467 f. Comp. concerning these differences\nalso Lessing\u2019s Duplik.\n\n[2039] Michaelis, ut sup. s. 102 ff.\n\n[2040] Kuin\u00f6l, in Luc. p. 721.\n\n[2041] Thus Tholuck, in loc.\n\n[2042] See the Fragments, ut sup. s. 469 ff.\n\n[2043] Michaelis, ut sup. s. 99 f.; Kuin\u00f6l and L\u00fccke leave open the\nchoice between this expedient and the former.\n\n[2044] Comp. De Wette, in loc. Matth.\n\n[2045] Michaelis, ut sup. s. 45 ff.\n\n[2046] Kuin\u00f6l, in Matth. p. 786; Hase, \u00a7 145; Tholuck, Comm. s. 320.\n\n[2047] A confusion of the \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 garden near to the place of execution,\nwhere according to John Jesus was buried, with the garden of\nGethsemane, where he was taken prisoner, appears to have given rise to\nthe statement of the Evang. Nicodemi, that Jesus was crucified \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03ba\u03ae\u03c0\u1ff3, \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 in the garden where he was apprehended, C. ix. p.\n580, ap. Thilo.\n\n[2048] \u03a4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1f74\u03bd (the next day, that\nfollowed the day of the preparation), is certainly a singular\nperiphrasis for the sabbath, for it is a strangely inappropriate mode\nof expression to designate a solemn day, as the day after the previous\nday: nevertheless we must abide by this meaning so long as we are\nunable to evade it in a more natural manner than Schneckenburger in his\nchronology of the Passion week, Beitr\u00e4ge, s. 3 ff.\n\n[2049] The former, ut sup. s. 437 ff.; the latter in the exeg. Handb.\n3, b, s. 837 ff. Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.\n\n[2050] Michaelis, Begr\u00e4bniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 206;\nOlshausen 2, s. 506.\n\n[2051] Michaelis, ut sup.\n\n[2052] Olshausen overlooks the latter point when he (ut sup.) says the\nwatch had not received the command to prevent the completion of the\ninterment.\n\n[2053] Olshausen indeed is here still so smitten with awe, that he\nsupposes Pilate to have been penetrated with an indescribable feeling\nof dread on hearing this communication from the Sanhedrists, s. 505.\n\n[2054] Olshausen, s. 506.\n\n[2055] Michaelis, ut sup. s. 198 f.\n\n[2056] Stroth, in Eichhorn\u2019s Repertorium, 9, s. 141.\n\n[2057] Kern, \u00fcber den Ursprung des Ev. Matth. T\u00fcb. Zeitschrift, 1834,\n2, s. 100 f.; comp. 123. Compare my Review, Jahrb\u00fccher f. wiss. Kritik,\nNov. 1834; now in the Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 280.\n\n[2058] Hase, L. J., \u00a7 145.\n\n[2059] Comp. Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, \u00a7 37; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch.\n2, s. 343 f.\n\n[2060] Comp. Theile, ut sup.\n\n[2061] Comp. Fritzsche, in loc., and Kern, T\u00fcb. Zeitschr. 1834, 2, s.\n102 f.\n\n[2062] Kuin\u00f6l, in Marc. p. 194 f.\n\n[2063] Michaelis, ut sup. s. 112.\n\n[2064] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 62\nf. Comp. the Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist in Lessing\u2019s viertem Beitrag, s.\n472 ff. On the other hand, Lessing\u2019s Duplik, Werke, Donau\u00f6sch. Ausg. 6.\nThl. s. 394 f.\n\n[2065] De Wette, in loc.\n\n[2066] Michaelis, s. 150 ff.\n\n[2067] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 825.\n\n[2068] Michaelis, s. 117.\n\n[2069] Michaelis, s. 146.\u2014Celsus stumbled at this difference respecting\nthe number of the angels, and Origen replied that the Evangelists mean\ndifferent angels: Matthew and Mark the one who had rolled away the\nstone, Luke and John those who were commissioned to give information to\nthe women, c. Cels. v. 56.\n\n[2070] Paulus, in loc. Matth.\n\n[2071] I subjoin the table sketched by the Fragmentist (ut sup. s. 477\nf.)\n\n \u201c1. Luke xxiv. 12: Peter ran to the grave, \u1f14\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. John xx. 4:\n Peter and John ran, \u1f14\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 2. Luke v. 12: Peter looked in, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2. John v. 5: John looked\n in, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n 3. Luke v. 12: Peter saw the clothes lying alone, \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f40\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\n \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1. John v. 6, 7: Peter saw the clothes lie, and the\n napkin not lying with the clothes: \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f40\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 4. Luke v. 12: Peter went home, \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd. John v. 10:\n Peter and John went home again, \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\u201d\n\n[2072] Kuin\u00f6l, in Matth., p. 800 f.\n\n[2073] Progr. de fontibus, unde Evangelist\u00e6 suas de resurrectione\nDomini narrationes hauserint. Opusc. acad. ed. Gabler, Vol. 2, p. 241\nff.\n\n[2074] Comp. Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 64 f., Anm.\n\n[2075] On this subject comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 245;\nAmmon, Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion, 2, 1, s. 6;\nTheile, zur Biogr. Jesu, \u00a7 37.\n\n[2076] Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendmahl, s. 321 f.; Schneckenburger, ut sup.\ns. 61 ff.\n\n[2077] Vol. II. \u00a7 74.\n\n[2078] Concerning this sense of \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, and its not being\ncontradicted by \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (v. 9), see the\ncorrect view in L\u00fccke, in loc.\n\n[2079] Weisse is of a different opinion, ut sup. s. 355, Anm.\n\n[2080] As Paulus, Fritzsche, Credner, Einleitung, 1, \u00a7 49. Comp. De\nWette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 199 f. A middle view in Hug, Einl. in d.\nN. T. 2, \u00a7 69.\n\n[2081] Orig. c. Cels. v. 52: \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd. \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n\u1f10\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f01\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f01\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u2019 \u1f11\u03b4\u03b5\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[2082] Schuster, in Eichhorn\u2019s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1034 ff.: Kuin\u00f6l,\nin Matth., p. 779.\n\n[2083] Friedrich, \u00fcber die Engel in der Auferstehungsgeschichte. In\nEichhorn\u2019s allg. Bibl. 6, s. 700 ff. Kuin\u00f6l, ut sup.\n\n[2084] Thus a treatise in Eichhorn\u2019s allg. Bibl. 8, s. 629 ff., and in\nSchmidt\u2019s Bibl. 2, s. 545 f.; also Bauer, hebr. Myth. 5, s. 259.\n\n[2085] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 829, 55, 60, 62.\n\n[2086] Fritzsche, in Marc. in loc., Nemo\u2014quispiam primi temporis\nChristianis tam dignus videri poterat, qui de Messia in vitam reverso\nnuntium ad homines perferret, quam angelus, Dei minister, divinorumque\nconsiliorum interpres et adjutor. Then on the differences in relation\nto the number of the angels, etc.: Nimirum insperato Jesu Messi\u00e6 in\nvitam reditui miracula adjecere alii alia, qu\u00e6 Evangelist\u00e6 religiose,\nquemadmodum ab suis auctoribus acceperant, literis mand\u00e2runt.\n\n[2087] Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.\n\n[2088] In Lessing\u2019s Beitr\u00e4gen, ut sup. s. 485.\n\n[2089] Michaelis, s. 259 f.; Kuin\u00f6l, in Luc., p. 743.\n\n[2090] Schleiermacher, \u00fcber den Lukas, s. 299 f.; Paulus, s. 910.\n\n[2091] Ut sup. s. 486.\n\n[2092] Griesbach, Vorlesungen \u00fcber Hermeneutik des N. T., mit Anwendung\nauf die Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Christi, herausgegeben von\nSteiner, s. 314.\n\n[2093] Duplik, Werke, 6 Bd. s. 352.\n\n[2094] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 17\nf.\n\n[2095] Exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 835.\n\n[2096] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 524.\n\n[2097] This is done by Schulz, \u00fcber das Abendm. s. 321;\nSchneckenburger, ut sup.\n\n[2098] On which account Michaelis, s. 118 f., is of opinion that \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\nwas the original reading in Matthew also. Comp. Weisse, die Evang.\nGesch. 2, s. 347 f.\n\n[2099] Vol. I. \u00a7 57.\n\n[2100] The opinion that the true locality of the appearances of the\nrisen Jesus before the disciples was Galilee, is concurred in by\nWeisse, 2, s. 358 ff.; but in accordance with his fundamental\nsupposition concerning the synoptical gospels, he gives the preference\nto the narrative of Mark before that of Matthew.\n\n[2101] Vid Billroth\u2019s Commentar, in loc.\n\n[2102] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 897; Olshausen, 2, s. 541.\n\n[2103] Hieron. de viris illustr. ii.: Evangelium quoque, quod\nappellatur secundum Hebr\u00e6os,\u2014post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert:\nDominus autem, postquam dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis (apparently\nin relation to the watch at the grave, which is here represented as a\nsacerdotal instead of a Roman guard; vid. Credner, Beitr\u00e4ge zur Einl.\nin das N. T. s. 406 f.), ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim\nJacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora, qua biberat calicem\nDomini, donec videret eum resurgentum a dormientibus (on the\ninconceivableness of such a vow, despairing as the disciples were,\ncomp. Michaelis, s. 122). Rursusque post paululum: Afferte, ait\nDominus, mensam et panem. Statimque additur Tulit panem et benedixit ac\nfregit, et dedit Jacobo justo et dixit ei: frater mi, comede panem\ntuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus.\n\n[2104] Lessing, Duplik, s. 449 ff.\n\n[2105] As Kern admits, Hauptthats. T\u00fcb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 57.\n\n[2106] Hauptthatsachen, ut sup. s. 47.\n\n[2107] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 205, 210; Weisse, die\nevang. Gesch. 2, s. 409.\n\n[2108] Comp. Kaiser, bidl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.; De Wette ut sup.;\nAmmon, Fortbildung, 2, 1, Kap. 1; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch., 2, 7 tes\nBuch.\n\n[2109] That it was the marks of the nails in the hand, which became\nvisible in the act of breaking bread, by which Jesus was recognized\n(Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 882; Kuin\u00f6l, in Luc. p. 734.) is without\nany intimation in the text.\n\n[2110] The part of this conversation which relates to John, has already\n(\u00a7 116) been considered. In that relating to Peter, the thrice repeated\nquestion of Jesus: Lovest thou me? has reference, according to the\nordinary opinion, to his as often repeated denial; but to the words:\nWhen thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou\nwouldest, but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy\nhands, and another shalt gird thee, and carry thee whither thou\nwouldest not, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f26\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03b6\u03ce\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f24\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2, \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f05\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b6\u1f7c\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bf\u1f34\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f44\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 (v. 18 f.), the Evangelist himself gives the\ninterpretation, that Jesus spoke them to Peter, signifying by what\ndeath he should glorify God. He must here have alluded to the\ncrucifixion, which, according to the ecclesiastical legend (Tertull. de\npr\u00e6escr. h\u00e6er. xxxvi. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25) was the death suffered by\nthis apostle, and to which in the intention of the Evangelist the words\nFollow me, v. 20 and 22 (i.e. follow me in the same mode of death) also\nappear to point. But precisely the main feature in this interpretation,\nthe stretching forth of the hands, is here so placed as to render a\nreference to crucifixion impossible, namely, before the leading away\nagainst the will; on the other hand, the girding, which can only\nsignify binding for the purpose of leading away, should stand before\nthe stretching forth of the hands on the cross. If we set aside the\ninterpretation which, as even L\u00fccke (s. 703) admits, is given to the\nwords of Jesus ex eventu by the narrator: they appear to contain\nnothing more than the commonplace of the helplessness of age contrasted\nwith the activity of youth, for even the phrase, shall carry thee\nwhither thou wouldest not, does not outstep this comparison. But the\nauthor of John xxi., whether the words were known to him as a\ndeclaration of Jesus or otherwise, thought them capable of being\napplied in the manner of the fourth gospel, as a latent prophecy of the\ncrucifixion of Peter.\n\n[2111] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 834 ff.; L. J. 1, b. s. 265 ff.;\nAmmon, ut sup.; Hase, L. J. \u00a7 149; Michaelis, ut sup., s. 251 f. Comp.\nalso Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 650.\n\n[2112] Tholuck, in loc., comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 866, 881.\nA similar natural explanation has lately been adopted by L\u00fccke, from\nHug.\n\n[2113] Paulus, ut sup. s. 882.\n\n[2114] Paulus, ut sup. 883, 93; L\u00fccke, 2, s. 684 f.\n\n[2115] Calvin, Comm. in Joh. in loc., p. 363 f. ed. Tholuck.\n\n[2116] Thus Suicer, Thes. s. v. \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1; comp. Michaelis, s. 265.\n\n[2117] Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.\n\n[2118] Griesbach, Vorlesungen \u00fcber Hermeneutik, s. 305; Paulus, s. 835.\nComp. L\u00fccke, 2, s. 683 ff.\n\n[2119] Vid. Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.\n\n[2120] Comp. Olshausen, 2, s. 531, Anm.\n\n[2121] Thus, besides Calvin, L\u00fccke, ut sup.; Olshausen, 530 f.\n\n[2122] Olshausen, ut sup. s. 530.\n\n[2123] Comp. Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 725.\n\n[2124] See the various explanations in Tholuck and L\u00fccke, of whom the\nlatter finds an alteration of the reading necessary. Even Weisse\u2019s\ninterpretation of the words (2, s. 395 ff.), although I agree with the\ngeneral tenor of the explanation of which it forms a part, I must\nregard as a failure.\n\n[2125] Comp. on this subject especially Weisse, ut sup. s. 339 ff.\n\n[2126] Brennecke, biblischer Beweis, dass Jesus nach seiner\nAuferstehung noch 27 Jahre leibhaftig auf Erden gelebt, und zum Wohle\nder Menschheit in der Stille fortgewirkt habe. 1819.\n\n[2127] Ut sup. s. 793, 925. Comp. Briefe \u00fcber den Rationalismus, s.\n240.\n\n[2128] Noch etwas \u00fcber die Frage: warum haben die Apostel Matth\u00e4us und\nJohannes nicht ebenso wie die zwei Evangelisten Markus und Lukas die\nHimmelfahrt ausdr\u00fccklich erz\u00e4hlt? In S\u00fcskind\u2019s Magazin, 17, s. 165 ff.\n\n[2129] Joann. Damasc. de f. orth. 4, 1: \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u1f21\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1.\n\n[2130] The vagueness of the conception which lies at the foundation of\nthe evangelical accounts is well expressed by Origen, when he says of\nJesus: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f61\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd. After the resurrection, he existed in a form which\nheld the mean between the materiality of his body before his passion,\nand the state of the soul when altogether destitute of such body (c.\nCels. ii. 62).\n\n[2131] Hence even Kern admits that he knows not how to reconcile that\nparticular in Luke with the rest, and regards it as of later,\ntraditional origin (Hauptthats., ut sup. s. 50). But what does this\nadmission avail him, since he still has, from the narrative of John,\nthe quality of palpability, which equally with the act of eating\nbelongs to the \u201cconditions of earthly life, the relations of the\nmaterial world,\u201d to which the body of the risen Jesus, according to\nKern\u2019s own presupposition, \u201cwas no longer subjected\u201d?\n\n[2132] Many fathers of the church and orthodox theologians held the\ncapability thus exhibited by Jesus of penetrating through closed doors,\nnot altogether reconcileable with the representation, that for the\npurpose of the resurrection the stone was rolled away from the grave,\nand hence maintained: resurrexit Christus clauso sepulchro, sive nondum\nab ostio sepulchri revoluto per angelum lapide. Quenstedt, theol.\ndidact. polem. 3, p. 542.\n\n[2133] Comp. Schleiermacher\u2019s Weihnachtsfeier, s. 117 f.\n\n[2134] Joseph. vita, 75: \u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03a4\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u039a\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u039a\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u0398\u03b5\u03ba\u03ce\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u03b5\u1f30 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ae\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f24\u03bb\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03a4\u03af\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f49\n\u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. And when I\nwas sent by Titus C\u00e6sar with Cerealius and 1,000 horsemen, to a certain\nvillage called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for\na camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered\nthree of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my\nmind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so\nhe immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the\ngreatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of\nthem died under the physician\u2019s hands, while the third recovered. For\nthe arguments of Paulus on this passage, see exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 786;\nand in the Appendix, s. 929 ff.\n\n[2135] Bretschneider, \u00fcber den angeblichen Scheintod Jesu am Kreuze, in\nUllmann\u2019s und Umbreit\u2019s Studien, 1832, 3, s. 625 ff.; Hug, Beitr\u00e4ge zur\nGeschichte des Verfahrens bei der Todesstrafe der Kreuzigung,\nFreiburger Zeitschr. 7, s. 144 ff.\n\n[2136] Bahrdt, Ausf\u00fchrung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. Comp. on the other\nhand, Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, 793 f.\n\n[2137] Xenodoxien, in der Abh.: Joseph und Nikodemus. Comp. on the\nother hand Klaiber\u2019s Studien der w\u00fcrtemberg. Geistlichkeit, 2, 2, s. 84\nff.\n\n[2138] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 785 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 281 ff.\n\n[2139] Schuster, in Eichhorn\u2019s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1053.\n\n[2140] Winer, bibl. Realw. 1, s. 674.\n\n[2141] Orig. c. Cels. ii. 63: \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f41 \u039a\u03ad\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f50\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f11\u03ba\u03c6\u1fc7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f24\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f38., \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\u201467: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\u2014\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u1fc3.\nComp. the Wolfenb\u00fcttel Fragmentist, in Lessing, s. 450, 60, 92 ff.;\nWoolston, Disc 6. Spinoza, ep. 23, ad Oldenburg, p. 558 f. ed. Gfr\u00f6rer.\n\n[2142] Ut sup. 67: \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3.\n\n[2143] Comp. Mosheim, in his translation of the work of Origen against\nCelsus, on the passage above quoted; Michaelis, Anm. zum f\u00fcnften\nFragment, s. 407.\n\n[2144] Hase, L. J., \u00a7 149; Diss.: librorum sacrorum de J. Chr. a\nmortuis revocato atque in c\u0153lum sublato narrationem collatis vulgaribus\nilla \u00e6tate Jud\u00e6orum de morte opinionibus interpretari conatus est C. A.\nFrege, p. 12 f.; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 362 ff.\n\n[2145] Orig. c. Cels. ii. 55: \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5 (the pierced hands of\nJesus, and, in general, his appearances after the resurrection), \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u1f72, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ce\u03be\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u1fc3\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f22, \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n[2146] The 5th Fragment, in Lessing\u2019s 4th Beitrag. Woolston, Disc. 8.\n\n[2147] Ut sup. 56.\n\n[2148] Ullmann, Was setzt die Stiftung der Christlichen Kirche durch\neinen Gekreuzigten voraus? In his Studien, 1832, 3, s. 589 f. (R\u00f6hr);\nBriefe \u00fcber den Rationalismus, s. 28, 236. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b,\ns. 826 f.; Hase, \u00a7 146.\n\n[2149] Spinoza, ut sup.: Apostolos omnes omnino credidisse, quod\nChristus a morte resurrexerit, et ad c\u0153lum revera ascenderit\u2014ego non\nnego. Nam ipse etiam Abrahamus credidit, quod Deus apud ipsum pransus\nfuerit\u2014cum tamen h\u00e6c et plura alia hujusmodi apparitiones seu\nrevelationes fuerint, captui et opinionibus eorum hominum accommodat\u00e6,\nquibus Deus mentem suam iisdem revelare voluit. Concludo itaque Christi\na mortuis resurrectionem revera spiritualem, et solis fidelibus ad\neorum captum revelata fuisse, nempe quod Christus \u00e6ternitate donatus\nfuit, et a mortuis (mortuos hic intelligo eo sensu, quo Christus dixit:\nsinite mortuos sepelire mortuos suos) surrexit, simul atque vita et\nmorte singularis sanctitatis exemplum dedit, et eatenus discipulos suos\na mortuis suscitat, quatenus ipsi hoc vit\u00e6 ejus et mortis exemplum\nsequuntur.\n\n[2150] Die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 426 ff.\n\n[2151] Versuch \u00fcber die Auferstehung Jesu, in Schmidt\u2019s Bibliothek, 2,\n4, s. 545 ff.\n\n[2152] Ibid., s. 537; Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 258 f.; Frege, ut sup.\np. 13.\n\n[2153] In his allg. Bibliothek, 6, 1, s. 1 ff.\n\n[2154] Comm. exeg. de repentina Sauli\u2014conversione. In his opusc.\ntheol.; Fortbildung des Christenth. 2, 1, Kap. 3. Comp. also my\nStreitschriften, 2tes Heft, s. 52 ff.\n\n[2155] Gesch. der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christl. Kirche durch die\nApostel, 1, s. 75 ff.\n\n[2156] This is done in the treatise in Schmidt\u2019s Bibliothek, and by\nKaiser, ut sup.\n\n[2157] Comp. Weisse, ut sup. p. 398 ff.\n\n[2158] Comp. Friedrich, in Eichhorn\u2019s Biblioth. 7, s. 223.\n\n[2159] Comp. also Schmidt\u2019s Biblioth. 2, s. 548.\n\n[2160] May the three days\u2019 abode of Jonah in the whale have had any\ninfluence on this determination of time? or the passage in Hosea quoted\nabove, \u00a7 111, note 3? The former is indeed only placed in this\nconnexion in one gospel, and the latter is nowhere used in the N. T.\n\n[2161] Compare with this explanation the one given by Weisse, in the\n7th chapter of his work above quoted. He agrees with the above\nrepresentation in regarding the death of Jesus as real, and the\nnarratives of the grave being found empty as later fabrications; the\npoint in which he diverges is that above mentioned\u2014that in his view the\nappearances of the risen Jesus are not merely psychological and\nsubjective, but objective magical facts.\n\n[2162] Vol. II. \u00a7 68.\n\n[2163] Apol. i. 61.\n\n[2164] As is done by Teller, im excurs. 2, ad Burneti I. de fide et\noffic. Christ, p. 262.\n\n[2165] The work of Beckhaus, \u00fcber die Aechtheit der sog. Taufformel,\n1794, met with general approval.\n\n[2166] Comp. De Wette. exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 246.\n\n[2167] Comp. Baur, in the T\u00fcbinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, Jahrgang\n1830, 2, s. 75 ff.\n\n[2168] Comm. z. Joh., s. 332.\n\n[2169] L\u00fccke, Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 686; De Wette, s. 204.\n\n[2170] Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 281; Kuin\u00f6l, in loc.\n\n[2171] L\u00fccke, s. 687.\n\n[2172] Vid. ap. Michaelis, Begr\u00e4bniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s.\n268; Olshausen, 2, s. 533.\n\n[2173] This is Tholuck\u2019s opinion, ut sup.\n\n[2174] Comp. Weisse, die evang. Geschichte, 2, s. 418.\n\n[2175] Gabler, in the neuesten theol. Journal 3, s. 417, and in the\nVorrede zu Griesbach\u2019s opusc. acad. p. xcvi. comp. Kuin\u00f6l, in Marc., p.\n222.\n\n[2176] Seiler, ap. Kuin\u00f6l, ut sup. s. 223.\n\n[2177] Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 921; De Wette, Religion und\nTheologie, s. 161.\n\n[2178] Kern, Hauptthatsachen, T\u00fcb. Zeitschrift, 1836, 3, s. 58, Comp.\nSteudel (Glaubenslehre, s. 323), who supposes the ascension to have\nbeen a vision which God produced in the disciples. Against this comp.\nmy Streitschriften, 1, s. 152 ff.\n\n[2179] See especially Paulus, ut sup. s. 910 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 318\nff.\n\n[2180] Briefe \u00fcber den Rationalismus, s. 146, Anm. 28.\n\n[2181] Seiler, ap. Kuin\u00f6l, ut sup. s. 221; Olshausen, s. 591 f. Comp.\nGriesbach, locorum N. T. ad ascensionem Christi in c\u0153lum spectantium\nsylloge. In his opusc. acad. ed. Gabler, vol. 2, s. 484 ff.\n\n[2182] Schneckenburger, \u00fcber den Urspr. u. s. f., s. 19.\n\n[2183] Olshausen, s. 593 f.\n\n[2184] Even Fritzsche, weary at the conclusion of his labour, writes in\nMatth., p. 835: Matth\u00e6us Jesu in c\u0153lum abitum non commemoravit, quippe\nnemini ignotum.\n\n[2185] Michaelis, ut sup. 352.\n\n[2186] The treatise: Warum haben nicht alle Evangelisten die\nHimmelfahrt Jesu ausdr\u00fccklich miterz\u00e4hlt? in Flatt\u2019s Magazin, 8, s. 67.\n\n[2187] The above-named Treatise in Flatt\u2019s Magazin.\n\n[2188] Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 19 f.\n\n[2189] As by Kuin\u00f6l, p. 208 f., 217.\n\n[2190] Nevertheless comp. De Wette on the Acts, i. 12.\n\n[2191] Vid. Vol. i., \u00a7 56, and the authors there cited. The reference\nto a reckoning in Daniel, in Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 923, appears\nto me too artificial.\n\n[2192] On this subject comp. especially Ammon, Ascensus J. C, in c\u0153lum\nhistoria biblica. In his opusc. nov. p. 43 ff. Fortbildung des\nChristenth. 2, 1, s. 13 ff.; also Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 83 ff.; de\nWette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 247; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, p. 375\nff.\n\n[2193] This is also Hase\u2019s opinion, L. J. \u00a7 150.\n\n[2194] Joseph. Antiq. iv., viii. 48, it is said of Moses: And as he was\ngoing to embrace Eleazar and Joshua, and was still discoursing with\nthem, a cloud stood over him on a sudden, and he disappeared in a\ncertain valley, although he wrote in the holy books that he died, which\nwas done out of fear, lest they should venture to say that because of\nhis extraordinary virtue, he went to God. Philo, however, vita Mosis,\nopp. ed. Mangey, vol. ii. p. 179, makes the soul only of Moses ascend\ninto heaven.\n\n[2195] Iren. adv. h\u00e6r. i. 10. Tertull. de pr\u00e6scr. h\u00e6r. xiii. adv. Prax.\nii. de veland. virg. i. Orig. de principp. proem. iv.\n\n[2196] Iren. adv. h\u00e6r. iii. xviii. 7.\n\n[2197] Athanas. contra Arianos, orat. 2, 33.\n\n[2198] Gregor. Naz. Or. 51, p. 740, B.: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd.\n\u1f43 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f25\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[2199] \u2014\u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38. \u03a7. \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2\n\u1f04\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6, \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf\n\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f13\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f23 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38. \u03a7.\n\n[2200] The 6th \u0152cumenical Synod of Constantinople declared: \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1,\u2014\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f11\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9.\n\n[2201] Athanas. de incarn. 54: \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. Greg. Nyt. Orat. cass. 35: \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03be\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. Joann.\nDamasc. de f. orth. iii. 20: \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u03a7.) \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7. Greg. Naz. or. ii. 23 f. Hilar.\nPictav. de trin. ii. 24: humani generis causa Dei filius natus ex\nvirgine est\u2014ut homo factus ex virgine naturam in se carnis acciperet\nperque hujus admixtionis societatem sanctificatum in eo universi\ngeneris humani corpus existeret. For other expressions of the kind, see\nM\u00fcnscher, Dogmengesch., herausg. von C\u00f6lln, 1, \u00a7 97, Anm. 10.\n\n[2202] M\u00fcnscher, \u00a7 96, Anm. 5, s. 423 f.\n\n[2203] Augustin, de Catechiz. rudib. 7.\n\n[2204] Vid. M\u00fcnscher, \u00a7 96.\n\n[2205] Ibid. \u00a7 97.\n\n[2206] Comp. Form. Concord., Epit. und Sol. decl. VIII. p. 605 ff. and\n761 ff. ed. Hase. Chemniz, de duabus naturis in Christo libellus, and\nloci theol., loc. 2, de filio; Gerhard. II. th. 1, p. 640 ff. (ed.\n1615); Quenstedt, theol. didact. polem. P. 3, c. 3. Comp. De Wette,\nbibl. Dogm. \u00a7 64 ff.\n\n[2207] See the Oratio appended to the locus de pers. et offic. Chr.\nGerhard, ut sup. p. 719 ff.\n\n[2208] Vid. Gerhard, II. th. 1, p. 685 ff.; Marheineke, Instit. symb. \u00a7\n71 f.\n\n[2209] Reinhard, Vorles. \u00fcber die Dogm. s. 354, conformably to the\nproposition urged by the Reformed against the Lutherans: Nulla natura\nin se ipsam recipit contradictoria, Planck, Gesch. des protest.\nLehrbegriffs, Bd. 6, s. 782.\n\n[2210] Fausti Socini de Christi natura disputatio. Opp. Bibl. Fr. Pol.\n1, p. 784; Catech. Racov. Q. 96 ff. Comp. Marheineke, Instit. symb. \u00a7\n96. Spinoza, also, ep. 21, ad Oldenburg, Opp. ed. Gfr\u00f6rer, p. 556,\nsays: Quod qu\u00e6dam ecclesi\u00e6 his adduut, quod Deus naturam humanam\nassumpserit, monui expresse, me, quid dicant, nescire; imo, ut verum\nfatear, non minus absurde mihi loqui videntur, quam si quis mihi\ndiceret, quod circulus naturam quadrati induerit.\n\n[2211] (R\u00f6hr) Briefe \u00fcber den Rationalismus, s. 378 ff.; Wegscheider\nInst. theol. \u00a7 128; Bretschneider, Handb. der Dogm. 2, \u00a7 137 ff.; also\nKant, Relig. innerhalb der Gr\u00e4nzen der blossen Vernunft. 2tes St. 2ter\nAbsch. b.\n\n[2212] Glaubenslehre, 2, \u00a7\u00a7 96\u201398.\n\n[2213] Spinoza, tract. theol. polit. c. vi. p. 133. ed. Gfr\u00f6rer, and\nep. 23, ad Oldenburg, p. 558 f. Briefe \u00fcber den Rat., 4ter, 5ter, 6ter,\n12ter. Wegscheider, \u00a7\u00a7 11, 12. Schleiermacher, \u00a7\u00a7 14, 47.\n\n[2214] Pr\u00e6lect. theol. c. xv.\n\n[2215] In the work: defensio fidei cath. de satisfactione Chr. adv. F.\nSocinum.\n\n[2216] Summa, P. 3, Q. 48, A. 2.\n\n[2217] Comm. in Sentt. L. 3, Dist. 19.\n\n[2218] See, besides Socinus, Kant, Relig. innerhalb der Grenzen der\nblossen Vernunft, 2tes St\u00fcck, 1ter Abschn., c.\n\n[2219] T\u00f6llner, Der th\u00e4tige Gehorsam Christi untersucht. 1768.\n\n[2220] Wegscheider, \u00a7 199.\n\n[2221] Compare with what follows especially the Briefe \u00fcber den\nRationalismus, s. 372 ff.; Wegscheider, \u00a7\u00a7 128, 133, 140.\n\n[2222] For the different views, see Bretschneider, Dogm. 2, s. 353,\nsystematische Entwicklung, \u00a7 107.\n\n[2223] R\u00f6hr, Briefe, s. 36, 405 ff.\n\n[2224] Schleiermacher, on his Glaubenslehre, to Dr. L\u00fccke, 2tes\nSendschreiben, Studien, 2, 3, s. 481 ff.\n\n[2225] Glaubenslehre, 2, \u00a7\u00a7 92\u2013105.\n\n[2226] This opinion has been already put forth in the most noted\nreviews of Schleiermacher\u2019s system; comp. Braniss, \u00fcber\nSchleiermacher\u2019s Glaubenslehre; H. Schmid, \u00fcber Schl. Glaubensl. s. 263\nff.; Baur, die christl. Gnosis, s. 626 ff., and the Review of\nRosenkranz, Jahrb. fur wiss. Kritik, 1831.\n\n[2227] 2ter Sendschreiben.\n\n[2228] Schmid, ut sup.\n\n[2229] Comp. Rosenkranz, ut sup. s. 935 ff.\n\n[2230] Baur, ut sup. s. 653.\n\n[2231] Thus Schmid, ut sup. s. 267.\n\n[2232] Ep. 21, ad Oldenburg. Opp. ed. Gfr\u00f6rer, p. 556:\u2014dico, ad salutem\nnon esse omnino necesse, Christum secundum carnem noscere; sed ed\n\u00e6terno illo filio Dei, h. e. Dei \u00e6terna sapientia, qu\u00e6 sese in omnibus\nrebus, et maxime in mente humana, et omnium maxime in Christo Jesu\nmanifestavit, longe aliter sentiendum. Nam nemo absque hac ad statum\nbeatitudinis potest pervenire, utpote qu\u00e6 sola docet, quid verum et\nfalsum, bonum et malum sit.\n\n[2233] Religion innerhalb der Gr\u00e4nzen der blossen Vernunft. drittes\nSt\u00fcck, 1te Abthl. vii.\n\n[2234] Ut sup. 2tes St\u00fcck, 1ter Abschn. 3tes St\u00fcck, 1te Abthlg.\n\n[2235] This is shown by Baur, christl. Gnosis, s. 660 ff.\n\n[2236] Censur des christl. protestantischen Lehrbegriffs, 3, s. 180.\n\n[2237] Religion und Theologie, 2ter Abschnitt, Kap. 3; comp. bibl.\nDogmatik, \u00a7 255; kirchliche, \u00a7 64 ff.\n\n[2238] Ideen \u00fcber Mythologie u. s. w. in Henke\u2019s neuer Magazin, b. s.\n454 ff. Comp. Henke\u2019s Museum, 3, s. 455.\n\n[2239] Vorlesungen \u00fcber die Methode des akademischen Studiums, s. 192.\n\n[2240] Hegel\u2019s Ph\u00e4nomenologie des Geistes, s. 561 ff.; Vorlesungen \u00fcber\ndie Philos. der Relig. 2, s. 234 ff. Marheineke, Grundlehren der\nchristl. Dogmatik. s. 174 ff. Rosenkranz, Encyklop\u00e4die der theol.\nWissenschaften, s. 38 ff., 148 ff.; comp. my Streitschriften, 3tes\nHeft, s. 76 ff.\n\n[2241] Dogmatik, \u00a7 326.\n\n[2242] Encyklop\u00e4die, s. 160.\n\n[2243] Selbstbewusstsein und Offenbarung, s. 295 f. Comp. Bauer,\nRecens. des L. J., Jahrb\u00fccher f. wiss. Kritik, 1836, Mai, s. 699 ff.\n\n[2244] Compare with this my Streitschriften, 3 Heft, s. 68 ff. 125.\n\n[2245] With this should be compared the explanation in the\nStreitschriften, ut sup. s. 119.\n\n[2246] Of this also there is an explanation in the Streitschriften, 3,\ns. 166 f.\n\n[2247] Herein lies the answer to the objection which Schaller (der\nhistorische Christus und die Philosophie, s. 64 ff.) has made to the\nabove view; namely, that it teaches only a substantial, not a personal\nunity of man with God. That unity which exists in the determination of\nthe race has already been present in individuals separately, according\nto the different measure of their religious development, and thus the\nsubstantial unity has become, in different degrees, a personal unity.\n\n[2248] Vorlesungen \u00fcber die Philosophie der Religion, 2, s. 263 ff.\nCompare the collection of the several propositions of Hegel on the\nperson of Christ and the evangelical history, in my Streitschriften, 3.\nHeft, s. 76.\n\n[2249] Glaubenslehre, 1, s. 47.\n\n[2250] In the 2ten Sendschreiben on his Glaubenslehre.","title":"The Life of Jesus Critically Examined: (4th ed.)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":495371}